alternatehistory.com

Something that had always made me wonder was why John Major didn't continue the tradition of going to the UK electorate every four years.

He didn't in 1991, though that was understandable (thought he might lose and so hung on to 1992).

I have suspected it was simply a 'We're going to lose, hang on as long as possible' situation. But what if he hadn't? What if he'd simply recognised the inevitable and called a general election in May 1996 instead?

Any thoughts on the short term and long term consequences?

Some of my own:
1. If Major is going in 1996, he may not resign as Conservative leader in 1995 triggering the contest with Redwood.

2. Labour and Blair's win in 1996 is just as inevitable as in 1997, BUT
a) With possibly a smaller (though still a landslide) majority - Say 160 or so? Is this more reasonable?
b) With Portillo still around (perhaps) will he run for Conservative Party leader?

3. Assuming Major does resign immediately following defeat, who will replace him in 1996? Is Heseltine now too old? Is Hague now too young? Did Portillo manage to avoid defeat after all? Could Redwood throw his hat in?

4. Assuming minimal butterflies, how would the 2000 election play out (presumably Labour win - but a landslide?)

5. And pressing on further, into 2004, could we see the Conservatives somehow pull off a win here, especially if Blair has pursued an Iraq war with Bush and its even rawer with the electorate?
Top