Explaining why Michael Foot did so poorly in 1983 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 07:50:48 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Explaining why Michael Foot did so poorly in 1983 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Explaining why Michael Foot did so poorly in 1983  (Read 1265 times)
Torrain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,071
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

« on: April 25, 2020, 01:34:45 PM »

I've never met anyone who had a bad thing to say about Foot. From all accounts, and in all the interview footage I've seen, he appears to be a truly decent man. Principled, and without the arrogance that seems to plague contemporaries like Tony Benn (maybe that's just me. Never could listen to that guy for too long).

But after the Falklands, when Thatcher was at her strongest, it was the worst possible moment for Foot to be leader.

If Harold Wilson had stepped down after losing to Heath in 1970, and Foot had replaced him, I think he could have been far more successful, and almost certainly have formed a decent majority over Heath in 1974, as Wilson did. But for the 80s, he was too far outside the Overton window.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.017 seconds with 12 queries.