What if, as expected, the Labour Party had won the UK election of 1992? By win, I don't necessarily mean win a majority - most contemporary expectations were for a hung Parliament with Labour holding the most seats. But what if Labour outvoted the Tories and gained at least a plurality of seats in 1992? Would they have been forced to govern in the minority? Or would they have formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats? Either way, what would've been the result of a Neil Kinnock premiership?
 
Depends how big their majority is or if they even have one at all. If they get a OTL Major-level majority then I imagine black Wednesday still hurts them but a lot of it can (quite rightly so) be blamed on the Tories. If Kinnock steps down as pm sometime before the next election and someone like Brown or Blair becomes leader then a 1997 win is possible.
 
Labour would be faced with a decision on the ERM whether to stay in at the OTL rate or stay in and devalue, IIRC Kinnock privately wanted to devalue although the Labour manifesto stated: 'Labour will maintain the value of the pound within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.' During the election campaign the £ fell as it looked more likely that Labour would win, so I think it's likely that the £ would face a crisis quite quickly (Black Wednesday was in September) - perhaps after Denmark's rejection of Maastricht a month after the election in June.

If Kinnock devalues and stays in the ERM this would avoid a costly exit but the economic outlook may be just as bad or worse for other reasons - it would be inflationary and this along with a loss of confidence would likely place pressure on interest rates to go up to support £ (particularly if the market expected another devaluation). So no matter what policy Labour pursue it would be a difficult period, at least in the first 1-2 years, and may reduce the likelihood of fulfilling manifesto commitments (reducing unemployment 'National Recovery Programme', generous increases to child benefit and pensions).

Other developments:
  • Likely to be no privatisation of British Rail as begun in 1994, at least while Labour remain in government;
  • Earlier opt-in to Social Chapter;
  • Potentially earlier introduction of national minimum wage;
  • Reversal of opted-out schools/City Technology Colleges and more local authority control in education;
  • Abolition of the poll tax and introduction of a new property tax as OTL - how far Labour's 'Fair Rates' would differ from Council Tax I don't know;
  • 'Department of Health and Community Care' (25 years early) and more grant funding for social care;
  • Earlier Department for International Development;
  • Earlier devolution in Scotland, Wales, and London - they also proposed consulting on a new tier of elected regional governments and/or unitarisation;
  • Potentially an attempt at Lords reform, but probably not a top priority - if they rely on Liberal Democrat votes then could see electoral reform or a referendum at least;
  • Earlier Freedom of Information;
  • Likely to be a big clash with the press and Murdoch in particular due to plans to tackle concentration of media ownership;
  • Earlier repeal of Clause 28;
  • A 'Ministry for Women' (Government Equalities Office set up in 2007 OTL).
If Smith as Chancellor passes away during the premiership then Brown would be an obvious successor, but likely inheriting a worse situation than he did in 1997 OTL. This may increase his chances of beating Blair to the Labour leadership.

For the Conservatives, if Major doesn't continue then Heseltine, Baker, Lamont, Clarke or Howard could be potential leaders.
 
Other developments:
  • Likely to be no privatisation of British Rail as begun in 1994, at least while Labour remain in government;
  • Earlier opt-in to Social Chapter;
  • Potentially earlier introduction of national minimum wage;
  • Reversal of opted-out schools/City Technology Colleges and more local authority control in education;
  • Abolition of the poll tax and introduction of a new property tax as OTL - how far Labour's 'Fair Rates' would differ from Council Tax I don't know;
  • 'Department of Health and Community Care' (25 years early) and more grant funding for social care;
  • Earlier Department for International Development;
  • Earlier devolution in Scotland, Wales, and London - they also proposed consulting on a new tier of elected regional governments and/or unitarisation;
  • Potentially an attempt at Lords reform, but probably not a top priority - if they rely on Liberal Democrat votes then could see electoral reform or a referendum at least;
  • Earlier Freedom of Information;
  • Likely to be a big clash with the press and Murdoch in particular due to plans to tackle concentration of media ownership;
  • Earlier repeal of Clause 28;
  • A 'Ministry for Women' (Government Equalities Office set up in 2007 OTL).

If Labour manages to accomplish all that, then maybe they could recover from Black Wednesday and win again in 1997. Especially if they manage to blame economic hardship on the Tories. But at best they gain a small majority, not the landslide of OTL.
 
If Labour manages to accomplish all that, then maybe they could recover from Black Wednesday and win again in 1997. Especially if they manage to blame economic hardship on the Tories. But at best they gain a small majority, not the landslide of OTL.

