The Conservative government were enduring a tough start to 1993. John Major's signing of the Maastricht Treaty, and the subsequent formation of the European Union the previous year had attracted the ire of Tory Eurosceptics such as Iain Duncan Smith, who began an attempt to block the passing of Major's European Communities Amendments Bill (which would have ratified the Treaty) through Parliament. This bill was also opposed by the Labour Party, led by John Smith, who objected to Britain's opt-out of EU provisions relating to employment law. The vocal opposition to this bill had presented a "major" dilemma to the Prime Minister: he was faced with a fighting battle against a strengthening opposition and backbenchers from his own party, one that he would almost certainly lose.

Furthermore, the Conservative Party was mired in personal scandal and sleaze. Former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Mellor, had been forced to resign from his post after an expose revealed his affair with actress Antonia de Sancha, and several cabinet ministers were embroiled in dubious occurrences in their own person lives. Major had a massive challenge in attempting to distance his party, so long the champion of traditional family values, from these events, and some may even say he failed completely in this mission. Something had to change.

But what if it had, in that summer of 1993? What if John Major had called for a Conservative leadership election, just a year after his party had obtained the largest vote share in parliamentary history, and put his own position on the line in an internal battle for credibility? Would the roll of the dice have landed more securely for the Prime Minister, or would his legacy have been destroyed in a single moment? Watch and find out, as.....

THE BELL TOLLS FOR THEE, BRITAIN begins!
 
latest


20th July 1993

MAJOR DISSENT

PM jeered by own party as he defends his record on Maastricht ahead of EU vote

The Prime Minister, John Major, received criticism from within his own ranks yesterday afternoon in Prime Minister's Questions, as Parliament prepares to vote on the terms of the Maastricht Treaty.

Major has received flak from Conservative backbenchers for months, as he has pushed repeatedly for the introduction of the European Union, a move also supported by the Labour Party, however, it has been evident for some time that Major's vision is not shared by many in his party. Former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was critical of expansion to the European Communities, and the Secretary of State for Wales, John Redwood, has himself casted scorn upon the Prime Minister's methods of persuasion, but these levels of vitriol reached a new low yesterday, as the government fell into a state of intra-party bickering.

Major received questioning from his own MPs, as Torbay MP, Rupert Allason asked about the Prime Minister's support of the Maastricht Treaty, stating that he was concerned that a party leader would be ignoring the concerns of his own party. The Prime Minister then responded by saying that "the Conservative Party has traditionally been a party of Europe, ever since Edward Heath took into the EEC in 1974. A minority of unruly backbenchers will not change that."

This statement was made with booing from sections of the government benches, with audible shouts of "Resign!" being heard from both sides of the house. This is the first time that such public resentment has been shown to Major, and it represents something of a turning point for Eurosceptics in the party, who have traditionally been seen as having minimal influence. The Leader of the Opposition, John Smith, disagreed with Major's assertion, deeming it "very dangerous to call your fellow party members unruly" before warning that "Euroscepticism tore a hole in the Labour Party in the early 1980s", implying that Major's statement would lead him to a similar fate.

The tension of recent weeks will reach fever pitch tonight, as the House of Commons votes on the Maastricht Treaty. No fewer than 43 Conservative MPs, featuring such prominent faces as former Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, and former Shadow Scotland Secretary, Sir Teddy Taylor, have threatened to rebel against the government's three-line whip, and this, coupled with Labour opposition, could result in a massive defeat for the Prime Minister.

For further updates on the vote itself, Peter Sissons and Jeremy Paxman will be presenting a live BBC News special this evening from 9:30 onwards on BBC One, as events in Parliament unfold, before the results of the vote are revealed at 10:30pm, approximately thirty minutes after it takes place.​
 
hqdefault.jpg


BBC News

9:30pm

20th July 1993

Announcer:
We now break from our normal schedule to bring you a BBC News Special, live from outside the Palace of Westminster, with Peter Sissons.

