WI: Thatcher survives 1990 vote or vote gets delayed?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

What if Thatcher survives her 1990 vote or Tory MP's refuse to have a vote and delay it to after the crisis in the Gulf and future Desert Storm Campaign?

What would the effects on UK politics if this happened?
How would a 1991 'Khaki' GE pan out?
How would a 1992 GE pan out?
Effects on the Labour Party?

Much obliged!

 

[David Flin]

I personally find it helpful if the OP gives a few of their own thoughts to start things off.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I personally find it helpful if the OP gives a few of their own thoughts to start things off.

No worries.

Don't know if the posters as well as yourself think this is viable.

I'm thinking a a small majority if it's a 1991 'Khaki' GE similar to 1992 due to the poll tax . . . but still bye bye to Kinnock, thus making Maggie safe.

But if it's a 1992 GE with John Smiths 'tax & spend' manifesto I'm thinking of another 1987-ish majority with an earlier entrance of Tony Blair as PM after their 1992 defeat avoiding John Smith as leader. The Labour manifesto would've been meat and drink to Maggie T and thus scuppering any chance of the 'wets' getting rid of her.

I'm just curious how future EEC (later EU) relations pan out and how effective in the 1997 GE would a Labour Party be against a possible Maggie led Govt.

Much obliged!

 

[CalBear]

No worries.

Don't know if the posters as well as yourself think this is viable.

I'm thinking a a small majority if it's a 1991 'Khaki' GE similar to 1992 due to the poll tax . . . but still bye bye to Kinnock, thus making Maggie safe.

But if it's a 1992 GE with John Smiths 'tax & spend' manifesto I'm thinking of another 1987-ish majority with an earlier entrance of Tony Blair as PM after their 1992 defeat avoiding John Smith as leader. The Labour manifesto would've been meat and drink to Maggie T and thus scuppering any chance of the 'wets' getting rid of her.

I'm just curious how future EEC (later EC) relations pan out and how effective in the 1997 GE would a Labour Party be against a possible Maggie led Govt.

Much obliged!

As David pointed out this is something that you, as the OP really needs to do.

This is a discussion board. That means opening the discussion. It does not mean putting out a question for others to answer.

Prime the pump and the results will be a lot better

 

[David Flin]

I'm thinking a a small majority if it's a 1991 'Khaki' GE similar to 1992 due to the poll tax . . . but still bye bye to Kinnock, thus making Maggie safe.

But if it's a 1992 GE with John Smiths 'tax & spend' manifesto I'm thinking of another 1987-ish majority with an earlier entrance of Tony Blair as PM after their 1992 defeat avoiding John Smith as leader. The Labour manifesto would've been meat and drink to Maggie T and thus scuppering any chance of the 'wets' getting rid of her.

I'm just curious how future EEC (later EC) relations pan out and how effective in the 1997 GE would a Labour Party be against a possible Maggie led Govt.

From my memory of the period (and this is the memory of one person, so I am not claiming any great objectivity).

By 1990, Thatcher had moved from being an electoral asset to being an electoral liability. A big electoral liability. After the Poll Tax fiasco, things had gone downhill. Because of Thatcher's style of leadership - basically taking control and being the one in charge (delegation was never her strong suit) - meant that the Poll Tax fiasco was directly attributed to her personally. Polling suggested that Tory support was plummeting.

That was the whole reason why the Tory party kicked her out. Loyalty is not the strong suit of the Tory party.

Now, one can posit one of two things: the Poll Tax fiasco never happened. Maybe it was adequately funded with the intention of decreasing the funding later, so that people newly paying (ie, those who hadn't previously been paying rates) saw rather more modest tax bills. Maybe it was never introduced. In the absence of the Poll Tax fiasco, Thatcher is less of a political liability (although her value as an electoral asset is still going to diminish). In this case, the Tory Party is less likely to dump her overboard.

Or maybe she somehow survives the leadership election.

The two options will give different outcomes. In the first, the Tory Party will be less damaged in the polls than they were OTL. In the second, it will be much more damaged. So the first thing one has to do is specify how she survives to retain the leadership. If one goes down the second route, there is basically no way she wins an election in 1992. We are looking at a Kinnock victory. In the first, it depends on circumstances at the time.

That's your first decision point. How does she survive as leader?

 

[Mynock]

I'm thinking a a small majority if it's a 1991 'Khaki' GE similar to 1992 due to the poll tax . . . but still bye bye to Kinnock, thus making Maggie safe.

But if it's a 1992 GE with John Smiths 'tax & spend' manifesto I'm thinking of another 1987-ish majority with an earlier entrance of Tony Blair as PM after their 1992 defeat avoiding John Smith as leader. The Labour manifesto would've been meat and drink to Maggie T and thus scuppering any chance of the 'wets' getting rid of her.

I'm just curious how future EEC (later EC) relations pan out and how effective in the 1997 GE would a Labour Party be against a possible Maggie led Govt.
Much obliged!

