J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,671 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 11, 2023 8:45:04 GMT
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. An interesting what-if is if Chris Patton had held his seat and so was unavailable to become Governor of Hong Kong. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,060
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Apr 11, 2023 10:00:34 GMT
While I could never condone voting Lib Dem in almost any circumstances I did have bit of a chuckle over this result. An interesting what-if is if Chris Patton had held his seat and so was unavailable to become Governor of Hong Kong. Tory majority of 23(all else being equal)  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,648
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 11, 2023 10:25:07 GMT
While I could never condone voting Lib Dem in almost any circumstances I did have bit of a chuckle over this result. An interesting what-if is if Chris Patton had held his seat and so was unavailable to become Governor of Hong Kong. The government would have chosen somebody else presumably - I imagine other names were in consideration before the 1992 GE result. |
|
r34t
Non-Aligned
Posts: 845
Member is Online
|
Post by r34t on Apr 11, 2023 13:15:13 GMT
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. I spent election day in Bristol East, then went down to the pub behind the Council House to meet some friends. The B West count was at the couns louse & one of the Labour tellers popped across to say we were winning. Avin a larff was the initial response. Memory is a funny thing, but I don’t think we even took an overall majority as given, after 1992. Certainly not the absolute blowout that actually happened |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,671
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 11, 2023 22:48:13 GMT
An interesting what-if is if Chris Patten had held his seat and so was unavailable to become Governor of Hong Kong. The government would have chosen somebody else presumably - I imagine other names were in consideration before the 1992 GE result. Much more likely to have been a quiet career-track foreign office civil servant. I think, for the time and environment in 1992, appointing a politician was what was needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clark on Apr 12, 2023 17:10:53 GMT
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. I spent election day in Bristol East, then went down to the pub behind the Council House to meet some friends. The B West count was at the couns louse & one of the Labour tellers popped across to say we were winning. Avin a larff was the initial response. Memory is a funny thing, but I don’t think we even took an overall majority as given, after 1992. Certainly not the absolute blowout that actually happened Came from 3rd place to win. Was a bit of 3 way marginal at that point but Waldegrave was toast |
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on May 1, 2023 7:56:38 GMT
The government would have chosen somebody else presumably - I imagine other names were in consideration before the 1992 GE result. Much more likely to have been a quiet career-track foreign office civil servant. I think, for the time and environment in 1992, appointing a politician was what was needed. David Owen was under consideration at one point. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on May 1, 2023 8:26:18 GMT
Much more likely to have been a quiet career-track foreign office civil servant. I think, for the time and environment in 1992, appointing a politician was what was needed. David Owen was under consideration at one point. He'd probably have tried to invade China.  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 1, 2023 8:49:36 GMT
Much more likely to have been a quiet career-track foreign office civil servant. I think, for the time and environment in 1992, appointing a politician was what was needed. David Owen was under consideration at one point. They sent him to Bosnia instead, as if that poor country didn't have enough to cope with at the time. |
|
willpower3
Non-Aligned
Posts: 701
Member is Online
|
Post by willpower3 on May 4, 2023 14:16:11 GMT
The Tories would have sneaked back in again in 1997. The problems and the chaotic image of the 1992-1997 government was mostly due to the small majority. There were scandals, but they weren't even a thousandth of the scandals since 2019. The economy was doing well and the Tories would have capitalised on that in this case.
Portillo probably takes over in about 2000 and leads them to another victory. Labour finally get back in in 2007 or so, when the economy is finally starting to tank and the Iraq War has damaged the Tories' credibility. Labour then get booted out in 2011/12 due to an even worse economy and Cameron becomes Prime Minister. Events after that turn out roughly the same as they do in actuality.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,648
|
Post by The Bishop on May 5, 2023 14:02:44 GMT
The Tories would have sneaked back in again in 1997. The problems and the chaotic image of the 1992-1997 government was mostly due to the small majority Hmmm, up to a point as they say. Even if the previous five years had been a bit less dismal, the "time for a change" sentiment after 18 Tory years would be very strong indeed. And presumably the size of the majority makes no difference to Black Wednesday happening? As for them winning a *sixth* election in a row, absolutely forget it. If they scraped back in 1997, the following GE might have made the actual result then appear generous. And in your scenario Portillo remains the hard right poster boy who is highly unpopular with the general public, rather than the "reformed" version we know now. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,060
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on May 5, 2023 14:28:46 GMT
The Tories would have sneaked back in again in 1997. The problems and the chaotic image of the 1992-1997 government was mostly due to the small majority Hmmm, up to a point as they say. Even if the previous five years had been a bit less dismal, the "time for a change" sentiment after 18 Tory years would be very strong indeed. And presumably the size of the majority makes no difference to Black Wednesday happening? As for them winning a *sixth* election in a row, absolutely forget it. If they scraped back in 1997, the following GE might have made the actual result then appear generous. And in your scenario Portillo remains the hard right poster boy who is highly unpopular with the general public, rather than the "reformed" version we know now. I find this scenario more plausible of yours, of course if the 1992 UNS maj was 71 on the new boundaries it might have be 80ish say but the strong backlash against the Tories would likely still have easily destroyed that majority |
|
