Thatcher wins the 1990 leadership election in the 1st round

[Philip Davies]

The actual result was:

Thatcher 204 (54.84%)
Heseltine 152 (40.86%)
Abstentions 16 (4.3%)

To win in the first round a candidate was required to receive a majority of the electorate and a 15% margin over the runner-up . The first condition was satisfied, but the latter was not. The margin was 13.98%.

Had 4 of the 16 abstentions voted for Thatcher or two of the Heseltine voters switched to Thatcher or four of them abstained then Thatcher would've won.

So had she won how would have history played out during 1991 and 1992? The general election was due to be held in the summer of 1992.

I suspect she would've been forced out at some point during 1991, but able to dress it up as a retirement.

[Deleted]

She indicated in her memoirs that had she been able to continue, she had June 1991 in mind as a general election date (which would have continued the pattern of the previous two elections), and that she would have retired in 1993.

A lot of people claim she couldn't have won another election had she remained PM, but I just can't see her being beaten by Neil Kinnock.

[The Bishop]

You might not be able to imagine that prospect, but a lot of people did - including, of course, a critical mass of Tory MPs

By the spring of 1990, Thatcher's failings had come to eclipse Kinnock's in the minds of many. It isn't certain she would have lost but it is pretty likely (also, the 1991 local election results might have been so bad had she stayed, it could have scotched any GE before 1992)

[john07]

Oct 31, 2014 16:39:42 GMT Philip Davies said:

The actual result was:

Thatcher 204 (54.84%)
Heseltine 152 (40.86%)
Abstentions 16 (4.3%)

To win in the first round a candidate was required to receive a majority of the electorate and a 15% margin over the runner-up . The first condition was satisfied, but the latter was not. The margin was 13.98%.

Had 4 of the 16 abstentions voted for Thatcher or two of the Heseltine voters switched to Thatcher or four of them abstained then Thatcher would've won.

So had she won how would have history played out during 1991 and 1992? The general election was due to be held in the summer of 1992.

I suspect she would've been forced out at some point during 1991, but able to dress it up as a retirement.

Thatcher's position would have been untenable and what was effectively a humiliating vote for a three-time election winner. Many of her votes in the first round came out of blind loyalty and this would not have been received in a second round had it happened. That was why she withdrew.

The melt-down of local government due to the poll tax would have continued. The money was not coming in due to inability/refusal to pay and local authorities could sustain the losses for ever.The problems of the ERM would have been there in the background as was the split over the European issue.

Thatcher would have been disposed of sooner rather than later.

[East Anglian Lefty]

If Thatcher had survived long enough to lose a general election, her legacy would probably have been much less powerful than it is now.

[Deleted]

I think that she would have beaten Kinnock and secured an overall majority in 1991. I think more of the British public than to suggest otherwise. If John Major could win a 4th Tory term agaisnt him then he was never going to win.

[john07]

Oct 31, 2014 23:28:38 GMT joe said:

I think that she would have beaten Kinnock and secured an overall majority in 1991. I think more of the British public than to suggest otherwise. If John Major could win a 4th Tory term agaisnt him then he was never going to win.

Major won despite Thatcher rather than because of her. He was a very different figure and at least had an apparently united party behind him. Thatcher was losing her grip and would have led a very divided party and would not have beaten Kinnock in my opinion.

That was never going to be the scenario anyway as 'the men in gray suits' would have come and replaced her. Many of the Tory MPs who voted for her on the first ballot probably hoped that she would not get a winning majority. They did not want Heseltine and were hoping for another candidate (eg Major) to enter on the second ballot. If she had scraped a majority on the first ballot, another challenge would have followed.

[The Bishop]

Not just that, but many thought they had already had their desired "change of government" when she was replaced.

Despite that, the Tory win in 1992 was far from the inevitability it is now widely portrayed as - that is why it was so traumatic for their opponents.

[Deleted]

It must have been fun. Sad that I am not old enough to have any memories of 1992.

[Andrew_S]

Would the result have been different if Tory MPs like Ian Gow, John Heddle, Raymond Gower had been taking part in the vote?

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2014 14:14:15 GMT joe said:

It must have been fun. Sad that I am not old enough to have any memories of 1992.

The best thing to do is watch the 1992 election coverage posted on YouTube right from the exit poll result being announced, and try your best to imagine you've never watched it before or don't know what the result was.

I was nine at the time. I remember getting up the morning after and asking my elder brother who won. Later on, I saw Neil Kinnock on TV and asked my brother "Did he come second?"

