Ultimate Paragon
Banned
What if John Major's extramarital affair with Edwina Currie became known while he was Prime Minister?
WI: John Major's affair is exposed
- Thread starter Ultimate Paragon
- Start date
what year? he was PM for 7 years and that really changes a lot, before the 1992 election, Major steps down and the Tories lose the election, right after the 1992 election (1992-94) Major steps down, no election, the Tories get some mud on their faces, latter sexual scandals with-in the Conservative party are made worse maybe an election before 1997, maybe not, likely the sleaze with Major himself on the top of the list makes the election worse, if it comes out after 1994 Major steps down and it likely sets off an election
Except that Major was supposed to the grey technocrat with a boy scout image. The affair being exposed would do him a lot more damage, imo, than the same thing happening to a more colourful pol.
Like Bill Clinton's popularity hardly dropped, despite the best efforts of the Republicans, while Eliott Spitzer's career was destroyed.
Like Bill Clinton's popularity hardly dropped, despite the best efforts of the Republicans, while Eliott Spitzer's career was destroyed.
My personal idea would be that Spitting Image accidentally gets it right, and that sets off some stuff leading to the revelation.
Some people in his party would be outraged and the press would be loving it, but will most Britons care? It's a tame scandal by 90s Tory standards and it means the dull grey man likes having sex like a normal person. It might make little difference.
With respect, no. In fact, fuck no.
In that strange, febrile climate that was around at the time, this would be scandal of the decade. Definite resigning matter for Major.
'But Veej, this isn't a resigning matter, by any stretch of the imagination!'
Yes, sadly this kind of thing was in the nineties Tory Party, duders. After how Back to Basics was briefed to the media by Tim Collins, it was.
Last edited:
I don't think it would be a resigning matter per se, but it could be used by Major's rivals, inside and out of the Tory Party, to push Major over the edge.
Yeah, sadly post-Back to Basics it would be.
Look, you have to get your head around the climate at the time. Nothing remotely like how these things are handled now. Not remotely. And it's hard to even understand how stupidly out of control it was. Maybe people who weren't around at the time can't quite make that leap; I have a hard time of it myself.
Back to Basics had been briefed to the media (wrongly and stupidly by certain individuals who later went on to prove themselves just as wrong on wider issues) as a 'family values' campaign. That gave the press license to hunt careers to extermination over every and any act of personal weakness. If you had been shagging around, and you were caught, you were out. Simple as that. They destroyed you, and it was still powerfully felt that this thing was wrong in the party. This is not David Cameron's party, this is closer to Margaret Thatcher's party.
If the man who gave the world 'Back to Basics' was discovered to have been engaging in an affair (and please bear in mind there had been rumours about Major having other affairs, which he had previously successfully sued the press about) he would, in Kelvin Mackenzie's famous phrase, have had 'a big bucket of shit' poured all over him.
There's no way he would have been able to carry on. They guy was already borderline politically crippled from at least 1993/1994 onwards. He'd go, no question.
With respect, yes. In fact, fuck yes. I remember well when it came out, and distinctly remember that most of the commentary was around a vaguely sarcastic sense that with Major, even the sex scandals were boring.
There were a lot of juicy scandals in the 90's. This wouldn't even make the top ten, probably not the top fifty.
If it had come out before the 1992 election it would have been a nine day wonder at most, with Major at worst getting away with saying something like "it was a difficult period of my life that was over many years ago, which I was able to overcome thanks to the love and forgiveness of my wonderful wife, Norma." Afterwards, yes - it would have torpedoed back to basics, but that was always a laughing stock anyway. As for resigning - if the affair had been ongoing when the revelation was made, then maybe. But for something that was ancient history (it was finished by 1988 at the latest)? No chance.
Also, and let's be blunt about this, it was Edwina Currie. She was about as popular as Salmonella at the time - she's not going to get much sympathy as the wronged woman. If anything, people will praise his judgement for dumping her.
It came out in late 2002 OTL, when Currie published her diaries - years and years after the political climate I'm talking about had passed, and when John Major and Edwina Currie both were ancient politically history. So I really have no idea what your point is here.
That said, you are right about a difference between the post-1990, pre-1992 Major being dealt with differently if it comes out then. But you're hopelessly, ridiculously wrong that this would be some page nine issue which everyone would just shrug their shoulders about if it comes out between Back to Basics and the '97 election. The notion that this 'probably wouldn't make the top fifty' of nineties scandals is just literally laughable, you're wildly, massively overegging the pudding of your argument.
Last edited:
Oh, for crying out loud. Look - I know it's a given in certain circles that All Things Evil in British politics can be traced back to Mrs Thatcher but this is just bollocks. Thatcher fought hard to save Cecil Parkinson (and probably would have if his secretary hadn't have been pregnant) and brought him back as soon as soon as she decently could. She also made Alan Clark a minister, despite being well aware what he was like - whatever else you say about the Iron lady, she was not somebody who cared much about somebody's private life so long as they were up to the job.
One other affair, and the rumour was false.
I wasn't impeaching the glorious Mrs T, God forbid, I was talking about the party zeitgeist. Which was very socially authoritarian, and not at all approving of extra-martial bonking. There are MPs who have had trouble with selections over that kind of thing even in the last few years.
You miss my point. I wasn't implying the Claire Latimer allegations had legs, I was pointing out that the press would want its pound of flesh in revenge. The New Statesman were nearly bankrupted as a result of the 1993 action, and even when the Currie affair came out IOTL a decade later they threatened to sue Major to recoup their court costs. Probably they would ITTL and they would have the tabloid press cheering them on.
Last edited: