General Election in autumn 1978

[stevep]

  Been thinking of this for a while.  In early IIRC autumn 1978 there was a press conference by then PM Jim Callaghan.  Labour were riding high in the polls and it was generally expected that he would be announcing an autumn election which Labour was expected to win clearly.

  Instead he announced his decision not to have an election by singing lines from "There was I, waiting at the church" an old music hall song which is basically of a women telling how her wedding didn't take place because the groom didn't turn up sending a note saying "Can't get away to marry you today, my wife won't let me".

  In my late teens at the time and thought this was a stupid way of doing things as it appeared to mock the press, the vast majority of which was pro-Tory anyway.  It turned out to be a much worse error because this was followed by the Winter of Discontent, a period of major trade union unrest, especially in parts of the public sector. 

  What if Callaghan had announced an election in autumn 1978 and as expected Labour wins this, with enough to give them a decent majority - they had been struggling as a minority government reliant on a bill by bill deal with the Liberal Party at the time.

  The Winter of Discontent still occurs but with a clear majority there is no vote of no confidence or need to go to the polls by May 1979.  Labour support will drop significantly and there is likely to be infighting over a number of issues but their still likely to get most policies passed.  Thatcher will claim her proposed policies have been vindicated but such won't be implemented, at least not possibly before ~1983.

  During this time there will not be the drastic drop in support for British business and areas like the computing and software regions in which we were world leaders at the time are likely to do a lot better.  Other nations will catch up and quite probably overtake overall but a substantial British computing industry is likely to continue to prosper.  Military spending might drop a bit or might not assuming that the revolt in Iran and then the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan still occurs.  Your very unlikely to get the OTL savage cuts in the RN.  Infrastructure spending is likely to continue and you won't see the drastic attack on public housing. 

  Spending by government is likely to be maintained, helped by increasing amounts of oil and gas from the north sea, which aren't going to be spend on funding mass unemployment as OTL.

  The two big uncertainties are going to be:

a)  What happens to the Labour party here?   - Could see it deeply divided but still formally unites or broken as OTL with the SDP break-away.  In which case who ends up on the outside - the centre/right of the party as OTL for a decade or the left and what would that mean for the next election.

b)  Does the Falklands war still occur?  - It might not for two reasons.  The strong navy and the probability that HMS Endurance isn't going to be scrapped - seen as a green flag for the Argentinean junta OTL - and also recent history as a in the late 70's there had been concerns about an attack and Callaghan had both sent a SSN south and made sure that the junta knew about it.  If they do still attack the islands their likely to take them but lose as OTL in which case that could secure a Labour victory in 1983/84.  Or they could be deterred unless the junta is desperate for an external conflict to divert attention from their failures and seek to unite the country.  In which case they might strike Chile, with which they have significant border disputes as well although that is more likely to lead to a bigger war and also American intervention against them.

  Your still likely to have some form of Thatcherism inflicted on the country at some date unless we're very lucky.  However a richer and socially strong Britain might avoid the worst affects and defeat it rather than it becoming the dominant theme of British [mis-] government in the following decades until the present.  A more centralist government could well make Britain a much different and richer place in the present day although a lot will depend on what happens in numerous areas.  Ideally the shock of the winter of discontent could prompt a Labour reform which makes it both fit and seen as fit for government by the general population and hence Thatcherite hard right economic and social policies fail to gain a lasting footing, probably sooner or later prompting the Tory party to move nack towards the centre as well.

  Anyway what do people think?

[simon darkshade]

A brief chance now, but a few things come to mind:

- A Labour government doesn’t mean that there won’t be defence cuts, given the economic and fiscal position. That will hit the RN whoever is in charge on the letterhead. There is the precedent of the 1975 Defence White Paper under Labour, the 1966 Defence White Paper under Labour, the 1968 decision to withdraw from East of Suez and the cancellation of CVA-01, TSR-2, AFVG and the F-111Ks under Labour. It doesn’t follow logically that Sunny Jim performs a volte face on that basis; indeed, it is just as likely that they are worse, given the Labour trends and position of the time regarding defence
- Following on from that, I don’t think that it is just a matter of assuming that there will be a stronger RN and no disposal of Endurance. Even if there is a slight change to the fine print, the Argie junta will still measure the trajectory of British power and RN decline and figure that there won’t be a response. They were that illogical and drunk on their own beliefs
- It might be not quite so easy to bring about a Labour majority in 1978 based on the electoral maths of the 1970s, with the Welsh and Scots Nats thrown in as wildcards and the Liberals positioned to do some seat sniping in different conditions to 1979. If a Labour minority government results, it will be difficult to eke out a full term
- Even if it does get a win in 1978, the economic clime of the world was set for the nasty early 80s recession. That isn’t a recipe for lasting power

