nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,455
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Aug 2, 2022 16:35:02 GMT
On reading more on Corbyn and how Labour like to elect leaders who turn off the voters(even though I personally liked Ed) how would things had turned out if early in the long 1979-1997 and 2010-when? the alternatives above had got in instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 2, 2022 17:26:22 GMT
On reading more on Corbyn and how Labour like to elect leaders who turn off the voters(even though I personally liked Ed) how would things had turned out if early in the long 1979-1997 and 2010-when? the alternatives above had got in instead? irony is Foot was believed to be the unity candidate by the group of four |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,455
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Aug 2, 2022 17:30:23 GMT
On reading more on Corbyn and how Labour like to elect leaders who turn off the voters(even though I personally liked Ed) how would things had turned out if early in the long 1979-1997 and 2010-when? the alternatives above had got in instead? irony is Foot was believed to be the unity candidate by the group of four Ha! He was another decent chap for all his downsides as a leader |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 2, 2022 18:07:45 GMT
I don't think the Miliband scenario changes that much. I doubt David would have put together a significantly more popular programme than Ed, and you still get the Lib Dem collapse in 2015.
Healey winning means the SDP never gets formed - so Labour do a lot better in 1983. Thatcher might still have won, but likely wouldn't have made net gains from Labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 2, 2022 19:01:13 GMT
I don't think the Miliband scenario changes that much. I doubt David would have put together a significantly more popular programme than Ed, and you still get the Lib Dem collapse in 2015.
Healey winning means the SDP never gets formed - so Labour do a lot better in 1983. Thatcher might still have won, but likely wouldn't have made net gains from Labour.
on the miliband point there was an opinion piece in the guardian in 2014 on an alternate world where David was leader. Much like what you say and Labour lose Heywood and Middleton to UKIP. On the SDP, there's two points here. One of the reasons why the gang of four voted for Foot was because Healey told them that they don't matter and would vote for him anyway. The other reason sometimes aired is that the gang of four wanted Foot to become leader to hurt labour and provide an excuse to defect. The other point I'd make is there are studies that argue that the SDP took votes from both labour and the Tories. There is some evidence that points to this too. There were a number of seats Tories gained from labour in 87 like Thurrock and battersea |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 2, 2022 19:17:24 GMT
I don't think the Miliband scenario changes that much. I doubt David would have put together a significantly more popular programme than Ed, and you still get the Lib Dem collapse in 2015.
Healey winning means the SDP never gets formed - so Labour do a lot better in 1983. Thatcher might still have won, but likely wouldn't have made net gains from Labour.
on the miliband point there was an opinion piece in the guardian in 2014 on an alternate world where David was leader. Much like what you say and Labour lose Heywood and Middleton to UKIP. On the SDP, there's two points here. One of the reasons why the gang of four voted for Foot was because Healey told them that they don't matter and would vote for him anyway. The other reason sometimes aired is that the gang of four wanted Foot to become leader to hurt labour and provide an excuse to defect. The other point I'd make is there are studies that argue that the SDP took votes from both labour and the Tories. There is some evidence that points to this too. There were a number of seats Tories gained from labour in 87 like Thurrock and battersea Only two of the four had a vote and I don't think it has been suggested that they voted this way for this reason - I think one Labour MP (possibly Neville Sandelson) did claim to have done this |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 2, 2022 19:28:19 GMT
Not sure that there would have been a great deal of difference. Healey was very unsympathetic to the Gang of Four and I'm not convinced his leadership would have prevented the SDP's existence.
I have always felt Miliband (D) was overrated too. He wasn't very impressive as Foreign secretary and can't see him being able to fashion a distinctive economic policy either.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 2, 2022 19:37:22 GMT
I don't think the Miliband scenario changes that much. I doubt David would have put together a significantly more popular programme than Ed, and you still get the Lib Dem collapse in 2015.
Healey winning means the SDP never gets formed - so Labour do a lot better in 1983. Thatcher might still have won, but likely wouldn't have made net gains from Labour.
Under Miliband D, would Labour have been less dick-ish over House of Lords reform?, or would Labour have backed military intervention in Syria? |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 2, 2022 20:19:42 GMT
on the miliband point there was an opinion piece in the guardian in 2014 on an alternate world where David was leader. Much like what you say and Labour lose Heywood and Middleton to UKIP. On the SDP, there's two points here. One of the reasons why the gang of four voted for Foot was because Healey told them that they don't matter and would vote for him anyway. The other reason sometimes aired is that the gang of four wanted Foot to become leader to hurt labour and provide an excuse to defect. The other point I'd make is there are studies that argue that the SDP took votes from both labour and the Tories. There is some evidence that points to this too. There were a number of seats Tories gained from labour in 87 like Thurrock and battersea Only two of the four had a vote and I don't think it has been suggested that they voted this way for this reason - I think one Labour MP (possibly Neville Sandelson) did claim to have done this yes sorry I probably should have said defecting MPs rather than gang of four |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 2, 2022 20:21:27 GMT
Having read Roy Jenkins autobiography it sounds like Healey wasn't that supportive of the ECC either so I suppose foreign policy in that sense might have not been that different
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 2, 2022 20:26:26 GMT
I don't think the Miliband scenario changes that much. I doubt David would have put together a significantly more popular programme than Ed, and you still get the Lib Dem collapse in 2015.