I think its possible for Maggie to win, but in 1991-1992 it was already advantage Labour. She certainly wouldn't have done better than Major, in fact I'd argue one of the best ways to get a '90s Kinnock government with a majority is to have Thatcher survive the leadership challenge., I've linked a website about her approval ratings and by then she was absolutely an albatross around the Conservative necks. Assuming a 1992 election as OTL but swapping Major for Thatcher, Kinnock wins at least a plurality. Assuming a "Khaki" election its a bit more up in the air, but unless I'm much mistaken it would have taken place during or at least close to the early '90s recession. While Major as a relatively fresh face could wave off the issue, Thatcher will have been PM since 1979 and will take full responsibility for this in the public mind. Of course this might be cancelled out by popularity from winning the Iraq War, but I doubt it would be.

Margaret Thatcher: Poll Rating Trends

Margaret Thatcher: Poll Rating Trends - Download as a PDF or view online for free

www.slideshare.net

 

[Simon]

That's your first decision point. How does she survive as leader?

IIRC Thatcher's campaign was fairly lacklustre, there seems to have been a feeling on the part of some – at least to begin with – that it wasn't an existential threat. Have it taken more seriously and I think she could have probably scrounged up the four extra votes needed to win on the first ballot and the contest. The question then becomes what next? Winning by the skin of your teeth sees you survive but hardly reinforces your position, I could perhaps see her doing another five months or so to make it twelve years as Prime Minister before retiring – with or without some gentle encouragement – on her own terms. Alternatively her insistence/increasing unwillingness to listen to others that grew towards the end of her time in office might see her try to go for another election victory.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

That's your first decision point. How does she survive as leader?

How about somehow avoiding the "Black Wednesday" fiasco which scuppered the Tories economic reputation?

I'm thinking of Maggie easily seeing the over valuation of the £ and taking preemptive action by getting the ECB or whatever to lower the threshold of the £ in the ERM.

Don't know if that would save her.

 

[David Flin]

How about somehow avoiding the "Black Wednesday" fiasco which scuppered the Tories economic reputation?

Well, that was in 1992. In OTL, Major had taken over.

The events of 1992 aren't going to have any impact on the 1990 leadership election, for obvious reasons.

 

[marktaha]

The Poll Tax would have finished her. It's that simple.

 

[David Flin]

The Poll Tax would have finished her. It's that simple.

Which suggests that a prerequisite would be for the Poll Tax to be handled differently.

 

[Garrison]

No worries.

Don't know if the posters as well as yourself think this is viable.

I'm thinking a a small majority if it's a 1991 'Khaki' GE similar to 1992 due to the poll tax . . . but still bye bye to Kinnock, thus making Maggie safe.

But if it's a 1992 GE with John Smiths 'tax & spend' manifesto I'm thinking of another 1987-ish majority with an earlier entrance of Tony Blair as PM after their 1992 defeat avoiding John Smith as leader. The Labour manifesto would've been meat and drink to Maggie T and thus scuppering any chance of the 'wets' getting rid of her.

I'm just curious how future EEC (later EU) relations pan out and how effective in the 1997 GE would a Labour Party be against a possible Maggie led Govt.

Much obliged!

I'm sorry but Thatcher's popularity had collapsed by 1990, she is an electoral liability by this point, her high handed behaviour and belief that she was irreplacable was no small part of the reason for her lacklustre campaign. If she insists on soldiering into 1991 the infighting in the Tory part will get worse and Kinnock would win in 1991. As for Thatcher being in power until 1997, not a chance. She would either retire or be forced out by then.

 

[8bitninja]

The 'Prime Minister [insert person here] and other things that never happened' series have featured this at least twice to my knowledge. In 'Prime Minister Priti' Thatcher beats Kinnock in 1991/2 and stays on until the mid-90s when differences over intervention in the former Yugoslavia bring her down. The reasons for her election victory, to me, seem to boil down to 'anyone could have beaten Kinnock' and personally this is my less favoured of the two scenarios.

In 'Prime Minister Boris', published in 2011, we get an electoral situation somewhat similar to what Mynock proposes above. Thatcher is absolutely described as an electoral hindrance, drives stronger Labour turnout and Lib Dem turnout and the 1991 ends up with a hung parliament. Labour gets around 290 seats and forms a coalition of the Lib Dems which lasts until 1995. John Major then takes over and governs until 1999/2000, at which point Blair leads Labour to (if I recall correctly) a landslide. As a small teaser at the end of the scenario, it's revealed that David Miliband is the Prime Minister as at 2011.

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

From 1989 Thatcher had been planning her fourth election campaign which would've been run by Kenneth Baker. She'd also sketched out the dates of June 1991, either the 6th or 13th (not that Thatcher was superstitious, but an election on the 6th would've given the likes of The Sun some great "D-Day for Maggie" headline ideas). From what appears in the Butler/Kavanagh 1992 election book the Tories had planned to run a campaign almost identical to those of 1983 and 1987, attacking Labour as being too left wing, tied to the unions and unable to manage the economy. It seems they were tone deaf to Labour's policy review and shift to the centre in 1988-89, which doesnt bode well for a successful election campaign. Major was the Tories greatest asset in 1992, his barnstorming soapbox campaign a million miles away from the distant, almost regal campaign she had run in 1987.

