How can you make Peter Shore Labour Leader?

[Time Enough]

Peter Shore is someone that comes up often as Alternative Labour Leaders but from what I’ve heard it’s very hard to do given his syncretic beliefs, general behaviour and generally not being as charming and popular as folks like Foot, Kinnock or Smith.

But what would be a way to get Shore to become leader?

I had an idea that Robert Maxwell being more powerful within the Labour Party would probably go with Shore due to him being Left Wing but not as Left Wing as per say, Foot or Benn.

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

Shore was the original candidate of the left in 1980, and felt quite betrayed when Foot (who originally encouraged him to stand) stood against him. Foot's reputation as a concilliatory figure and as one of the most likeable figures within the PLP meant that he obtained votes from some unlikely figures. When Foot ran in 1976 he gained the backing of the firmly right wing Bob Mellish and centrist Brian Walden on the basis of his personal reputation. In 1980 Harold Wilson bizzarely voted for Healey on the first ballot and Foot in the second. It's unlikely Shore would have gained quite this array of support from resolutely moderate MPs. This is quite ironic, as as shadow chancellor from 1980-83 Shore came to despise the Bennite left within the party and except for his staunch-eurosceptisim (his widow was later to stand for UKIP) followed the Kinnock soft left towards the political centre.

Perhaps the most plausible POD for Shore emerging as leader is in 1983. In July 1983 Neil Kinnock - already the clear frontrunner for the Labour leadership - suffered a very serious car accident from which he was very lucky to escape serious injury. Had Kinnock been killed Shore would have been a strong candidate to be Foot's successor, as Shore's potential support base of Tribunite MPs and trade unions opted for Kinnock en masse.

 

[Time Enough]

Perhaps the most plausible POD for Shore emerging as leader is in 1983. In July 1983 Neil Kinnock - already the clear frontrunner for the Labour leadership - suffered a very serious car accident from which he was very lucky to escape serious injury. Had Kinnock been killed Shore would have been a strong candidate to be Foot's successor, as Shore's potential support base of Tribunite MPs and trade unions opted for Kinnock en masse.

Of course he would have to convince other candidates like John Silken or Robin Cook to step aside in that case, given they would also want to compete. However if Kinnock was seriously injured (doesn’t even have to die but if it’s a Dick Spring levels I doubt he would run) and Shore could run then maybe he could succeed narrowly against Hattersley (Even with Shore eccentricities and attitude, the Soft Left would still be dominate).

Of course that leads to all sorts of a effects.

 

[marktaha]

Shore had my admiration for his anti-EEC stand.

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

Of course he would have to convince other candidates like John Silken or Robin Cook to step aside in that case, given they would also want to compete. However if Kinnock was seriously injured (doesn’t even have to die but if it’s a Dick Spring levels I doubt he would run) and Shore could run then maybe he could succeed narrowly against Hattersley (Even with Shore eccentricities and attitude, the Soft Left would still be dominate).

Of course that leads to all sorts of a effects.

1983 probably a bit early for Cook to stand, he hadn't yet joined the shadow cabinet. Silkin would perhaps be Shore's most serious potential challenger.
I think Kinnock's accident was on 13th July 1983, and nominations closed on 16th July, so quite a tight window for new candidates to enter.

 

[nezza]

1983 probably a bit early for Cook to stand, he hadn't yet joined the shadow cabinet. Silkin would perhaps be Shore's most serious potential challenger.
I think Kinnock's accident was on 13th July 1983, and nominations closed on 16th July, so quite a tight window for new candidates to enter.

Say Kinnock survived and was elected on a wave of sympathy but his injuries are too severe. He recovers enough to resign as leader and suggests Shore as his replacement. Shore can act as Kinnock's spiritual successor.

 

[Basileus282]

Shore had my admiration for his anti-EEC stand.

In which case would this have lead to a more broadly pro-EU Tory party? Had Shore started re-campaigning to leave the EEC, Thatcher surely would have had to counter by more openly supporting them. And of course having Thatcher be more explicitly pro-EU in her later years massively changes the inception of modern euroscepticism?

 

[Time Enough]

1983 probably a bit early for Cook to stand, he hadn't yet joined the shadow cabinet. Silkin would perhaps be Shore's most serious potential challenger.

Indeed, I think any election would probably be closer (maybe Heffer gets a few more votes) with either Shore or Silken against Hattersley. Also a Shore/Hattersley relationship (especially since Shore would probably be giving Gould a good spot earlier).

