swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,675
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on May 28, 2018 21:31:56 GMT
Supposing Alec Douglas Home had managed to pull off what he almost achieved - a fourth consecutive Conservative win in 1964, perhaps with a similar overall majority to that achieved in 1992. How would things have been different?
Given that Home was later to serve as Foreign Secretary throughout the whole of the Heath government IRL, that sort of implies that he would probably have stuck it out as PM all the way to 1969, when Labour would have presumably been in a much stronger position to win, having been out of power for 18 years. Which in turn would have had implications on the 1974 election. And so it goes on...
|
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on May 28, 2018 21:40:33 GMT
Would Wilson even be Labour leader in the 1969 election?
|
|
swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,675
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on May 28, 2018 21:48:00 GMT
Would Wilson even be Labour leader in the 1969 election? There's a fair chance he would have been. Party leaders usually stayed on after a defeat in those days - Gaitskell did so even after 1959. |
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on May 28, 2018 22:03:01 GMT
Would Wilson even be Labour leader in the 1969 election? There's a fair chance he would have been. Party leaders usually stayed on after a defeat in those days - Gaitskell did so even after 1959. Ah. What would Britain do in regards to Vietnam? Rhodesia? Social reforms? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 28, 2018 22:24:36 GMT
Rhodesia probably wouldn't have turned out significantly differently. Might have taken slightly longer to get to UDI but they were already on a path to it because of decisions of the Conservative government.
Suspect a Conservative government might have been more tempted to send some UK forces to Vietnam.
Most of the social reforms would not have happened until a Labour government did get in, and would have faced difficulty even then. No Roy Jenkins at the Home Office = no extra Parliamentary time, so the Bills are at the mercy of being talked out.
|
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on May 28, 2018 23:14:00 GMT
Would Wilson even be Labour leader in the 1969 election? There's a fair chance he would have been. Party leaders usually stayed on after a defeat in those days - Gaitskell did so even after 1959. It is more about meeting expectations/goals than about winning or losing. For example, Hague could and probably would have stayed on after 2001 if the Tories had made at least 20-30 net gains. In the case of Gaitskell, his being able to continue likely had much to do with the factional situation of the party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 1:24:56 GMT
Suppose the Tories wold've taken Britain into Vietnam and the Liberals did well off the back of opposition to it.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on May 31, 2018 9:16:28 GMT
Suppose the Tories wold've taken Britain into Vietnam and the Liberals did well off the back of opposition to it. Heath was on the record as supporting that at the time, even if cautiously. Given the general ferment of the late 60s, the chances of serious social unrest if we had actively entered the Vietnam war were quite high I would say. |
|
swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,675
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on May 31, 2018 16:29:02 GMT
Might the Moors Murderers have gone to the gallows?
I hear what David Boothroyd says about the lack of parliamentary time, but I'm not sure the Conservatives were particularly resistant to the idea of death penalty abolition, given the results of the votes on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on May 31, 2018 20:17:11 GMT
If it was a narrow victory in 1964, say a dozen seats flip, you have by-elections to contend with. But the Tories would be fairly strong. There would be no by-elections at Leyton or Nuneaton. Let's assume the peerage elevations, other than the hereditary peerages didn't take place. The Tories would have retained Altrincham and Sale, but let's say they would have lost Salisbury to Labour then Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles to David Steel a month later. So they are two down. Not much else would really change, but they would be one up again winning Cities of London and Westminster. So the government would last to the point in 1966 when Labour called an election. There would still be a by-election at Carmarthen, which Plaid would win from Labour so Labour would be down one. Pollok would be next. For the sake of it, let's say this is where the SNP have their breakthrough. So Labour are technically down 1 on their 1964 total until they win (rather than the Tories) in Brierley Hill. They retain Cambridge and Walthamstow West but lose Hamilton. And so on.
A very narrow win would probably see them through to 1968 at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 14:45:43 GMT
Might the Moors Murderers have gone to the gallows? Almost certainly yes. Regarding Hindley there may have been some talk about whether it was still considered acceptable for a woman to be executed (I don’t think that had happened for over 20 years by that point). But given the seriousness of their crimes, public opinion would have been overwhelmingly in favour of letting her hang. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 15:20:03 GMT
Might the Moors Murderers have gone to the gallows? Almost certainly yes. Regarding Hindley there may have been some talk about whether it was still considered acceptable for a woman to be executed (I don’t think that had happened for over 20 years by that point). But given the seriousness of their crimes, public opinion would have been overwhelmingly in favour of letting her hang. Ruth Ellis was the last woman to be executed, in 1955. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 15:21:17 GMT
Brierley Hill would be ultra-safe for the tories if it were still around today.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jun 3, 2018 23:59:05 GMT
Almost certainly yes. Regarding Hindley there may have been some talk about whether it was still considered acceptable for a woman to be executed (I don’t think that had happened for over 20 years by that point). But given the seriousness of their crimes, public opinion would have been overwhelmingly in favour of letting her hang. Ruth Ellis was the last woman to be executed, in 1955. From crime to execution was about two months. Astonishingly quick. I had a drink a few years ago in the pub where she did it. Didn't realise at the time. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826 
|
Post by hedgehog on Nov 2, 2018 16:21:05 GMT
Rhodesia probably wouldn't have turned out significantly differently. Might have taken slightly longer to get to UDI but they were already on a path to it because of decisions of the Conservative government. Suspect a Conservative government might have been more tempted to send some UK forces to Vietnam. Most of the social reforms would not have happened until a Labour government did get in, and would have faced difficulty even then. No Roy Jenkins at the Home Office = no extra Parliamentary time, so the Bills are at the mercy of being talked out. I'm not sure, I would have thought Alec Douglas Home would have been more accommodating to Ian Smith, and certainly would have faced strong pressure from within his own party, not just the (Monday club) to avoid sanctions at the very least. If the TSR2 project had continued, along with other military projects, would Australia and New Zealand have turned to the Americans for protection. As regards Vietnam, I believe we felt the French were on a sticky wicket, trying to regain control over the country, and knew the game was up. We did give diplomatic support and allegedly covert assistance to the Americans. But American reaction to Suez and lack of support for our involvement in Malay, Indonesia and Aden made us retisant to get involved. |
|
|
|
Post by marktaha on Nov 29, 2018 15:00:35 GMT
Scenario-1964 result reversed.Rhodesia settled on Tiger terms in 1965. Labour kick up row-fresh GE early 1966 with big Con majority-actual results reversed. Probably still social reforms by lower margins;Conservatives were basically out of inspiration and fresh ideas.1966-Callaghan replaced Wilson as Labour leader after Brown lost seat. 1970-Labour win with clear majority,Douglas-Home replaced by Heath,1974 same,Heathe keeps leadership,PM again in 1977 due to no Lib-Lab pact. Then...
|
|
