(03 Jan 2014, 11:16 pm)aureolin wrote Yep, she was far too much of a control freak to allow anything close to that.

Whilst I agree that the country would have been a different place if she was forced to call a general election in the mid-80's, I also worry to think in what way different it would have been. The potential backlash something like this would have caused, not to mention the turn in public opinion, would have surely lead to a Labour majority - a majority lead by Neil Kinnock.

I find people seem to forget that Kinnock was openly critical to the tactics (not the dispute) imposed by Arthur Scargill and the NUM at the time. I'm in no way condoning strike action without a membership ballot, but the far left were rife in the Labour party at the time. I really think this would have ended in complete division and despair for the Labour party if they were in power at the time of the 1984 strike.

Good points.
Politics was in turmoil at the time, with the infighting within Labour, the defection of the gang of four and David Steel leading the liberals - anyone winning that election would have had to step up a level.
Kinnock may have even had a bigger battle on his hands to stay in charge of Labour.

Saying that, anything had to be better than Thatcher.

Economically, I wonder how different the country would be.
A lower reliance on the financial/service sector and bigger manufacturing levels than now or back to the dark days of the 70's?
Suppose we will never know, but I doubt anyone else would have thought up the poll tax!