Sissons: Good evening. Parliament has been brought to a standstill this evening, as it votes on the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. The Prime Minister, John Major, has faced opposition on the terms of the treaty from both Eurosceptics in his own party, and those in the Labour Party who feel that the treaty does not go far enough, but after 10pm tonight, the issue will be out of his hands, as the 650 MPs vote on Britain's position in the new European Union. I am joined by Jeremy Paxman, who will be interviewing key political figures as tonight's events unfold.

45 minutes later:

(Jeremy Paxman is interviewing former Prime Minister, James Callaghan, as Peter Sissons intervenes on their discussion)

Sissons: I'm afraid I am going to have interrupt you there, Jeremy, as I believe that those in parliament have commenced their voting, and the Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, is about to announce the results of the European Communities Amendments Bill.

(We then go to the House of Commons, where the Speaker is handed the final tally of votes.)

Speaker: The vote has been counted and verified several times, and I can now inform you that the responses to the European Communities Amendments Bill are as follows: Number of votes counted: 640 out of a possible 650 MPs. In favour of the motion, 318. Against the motion: 322. (Large cheers in the right of the chamber) The Government has been defeated on this bill, and it will not proceed to Royal Assent.

Sissons: A sharp intake of breath there by the Prime Minister, as Parliament has rejected the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. Where does this leave Britain in relation to its membership of the European Union, Jeremy?

Paxman: Well, the Maastricht Treaty must be ratified by all member nations of the European Union before it can proceed, therefore, we are left with a massive crisis. Britain is one of the last nations to vote on the Treaty itself, which means that precious time is being wasted, according to the EU, and this will almost certainly lead to further negotiations between them and the British government. However, many other nations have held referendums on the Treaty, and this may be a course of action taken by Mr Major, however, we cannot possibly say whether this will be the case.

Sissons: Well, I can confirm that the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the British public at 9am from Downing Street, in relation to his government's failure to pass the European Communities Amendments Bill through Parliament. Little is known about the content of this statement, however, it can be stated that whatever it says, Britain is facing a very uncertain future. This has been a BBC News Special live from Westminster, thank you and goodnight.​
 
hqdefault.jpg


BBC One

8:55am

21st July 1993

Announcer:
As announced last evening, we now go to Downing Street, for a BBC News Special, with Michael Buerk.

Buerk: Hello, this is BBC News, live from Westminster. We join you this morning, as Britain wakes up to a different dawn than the one expected by the Prime Minister. Last night, he narrowly failed to pass the terms of the Maastricht Treaty in Parliament, leaving Britain in a precarious political situation. However, we are expecting him to come out of the famous door of 10 Downing Street, to give us a statement on where Britain will go from here. I am joined by our political editor, Robin Oakley. Robin, what can you tell us about the Prime Minister's preparations for this statement?

Oakley: Well, Michael, by all accounts, the Prime Minister's doorbell has not stopped ringing all night, as political figures have stepped through those doorsp to speak to him. It is believed that the cabinet held an emergency meeting at 1am this morning, to discuss the aftermath of the vote, and at 6am, prominent Maastricht Rebel, Christopher Gill, met with the Prime Minister, for an exchange of pleasantries, no doubt. And not ten minutes ago, Baroness Thatcher, the woman who preceded John Major as Prime Minister, walked into Downing Street, for what some have taken to see as offering some "friendly advice" to the Prime Minister, just before the most important statement of his political career thus far.

Buerk: Thank you, Robin. The Prime Minister should be coming out any minute now, the podium is set, the cameras are rolling, and Britain holds its breath, to see just what the future holds. I believe that is the Prime Minister coming out now, let's listen to just what he has to say.

