PM Neil Kinnock 1992-? (split from WI: Thatcher fights on?)

As i said, Kinnock has massive problems and baggage. He's not going to grow a spine or reveal the Wizard of Oz.

However, it seems from others that he would win against Thatcher. But he's still Neil Kinnock. '

Of course, the last ghosts of the *other* MT might prove very restless under PM Kinnock.
 
There's been loads of them.

Anyway, Kinnock will be in a weaker position than Blair was. He'll either have a modest majority or be without one entirely. He might have to rely on the Liberal Democrats for support or enter into a full coalition with them. In the case of the latter there will probably be some kind of experiment with AV, although it'll most probably end up as much of a failure as it was in 2011 (after all, despite some enthusiasm for the idea among heavyweights like Brown, Labour does have a vested interest in not changing the electoral system). Devolution and an elected mayor of London will happen ahead of schedule and since Kinnock isn't a control freak like Blair there will be fewer attempts to impose control on the local parties.

The ERM will be a problem. If it happens on schedule than Kinnock is probably doomed in 1997 (or earlier if he doesn't have a working majority). If it is averted than he might stand a chance, although he'd probably retire some after winning in '97, since he'd have been running the party for a very long time by then. I doubt he'd have managed to roll back Thatcher's changes- he almost certainly wouldn't have the votes.

Who the Tories pick as their new leader will be important. Heseltine, Clarke, Portillo and even (God forbid) Redwood have the potential to make a go at it. Portillo is probably the most likely to deliver a victory in the next election. Or perhaps Major will pull off his OTL trick and win the leadership by being the least offensive candidate.
I think the best case scenario for Labour would be to hang on until 2002 and by that point Kinnock would probably be gone. The Tories would be a in a much better position than they were in 1997 in OTL. On the other hand I doubt that losing would be as bad for Labour as it was in OTL 2010/2015 so we may end by back to the 60's/70's way of doing things, where no party really dominates.
 
Last edited:

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
The ERM will be a problem. If it happens on schedule than Kinnock is probably doomed in 1997 (or earlier if he doesn't have a working majority). If it is averted than he might stand a chance, although he'd probably retire some after winning in '97, since he'd have been running the party for a very long time by then. I doubt he'd have managed to roll back Thatcher's changes- he almost certainly wouldn't have the votes.
Given the nature of what happened with the ERM and Major's culpability in Black Wednesday by pushing Lamont further and further with his pet project, caution beam ball'd to the wind, it's possible that, depending on what stance Kinnock and Smith take on the ERM, the worst of Black Wednesday can be avoided.
 
Who the Tories pick as their new leader will be important. Heseltine, Clarke, Portillo and even (God forbid) Redwood have the potential to make a go at it. Portillo is probably the most likely to deliver a victory in the next election. Or perhaps Major will pull off his OTL trick and win the leadership by being the least offensive candidate

If it is a Thatcher continues, loses in '91 scenario - which is the easiest way to get Kinnock - then there's no real doubt at all that it'll be Major. It's certainly not going to be Portillo or Redwood - neither were in the cabinet until after the 1992 election IOTL, they're not going to be running in a '91 contest.

Unlike most people I don't think a Kinnock government would be doomed, but its fate would depend upon the success of the realignment plan (basically a managed devaluation) for sterling in the ERM which Kinnock and Smith had. If that goes reasonably well, then the standing of the government will take a hit, but it wouldn't be anything like the crash of Black Wednesday.
 
Top