|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 14, 2022 21:37:19 GMT
To whom? The Social and Liberal Democrats, or the SDP who actually came second? The success of the SDP candidate in Richmond in 1989 was as if he were a popular local Independent. Even if he had won, it would have made no substantial difference to the eventual collapse of the SDP, or the timetable thereof. No, but as John O'Farrell noted in "Things Can Only Get Better", William Hague in that scenario would probably have had to wait until 1992 to become a Conservative MP meaning he would not have reached a high enough position to become leader of the Conservatives in 1997. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2022 1:44:23 GMT
Ok here's one: what if the SPD had won the 1949 German election? Would Germany have followed a radically different political course or would things have been basically the same?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2022 5:43:30 GMT
The success of the SDP candidate in Richmond in 1989 was as if he were a popular local Independent. Even if he had won, it would have made no substantial difference to the eventual collapse of the SDP, or the timetable thereof. No, but as John O'Farrell noted in "Things Can Only Get Better", William Hague in that scenario would probably have had to wait until 1992 to become a Conservative MP meaning he would not have reached a high enough position to become leader of the Conservatives in 1997. So, is Ken Clarke the Tory leader in that scenario? |
|
DrW
Conservative
Posts: 578
|
Post by DrW on Apr 15, 2022 13:02:38 GMT
No, but as John O'Farrell noted in "Things Can Only Get Better", William Hague in that scenario would probably have had to wait until 1992 to become a Conservative MP meaning he would not have reached a high enough position to become leader of the Conservatives in 1997. So, is Ken Clarke the Tory leader in that scenario? Much more likely that Hague’s support flows to one of the more moderate right wing contenders (Howard, less so Lilley) and one of them ends up winning. Clarke was unwilling to make the concessions to Eurosceptic Tory MPs that he needed to do in order to win. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,558
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 16, 2022 17:35:41 GMT
The success of the SDP candidate in Richmond in 1989 was as if he were a popular local Independent. Even if he had won, it would have made no substantial difference to the eventual collapse of the SDP, or the timetable thereof. No, but as John O'Farrell noted in "Things Can Only Get Better", William Hague in that scenario would probably have had to wait until 1992 to become a Conservative MP meaning he would not have reached a high enough position to become leader of the Conservatives in 1997. My theory is that during the Blair years, the Conservative Party had the right leaders in the wrong order. The job of the leader elected in 1997 was to lose the 2001 general election. It would have been better if Michael Howard had been leader 1997-2001, and then William Hague after 2001 after getting more experience. Perhaps Hague would have continued until c.2006, then passing over to David Cameron without any IDS era. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2022 6:35:51 GMT
What if Clement Attlee lost his seat in 1931?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 18, 2022 10:10:23 GMT
What if Clement Attlee lost his seat in 1931? The outcome would have even worse for Labour long-term, since George Lansbury would have had to stay on as Labour leader and in 1935, his stance on international affairs would have cost Labour dearly (or at least left them not in a position to defeat Winston Churchill in 1945). |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 18, 2022 10:41:28 GMT
What if Clement Attlee lost his seat in 1931? The outcome would have even worse for Labour long-term, since George Lansbury would have had to stay on as Labour leader and in 1935, his stance on international affairs would have cost Labour dearly (or at least left them not in a position to defeat Winston Churchill in 1945). Well, presumably someone else might have replaced him - no guarantee they would have been as successful though. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Apr 19, 2022 22:19:05 GMT
The outcome would have even worse for Labour long-term, since George Lansbury would have had to stay on as Labour leader and in 1935, his stance on international affairs would have cost Labour dearly (or at least left them not in a position to defeat Winston Churchill in 1945). Well, presumably someone else might have replaced him - no guarantee they would have been as successful though.
Or he would've simply come back at the '35 election and things would've been little different to how they were.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Apr 20, 2022 11:44:38 GMT
What if the Argentine Junta had not invaded the Falklands...
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,558
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 20, 2022 13:06:04 GMT
What if the Argentine Junta had not invaded the Falklands... Thatcher would have won a landslide election victory in 1983. The Conservative recovery in the polls would have happened gradually during late 1982 and early 1983, rather than happened in a big spike in spr1982. The dictatorship in Argentina would have fallen a bit later than 1983, but not much later. |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Apr 20, 2022 13:30:01 GMT
What if the Argentine Junta had not invaded the Falklands... Thatcher would have won a landslide election victory in 1983. The Conservative recovery in the polls would have happened gradually during late 1982 and early 1983, rather than happened in a big spike in spr1982. The dictatorship in Argentina would have fallen a bit later than 1983, but not much later. Ah, I understand why the thread is called "Political Fantasy" now. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 22, 2022 9:04:14 GMT
Thatcher would have won a landslide election victory in 1983. The Conservative recovery in the polls would have happened gradually during late 1982 and early 1983, rather than happened in a big spike in spr1982. The dictatorship in Argentina would have fallen a bit later than 1983, but not much later. Ah, I understand why the thread is called "Political Fantasy" now. Not so: the Tories had moved into a polling lead in 1982 before the Falklands invasion took place.
