The idea that the SDP/Alliance split the "Labour vote" in the 1980s and kept Thatcher in Number 10 is one of the enduring fantasies of the British Left. And like all such fantasies, it encourages bad political choices. 1/6 [THREAD]
First problem: it's a comforting myth that stops Lab thinking about its own failings. Instead of asking why barely 1/4 of the electorate in 1983 backed a party in the grip of the hard Left, it blames defeat on traitors & quislings - always the favoured response of that wing. 2/6
Second: it makes the remarkable assumption that voters who backed the SDP "belonged" to Labour; that for another party to make a case & win their votes was an act of political larceny. That sense of outraged entitlement has never served the Left well. 3/6
Most importantly: it assumes that if the SDP had not existed, its votes would have gone Labour. Yet as Crewe & King (1995) showed, SDP voters were more hostile to Lab's policies & leadership than to the Tories. (This was, after all, a party founded in protest against Labour). 4/6
In other words, forcing voters to pick between Thatcher & Foot in 1983 might have produced an even bigger majority for the Tories. The SDP provided a "safe house" for former Lab voters who could no longer back Foot & co, without having to put a cross in the Conservative box. 5/6
There are lots of good arguments against a Labour split (and some good arguments in favour of it). Drawing the wrong lessons from Labour’s past won’t help either way. 6/6 [END]
As a postscript: I have tremendous respect for @DavidLammy, who has been one of the sanest and most humane voices in this Parliament. Labour needs its First XI back on the field - and in a well-functioning party, he would be high up the batting order.
