A Conservative Victory in 1997

Out of the 1992 cabinet I would say:
  • Heseltine
  • Lilley
  • Lamont
  • Clarke
  • Howard
Would all go for it, and would both be able to retain their seats and command a sufficient level of support to allow them to make a decent punt. These:
  • Rifkind
  • Patten
  • Waldegrave
  • MacGregor
  • Baker
I can see as either being possible depending on whether they retain their seats (the first two), or being sufficiently tempted that they would throw their hat in for the hell of it, despite having little chance. (The last three)

The first issue is to decide on whether Rifkind and/or Patten retain their seats. Patten I agree would be unlikely to win, but it's hardly impossible; a bigger Labour vote may drain the Lib Dems in Bath sufficiently, or Patten may spend more time in the constituency (he was running the election campaign at the time) for him to hang on. But I think on balance, certainly more likely than not that he goes the same way as OTL. (Interestingly though, with a Labour government in charge, he will have absolutely no way of lining up alternative employment as he did IOTL with Hong Kong, so he's likely to be back in the Commons no later than 1993 ITTL)

Pentlands is probably impossible to call with any certainty. You would need roughly a 5% swing over the OTL result to unseat Rifkind, but IOTL in 1997, the share of the vote there was very similar to the national result. I would venture, though, that Rifkind will probably be able to cling on in Pentlands, probably by less than 1,000 votes, but cling on all the same.

MacGregor and Waldegrave, if they go for it, would have five minute candidacies like Stephen Dorrell in 1997. Both would have appeal to different wings of the party, but neither is high profle enough to have a decent campaign. They're out.

Baker (Who is the outgoing Home Secretary) might be able to muster up sufficient support to get him into the first round, but nobody likes him, and the opinion of him overall is much too low to make him leadership material. He is going nowhere.


This boils it down to:
  • Heseltine
  • Rifkind
  • Lamont
  • Lilley
  • Howard
  • Clarke
Which is quite a wide field, relatively speaking; all of these could potentially be quite formidable candidates, which is where the trouble starts.

We can make certain assumptions though. The candidate of Thatcherite hardcore is most certainly Peter Lilley; while Howard and Lamont have appeal to the right, neither has the sort of claim that Lilley has. Lamont is not the hard-right, oppositionist anti-european that he would later mould himself into after his resignation - at this point he hails from the same Blue Chip roots as John Major. He also has the recession behind him, and a hell of a lot of people will be blaming him, rightly or wrongly, if the Tories fall at the polls. So he is not going to be the Thatcherite candidate in the same way that Lilley can be.

The left is divided between Heseltine, Clarke, and to an extent Rifkind. Rifkind probably has less appeal as a unity candidate than he would have by, say, 1996 IOTL as he hasn't gone through his eurosceptic tenure of the foreign office, and his stature is much less. (He is the outgoing transport secretary) Nevertheless he is probably the only candidate who could genuinely appeal across the party. Heseltine has this ability as well, to an extent, but it is less so than Rifkind in part due to The Recent Unpleasantness. Howard has it a little as well, but it's hardly overpowering.

Clarke was Major's chosen successor after Black Wednesday, and it's reasonable to believe that he would be looked on fairly well by the former managment. His views on Europe are probably much less prominent than they would be post-Maastricht. But, equally, his public profile is much less, he doesn't have his fabeled economic managment to support him. Maybe he could point to his pro-market reforms to the NHS to win over some of the right; but it's difficult to believe that he would be able to overtake Heseltine at this point as the main standard bearer of the left.

Heseltine, Lilley, and, to some extent Howard, all have one thing going for them: they fit in with what people believe a Leader of the Opposition should be: aggressive, assertive, able to get under the skin of the opposition. Lilley also has the 'freshness' card - but there's little reason to believe that would be the huge benefit that it was to William Hague in 1997. The next leader will be facing off against Neil Kinnock, not Tony Blair. Lilley also has the simple fact that the party usually swings to the right in defeat behind him.

It is very difficult to see what happens with the vote of the right. Lamont, Lilley, or Howard could all concievably come first within this group. But I would venture that Peter Lilley has the better chance. He will probably be supported by The Lady herself, hoping for a proper restoration of the old time religion, and hating the idea of Heseltine winning. So I think Lilley gets the momentum going.

I believe that if Rifkind also went, Howard and perhaps Lamont also would be in a stronger position here; Howard perhaps in an immensely stronger position. As it is, I don't see their vote coming though. And as I've said, I think Heseltine is going to outpace Clarke fairly comfortably.

Can Rifkind win through as a unity candidate? It's a very fine thing to call. But I think that there are sufficient numbers in the parliamentary party, and sufficient breadth of opinion, that he could. Crucially, though, him getting into the second round would depend on beating at least one, but preferably two, of Clarke, Lamont, Howard in raw votes in the first round. Otherwise his candidacy fails.


This leaves us with:
  • Heseltine
  • Lilley
  • Rifkind
It is difficult to say who comes out of this on top. Crucially, it depends on who gets second and who gets third in this round, as whoever comes in third will conceed. Lilley-Rifkind in the next round means it's Rifkind; Heseltine-Lilley in the next round is difficult to call, but probably means it's Lilley; Heseltine-Rifkind also means it will be Rifkind.

In summary, it is very difficult to call who will win out in the end. You can make a plausible case for all three of the finalists; it is perfectly possible that even Lamont or Howard would win. Ultimately, however, my instinct - and it is only that - if I had to make a definitive call, would be that it is not going to be Michael Heseltine. I suspect, like Ken Clarke in 1997, he will go into this contest as the favourite and come out as the loser. But he is inherently a stronger candidate that Clarke, so it is difficult to be definitive about it.

I think one thing can be said with more certainty, though: Malcolm Rifkind would be the best overall leader for the party. He would not have the kind of obvious election-winning appeal that Heseltine would have, but he would be able to keep the party together more, and would provide a more forensic and stable opposition to Labour. With Europe on the horizon, and with the events of 1990 at the back (in some individual cases, still very, very much at the front) of the party's mind, a Heseltine leadership would see the party navel-gazing as much as anything else, and that's never a good thing. However things stack up at the end of the day, though, the Tories have a better stack of cards to play with than they did in 1997 IOTL.
 
Last edited:
Top