[stevep]

Jan 1, 2024 8:07:46 GMT simon darkshade said:

A brief chance now, but a few things come to mind:

- A Labour government doesn’t mean that there won’t be defence cuts, given the economic and fiscal position. That will hit the RN whoever is in charge on the letterhead. There is the precedent of the 1975 Defence White Paper under Labour, the 1966 Defence White Paper under Labour, the 1968 decision to withdraw from East of Suez and the cancellation of CVA-01, TSR-2, AFVG and the F-111Ks under Labour. It doesn’t follow logically that Sunny Jim performs a volte face on that basis; indeed, it is just as likely that they are worse, given the Labour trends and position of the time regarding defence
- Following on from that, I don’t think that it is just a matter of assuming that there will be a stronger RN and no disposal of Endurance. Even if there is a slight change to the fine print, the Argie junta will still measure the trajectory of British power and RN decline and figure that there won’t be a response. They were that illogical and drunk on their own beliefs
- It might be not quite so easy to bring about a Labour majority in 1978 based on the electoral maths of the 1970s, with the Welsh and Scots Nats thrown in as wildcards and the Liberals positioned to do some seat sniping in different conditions to 1979. If a Labour minority government results, it will be difficult to eke out a full term
- Even if it does get a win in 1978, the economic clime of the world was set for the nasty early 80s recession. That isn’t a recipe for lasting power

  I would agree that there are likely to be some naval cuts, although North Sea oil and gas will reduce the pressure somewhat along with the events in Iran and especially Afghanistan assuming they still occur.  However their unlikely to be as extreme as OTL when Thatcher hit the navy very hard.  The three Ark Royal class 'through-deck cruisers' cough light carriers cough being moved to one with one being sold off cheap to Australia and another cancelled for instance sent a clear sign.  Plus Callaghan's prior experience with Argentina and that he was the last PM to have served in WWII, in the RN may also have an impact. 

  Historically yes the Tories did tend to pay more attention to defence than Labour but the Tories in the 50s and 60's did cut down the military from the unsustainable early cold war levels, especially as the economic challenges grew as other nations recovered from WWII better than Britain did.  Thatcher's naval cuts were extreme and since then the armed forces have been steadily and at times savagely and that's been overwhelmingly by Tory governments.  Now there's still a fair amount of spending but also a hell of a lot of waste as the policy is far more on appearance than actual substance and promise after promise has been broken.

  The junta may still make a bid for the Falklands to divert from their failings but that would be less likely in this scenario with a different government and I would argue a different and stronger approach to the RN.  Even if they still did the stronger navy is likely to see a victory as OTL but possibly with even lower British losses.  Which is likely to be a boost to the sitting government as OTL.  However its far from impossible that they see it as too dangerous an option and look to their historical clashes with Chile instead or prevaricate long enough to be over-taken by events.

  If a Labour minority government results from such an election then we could still follow the path of OTL but I'm going on what was being said at the time.  The Scots and Welsh nationalists were still pretty small, definitely compared to the current date and given the sort of ideas Thatcher was proposing its likely that a somewhat stronger Liberal party and those nationalists are likely to prefer Labour to such a Tory party.  Such might also strength the Labour right/centre in any fight with its left wing although the Liberal Party at the time could be an obstacle to renewing the nuclear deterrent.

  I'm not thinking of it as a recipe for lasting power for Labour but as a possible way of maintaining the core of the post-war consensus and better government for the population as a whole rather than the pit of Thatcherism with the continued parasitical nature of its ideas that meant so much has been destroyed in my country and so many opportunities lost.  Even in the best case your likely to see some centralization of power and wealth among the very rich but probably far, far less than has occurred with the draining of the rest of the nation that has resulted from this.  Its still possible to see some form of Thatcherism coming along somewhat later and possibly as a result being even more destructive for the country but, barring a British defeat in the Falkland's war with a Tory government - which could have occurred - its about the best option under the circumstances for avoiding that fate.

