DBWI: The UK Tories Win in 1992
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
The tories would be hit hard by the 1992 shock, much harder than Labour was, since they could blame it on the tories. And without Labour’s popular social policies and Keynesian measures, I think you would have a 1996/7 labour landslide.
I suppose it depends on who replaces Neil Kinnock as Labour leader. If the party swings back to the hard left then the next election could restore the Tory majority.
Since Major (who, let's not forget, was Thatcher's favoured candidate in the 1990 leadership contest after she pulled out) would become a Tory hero after pulling off a 1992 election win, Michael Heseltine's leadership hopes would be extinguished, and he would likely never have become PM.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Okay, ‘97 was not a landslide, but it was still a comfortable Labour victory, right?
And the Keynesian measures did lead to a growing economy and more middle-class jobs.
And with the 2002-2003 recession — Look, I’ve argued heavy and hard that business cycles are largely in the cards. As moderate as this recession was, Labour was the incumbent party and, hell, yes, they’re going to be blamed.
What Labour did smart was respond promptly with income and payroll tax cuts to immediately pump more money into the economy. It wasn’t reckless, but neither was it timid. Kudos to Labour.
And yes, 2002 was a bit of a close victory for Labour. How would one realistically expect otherwise?
Okay, ‘97 was not a landslide, but it was still a comfortable Labour victory, right?
And the Keynesian measures did lead to a growing economy and more middle-class jobs.
And with the 2002-2003 recession — Look, I’ve argued heavy and hard that business cycles are largely in the cards. As moderate as this recession was, Labour was the incumbent party and, hell, yes, they’re going to be blamed.
What Labour did smart was respond promptly with income and payroll tax cuts to immediately pump more money into the economy. It wasn’t reckless, but neither was it timid. Kudos to Labour.
And yes, 2002 was a bit of a close victory for Labour. How would one realistically expect otherwise?
I'm not sure if you could call it a victory since the result was a hung Parliament just like 1992. This came as a shock since Brown was expected to win an outright majority. After all he was a new PM following Kinnock's resignation earlier in the year. In 2003 he had to call another election and this time Hestletine's Tories won.
ASB. The introduction of Community charge made Tories unpopular. It was criticised as poll tax. Furthermore, Thatcherian privatizations meant the living conditions in mining towns declined. The considering this, i am suprised that Tories managed to secure a hung parliment 1992 elections.
Heseltine's tenure was just as short as Brown's; he lasted about a year before retiring due to ill health. The eventful Portillo premiership that followed is difficult to airbrush out of history.
Eventful is right. Portillo's handling of the 2009 economic downturn satisfied no one. On the international stage he was often a negative contrast with U.S. President John McCain, who appeared to be the more influential and decisive Western leader.
The kiss and tell stories from his university boyfriends certainly added colour to Portillo's time in No 10, though the Australian PM calling him a "Dago Poofter" was going too far. It was the 2000's for God's sake not the 1950's.
I know. i'm saying if the tories won, 96/97 would have been a Labour landslide.
No doubt about it. After 18 years in power the Tories would be wiped out in 1997. Who'd have been the Labour leader that year? Certainly not Kinnock. Perhaps Brown five years early?
That depends who was Labour leader, someone like Roy Hattersley might still win but wouldn't get a huge majority and that smarmy sod Blair would lose.