A hung parliament in 1992?

Thande

Donor
Discussion of whether it was the Sun wot won it in the Murdoch thread brought this to mind again. The 1992 general election, As You Know, returned the Conservatives to power with a small majority against public expectations that Kinnock-led Labour would emerge victorious. There are a few reasons for this, such as bad polling methods exaggerating support for Labour and the infamous triumphalism on Labour's part that turned the public off. It has however often been suggested on here that this could have been overcome to deliver a Labour victory.

Here's a third possibility, though, one brought particularly to mind by the current political situation in the UK - what if the result had been a hung parliament, with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance?

Let's say the Conservatives win more seats than Labour, but just barely, and are at least 10 short of an overall majority. The three basic possibilities are Labour+Lib Dem coalition (with the probable Lib Dem price being a referendum on some kind of PR voting reform), Conservative+Lib Dem coalition (very unlikely) and Conservative minority government if Labour and the Lib Dems are unable to agree (probably unstable at a critical time when Major would soon face civil war in the party over Maastricht).

Thoughts?
 
1992...

As I'm working on an ATL based on a 2010 result (plugs own thread - For Want of a Debate - next update coming soon), some early thoughts....

The other possibility you haven't mentioned is a Conservative minority Government with Ulster Unionist support. Take twenty seats off the Conservative number and a Con-UU agreement would have 325 which would be a majority with the Speaker's casting vote.

Take 30 off the Conservative number and it gets more interesting - say 20 for Labour, 7 for the LDs and three for the Nats to make it simple and that leaves 306 Conservatives, 291 Labour, 27 Liberal Democrats and 10 Nationalists meaning a Lab-LD-Nat Government would have a majority of three which was enough for Wilson in 1964 and 1974.

The Nats (especially the SNP) wanted devolution which wouldn't present a huge problem for Kinnock and Ashdown and after thirteen years in Opposition (pace Cameron and Clegg in 2010) there would be a strong desire to throw out the Government and a measure of agreement on key issues.
 

Thande

Donor
The other possibility you haven't mentioned is a Conservative minority Government with Ulster Unionist support. Take twenty seats off the Conservative number and a Con-UU agreement would have 325 which would be a majority with the Speaker's casting vote.

That's a good point--and of course Major did eventually end up relying on the UUP in OTL. I suspect this would be rather unstable and would end up causing endless problems with the Northern Ireland peace process, so there would probably be another election before too long--which the Tories would most probably lose, but nowhere near as badly as 1997 OTL.

The question is whether Kinnock manages to hang on as Labour leader in such a situation or whether he is forced to go--and if he does, does John Smith win the leadership election like OTL, or somebody else? Maybe the Conservative-UUP government deteriorates within a year, election in 1993, John Smith as PM with a small Labour majority, and then he dies in office the following year if you ignore butterflies? Be interesting to consider if Tony Blair would have been the frontrunner in such a situation, and indeed what the procedure would be--when was the last time a PM died while in power?

EDIT: All the way back in 1865 with Palmerston, apparently.
 
I'm quite interested. I don't see Kinnock going - after all, who else had the public presence to be the PM of this new pact/coalition? As Clameron told us before the election, 'the next Prime Minister must be someone the public watched campaign and voted for'. In 2010, he meant 'don't you dirty poor people even dream of swapping out Brown if there's a hung parliament and getting David Miliband to pal-up with Nick'. In 1992, the public would be similarly nonplussed and the whole setup would be dominated by a 'the PM we never voted for' rhetoric. Then again, John Smith is/was one of the most popular politicians of all time IIRC so maybe he could have weathered it.

Would Black Wednesday happen? I know very little of early 1990s politics (post Thatcher and pre-Major 'resigning' there's a black hole in my knowledge).
 
Not so much no interest as you can only really speculate very vaguely and without a great deal of confidence on these kind of scenarios, (who would have put down a Tory-Lib Dem coalition a year ago as being in power now) and then you really would need to lay down exact details, for example, who gains the most popular votes, what are the exact numbers of seats, etc, all of which can make a crucial difference to who would be seen to have the mandate and the initative in a scenario like this.

Speaking generally though, the temptation would be to suppose that Major would more or less immediately throw in the towel but I'm not sure that would be so actually. He is, after all, the keenest pro-coalition outrider currently and I suspect he would at least try to talk to the Lib Dems. (There would also be a greater ideological objection to letting Kinnock-lead Labour into power in the party as a whole than there would be with Labour today) Considering the Lib Dems were already well along the road of abandoning their policy of equidistance, I don't think it would work though, at least not to the extent of any kind of formal agreement. Would the Lib Dems agree to support the Tories on a confidence and supply basis though? Again, probably depends on how the popular votes fall. If the Tories win the popular vote, I can see a Tory minority tolerated by the Lib Dems and the UU stumbling along until Black Wednesday comes along, when it probably falls on a confidence vote either shortly afterward or at some point in '93, as a definite possiblity. The Tories were, remember, operating as a minority government at the end of the 1992 parliament in OTL anyway.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
I'm quite interested. I don't see Kinnock going - after all, who else had the public presence to be the PM of this new pact/coalition? As Clameron told us before the election, 'the next Prime Minister must be someone the public watched campaign and voted for'. In 2010, he meant 'don't you dirty poor people even dream of swapping out Brown if there's a hung parliament and getting David Miliband to pal-up with Nick'. In 1992, the public would be similarly nonplussed and the whole setup would be dominated by a 'the PM we never voted for' rhetoric. Then again, John Smith is/was one of the most popular politicians of all time IIRC so maybe he could have weathered it.

