• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: Denis Healey wins the 1980 Labour leadership election

A

AgentRudda

I DID EVERYTHING RITE AND THEY INDICTED MEee 👐
Pronouns
He/Him
What if Denis Healey became Labour leader in 1980, instead of Michael Foot. I'm not sure how you change the election, perhaps make Healey less of a dickhead during it.

How would Labour perform under Healey? Their 1983/84 election manifesto wouldn't take the left-wing stance that it did, though the party would still have an increasingly left-wing grassroots, as well as Militant, which would cause problems. We're assuming that things like the Falklands still happen. I think the Conservatives could win the 83/84 election with a comfortable majority - essentially a no-change election.

What would be the fortunes of the Liberal Party, with no 1981 SDP breakaway, thus no Alliance? Would the party slowly wither or would it see a resurgence as the Labour civil war intensified? Would any of the Gang of Four defect to the Liberals instead of the SDP?

Who would have succeeded Healey in the event of an election defeat, and would they be able to win the 1987/88 election?
 
Healey as leader doesn't necessarily stop the SDP split. I think it might reduce it a bit and possibly delay it a bit (some of the splitting MPs voted for Foot to fuel the pretext), and it will dent the narrative of Labour having been captured by the left, but I think there will still be a split not least because many of those who split wanted a left-of-centre party that wasn't affiliated with the trade unions (and they're not going to get an end to the TU link under Healey).

Benn would likely challenge Healey for the leadership in 1981 (as he did for the deputy leadership OTL), and probably lose by a more comfortable margin. I think Labour would do better in 1983 with Healey as leader, possibly enough for Benn to keep his seat and challenge again and maybe win (assuming Healey tries to stay on as leader - the decision for Foot to go was largely made on his behalf by TU leaders). Both Benn and Healey would provide stronger opposition to Thatcher than Foot and Kinnock did, and I have long nursed the belief that a stronger leader could have forced her out over Spycatcher and Black Monday, with her successor then looking much more tired by 1992.
 
I had an idea to do a TLIAD where Healey wins and also there's no Falklands, leading to a Labour government in 1984 and massive internal rumblings in the party. It fell down because I'm ultimately not one of the people on here who could do it justice.
 
I can't see any split arising out of this in Jan 1981, it dents the narrative pushing towards a split too much, unless Benn does beat Healey, which, like Gregg, I seriously doubt. Because, of course, then you're getting the whole of the right of the party bolting. Would make OTL look like Quentin Davies or Emma Nicholson-level stuff.

The SDP* bedrock would have to wait until that reckoning. They'd be mad not to. That's a miles better basis for bolting than Wembley. Hard left defenestrates existing leader? That's the approaching golden trigger point, right there.

And if Healey beats Benn - the whole narrative of inextricable left-wing ratchet collapses. The electoral college can produce a victory, even for a leader of the right.

There can't be a split anymore. The raison d'etre has collapsed, if that happens.

I suspect Healey survives that challenge, consequently survives a split, and goes on to a respectable, but campaign stucture ha'penny-era defeat in '83.

The prime candidate to deliver a process-modernisation leadership, while being sufficiently ecumenical to both be acceptable to the right and offer the activists the step to the left they desire is.... OTL union-fave Neil Kinnock.
 
This was one of the PoDs of a TL I did, but I did far less research than I likely should have and also allowed some wish-fantasy to interfere with.

As Elektronaut and Gregg have said, a Benn victory is not that likely. Healey would be doing better than Foot IOTL and while that might bring a London Labour-style sense of 'well, we've won, so let's bump off the social-fascist and bring in real socialism', I doubt that'd exist in more than those already anti-Healey. He wasn't exactly the most concilatory of people, but it's harder to remove a Leader than a Deputy Leader, especially since the Left's ascendency is much more in doubt ITTL. Healey may have it be close, but not too much like OTL.

Thatcher may be under more pressure in 1980/1 period, but dreams of a new Centre Party are going to be weaker. I wouldn't be surprised if Jenkins departs for the Liberals, but he may just stay semi-detached from Labour ITTL. The big question is the Falklands War. Healey might have just done it to help party unity, but even from the start he was sceptical about the effort compared to Foot and was pretty vocal about having a UN-led settlement. I don't want to emphasise it too much, but I get the sense that "glorying in the slaughter" and the bit about guts and Goose Green may inadvertently play a bigger role in defining Labour's stance on the war as Thatcher accepts salutes and booms in popularity.

I doubt, however, that it'd bring a result worse than 1983 and it's going to be an increased Tory majority but up to something like 80-90 if that. The dynamics of a Kinnock leadership might shift as there's no big defeat to discredit the Left entirely, but the Right have institutional strength. It might go roughly OTL except it's harder to push out the Bennite Left and the belief that the Falklands saved Thatcher will be much stronger than OTL.

The only amusing thought I have is someone like David Owen, frustrated at their career going stagnant, crossing the bench over Falklands and being made Foreign Secretary after 1983, but that's a slant towards fantasy/humour over plausibility, if I'm honest.
 
It's tempting to say Jenkins drifts into the Liberals, but I think if he's never given an opportunity to get back into the frontline, he follows his faction, not the other way round.

I'm sure you know how he embraced the whole TB political mentor/godfather role in the nineties.

Owen's 'we must find a role for him' Thatcher period is a product of his career collapsing with the Alliance. But man, I really have no idea how he navigates 80s Labour politics.
 
Elektronaut said:
It's tempting to say Jenkins drifts into the Liberals, but I think if he's never given an opportunity to get back into the frontline, he follows his faction, not the other way round.