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2014 15:04:03 GMT swanarcadian said:

Nov 1, 2014 14:14:15 GMT joe said:

It must have been fun. Sad that I am not old enough to have any memories of 1992.

The best thing to do is watch the 1992 election coverage posted on YouTube right from the exit poll result being announced, and try your best to imagine you've never watched it before or don't know what the result was.

I was nine at the time. I remember getting up the morning after and asking my elder brother who won. Later on, I saw Neil Kinnock on TV and asked my brother "Did he come second?"

I remember being about that age in 1997 and a friend supporting labour because he was called Tony and felt an affinity for a fellow Tony. I was of course a true blue .

[mrhell]

Nov 1, 2014 15:04:03 GMT swanarcadian said:

Nov 1, 2014 14:14:15 GMT joe said:

It must have been fun. Sad that I am not old enough to have any memories of 1992.

The best thing to do is watch the 1992 election coverage posted on YouTube right from the exit poll result being announced, and try your best to imagine you've never watched it before or don't know what the result was.

I was nine at the time. I remember getting up the morning after and asking my elder brother who won. Later on, I saw Neil Kinnock on TV and asked my brother "Did he come second?"

I still remember the look on David Amess' face at the Basildon declaration.

[iain]

[Deleted]

The first leadership ballot in 1990 is my earliest clear political memory (I was nine). I remember being quite fascinated by the numbers, if not quite sure why the winning candidate had not been declared the winner without the need for a further ballot.

She would have gone soon regardless of the result of the first ballot. By that point all the polls showed that she was a drag on Tory support and, given that, many of her colleagues were no longer willing to put up with her abrasive personal style.

[johnloony]

The 1992 general election result came as a big surprise to virtually everybody - a lot of people might have expected that the Conservative Party might manage to be the largest party, but that it got a clear majority was completely out of range.

The big mistake the BBC made in its 1992 coverage was to assume - and to continue assuming for several hours - that the exit poll was an accurate predictor of the results which had not yet been declared. Therefore, the predicted final seat numbers kept drifting gradually towards the final result. If they had applied simple common sense in applying the swings from the declared results to the awaited seats, they would have got it more accurate much more quickly.

I remember from doing my own tallying on my swingometer sheets that it was obvious that the exit poll was wrong.

[johnloony]

Back to the question: what if?

I have always liked to think that if Mrs Thatcher had got enough votes to win in the first round in 1990, she would have stubbornly clung on to to power for the remaining year or 18 months, despite her colleagues abandoning her; there would have been wholesale resignations from the cabinet, a rump cabinet would have been constructed from a few Norman Tebbit-like loyalists. The remaining popularity of the Conservative Party would have plummeted, and Labour would have won a landslide in 1992. It's as if the entire 1990-97 period would have been concentrated into 18 months.

From Mrs Thatcher's own point of view, it might have been more satisfying if she had been thrown out by the voters of Finchley than by her own MPs. From history's point of view, Kinnock's government would quickly have got into a mess after 1992, and the Labour government wouldn't have lasted as long. The whole toxic era of later-Blairism would have been avoided all together.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Had Thatcher held on by a few votes over the threshold, she would probably have been persuaded to retire some time in summer 1991 as Conservative opinion poll ratings failed to improve to a point where a general election was winnable. For her to have held on convincingly she would have needed never to have brought in the Poll Tax.

Bush 41 was never going to go all the way to Baghdad in 1991.

[Merseymike]

Major was willing to dump the poll tax and that made his government appear very different to Thatchers. I think whether she won or not may have depended on whether she realised it was a loser.

[sirbenjamin]

The alternative #Election92 - which might well have taken place in Summer 1991 - would likely have resulted in a hung parliament. Thatcher's Tories would probably have been the largest party, but Kinnock could well have found enough support elsewhere to cobble together a coalition, especially if the LD numbers had been better than in the actual #Election92 due to gains from Tories in what were to become their 90s heartlands.

Both sides could conceivably claim a mandate - the Tories with more seats/votes, Labour for having wiped out a 100+ seat majority. After a bit of posturing bravado, Thatcher is probably persuaded to stand down and senior Tories don't push the issue too hard, preferring to let a shaky Lab-Lib coalition get on with things for a couple of years before another Election.

So, Kinnock gets to be PM for a bit, Paddy Ashdown becomes historically rather important. The recession probably goes on a bit longer than it did. Someone - quite possibly Major - revitalises the Tories, and we have an Election around 1995 where we bounce back with a modest majority.

Blairism still happens, albeit a few years later than it did and probably without huge landslides.