What if John Major had got the majority of 71 UNS would have

[nodealbrexiteer]

given in 1992?

Labour morale shattered even more?

[The Bishop]

It would have made the PM's life in parliament a bit easier in the following years, beyond that it might not have materially altered much?

[adlai52]

Which seats would the Conservatives had held on UNS that they lost in reality?

IIRC they came close to a few upsets in Scotland that a more uniform result might have converted into wins.

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 2, 2023 12:03:11 GMT adlai52 said:

Which seats would the Conservatives had held on UNS that they lost in reality?

IIRC they came close to a few upsets in Scotland that a more uniform result might have converted into wins.

I started doing a map of UNS based on 1987 last night. From memory, there were a few main clusters of seats which Labour 'shouldn't' have won but did - in London, the West Midlands and the North West.
IIRC in London, the Conservatives would have held Croydon North, Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Streatham, Feltham & Heston, Hampstead & Highgate, Ilford South, Walthamstow. But they would have lost Battersea. Labour would also have gained Southwark & Bermondsey from the Lib Dems
In the Midlands they would have held Northfield, Selly Oak and Yardley in Birmingham and also Nuneaton, North Warwickshire and Cannock & Burntwood. In the East Midlands they would have held Sherwood but lost Corby and Nottingham East.
IN the North West the Conservatives should have lost Bolton NE but should have held Stockport, Warrington South, Rossendale, Hyndburn, Pendle, Barrow. Labour should also have won Liverpool Mossley Hill and Rochdale
IN Yorkshire I think the only 'wrong' result was Batley & Spen being a Tory hold. In the North East the Conservatives 'should' have held Darlington but lost Langbaurgh and Stockton South
In Scotland, Labour should have won Ayr and Stirling while the Conservatives should have gained Argyll and NE Fife
In Wales, I think only Cardiff Central and Pembroke had wrong winners.
Obviously the Conservatives would not have lost any of the seats they did to the Lib Dems (Bath, Cheltenham, N Cornwall, N Devon)

Oh and Cambridge, Bristol East, Kingswood, Southampton Itchen

[rcronald]

Mar 2, 2023 12:22:00 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Mar 2, 2023 12:03:11 GMT adlai52 said:

Which seats would the Conservatives had held on UNS that they lost in reality?

IIRC they came close to a few upsets in Scotland that a more uniform result might have converted into wins.

I started doing a map of UNS based on 1987 last night. From memory, there were a few main clusters of seats which Labour 'shouldn't' have won but did - in London, the West Midlands and the North West.
IIRC in London, the Conservatives would have held Croydon North, Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Streatham, Feltham & Heston, Hampstead & Highgate, Ilford South, Walthamstow. But they would have lost Battersea. Labour would also have gained Southwark & Bermondsey from the Lib Dems
In the Midlands they would have held Northfield, Selly Oak and Yardley in Birmingham and also Nuneaton, North Warwickshire and Cannock & Burntwood. In the East Midlands they would have held Sherwood but lost Corby and Nottingham East.
IN the North West the Conservatives should have lost Bolton NE but should have held Stockport, Warrington South, Rossendale, Hyndburn, Pendle, Barrow. Labour should also have won Liverpool Mossley Hill and Rochdale
IN Yorkshire I think the only 'wrong' result was Batley & Spen being a Tory hold. In the North East the Conservatives 'should' have held Darlington but lost Langbaurgh and Stockton South
In Scotland, Labour should have won Ayr and Stirling while the Conservatives should have gained Argyll and NE Fife
In Wales, I think only Cardiff Central and Pembroke had wrong winners.
Obviously the Conservatives would not have lost any of the seats they did to the Lib Dems (Bath, Cheltenham, N Cornwall, N Devon)

Oh and Cambridge, Bristol East, Kingswood, Southampton Itchen

*Croydon North West

[nodealbrexiteer]

Don't know if this helps but according to the 1992 Nuffield study the Tories should have made 4 net gains from the Lib Dems not 2 net losses and it also says Lab out 12 of the 18 seats that would have fallen on the 2.1% total vote swing and gained 17 of the 24 seats vulnerable to swings between 2% and 4% plus a further 11 seats beyond that point

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 2, 2023 17:10:20 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

Don't know if this helps but according to the 1992 Nuffield study the Tories should have made 4 net gains from the Lib Dems not 2 net losses and it also says Lab out 12 of the 18 seats that would have fallen on the 2.1% total vote swing and gained 17 of the 24 seats vulnerable to swings between 2% and 4% plus a further 11 seats beyond that point

The gains from the Lib Dems (no point really talking about net gains as under UNS there are only going to be gains in one direction) would have been Brecon & Radnor, Southport, Argyll & Bute and NE Fife. The first two of course they did gain.

[nodealbrexiteer]

In 1987 Alliance were 4 up on the UNS figure(swing from 1983) with SNP and Plaid also up one each and Labour 8 down, Tories 2 up

[michaelarden]

The psephology isn't really what this is about. Labour's morale would have been worse and the 'they can never win again without the Lib Dems' theme would have been even stronger.