To some degree that's true, although to be honest I'm not sure most of the developments on the list are particularly great retail policies. Labour's economic plans were based on some questionable assumptions, e.g. that they could fund increases in child benefit and pensions through raising NI and the top rate of tax for higher earners - as we've seen in recent years it's unlikely this would raise much and is likely to hurt confidence further. If they try to stay in ERM at a lower rate then interest rates are going to have to remain high for the foreseeable future. So it's not certain that Britain enjoys the same economic upturn that it did with Ken Clarke as Chancellor from 1993-97. Plus, Kinnock although generally liked was never seen as a serious enough figure to be PM by many and I expect that the media would be extremely negative (given Labour's position on media regulation above).

That's not to say that they couldn't win in 1997 - the economy could still recover and the Tories could erupt over Europe in Opposition. Though the context would be quite different to OTL 1997 - which speaks to the effort that Blair and Brown went to change the policy and image of the Labour Party.
 
That's not to say that they couldn't win in 1997 - the economy could still recover and the Tories could erupt over Europe in Opposition. Though the context would be quite different to OTL 1997 - which speaks to the effort that Blair and Brown went to change the policy and image of the Labour Party.

Another important factor is who the Tories choose as their new leader in 1992. Clarke came very close to the leadership in 1997, perhaps under different circumstances he could get the job. If so, then the Tories' chances in 1997 aren't bad. However, even with a popular leader it would be difficult for the Tories to win after only one term of Labour and 13 years of Thatcher and Major.
 
Another important factor is who the Tories choose as their new leader in 1992. Clarke came very close to the leadership in 1997, perhaps under different circumstances he could get the job. If so, then the Tories' chances in 1997 aren't bad. However, even with a popular leader it would be difficult for the Tories to win after only one term of Labour and 13 years of Thatcher and Major.
Clarke might have to compete with Heseltine if there were a contest in 1992. He didn't stand in 1997 because of his health, but before his heart attack, and before the death of John Smith under similar circumstances, there would be no reason for him not to stand. It would be hard for him to win after his betrayal of Saint Maggie, but his hold on the Wet faction might be enough to keep Clarke out of the final run off.

Even if it were Clarke, he would still have to deal with all the infighting over Maastricht, which would likely be even worse than it was under Major given Clarke's own convictions were more pro-European. Clarke had the qualities to make a good leader in theory but in practice the party would have imploded over its European divisions if he had ever managed to win.

If Labour had won in 1992, the chances are that neither they or the Tories would be very popular by the end of their first term. The Lib Dems would probably turn in a strong performance at the next election. Some kind of arrangement between them and Labour would be the most likely outcome of a hypothetical 1996/97 election imo.
 
Another important factor is who the Tories choose as their new leader in 1992. Clarke came very close to the leadership in 1997, perhaps under different circumstances he could get the job. If so, then the Tories' chances in 1997 aren't bad. However, even with a popular leader it would be difficult for the Tories to win after only one term of Labour and 13 years of Thatcher and Major.
Clarke was only Education Secretary at this point, so he's unlikely to be the one-nation flag-bearer ITTL, let alone front-runner for the leadership as a whole. If the left of the Conservatives were to rally around a single candidate in this hypothetical leadership contest, it would probably be Michael Heseltine, or - if he is too tarnished by his previous leadership bid - Douglas Hurd. However, I'm of the opinion that, if Major resigned after losing 1992, his successor would probably come from the right of the party - the memory of 1990 would still be fresh and, by the time of 1992, Major had already lost any political capital he originally held amongst Thatcherite MPs through appointing Heseltine as his deputy and his pledge to put Britain 'at the heart of Europe'. So the most likely victor of the leadership election would be a Thatcherite - Tom King or Michael Howard would be the most likely contenders.

As for who wins the next election, this would depend on a wide variety of factors, such as:

- If Labour are in a minority and Black Wednesday (or a similar economic downturn) occurs (in which case the Lib Dems most likely withdraw their support, the Conservatives force through a no confidence motion and a GE occurs in the autumn of 1992 which sees the Tories return to power),

- If Labour are in a minority and the economy remains stable (in which case Kinnock probably waits until opinion polls are favourable and calls a snap election - advantage Labour),

- If Labour hold a majority, Parliament runs its course and the economy is doing well (in which case - advantage Labour), and

- If Labour hold a majority, Parliament runs its course and the economy is performing poorly (in which case - advantage Conservatives).
 
Clarke is too junior in 1992, and his image was at this point not great after his battles as Health Secretary - crucially, he doesn't have his stewardship of the economy as Chancellor to bolster him. Hurd almost certainly wouldn't stand, he'd be well into his mid-sixties by the time of the next election assuming a full term, and his showing in 1990 doesn't augur anything good for a second showing. Likely more of a kingmaker figure this time.

