WI: Kinnock resigns 1987?

I was thinking about this the other day. What if Neil Kinnock had resigned following the 1987 General Election defeat. Possibly because of a worse result for Labour due to Thatcher doing better with the miners, Kinnock messing up or the Alliance maintaining their support.

Who would succeed him? And would the successor be able to win the 1992/91 election? What would be the effect on the Conservative Party? Would they be more willing to keep Thatcher? Would she go as OTL or resign earlier? Or fight the election herself?

Who would win 1997?
 
Either John Smith or Roy Hattersley I think. They'd probably meet with some resistance from the Left, Benn might stand like he did in 1988.

Assuming no butterflies, I think that Smith would place Labour in a better position at the next election, considering that Labour was seriously hindered in 1992 by public attitudes to Kinnock.
 
Assuming no butterflies, I think that Smith would place Labour in a better position at the next election, considering that Labour was seriously hindered in 1992 by public attitudes to Kinnock.

Would the Tories still win?

What would happen under Hattersley?
 
Would the Tories still win?

What would happen under Hattersley?

I'd say that without Kinnock, Labour might very well eke out a narrow majority. From what I gather, a lot of people just didn't like Kinnock, for whatever reason. John Smith might have been more palatable.
 
Would the Tories still win?

What would happen under Hattersley?

Hattersley would be almost as unpopular as Kinnock I fear. I think he would go down to defeat at the next election albeit a rather smaller defeat than 87. Smith is the best option
 
Either John Smith or Roy Hattersley I think. They'd probably meet with some resistance from the Left, Benn might stand like he did in 1988.

Assuming no butterflies, I think that Smith would place Labour in a better position at the next election, considering that Labour was seriously hindered in 1992 by public attitudes to Kinnock.

The thought of Fattersley being Labour Leader is somewhat hideous.
 
Possible successors (in order of likelihood):

John Smith
Roy Hattersley
John Prescott
Tony Benn
Gerald Kaufman

Smith would have probably won the leadership. He was a Jim Callaghan-type figure; on the Right of the party but not overly offensive to the Left, and personally likable. Hattersley's main problem would have been the fact that he was the Deputy under a leader who had just led the party to another heavy defeat. Prescott would have been the Left's most realistic option. Benn was still both an inspiring and controversial figure but he was a bit past it at this point. Kaufman would have been the candidate of the Right if Smith and Hattersley had stayed out.
 
I'd say that without Kinnock, Labour might very well eke out a narrow majority. From what I gather, a lot of people just didn't like Kinnock, for whatever reason. John Smith might have been more palatable.

Which would be a disaster for Labour; the economic meltdown was coming whoever was in charge and the Tories would have been able to say 'I told you so' if Labour had been in government. As it was the Tories made extravagant promises in an election they expected to lose and went into a down spiral that culminated in the annihilation of 1997.
 
Top