Healey winning means the SDP never gets formed - so Labour do a lot better in 1983. Thatcher might still have won, but likely wouldn't have made net gains from Labour.
Under Miliband D, would Labour have been less dick-ish over House of Lords reform?, or would Labour have backed military intervention in Syria? Neither. The failure of the Commons to get to grips with House of Lords reform is depressing but I can't see why Miliband would have made any difference. Syria split the party and I think the split would have been far deeper. There really wasn't any enthusiasm for another war in the Middle East. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 2, 2022 20:59:15 GMT
Under Miliband D, would Labour have been less dick-ish over House of Lords reform?, or would Labour have backed military intervention in Syria? Neither. The failure of the Commons to get to grips with House of Lords reform is depressing but I can't see why Miliband would have made any difference. Syria split the party and I think the split would have been far deeper. There really wasn't any enthusiasm for another war in the Middle East. Though, off-topic, I suspect that Boris Johnson's resignation honours are about to break the system entirely and lead to abolition after the next GE. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 2, 2022 21:33:00 GMT
I don't think the Miliband scenario changes that much. I doubt David would have put together a significantly more popular programme than Ed, and you still get the Lib Dem collapse in 2015.
Healey winning means the SDP never gets formed - so Labour do a lot better in 1983. Thatcher might still have won, but likely wouldn't have made net gains from Labour.
on the miliband point there was an opinion piece in the guardian in 2014 on an alternate world where David was leader. Much like what you say and Labour lose Heywood and Middleton to UKIP. On the SDP, there's two points here. One of the reasons why the gang of four voted for Foot was because Healey told them that they don't matter and would vote for him anyway. The other reason sometimes aired is that the gang of four wanted Foot to become leader to hurt labour and provide an excuse to defect. The other point I'd make is there are studies that argue that the SDP took votes from both labour and the Tories. There is some evidence that points to this too. There were a number of seats Tories gained from labour in 87 like Thurrock and Battersea.The other three being Ipswich, Walthamstow, and Wolverhampton North East (I am discounting Fulham since Labour gained it from the Conservatives in a 1986 by-election). |
|
|
|
Post by willpower3 on Aug 2, 2022 21:38:46 GMT
A more interesting question is if Liz Kendall had been elected leader in 2015. A real hidden talent IMO and would have become PM by 2020.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 2, 2022 22:24:19 GMT
A more interesting question is if Liz Kendall had been elected leader in 2015. A real hidden talent IMO and would have become PM by 2020. you're not in the majority I suspect in that opinion. I lived in Leicester for a number of years. Not held in particularly high regard even amongst the right in Leicester West. A friend told me that they've been wanting to remove her for a while but feared the leadership imposing their candidate. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 3, 2022 20:57:32 GMT
Not sure that there would have been a great deal of difference. Healey was very unsympathetic to the Gang of Four and I'm not convinced his leadership would have prevented the SDP's existence. I have always felt Miliband (D) was overrated too. He wasn't very impressive as Foreign secretary and can't see him being able to fashion a distinctive economic policy either. He wasn't impressive as Foreign Secretary and he didn't seem to have much about him. I know people talk about his great brain and so on, but I didn't see a lot of him being the next Tony Crosland. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 3, 2022 23:41:31 GMT
Not sure that there would have been a great deal of difference. Healey was very unsympathetic to the Gang of Four and I'm not convinced his leadership would have prevented the SDP's existence. I have always felt Miliband (D) was overrated too. He wasn't very impressive as Foreign secretary and can't see him being able to fashion a distinctive economic policy either. He wasn't impressive as Foreign Secretary and he didn't seem to have much about him. I know people talk about his great brain and so on, but I didn't see a lot of him being the next Tony Crosland. I must be wrong in thinking Crosland was younger. I always got the impression he was a young upcoming personality taken too early for his potential to be achieved. I know he was similar age to Roy Jenkins who tbf I think was older but Crosland appeared to reach the great offices of state later |
|
|
|
Post by gaitskellite on Aug 11, 2022 15:38:05 GMT
Tom Ellis, Neville Sandelson and Jeffrey Thomas were the three subsequent SDP defectors who voted for Foot. Owen and Rodgers voted for Healey.
Had Healey won the leadership would he have survived the inevitable leadership challenge from Benn under the new electoral college? He barely survived the Deputy leadership challenge - when he had the public backing of Foot and soft left MPs abstaining rather than voting for Benn.
|
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Aug 14, 2022 12:06:39 GMT
I suspect that Labour would have done pretty well under Healey in 83 even if the SDP got formed, as it would have taken a lot of wets without taking the moderate Labour voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 14, 2022 13:12:18 GMT
Biggest problem with Healey is he couldn't 'shovel shit' as Roy Hattersly put it. He told you if he thought you were an idiot. Which rubbed people up the wrong way. Enough people to lose him the leadership and probably would have put voters off too.
|
|
