WI: John Major had lost in 1992.

What if John Major had lost the 1992 general election? How good would Kinnock be? How would Kinnock deal with Black Wednesday?
 
Kinnock's an odd figure, as he was a modernizer but certainly not a Blairite. He likely would have governed along the lines of Harold Wilson: a pragmatic social democrat who is held back by the party establishment. Unless he goes the route of Blair and effectively breaks the far-left of the party, than he'll have some trouble within his own party.

In terms of the prospects for reelection in 1997 or sooner, it really depends on who is leading the Conservative Party.
 
Kinnock would have had the same situation as Blair in having a very powerful chancellor in John Smith so I dont think he would have had freedom of movement.

I think a con defeat in 92, would not have been as damaging for the following reasons.
1) By missing out on Black Wed they would not have lost their aura of economic competence, while Labour's reputation for economic incompetence would have been confirmed.
2) All the scandals that hit the major govt would have been ameliorated by the fact that they were in opposition.
3) Although there may have been some bitterness about Major and Thatcher I don't think it would have been worse than what happened, Con's may have realigned as an anti EEC party therby outflanking UKIP

all of these reasons suggest to me if Maj lost 92 then cons would have won in 97.

With all respect to Neil Kinnock I dont think he would have made a good prime minister, what he did brilliantly is take on and tame the left of the labour party, it was easy for Blair compared to the battles that Kinnock faced.

The sad legacy of defeat in 92 for labour was a further drift rightwards and being too timid when they finally won in 97.

As far as the labour party would have dealt with black wednesday it would have been catastrophic. Both parties were committed to the ERM but as labour were new and possibly had the greater commitment the whole thing could have gone on longer.
 
Neil Kinnock will probably only win in 1992 with a small majority, perhaps even smaller than the OTL one that John Major gained. Major probably loses the Conservative leadership thereafter, though, remember, the Major of 1992 is a lot more popular than the Major of, say, 1994, with his backbenchers, so if the defeat's only a minor one, there's a chance he could stay on as Leader of the Opposition. Otherwise, the leadership's likely to go to Heseltine. Norman Lamont could also concievably grab it, but I think Heseltine's the more likely option.

Black Wednesday will be a disaster for Labour, probably, though, if they're still enjoying something of a honeymoon, it's possible they can still turn round and blame it on the Tories. Nonetheless, it's not going to do anything good for the Labour Government's polling figures. Economic recovery will come after Britain's out of the ERM, but (partisan alert!) I suspect that the higher taxation brought in by a Kinnock Government will slow it somewhat.

Both parties will probably become more Eurosceptic, prompted by Labour's experience of dealing with the EEC, and the influence of Conservative backbenchers upon their leadership. Were Labour for, or against the Maastricht treaty? This could have some interesting butterflies.

A Tory defeat in 1992, could, paradoxically mean George HW Bush is re-elected later that year, given a lot of his campaign intelligence came from Conservative Party officials. With the Tories going into Opposition in the summer of 1992, a lot of these advisers will be discharged, and it seems reasonable they'd try to get involved in Republican Party politics. A mid 1990s Labour Government, and a Republican Presidency until 1997 certainly strangles any ideas of New Labour at birth.

British Rail survives in some form, or, at least, has a stay of execution. The Tories may very well propose privatisation in their 1996/97 manifesto.

I'd expect the Conservatives to be returned to office with a decent majority in 1996 or 1997, though that could be partisanship speaking. In foreign affairs, the EU will have developed differently, and the dissolution of Yugoslavia certainly would be altered. Assuming HW wins the '92 Presidential Election, who do the Democrats nominate in 1996? After sixteen years of Republican rule, the White House is presumably their's for the taking...

And, lastly, I believe Britain would've been a much, much better place had Labour won in 1992. You'd probably see distinctly ideological parties, for one thing, as opposed to all striving for the centre. The whole lack of trust that started under Major and blossomed under Blair is butterflied, though I suppose it's possible it could've happened under Kinnock too.

Basically, I reckon the 1992 Conservative victory was a bad thing for both the Labour and Conservative parties, and its impact on both of them is, now, nearly twenty years on, only just beginning to be fully felt.
 
Top