95major1.jpg


Major: Thirty-two months ago, I stepped through those doors for the first time, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Since then, we have enjoyed many successes. Britain is in its strongest economic position in decades, having moved out of recession. We have managed to reduce unemployment in Britain, from what was an all-time high. Demand has increased for British goods in foreign markets, representing a real change in how we trade with other countries. And when I signed the Maastricht Treaty last year, I felt that could be another success, as part of a European Union, with those we enjoy great relations with, for the benefit of Britain. That hope died last night. Parliament has rejected the terms of the current deal, and whilst I respect that we must go back to the table and negotiate further, our negotiations must be on the terms of the British people. Therefore, I have spoken to Her Majesty the Queen, requesting that a general election is held on 9th September, and hopefully, the British people can decide just what they want from the European Union, be it from a Conservative government, or a Labour government. Thank you.​
 
THE TIMES

23rd July 1993

TORIES: MAASTRICHT WILL GO TO REFERENDUM


Major proposes that "direct democracy" will decide the issue of Maastricht "once and for all"

The Conservative Party have today launched their General Election campaign, with Prime Minister John Major pledging to set out the terms of the Maastricht Treaty to the British people in a referendum, should he obtain a parliamentary majority.

The Conservative campaign was unveiled by John Major and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, under the slogan of "Back to Basics", suggesting that the Conservatives had lost their way in recent years, and were about to be steered on the right path. Major spoke of "the dangers of populism and Euroscepticm" in shaping Conservative policy over the past decade, and reiterated that "the next Conservative government will put the issue of Europe to bed once and for all."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer highlighted Conservative economic policy, which had seen the economy grow to its highest level in a decade, as a shining example of what the party stood for, stating that: "All mandates for growth must come from people, and much like we will entrust you with determining Britain's economic safety away from a Labour government who will raise taxes and take money out of your pocket, we will also entrust you with the power of direct democracy, which will ensure that we can go into Maastricht negotiations with the clearest idea of what the British people want."

The Leader of the Opposition, John Smith, criticised Clarke's assertions on Labour economic policy as "scaremongering", stating that such ideas will be laid to rest when the party unveils their campaign later this week, and accused the Conservative Party of "making baseless accusations to hide their own incompetence." Prominent Maastricht Rebel and Conservative backbench MP, Sir Teddy Taylor, also agreed with this sentiment, stating that "Euroscepticism is a view shared by plenty in the British public, and those who seek to pursue a federal Europe are ignoring the will of the people." It is widely expected that Taylor and 14 other Eurosceptic MPs will have the party whip removed this week for voting against the three-line whip on the EC Amendments Bill, and rumours are afoot that a new Eurosceptic party could form, tasking itself with removing Britain from the European Union.

Needless to say, with such statements coming just one day into the election campaign, we can be sure that this general election will be a difficult one for all parties involved.​
 
latest


24th July 1993

NEW LABOUR, NEW BRITAIN


Smith unveils a Labour Party fit for the 21st century

John Smith and John Prescott have today launched Labour's general election campaign, pledging to lead a campaign of reform in the European Union, as well as reforming the welfare state, introducing devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and promising to reduce unemployment figures further.

Since Neil Kinnock's resignation, Labour have undergone a process of modernisation, moving them away from more socialist policies, and focusing on improving current measures as opposed to repealing them outright. This has brought them into conflict with many traditional Labour voters, who believe the party is "abandoning its principles", but upon unveiling the party's campaign for the election, Labour leader, John Smith, made it clear that "this is a Labour Party fit for all Britons, ready to take on the new millennium with determination and strength that has not been seen in politics for decades".

In comparison to the Conservative Party's pledges, Labour are typically more socially-orientated. They pledge to put money back into infrastructure, healthcare and the welfare state, whilst also pursuing the reduction of grammar schools and pledging a referendum in all three Home Nations with regards to devolved assemblies, once a peace treaty has been agreed in Northern Ireland. In terms of Maastricht, Labour retains its initial position, saying that if elected, they will bring a further negotiated deal back to parliament to be voted on, and says that a referendum will only serve to split the nation into two.

The Conservative Party have reacted quickly to Labour's declination to hold a referendum, saying that they "do not uphold direct democracy" and stating that "it is not up to politicians to decide on the current deal for Britain". They have also decried plans to put money back into key departments as being "dangerous and leading to tax hikes across Britain", despite the fact that taxes have increased under the Major ministry.

