WI Thatcher Survives 1990, Loses 1992

[V-J]

Way to win friends and influence people, dude.

I have plenty of friends on here, and everyone serious agrees there is far too much sloppy argument going around. Using a single sentence in a manifesto to 'refute' an assertion about what inner core economic advisors were thinking is as good an example of that as you're likely to see.

For the record, I don't need to google it - I'm old enough to remember it first hand. Labour weren't just going through the motions, they were much keener on it than the Conservatives.

This is true, but it doesn't equate to Labour uncritically supporting it. I'm not sure what you being around at the time has to do with it.

John Smith was the Shadow Chancellor! You can't run an economic policy like that.

Eh, I'm not sure why you find that so extraordinary. It was Kinnock's political modus vivendi, and in any case it certainly wouldn't be the first time the PM had bypassed the Cabinet or a respective minister. Christ, Gordon Brown as Chancellor would even bypass the Prime Minister on major economic decisions.

Sources that predate Black Wednesday - like, y'know, THE ELECTION MANIFESTO - would be nice. Otherwise - forget about it. Hindsight is wonderful, but worthless. Especially from people you opened your post by freely admitting to be capable of lying shamelessly (sorry, being "extremely economical with the truth").

If you're going to be unreasonable, then fair enough, but I'm not going to engage with it. I get the sense that this is now more about you trying to find vindication for an untenable statement than it is about serious debate, and I'm not going dabble in that. This is well documented stuff; you're shouting at the wind.

Can I ask your source for the Labour devaluation plan? As you say, it's better to consult primary sources rather than google, but I've not come across that factoid before.

It should be covered in just about every serious book on the relevant events and the individuals. Stuart deals with it very extensively in his excellent and well-sourced biography of John Smith, but I've also seen it dealt with in books on Brown's economic development and on Kinnock. Stuart also deals with the chatter inside Labour in the middle of '92 about realignment, months before Black Wednesday happened.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

If the only reason for rejecting what they publicly said is that they said afterwards they were lying, then yes - the statements of admitted liars should be discounted...

Except the same applies to believing their campaign promises -- so you have two situations where Labour leaders are shown to be self-serving liars: one where they lie big trying to win an election, then copped to it after; another, where they told the truth when power was on the line, then lied about lying to the voters to make it look line they had hindsight. Oh, and I take it Kinnock has already lost the leadership in both situations, right? So he's got even less to gain from lying later.

 

[RPW@Cy]

I have plenty of friends on here, and everyone serious agrees there is far too much sloppy argument going around. Using a single sentence in a manifesto to 'refute' an assertion about what inner core economic advisors were thinking is as good an example of that as you're likely to see.

Hardly. I believe that when it comes to discussing what they intended to do in government then the manifesto - which is after all the document they put before the British people telling us what they intended to do in government - is a rather more relevant document than the post-facto recollections of "inner core economic advisors", especially when that group doesn't include the Shadow Chancellor.

This is true, but it doesn't equate to Labour uncritically supporting it. I'm not sure what you being around at the time has to do with it.

What "it has to do with" is your patronising and baseless assertion I was relying on google or wikipedia. How old are you, BTW?

Eh, I'm not sure why you find that so extraordinary. It was Kinnock's political modus vivendi, and in any case it certainly wouldn't be the first time the PM had bypassed the Cabinet or a respective minister. Christ, Gordon Brown as Chancellor would even bypass the Prime Minister on major economic decisions.

What is actually so extraordinary is that you seem to regard it as a modus operandi for running an efficient and capable administration that doesn't have the slightest resemblance to a bunch of ferrets fighting in a sack.

Oh, and very few people these days regard the Blair-Brown relationship as a model of good government.

If you're going to be unreasonable, then fair enough, but I'm not going to engage with it. I get the sense that this is now more about you trying to find vindication for an untenable statement than it is about serious debate, and I'm not going dabble in that. This is well documented stuff; you're shouting at the wind.

Do you always get personal when your argument gets challenged? The manifesto isn't an "untenable statement" - it's what they said at the time, without benefit of hindsight, that they were going to do.

 

[V-J]

Hardly. I believe that when it comes to discussing what they intended to do in government then the manifesto - which is after all the document they put before the British people telling us what they intended to do in government - is a rather more relevant document than the post-facto recollections of "inner core economic advisors", especially when that group doesn't include the Shadow Chancellor.

It's not post-facto, though, that's the thing. That's your own attempted framing of the facts, the debate. You're characterising source material you haven't even seen.

Look, I didn't want to do this, but if you want your single silver bullet, then Neil Kinnock wrote a letter to the Financial Times in July 1992 arguing in favour of realignment. It was one of his last acts as leader, when he was a lame duck, and therefore could speak in a personal capacity. It was published. It was, needless to say, months before Black Wednesday. (Referenced in Stuart's biography of Smith) As someone who was around at the time, and therefore knows all about this subject inside-out, doubtless you recall it.

I have more stuff of a similar nature on hand. Plenty of it, in fact, plenty of it which categorically disproves this fantasy you've erected, on what basis no-one knows, that realignment is post-Black Wednesday conspiracy of former Labour pols, fully aided and abetted by journalists, writers, and me.

Can you drop this inane nonsense now? You're relying on a single sentence in a manifesto document to guide your impression of an entire policy debate, and the political intent and motivations of multiple people. It's, and I'm being charitable here, an incredibly threadbare piece of reasoning.

What "it has to do with" is your patronising and baseless assertion I was relying on google or wikipedia.

What else am I to conclude when you produce, nay, base your entire argument around, a source which is a quintessential example of that kind of activity - easily accessible and simplistic?

Did you google for the manifesto? Or did you, for whatever reason, have it bookmarked?

How old are you, BTW?

Thirty, going on thirty-one. Though I still have no idea what this has to do with it. Are you implying I should be deferential because you're older than me? That because you were around at the time, that gives you some special wisdom and authority on the subject, even though you apparently haven't investigated the topic beyond glancing at the 1992 Labour manifesto? A very strange question.

What is actually so extraordinary is that you seem to regard it as a modus operandi for running an efficient and capable administration that doesn't have the slightest resemblance to a bunch of ferrets fighting in a sack.

I make no judgement on it. I am simply detailing the facts. Are you contesting that Neil Kinnock was a very controlling, secretive, and centralising Labour leader? That he and John Smith had a very bad relationship in this period? Are you contesting any of this? Or are you just arguing the toss?

Oh, and very few people these days regard the Blair-Brown relationship as a model of good government.

Gee, I never knew that. Though again, where did I make a personal judgement on this? My point in invoking Brown was to simply respond to your horrified surprise that a prospective Chancellor could be bypassed on economic policy by their leader. Yes, they can be. Prime Ministers have been bypassed on it. Though considering your similar inability to believe that manifestos do not present the whole picture of political and policy intent, and your apparent belief that politicians are incapable of dissembling for political gain, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about that.

Do you always get personal when your argument gets challenged?

Hey, I'm not the one asking about people's ages.

 

[Garrison]

How would the 1990's be different if Thatcher had survived the leadership challenge in 1990, and stays on as PM until the next election? I imagine Labour, under Kinnock, would win the next election in 1992; we can also assume they win the next one, meaning they remain in power for at least the rest of the decade.

I can think of no worse disaster for Labour than winning in 92. The tax rises and economic downturn were coming whoever won and the Murdoch press would gleefully have blamed Labour for everything. Most likely scenario is Labour loses in 96-97 unless the Tories have descended into civil war.

 

[The Knight]

This is a very intriguing possibility; still, wouldn't Bush still be alliance leader here? How, exactly, does the Prime Minister of Great Britain expand the Coalition's objectives to include regime change?

