AHC: Kill the UK Conservative Party, with a PoD after 1992

Your challenge, should you accept it, is with a PoD after 1992, kill the UK Conservative Party. The party doesn't need to be totally destroyed but should be eliminated from ever winning government itself and displaced from the two-party system, go the way of the Liberals. How could this be done? I was thinking that the period was one of the worst, if not the worst, for the Tories in history, with them losing twice by historic landslides and not even getting as many seats as Labour did in 1983 after 'the longest suicide note in history' until 2010, 13 years. So this period could have an opportunity for the party to be destroyed as a party of government and serious contender. Maybe it splits over Europe and is overtaken by the LibDems. How do you think the Tories could be destroyed? What would be the effects? Go ahead!
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Post 1992, the grassroots of the party, through the Conservative Associations and various groups, was entrenched strongly enough to keep Southern Rural England at even its worst showings.

To damage that, you need the Major years to be so divisive and damaging over Europe that UKIP actually surpasses them and takes over its institutions at the grassroots level. That means you need sleaze scandals times 10, a much more united and capable UKIP, a Liberal Party that hovers right instead of left, and one shitty and ineffective leader after another. David Cameron was a unifying figure who appealed to the swing voter and to the Tory establishment, and wasn't totally repellent to the grassroots. He can't ever have power. You would need Michael Portillo to be party leader for a while, but at the same time, alienate swing voters. The base would jump ship.

A suitable POD would be a mass defection of Tory MPs to UKIP over Europe, with the support of the base, during the Major years. The party would be demolished in a snap election (remember, Tory GOTV efforts were key to the '92 win, and why '97 wasn't even worse). Probably not as bad as the Canadian Progressive Conservative party, but a loss of epic proportions that takes the Tory geographic base of support and makes it UKIP and Liberal territory, much like how the Reform Party did in Canada, and this might be possible.
 
Post 1992, the grassroots of the party, through the Conservative Associations and various groups, was entrenched strongly enough to keep Southern Rural England at even its worst showings.

To damage that, you need the Major years to be so divisive and damaging over Europe that UKIP actually surpasses them and takes over its institutions at the grassroots level. That means you need sleaze scandals times 10, a much more united and capable UKIP, a Liberal Party that hovers right instead of left, and one shitty and ineffective leader after another. David Cameron was a unifying figure who appealed to the swing voter and to the Tory establishment, and wasn't totally repellent to the grassroots. He can't ever have power. You would need Michael Portillo to be party leader for a while, but at the same time, alienate swing voters. The base would jump ship.

Ken Clarke as leader in 1997?

He can't win when New Labour is at its greatest height, but divides party and alienates base. Could that work?
 
Any more ideas?

I'm not sure if Clarke being leader would work as the Eurosceptics are gaining in numbers and can just take over once he goes, and they can sack him if things go really bad. Perhaps, anybody else have thoughts on that scenario?

Maybe the Pro-Euro Conservative Party being more successful (Clarke joins?) could work or be helpful.
 
This is a bit earlier than your cutoff date, but consider: Thatcher doesn't withdraw from the 1990 leadership contest and loses to Michael Heseltine. The right of the party is outraged but is temporarily mollified when the Tories' poll ratings start to rise thanks to the removal of Thatcher. Heseltine wins the 1992 election with a slightly larger majority than IOTL.

The party still falls apart over Europe as IOTL, but due to Heseltine's stronger Europhilia and the perception that he knifed Thatcher the right is even more rebellious. Heseltine resigns around 1994-95 due to health problems and is replaced by John Major, who proves less-than-capable of managing the split in the party. Several right-wing MPs defect to UKIP, which is now being bankrolled by James Goldsmith (who doesn't launch the Referendum Party ITTL)

By 1997, the Tories are polling below 30% thanks to Tony Blair's immense popularity, the splits over Europe, various scandals, and the rise of UKIP. Finally, Major's affair with Edwina Currie comes out just before the election, which turns off even more Tory voters. The Conservative Party collapses to around 110-130 seats, its lowest total in history, while Labour and the Lib Dems eat into their heartlands. UKIP puts in a respectable performance and a few of the Tory defectors keep their seats.

