What if no Falklands War in 1982 for Great Britian
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 12:45:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  What if no Falklands War in 1982 for Great Britian
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What if no Falklands War in 1982 for Great Britian  (Read 5059 times)
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,048
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 08, 2004, 09:04:43 PM »

If there was no Falkland War in 1982 it is not clear that the Conservatives would win re-election in 1983 in Great Britian.  As of early 1982 polls showed a virtual tie between Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal/SDP Alliance.  In fact, late 1981 the Alliance had a large lead in the polls.  A lot of by-elections went the Alliance's way before the Falkland War.  If there were no Falkland War there could there have been realignment toward a true three party system?   Was it even possible that the Alliance could have won the most number of seats in the next election?  Even as it was, it captured 25% of the vote in 1983.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2004, 04:25:32 AM »

Interesting...

The three most likely possibilities for the popular vote are:

Alliance: 40%
Labour: 30%
Conservative: 25%

Or:

Labour: 31%
Conservative: 31%
Alliance: 31%

Or:

Labour:  35%
Alliance: 30%
Conservative: 25%
----------------------------------------
The actual popular vote breakdown was:

Con: 43%
Lab: 28%
All: 26%
-----------------

I have the results by constituancy and will do uniform swings on them soon.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2004, 10:04:41 AM »

That is interesting....are we suppsoing that there is no attack on the Flaklands, or that the British goverment caves in and doesn't counter-attack?

I think that they might still have won, the alliance would have lost pace in the way that new parties always do.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2004, 03:18:01 PM »

No Falklands war doesn't damn Thatcher, compared to Labour, the Conservatives are more electable. With the electoral systen skewed, the SDP would have been lucky to take 70 seats with even a 30-35% share. No Falklands means Thatcher could have waited till 1984 to call the election...the miners would have went on strike, Foot would still be Labour leader. In the die hard Socialism that resulted, I doubt the Labour members in the little mining community of Sedgefield would have chosen plucky lawyer Tony Blair as their candidate... The Conservatives would still have won, but their majority would be small and Thatcher's position would be weak. Come 1986 and the Westland Affair, she would be weakened and with no willing Benjamin Brittan to fall on the sword, I can see Michael Heseltine becoming PM in 1986. Kinnock will probably have became Labour leader in 1984, and come 1988/89- it would been a close call.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2004, 03:50:44 PM »

No Falklands war doesn't damn Thatcher, compared to Labour, the Conservatives are more electable. With the electoral systen skewed, the SDP would have been lucky to take 70 seats with even a 30-35% share. No Falklands means Thatcher could have waited till 1984 to call the election...the miners would have went on strike, Foot would still be Labour leader. In the die hard Socialism that resulted, I doubt the Labour members in the little mining community of Sedgefield would have chosen plucky lawyer Tony Blair as their candidate... The Conservatives would still have won, but their majority would be small and Thatcher's position would be weak. Come 1986 and the Westland Affair, she would be weakened and with no willing Benjamin Brittan to fall on the sword, I can see Michael Heseltine becoming PM in 1986. Kinnock will probably have became Labour leader in 1984, and come 1988/89- it would been a close call.

Isn't Michael Heseltine the guy who said that the essence of being prime minister is to have big ears? Smiley

Nice analysis, btw.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2004, 03:51:30 PM »

It was Leon Brittan, but other than that probably spot on.

I'm going to do some detailed research into constituancy results though.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2004, 10:31:43 PM »

If you are into this sort of thing you ought to read "Prime Minister Portillo and other things that never happened" edited by Iain Dale.

One of the stories considers this possibility; Thatcher wins but only just in 83 and carries to 86 where she is ousted by Heseltine. Blair has run for the Alliance (a feasible possibility with Labour way out left) and has a seat. In 88, Heseltine goes into coalition with the Alliance led by Shirley Williams. In 92 leadership of the coalition handed to the Alliance, with Ken Clarke as Tory leader and Chancellor. In 97 Blair becomes PM (still in coalition because the Alliance have changed the electoral system) against Labour leader Gordon Brown. Also at some point in this story (and most of them in fact), Portillo becomes PM.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2004, 04:26:09 AM »

I don't think that Thatcher would have called an election in '83... the only reason why she did in real life was because the result of the Darlington by-elected shored up Foot as Labour leader.
I think an '84 election would resemble 1974-Feb in many ways.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2004, 12:18:11 AM »

I guess I'll have to agree:
No attack means Maggie wins, but later and with a smaller majority. This leads to a lot of options on how events might have developed later, but they're all highly speculative.
"Caving in", ie any kind of compromise solution with Argentina, would mean Michael Foot PM in 1984 imho, though probably with quite a weak popular mandate. Now that's an interesting one...What part of Labour's farleft programme would have been implemented? How large a majority of it would have fallen by the wayside? How much anger would that have caused at the Labour base? How quickly would the Cons have gotten back in? And under whose leadership?
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2004, 07:37:51 PM »
« Edited: February 16, 2004, 06:55:36 AM by Michael Z »

I share the general view here that Thatcher would have won in a 1984 election and, yes, with a smaller majority. I personally cannot imagine a realistic scenario involving a Michael Foot victory, purely because the left-wing vote was hopelessly split between SDP and Labour.

However, it can be said with certainty that a narrow Thatcher victory in 1984 would have meant two things: Neil Kinnock would not have been Labour leader, at least not in time for the next election. Foot either would have stayed on after the election, or Roy Hattersley would have replaced him. Secondly, the so-called Thatcher revolution (that is to say increasing subjugation of trade unions and the broadening of a free market system) would not have proceeded at the rapid pace it did in the mid-1980s.

Chances are the Conservative Party would have become frustrated with Thatcher's autocratic style of leadership earlier than did take place (as it would have born less fruit with a smaller parliamentary majority), and Michael Heseltine or maybe even Nigel Lawson would have been Prime Minister in time for an imaginary 1989 election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 11 queries.