John Smith dies in 1988

MrHola

Banned
WI John Smith dies in 1988? OTL, he had a heart attack just after the Labour Party conference and took three months off politics to recover. Lets say he dies as he did after his second attack in 1994. Where does this leave the Labour Party? In OTL, Gordon Brown became Shadow Chancellor until Smith returned, so persumably this happens here as well.

Persumably Labour still loses in '92 and Kinnock resigns afterward, so who would replace him? Gordon Brown seems a possibility, in OTL he considered running but decided against it, and I can see him beating anyone else. Any idea how a Brownite Labour Party in 1992 would pan out?
 
WI John Smith dies in 1988? OTL, he had a heart attack just after the Labour Party conference and took three months off politics to recover. Lets say he dies as he did after his second attack in 1994. Where does this leave the Labour Party? In OTL, Gordon Brown became Shadow Chancellor until Smith returned, so persumably this happens here as well.

Persumably Labour still loses in '92 and Kinnock resigns afterward, so who would replace him? Gordon Brown seems a possibility, in OTL he considered running but decided against it, and I can see him beating anyone else. Any idea how a Brownite Labour Party in 1992 would pan out?

Well, assuming Labour loses in '92, a 1997 victory is going to be almost impossible to avoid; but a majority of 179 seems unlikely with the dour Gordon Brown in charge; I think Labour would have a majority of between 90 and 130 seats; still hugely powerful, but not crushing the Tories as utterly as in 1997 and 2001.
Without a Blair figure, Labour is unlikely to become "New Labour", which, arguably, it didn't need to either. While Brown is not stupid enough to move back to the Left, nor is he going to move as far to the Centre, even Centre Right as Blair did. I would expect a Brown Government to re-nationalise the railways soon after entering office, and using the term "Socialist" a lot more.
After that, I'm not sure what would happen. I'd guess Labour wins the 2001 general election by a healthy margin, if not a landslide, but this could be affected by the Fuel Crisis of 2000, when they actually fell behind the Tories. This also depends on what the Conservative Party is doing at the time. Paradoxically, if they elect a more competent leader (I'm thinking Ken Clarke) they are more likely to suffer, due to Clarke's Europhilila.
And finally, I think Iraq is unlikely. Dare I say it... Britain might actually be better off under a slightly more Left wing Labour Party! :eek::eek::eek:
 

MrHola

Banned
Heh. I assume you're a Tory? ;) Who'd win in 2005? Michael Howard? Finally, would Brown send more troops into Afghanistan in order to compensate for not going into Iraq? What would happen to Blair? Would he resign from politics?
 
Heh. I assume you're a Tory? ;) Who'd win in 2005? Michael Howard? Finally, would Brown send more troops into Afghanistan in order to compensate for not going into Iraq? What would happen to Blair? Would he resign from politics?

Yes, I am a barbarian Northern Tory, like Mrs T ;)

Well I think (hope?) by 2005 the Tory leader would be Ken Clarke; one of the most competent men in the Party imo. Clarke could concievably settle the Euro dispute by promising the Eurosceptics a vote on Lisbon, while encouraging the general public to vote "Yes". In a Clarke vs. Brown election, I can see Clarke winning a fairly healthy majority of 50ish in Parliament, perhaps promoting someone like Hague to be his Chancellor, and giving Cameron a prominent place in the Cabinet.

Regarding Blair, I could see him becoming Brown's foreign secretary, and then becoming Labour leader after the 2005 defeat. The recession is still going to hit in 2008, but I wonder if a Clarke Government might be better placed to cope with it the our current Government? If the Tories really do "repair the roof while the sun is shining" or at least make some efforts to do so, Britain in 2009 could well be doing a lot better than it is currently. I would expect Clarke's Tories to be roughly neck and neck with Blair's Labour Opposition in the polls.

What about everyone else? Does this scenario seem plausible?
 

Deleted member 5719

Would Cook have had a chance as leader after 1992? Or even Brian Gould?
 
Clarke could concievably settle the Euro dispute by promising the Eurosceptics a vote on Lisbon, while encouraging the general public to vote "Yes".
Given that we are presuming a different British government in 1997, as compared to OTL (even if of the same party as OTL), I would assume European politics to be changed. The Lisbon controversy might not be so large if the Constitution of OTL was a mere treaty (no use of the word Constitution, and removing the flag/anthem/motto officialisation) right from the start, for one thing.
 

wormyguy

Banned
Under a more Leftish government however, might there be a possibility of Britain joining the Eurozone?
 
Under a more Leftish government however, might there be a possibility of Britain joining the Eurozone?

No. I believe Blair was quite positive about the Euro and thought about joining early on however big bad Gordon said No and stopped any advances on that issue. Doing those pointless economic tests on the Euro to make it look like he considered it. New Labour 1997-2005 was a war between Brown and Blair. If there is only Brown at the top I think we will see a better-run Labour party without the bickering etc.
 
