basis for the party to split. Howard argued that those factors meant that the result of the election "was pre-ordained". In an essay exploring why Healey never became Prime Minister, Steve Richards notes that while in 1980 "Healey was widely seen as the obvious successor to Callaghan", and that sections of the media reacted with "disbelief" at Labour not choosing him to be leader the "choice of Foot was not as perverse as it seemed". He argues Labour MPs were looking for a figure from the left who could unite the wider party with the leadership. Richards states that despite being on the left of the party Foot was not a "tribal politician" and had proved he could work with those of different ideologies and had been a loyal deputy to Callaghan. Thus Foot, rather than Healey, "was seen as the unity candidate". Richards also claims that Healey's election "would have been seen as an act of provocation by a significant section" of Labour's membership as the party had been moving leftwards. Aftermath Foot's reaction to his victory included telling reporters that he was "as strong in my socialist convictions as I have ever been", suggesting that he would not abandon his position on Labour's left. Foot's election was considered an important factor in the creation of the SDP by figures from Labour's right the following year. Ultimately Foot's hopes of leading Labour to victory were dashed as the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher won a landslide victory at the next general election in 1983 and Labour achieved only a 27.6% share of the vote, its worst performance since 1918. This was the last leadership election to be conducted amongst Members of Parliament only; an electoral college was introduced for future contests. Notes References 1980 Labour Party leadership election Labour Party (UK) leadership election Michael Foot Labour Party leadership election (UK)