I meant if the situation Stodge suggested happened and we ended up with a weak Conservative-UUP coalition: would Kinnock manage to hang on as Labour leader after failing to win two elections in a row or not?

As for Black Wednesday I think it was fairly inevitable at this point given the main cause of the economic stress (German reunification) had already happened. Checking the Labour manifesto, Labour also supported keeping the pound in the ERM, so any Labour-led coalition would also hit Black Wednesday just as hard.
 
I meant if the situation Stodge suggested happened and we ended up with a weak Conservative-UUP coalition: would Kinnock manage to hang on as Labour leader after failing to win two elections in a row or not?

Probably not. It's not impossible that he stays on, but on balance, it's much more likely he goes and Smith becomes leader.

As for Black Wednesday I think it was fairly inevitable at this point given the main cause of the economic stress (German reunification) had already happened. Checking the Labour manifesto, Labour also supported keeping the pound in the ERM, so any Labour-led coalition would also hit Black Wednesday just as hard.

No; Labour (or more specifically, Kinnock) had a plan for a realignment (I.E, devaluation) of the pound in relation to the DM to a much more sensible level than it was at that point. So Black Wednesday is far from inevitable; Labour had a plan to pre-empt just that kind of mass selloff of the pound.
 

Thande

Donor
No; Labour (or more specifically, Kinnock) had a plan for a realignment (I.E, devaluation) of the pound in relation to the DM to a much more sensible level than it was at that point. So Black Wednesday is far from inevitable; Labour had a plan to pre-empt it.

Now you've said that I've re-read the passage in the manifesto and I see you're right, I misread it before.

1992 Labour Manifesto said:
We will keep prices down

Inflation has been suppressed by recession. But it has not been cured.
To curb inflation. Labour will maintain the value of the pound within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. We will manage credit sensibly. We will stop excessive price rises in water, electricity, telephones, transport and NHS prescriptions.

The only way to defeat inflation in the medium term is to raise productivity substantially. By promoting investment and improving skills we will tackle the underlying causes of inflation.
 
Well, obviously it was a secret plan which would have to have been thrashed out with the Treasury, Bundesbank etc after an election. (Not even Smith knew about it, amusingly enough) Labour were hardly going to go into an election publicly promising devaluation, were they?
 
It would be who whould get on with who in terms of party leaders?

Would John Major be able to get along with Paddy Ashdown or would Neil Kinnock be able to get along with Paddy Ashdown?

It would depend on personel chemistry between the part leaders?

I could see it going either way?
 

Thande

Donor
It would be who whould get on with who in terms of party leaders?

Would John Major be able to get along with Paddy Ashdown or would Neil Kinnock be able to get along with Paddy Ashdown?

It would depend on personel chemistry between the part leaders?

I could see it going either way?

After 13 years of Conservative rule, the Lib Dems wouldn't want to prop up a Conservative government further, it would make them hugely unpopular. I think that was one of the major factors behind the recent coalition, though in that case it would be propping up Labour after 13 years of Labour rule.
 
After 13 years of Conservative rule, the Lib Dems wouldn't want to prop up a Conservative government further, it would make them hugely unpopular.

And as recent events have shown us, propping up a new government which has not unambiguously won an election has plenty of pitfalls as well and can just as easily alienate support.

There would still have been a lot of prejudice from Prescott-style people towards the Lib Dems in Labour at this point which could seriously damage the chances of any kind of deal, especially a coalition. These are the pre-Blair days when the NEC etc are still more potent forces. Major is less fettered by party than Kinnock is, and I suspect there would be a lot less of the 'we need to go into opposition and regroup' thinking in the Tories than there was in Labour last year. If the Tories win the popular vote (presumably) and the largest number of seats, then really the ball is in their court to begin with. (And they would have the press backing them up in that decision as well, it's worth pointing out)

If the Tories have the most seats and the biggest share of the vote, then that is a massively different situation to 2010, where Labour had clearly lost the election in both seats and votes. If Labour had won the most seats and votes last year, then we would not have a Tory-Lib Dem coalition now. Christ, even if Labour had won another twenty seats we might not have that now.

Also, I might point out that coalition is inherently a lot less of an attractive proposition for the Lib Dems in 1992, when they had a third of the seats they do now - and look at how limited their influence still is on the current basis. Coalition in 1992, only a mere few years after the party has been formed, would lead to them being well and truly swamped. The Lib Dem PP at that point was made up almost exclusively of wise old heads and they would not let Ashdown plunge off headlong in one direction as Clegg did, even if he wanted to. With people like Ming Campbell and Alan Beith in attendance, (both of whom, incidentally, cleaved a little to the right of the liberal spectrum) the Lib Dem approach would be cautious.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
You're right, but if the Tories had that many seats I think they would be tempted to go it alone (with UUP support) as a minority government rather than trying to make it work with the Lib Dems, relying on Lib-Lab enmity to keep the opposition divided--the Stephen Harper strategy if you will.
 
Well, as I say, if the Tories come first in seats and votes then I think the most likely outcome is a Tory minority backed up on a confidence and supply basis by the UUP and the Lib Dems. Whether that would be on an informal or formal basis I don't know, but Major would surely want to talk to them all the same on a 'this is what the people have give us, now we've got to make it work' basis.
 
Actually, if that happens I'm not at all sure that the next election would take place after a year. If the Tories get the UU on board with a -10 defecit, then they've got a secure, albeit bare majority, assuming no defections, until at least into 1993.

Could the government have got through Black Wednesday and Maastricht on a minority? I'm going to pass on that one.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention it earlier, but if the Tories have the largest number of seats then the parliamentary arithmetic for a Labour-Lib Dem agreement almost certainly wouldn't stack up anyway.
 
Last edited:
Top