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.

[stepney]

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.

[joevsimp]

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

Oi, Pete Bonetti was one of the finest goalkeepers this country ever produced, and wasn't exactly in top shape that day either you know :-P

and Heath may have been incompetent, but at least he wasn't Thatcher

[Cassius]

There usually seems to be at least some sense of 'buyers remorse' with most governments. The only one's, in more recent history, that I can think of that didn't, really, are the Labour governments of 64-66, February-October 74 and 97-01. Even then, it was probably because the first two governments didn't last for very long (indeed, had Labour won a majority in 1964, they might well have lost a putative election in 1968 or 1969), whilst there was a very brief period of unpopularity for the first Blair government (during the fuel crisis). Basically, most governments are victims of bad circumstances or bad policy decisions, and this inevitably costs them following the brief 'honeymoon' period in the wake of an election victory.

[You kip if you want to...]

1992 has to be up there. The Tories won the election in the April and the government hit the skids in the September... and the party's still not fully recovered from that.

[EPG]

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.

[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.

[You kip if you want to...]

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.

I see what you're saying about the current lot, but I don't think the public will ever see the LibDem's role in the government as at all acceptable, even if the Tories get in again.

[Heimdal]

I’m not sure if it is fair to call Ted Heath incompetent. I think he was probably overwhelmed by events. The sectarian violence in Northern Ireland was becoming worse by the day, and the government in Westminster didn’t really know what to do about it. British industry was of course performing poorly. One of the reasons for this was bad industrial relations. The trade unions must take a lot of the responsibility for this. The British public wasn’t ready for a confrontation with the unions in the early 1970s, so there wasn’t that much Heath could have done.

I think it is obvious that Harold Wilson couldn’t have handled this better. Despite the strong ties that existed between Labour and the unions they were unable to halt the strikes that crippled British industry when they got back to power.

[Cassius]

I’m not sure if it is fair to call Ted Heath incompetent. I think he was probably overwhelmed by events. The sectarian violence in Northern Ireland was becoming worse by the day, and the government in Westminster didn’t really know what to do about it. British industry was of course performing poorly. One of the reasons for this was bad industrial relations. The trade unions must take a lot of the responsibility for this. The British public wasn’t ready for a confrontation with the unions in the early 1970s, so there wasn’t that much Heath could have done.

I think it is obvious that Harold Wilson couldn’t have handled this better. Despite the strong ties that existed between Labour and the unions they were unable to halt the strikes that crippled British industry when they got back to power.

I think, although I could be wrong, that Harold Wilson actually did manage to calm the situation with the Trade Unions during the mid-seventies, although the government's pay policy unravelled spectacularly in 1979 (which partly helped propel Thatcher to victory in that year's election) under Callaghan. Also, it should be remembered that during the latter part of the seventies, in certain cases, Union leaders actually found it quite hard to restrain their own members, so the Union's themselves shouldn't receive all of the blame. I may be wrong, but that's what I've read anyway.

[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.



 

[Gary J]

Ted Heath failed, from the point of view of right wing Conservatives, because he was not prepared to persist in right wing economic policies because he saw the social damage and was not prepared to double down on the policies. In other words, he was not as ruthless as Margaret Thatcher.

[EPG]

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. One can project an ideal scenario on the other crowd. (Some people always vote Labour or Conservative, but they don't matter at all for an analysis of how public opinion changes. We need to think about only the swinging voters in between.)

Of course, once you get to a election which is about who'll govern in the future as opposed to the past, the thought process changes. Eventually the British vote their government out when fatigue overtakes fear of change. This is harder because the opposition has to "win the future", which is a more criticial judgement and thought process than that involved in "winning the past".

Thus, I not only agree that we can't use future election successes to say whether people regret the government. I go further and say that the character of regret as a sentiment means voters can costlessly feel it as a way to balm their sorrows about how the government betrayed them by not delivering what they wanted, so most governments would have been regretted. Importantly, I don't think it means that they would have done any differently if placed again in their own shoes at the time of choosing!

Almost everyone who voted to oppose Margaret Thatcher in 1983 already opposed her four years before, and there were plenty of Alliance voters who resented Labour more than the Conservatives. Therefore, I am not sure this is a good example. Sure, she won a war, but there's no way to remove that kind of sentiment from people's thought processes in an effort to distil the pure critical-policy judgement.

[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.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I’m not sure if it is fair to call Ted Heath incompetent.

Oh yes it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was hardly the main reason (which was widespread mismanagement), and 'British industry' was still in immensely better health in the 1970s than it has been in subsequent decades...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Heath government picked a fight with the NUM and then called an election on the basis that surely irritation at power cuts caused by a Labour affiliated union would ensure re-election.

[EPG]

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.

[stepney]

I’m not sure if it is fair to call Ted Heath incompetent. I think he was probably overwhelmed by events. The sectarian violence in Northern Ireland was becoming worse by the day, and the government in Westminster didn’t really know what to do about it. British industry was of course performing poorly. One of the reasons for this was bad industrial relations. The trade unions must take a lot of the responsibility for this. The British public wasn’t ready for a confrontation with the unions in the early 1970s, so there wasn’t that much Heath could have done.

I think it is obvious that Harold Wilson couldn’t have handled this better. Despite the strong ties that existed between Labour and the unions they were unable to halt the strikes that crippled British industry when they got back to power.

I think, although I could be wrong, that Harold Wilson actually did manage to calm the situation with the Trade Unions during the mid-seventies

Aye, good old Mr Wilson, and Up The Social Contract!

Flippant, but appropriate, given every representation of the mid 70s that survives to this day revolves around the bolshie unionised working man in a factory as the centrepiece of British society. Ironic that Jack Smethurst should be the personification of 1975-78, given he was from Newton Heath but now talks with a plum in his mouth.

But, at what cost?

[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...   

[Harry Hayfield]

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)

[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...

[Harry Hayfield]

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

[You kip if you want to...]

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

Yeah, the regret in 2010 wasn't necessarily electing Cameron, but being fooled by Clegg during the campaign and letting him into government.

[EPG]

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.

[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.