The Prime Ministers Speech today

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

Correct. Psephologists sneer at that claim, the Falklands was over a year before the election for one thing. Gerald Kaufman got it right when he described the 1983 Labour manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history". They were unelectable.

Also, the economy was starting to go through the gears around the middle of 1982, following a horrific recession. That, and the presence of the SDP splitting to left wing vote mean any claims of a putative Labour victory in '83 to be in the realm of fantasy.

It's also worth noting that Thatcher could have waited until May '84 before calling a General Election if she felt it was to her advantage to do so.

The reason she did not do so was to take full advantage of the "Falklands Factor".

Labour may not have worn that election anyway but the Falklands proved to be a significant advantage to the Tories.

No question and her majority was enormous. I think winning the Falklands helped her engage for the first time with many of the upper working-class voters who became her acolytes in the years that followed.

My point was aimed at the 'but for' suggestion in relation to the Falklands, which doesn't stand up to any worthwhile scrutiny and fails to understand how the British electorate operate. As Henkeman said, their manifesto made Labour utterly unelectable. Middle England holds too many cards for a radical left-wing agenda to hold sway in a General Election.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

Correct. Psephologists sneer at that claim, the Falklands was over a year before the election for one thing. Gerald Kaufman got it right when he described the 1983 Labour manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history". They were unelectable.

Also, the economy was starting to go through the gears around the middle of 1982, following a horrific recession. That, and the presence of the SDP splitting to left wing vote mean any claims of a putative Labour victory in '83 to be in the realm of fantasy.

It's also worth noting that Thatcher could have waited until May '84 before calling a General Election if she felt it was to her advantage to do so.

The reason she did not do so was to take full advantage of the "Falklands Factor".

Labour may not have worn that election anyway but the Falklands proved to be a significant advantage to the Tories.

The Falklands finished in June 1982, the election wasn't until June 1983, a full year later. The idea that the "Falklands Factor" lasted a full year is in defiance of common sense and all political precedent. Bear in mind that Labour were enthusiastically behind the campaign to reclaim the Falklands in Parliament too, and it's pure revisionism to try and claim it had much of a bearing. The reason she went for June '83 was because the economy had picked up from its nadir in 1981. "It's the economy, stupid" was as true then as it is now.

 

[Mike D]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

Also, the economy was starting to go through the gears around the middle of 1982, following a horrific recession. That, and the presence of the SDP splitting to left wing vote mean any claims of a putative Labour victory in '83 to be in the realm of fantasy.

It's also worth noting that Thatcher could have waited until May '84 before calling a General Election if she felt it was to her advantage to do so.

The reason she did not do so was to take full advantage of the "Falklands Factor".

Labour may not have worn that election anyway but the Falklands proved to be a significant advantage to the Tories.

No question and her majority was enormous. I think winning the Falklands helped her engage for the first time with many of the upper working-class voters who became her acolytes in the years that followed.

My point was aimed at the 'but for' suggestion in relation to the Falklands, which doesn't stand up to any worthwhile scrutiny and fails to understand how the British electorate operate. As Henkeman said, their manifesto made Labour utterly unelectable. Middle England holds too many cards for a radical left-wing agenda to hold sway in a General Election.

On the flipside though GDM a right wing agenda will not win either. The centre ground is the one that's often lauded about being the winning formula in this country.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

The reason she did not do so was to take full advantage of the "Falklands Factor".

Labour may not have worn that election anyway but the Falklands proved to be a significant advantage to the Tories.

No question and her majority was enormous. I think winning the Falklands helped her engage for the first time with many of the upper working-class voters who became her acolytes in the years that followed.

My point was aimed at the 'but for' suggestion in relation to the Falklands, which doesn't stand up to any worthwhile scrutiny and fails to understand how the British electorate operate. As Henkeman said, their manifesto made Labour utterly unelectable. Middle England holds too many cards for a radical left-wing agenda to hold sway in a General Election.

On the flipside though GDM a right wing agenda will not win either. The centre ground is the one that's often lauded about being the winning formula in this country.

The British electorate fundamentally dislikes extremes one way or the other. At no point in our history have we ever elected to Parliament anyone standing on a Communist or Fascist platform. Noting the response to the extremes highlights the general approach of the electorate.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

The reason she did not do so was to take full advantage of the "Falklands Factor".

Labour may not have worn that election anyway but the Falklands proved to be a significant advantage to the Tories.

No question and her majority was enormous. I think winning the Falklands helped her engage for the first time with many of the upper working-class voters who became her acolytes in the years that followed.

