joe-chamberlain
Banned
Argentina does not invade the Falklands in 1982.
What effect will this have on British politics?
What effect will this have on British politics?
No Falklands War
- Thread starter joe-chamberlain
- Start date
Like I've said many times before, the main reason given by most for Thatcher's success in 1983 is innacurate. It was not the Falklands; it was rising economic expectations. Thatcher was already climbing before the onset of the Falkands. The Falklands helped - debatable how much, but it must surely have done - but it wasn't the reason why what just about everyone acknowledges to be the worst Labour election campaign - both in the issues that it was run on and the actual way it was handled - in modern history was 'prevented' from winning.
I think you can make a case for a better outcome for the Alliance in 1983 if the Falklands never happen, but a Labour win is ASB.
I think you can make a case for a better outcome for the Alliance in 1983 if the Falklands never happen, but a Labour win is ASB.
I find that incredibly unlikely tbh. You do realise how left-wing Labour was in this period? In a Tory heartland? Desperately hard to believe.
If anything like that had been recorded, then it would have been an exception rather than the rule.
Last edited:
A slightly more expansive answer, and based on Gallup opinion polls of the day:
Labour had a lead over the Tories for much of the period from October 1981 to the beginning of the Falklands war. But they were not actually ahead for most of that period. The Alliance was. The only single point at which Labour enjoyed a lead over the Tories and the Alliance was April, 1982. But for months before that - since December of the previous year, actually - the Tories had been slowly gaining ground, and never dipping. All the while, the Alliance's share in the polls continued to fall. April just happened to be the date at which the Tories passed the Alliance and a freak result was recorded in Labour's favour.
In other words: the Alliance's problems were becoming manifest and the middle-ground vote was dirfting back towards the Tories.
It's very hard to suggest plkausibly that this general trend would have been reversed in Labour's favour if there had not been a Falklands War. The Tories would have continued to go up on rising economic expectations, just not rocket up as massively as they did immediately after the Falklands. The Alliance would still have suffered from all the problems it did, Labour would still have run a piss-poor campaign. Polls are, in any case, not a fully reliable source in mid-term. They are a good indicator, but they are conclusive in the sense of being a definite indication of voting intention at the election. They measure disatisfaction during mid-term; in Thatcher's case, that disatisfaction was never to the benefit of Labour. The middle-ground vote would have again come back to Thatcher on the basis of the 'wasted vote' factor as they did historically.
Thatcher might very well not have won as large as she did in 1983 historically. This is reasonable enough to suggest. But that would in all likelihood have mostly benefitted the Alliance, not Labour; disatisfied middle-ground voters who felt re-engaged by Thatcher after the Falklands may instead vote for the likely centrist alternative - The Alliance. So Labour may actually be in deeper trouble than the Tories if there is no Falklands war. Just possibly: no Falklands War, Labour comes in third place in share of the national vote in the next election.
1983, was, as I've said before, a potential two-horse race. But it was not going to be between Labour and the Tories.
Labour had a lead over the Tories for much of the period from October 1981 to the beginning of the Falklands war. But they were not actually ahead for most of that period. The Alliance was. The only single point at which Labour enjoyed a lead over the Tories and the Alliance was April, 1982. But for months before that - since December of the previous year, actually - the Tories had been slowly gaining ground, and never dipping. All the while, the Alliance's share in the polls continued to fall. April just happened to be the date at which the Tories passed the Alliance and a freak result was recorded in Labour's favour.
In other words: the Alliance's problems were becoming manifest and the middle-ground vote was dirfting back towards the Tories.
It's very hard to suggest plkausibly that this general trend would have been reversed in Labour's favour if there had not been a Falklands War. The Tories would have continued to go up on rising economic expectations, just not rocket up as massively as they did immediately after the Falklands. The Alliance would still have suffered from all the problems it did, Labour would still have run a piss-poor campaign. Polls are, in any case, not a fully reliable source in mid-term. They are a good indicator, but they are conclusive in the sense of being a definite indication of voting intention at the election. They measure disatisfaction during mid-term; in Thatcher's case, that disatisfaction was never to the benefit of Labour. The middle-ground vote would have again come back to Thatcher on the basis of the 'wasted vote' factor as they did historically.
