After being defeated by Reagan for President in 84 Walter Mondale asked George McGovern "How long did it take for you to get over your defeat to Nixon in 72?" To which McGovern replied "I'll let you know when it happens!"
Coming from Australia, I find comparing and contrasting the political histories of the the different Westminster style realms fascinating. How different would UK politics be if it had been Labour that oversaw the neoliberal era, as in Australia? How different would Canadian politics be if it introduced MMP voting, as in New Zealand? So many interesting counterfactuals
It was irrelevant, the media made it into an issue. Most people did not see it at the time it was broadcast on the night but it was weaponised afterwards to undermine Kinnock's chances of winning.
@@wilsonfisk6626 Fared not faired. Labour would not have moved even further to the right under Blair, there would have been no British involvement in Iraq, Britain would have followed a more continental European form of social democracy and Labour would have been in office during the ERM crisis of September 1992. It destroyed the Conservatives economic credibility and contributed to the Labour victory of 1997.
@@eightiesmusic1984 Labour would have lost in 1997 because they wanted to join the ERM at an even higher exchange rate. Therefore the Conservatives would be in power. As for Iraq it depends if the Conservatives stayed in power in the 2001 election (pre 9/11).
@carlharding5311 Irrelevant to the election result. People voting against their own self interest since 1979 is excruciatingly embarrassing and foolhardy but is obviously trivial compared to a few seconds of something unimportant in 1992.
Not enough of the general public could ever quite trust themselves to vote Labour whilst he was leader but he of course paved the way for what followed. Its almost a shame he didn't win in 1992 we may well have been spared 13 years of New Labour
Rubbish. New Labour is one of the best things that happened to this country! One of the best reforming Labour administrations and the Labour Party now is pitiful.
inspector morse Those nutters absolutely obiliterated you. And Blair went into war was hugely unpopular and still left you with only 198 MPs in 2005 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Know Nothing The opposition has a front bench which shadows each government minister, which is called the shadow cabinet. For example if the foreign secretary is taking questions in the house of commons the shadow foreign secretary is likely to be questioning/attacking/opposing on behalf of the main opposition. Michael Foot was the Labour leader from 1980 (or 81) till the 1983 general election.
@@AsadAli-jc5tg Well, there's one animal that makes an appearance in the section on David Cameron, but I don't know if it would qualify as a cute tale.
@@dlk1dlk1 No, not really. The 1983 Labour Manifesto was not the views of Michael Foot (he did agree with it on unilateral nuclear disarmament), the views of the shadow cabinet or PLP. If Labour had won a majority they would not have implemented it. They were the views of Tony Benn. The NEC and shadow cabinet wrote that manifesto specifically to destroy Benn's career. I think that decision (based on the result of the Darlington by-election three months earlier) cost Labour at least sixty seats and it took nine years to reverse the damage I think was caused in one month.
@@dlk1dlk1 Be that as it may, most Labour candidates were opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament. Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock would not have been able to carry the PLP with them had there been a Labour Government.
@@adampowell5376 I'm not sure about that, in those days, the PLP was far to the left of what it is now. After all, they had voted for Foot as leader and many moderates had left or joined the SDP. In addition, deselection of MPs was introduced.
@@bachiltonsbattlegrounds3702 Portillo as more likely. 1983 was obviously going to be disaster our for Labour. 2005 was not a big Labour victory and Portillo being there instead of Howard may have made a difference post Iraq war
Is Ukraine yes they partition it. Are frighten of Art Bezrukavenko yes Thomas He 60% done his job Italy general election that hit home in England London Britain it win. Appreciate your help and work.
@@ThomasDanielsen1000 and that’s the shame of it. They dumped her because she spoke up about undue trade union influence. It took until Kinnock then John Smith for Labour to get to grips with it
He was a reflection of the state of the labour party at the time. As Roy Hattersley said, he wouldn't have been leader if he hadn't been a man on the left wing. Because he was from the left wing, that meant he could never become PM. If he changed his views he'd be accused of dishonesty to try and win.
@@davidparry5310 it is true though that Labour at that time wanted a left winger and as has been shown multiple times the UK will not vote for a left wing Labour Government,
@@davidparry5310 yes reality is complicated and individual circumstances matter. However it is true that Labour have only been elected in the past 50 years as a moderate left of centre party. England is a small c conservative country.
