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.