The idea seems to be quite commonly held that Thatcher was heading for a big defeat before the Argentine invasion rescued her but there's no evidence for it. The Tories would likely have won the 1983 (conceivably '84) GE in any case, although I agree that the Falklands converted what would probably have been a comfortable win into a landslide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 22, 2022 9:11:32 GMT
Ah, I understand why the thread is called "Political Fantasy" now. Not so: the Tories had moved into a polling lead in 1982 before the Falklands invasion took place. The idea seems to be quite commonly held that Thatcher was heading for a big defeat before the Argentine invasion rescued her but there's no evidence for it. The Tories would likely have won the 1983 (conceivably '84) GE in any case, although I agree that the Falklands converted what would probably have been a comfortable win into a landslide.
And the landslide was largely the result of the emergence of the SDP and the division of the opposition. That was not affected by the Falklands. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 22, 2022 9:27:26 GMT
Here's a nice political fantasy for anyone that wants to savour it.
I'm indebted for it to my brother, with whom I was chatting politics over the weekend. We agreed that Boris Johnson's gifts are not suited to the role of PM, but my brother pointed out that he would have made a stunningly effective Leader of the Opposition. The role suits him brilliantly: none of that tedious irksome stuff about actually having to govern and take responsibility, but total licence, week after week at PMQs, to let rip with the authentic Johnsonian rhetoric and bluster, the massed Tory benches roaring support behind him and baying for blood. We imagined him let loose against Sir Keir Starmer as PM: dogged, worthy, conscientious, his carefully composed replies ruthlessly shot to shreds by a few choice words of Johnsonian invective, leaving him utterly helpless and bewildered in the face of this onslaught.
Political allegiances aside, it would have been compelling theatre.
But we'll never see it. Even if Johnson survives until the next GE, if he loses it he surely won't want to continue as Tory leader. And even if he does, and the Tories let him, all of which seems highly unlikely, then his role as LotO would be compromised by his past record as PM: he wouldn't have the fresh, insurgent quality implied in the fantasy I outlined above.
But if we could go back in time and tweak recent history in such a way that Labour, led by Starmer, were in power now, with Johnson as LotO unleashed against him ...
Well, I can dream. That's what this thread is for. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Apr 22, 2022 9:39:35 GMT
Ah, I understand why the thread is called "Political Fantasy" now. Not so: the Tories had moved into a polling lead in 1982 before the Falklands invasion took place.
The idea seems to be quite commonly held that Thatcher was heading for a big defeat before the Argentine invasion rescued her but there's no evidence for it. The Tories would likely have won the 1983 (conceivably '84) GE in any case, although I agree that the Falklands converted what would probably have been a comfortable win into a landslide.
Not according to Mark Pack's polling database |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Apr 22, 2022 9:56:49 GMT
Ah, I understand why the thread is called "Political Fantasy" now. Not so: the Tories had moved into a polling lead in 1982 before the Falklands invasion took place.
The idea seems to be quite commonly held that Thatcher was heading for a big defeat before the Argentine invasion rescued her but there's no evidence for it. The Tories would likely have won the 1983 (conceivably '84) GE in any case, although I agree that the Falklands converted what would probably have been a comfortable win into a landslide.
Opinion polls around the time of Argentine invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election)
28th Feb 34, 34, 30 (Tory, Labour, Alliance) 15th Mar 31.5, 33, 33 31st Mar 35, 30, 33
2nd Apr Argentine invasion 12th Apr 31.5, 29, 37 14th Apr 33, 34, 30
... 26th May 51, 25, 23 31st May 48, 28, 24 14th Jun End of war 14th Jun 45, 25, 28.5 23rd Jun 51, 24, 23
With one outlier, the Tories had never been below 27% at their lowest poin in unpopularity. After the war they were rarely below 40% (indeed only just after the Bermondsey byelection) and were generally significantly higher.
The electoral calculus is absolutely brutal within that 30/30/30 sort of range, with small shifts in opinion meaning potential huge shifts in seat numbers.
Assume the Falkands factor meant 3% of those voting Tory in 1983 would otherwise have voted Labour and the same from the Alliance (not a big stretch I suspect) and I think most models will give you a hung parliament instead of a landslide.
Add in a equivalently worse set of local elections in May 1983, and in the byelections and you get an interesting situation
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 22, 2022 10:09:51 GMT
Not so: the Tories had moved into a polling lead in 1982 before the Falklands invasion took place. The idea seems to be quite commonly held that Thatcher was heading for a big defeat before the Argentine invasion rescued her but there's no evidence for it. The Tories would likely have won the 1983 (conceivably '84) GE in any case, although I agree that the Falklands converted what would probably have been a comfortable win into a landslide.