A bigger majority would also have allowed Major to get rid of the 'bastards' without affecting his majority so he probably wouldn't have needed the leadership election to prove his authority. And the bar for a Labour win would have been higher.

So a PM with more authority, a weaker principle opposition party being encouraged to do deals (and therefore seeming weaker), with a strengthening economy under Ken Clarke would have been a more difficult circumstance for the opposition. But given the essential dynamic (similar to now or 1964) was that the government had essentially been in too long to reinvent itself again I can't see Major holding on. But he would have lost by less - say 20-30 seats - making it easier for Labour to lose earlier than 2010. Hung parliament in 2005?

[The Bishop]

But if we assume the post-1992 GE timeline is otherwise similar, there are arguments against that scenario as well.

Black Wednesday still happens and still shreds the government's legitimacy and authority, Blair still becomes Labour leader after Smith dies in 1994 and still makes a highly favourable impression on an electorate that badly wants some sort of change by that time.

It might have meant a 1997 Labour majority nearer to 100 than 200, other than that I'm not sure.

[Deleted]

Mar 4, 2023 0:16:57 GMT michaelarden said:

The psephology isn't really what this is about. Labour's morale would have been worse and the 'they can never win again without the Lib Dems' theme would have been even stronger.

A bigger majority would also have allowed Major to get rid of the 'bastards' without affecting his majority so he probably wouldn't have needed the leadership election to prove his authority. And the bar for a Labour win would have been higher.

So a PM with more authority, a weaker principle opposition party being encouraged to do deals (and therefore seeming weaker), with a strengthening economy under Ken Clarke would have been a more difficult circumstance for the opposition. But given the essential dynamic (similar to now or 1964) was that the government had essentially been in too long to reinvent itself again I can't see Major holding on. But he would have lost by less - say 20-30 seats - making it easier for Labour to lose earlier than 2010. Hung parliament in 2005?

Though an awful lot of people were very loudly saying that a year ago, now we're looking at an almost guaranteed Labour majority and many of those exact same people are gleefully sharing those "Lab 500 SNP 50 Con 10" fantasies predictions

[michaelarden]

Mar 5, 2023 15:28:21 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Mar 4, 2023 0:16:57 GMT michaelarden said:

The psephology isn't really what this is about. Labour's morale would have been worse and the 'they can never win again without the Lib Dems' theme would have been even stronger.

A bigger majority would also have allowed Major to get rid of the 'bastards' without affecting his majority so he probably wouldn't have needed the leadership election to prove his authority. And the bar for a Labour win would have been higher.

So a PM with more authority, a weaker principle opposition party being encouraged to do deals (and therefore seeming weaker), with a strengthening economy under Ken Clarke would have been a more difficult circumstance for the opposition. But given the essential dynamic (similar to now or 1964) was that the government had essentially been in too long to reinvent itself again I can't see Major holding on. But he would have lost by less - say 20-30 seats - making it easier for Labour to lose earlier than 2010. Hung parliament in 2005?

Though an awful lot of people were very loudly saying that a year ago, now we're looking at an almost guaranteed Labour majority and many of those exact same people are gleefully sharing those "Lab 500 SNP 50 Con 10" fantasies predictions

I hadn't heard many people mentioning that last year - although people were talking about a hung Parliament. Post 1992 it was much more about some formal pact would be needed as Labour were too weak to win on their own. Maybe it's my memory and the mists of time but I sense the debate was very different then and now (perhaps as a result of the 2010 hung Parliament normalising the idea of no majority?). 

[adlai52]

Mar 5, 2023 18:42:52 GMT michaelarden said:

Mar 5, 2023 15:28:21 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Though an awful lot of people were very loudly saying that a year ago, now we're looking at an almost guaranteed Labour majority and many of those exact same people are gleefully sharing those "Lab 500 SNP 50 Con 10" fantasies predictions

I hadn't heard many people mentioning that last year - although people were talking about a hung Parliament. Post 1992 it was much more about some formal pact would be needed as Labour were too weak to win on their own. Maybe it's my memory and the mists of time but I sense the debate was very different then and now (perhaps as a result of the 2010 hung Parliament normalising the idea of no majority?). 

If you go back and read some of the material looking ahead to the '97 election in the mid-90s (post-Black Wednesday) the consensus was that the Conservatives would recover, but that there would be a clear Labour majority - somewhere in the range of 50-60 seats.

I assume as you got closer to the election and the Conservatives failed to close the gap expectations shifted, but senior Labour figures were pretty consistently taken aback by the scale of the win - although you could put that down to still dealing with their trauma from the disappointment of '92. 

[finsobruce]

Mar 6, 2023 8:45:30 GMT adlai52 said:

Mar 5, 2023 18:42:52 GMT michaelarden said:

I hadn't heard many people mentioning that last year - although people were talking about a hung Parliament. Post 1992 it was much more about some formal pact would be needed as Labour were too weak to win on their own. Maybe it's my memory and the mists of time but I sense the debate was very different then and now (perhaps as a result of the 2010 hung Parliament normalising the idea of no majority?). 

If you go back and read some of the material looking ahead to the '97 election in the mid-90s (post-Black Wednesday) the consensus was that the Conservatives would recover, but that there would be a clear Labour majority - somewhere in the range of 50-60 seats.

