WI: Tory Hung Parliament in 1992

A favourite WI on this board is what would have happened if Labour had won the 1992 UK General Election. At the time the polls made it out that it was going to be very close however in the end Major won a safe majority. But what if the polls were more accurate and he won the lection 30 short of a majority? ;)
 
Uh, the Tories thirty seats short of a majority would mean Labour would be the largest party I think.

But putting that aside, Major is fucked if this happens. If the Tories are the largest party, he'd simply have to do what all minority governments with no hope of coalition have to - stick if out for eight or ten months until a new election can be called.

Of course, this wouldn't be a productive strategy in '92 for fairly obvious reasons.

So you would have Kinnock as PM in '93 with a cast-iron majority.
 
What V-J said.

I would say that Major's 20 seats wasn't a safe majority; there's an approximate 25 seat turnover in the lifetime of a Parliament owing to deaths and resignations.

The opposition has the right to call a vote of no-confidence in the government during an "Opposition Day Debate" and after October 1992, such a move would be a certainty, but not an absolute one. The Labour Party can see Major is in severe trouble over the economy, the Maastrict treaty and over EU issues in general. Smith could sit back as in OTL and watch as the Conservatives implode even more furiously. Portillo or Heseltine could wield the proverbial knife and finish off Major which would lead to a new series of butterflies.

One other potential butterfly worthy of discussion is: Say Smith calls for a vote of no confidence in 1993 but still dies in 1994 - who becomes PM? Prescott as he is Deputy of the Labour Party? Blair? Brown? Beckett?

Quickly skimmed his wiki page, assuming its accurate, Prescott was offered a post in the 1980s as an EU Commissioner - now that would have been interesting...
 
Why are you assuming Smith would be leader?

There would be huge, overwhelming pressure on Kinnock to stay on as leader until the '93 election. Not just because he's batted it down to a draw, but because Labour leadership contests especially are cumbersome affairs and the party simply can't afford to give it the time required without exposing itself.
 
I think Kinnock, "now" as a two time election loser, would still be a hard case to the Party to market and what with the fallout from the Sun's front page in 1992, could damage a third attempt.

I'm putting myself in the PLP's shoes - the Tories have won a 4th consecutive term against the odds albeit with a hung parliament and it won't take much to overthrow the government. There are some really tough EU things coming with Maastrict so let's take the time to clean house, fresh start over the 1992 summer recess, new leaders/shadow cabinet members in place and then plan for a snap election. With any luck, the Tories will kill each other over Europe.

Or is that too 'pragmatic'?
 
I am not sure really.

A lot depends on what people think about what this means. Remember, nobody knew that Black Wednesday would happen at this point. If people think the economy is going to pick up, that Major is guaranteed a small majority at the next election - then Kinnock would be pretty much pressganged into staying on to take the hit from that and give the next leader a clean slate.

If people think 'we've got the Tories on the hop', then Kinnock is in greater difficulties. The temptation was always to ditch Kinnock and put Smith in, because that would restore the leadership's relationship with the left and the unions to factory settings and would reap electoral dividends. Consequently, people may find the allure of new leadership irresistable.

Kinnock was depressed and exhausted at various points by the end of his leadership, so he may just chuck the towel in anyway whatever the prevailing advice. Probably you are right and Kinnock would go, but I wouldn't say it's a certainty.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess the lure of Europe would be too much for Kinnock to ignore and he might persue that avenue. Imagine if he'd been sent to Hong Kong and Pattern sent to Brussels.
 
Him going to Europe wasn't a sure thing in '92. He only made it two years later.

Kinnock governing Hong Kong is just... wrong.

I wonder when the election would be here. I was assuming a '93 election with the government either falling or being no-confidenced then, but in parliamentary circumstances in which it would be entirely possible to win, Labour might go for the throat and call a no-confidence vote directly on the back of Black Wednesday. In which case, we have a late October/early November '92 election.
 
Hmmm, the incorporation of the Maastrict treaty into British law took place in May 1992, a mere month after the general election. Given the lengths taken by MPs on both sides to get the vote passed/failed, this could well have been the trigger to a second general election. It'd lead to a split in the party as there were 26 Rebels (although I don't know how many were in marginal seats - not many I suspect) who'd probably be deselected by the party but may choose to stand as independents and could conceivably win a few seats.

If that were the case, UKIP would be formed (though with a slightly different ethos) and having genuine political representation. Sir James Goldsmith/Jammy Fishpaste might not create the referendum party but instead fund this new UKIP attempting to topple Tories.
 
Hmmm, the incorporation of the Maastrict treaty into British law took place in May 1992,

... Not as far as memory serves. The main bloodbath was in '93, when the treaty was going through final ratification by the Commons. I think Major got the main body of it passed in '92 but it didn't come into force until he had got a seperate protocol passed in July of the next year - that was when the rebellion made it's big stand.

As such, I'm not sure whether Major would have even tried to pass the main body of it with no majority. That surely would be something close to harakiri. Better to just put the whole thing off until after the election.
 
You are, of course, referring to the "Social Chapter" part of the Maastrict Treaty.

The damn thing would have had to have been signed by the UK Government otherwise infraction proceedings would have commenced. Although a more negative UK response might have turned the French "oui" vote into a "non" as it only just succeeded in a referendum.
 
Yah.

Signing is not ratification of course. It was signed by all in early '92. It was only finally ratified by all in mid '93. That gives Major plenty of time to put the thing off, assuming he goes for another spring election.
 
Last edited:
In a word: badly.

But I don't think he would have a slender majority. Not huge, but certainly eminently workable. I mean, we're talking post-Black Wednesday here. Labour was never less than about fifteen points ahead afterwards. Is the number of Tory MPs going to increase?
 
btw, assuming Smith dies as per OTL then Brown would be in a far, far stronger position than OTL for several reasons. So we would likely get PM Brown in 1994.
 
Ugh - PM Brown. Unless Mandelson and Brown fall out as in OTL with either Blair or Straw becoming the new leaders.
 
Brown and Mandelson didn't really fall out, Mandelson simply said 'I'm backing the winner'. In this case, that would be Brown.

It gets worse: he would win in 1997 with an increased majority (assuming Brown calls it four years in) as the Tories would be a shambles after any defeat and Brown would be riding on Smith's memory and the economy picking up.
 
Top