How would Britain far internationally without going to Iraq? Frankly I'm not sure how for it Brown was in the first place but seems far more easily swayed but popular opinion than Blair, so I'd agree he'd probably at best send aid to help re-build afterwards.

Britain's role was crucial in making Iraq seem somewhat a multilateral undertaking, so would the US lose more support, I'm thinking the Eastern Europeans, maybe the Aussies though I doubt it. Would Brown get an upswing in the polls for refusing to aid America or would it just come off as backing down to protesters and show his weaknesses?

Also the Tories will almost certainly regardless of leader be for Iraq in my mind, would this position (I have a feeling an opposition Conservative leader would use the issue to claim the government weak on terrorism and keep up with it for a while) hurt them when things go sour?

Regarding Blair, I could see him becoming Brown's foreign secretary, and then becoming Labour leader after the 2005 defeat.

I'm intrigued by Blair possibly being quite critical if Brown doesn't join the US for the invasion, leading a rump of hawk rebels in Parliament possibly? Also I have a feeling the moment he gets a chance, Brown would dump Blair simply because of their atagonistic relationship. If Blair stumbles, parituclarly over Iraq, I could see him being removed in a reshuffle maybe even booted upstairs. Blair needed Brown because of his economics and to retain unity, Brown if in power in 1997 with a large majority needs Blair a lot less, and no doubt would see him as a future rival.
 
Labour could win the General Election in 1992 if Smith snuffs it in 1988. Although the Sun newspaper (he said using the loosest possible definition) is generally credited in sticking the boot into Labour, Smith's shadow budget was definitely factor number two. And no, people weren't bothered by the 1991 conference, they just chose to blame it.

The Shadow Budget was John Smith's baby and was generally regarded as fair and evenhanded but there were questions about the threshold of National Insurance contributions which turned off many voters in the South-East; Basildon Man was going to be voting Tory. Brits may recall the "Labour's Tax Bombshell" and "Labour's Double Whammy" posters.

Smith was instrumental in provoking Nigel Lawson into resigning in 1989 however - Lawson going was a key decision in the "get rid of Thatcher" movement as he was regarded as tough but fair and her backing of Sir Alan Walters was widely credited as a stupid mistake.

Without Smith in a 1992 Government and not knowing who the Chancellor would be (Brown early mebbe or some other bigwig), it'd be harder to predict outcomes. Black Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday)might actually result in White Wednesday if the Treasury keep a hold of foreign currency. If.
 
And no, people weren't bothered by the 1991 conference,

You could make a similar argument (Mark whatsisface has a good one) for the Shadow Budget. I tend to adheer to the argument that people had already made up their minds about Labour before the campaign (I.E, Labour as a whole was seen as just too left-wing, at least for a recession) and that the various factors attributed are just convienient events to pin that on.

However. Smith could have died a few times before 1994 (He fell off a mountain at one point in about 1988/89 - no, I'm not making this up) but I'm not really sure what the effects would be.

A lot would depend on who replaced him. It seems likely to be Brown, but as I recall Kinnock was quite fond of Bryan Gould - I think he was considered as Shadow Chancellor after '87 before being turned down.

Either way, I could see Gould being a formidable opponent for the leadership (Assuming Labour loses in '92) against someone other than Smith, be that Brown or whoever. If against Brown, Gould could pull a number of arguments - Brown too inexperienced, too right-wing, too unpopular, couldn't win a general election.
 

MrHola

Banned
A New Zealander as Prime Minister, interesting. Who's the most likely to win a potential leadership struggle? Brown or Gould?
 
I'd hesitate to say either. It could go either way. But I don't think Gould would be humiliated as he was in OTL. He made a balls up of it by running for both the leadership and deputy leadership simultaneously - I somehow suspect that he wouldn't do that here if he was really competitive against Brown. Gould, of course, would very likely have a much higher profile in the party here than OTL.

Even if Gould was defeated, a strong showing against Brown could strengthen his hand in the party - Brown may have to offer him a top post, in which case Gould's OTL politically frustrated career suicide may be aborted.
 
You could make a similar argument (Mark whatsisface has a good one) for the Shadow Budget. I tend to adheer to the argument that people had already made up their minds about Labour before the campaign (I.E, Labour as a whole was seen as just too left-wing, at least for a recession) and that the various factors attributed are just convienient events to pin that on.

Except that consistently Labour were leading in the polls between 5% and 8% during the 6 week campaign and post election polls indicate that as much as 10% of the electorate changed their minds because of the Sun's story. The Tories won with 42% of the overall vote when they were predicted to get no higher than 36%. Labour were predicted to get as much as 40% but crashed to 34% whilst the Liberal Democrats hung around the 17% figure.
 
post election polls indicate that as much as 10% of the electorate changed their minds because of the Sun's story.

Surely you don't want to go into all the problems associated with asking people their opinion of a past event, an event, moreover, which the media has already established a 'line' on? I'm surprised it's as low as 10%.
 
Top