William Hague becomes Tory leader and tries to move the party towards the centre, which fails to convince voters who've moved to Labour or the Lib Dems while turning off even more traditional Tory voters, who either switch to UKIP or refuse to come out and vote. In the end, in 2001 the Tories collapse in the popular vote, effectively tying with the Lib Dems, while UKIP get over 10% of the vote. The Tories fall to 100 seats, while the Lib Dems close in on then with 80.

The Tories, hoping to attract UKIP voters, elect Iain Duncan Smith as their leader, who proves to be just as disastrous as IOTL. The few remaining pro-European Tories start looking wistfully in the direction of the Lib Dems. IDS manages to stick around until the election, by which point the Lib Dems have solidified their position as the anti-Labour vote, putting together a rather fractious and contradictory coalition of centre-leaning Tories and Labour voters upset with Iraq and Blair in general which can only last as long as the Lib Dems don't go into government. In 2005, the Lib Dems become the official opposition, overtaking the Tories who fall under 20%. Labour's majority is reduced but remains in the triple digits.

Britain has become a dominant-party state, with Labour retaining huge majorities thanks to vote splitting and FPTP, the Tories being seen as redundant and losing ever more ground to UKIP, and the Lib Dems becoming the default opposition party but not really credible or entrenched enough to form government.

I'm sure this is implausible in some way, but it's the best scenario I could think of.
 
Last edited:
New Labour implements AV as a compromise between PR and FPTP during its first term in government. In 2001, the Lib Dems make gains, they now have 80 seats, while the Tories have moved down to about 140. In the ensuing Tory leadership election, Portillo gets on the ballot paper in 2001, but his socially liberal attitudes and revelations about his private life in the Sun allows Ken Clarke to win a narrow victory over him in the final round. Divisions over Europe, as well as his opposition to the Iraq War, forces him out after a couple of years in charge, and he is replaced with IDS. There is a second, more serious breakaway by centrist Tory MPs to either form a new party in alliance with the Lib Dems or simply join them, having given up on the Conservatives. Going into 2005, the Tories are perceived to be divided, with an uncharismatic right wing leader, and they are overtaken by the Lib Dems, who are now the main opposition.

IDS is succeeded by Davis, whilst Nick Clegg is in place as leader for the Lib Dems in 2010. Due to his popularity, along with Vince Cable being proven right over the financial crash, they make big gains at the expense of Gordon Brown's Labour to become the largest party, whilst the Tories, who are less focused on by the media as the third largest party, stay relatively still with around 100-125 seats. Clegg opts to form a coalition government with Davis, and the Tories hemorrhage support as the Lib Dems did in OTL, as UKIP fills the vacuum on the right. Come 2015, the Tories fall to around 50 seats, whilst the Lib Dems and Labour make gains to become the two clear main parties, with the Tories as a third party similar in size to the Lib Dems at there height last decade in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Another idea is the Currie affair is revealed during the 1997 election campaigners. What remains of Tory support crashes, and wavering Tory supporters vote Labour, LibDem or not vote.
1997 UK election
Tony Blair-Labour: 455+182 46.2%
John Major-Conservative: 111-233 25.2%
Paddy Ashdown-LibDem: 64+46 18.8%
659 Seats
330 for majority
The Tories are annihilated even worse. Ken Clarke losse huis Seat. THE rump caucus may then elect a worse leader, such as Redwood. Not sure if it kills the Tories though.
 
IIRC, the Eurosceptics handed Major an initial defeat on the floor of the House of Commons over the Maastricht Treaty, and he called their bluff by turning into a vote of confidence, getting enough of them to flip that it passed. This was while John Smith was still Labour leader and the Tories were already trailing badly in the polls, so voting no-confidence risked an early election that they were predicted to lose.

Maybe the POD is that the Maastricht rebels stand firm and either take over UKIP (which was still in its nascent form) or form their own right-wing Eurosceptic party that eclipses UKIP, forcing an early election with Thatcher (who I think was active in the House of Lords at the time) supporting the anti-Maastricht Eurosceptics over the Conservatives. From here, you could see a scenario similar to the period of the divided right in Canada, with Labour and the Lib Dems picking up even more seats where the right-of-centre vote splits.
 