Thatcher might very well not have won as large as she did in 1983 historically. This is reasonable enough to suggest. But that would in all likelihood have mostly benefitted the Alliance, not Labour; disatisfied middle-ground voters who felt re-engaged by Thatcher after the Falklands may instead vote for the likely centrist alternative - The Alliance. So Labour may actually be in deeper trouble than the Tories if there is no Falklands war. Just possibly: no Falklands War, Labour comes in third place in share of the national vote in the next election.
1983, was, as I've said before, a potential two-horse race. But it was not going to be between Labour and the Tories.
Last edited:
joe-chamberlain
Banned
Thing with the FPTP system is that it quite benefited Labour back then with it's many strongholds.
Labour could still of won about 200 seats with maybe the Alliance taking enough to hold the balance of power.
I think however Thatcher may have waited another year before calling an election by then the economy would have improved a bit more and the Right Wing press could have hammered the Labour Parties left wing stances a bit more.
This would have give the Tories victory.
joe-chamberlain
Banned
We may see an Alliance and Labour coalition government go for PR and call a new election.
joe-chamberlain
Banned
Polls for Feb and March 1982 before the Falklands crisis.
Feb
Conservative - 30%
Labour - 33%
Alliance - 34%
Others - 3%
March
Conservative - 34%
Labour - 34%
Alliance - 30%
Others - 2%
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml
Feb
Conservative - 30%
Labour - 33%
Alliance - 34%
Others - 3%
March
Conservative - 34%
Labour - 34%
Alliance - 30%
Others - 2%
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml
Can i just say one thing to those people who think any sort of labour victory was possible in the 1983/84 period?
Prime Minister Michael Foot.
Seriously, does anybody who remembers the early 1980's think that is going to happen? The man was quite simply the least credible prime ministerial candidate any leading party has put forward since, well, forever. If you want evidence to support how unlikely this was, look at detailed figures for Labour support on the link joe posts. Foot took over as leader in November 1980, in the twelve months before then Labour's share of the polls was fairly stable between 43% and 50% of the vote. After he took over, labour's share dropped almost every single month until November 1981 when it hit 27% before staging a modest recovery to 34% in March 1982 before starting to fall back again. Falklands War or not, there really is no way that the British people are going to regard him as a credible prime minister or "the longest suicide note in history" as a credible programme of government. Even if some unheard of scandal causes the Conservatives to implode the beneficiaries would be the alliance, not Labour.
Prime Minister Michael Foot.
Seriously, does anybody who remembers the early 1980's think that is going to happen? The man was quite simply the least credible prime ministerial candidate any leading party has put forward since, well, forever. If you want evidence to support how unlikely this was, look at detailed figures for Labour support on the link joe posts. Foot took over as leader in November 1980, in the twelve months before then Labour's share of the polls was fairly stable between 43% and 50% of the vote. After he took over, labour's share dropped almost every single month until November 1981 when it hit 27% before staging a modest recovery to 34% in March 1982 before starting to fall back again. Falklands War or not, there really is no way that the British people are going to regard him as a credible prime minister or "the longest suicide note in history" as a credible programme of government. Even if some unheard of scandal causes the Conservatives to implode the beneficiaries would be the alliance, not Labour.
joe-chamberlain
Banned
A quick look at the Labour party manifesto in 1983 will show you why they cant win.
The Right Wing press had a field day on it.
No Falklands conflict and you have no tangible insight into shortcomings in the make-up of UK defences. Invincible and Illustrious would be sold off and Ark Royal would be limited to an ASW and commando carrier. Defence spending would reduce to 1.5% of GDP after the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war. We would then cut back to defence forces and posture similar to Germany, but with a minimum nuclear deterrent.
I would agree here but argue that it is a major change in British politics. True I'm bias but I think that if the alliance had maintained its position as the prime challenger the history of the country would have been vastly different. Labour was in deep trouble at the time as you say but it was only the divided opposition that kept the minorityTory party in power.
Steve
