Thatcher wins 1990 leadership election?

what if thatcher won the 1990 leadership election?

I think she would have gone for a 1991 election, a hung parliament, and then a lib-lab coalition

AdmiralBlake said:

what if thatcher won the 1990 leadership election?

I think she would have gone for a 1991 election, a hung parliament, and then a lib-lab coalition

Click to expand...

She would not have been able to win the 1990 leadership, she was kicked out of the Leadership after the vote of no confidence.

Especially against strong condendants like John Major, Michael Heseltine and Douglas Hurd.

Although a parliament with Margaret Thatcher Vs Tony Blair would be brilliant, however having Paddy Ashdown as her Deputy would be laughable.

She only lost the first round of voting by 4 votes, and my understanding is she stood down voluntarilly and reluctantly from the second round. Could easilly have gone differently - for instance, she didn't come back to England for the first round of the leadership challenge. She was in Europe and voted by proxy.

I don't know that she'd have had an election in 1991. She would have wanted time to negotiate Maastricht and work out the Poll Tax. No point holding an election with upset about it at its peak.

I also don't think there would have been a Lib-Lab coalition, I believe Ashdown didn't want to work with Kinnock, he saw the Labour party under Kinnock as shambolic, and as the Lib Dem's competition. I think the best one could get with a PoD of 1990 is confidence and supply.

That said, I recognise my knowledge on this is limited, and some people here know a heck of a lot more than me.

A slight addendum to that is that if Paddy was offered STV, I think he would swallow his pride and work with Kinnock, though given that Labour's policy review on electoral reform was in progress at the time, the best they would have gotten, I think, is a Royal Commission with the possibility of electoral reform at the end of it if the committee recommended it.

BrotherSideways said:

She only lost the first round of voting by 4 votes, and my understanding is she stood down voluntarilly and reluctantly from the second round. Could easilly have gone differently - for instance, she didn't come back to England for the first round of the leadership challenge. She was in Europe and voted by proxy.

I don't know that she'd have had an election in 1991. She would have wanted time to negotiate Maastricht and work out the Poll Tax. No point holding an election with upset about it at its peak.

I also don't think there would have been a Lib-Lab coalition, I believe Ashdown didn't want to work with Kinnock, he saw the Labour party under Kinnock as shambolic, and as the Lib Dem's competition. I think the best one could get with a PoD of 1990 is confidence and supply.

That said, I recognise my knowledge on this is limited, and some people here know a heck of a lot more than me.

Click to expand...

if it were a hung parliament in 1991, then ashdown would have worked with Kinnock. There was no way he would support thatcher, or support a minority labour government. He would have formed a coalition, and probably been foreign secretary and deputy pm.

I think she would have gone in 1991, just because she would have seen a slight improvement in the polls due to the gulf war. Either June or October 1991.

If Thatcher hangs in and wins a leadership election, you've now got a Conservative Party that publicly hacked itself up - and you're going to have Thatcher viciously rearranging her Cabinet to remove anyone who was against her. That's one bitter government and party and a lot of poison oozing out of the mud. Would Labour need a coalition government with the Lib Dems or is this going to be enough to tip them into a narrow majority or just enough for minority leadership?

Since Labour at the time is a mess, coalition is probably best for stability (Lib Dems as an influence) and getting anything done (less factionism that would weaken the government and prevent them from uniting to vote bills through).

The Tories lose in 1992, probably a Lib/Lab coalition takes over. This result kills the Dolchosslegende that if Thatcher hadn't been unseated she would have vetoed Maastricht, strangling the EU at birth, everyone would have learnt to love the poll tax resulting in her beating Kinnock and then going on and on. Losing an election destroys the image of Thatcher as an invincible Boadicea who was betrayed by her own tribe allowing the Tories to move on and not move so far to the right and become so Eurosceptic. How a Kinnock coalition would have turned out is a big question, if an equivalent of Black Wednesday happens then they may be in trouble, it's forgotten now but Labour and the LD's were just as committed to the ERM. In a best case for the Tories the coalition is a disaster and then standing on the steps of No. 10 on May 2nd 1997 is...

BrotherSideways said:

A slight addendum to that is that if Paddy was offered STV, I think he would swallow his pride and work with Kinnock, though given that Labour's policy review on electoral reform was in progress at the time, the best they would have gotten, I think, is a Royal Commission with the possibility of electoral reform at the end of it if the committee recommended it.