Labour's campaign signals a new dawn for them as a party, and it will be interesting to see exactly how the election will pan out for a modernised Labour Party.​
 
Last edited:
THE TIMES

25th July 1993

MURDOCH AND GOLDSMITH LAUNCH EUROSCEPTIC PARTY


15 Maastricht Rebels join Murdoch in protest at Tory campaign remarks

rupert_murdoch.jpg


Fifteen Eurosceptic Conservative MPs have tendered their resignations from the party, each joining a new party, headed up by millionaires Rupert Murdoch and James Goldsmith.

The party, known as the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP for short, was prompted by recent comments made by John Major relating to the Eurosceptic cause, in which he referred to it as being "dangerous and populist". Fifteen Conservative MPs, including Sir Teddy Taylor, Liam Fox and Iain Duncan Smith, defected to the party following its formation, stating extreme dissatisfaction with the Conservative Party and its pro-European views. In a press conference statement, Murdoch said: "It is about time the British people were no longer dictated to by bureaucrats and politicians, and as such, we will campaign heavily for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. We reject any attempts to negotiate the Maastricht Treaty, and call on the British public to back us and do so too."

The party's formation has led to fury within the Conservative Party, who have been backed by Rupert Murdoch for the last fifteen years. In a statement, John Major accused the defectors, along with Murdoch and Goldsmith, of "impeding on the democratic process, with a party no one needs or wants". However, party support thus far has been strong, with over 12,000 members joining within 12 hours of the initial announcement.

This formation is set to throw a spanner in the works of the Conservative Party, but can a brand new movement act as a political force, so soon after its arrival? Time can only tell whether this party will survive.​
 
Nice TL, I've been wondering about this PoD too recently. I'm expecting a Hung Parliament from this, especially if the fledgling UKIP makes a significant dent.
 
latest


24th July 1993

NEW LABOUR, NEW BRITAIN


Smith unveils a Labour Party fit for the 21st century

John Smith and John Prescott have today launched Labour's general election campaign, pledging to lead a campaign of reform in the European Union, as well as reforming the welfare state, introducing devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and promising to reduce unemployment figures further.

Since Neil Kinnock's resignation, Labour have undergone a process of modernisation, moving them away from more socialist policies, and focusing on improving current measures as opposed to repealing them outright. This has brought them into conflict with many traditional Labour voters, who believe the party is "abandoning its principles", but upon unveiling the party's campaign for the election, Labour leader, John Smith, made it clear that "this is a Labour Party fit for all Britons, ready to take on the new millennium with determination and strength that has not been seen in politics for decades".

In comparison to the Conservative Party's pledges, Labour are typically more socially-orientated. They pledge to put money back into infrastructure, healthcare and the welfare state, whilst also pursuing the reduction of grammar schools and pledging a referendum in all three Home Counties with regards to devolved assemblies, once a peace treaty has been agreed in Northern Ireland. In terms of Maastricht, Labour retains its initial position, saying that if elected, they will bring a further negotiated deal back to parliament to be voted on, and says that a referendum will only serve to split the nation into two.

The Conservative Party have reacted quickly to Labour's declination to hold a referendum, saying that they "do not uphold direct democracy" and stating that "it is not up to politicians to decide on the current deal for Britain". They have also decried plans to put money back into key departments as being "dangerous and leading to tax hikes across Britain", despite the fact that taxes have increased under the Major ministry.

Labour's campaign signals a new dawn for them as a party, and it will be interesting to see exactly how the election will pan out for a modernised Labour Party.​
Not sure if you know this, but Prescott wasn't the Labour Deputy till 1994. So it would more likely be Beckett at the campaign launch. And on assemblies, you might mean Home Nations (of which there are four) as opposed to Home Counties, who I doubt are particularly interested in devolved assemblies.
 

Tovarich

Banned
Not sure if you know this, but Prescott wasn't the Labour Deputy till 1994. So it would more likely be Beckett at the campaign launch. And on assemblies, you might mean Home Nations (of which there are four) as opposed to Home Counties, who I doubt are particularly interested in devolved assemblies.
Prescott was feted by John Smith though, to get OMOV through conference by corralling in the Left.