It probably ends up as Heseltine v whoever wins out on the right, and the Tories usually swing to the right after immediately going into opposition, as Labour usually swings to the left.

A lot depends on how Labour's plan for 'managed realignment' within the ERM goes.
 
To some degree that's true, although to be honest I'm not sure most of the developments on the list are particularly great retail policies. Labour's economic plans were based on some questionable assumptions, e.g. that they could fund increases in child benefit and pensions through raising NI and the top rate of tax for higher earners - as we've seen in recent years it's unlikely this would raise much and is likely to hurt confidence further. If they try to stay in ERM at a lower rate then interest rates are going to have to remain high for the foreseeable future. So it's not certain that Britain enjoys the same economic upturn that it did with Ken Clarke as Chancellor from 1993-97. Plus, Kinnock although generally liked was never seen as a serious enough figure to be PM by many and I expect that the media would be extremely negative (given Labour's position on media regulation above).

That's not to say that they couldn't win in 1997 - the economy could still recover and the Tories could erupt over Europe in Opposition. Though the context would be quite different to OTL 1997 - which speaks to the effort that Blair and Brown went to change the policy and image of the Labour Party.

The defeat of Labour in 1992 was a calamity with far-reaching consequences. The current split in Labour between new and old, hard left and centrist, could perhaps have been defused without the Red Tory Blair taking over control of the party.

The UK media is the work of profoundly evil individuals who have polluted and made toxic the political discourse of the nation for decades. The media desperately needs reform; one can only dream at how much better the last 26 years would have been if Labour had won and enacted its plans to break up Murdoch's media empire.

Murdoch is like a giant evil vampire-squid, sucking at the face of humanity. The man and all his works deserve to have been banished to the far-reaches of hell a long time ago, together with Paul Dacre, another odious and sinister example of evil in human form.

Then perhaps the awful tragedy of Brexit would have been avoided and the country wouldn't be in the utter shambolic mess that it is currently in.
 
Labour would be faced with a decision on the ERM whether to stay in at the OTL rate or stay in and devalue, IIRC Kinnock privately wanted to devalue although the Labour manifesto stated: 'Labour will maintain the value of the pound within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.' During the election campaign the £ fell as it looked more likely that Labour would win, so I think it's likely that the £ would face a crisis quite quickly (Black Wednesday was in September) - perhaps after Denmark's rejection of Maastricht a month after the election in June.

If Kinnock devalues and stays in the ERM this would avoid a costly exit but the economic outlook may be just as bad or worse for other reasons - it would be inflationary and this along with a loss of confidence would likely place pressure on interest rates to go up to support £ (particularly if the market expected another devaluation). So no matter what policy Labour pursue it would be a difficult period, at least in the first 1-2 years, and may reduce the likelihood of fulfilling manifesto commitments (reducing unemployment 'National Recovery Programme', generous increases to child benefit and pensions).

Other developments:
  • Likely to be no privatisation of British Rail as begun in 1994, at least while Labour remain in government;
  • Earlier opt-in to Social Chapter;
  • Potentially earlier introduction of national minimum wage;
  • Reversal of opted-out schools/City Technology Colleges and more local authority control in education;
  • Abolition of the poll tax and introduction of a new property tax as OTL - how far Labour's 'Fair Rates' would differ from Council Tax I don't know;
  • 'Department of Health and Community Care' (25 years early) and more grant funding for social care;
  • Earlier Department for International Development;
  • Earlier devolution in Scotland, Wales, and London - they also proposed consulting on a new tier of elected regional governments and/or unitarisation;
  • Potentially an attempt at Lords reform, but probably not a top priority - if they rely on Liberal Democrat votes then could see electoral reform or a referendum at least;
  • Earlier Freedom of Information;
  • Likely to be a big clash with the press and Murdoch in particular due to plans to tackle concentration of media ownership;
  • Earlier repeal of Clause 28;
  • A 'Ministry for Women' (Government Equalities Office set up in 2007 OTL).
If Smith as Chancellor passes away during the premiership then Brown would be an obvious successor, but likely inheriting a worse situation than he did in 1997 OTL. This may increase his chances of beating Blair to the Labour leadership.

For the Conservatives, if Major doesn't continue then Heseltine, Baker, Lamont, Clarke or Howard could be potential leaders.

What happens with Maastricht? How might it be different here, would Kinnock be able to get it through the Commons, and would he also get an opt-out from the Euro?

On that subject, would Kinnock push for Euro membership? And if the Tory leader is a Europhile like Heseltine or someone else, would that lead to an earlier Tory split?
 
Top