Click to expand...

I may not be the smartest person, but why would offering Paddy a Sexually Transmitted Virus make him swallow his pride?

Charles RB said:

If Thatcher hangs in and wins a leadership election, you've now got a Conservative Party that publicly hacked itself up - and you're going to have Thatcher viciously rearranging her Cabinet to remove anyone who was against her. That's one bitter government and party and a lot of poison oozing out of the mud. Would Labour need a coalition government with the Lib Dems or is this going to be enough to tip them into a narrow majority or just enough for minority leadership?

Since Labour at the time is a mess, coalition is probably best for stability (Lib Dems as an influence) and getting anything done (less factionism that would weaken the government and prevent them from uniting to vote bills through).

Click to expand...

Neil Kinnock could just sit with his feet on the desk and see Thatcher pulled apart by her own party.

Jonathan said:

I may not be the smartest person, but why would offering Paddy a Sexually Transmitted Virus make him swallow his pride?



Neil Kinnock could just sit with his feet on the desk and see Thatcher pulled apart by her own party.

Click to expand...

haha, STV is a voting system

Jonathan said:

I may not be the smartest person, but why would offering Paddy a Sexually Transmitted Virus make him swallow his pride?

Click to expand...

That line amused me more than it should of!

It means Single Transferable Vote, its an alternative to the FPTP system of voting.

Agree that Thatcher staying on is plausible, and that if she had her party would most certainly be booted from power 1991-92.

My questions -- how likely or plausible is it that this new goverment (Labour or Coalition) could do well enough in the next non-snap election (so 1994-97) that the Tories stay out of power for at least another five years (so not before 1999 at the earliest)?

If this is possible, how does Neil Kinnock's premiership fare?

The Oncoming Storm said:

In a best case for the Tories the coalition is a disaster and then standing on the steps of No. 10 on May 2nd 1997 is...

Click to expand...

Labour would have to crash hard for the Tories to get back in by 1997 - thenj again if they did, I can see Major being the Tory leader. As in OTL, he's the senior guy that isn't seen as unacceptable by all factions; if Kinnock does a bad job, Major's 'dull' personality and his chartered accountant looks will probably help. He just comes off like a safe pair of hands

Jonathan said:

Neil Kinnock could just sit with his feet on the desk and see Thatcher pulled apart by her own party.

Click to expand...

While smoking a big cigar and playing Ode To Joy.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Agree that Thatcher staying on is plausible, and that if she had her party would most certainly be booted from power 1991-92.

My questions -- how likely or plausible is it that this new goverment (Labour or Coalition) could do well enough in the next non-snap election (so 1994-97) that the Tories stay out of power for at least another five years (so not before 1999 at the earliest)?

If this is possible, how does Neil Kinnock's premiership fare?

Click to expand...

this is my view

Margaret Thatcher 1979 - 1991: 1979, 1983, 1987
Neil Kinnock 1991 - 1995: 1991
John Major 1995 - 1999: 1995
Tony Blair 1999 - 2009: 1999, 2003, 2007
David Miliband 2009 - 2012
William Hague 2012 - :2012

AdmiralBlake said:

this is my view

Margaret Thatcher 1979 - 1991: 1979, 1983, 1987
Neil Kinnock 1991 - 1995: 1991
John Major 1995 - 1999: 1995

Click to expand...

Can I take that to mean you don't find it plausible for Labour to do well in the election after a 1991 (or 92) win? That they're invariably doomed if they win that early? I realize the Black Wednesday happened around this time OTL, but it's not a sure thing that it would necessarily happen TTL, or even if it did that it would kill a Labour government in the cradle. Or is the idea of an even modestly successful Kinnock Premiership just too strange to contemplate? Or am I missing something here?

AdmiralBlake said:

what if thatcher won the 1990 leadership election?

I think she would have gone for a 1991 election, a hung parliament, and then a lib-lab coalition

Click to expand...

1991? When the economy was deep in recession, inflation was still high and many Tory voters were moaning about negative equity, the Poll Tax and high interest rates? Plus the image of a divided party and a Prime Minister who was seen as increasingly out of touch with reality.

Why would she run for an election when she had nothing to offer the electorate except fear of Kinnock who was probably at the peak of his game in 1990 until the appearance of John Major wrong footed him.

She would wait as long as possible (1992) so that she could show lower inflation and a recovering economy.

