WI: Broughton votes and saves the Callaghan Government in 1979?

[Stolengood]

Sir Alfred Broughton was a Labour backbencher in the House of Lords. During the 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan government (which marks its 36th anniversary today), Broughton, who was in poor health throughout the 1970s, was determined to come to Westminister to save the goverment, but Callaghan never asked him to come, judging it an obscene gesture; in the event, the government lost by one vote, and Broughton died five days later.

However... what if Broughton had come? In that event, a tied vote would have ensued, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, George Thomas, would have cast his tie-breaking vote against the motion, thus preserving the Callaghan government. Presumably, Broughton dies a happy man, proud in having done his duty for the Party.

But what results from that? This delays the ascension of a certain Mrs. Thatcher to the PMship, of course, but where does this take the Winter of Discontent?




Our British members are generally more knowledgeable on things like this than I as an American am. Please chime in; I'm genuinely curious to hear your opinions.

 

[Cymraeg]

Sorry, but an 'obscene' gesture? Do you mean futile?

 

[Caiaphas]

Callaghan was elected in 1976 even if his government survived past 1979 memories of the winter of discontent will live on and thatcher would inevitable be elected in 1980/1 so in the long run there would be little difference

The biggest change would be the short term effects of a larger strike action across Britain in 1979/80 if Callaghan continues to fail to get to grips with it, maybe even the first general strike since 1926 but all of this militancy would just help thatcher in

 

[AdmiralBlake]

Callaghan was elected in 1976 even if his government survived past 1979 memories of the winter of discontent will live on and thatcher would inevitable be elected in 1980/1 so in the long run there would be little difference

The biggest change would be the short term effects of a larger strike action across Britain in 1979/80 if Callaghan continues to fail to get to grips with it, maybe even the first general strike since 1926 but all of this militancy would just help thatcher in

im sorry but you don't know what your on about.

Callaghan was not "elected" in 1976, he inherited the premiership from Wilson. the election was due by October 1979 not "1980-81". Strike action was not particularly likely to continue in the short term, in February 1979 Callaghan reached a concordat with the TUC effectively ordering them to get their members back to work, and by the end of February the worst of the strikes were over.

There was never any realistic possibility of a general strike occurring.

 

[Lindseyman]

THATCHER WAS NOT INEVITABLE!!!!! Also please remember that the first Thatcher Government had to buy off (cave in to?) the NUM just like the previous Labour Governments, and if it hadn't been for the Falklands she may well have lost the next election. Also a Callaghan (it might have been Healey by 1980) Government would not have managed to convince the Argentinians that we were about to pull out of the South Atlantic by scrapping HMS Endeavour without a replacement!
EDIT Also read the above post that bit had slipped my memory

 

[AdmiralBlake]

Sir Alfred Broughton was a Labour backbencher in the House of Lords. During the 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan government (which marks its 36th anniversary today), Broughton, who was in poor health throughout the 1970s, was determined to come to Westminister to save the goverment, but Callaghan never asked him to come, judging it an obscene gesture; in the event, the government lost by one vote, and Broughton died five days later.

However... what if Broughton had come? In that event, a tied vote would have ensued, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, George Thomas, would have cast his tie-breaking vote against the motion, thus preserving the Callaghan government. Presumably, Broughton dies a happy man, proud in having done his duty for the Party.

But what results from that? This delays the ascension of a certain Mrs. Thatcher to the PMship, of course, but where does this take the Winter of Discontent?

ive read conflicting things about exactly when Callaghan would've called an election, some say May or June, some that he'd fight on until October.

Every week after the end of the "winter of discontent" labour began to recover in the polls, the tories were polling at 49-50% in January/February (the peak of the strikes), but by OTL election 1979 they down to 44%. Im absolutely convinced that had Callaghan been able to hold off the election until October labour's recovery in the polls would've continued, and that an October election could well have resulted in a hung parliament.

even if the tories did win an October election, it would be with a reduced majority than otl, maybe 320-325 seats. In other words labour holding a dozen or so extra seats. That would have a major effect on the balance of the parliamentary labour party in the 79-83 parliament. All of these extra labour MPs would be from the right of the party, meaning that Denis Healey could well have won the 1980 leadership election, no lurch to the left in the parliamentary party (activists would would still be more left wing though), no SDP, no lib dems.

as I said before, the winter of discontent actually ended not only before the election, but before the fall of the Callaghan government. It was unlikely that the strikes would continue to the same extent through the rest of '79.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Callaghan was elected in 1976 even if his government survived past 1979 memories of the winter of discontent will live on and thatcher would inevitable be elected in 1980/1 so in the long run there would be little difference

The biggest change would be the short term effects of a larger strike action across Britain in 1979/80 if Callaghan continues to fail to get to grips with it, maybe even the first general strike since 1926 but all of this militancy would just help thatcher in

James Callaghan became leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister in April 1976 on the resignation of Harold Wilson. The Labour Party had been in power for 2 years at this point having won the general election of 10th October 1974. The 1979 General Election was held on 3rd May, so the Labour Party could have theoretically remained in power for another 5 months. They probably would not have, they would have had it on a date of their own choosing, which would have been when they though they had their best chance of winning.

So there had to be a general election in 1979. However, I simply don't know if the election would have had a significantly different result, if it had been held later in the year.

But I do know one way of preventing the vote of no confidence in the first place and second a way for Labour to defeat the vote.

