Tories lose in 1992: who becomes opposition leader?

Thande

Donor
We've seen the WI about John Major losing in 1992 posted a few times but I don't remember that much speculation about it.

So the Conservatives lose the 1992 general election. If you believe it's the Sun wot won it, perhaps them failing to embark on their aggressive anti-Kinnock campaign would be enough. But the POD isn't that important. Labour win but it's a skin-of-their-teeth victory with a barely workable majority, say 10 or so (I don't recall what all the poll predictions were saying at the time, but I don't think they would exactly sweep to victory).

Anyway, the question I wanted to ask was who becomes Tory opposition leader. With a limited defeat like this, we can probably assume none of the party bigwigs or high-profile up-and-coming stars lose their seats as happened in 1997. Of the field, who would you say are the frontrunners?
 
Best bet is still Hezza I think.

I suspect it's still too early for Portillo.

Does Ian Lang lose his seat?
 
One of the usual suspects, I expect.

Hesseltine is an options, as is Ken Clarke. Its a shame Chris Patton lost his seat as he might have done well. Lamont or Hurd would've also been inn the mix.

Overalll though, I suspect Douglas Hurd would have been seen as a safe pair of hands, which is a shame as I think Ken Clarke or Michael Hesseltine were the outstanding candidates.
 

Thande

Donor
Hmm...so the Tories probably have a big beast with ministerial experience, while Labour have Kinnock and the Lib Dems still have Paddy Ashdown...at least in the short run, then, I'd expect the sort of political culture of the 80s to continue a while, avoiding the youth fetish and media connection that started to come about when Blair became leader of Labour...
 
It depends. Hurd was never the most, well controversial figure. If he wins, I honestly think he would just be another Major. This leads to questions over whether Hesseltine or Clarke could unite the party with pro-european leanings?
 
It depends. Hurd was never the most, well controversial figure.

I don't think I would say it comes down to him being non-controversial, so much as him just being N/A for the times. Hurd-as-leader in 1992 is a bit like Ken Clarke as leader in 2005. He's completely out of fashion, and out of step with about two generations in the party. It's also worth bearing in mind that the party usually swings to the right in defeat. Both of these factors mean Hurd is basically a non-starter as leader.

This is a good question and one which is difficult to answer definitively. There are people who you can rule out: Hurd, Portillo (wasn't in cabinet until after the election) Clarke.

The ones you can rule in are:

  • Heseltine
  • Howard
  • Lilley
  • Lamont
  • Rifkind (if he doesn't lose his seat)

And that is pretty well it really. I said it would be a Lamont-Heseltine race last time this came up, but tbh, looking at it with a steadier eye, my guess is it would be Lilley-Heseltine, and probably with Lilley just taking it by a nose. The only true dark horse candidate I can think of is Waldegrave, but I think the party would be too polarised and the other candidates too well organised for that kind of thing.
 
Last edited:
I always thought Hurd would have got it. Heseltine makes it very clear in his autiobio that he would not have stood for leader after a defeat in 92, and would have backed Ken Clarke.
Howard could be a dark house as well.
 
Heseltine makes it very clear in his autiobio that he would not have stood for leader after a defeat in 92, and would have backed Ken Clarke.

I find that extremely doubtful. Heseltine looked all set to stand in 1997 for leader before his heart got in the way - I can't think of any possible reason why he wouldn't in 1992. If he does say that in his autobiography, then I think it can pretty easily be discounted. The man desperately wanted to be PM; if he didn't stand, then it would be interpreted by all as an abdication of that ambition, (not least by Clarke) which is to say, a permanent retirement. And I just cannot see him doing that when the opportunities are still there.
 
Last edited:
I always thought Hurd would have got it. Heseltine makes it very clear in his autiobio that he would not have stood for leader after a defeat in 92, and would have backed Ken Clarke.
Howard could be a dark house as well.

As my memory serves his main point was that he did not want to be Leader of the Opposition - he did not want to precipitate a 1992 defeat.

Once that defeat had happened he would certainly have run.

If someone has his memoirs to hand do feel free to prove me wrong though.
 
  • Heseltine
  • Howard
  • Lilley
  • Lamont
  • Rifkind (if he doesn't lose his seat)

Of the above list V-J compiled:

Heseltine will almost certainly throw his hat into the ring but will have the "assassin" label stuck to him which will cost him support.

Howard will throw down a marker for future leadership contests but doesn't have and serious chance.

Lilley never stuck me as having as much support. The press and he never enjoyed a cosy relationship certainly. But in OTL he beat Howard by one vote in the 1997 Leadership election...

Lamont was more popular with his party in 1992 before the ERM debacle. He has the potential to be leader at this point but if ERM repeats itself, he'd be hit as equally as hard as Kinnock's government which wouldn't enable the Conservatives to score valuable political points.

Rifkind has a strong chance at this point like Lamont and could well succeed as the "stop whomever" candidate. Hurd would undoubtedly throw his support behind Rifkind in a quid pro quo move following his support in 1990.
 
The thing is, though, there won't be anyone who is head and shoulders above the rest, certainly on the right of the party, at this point. Which gives Howard, Lilley, and indeed Lamont better chances than they would have in pretty much every other contest.

Heseltine will get the vote of the left effectively as a solid bloc in this contest, (Even if Clarke declares, he's a sideshow) and he always attracted a decent amount of support on the right/centre of the party. He will be the man to beat here. Only Rifkind could really challenge for Heseltine's natural constituency, and then only marginally.

So whether Heseltine is beaten or not depends on what happens with the vote of the right. I suspect Lilley will become the main challenger simply by default; Lamont will be blamed for taking the economic decisions which lead to electoral defeat, and for being Norman Lamont, and Michael Howard was often regarded by the more dogged Thatcherite right as a slightly phoney populist who never really grabbed their heart, which partly explains why he crashed so badly in OTL in '97.

So really, the question is: which of the non-Heseltine candidates gets the most votes in the first round, and therefore emerges as the de facto stop Hes candidate: Lilley, or Rifkind. If it's Lilley, Heseltine's chances are, probably, better. If Rifkind is beaten, then who he endorses could be significant.
 
Last edited:
Top