James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jun 10, 2018 18:08:46 GMT
British PM Callaghan lost a parliamentary vote of no confidence by one vote in March 1979 and this led to defeat at the polls in May. The vote could have been tied - meaning a 'victory' for Callaghan - or gone his way by securing support from others. Let us say he wins that vote by whatever means. It will be close though and he will be under severe pressure. Will his party topple him before the election he has to have that October? Is there anyway he can win that October election?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 10, 2018 21:55:50 GMT
British PM Callaghan lost a parliamentary vote of no confidence by one vote in March 1979 and this led to defeat at the polls in May. The vote could have been tied - meaning a 'victory' for Callaghan - or gone his way by securing support from others. Let us say he wins that vote by whatever means. It will be close though and he will be under severe pressure. Will his party topple him before the election he has to have that October? Is there anyway he can win that October election?
I think his big mistake was not going to the polls in Oct 78, when he was clearly ahead and most people were expecting him to. His famous "waiting at the church" joke when a press crowd expecting the announcement of an election were told he wasn't going to call one then.
After this we had the collapse of his wage restraint programme and the "Winter of Discontent" and this let Thatcher and the Tories into power and the rest is history. If he had gone then and won a clear majority you would almost certainly had union problems during the winter but there is a chance that the Labour party, still largely dominated by its right wing elements, would have gone for forced reforms to restrain the unions rather than Thatcher's desire for total reversal with [mis-]management having largely untrammeled power. Also it would have been Labour rather than the Tories who would have benefited from North Sea Oil rather than the Tories and it would probably have been used better - since its difficult to see it being wasted worse that Thatcher did with pushing unemployment so high along with massive tax cuts for the very rich and asset striping. Plus they would have had a business policy so while probably managed poorly it wouldn't have dumped leading areas of the economy, such as computing and alternative energy like the Tories did. Would very likely still have had a lot of wastage but again I doubt they would have mis-managed the economy as badly as the Tories.
Best option would have been a basic level of reform and continued development then possibly a loss to a Tory party in ~1982 which would have been reformed, having dumped Thatcher's ideological crap as a disaster. Both parties would have continued to be far from optimum but a lot better than the government we're had since 79 OTL.
Anyway diversion over. In terms of the OP I doubt him clinging on to October. His government were fatally wounded by the chaos the unions made of the country during the winter. Especially since nobody realised at the time things could get even worse. Most likely he would still have gone in May or June as I doubt he could maintain support much longer plus hanging on until he had to go would have look like a broken government clinging to power and probably meant he lost even more heavily.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jun 11, 2018 7:23:23 GMT
Change the year and it's Gordon Brown 2007 when it comes to the error of not calling an early election.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 11, 2018 14:57:43 GMT
Change the year and it's Gordon Brown 2007 when it comes to the error of not calling an early election.
Very true. Possibly similarly if May had gone for a mandate in 2015 when she came into office instead of saying she wouldn't then doing so a year later.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 11, 2018 15:06:41 GMT
So how would he handle the Falklands War if it still happens.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 11, 2018 15:27:34 GMT
So how would he handle the Falklands War if it still happens.
This assumes that Labour is still in power when it happens. IIRC there were reports that intelligence suggested the Argentinians were looking at an attack ~1978 and the government sent a SSN to the S Atlantic and let the junta knows that and the latter decided it wouldn't be a wise move to pick a fight with Britain. Might be that presuming they get the same warning they respond on a similar way, which might make a more desperate junta back down or might not. If they don't get warning or ignore them then the war would be on pretty much as OTL although a lot would depend on how the government had gone in the previous few years. Pretty certain a Labour government would fight but how the forces available to it varied from OTL I wouldn't know. In theory a Labour government is more likely to make cuts but Thatcher had announced cuts in naval spending, such as selling off one of the new Invincible class CVs and scrapping the old ice patrol ship Endurance, which was operating in the S Atlantic and has been seen as what persuaded the junta that Britain wouldn't fight to retake the islands. Fortunately they were wrong and also we managed to win.
Not sure if the intelligence services didn't pick up on hints in 82 or whether they did and the Tory government ignored them.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 11, 2018 15:31:29 GMT
Not sure if the intelligence services didn't pick up on hints in 82 or whether they did and the Tory government ignored them.