Two scenarios-tell me which you think is more plausible?
  1. Ken Clarke doesn't make his cynical deal with Redwood. He beats Hague by 1 vote. Clarke TTL feels Redwood is unfit to be Shadow Chancellor due to their contradictory views on Europe, but has him in the Shadow Cabinet. However that only leads to Redwood and Eurosceptics leaking and destabilising the leadership. Disputes over Europe dominante Clarke's leadership, and Eurosceptics rebels, viewing Clarke as having no real Mandate. The dispute over the party's policy on the single currency dominates 1998, with Clarke coming out in support of it, while leaks show Shadow Cabinet ministers such as Redwood opposed. The party gears up for a fatal split. In the European elections of 1999 the Tories had a virtual tie with Labour as UKIP gets nearly 10%, but the result is regarded as a boon to Clarke's leadership. The final straw comes in October 1999 when Clarke publicly campaigns with Blair for the single currency. Up to a dozen furious Tory Eurosceptics, including IDS, demand Clarke resign, announcing to the press his policy on Europe is "a disgrace." Clarke tells IDS to "stuff it", IDS and a dozen Eurosceptics respond by joining UKIP, which is then led by Michael Holmes. Over the next year another five defect to UKIP. In the 2001 election, UKIP and the Tories tie around 16% of the vote, the LibDems get 18% and Labour gets 41%. That translates into 30 UKIP seats, 80 LibDem seats, 465 Labour seats and just 54 for the Tories. Clarke loses his own seat. The Tories face another round of defections following the election, and Michael Ancram takes over the Tory rump, which leads to the few remaining Europhiles joining the LibDems. In 2003 Ancram resigns, his job having proved hopeless, and the Tory rump votes to join UKIP. In 2005, Nigel Farage becomes Leader of the Opposition, beating out the LibDems. He has kept that job ever since, with UKIP replacing the Tories, but it has enabled New Labour to keep power for the last 19 years.
  2. In 1999, the Pro-Euro Conservative Party is formed by two Europhile Tory rebel MEPs. John Stevens manages to persuade Ken Clarke to join the party. Not sure what causes this-perhaps Hague took an undecided position on the single currency issue, and when he was forced to come out against it Clarke felt betrayed. Anyway, Clarke, Heseltine and about 10 Tory grandees join the Pro-euro Conservatives. In the European elections, they get 10% of the vote, and the Tories get a mere 29%, virtually tying with Labour. Hague's leadership is challenged, he resigns months later. In January 2000 a leadership election is held, Michael Portillo is the establishment candidate, and looks set to win and revive the party. But instead he is beaten by IDS, and the Tories lose more and more of their votes, polling in the low 20s. In the 1999 LibDem leadership election, Simon Hughes narrowly beats Charles Kennedy after promising an alliance with the Pro-Euro Conservatives, and the LibDems see that as their route to power. In 2001 they target the Tory vote, while IDS's leadership is driving away all but the most committed core voters. In 2000 the LibDem/Pro-Euro Coalition is formed. In the 2001 UK election, Labour gets 40%, the Coalition gets 28% and the Tories get 22%. Labour gets 430 seats, the Coalition balloons to 120 and the Tories get around 80. The Tory rump becomes led by John Redwood. The Tories drift towards the fringes of the British right, getting around 20%. The LibDems shift to the right and later rename, becoming a fiscally and socially liberal party, in the classical sense, and shifting right to align with the views of Ken Clarke, who later becomes Leader of the Opposition. In 2005 they make gains based on their opposition to the Iraq War, but Labour keeps a narrow majority. In 2010, securing their status in the two-party system, they get a hung parliament, but Labour under Gordon Brown forms a minority with minor parties such as the SNP. They win the 2012 election with their fourth(or perhaps fifth) big jump in seat numbers, but only get a minority, and get supply and confidence from the rump Tories. The Tory collapse over Europe and shift further right into irrelevance enabled the LibDems to finally rise into the two-party system.
 