There could have been a vote of no confidence in 1976, but it was prevented by Callaghan making the Lib Lab Pact, with David Steel the Leader of the Liberal Party. The vote happened in 1979 because the pact broke up. So if somehow you can keep the pact going for 5 months, the vote of 1979 can be avoided. Many years ago I saw an interview with Clement Freud (yes he was a relation, he was Sigmund's grandson). He was a Liberal MP at the time and I half recall that he had a Private Members Freedom of Information Bill going through Parliament and the Labour Party tried to do a deal with him. Does any one out there know more about this? If I'm right and Freud had agreed to the deal then the vote might have been defeated.

The Ulster Unionists were willing to support the Government provided that the Transmission System (a network of pipelines carrying natural gas from the North Sea) was extended to Ulster. The Government would agree. I once saw a TV interview with Enoch Powell saying that Callaghan could have been saved by a, "Puff of Gas!"

As an aside I thought the Labour Chief Whip during the Callaghan Years had written a book about it called Majority of One, but I didn't find it when I did a quick web search.

 

[AdmiralBlake]

if anyone's interested, heres the BBC 30th anniversary documentary about the fall of the Callaghan government

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRVVdGQcN0

and part 2, the actual live coverage of the motion of no confidence from 1979

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9NbtKR1UsI

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Again I simply don't know the what the consequences of a Labour victory in 1979 would have been. The British economy was in for a severe beating in the comming recession regardless of who was in power. In a way defeat in the election was a good thing for the Labour Party because they avoided blame for what was about to happen.

 

[The Red]

Again I simply don't know the what the consequences of a Labour victory in 1979 would have been.

Economic democracy seemed to be coming on to the agenda, it was already taking place in some aspects of the public sector when advocated by individuals such as Tony Benn who desired a more syndicalist form of Socialism. This might have been the 'big idea' minus any actual money to do nice things with, though global trends will inevitably factor in. Carter had already began the process of what would become 'Reaganomics' in the states and presuming Ron himself still comes to power there's going to be even heavier pressures against economic planning. Depending on who replaces Callaghan, you might see some in the Labour cabinet reconsidering the Alternative Economic Strategy or 'the siege'. Less dramatically, an EEC exit could be on the cards.

In a way defeat in the election was a good thing for the Labour Party because they avoided blame for what was about to happen.

That was the case for a singificant period in the 1979-1983 parliament, where Labour enjoyed large leads in the polls as the situation worsened. However party infighting and a general move towards the left represented by the election of Michael Foot, an unapologetic Bevanite, saw the creation of the Social Democratic Party by four high profile Labour MP's who sought a more moderate program. This drained a lot of Labour energy, though some will point out that the allegations that they 'split the vote' in 1983 are rather dubious. Meanwhile Thatcher's popularity took a dramatic shift with victory in the South Atlantic and this endured with an improving economic situation. Labour subsequently lost in a landslide and remained in opposition for 14 years.

 

[AdmiralBlake]

Depending on who replaces Callaghan, you might see some in the Labour cabinet reconsidering the Alternative Economic Strategy or 'the siege'. Less dramatically, an EEC exit could be on the cards.

Healey was always the obvious successor to Callaghan, and assuming the system for electing the leader doesn't change, I would say Healey would almost certainly assume the leadership in 1980-81

also, as it was Carter that began Reaganomics, it was Callaghan and Healey that began monetarism.

 

[Scientist Shan]

With Alfred Broughton dying a few days later there would likely have been a backlash against Callaghan for 'killing' him. That's if he had lasted those few days - the image of him dying in the ambulance going to or from Westminster would have been dredful.

With the Liberals winning the Liverpool Edge Hill byelection the day after the Confidence Vote its clear that the government no longer had the numbers for parliamentary purposes.

Most probably a general election takes place either at the same time ie to coincide with the local elections in May or at most is delayed to coincide with the June European elections.

 

[AdmiralBlake]

With Alfred Broughton dying a few days later there would likely have been a backlash against Callaghan for 'killing' him. That's if he had lasted those few days - the image of him dying in the ambulance going to or from Westminster would have been dredful.

With the Liberals winning the Liverpool Edge Hill byelection the day after the Confidence Vote its clear that the government no longer had the numbers for parliamentary purposes.

Most probably a general election takes place either at the same time ie to coincide with the local elections in May or at most is delayed to coincide with the June European elections.

well Broughton was the one who wanted to save the government, he wanted it to be his last great act before dying (everyone knew he would die within days/weeks)

don't think Callaghan would go in May, if he did decide to go in June then it wouldn't be the week of the euro elections. Politicians have always tried (so far successfully) to avoid having euro and general elections on the same day.

 

[Scientist Shan]

It wouldn't have mattered who's idea it was it would still have been bad publicity for Callaghan. We know that Broughton died a few days later but that would have been hypothetical then. All people would have seen would have been a sick man dragged from his hospital bed against doctor's advice and moved around the country leading to his death.

If Broughton had died in the ambulance on the way to London the revulsion towards Callaghan would have massive 'greater love has no man than he lays down his friend's life for himself' etc.

The reason why general and euro elections have never coincided is that they've never fallen in the same year yet.

On the BBC 1979 election program they mentioned that it was likely that a general election would have been held on the euro election day if the government had survived the vote of confidence.

 

[AdmiralBlake]

The reason why general and euro elections have never coincided is that they've never fallen in the same year yet.

On the BBC 1979 election program they mentioned that it was likely that a general election would have been held on the euro election day if the government had survived the vote of confidence.

in 1979 they did, seeing as they were seen as a big thing, it would be pretty unlikely for them to be on the same day.