I assume as you got closer to the election and the Conservatives failed to close the gap expectations shifted, but senior Labour figures were pretty consistently taken aback by the scale of the win - although you could put that down to still dealing with their trauma from the disappointment of '92. 

I was asked to put together an election map 'predicting' the results in the '97 election. Polls and indeed council by elections pointed to the final result, but we moderated it down to just around a 100 seat majority so as not too look too foolish.

Things are much changed since then, and not just in Scotland.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 6, 2023 8:45:30 GMT adlai52 said:

Mar 5, 2023 18:42:52 GMT michaelarden said:

I hadn't heard many people mentioning that last year - although people were talking about a hung Parliament. Post 1992 it was much more about some formal pact would be needed as Labour were too weak to win on their own. Maybe it's my memory and the mists of time but I sense the debate was very different then and now (perhaps as a result of the 2010 hung Parliament normalising the idea of no majority?). 

If you go back and read some of the material looking ahead to the '97 election in the mid-90s (post-Black Wednesday) the consensus was that the Conservatives would recover, but that there would be a clear Labour majority - somewhere in the range of 50-60 seats.

I assume as you got closer to the election and the Conservatives failed to close the gap expectations shifted, but senior Labour figures were pretty consistently taken aback by the scale of the win - although you could put that down to still dealing with their trauma from the disappointment of '92. 

one of those true 'beyond your wildest dreams' moments

[The Bishop]

Mar 6, 2023 8:45:30 GMT adlai52 said:

I assume as you got closer to the election and the Conservatives failed to close the gap expectations shifted, but senior Labour figures were pretty consistently taken aback by the scale of the win - although you could put that down to still dealing with their trauma from the disappointment of '92. 

In the last week or so before polling day, Labour sources briefed people "off the record" that they now thought they could win big - but "winning big" meant a 1966-type result for a 100 seat majority or so. Stuff like taking Portillo's seat was still considered unlikely if not impossible.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 6, 2023 15:53:53 GMT The Bishop said:

Mar 6, 2023 8:45:30 GMT adlai52 said:

I assume as you got closer to the election and the Conservatives failed to close the gap expectations shifted, but senior Labour figures were pretty consistently taken aback by the scale of the win - although you could put that down to still dealing with their trauma from the disappointment of '92. 

In the last week or so before polling day, Labour sources briefed people "off the record" that they now thought they could win big - but "winning big" meant a 1966-type result for a 100 seat majority or so. Stuff like taking Portillo's seat was still considered unlikely if not impossible.

Labour's Greg Cook was telling Blair he thought it would be 70sh majority-lowballing maybe?

[timrollpickering]

Mar 2, 2023 12:22:00 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Obviously the Conservatives would not have lost any of the seats they did to the Lib Dems (Bath, Cheltenham, N Cornwall, N Devon)

Which might have had an interesting side effect. John Taylor's defeat in Cheltenham became a myth of a safe seat being lost through selecting a non-white candidate who was rejected by a bigoted electorate (as opposed to a barrister from Solihull being selected in a key Lib Dem target with a retiring popular local MP who was about as openly gay as one could be there & then going down to a local councillor on a swing about the same as the one that took out the party chairman in nearby Bath) and may well have contributed to a perceived reluctance in party selection processes to pick non-white candidates, especially in heavily white areas, for nearly a generation.

www.nextleft.org/2010/07/lord-taylor-and-myth-of-cheltenham-1992.html

www.bbc.co.uk/otr/intext/20001008_film_1.html

SHAMIT SAAGAR: I think what is taking place in the Labour Party like other parties, is a form of imputed racism. That is to say, selectors who are mainly white, are taking the view that whilst they are not racist, and do not discriminate against black and Asian candidates, their fear is - entirely unfounded by the way - that voters will discriminate on that basis, and for those reasons, selectors play safe and shy away from adopting black and Asian candidates, particularly in marginal seats.

If Taylor had held the seat would there have been an earlier increase in the number of BAME MPs?

[Pete Whitehead]

I've always enjoyed the symmetry of the 1992 Lib Dem gains (while obviously not enjoying the fact they were gained, except in the case of Bath).

The northern division of the county, covering the Atlantic coast, including a rather faded large resort town and numerous small seaside towns, plus a large rural hinterland including a surprisingly gritty inland town. A long Liberal history and most recently held by a leading Liberal figure in the 1960s and 1970s but lost in 1979.

A Georgian spa town set in the hills with a steroptypical 'posh' image but actually containing a sizeable working class population, most notably in the council estates in the West of the town. The Liberals had not won here for decades and Labour were competitive in 1966 but a Liberal challenge emerged from the 1970s and effected a tactical squeeze on the Labour vote.

The first description applies to both North Cornwall and North Devon and the second to both Bath and Cheltenham

[eastmidlandsright]

Apr 10, 2023 20:59:48 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I've always enjoyed the symmetry of the 1992 Lib Dem gains (while obviously not enjoying the fact they were gained, except in the case of Bath).

While I could never condone voting Lib Dem in almost any circumstances I did have bit of a chuckle over this result.