Prescott took to the role of 'persuader' like a duck to water, and I expect the double-act would have continued if only poor old Smith's heart had too.
 
Prescott was feted by John Smith though, to get OMOV through conference by corralling in the Left.

Prescott took to the role of 'persuader' like a duck to water, and I expect the double-act would have continued if only poor old Smith's heart had too.
Perhaps, but it seems a little odd that that would earn him pride of place alongside the leader at a manifesto launch. The only post prestigious enough to get to stand alongside the leader at something like that is Deputy Leader, and maybe the shadow chancellor, both of whom would be cheesed off of if Prescott was put in a head of them.
 
Prescott was feted by John Smith though, to get OMOV through conference by corralling in the Left.

Prescott took to the role of 'persuader' like a duck to water, and I expect the double-act would have continued if only poor old Smith's heart had too.

This was basically my thought process in including Prescott as opposed to Beckett.
 
I don't think Murdoch would have backed a new Eurosceptic party. As has been discussed on this forum before, Murdoch backs winners so he can sell newspapers. The idea that he'd go out on a limb for some ideological crusade against Europe is an alluring but ultimately poor representation of the man.
 

Tovarich

Banned
I don't think Murdoch would have backed a new Eurosceptic party. As has been discussed on this forum before, Murdoch backs winners so he can sell newspapers. The idea that he'd go out on a limb for some ideological crusade against Europe is an alluring but ultimately poor representation of the man.

Hell of a lot of copies of the Sun being shifted at this time, the "Up Yours, Delors" period.

It was so vitriolic, I think it helped set the differing strands of the 'Eurosceptic movement' into the solidly xenophobic block it became.
 
Looks like Smith will win easily(as was the polling at the time), though he would not be 'New Labour' so he would not win by as much as Blair.
 
I don't think Murdoch would have backed a new Eurosceptic party. As has been discussed on this forum before, Murdoch backs winners so he can sell newspapers. The idea that he'd go out on a limb for some ideological crusade against Europe is an alluring but ultimately poor representation of the man.

I think in this case, Murdoch would be much more likely to back a Eurosceptic party off the bat. Take into account that the Sun and Mail were and still are very against the concept of the EU, and the failure of Parliament to ratify Maastricht would mean that it would be a prevalent public issue, and something that Murdoch would wish to jump onto, taking the idea set out already by James Goldsmith (IOTL the much less prominent Referendum Party) and adding further finance to it, to produce something that could realistically be an offshoot of the Conservatives if Major fails to control Eurosceptics further.
 
I think in this case, Murdoch would be much more likely to back a Eurosceptic party off the bat. Take into account that the Sun and Mail were and still are very against the concept of the EU, and the failure of Parliament to ratify Maastricht would mean that it would be a prevalent public issue, and something that Murdoch would wish to jump onto, taking the idea set out already by James Goldsmith (IOTL the much less prominent Referendum Party) and adding further finance to it, to produce something that could realistically be an offshoot of the Conservatives if Major fails to control Eurosceptics further.
I do very much take into account both papers historical and current views on Europe, but that does not necessarily mean a new Eurosceptic party helped by Murdoch. As I've said, he backs winners. At the time, he backed the Tories and was willing to push a Eurosceptic agenda within the country but, when it came to party politics, would rather have influenced the internal debates of the Tories than an outside force. Murdoch was far from similar to Goldsmith in this regard, as one was living quite well off the Tory government and his friends in the party whilst the other had been bitten by those very same people and saw the Tories as a wet and unpatriotic mess that could never offer a referendum on Europe without being pushed by some anti-federalist outside force.

Their outlooks on the European question and how it related to internal Tory politics differed greatly due to their experiences with the party in the past and with the Tory governments of Thatcher and Major. There are plenty of plausible people who could have followed James Goldsmith's route, of course, but Murdoch is not one of them.
 
Top