Two scenarios-tell me which you think is more plausible?
  1. Ken Clarke doesn't make his cynical deal with Redwood. He beats Hague by 1 vote. Clarke TTL feels Redwood is unfit to be Shadow Chancellor due to their contradictory views on Europe, but has him in the Shadow Cabinet. However that only leads to Redwood and Eurosceptics leaking and destabilising the leadership. Disputes over Europe dominante Clarke's leadership, and Eurosceptics rebels, viewing Clarke as having no real Mandate. The dispute over the party's policy on the single currency dominates 1998, with Clarke coming out in support of it, while leaks show Shadow Cabinet ministers such as Redwood opposed. The party gears up for a fatal split. In the European elections of 1999 the Tories had a virtual tie with Labour as UKIP gets nearly 10%, but the result is regarded as a boon to Clarke's leadership. The final straw comes in October 1999 when Clarke publicly campaigns with Blair for the single currency. Up to a dozen furious Tory Eurosceptics, including IDS, demand Clarke resign, announcing to the press his policy on Europe is "a disgrace." Clarke tells IDS to "stuff it", IDS and a dozen Eurosceptics respond by joining UKIP, which is then led by Michael Holmes. Over the next year another five defect to UKIP. In the 2001 election, UKIP and the Tories tie around 16% of the vote, the LibDems get 18% and Labour gets 41%. That translates into 30 UKIP seats, 80 LibDem seats, 465 Labour seats and just 54 for the Tories. Clarke loses his own seat. The Tories face another round of defections following the election, and Michael Ancram takes over the Tory rump, which leads to the few remaining Europhiles joining the LibDems. In 2003 Ancram resigns, his job having proved hopeless, and the Tory rump votes to join UKIP. In 2005, Nigel Farage becomes Leader of the Opposition, beating out the LibDems. He has kept that job ever since, with UKIP replacing the Tories, but it has enabled New Labour to keep power for the last 19 years.
  2. In 1999, the Pro-Euro Conservative Party is formed by two Europhile Tory rebel MEPs. John Stevens manages to persuade Ken Clarke to join the party. Not sure what causes this-perhaps Hague took an undecided position on the single currency issue, and when he was forced to come out against it Clarke felt betrayed. Anyway, Clarke, Heseltine and about 10 Tory grandees join the Pro-euro Conservatives. In the European elections, they get 10% of the vote, and the Tories get a mere 29%, virtually tying with Labour. Hague's leadership is challenged, he resigns months later. In January 2000 a leadership election is held, Michael Portillo is the establishment candidate, and looks set to win and revive the party. But instead he is beaten by IDS, and the Tories lose more and more of their votes, polling in the low 20s. In the 1999 LibDem leadership election, Simon Hughes narrowly beats Charles Kennedy after promising an alliance with the Pro-Euro Conservatives, and the LibDems see that as their route to power. In 2001 they target the Tory vote, while IDS's leadership is driving away all but the most committed core voters. In 2000 the LibDem/Pro-Euro Coalition is formed. In the 2001 UK election, Labour gets 40%, the Coalition gets 28% and the Tories get 22%. Labour gets 430 seats, the Coalition balloons to 120 and the Tories get around 80. The Tory rump becomes led by John Redwood. The Tories drift towards the fringes of the British right, getting around 20%. The LibDems shift to the right and later rename, becoming a fiscally and socially liberal party, in the classical sense, and shifting right to align with the views of Ken Clarke, who later becomes Leader of the Opposition. In 2005 they make gains based on their opposition to the Iraq War, but Labour keeps a narrow majority. In 2010, securing their status in the two-party system, they get a hung parliament, but Labour under Gordon Brown forms a minority with minor parties such as the SNP. They win the 2012 election with their fourth(or perhaps fifth) big jump in seat numbers, but only get a minority, and get supply and confidence from the rump Tories. The Tory collapse over Europe and shift further right into irrelevance enabled the LibDems to finally rise into the two-party system.

Any comment or thoughts on these scenarios?
 
I don't really see any of the scenarios so far as being that plausible, tbh, save maybe Heat's in places. UKIP wasn't really a thing in the nineties (it wasn't really a thing as a national factor until post-2010) and as the fate of the real Eurosceptic force of the nineties, the Referendum Party shows, the issue wasn't really as potent as an electoral, as opposed to intra-party factor, as it would later become. MPs are not going to go down the George Gardiner route en-masse. They would get whacked.

The big fractious issues that loom for me are the ones of the noughties - the War on Turror, the great recession, and the Yurp issue in the post-2004 accessions era; but it's hard to think of an alt governing party simultaneously bungling all those issues to produce equal offence amongst all wings of the Tory party.

