William Hague loses Richmond (Yorks.) in 1989

[Deleted]

Here's an amusing counterfactual for you. What if the SLD and SDP didn't both fight this seat in 1989?

I suspect the result would have been this:

Pearce SLD 54 (+27*)
Hague CON 37 (-24)
Robson LAB 5 (-6)
Upshall GRN 3 (na)
OTH 1(na)

SLD gain from CON - 25.5% swing

Do the Tories move against Thatcher sooner? Does Meyer force a second ballot? Does someone else stand in his place? Howe? Lawson? Heseltine?

What that would mean for this seat's trajectory in the 21st century would be interesting? Does Hague getting into Parliament three years later than in our timeline hurt his chances of becoming leader? I'm assuming the answer is yes, and that Kenneth Clarke defeats him or John Redwood or Michael Howard in 1997.

*change from the 1987 Liberal election result.

[The Bishop]

Actually if Hague wins the seat back in 1992, he might still rise up in the ranks pretty quickly. But point taken.

Though we maybe shouldn't presume the Tory and even Labour shares would have been the same as our timeline in the absence of the SDP candidate at the byelecton. Whilst quite a few of his voters would have gone to Pearce, some would likely have voted for Hague and even a few Labour (probably enough to save their deposit) Tories might still have lost but it would very possibly have turned out closer than the above.

[Deleted]

How did the SDP and SLD fuck this up? It's quite impressive after Ryedale 1986 that they (the rump Alliance) would mess up another chance for a North Yorks win.

[swanarcadian]

David Owen was totally opposed to the Liberal SDP merger. It would have required an SDP leader in favour.

[michaelarden]

It would have been the SDP rather than the then (Social &) Lib Dems as the single candidate who could have won. Which would have opened up a whole new alternative history.

[Deleted]

Clarke becomes Tory leader in 1997 instead of Hague. Either way, 2001 is unwindable for the blues - Tories only really led Labour around fuel protests in 2000.

[The Bishop]

With no Hague to step aside for, it might actually have been Michael Howard then rather than six years later.

[stb12]

Jul 13, 2024 9:20:35 GMT The Bishop said:

With no Hague to step aside for, it might actually have been Michael Howard then rather than six years later.

Although would Ann Widdecome not still have killed his chances anyway?

[timrollpickering]

We had an earlier thread on a similar scenario where Hague did not renege on a plan to support Howard as a youthful deputy.

In 1997 Hague benefitted as the "done nothing wrong", centrist candidate, with Dorrell having crashed and burned (his blatant posturing in the last days of the Major government had alienated more than attracted) whilst Rifkind and other potential centrists had lost their seats. Remove Hague from the field and I suspect the contest becomes messier. Of the various candidates publicly profiled in the year before and who held their seats (and didn't have health problems), Gillian Shepherd was the most prominent non stander and I'm not sure the absence of a Hague would have brought her in (she instead backed Lilley). Dorrell might have found some more MPs to make it to the first ballot but I can't see either wing of the party really trusting him - many MPs would actually prefer a devil they knew from the other wing than an opportunist who shifted with the wind and could not be trusted to dump things on the quiet. The hard Eurosceptic right of the party proved unable to unify around a single candidate in time to get momentum and I don't see Hague having taken a significant block that would otherwise have all piled up behind one candidate to get them the momentum to be Clarke's clear challenger.

Assuming he didn't make the final two, Redwood would have found it much easier to back a non-Clarke candidate who hadn't dismantled his legacy at the Welsh Office. On the other hand Clarke would be facing a messy field with no outstanding rival candidate (Howard was seriously damaged by Widdecombe) so you'd have chaos as the alternatives scraped past one another.

One broader issue is that with such a wide field Clarke would easily win any FPTP poll of any section of the wider party. Contemporary polls found he was supported by most peers, MEPs, National Union officials and association chairman (this was not the membership support of myth - AFAIK the actual members were not polled) and this fed into demands for the wider party to have a say in choosing the leader with virtually every candidate conceding this. If Clarke's lead was seen as by default than it might have blunted the effect of the demands.

[Deleted]

1997 without Heseltine or Portillo or Hague standing is an interesting one since the former two were seen as pretty likely in 1997. I think Clarke might have edged it over Howard in this scenario, since Howard's car crash Paxman interview on Newsnight in 1995 (still widely recalled today) would have been fresher in MPs minds.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Howard’s car crash interview (“did you threaten to overrule him?”) was just after the May 1997 general election, although it referred to events in 1995.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2024 7:36:24 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Howard’s car crash interview (“did you threaten to overrule him?”) was just after the May 1997 general election, although it referred to events in 1995.

Sorry I'm mixing up the dates with the hideous and heinous Martin Beshear interview in November 1995 with the late Princess Diana. You are, of course, 100% right. 

[The Bishop]

Jul 17, 2024 7:36:24 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Howard’s car crash interview (“did you threaten to overrule him?”) was just after the May 1997 general election, although it referred to events in 1995.

The best thing about that was Paxman subsequently admitting he was ad-libbing rather than it being a brilliant interview strategy that would be fondly recalled years later.