[simon darkshade]

Jan 1, 2024 11:49:15 GMT stevep said:

Jan 1, 2024 8:07:46 GMT simon darkshade said:

A brief chance now, but a few things come to mind:

- A Labour government doesn’t mean that there won’t be defence cuts, given the economic and fiscal position. That will hit the RN whoever is in charge on the letterhead. There is the precedent of the 1975 Defence White Paper under Labour, the 1966 Defence White Paper under Labour, the 1968 decision to withdraw from East of Suez and the cancellation of CVA-01, TSR-2, AFVG and the F-111Ks under Labour. It doesn’t follow logically that Sunny Jim performs a volte face on that basis; indeed, it is just as likely that they are worse, given the Labour trends and position of the time regarding defence
- Following on from that, I don’t think that it is just a matter of assuming that there will be a stronger RN and no disposal of Endurance. Even if there is a slight change to the fine print, the Argie junta will still measure the trajectory of British power and RN decline and figure that there won’t be a response. They were that illogical and drunk on their own beliefs
- It might be not quite so easy to bring about a Labour majority in 1978 based on the electoral maths of the 1970s, with the Welsh and Scots Nats thrown in as wildcards and the Liberals positioned to do some seat sniping in different conditions to 1979. If a Labour minority government results, it will be difficult to eke out a full term
- Even if it does get a win in 1978, the economic clime of the world was set for the nasty early 80s recession. That isn’t a recipe for lasting power

  I would agree that there are likely to be some naval cuts, although North Sea oil and gas will reduce the pressure somewhat along with the events in Iran and especially Afghanistan assuming they still occur.  However their unlikely to be as extreme as OTL when Thatcher hit the navy very hard.  The three Ark Royal class 'through-deck cruisers' cough light carriers cough being moved to one with one being sold off cheap to Australia and another cancelled for instance sent a clear sign.  Plus Callaghan's prior experience with Argentina and that he was the last PM to have served in WWII, in the RN may also have an impact. 

  Historically yes the Tories did tend to pay more attention to defence than Labour but the Tories in the 50s and 60's did cut down the military from the unsustainable early cold war levels, especially as the economic challenges grew as other nations recovered from WWII better than Britain did.  Thatcher's naval cuts were extreme and since then the armed forces have been steadily and at times savagely and that's been overwhelmingly by Tory governments.  Now there's still a fair amount of spending but also a hell of a lot of waste as the policy is far more on appearance than actual substance and promise after promise has been broken.

  The junta may still make a bid for the Falklands to divert from their failings but that would be less likely in this scenario with a different government and I would argue a different and stronger approach to the RN.  Even if they still did the stronger navy is likely to see a victory as OTL but possibly with even lower British losses.  Which is likely to be a boost to the sitting government as OTL.  However its far from impossible that they see it as too dangerous an option and look to their historical clashes with Chile instead or prevaricate long enough to be over-taken by events.

  If a Labour minority government results from such an election then we could still follow the path of OTL but I'm going on what was being said at the time.  The Scots and Welsh nationalists were still pretty small, definitely compared to the current date and given the sort of ideas Thatcher was proposing its likely that a somewhat stronger Liberal party and those nationalists are likely to prefer Labour to such a Tory party.  Such might also strength the Labour right/centre in any fight with its left wing although the Liberal Party at the time could be an obstacle to renewing the nuclear deterrent.

  I'm not thinking of it as a recipe for lasting power for Labour but as a possible way of maintaining the core of the post-war consensus and better government for the population as a whole rather than the pit of Thatcherism with the continued parasitical nature of its ideas that meant so much has been destroyed in my country and so many opportunities lost.  Even in the best case your likely to see some centralization of power and wealth among the very rich but probably far, far less than has occurred with the draining of the rest of the nation that has resulted from this.  Its still possible to see some form of Thatcherism coming along somewhat later and possibly as a result being even more destructive for the country but, barring a British defeat in the Falkland's war with a Tory government - which could have occurred - its about the best option under the circumstances for avoiding that fate.

Steve,

If there is one theme to my response here, it would be "I do not say they cannot come; just that they cannot come by sea".