Opinion polls around the time of Argentine invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election)
28th Feb 34, 34, 30 (Tory, Labour, Alliance) 15th Mar 31.5, 33, 33 31st Mar 35, 30, 33
2nd Apr Argentine invasion 12th Apr 31.5, 29, 37 14th Apr 33, 34, 30
... 26th May 51, 25, 23 31st May 48, 28, 24 14th Jun End of war 14th Jun 45, 25, 28.5 23rd Jun 51, 24, 23 With one outlier, the Tories had never been below 27% at the highest point in their unpopularity. After the war they were rarely below 40% (indeed only just after the Bermondsey byelection) and were generally significantly higher. The electoral calculus is absolutely brutal within that 30/30/30 sort of range, with small shifts in opinion meaning potential huge shifts in seat numbers.
Assume the Falkands factor meant 3% of those voting Tory in 1983 would otherwise have voted Labour and the same from the Alliance (not a big stretch I suspect) and I think most models will give you a hung parliament instead of a landslide.
Add in a equivalently worse set of local elections in May 1983, and in the byelections and you get an interesting situation
I doubt it. The Alliance vote was incredibly inefficiently distributed in 1983 - if that (effectively) 3% swing from Conservative to Alliance were applied uniformly it would result in very few seats changing hands. Happy to do the maths later to confirm (when I have access to a spreadsheet I can work from) but just from memory I know that there were not all that many seats where the Alliance were within 6% of gaining a Tory seat (more seats will be vulnerable to Labour). As you say though it is a political fantasy thread but its a bit sad that you're still engaging in a forty year old fantasy that David Steels exhortations at the 1981 conference were based on any kind of reality |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 22, 2022 10:13:47 GMT
Not so: the Tories had moved into a polling lead in 1982 before the Falklands invasion took place.
The idea seems to be quite commonly held that Thatcher was heading for a big defeat before the Argentine invasion rescued her but there's no evidence for it. The Tories would likely have won the 1983 (conceivably '84) GE in any case, although I agree that the Falklands converted what would probably have been a comfortable win into a landslide.
Opinion polls around the time of Argentine invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election)
28th Feb 34, 34, 30 (Tory, Labour, Alliance) 15th Mar 31.5, 33, 33 31st Mar 35, 30, 33
2nd Apr Argentine invasion 12th Apr 31.5, 29, 37 14th Apr 33, 34, 30
... 26th May 51, 25, 23 31st May 48, 28, 24 14th Jun End of war 14th Jun 45, 25, 28.5 23rd Jun 51, 24, 23
With one outlier, the Tories had never been below 27% at the highest point in their unpopularity. After the war they were rarely below 40% (indeed only just after the Bermondsey byelection) and were generally significantly higher.
The electoral calculus is absolutely brutal within that 30/30/30 sort of range, with small shifts in opinion meaning potential huge shifts in seat numbers.
Assume the Falkands factor meant 3% of those voting Tory in 1983 would otherwise have voted Labour and the same from the Alliance (not a big stretch I suspect) and I think most models will give you a hung parliament instead of a landslide.
Add in a equivalently worse set of local elections in May 1983, and in the byelections and you get an interesting situation
Well, I was quoting from memory but I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said. The last poll before the invasion gave the Tories a 5-point lead, and while that's only one poll, it wasn't an outlier in terms of other polling around that time. With a year or more to go before the GE I think that's a pretty strong indicator that the Tories were heading for reelection since governments tend to improve their polling as an election draws near. But I agree that the Falklands greatly improved their position and meant they won by a huge margin whereas without the war they might have had to settle for a win that was merely comfortable. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Apr 22, 2022 10:58:20 GMT
Opinion polls around the time of Argentine invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election)
28th Feb 34, 34, 30 (Tory, Labour, Alliance) 15th Mar 31.5, 33, 33 31st Mar 35, 30, 33
2nd Apr Argentine invasion 12th Apr 31.5, 29, 37 14th Apr 33, 34, 30
... 26th May 51, 25, 23 31st May 48, 28, 24 14th Jun End of war 14th Jun 45, 25, 28.5 23rd Jun 51, 24, 23 With one outlier, the Tories had never been below 27% at the highest point in their unpopularity. After the war they were rarely below 40% (indeed only just after the Bermondsey byelection) and were generally significantly higher. The electoral calculus is absolutely brutal within that 30/30/30 sort of range, with small shifts in opinion meaning potential huge shifts in seat numbers.
Assume the Falkands factor meant 3% of those voting Tory in 1983 would otherwise have voted Labour and the same from the Alliance (not a big stretch I suspect) and I think most models will give you a hung parliament instead of a landslide.
Add in a equivalently worse set of local elections in May 1983, and in the byelections and you get an interesting situation
I doubt it. The Alliance vote was incredibly inefficiently distributed in 1983 - if that (effectively) 3% swing from Conservative to Alliance were applied uniformly it would result in very few seats changing hands. Happy to do the maths later to confirm (when I have access to a spreadsheet I can work from) but just from memory I know that there were not all that many seats where the Alliance were within 6% of gaining a Tory seat (more seats will be vulnerable to Labour). As you say though it is a political fantasy thread but its a bit sad that you're still engaging in a forty year old fantasy that David Steels exhortations at the 1981 conference were based on any kind of reality Didn't the political scientists find a plateau effect for them in the 1982 locals? ie not going up as much where they were strongest? |
|