It was always Bush's decision of course but Maggie was a respected elder stateswoman. What she said would have had greater influence in Washington than most foreign leaders. Weather this would be enough I don't know. As you say, this is very intriguing.

Sorry, I mean govern for the rest of the 1990's (at least); which as I see it, means getting re-elected and beginning a full five year term in the mid-90's.

A Labour win in 1992 will take them to 1997 and getting them to win that one is the tough one. The 1992 election was a close one and the government would take some hard knocks. Possibly a change of leader about 1996 can give them the Blair effect. It may be lessened by the fact that they have already been in government, but it is something he could pull off.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

A Labour win in 1992 will take them to 1997 and getting them to win that one is the tough one. The 1992 election was a close one and the government would take some hard knocks. Possibly a change of leader about 1996 can give them the Blair effect. It may be lessened by the fact that they have already been in government, but it is something he could pull off.

I'm not going to rule out a Labour leadership change, though it seems like a government changing premiers this soon is more of a stretch than getting said government re-elected just once. I'd also imagine Kinnock wouldn't want to wait as long as 1997 to call said election, but if Labour stands a better chance of winning then than in 1995 or so, I'm not one to argue.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Thinking some more about the OP and especially The Gulf War, Thatcher was of the opinion that Saddam should have been toppled but at the time Bush was listening more to the Saudis who wanted to keep him there as a buffer against Iran. So I don't think the outcome of the war would have been any different.

However it could have had some dramatic effects on British politics, IOTL the polls narrowed dramatically due to the favourable coverage Major received and there was some talk of him going for a "khaki election" but he decided against it. If Thatcher had got a similar poll boost I have a feeling she might have gone for one, possibly on May 2nd, the same date as the local elections. I really doubt she'd have won but the chances of a hung Parliament and a Lib-Lib coalition may have been a lot higher.

 

[V-J]

However it could have had some dramatic effects on British politics, IOTL the polls narrowed dramatically due to the favourable coverage Major received and there was some talk of him going for a "khaki election" but he decided against it. If Thatcher had got a similar poll boost I have a feeling she might have gone for one, possibly on May 2nd, the same date as the local elections. I really doubt she'd have won but the chances of a hung Parliament and a Lib-Lib coalition may have been a lot higher.

You have to separate out the Major effect from the Gulf effect, IMO. Yes, the polls narrowed significantly after the Gulf War, but that followed almost immediately on the back of Major coming to office. Correlation does not imply causation, and the fact that the Tories maintained the narrowness between them and Labour up to the '92 election points to a more substantial and structural change which created their lift. Namely, they had got rid of Thatcher and neutralised the Poll Tax issue. (Even if it was not yet scrapped) In a Thatcher scrapes it scenario, not only would both of those factors still be in play, but you would also have a politically mangled Thatcher and an internally riven Conservative Party. I also believe, though I am typing this at 2am so don't quote me on it, that mid-1991 was the height of the recession. To me, even Kinnock would not be able to put that shot over the bar. People reading this should bear in mind that you would need only the tiniest of swings over and above the OTL '92 result to create a hung parliament.

I'd note, incidentally, that the splits and leadership speculation within the Tories would almost certainly necessitate a 1991 election anyway, quite apart from Gulf. If she didn't go for broke on an election, Heseltine would simply have another crack at the leadership at the end of the year, as per the party rules, and this time, he'd probably win outright.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I'd note, incidentally, that the splits and leadership speculation within the Tories would almost certainly necessitate a 1991 election anyway, quite apart from Gulf. If she didn't go for broke on an election, Heseltine would simply have another crack at the leadership at the end of the year, as per the party rules, and this time, he'd probably win outright.

So he'd challenge her leadership again just a year after she held on from the last one? I'd think that after failing in 1990, Blondeman would at least wait until after the next election.

 

[V-J]

So he'd challenge her leadership again just a year after she held on from the last one? I'd think that after failing in 1990, Blondeman would at least wait until after the next election.