Indeed, in the unlikely event that the Tory Party let her take the party into a general election in 1991/1992, she would be seen as a woman detached from her party, and detached from reality. I doubt there would be a Labour majority and the Lib Dems would be wary of being seen as Labour-lite in their first general election, so it would be interesting. I could see a very slim Tory lead in the HoC with the Lib Dems dropping them up, but as a condition for a coalition or S&C, Thatcher would have to go.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Can I take that to mean you don't find it plausible for Labour to do well in the election after a 1991 (or 92) win? That they're invariably doomed if they win that early? I realize the Black Wednesday happened around this time OTL, but it's not a sure thing that it would necessarily happen TTL, or even if it did that it would kill a Labour government in the cradle. Or is the idea of an even modestly successful Kinnock Premiership just too strange to contemplate? Or am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

Working from memory here but whoever was in office on Black Wednesday was going to take a massive hit. It was the deal breaker so whoever's in office will need to be both brilliant and lucky to survive the next election. So yes, they are invariably doomed regardless of party or personality.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Agree that Thatcher staying on is plausible, and that if she had her party would most certainly be booted from power 1991-92.

My questions -- how likely or plausible is it that this new goverment (Labour or Coalition) could do well enough in the next non-snap election (so 1994-97) that the Tories stay out of power for at least another five years (so not before 1999 at the earliest)?

If this is possible, how does Neil Kinnock's premiership fare?

Click to expand...

Principle in Power is an interesting timeline on this subject.

Presuming a 1992 election, and a coalition, the next election would be 1997. The Lib Dems aren't going to sell themselves short of time in power.

Things that will happen:

• Devolution in Scotland
• The establishment of unitary authorities in the majority of local government areas.
• Abolition of Clause 28

Things that won't happen:

• British Rail privatisation - though there would be deregulation of private funding.

Things that might happen:

• Black Tuesday, depending on how Labour handles the situation - they may devalue the currency, but even then, currency speculation was an international problem, and something was going to give.
• Devolution in Wales - it was always close and a referendum may not get a yes vote.
• STV in local governments
• STV in national governments
• Lords reform - though I can't see this as a priority.
• Maastricht. I don't think it was so easy for Thatcher to veto entirely. She wanted in on the decision making. Without Maastricht, we may get a two tier Europe making decisions against British interests, such as afederal, non-Atlanticist joint defence organisation.

Could Kinnock win another election in 1996/1992? ...Maybe. Depends on the Tories. I wonder who they would elect in this situation.

AdmiralBlake said:

what if thatcher won the 1990 leadership election?

I think she would have gone for a 1991 election, a hung parliament, and then a lib-lab coalition

Click to expand...

Would she have lost?

I seem to recall that there was a lot of people who thought that a bunch of bikering self serving Conservatives had stabbed her in the back and that the subsequant 92 election was only just won as a result.

A lot of people (not just in this country) vote for the 'leader' and not necessarily the party or its policies - and Thatcher for all her faults was seen as a strong leader especially when you consider who was leading the opposition at the time.

Once she was replaced by a 'nobody' who was no threat to the various factions in the Conservative party - this 'strong leader' vote winner has gone - Im actually suprised that the Conservatives won in 92 and certainly not suprised that 'Blair' and his cool Brittainia party swept in to power in 97 after 5 years of Conservative in-fighting.

I feel quite dirty admitting this but I was just old enough to vote in 92 and if I'm honest I would have voted for Thatcher and I remember not voting for the conservatives based on my perception at the time of them being a traitorius bunch of sleeze bags.

Would the Poll Tax issue have lost her the next election?

I'm not sure - I think she would have won with more of the vote than John Major did.

Thatcher was certainly hated but and this is the important bit trusted to lead.

I'm pretty sure in her memoirs Thatcher says she'd have gone for an election in 1991. That said, Thatcher ITTL has been pretty badly weakened, and I think even she is going to have some compromise forced on her by Hurd, Major, et al, so the Party may "strongly advise" the PM to hold on until 1992. Whatever the case, the ensuing election will be interesting. Thatcher's ratings in 1990 were, iirc, well below the levels they had been prior to the victories in '83 and '87, and even allowing for the usual swingback towards the Government, the Tories would have a mountain to climb. I think on balance, a Labour victory in this election is probable, although the Kinnock factor will certainly work against them. All outcomes here are possible, ranging from a small Labour to a small Conservative majority. The one thing I cannot see is a decisive victory for either party.