1.) I just don't see North Sea gas and oil (also experienced by the Tories and by Labour before Callaghan) and the combination of his experiences in WW2 and his specific policy decision in 1977 in Operation Journeyman would amount to enough of a difference. I think it could make a difference, but not a big enough one for it to be truly noticeable down the line. The stuff around the edges that seems important to us, such as Endurance, but the the decommissioning of 9 escorts, cutting one CVS and phasing out the LPDs only stands out because we know what happened next and how Nott and others ended up with blood on their hands and egg on their faces. The loss of the Type 43s and Sea Dart II was another part that sadly isn't avoidable. There might be some change to the fine print, but the general trajectory was more focus on ASW, subs and the GIUK.

2.) We've had this discussion before and my position is that neither side can claim any degree of high ground on defence, with the Labour cuts of the 60s and 70s and of the Blair/Brown 1997-2010 period being just as bad in their own way as what the Tories did in 1957, 1980, the early 1990s and the disgrace of 2010 to date. All are guilty and all are punished; well, none of the actual guilty men and women have ever been punished, with that fate falling upon British status, interests and serving men, but I was going for the Prince Escalus line from the end of Romeo and Juliet for dramatic effect.

3.) This is probably your most tenuous point, as it is based on a couple of PoDs - the original one of Callaghan winning, which isn't at all impossible, and a second one of his new government going for a such a Defence White Paper as to dramatically increase the relative strength of the RN in 1982. Looking at the Falklands fleet, one more County isn't going to make a difference to the outcome (not that any actually missed out, with Hampshire earlier being cannibalised for spares and only Kent of the reserve ships being surveyed for reactivation), or to deterrence, nor will Leanders or Rothesays. Perhaps the only thing that could make a difference is Invincible, but given its presence when the Argentines had a go anyway, I can't see the lack of its sale or putative disposal being the difference between rationality and the juntas drunken machismo.

4.) All very true on the relative strength of the Welsh and Scots. My gut feeling is that their role and that of the Libs would be quite important in the balance of power. They would lean towards Labour initially, sure, but the scope of the international economy is going to be troublesome for any incumbents.

5.) I can definitely see where you're coming from and my position on the deleterious effects of Thatcherism on the North, Scotland and other parts of the nation, as well as other aspects of society, is on the record. I simply think that the scope for that outcome might not be as strongly guaranteed as expressed and particularly that the military impact on the Falklands of a different name on the letterhead, as it were.

[stevep]

Jan 1, 2024 12:22:39 GMT simon darkshade said:

Jan 1, 2024 11:49:15 GMT stevep said:

  I would agree that there are likely to be some naval cuts, although North Sea oil and gas will reduce the pressure somewhat along with the events in Iran and especially Afghanistan assuming they still occur.  However their unlikely to be as extreme as OTL when Thatcher hit the navy very hard.  The three Ark Royal class 'through-deck cruisers' cough light carriers cough being moved to one with one being sold off cheap to Australia and another cancelled for instance sent a clear sign.  Plus Callaghan's prior experience with Argentina and that he was the last PM to have served in WWII, in the RN may also have an impact. 

  Historically yes the Tories did tend to pay more attention to defence than Labour but the Tories in the 50s and 60's did cut down the military from the unsustainable early cold war levels, especially as the economic challenges grew as other nations recovered from WWII better than Britain did.  Thatcher's naval cuts were extreme and since then the armed forces have been steadily and at times savagely and that's been overwhelmingly by Tory governments.  Now there's still a fair amount of spending but also a hell of a lot of waste as the policy is far more on appearance than actual substance and promise after promise has been broken.

  The junta may still make a bid for the Falklands to divert from their failings but that would be less likely in this scenario with a different government and I would argue a different and stronger approach to the RN.  Even if they still did the stronger navy is likely to see a victory as OTL but possibly with even lower British losses.  Which is likely to be a boost to the sitting government as OTL.  However its far from impossible that they see it as too dangerous an option and look to their historical clashes with Chile instead or prevaricate long enough to be over-taken by events.

  If a Labour minority government results from such an election then we could still follow the path of OTL but I'm going on what was being said at the time.  The Scots and Welsh nationalists were still pretty small, definitely compared to the current date and given the sort of ideas Thatcher was proposing its likely that a somewhat stronger Liberal party and those nationalists are likely to prefer Labour to such a Tory party.  Such might also strength the Labour right/centre in any fight with its left wing although the Liberal Party at the time could be an obstacle to renewing the nuclear deterrent.