It's possible that Hezza waits until the ship goes down, but I doubt it. Even if he would not have taken the plunge, the prospect is absolutely there. Thatcher would want an election to clear the air of speculation, and gain a mandate for the Poll Tax.

Yes, Hezza would have failed to have taken it to a second round ITTL, but - and this is the thing the right-wing fanbois always ignore - it would have still been a fully respectable result for him, and still an appallingly bad result for her. 40% of the party would have not only refused to back her, but voted directly and openly for her removal.

There is, as she and her team realised in OTL, no way back from a result like that. The only way is down. There is no way her leadership is ever going to be restored to factory settings. The speculation, the tipping of Heseltine as the prince across the water, would be constant. And, like in the OTL 1990 contest, the expectation on him to run would probably be overwhelming. It's unlikely he would be able to refuse.

 

[Blackadder mk 2]

One thing that interested me when looking up the poll tax, although only partly related to the topic at hand, was the whole "dual-running" scheme where the Poll Tax was supposed to be phased in over the course of 4-5 years alongside the rates being phased out in the original plan by Kenneth Baker and William Waldegrave. Then Nicholas Ridley got in, arranged for some speakers to call for an immediate change including a Scottish Conservative MP who lost his seat, and convinced Thatcher to go for a more rapid introduction.

Personally, although I could be wrong, you could have Thatcher triumph in 1990 through this way since one of the main reasons for Heseltine's vote share was because of the poll tax and how it meant that the next election was likely to be disastrous. Now the issue is still that people aren't going to be happy with the whole "flat tax that everyone pays" idea and the issue could still blow up but I'm seeing the reaction being after a 1991 election win rather than before it, though we could see history repeat itself over time i.e. Heseltine challenges Thatcher over policy and gets a respectable vote share, just after Maastricht in 1992 rather than Howe's resignation in 1990.

EDIT: V-J makes a pretty good point in that Heseltine is going to get a respectable vote share in 1990 either way and that, as long as he doesn't call for Thatcher to be overthrown during election-time or isn't seen as letting the party detonate, he could take the crown himself if she resigns from office after being defeated in the election. The reaction against him would be a fair bit smaller than OTL, seeing as Thatcher wasn't "stabbed in the back" or actually removed by him, unless she tries to rally some type of resistance.

 

[V-J]

EDIT: V-J makes a pretty good point in that Heseltine is going to get a respectable vote share in 1990 either way and that, as long as he doesn't call for Thatcher to be overthrown during election-time or isn't seen as letting the party detonate, he could take the crown himself if she resigns from office after being defeated in the election.

That's not quite what I said, though. He could take a shot, but I don't think he would win in defeat. In fact by far and away the most likely leader of the opposition if Thatcher clings on and then goes down to defeat in 1991 would be... John Major.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So Thatcher would actually respond to the challenge for her office by calling another election (with the votes likely cast during or in the aftermath of the Gulf War), that Conservatives would likely lose? I... can actually see that. (Mind you I'm still partial to them holding power until at least summer 1999, so if Labour comes to power in 1991 in this scenario, they'd have to wait longer before calling the next election.)

 

[V-J]

(Mind you I'm still partial to them holding power until at least summer 1999, so if Labour comes to power in 1991 in this scenario, they'd have to wait longer before calling the next election.)

Is this all for some timeline of yours? Because I'm not writing it for you, if that's what this thread is about. I've been around the block of people implementing what I say in these threads without acknowledgement before, and I'm not too keen on it.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Is this all for some timeline of yours? Because I'm not writing it for you, if that's what this thread is about. I've been around the block of people implementing what I say in these threads without acknowledgement before, and I'm not too keen on it.

Ah, my apologies if I offended -- no I'm not writing this TL, at least not anytime soon. I'm honestly just trying to see if, given the pod, there's a way for Labour to actually hold power in the 1990's.