UK General Election Results The UK Public Probably Regretted

[ChrisDR68]

Quote from Comrade Sibboleth in the U.K election maps thread
From April 04, 2006, 12:38:02 am    

And now for 1970:

Although often thought of as an upset, if you take a long view the only surprising thing about 1970 was that it was as close as it was; throughout the 1966-1970 Parliament, Labour's popularity went into total meltdown and at the low point in 1968 were probably less popular than the Major Tories in the '90's. There had been a recovery in the popularity of the Government as it finally got out of the economic mess left to it by the Douglas-Home administration.
Polling day was a few days (or a day? can't quite recall which...) after a key England game in the 1970 World Cup; [in]famously the England goalkeeper was too ill to play, England were knocked out of the contest and working class voters got all depressed lowering their turnout by quite a lot. The old legend is that if Gordon Banks had played, Ted Heath would never have become P.M.

I've often wondered whether Harold Wilson would have won this election had he waited until October 1970 instead of contesting it in June. That would have given Roy Jenkins more time to improve the economy and it would have meant the In Place Of Strife fiasco would have been another 4 months back in people's memories.

That is what the Conservatives expected him to do and with the benefit of hindsight that is what he probably should have done.

The British people almost certainly regretted electing Ted Heath as PM as he turned out to be one of the least competent PM's in the post war period.

Of the other post war UK General Elections my guess is the UK public would probably reverse the results of the 1959, 1979 and 1992 elections if they could have. 1992 is a little tricky though as Neil Kinnock was never seen as a credible potential PM.

[ChrisDR68]

On what timescale are you talking? About 30 months after any General Election, 'the public' (insofar as 'an opinion poll lead of 5%' can be taken as 'the public mood') generally wants any Government but the one that's in.

Admittedly the public mood managed to swing quite quickly against Heath; to take an example of real votes in real ballot boxes, rather than polls, the London local results of 1971, for example, would not have in ordinary 21st century circumstances have unwound the 1968 results quite so easily. 2011 was nothing like that.

I think the public will have made their judgement on a government by the time of the next election (usually 4 or 5 years).

The Tory's support dropped from 46.4% in 1970 to 37.9% in 1974. That's a big drop from one election to the next and a telling verdict of what the British people thought of the Heath government.

You can sort of feel if a government has generally been considered acceptable by the people or not. At least I think I can

The present lot will probably just about get away with it in terms of winning the popular vote although who will end up with the most seats is anyone's guess.

[ChrisDR68]

There's no such thing as public opinion, but having said that, nobody got what they wanted out of the 1929 election. Most of the other examples were at the ends of long periods of government, but being defeated at the next election doesn't mean people would rather have installed the then-opposition at the previous election. Voters are volatile, and duration in office is itself a liability as governments generate inevitable internal contradictions, which means it is hard to extrapolate past regret from future results. It seems odd that 1979 is being considered, given that the winning side's platform has prevailed in Britain ever since.

The point of starting this thread is to think about which elections the British people would reverse if they had a time machine 4 or 5 years after the election happened.

I think if you gave them a chance to vote again in May 1979 knowing what they knew was coming down the track between 1979 and 1983 Labour would have won a small but workable majority despite The Winter Of Discontent being fresh in people's memories.

The industrial carnage wreaked by the first Thatcher government was not anticipated by the public and going by memory (I was around 11 at the time) most people were deeply shocked and depressed by it.

She got away with it for two reasons. The Falklands War and the Labour Party being a complete shambles at the time with Michael Foot as leader. I saw a documentary on his life on youtube recently and he even admitted that he didn't consider himself a potential PM which is amazing in of itself when you think about it.



 

[ChrisDR68]

I think the British people would reverse almost every election after four years. Buyer's remorse: Supporters naturally regret the actions of their government as it inevitably acts in ways that alienate them.

That's true some of the time but not every time in my view. The election decisions of 1945, 1951, 1955, 1964, 1983, 1997 and 2001 would probably be confirmed by the public if they had the time machine option I mentioned in my last post.

History seems to judge those governments as reasonably successful going by the literature I've read about them as well.  

[ChrisDR68]

Economic change insulated third parties from strikes in the 1980s more than the 1970s. Britain had more vans, trucks, big roads, and trade with other countries (even Poland). I don't think the unions lost from others' psychological readiness, as much as the migration of middle-earners away from manufacturing jobs associated with Empire, like making big ships, towards self-employment in many cases.

Back on topic... I think the 1923 election was another regretted one.

As a side note and slightly off topic I think the Labour leadership election of 1980 is one of the pivotal moments of post-war British politics.

As we know in the original timeline Michael Foot surprisingly won the leadership ushering in a divided centre left vote and locking the Tories into power that would last until they were crushed in 1997.

In an alternative (and saner) timeline Denis Healey wins, there is no SDP breakaway and the general election that followed (probably in 1984 because the polls would be a lot closer than in the original timeline despite the Falklands war) Labour actually has a chance of winning.

Remembering that unemployment would still be rising (in either 1983 or 1984) and would only peak in 1986 I think it would be a difficult economic record for the Tories to defend in the country.

How about this for a formidable Labour shadow cabinet:

Leader: Denis Healey, Deputy: Michael Foot, Chancellor: David Owen, Foreign Secretary: Shirley Williams, Home Secretary: Roy Hattersley, Defence: Bill Rodgers, Health & Social Security: Peter Shore, Education: Neil Kinnock, Environment: Michael Meacher, Energy: Gerald Kaufman

My guess would be both the Tories and Labour finishing on about 38% of the popular vote meaning the result would be very close to the February 1974 outcome.

One of the great might have beens of the last 35 years...   

[ChrisDR68]

Might I be so bold as to suggest 2010 (although that said the British public regretted it as soon as Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems topped the polls after the first debate)

Do you mean they regretted it in that they would have changed it to Gordon Brown and Labour winning?

I'm not convinced on that one...

[ChrisDR68]

They regretted electing a parliament where no one party had a majority and wished that they had given a party a majority instead

A majority for Gordon Brown? Or David Cameron? Really? This is my point from discussions above - it's easy to observe that people aren't happy with a government, but I also don't think they would choose any realistic option that was available at the time. "Majority government, no matter the party", at the moment, just means "something different". We all want the perfect government of our dreams that we can imagine fulfilling all our hopes and hurting other people instead, but that's not an option in elections.

I agree.

Given the state of the economy and the public finances it's unlikely any government formed after May 2010 was going to be popular.

Such was the poisoned chalice the Brown government (and sections of the awful financial sector) left us all.