Michael Foot becomes Labour PM in 1976

[greenhert]

In the 1976 Labour Party leadership election following the resignation of Harold Wilson as Prime Minister, Michael Foot actually finished first in the first ballot (albeit only by 4 votes in said first ballot), but in the final ballot he was defeated by preferences flowing to James Callaghan.

What if Michael Foot had won that final ballot after all, and therefore become Prime Minister of the UK in 1976?

[swanarcadian]

Interesting question.
Then Mrs. Thatcher wins by a much bigger majority than she actually did in 1979, assuming Labour would have been able to last as long as that in government - the potential for Conservative gains in by-elections would have been greater in seats such as Great Grimsby and Berwick and East Lothian. 
I would have thought there would have been no pact with the Liberals from 1977 onwards, as Foot was too principled to compromise anything he believed in.  Then Liberal poll ratings might not have been quite so low around that period.

As a plus for Foot, however, an SDP split might have been more easily held off with Labour being in government rather than in opposition, its MPs being obviously in a much better position to hold ministerial office.  And the new Labour leader in 1979 might have been Jim Callaghan or Denis Healey.

[tiberius]

Sept 20, 2018 5:12:36 GMT swanarcadian said:

Interesting question.
Then Mrs. Thatcher wins by a much bigger majority than she actually did in 1979, assuming Labour would have been able to last as long as that in government - the potential for Conservative gains in by-elections would have been greater in seats such as Great Grimsby and Berwick and East Lothian. 
I would have thought there would have been no pact with the Liberals from 1977 onwards, as Foot was too principled to compromise anything he believed in.  Then Liberal poll ratings might not have been quite so low around that period.

As a plus for Foot, however, an SDP split might have been more easily held off with Labour being in government rather than in opposition, its MPs being obviously in a much better position to hold ministerial office.  And the new Labour leader in 1979 might have been Jim Callaghan or Denis Healey.

How would this affect the Liberals' future?

[The Bishop]

Sept 20, 2018 5:12:36 GMT swanarcadian said:

Interesting question.
Then Mrs. Thatcher wins by a much bigger majority than she actually did in 1979, assuming Labour would have been able to last as long as that in government - the potential for Conservative gains in by-elections would have been greater in seats such as Great Grimsby and Berwick and East Lothian. 

This seems to assume that Foot wouldn't have been a more effective PM than he was opposition leader.

Whereas an interesting part of this counter-factual is that he actually might have been?

[Deleted]

The by-elections wouldn’t change much, though I agree Great Grimsby would’ve flipped.

Bearing in mind Wilson stayed on as leader in 1970 and there wasn’t precedent for leaders to call or a day after one election loss in this period I think it’s reasonsble to assume Foot stays on as leader in 79.

Might Benn have won the Deputy Leadership election in 1981? To me this would’ve been more significant than Foot winning in 1976.

[thirdchill]

The winter of discontent may well not have happened, or happened to the same extent, as Foot would have been definitely more likely to cave in over the 5% rule, or to show more flexibility on this, or not even to have this rule implemented at all.

That was what did for Callaghan, rather than anything that came before.

[right]

Sept 20, 2018 9:16:33 GMT The Bishop said:

Sept 20, 2018 5:12:36 GMT swanarcadian said:

Interesting question.
Then Mrs. Thatcher wins by a much bigger majority than she actually did in 1979, assuming Labour would have been able to last as long as that in government - the potential for Conservative gains in by-elections would have been greater in seats such as Great Grimsby and Berwick and East Lothian. 

This seems to assume that Foot wouldn't have been a more effective PM than he was opposition leader.

Whereas an interesting part of this counter-factual is that he actually might have been?

Presumably the actual exercise of power would have heavily modified Foot's style.  It's easier to be principled when you are in opposition.  Indeed I believe (although I remember the time rather vaguely) that Foot did actually modify quite a bit - would he have disowned Tatchell if he wasn't Labour leader?

[marktaha]

Overnight economic crisis-Foot essentially forced into calling General Election. Conservative landslide May 1976. Then?

[swanarcadian]

Nov 29, 2018 15:03:42 GMT marktaha said:

Overnight economic crisis-Foot essentially forced into calling General Election. Conservative landslide May 1976. Then?

Probably not a landslide.  The Tories were ahead in most polls but not massively so until the autumn of that year.  And as we know, general elections can be big game changers in themselves.

[The Bishop]

Nov 29, 2018 15:03:42 GMT marktaha said:

Overnight economic crisis-Foot essentially forced into calling General Election. Conservative landslide May 1976. Then?

Well we had an economic crisis soon after Wilson quitting anyway, but it didn't force an election.

[redtony]

Foot would have started spending again in in 1978. Wage cap in their incomes policy would have been raised to 10% so avoiding the winter of discontent. fought the 1979 election on a programme of re-investing in British Industry. result Labour wins a small but workable majority in the 1979 election, British economy recovers more money for the NHS,Schools and Housing RPI is reduced to 5% whilst wage rises were kept under 7% No Falklands war, defence spending slashed a three figure majority in the 1982 election. Soon afterwards Foot retires and Tony Benn becomes P.M.