It would be interesting seeing a 80s Shore leadership, especially since the ‘Modernisation’ probably wouldn’t be occurring in the same way.

 

[Chris Nation]

In which case would this have lead to a more broadly pro-EU Tory party? Had Shore started re-campaigning to leave the EEC, Thatcher surely would have had to counter by more openly supporting them. And of course having Thatcher be more explicitly pro-EU in her later years massively changes the inception of modern euroscepticism?

I don't think so. Thatcher's views on Europe evolved organically, and went completely against the grain of the Tory establishment. She, like many Britons, was in favour of it when it seemed to be mainly a trading bloc committed to reducing the economic barriers between European nation-states. She, again like many Britons, changed tack when it started morphing into a federalist bureaucracy (i.e. her no, no, no).

 

[marktaha]

Silkin had burned his boats by 1983.

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

Indeed, I think any election would probably be closer (maybe Heffer gets a few more votes) with either Shore or Silken against Hattersley. Also a Shore/Hattersley relationship (especially since Shore would probably be giving Gould a good spot earlier).

It would be interesting seeing a 80s Shore leadership, especially since the ‘Modernisation’ probably wouldn’t be occurring in the same way.

One of the most surprising things about the 1987 election is despite Kinnock and Mandelson running perhaps the best Labour campaign in forty years they only managed to obtain a paltry 1.75% swing and a net gain of 20 seats (and a net gain of only 7 seats in England, with a swing in London towards the Conservatives). Shore would almost certainly not have brought Mandy in, and the 1987 campaign wouldnt have been as slick and polished as OTL, so its not impossible to imagine Labour could suffer a defeat in 1987 even worse than that of 1983.

Jacques Delors' speech to the TUC in 1988 was the seminal moment for Labour - particularly the Kinnockite soft left - in converting from left wing euroscepticism to support for Delor's vision of a 'social europe' - particularly the strengthening of workers rights within the 'Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers' in 1989. Shore was amongst the unconverted, and remained staunchly opposed to the EU until his death. This could put Shore and other soft left figures like Robin Cook and Margaret Beckett into conflict.

​

 

[marktaha]

1975 people were voting yes to save Britain from the unions.
1988 supporting the EEC to save Britain from Thatcherism.

 

[Time Enough]

Silkin had burned his boats by 1983.

I know him running for Deputy may have pissed some folks off, but I always saw that as a Soft Left reaction to Benn more than Healy. Did he do anything else that would annoyed much of the MPs, Unions and CLPs?

One of the most surprising things about the 1987 election is despite Kinnock and Mandelson running perhaps the best Labour campaign in forty years they only managed to obtain a paltry 1.75% swing and a net gain of 20 seats (and a net gain of only 7 seats in England, with a swing in London towards the Conservatives). Shore would almost certainly not have brought Mandy in, and the 1987 campaign wouldnt have been as slick and polished as OTL, so its not impossible to imagine Labour could suffer a defeat in 1987 even worse than that of 1983.

It should be remembered that the 87’ campaign wasn’t entirely a Mandy campaign. I would say the main frontrunners of that campaign were Mandy, Bryan Gould and Philip Gould who were the big stars of that campaign (especially once Cunningham was pushed off to the side because he was shit).

Now I don’t think Shore would be fond of Mandelson, but he was incredibly fond of Bryan Gould, Gould was essentially his protege. So we could see Labour begin to modernise...but under the management of Bryan Gould, which is something.

There is a possibility that a Shore 87’ election would be similar to OTL’s 87 election or just be stagnant. Could see a bizarre Lib Dem/Labour government in the early 90s as a result.

Jacques Delors' speech to the TUC in 1988 was the seminal moment for Labour - particularly the Kinnockite soft left - in converting from left wing euroscepticism to support for Delor's vision of a 'social europe' - particularly the strengthening of workers rights within the 'Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers' in 1989. Shore was amongst the unconverted, and remained staunchly opposed to the EU until his death. This could put Shore and other soft left figures like Robin Cook and Margaret Beckett into conflict.

Yeah, I could see folks like Gould, RKS and Straw forming around Shore as his defenders which could lead to the battles in the late 80s being between the Eurosceptics and the Pro-Europeans.

 

[marktaha]

Silkin sued Tribune in 1982.

 

[Time Enough]

Silkin sued Tribune in 1982.

Huh, didn’t know that. Why’s that?