My point was aimed at the 'but for' suggestion in relation to the Falklands, which doesn't stand up to any worthwhile scrutiny and fails to understand how the British electorate operate. As Henkeman said, their manifesto made Labour utterly unelectable. Middle England holds too many cards for a radical left-wing agenda to hold sway in a General Election.

On the flipside though GDM a right wing agenda will not win either. The centre ground is the one that's often lauded about being the winning formula in this country.

Completely agree.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

Firstly, he was on course to win the next election but the Falklands issue gave Thatcher new appeal that kept her in power for way too long.

To believe that a Labour party under Michael Foot would have won the '83 election if it wasn't for the Falkands War is hopelessly simplistic and wholly wrong.

I never said he would have won it, only that at the time of the invasion Thatcher was the most unpopular leader in polling history and that put Labour in a good position to exploit that. With the economy only just showing an improvement in the South, the Tories may not have had enough time to gain support to get a majority. Maybe the phrase 'on course' was the wrong one to use, but it could be argued that the Labour leadership would have felt pleased with the status given the polls. Either way, the war changed everything, Labour had to side with Thatcher to some degree while the conflict continued. Afterwards they did not have the momentum that the Tories had and Foot's image was a major issue against Thatcher's.

In any case, no-one knows what would have happened and as there are conflicting opinions out there, it is ridiculous to accuse anyone that they are wholly wrong or having hopelessly simplistic opinions.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

Firstly, he was on course to win the next election but the Falklands issue gave Thatcher new appeal that kept her in power for way too long.

To believe that a Labour party under Michael Foot would have won the '83 election if it wasn't for the Falkands War is hopelessly simplistic and wholly wrong.

I never said he would have won it, only that at the time of the invasion Thatcher was the most unpopular leader in polling history and that put Labour in a good position to exploit that. With the economy only just showing an improvement in the South, the Tories may not have had enough time to gain support to get a majority. Maybe the phrase 'on course' was the wrong one to use, but it could be argued that the Labour leadership would have felt pleased with the status given the polls. Either way, the war changed everything, Labour had to side with Thatcher to some degree while the conflict continued. Afterwards they did not have the momentum that the Tories had and Foot's image was a major issue against Thatcher's.

In any case, no-one knows what would have happened and as there are conflicting opinions out there, it is ridiculous to accuse anyone that they are wholly wrong or having hopelessly simplistic opinions.

'On course' was your unilateral choice of words and what I commented upon. On that basis there was nothing ridiculous in what I said. 'On course' seems to suggest discernibly more than your subsequent post......errrrr........suggests.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

A far more accomplished politician than his detractors give him credit for. His instincts for survival are exceptional I reckon.

Not unlike a cockroach

LOL

 

[Henkeman]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

It's worth noting the opinion polls from 1979 to 1983:

You can see that Labour's position was rapidly deteriorating before the Falklands, and that the Tories had already moved ahead. This is all complicated by a few things, Callaghan was personally popular, the creation of the SDP in 1981 hammered Labour in particular and then of course the Falklands War.

You can see the major spike in Conservative support in the immediate aftermath of victory, but their position declined from there - which is exactly what you'd expect to see. In the run up to the election itself, those Tory figures strengthen substantially - partly because of the civil war in Labour ranks and the lurch to the left, partly because of a booming economy, and partly because sitting governments usually do improve their position as an election looms. Don't forget either that things like "Right to Buy" were wildly popular amongst C, D, E1 and E2 sections of the electorate, and that was a major part of Conservative support.

 

[DelToro]

Re: The Prime Ministers Speach today

Also, the economy was starting to go through the gears around the middle of 1982, following a horrific recession. That, and the presence of the SDP splitting to left wing vote mean any claims of a putative Labour victory in '83 to be in the realm of fantasy.

It's also worth noting that Thatcher could have waited until May '84 before calling a General Election if she felt it was to her advantage to do so.

The reason she did not do so was to take full advantage of the "Falklands Factor".

Labour may not have worn that election anyway but the Falklands proved to be a significant advantage to the Tories.

The Falklands finished in June 1982, the election wasn't until June 1983, a full year later. The idea that the "Falklands Factor" lasted a full year is in defiance of common sense and all political precedent. Bear in mind that Labour were enthusiastically behind the campaign to reclaim the Falklands in Parliament too, and it's pure revisionism to try and claim it had much of a bearing. The reason she went for June '83 was because the economy had picked up from its nadir in 1981. "It's the economy, stupid" was as true then as it is now.

If it was about the economy alone the Tories would have deferred the election for a year.

During the election of 1983 the term "Falklands Factor" was contemporary currency.