Going of the thread now, are there are no people out there in Britain who think it was a clever plot by the Iron Lady, that she knew of the 82 Intel of a posabile Argentinian invasion but did not do anything in order to to show herself as a strong world leader when the Argentinian invasion happened.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 11, 2018 15:48:42 GMT
Going of the thread now, are there are no people out there in Britain who think it was a clever plot by the Iron Lady, that she knew of the 82 Intel of a posabile Argentinian invasion but did not do anything in order to to show herself as a strong world leader when the Argentinian invasion happened. Possibly but frankly I don't think she's intelligent enough for that. From reports she went into something of a panic on news of the invasion and it was the former MP Macmillian that pushed her into "send a task-force". Plus given the costs of war and her desire to cut spending so much, to help fund her tax cuts it seems unlikely. Not to mention the intelligent thing to do if you wanted to win a quick war is to move forces into position to ambush the attackers and defeat the initial attack, or at least cause it heavy losses. That would make a later liberation of the islands a lot easier.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 11, 2018 15:52:45 GMT
Going of the thread now, are there are no people out there in Britain who think it was a clever plot by the Iron Lady, that she knew of the 82 Intel of a posabile Argentinian invasion but did not do anything in order to to show herself as a strong world leader when the Argentinian invasion happened. Possibly but frankly I don't think she's intelligent enough for that. From reports she went into something of a panic on news of the invasion and it was the former MP Macmillian that pushed her into "send a task-force". Plus given the costs of war and her desire to cut spending so much, to help fund her tax cuts it seems unlikely. Not to mention the intelligent thing to do if you wanted to win a quick war is to move forces into position to ambush the attackers and defeat the initial attack, or at least cause it heavy losses. That would make a later liberation of the islands a lot easier.So how would Callaghan handle it, ore anybody who is PM in 82.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 11, 2018 15:56:31 GMT
Possibly but frankly I don't think she's intelligent enough for that. From reports she went into something of a panic on news of the invasion and it was the former MP Macmillian that pushed her into "send a task-force". Plus given the costs of war and her desire to cut spending so much, to help fund her tax cuts it seems unlikely. Not to mention the intelligent thing to do if you wanted to win a quick war is to move forces into position to ambush the attackers and defeat the initial attack, or at least cause it heavy losses. That would make a later liberation of the islands a lot easier. So how would Callaghan handle it, ore anybody who is PM in 82.
Probably basically in a similar way. Instruct the military to liberate the islands and largely leave them to do it. Might be a little better handing of intel as there were some reports that planned attacks, think mainly leading up to Goose Green were leaked by the government for publicity reasons, which seems bloody stupid, even for Thatcher and her cronies.
The key factors might be any differences in force levels and preparations and if say a Labour government in Britain, say having won an election in autumn 78, then what has happened in the US and relations with whoever is President there.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 11, 2018 15:57:56 GMT
So how would Callaghan handle it, ore anybody who is PM in 82. Probably basically in a similar way. Instruct the military to liberate the islands and largely leave them to do it. Might be a little better handing of intel as there were some reports that planned attacks, think mainly leading up to Goose Green were leaked by the government for publicity reasons, which seems bloody stupid, even for Thatcher and her cronies. The key factors might be any differences in force levels and preparations and if say a Labour government in Britain, say having won an election in autumn 78, then what has happened in the US and relations with whoever is President there.
So you think a Callaghan hold on in 79 could effect the United States presidential election of 1980.
|
|
insect
Banned
Posts: 380
Likes: 71
|
Post by insect on Jun 12, 2018 0:33:47 GMT
Yes he can hold on..if he can try to prevent Industrial disputes and widespread strikes
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 12, 2018 10:24:57 GMT
Probably basically in a similar way. Instruct the military to liberate the islands and largely leave them to do it. Might be a little better handing of intel as there were some reports that planned attacks, think mainly leading up to Goose Green were leaked by the government for publicity reasons, which seems bloody stupid, even for Thatcher and her cronies. The key factors might be any differences in force levels and preparations and if say a Labour government in Britain, say having won an election in autumn 78, then what has happened in the US and relations with whoever is President there.
So you think a Callaghan hold on in 79 could effect the United States presidential election of 1980.
I doubt he could hold in 79 as I can't see the 'winter of discontent' being avoided. However if he went in autumn 78 he would probably have won. That seems to have been the expectation at the time. This would possibly have discredited Thatcher's hard right views which might have seen her forced to resign and similarly make Reagan's ideas less welcoming. Or you might have some butterflies meaning that the Iranian hostage crisis doesn't occur which might keep Carter in power. Or simply with a Labour government in Britain Reagan if elected might be less friendly to the UK, which could be a problem. Although OTL he came down pretty hard on Britain's side simply because the Argentinians were in the wrong and Britain was such an important ally regardless of who's in power there.
Would still expect a winter of discontent and problems for the government but public anger at the excesses of union power would hopefully see a strong reaction by the government for measured restrictions on excesses of power. You could see Labour weakened, possibly fatally for a while but hopefully with the right winning the internal battle for power and legislation to restrict union excesses rather than what happened OTL with the Tories pushing for an even bigger imbalance to the other extreme and the resultant social and economic damage done since.
As I say the war might not happen TTL if Labour did as they reportedly did in the late 70's and send forces secretly to the area and let the Argentinians know. The latter might still try something between a mixture of their greater desperation by 82 and the feeling that Labour is too distracted by internal unrest. In which case, although it could be tight depending on events, as it was OTL, hopefully we would still win. Which could rescue Labour for a 3rd turn with the resulting outburst of national identity. More likely probably under someone like Dennis Healey as I suspect Callaghan wouldn't want to continue as PM that long.
|
|