It's a lot easier to change the policies of your party, if you yourself, like Blair for example, have no real convictions in the first place. I think some voters saw through Kinnock, and thought he was either a traitor to the cause, or a red wolf in moderate's clothing, depending on their political leanings. Also, Young though I was, I remember at the time many people saying that they preferred Labour to the Tories, but Major to Kinnock.
@@hunterluxton5976 people in the midlands (east and west), east Anglia etc. large swatches of England not on the south coast or in the north. He was not popular outside traditional Labour ares of Wales, Scotland and Northern England.
RICHARD LAVERSUCH that kind of ties in to Kinnock “not being himself” his exclamations of “WE’RE ALL RIGHT” was the true Kinnock and it didn’t really match
Actually Sheffield is a bit of a myth. Very few people saw the footage until after the election. I'd recommend Martin Westlake's excellent biography of Kinnock for more on this.
No it did not. Right wing myth. It was well received on the night and not reported in negative terms at all. John Smith's shadow budget was the main reason coupled with Major not being Thatcher- he appeared to have detoxified the Tories' image. Labour ad men actually conceded defeat to their opposite numbers working for the Tories in early 1992 because they knew that the propaganda message attacking Labour on tax had worked. In truth, most families would have been better off under Labour's plans but the damage was done. The Sheffield rally is irrelevant to why Labour lost.
Kinnock should have quit after westland.. Jan 86 disaster.. The Welsh wind bag.... He should definitely have quit after the GE 1987... He only won Labour another 20 seats.. Oct 83 - June 87...not good enough.... Smith brown Blair June 87 - Nov 90 would have been a far greater opposition to Thatcher and beyond.. Labour would have won by 40 in 1992...
Kinnock authenticity... Topsy - turvydom... Meet the challenge.. Make the change... Cnd unilateralist.. Becomes a multilateral ist..... You see the contempt disdain.. Reagan showed him in the run up to the GE of 1987 .. Completely ignored.. And dismissed... NO CREDIBILITY
Out of his depth as the last comment states. Not many greats went up against each other. Churchill, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair missed each other. Maybe thats how things go
I think we grossly underestimate how much circumstances affect things. A lot of the greats became the grate because the were incredibly lucky in their timing. Neil Kinnock inherited the labour party when it was in an appalling state. Extremist and divided that lasted for well over a decade.
He had no chance of winning. He was hugely unpopular personally as a leader and the labour party had gained a reputation for being extremist and divided, largely because of Tony Benn and the disgraceful way he behaved and undermined Foot's leadership. The 1983 manifesto wasn't called "the longest suicide note in history" for nothing. Also, the Winter of Discontent had happened four year previously and the public were still very wary of labour because of it.
Would Labour gut UK Monarchy yes Thomas. They £20 Billion net worth in London. Austria won they toast in 1916. Andrew Kirby Englishman Upper class Catholic Liberal Democrats yes Thomas he super rich.
"...in a speech he gave, nearly without a voice." Or substance, or vision except disgust at Thatcherite Britain. All the politicians gifts did Neil the Red have but sadly, not the most important one, the courage of conviction. Some in the Labour party believed in socialism while the Hugh Gaiskell/Roy Jenkins lot had a more "social democratic" promised land in mind.They had a vision of the Britain they wanted to see at least, Maggie Thatcher was building the "no such thing as society" nightmare she believed in. What was Neil Kinnock's Britain? The vision of Michael Foot and the Tribune group? The European fantasy of the SDP splitters? It's funny in these days of Trump and Brexit how suddenly there seems to be a bit of nostalgia for the ole "muddle though" centrists of the last century. Ummm, guess who laid the groundwork for that? Voters in democratic Republics need a choice between ideas and visions not least because when they fail, as monetarism has failed, as Keynesian economics failed, they know who to look to for an alternative vision. I'm not saying we need to elect philosophers but it might be helpful to elect some politicians who at least believed in the vision of one or two of them (with personal modifications or additions of course).
You severely take the "no such thing as society" out of context. When Thatcher said that, she argued that there is no actor called "society" that can do something or fund something. She pointed out individuals, families and the state as actually existing actors. And while that leaves out a couple of other actors, it is basically a correct observation and a valid blow to all these empty demands that "society should" do this or that.