Labour had built up a massive lead at the time of the poll tax riots in the spring of 1990, peaking at nearly 30 points ahead of the Tories, and although this declined gradually through the autumn, for the entirety of the last year of Thatcher's premiership Labour almost never dropped below 44% in the polls. Put simply, Thatcher would not have won an election in June 1991.

 

[stodge]

I was a political activist at the time for the Liberal Democrats and I can confirm the "TBW" factor was very much evident.

There were a growing number of Conservatives who were deeply disenchanted with Margaret Thatcher and her leadership - in 1990, inflation was rising as were interest rates and the economy was heading into recession aided, so some argue, by Lawson's stimulus to the economy in 1987.

Labour was beginning to look less unattractive thanks to the machinations of Mandelson and others. The public never really warmed to Kinnock as Prime Minister but John Smith, Roy Hattersley and the growing talent in the Shadow Cabinet was making waves.

Assuming Thatcher gets a few extra votes and survives Hesletine's challenge, the fact remains the Party will look divided and weak.

Yes, the Gulf War might help for a short while but the Falklands it wasn't - Kuwait hadn't been sovereign British territory for some time.

I suppose the local elections in 1991 would have dictated Conservative plans. In OTL, the Conservatives under Major lost over 1000 seats - double those losses under Thatcher and an election is put off until the autumn.

An October 1991 election against a backdrop of a weak economy and after more than twelve years of the Iron Lady - I suspect, as Wilson did in 1964 when overturning a Conservative majority of 100 from 1959, Kinnock and Ashdown will break the Conservative majority between them with Labour gaining 50 seats and the LDs 20. The Conservatives are the largest party but Labour, LDs and the Nationalists have a majority and a minority Labour administration is formed.

Moving on slightly, Smith dies in 1994 - Brown becomes Chancellor and Blair Home Secretary but they will have to wait - Kinnock is 50 and will serve two terms before retiring.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Labour had built up a massive lead at the time of the poll tax riots in the spring of 1990, peaking at nearly 30 points ahead of the Tories, and although this declined gradually through the autumn, for the entirety of the last year of Thatcher's premiership Labour almost never dropped below 44% in the polls. Put simply, Thatcher would not have won an election in June 1991.

2nded.

Unfortunately the polls, especially in 1992 were spectacularly wrong.

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

2nded.

Unfortunately the polls, especially in 1992 were spectacularly wrong.

The polls were wrong, but they also indicated quite a narrow Labour lead averaging about 2%, at the time of Thatcher's ousting Labour was 10-15% ahead in the polls. Even if the polls in September/October 1990 were as wrong as those in April 1992 Kinnock would still have become PM.

Worth bearing in mind had Labour secured an extra 0.5% swing in 1992 the result would have been a hung parliament, it was hardly a landslide victory for the Tories.

 

[David Flin]

Labour had built up a massive lead at the time of the poll tax riots in the spring of 1990, peaking at nearly 30 points ahead of the Tories, and although this declined gradually through the autumn, for the entirety of the last year of Thatcher's premiership Labour almost never dropped below 44% in the polls. Put simply, Thatcher would not have won an election in June 1991.

Which builds in to my contention that if the objective is to get a Tory victory in 1992 under Thatcher, one needs to butterfly away the Poll Tax fiasco.

The men in grey suits could read the runes as well as anyone, and could see that Thatcher as leader would mean a Tory defeat, possibly a heavy one, in 1992. They didn't have the option of rewriting history (as we do), so took the only course available to them, namely getting rid of Thatcher.

 

[HelloThere]

I think that in such a scenario Thatcher would resign sometime in 1991. Even she would know after the local elections thag she is bad for the Tories at the polls, so I think she would step back.

 

[Cymraeg]

IIRC Thatcher's campaign was fairly lacklustre, there seems to have been a feeling on the part of some – at least to begin with – that it wasn't an existential threat. Have it taken more seriously and I think she could have probably scrounged up the four extra votes needed to win on the first ballot and the contest. The question then becomes what next? Winning by the skin of your teeth sees you survive but hardly reinforces your position, I could perhaps see her doing another five months or so to make it twelve years as Prime Minister before retiring – with or without some gentle encouragement – on her own terms. Alternatively her insistence/increasing unwillingness to listen to others that grew towards the end of her time in office might see her try to go for another election victory.

She placed Peter Morrison in charge of her campaign, which was a hideous blunder. The man was a friend of hers, which blinded her to the fact that he was a lazy idiot with a liking for drink and - it is alleged - rent boys. He was told very firmly in 1991 (IRRC) to step down from his seat in Chester before his local rivals and the local papers published details that would have gotten him possibly arrested (again, allegedly). Gyles Brandreth replaced him and he died very young and looking years older than he was due to fags/booze/I'd rather not guess.
Putting Morrison in charge of anything to do with her re-election was always going to be a disaster for Thatcher.