The most readily-at-hand point of potential is an even more severe destruction in 1997, really - though I don't think it would kill the party. Bear in mind ye whippersnappers, in OTL, that was a historically terrible, need-to-reference-the-19th-century-to-find-comparisons defeat. A further nudge of major scandal (there are obvious ones) should be enough to push the Tories down by another forty seats or so. I don't think the party would be 'killed' in such a scenario, but a minor tampering via butterflies (butterfly ballots no less) should be able to keep the New Labour electoral coalition strong 'n' solid at least until a crash happens. And that was a damn strong coalition. Admittedly, it would rely on the Blair successor having high political skillz to navigate that new post-crash atmosphere if we're going to extend the run up to around this date, something far, far from being a given.
 
Last edited:
I don't really see any of the scenarios so far as being that plausible, tbh, save maybe Heat's in places. UKIP wasn't really a thing in the nineties (it wasn't really a thing as a national factor until post-2010) and as the fate of the real Eurosceptic force of the nineties, the Referendum Party shows, the issue wasn't really as potent as an electoral, as opposed to intra-party factor, as it would later become. MPs are not going to go down the George Gardiner route en-masse. They would get whacked.

The big fractious issues that loom for me are the ones of the noughties - the War on Turror, the great recession, and the Yurp issue in the post-2004 accessions era; but it's hard to think of an alt governing party simultaneously bungling all those issues to produce equal offence amongst all wings of the Tory party.

The most readily-at-hand point of potential is an even more severe destruction in 1997, really - though I don't think it would kill the party. Bear in mind ye whippersnappers, in OTL, that was a historically terrible, need-to-reference-the-19th-century-to-find-comparisons defeat. A further nudge of major scandal (there are obvious ones) should be enough to push the Tories down by another forty seats or so. I don't think the party would be 'killed' in such a scenario, but a minor tampering via butterflies (butterfly ballots no less) should be able to keep the New Labour electoral coalition strong 'n' solid at least until a crash happens. And that was a damn strong coalition. Admittedly, it would rely on the Blair successor having high political skillz to navigate that new post-crash atmosphere if we're going to extend the run up to around this date, something far, far from being a given.

Well those factors don't rupture the party. The Tories are relatively United on those issues and can survive, even if they lack broader appeal. However Europe gets both sides riled up. It, unlike the other options, can rip the party in two. So many major Tory problems in the last few decades have been linked to it. And yes, UKIP wasn't much in 1999, but it existed and could be used as a vehicle for Euroscepticism. Euroscepticism was already a powerful force in British politics, Thatcher supported it and it took over the Tories, and it had reared itso head even before that. So I think that there is potential for a Eurosceptic party, and I don't think Scenario 1 should be discarded so easily, or perhaps No 2.
 
ISOT John Major and Kim Campbell? :p

Huh, that gives me an idea. We need someone who's as bad as Brian Mulroney at administrating, then we need this Mulroney-like guy to come off and then a person as shitty as Campbell at campaigning needs to come on and totally saturate TV with horrendous ads attacking Tony Blair for totally superficial reasons. Then we need a minor party to cut into the Conservative base.

So, maybe worsen the recession, have Major totally fuck up the reaction to it even worse than OTL, and then have him get replaced by a horrible campaigner who spends quite a bit of money on totally stupid ads attacking Tony Blair for "being little more than a pretty face" and stuff, then maybe have John Redwood leave the Conservatives and join UKIP? Maybe that kind of star power can allow UKIP to surge? Then the 1997 landslide would presumably be even bigger, with UKIP gaining a large number of seats.
 
Huh, that gives me an idea. We need someone who's as bad as Brian Mulroney at administrating, then we need this Mulroney-like guy to come off and then a person as shitty as Campbell at campaigning needs to come on and totally saturate TV with horrendous ads attacking Tony Blair for totally superficial reasons. Then we need a minor party to cut into the Conservative base.

So, maybe worsen the recession, have Major totally fuck up the reaction to it even worse than OTL, and then have him get replaced by a horrible campaigner who spends quite a bit of money on totally stupid ads attacking Tony Blair for "being little more than a pretty face" and stuff, then maybe have John Redwood leave the Conservatives and join UKIP? Maybe that kind of star power can allow UKIP to surge? Then the 1997 landslide would presumably be even bigger, with UKIP gaining a large number of seats.

What about Gillian Shephard? What was her position on Europe?
 
Top