I'm sure you know how he embraced the whole TB political mentor/godfather role in the nineties.
Click to expand...
Fair point. He might just settle for being made a Peer and his flirtation with a third-party would be written off as like Heath's whispers and Macmillan's dream of leading a National Government in the mid-70s.

Owen's 'we must find a role for him' Thatcher period is a product of his career collapsing with the Alliance. But man, I really have no idea how he navigates 80s Labour politics.
Click to expand...
Owen was never a team-player IOTL, but then again he did accept going from Foreign Secretary to Shadow Energy quickly. I suspect though that in an environment where the Jenkins Right are stuck with Labour and Healey is the big personality, he might be tempted by offers. I don't see him being promoted by Kinnock and I understand that much of the PLP didn't care much for him, outside his supporters. In a TL where Thatcher's not entirely dominant, I can see her being more open to letting him in since he'd technically be in his late 80s OTL situation, especially with mutual feeling about the problems with the FO, but I do acknowledge that the scenario is unlikely as he wouldn't be the leader of a third party but a not-really-senior politician.

Even if he did defect, if he waits until after 1983 then there's not much space to put him in somewhere, as opposed to maybe replacing Howe as Parkinson's replacement as who'd go into the Foreign Office.
 
Last edited:
AgentRudda said:
What would be the fortunes of the Liberal Party, with no 1981 SDP breakaway, thus no Alliance? Would the party slowly wither or would it see a resurgence as the Labour civil war intensified? Would any of the Gang of Four defect to the Liberals instead of the SDP?
Click to expand...
I suspect that the Liberals would likely continue as it was pre-Alliance, I.E. just existing, winning the odd by-election and benefiting whenever one of the big two shat themselves. Steel's strong enough as Leader to work without the SDP, and considering what a hinderance both Jenkins and Owen's were to him- Jenkins being a man long past his prime who killed the momentum for the Alliance by being their PM Designate, and Owen's desire to have the SDP be an actually independent political party rather than just an appendage of the Liberals- I would even consider it a benefit that he won't have to work with the SDP. However whatever marketing idea he comes up with may also sink the Liberals- the SDP, even as a failed concept, was great for the Liberals, however merger almost financially destroyed the merged party before it even had a leader. My best bet would be that the Liberals would make a decent number of gains in the next election, and although nothing compared to 1983 OTL, would also be a relative success without the "go back to your local parties and prepare for Government" showboating.

Jenkins may end up in the Liberals. I think by 1980, Healey winning wasn't going to stop his membership lapsing, and after all he very nearly straight jumped until Steel convinced him to go with the SDP idea, but with Healey large-and-in-charge, the SDP isn't really needed. you'd see more Dick Taverne's and Christopher Mayhew's, but at the end of the day, the defections that brought the SDP into life aren't going to all jump to the Liberals. I think three or four may, but even that would be optimistic.

Of course, Steel may also fail, but I don't necessarily see the Liberals withering into nothing unless bad decisions are made at every turn. There was a point, at the height of the Alliance's popularity, which projected a possible breaking of 100 seats had Steel been the clear PM Designate- which speaks a lot about Steel, but also for how important the Alliance was. Steel would still be a popular man even without the Alliance, just not as notable.

Very much just chugging along to the point of possibly stagnating.
 
Who would be deputy leader? I suspect Healey might support Foot continuing but I feel like he might just want to retire at this point - IIRC it took a fair bit of persuasion to get him to stand for the leadership (which I suppose itself is a possible POD). Silkin, maybe?
 
OwenM said:
Who would be deputy leader? I suspect Healey might support Foot continuing but I feel like he might just want to retire at this point - IIRC it took a fair bit of persuasion to get him to stand for the leadership (which I suppose itself is a possible POD). Silkin, maybe?
Click to expand...
I remember that Robert Kilroy-Silk and some other Labour MPs were supporting having Kinnock as the “soft left” candidate for deputy leader in the 1981 challenge - although it might be too early for him.
 
Foot's strong performance in 1976 convinced him not to retire so I could see the disappointment of 1980 encouraging him to chuck in the towel, but the situation of the 1980s could probably encourage many to keep in place or at least find a suitable deputy (Silkin or Shore could be good shouts - Kinnock was too junior by this point IMO).

As it was literally his plan to challenge Healey in 1981 after the election rules changed, I cannot see things changing for Benn. Whether he wins is debatable but I strongly doubt it would be as sewn up for Healey as posters so far have said. This isn't me batting for my own ideological team, but it is pretty undeniable that at his height Benn probably was the most popular Labour politician among the grassroots, and without the loyalty to the leadership that Foot inspired, I suspect many soft left politicians would throw their lot in with Benn where they didn't otl, particularly if Healey was being as abrasive as he was in 80. Bearing in mind many SDPers had their minds set pretty early on in the 1980s if not earlier, I can see them still going, and maybe a few voting Benn in the process to speed things a lot. If not, I expect a few defections to the Liberals in the event of an 81 Benn victory, and I do actually quite like the theory about Owen going in this instance as well, he'd be just as isolated as he was after the fall of the Alliance.
 
To be precise on Benn's status - certainly the most popular Labour politician amongst the activist section of the grassroots. Benn didn't rack up that flattening of Healey in the CLPs because of universal adoration, but because CLPs weren't required to ballot, and the CLP votes were largely cast by the committees. CLPs that did go by ballot were markedly more pro-Healey - and the same was true with the unions. In a much more democratic process, Benn wouldn't have come anywhere near as close as he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top