  I'm not thinking of it as a recipe for lasting power for Labour but as a possible way of maintaining the core of the post-war consensus and better government for the population as a whole rather than the pit of Thatcherism with the continued parasitical nature of its ideas that meant so much has been destroyed in my country and so many opportunities lost.  Even in the best case your likely to see some centralization of power and wealth among the very rich but probably far, far less than has occurred with the draining of the rest of the nation that has resulted from this.  Its still possible to see some form of Thatcherism coming along somewhat later and possibly as a result being even more destructive for the country but, barring a British defeat in the Falkland's war with a Tory government - which could have occurred - its about the best option under the circumstances for avoiding that fate.

Steve,

If there is one theme to my response here, it would be "I do not say they cannot come; just that they cannot come by sea".

1.) I just don't see North Sea gas and oil (also experienced by the Tories and by Labour before Callaghan) and the combination of his experiences in WW2 and his specific policy decision in 1977 in Operation Journeyman would amount to enough of a difference. I think it could make a difference, but not a big enough one for it to be truly noticeable down the line. The stuff around the edges that seems important to us, such as Endurance, but the the decommissioning of 9 escorts, cutting one CVS and phasing out the LPDs only stands out because we know what happened next and how Nott and others ended up with blood on their hands and egg on their faces. The loss of the Type 43s and Sea Dart II was another part that sadly isn't avoidable. There might be some change to the fine print, but the general trajectory was more focus on ASW, subs and the GIUK.

2.) We've had this discussion before and my position is that neither side can claim any degree of high ground on defence, with the Labour cuts of the 60s and 70s and of the Blair/Brown 1997-2010 period being just as bad in their own way as what the Tories did in 1957, 1980, the early 1990s and the disgrace of 2010 to date. All are guilty and all are punished; well, none of the actual guilty men and women have ever been punished, with that fate falling upon British status, interests and serving men, but I was going for the Prince Escalus line from the end of Romeo and Juliet for dramatic effect.

3.) This is probably your most tenuous point, as it is based on a couple of PoDs - the original one of Callaghan winning, which isn't at all impossible, and a second one of his new government going for a such a Defence White Paper as to dramatically increase the relative strength of the RN in 1982. Looking at the Falklands fleet, one more County isn't going to make a difference to the outcome (not that any actually missed out, with Hampshire earlier being cannibalised for spares and only Kent of the reserve ships being surveyed for reactivation), or to deterrence, nor will Leanders or Rothesays. Perhaps the only thing that could make a difference is Invincible, but given its presence when the Argentines had a go anyway, I can't see the lack of its sale or putative disposal being the difference between rationality and the juntas drunken machismo.

4.) All very true on the relative strength of the Welsh and Scots. My gut feeling is that their role and that of the Libs would be quite important in the balance of power. They would lean towards Labour initially, sure, but the scope of the international economy is going to be troublesome for any incumbents.

5.) I can definitely see where you're coming from and my position on the deleterious effects of Thatcherism on the North, Scotland and other parts of the nation, as well as other aspects of society, is on the record. I simply think that the scope for that outcome might not be as strongly guaranteed as expressed and particularly that the military impact on the Falklands of a different name on the letterhead, as it were.

  Well the point is that if the junta does attack Britain is still likely to win and probably with somewhat larger forces - albeit not much possibly - are still likely to win and in that case it could be good for Labour in them getting the kudos for defending the islands, which would be a benefit for them and hence Britain. 

  I agree that the actions of both political parties on military spending have frequently been dubious but my point was that, in part to increase the strength of the army as well as other funding issues - major tax cuts and spending on mass unemployment - the damage to the RN in the 1st years of Thatcher's 1st term was a lot deeper than its likely to be under any other government of a more centralist alignment.

  Do note that both sides did actually come by sea, 1st the Argentinian invasion and then the British liberation.

  Interesting details on Operation Journeyman.  I had only heard of a SSN being sent although hadn't sought further information.

  I would point out that the primary aim is not to totally avoid any Thatcherism - although that would probably be best - but that it doesn't become the default policy as it has done since 1979 OTL with the crippling effect on all parts of the country, economically and socially as well as fragmenting so much of our communities.  My question is what Britain might be like if it avoids decades of such policies rather than the 1st few years.