Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 18:07:15 GMT
Edward Heath could easily have suffered the indignity of losing his Bexley constituency just eight months after being elected Conservative leader, instead of going on to become Prime Minister and Father of the House.
He was vulnerable to a swing of 4.3% (in the event it was only 2.1%). He may well have returned as an MP in a by-election, but it is doubtful he would have got another chance to be leader.
Who would have taken over as Conservative leader? Would we still have joined the EEC? Could the Conservatives have won a general election in 1974/5?
|
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Nov 17, 2014 18:18:13 GMT
Would have been unusual for a leader of either labour or the conservatives to lose their seat, they don't usually elect a leader in a marginal or a seat that isn't totally safe. Margaret Thatcher and later Michael Howard had low-ish majorities at one point in their seats as well, but they seem to be the exceptions to the rule.
Anyway, back on topic, he wouldn't have another chance to become leader. TBH it would have been very difficult to see who would have become leader, there wasn't a clear front runner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 17, 2014 19:10:57 GMT
If Ted Heath had lost his seat in 1966 it would probably have been Iain Macleod v Reginald Maudling for the succession. With Macleod the favourite, which opens an interesting discussion about what happens a month after he wins the 1970 general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Nov 17, 2014 20:58:44 GMT
I was looking at Attlee losing Limehouse in 1931 (he only won by 551 votes) and whether it would affect his chances of becoming Labour leader. Given his two opponents in 1935 had also lost in 1931 I'm not sure how much it would have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 18, 2014 0:00:25 GMT
If Ted Heath had lost his seat in 1966 it would probably have been Iain Macleod v Reginald Maudling for the succession. With Macleod the favourite, which opens an interesting discussion about what happens a month after he wins the 1970 general election. That assumes that Macleod does indeed win in 1970... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 18, 2014 0:05:22 GMT
If Ted Heath had lost his seat in 1966 it would probably have been Iain Macleod v Reginald Maudling for the succession. With Macleod the favourite, which opens an interesting discussion about what happens a month after he wins the 1970 general election. That assumes that Macleod does indeed win in 1970... YMMV but I would say a bigger majority than Ted Heath actually got. Macleod was a pretty good performer in the 1960s. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786 
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Nov 18, 2014 0:24:07 GMT
That assumes that Macleod does indeed win in 1970... YMMV but I would say a bigger majority than Ted Heath actually got. Macleod was a pretty good performer in the 1960s. I would agree. Macleod would have been a far more formidable opponent for Labour than Heath. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 18, 2014 9:23:38 GMT
If Ted Heath had lost his seat in 1966 it would probably have been Iain Macleod v Reginald Maudling for the succession. With Macleod the favourite, which opens an interesting discussion about what happens a month after he wins the 1970 general election. By 1970, his heart is arguably a ticking time bomb- but it's not impossible that in the circumstances, he has a more minor heart attack earlier and is forced to mend his ways (much like LBJ if I recall correctly). Of course, it's equally possible that the stress of leadership pushes him over the edge. In the short term, some of the by-elections might turn out differently and have ripple effects themselves, assuming that the by-elections and the reasons behind them still exist. - The Tories win Newcastle-under-Lyme, only to lose it again in 1970/1971/whenever there is a general election- Nick Winterton can be glad he lost in our timeline, as this outcome could have disturbed the path of his political career and someone
better else inherits Macclesfield instead. John Goulding presumably takes the seat next time out. - The Tories win Bassetlaw and Paddington North, again to lose them next time out.
I also wonder if, in the face of a resurgent Conservative Party, Jo Grimond makes a greater effort to arrange an electoral pact of sorts with the SNP, as he did consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 7, 2016 11:15:30 GMT
If Ted Heath had lost his seat in 1966 it would probably have been Iain Macleod v Reginald Maudling for the succession. With Macleod the favourite, which opens an interesting discussion about what happens a month after he wins the 1970 general election. Macleod was still heavily disliked and distrusted in the party both because of his fast approach to decolonising & abandoning colonial elites and also because of his refusal to serve & public attacks over the 1963 succession. That wouldn't all magically disappear so quickly. I was looking at Attlee losing Limehouse in 1931 (he only won by 551 votes) and whether it would affect his chances of becoming Labour leader. Given his two opponents in 1935 had also lost in 1931 I'm not sure how much it would have done. That was a challenge to a sitting leader though. Attlee largely made his name in the 1931 Parliament - as deputy leader and at times the only full-time what we'd now call Shadow Cabinet member he cemented a reputation as an inoffensive hard worker who could be relied on with the hard tasks. When Lansbury resigned before the 1935 election the parliamentary party turned to Attlee because they trusted him to do the work of the party whereas Greenwood (who had made it back in a by-election) was seen as Bevin's puppet. After the election came a full contest where Attlee's main base of support were the MPs who had been in the previous Parliament. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 18:20:55 GMT
It shouldn't be long now before the 1966 election is replayed by BBC Parliament to mark its 50th anniversary.
|
|
|
|
Post by swingometer on Apr 30, 2024 15:11:54 GMT
Would have been unusual for a leader of either labour or the conservatives to lose their seat, they don't usually elect a leader in a marginal or a seat that isn't totally safe. Margaret Thatcher and later Michael Howard had low-ish majorities at one point in their seats as well, but they seem to be the exceptions to the rule. Anyway, back on topic, he wouldn't have another chance to become leader. TBH it would have been very difficult to see who would have become leader, there wasn't a clear front runner. Howard’s low majority was because they were in opposition, Boris’s 5k majority was the lowest for a sitting prime minister |
|