(the following item on the show that was due to air had been slightly delayed for some reason)

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2024 11:40:47 GMT The Bishop said:

Jul 17, 2024 7:36:24 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Howard’s car crash interview (“did you threaten to overrule him?”) was just after the May 1997 general election, although it referred to events in 1995.

The best thing about that was Paxman subsequently admitting he was ad-libbing rather than it being a brilliant interview strategy that would be fondly recalled years later.

(the following item on the show that was due to air had been slightly delayed for some reason)

As a former University Challenge contestant (2017 - 2018) series, they don't make 'em like Jeremy Paxman anymore. So many try to copy his style too. 

[stodge]

The premise of this counterfactual is more accurately "what if the SDP and Liberal Parties had merged without problem in early 1988?"

Suspending disbelief for a moment, let's assume Owen and Steel agree in the aftermath of the disappointing 1987 election result to formalise the merger of the SDP and Liberal parties into a single Alliance party.

There is some discontent in both parties but with Owen publicly backing the merger and Meadowcroft surprisingly coming out for it, both parties vote for the merger by majorities of 90%.

The new Alliance Party is born on February 1st 1988 and faces its first challenge in Richmond which Barbara Pearce wins for the new party.

Alliance is soon polling in the mid 20s albeit still third behind Thatcher's Conservatives and Kinnock's Labour Party.

The 1988 local elections are another successful round for Alliance with 250 gains on a share of 28% against 34% for the Conservatives and 33% for Labour. Cheltenham and Colchester are among a number of councillors to fall under Alliance majority control.

The Kensington by election sees Alliance candidate William Goodhart poll a respectable 25% but Labour takes the seat from the Conservatives. By the time of the 1988 Party Conference season, Labour has established a narrow lead in the polls with the Alliance polling 20-25% in third. At the Alliance Conference, both David Steel and David Owen give strong upbeat speeches on the party's first six months of existence. Owen is highly critical of the Government's foreign and European policy which he attacks in a particularly effective speech.

[Deleted]

If the Conservatives had lost Kensington and this seat, surely the party's knives are out for Maggie earlier. Major likely lacks the stature to be leader in early 1989.

[stodge]

Jul 18, 2024 2:23:23 GMT @weld said:

If the Conservatives had lost Kensington and this seat, surely the party's knives are out for Maggie earlier. Major likely lacks the stature to be leader in early 1989.

That's what did happen eventually.

Would a by election loss have triggered a leadership challenge a year after a landslide GE victory? Seems implausible.

In the national polls, Labour and the Conservatives are tied in my version of mid 1988 with the Alliance a strong third but Thatcher's supporters would argue (with some justification), the polling was worse in 1981 and 1986.

The first "challenge" was Meyer in late 1989 and that failed by 314 to 33. We could perhaps pull it forward 12 months in this timeline but the result would be similar.

[The Bishop]

A united and well received "Alliance" party might have won the Epping Forest byelection in late 1988 as well.

[stodge]

Jul 18, 2024 12:36:41 GMT The Bishop said:

A united and well received "Alliance" party might have won the Epping Forest byelection in late 1988 as well.

I've just realised my whole timeline is out because I thought the Richmond by election was in 1988 not 1989.

Okay - the new Alliance Party comes into being on March 1st 1988 following overwhelming majorities in both membership ballots. Both Steel and Owen agree not to serve as leaders following the acrimony of the 1987 campaign.

Alan Beith and Robert McLennan put their names forward but cometh the hour cometh the man or rather the Action Man. Paddy Ashdown, hitherto a little known backbench Liberal who had won Yeovil in the 1983 Thatcher landslide but had been an enthusaiastic supporter of uniting the two parties. His campaigning style had won him friends on the SDP side especially during the Greenwich by election.

In a hard fought but positive campaign, Ashdown won the members' vote beating Beith and took over as Alliance leader.

He prioritised or re-prioritised grassroots campaigning and the round of local elections and the Kensington by election showed a reservoir of support for the new party at about 20-25%.

A successful Party conference in the autumn of 1988 was followed by wins at Epping Forest (Dec 1988) and Richmond (Feb 1989) with Conservative seats falling on traditional Liberal/SDP by election swings.

Alliance reached the 1989 Spring Conference  in a statistical tie with Conservatives and Labour in the polls but they had been here before - the same had happened in 1985/86 and in the end Thatcher still won a landslide so the Conservatives were concerned but not overly at this time.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2024 11:04:54 GMT stodge said:

Jul 18, 2024 2:23:23 GMT @weld said:

If the Conservatives had lost Kensington and this seat, surely the party's knives are out for Maggie earlier. Major likely lacks the stature to be leader in early 1989.

That's what did happen eventually.

Would a by election loss have triggered a leadership challenge a year after a landslide GE victory? Seems implausible.

In the national polls, Labour and the Conservatives are tied in my version of mid 1988 with the Alliance a strong third but Thatcher's supporters would argue (with some justification), the polling was worse in 1981 and 1986.

The first "challenge" was Meyer in late 1989 and that failed by 314 to 33. We could perhaps pull it forward 12 months in this timeline but the result would be similar.

My point was what if both Kensington and Richmond fell? Kensington was the more surprising hold given its previous marginality, but it was fairly inelastic then IMO.