Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 7:15:42 GMT
Supposing John Smith had not died in 1994 at such a young age.
He would have undoubtedly won a landslide victory in 1997, but perhaps not such a massive one with the Conservatives able to remind voters of his shadow budget in the run-up to the 1992 election. He would have been able to win a second term in 2001 or 2002, with a reduced majority but perhaps without such a sharp drop in turnout. He would have been less likely to involve the UK in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby keeping Labour voters on side who would otherwise have lent their support to the Lib Dems or Respect. Due to his age, he would have probably resigned as Prime Minister in 2003 or 2004. But who would have succeeded him?
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 25, 2014 7:59:42 GMT
He was 55 when he died. Not exactly a spring chicken.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,557
|
Post by cibwr on Oct 25, 2014 8:30:41 GMT
And we would have had devolution much earlier!
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,404
|
Post by john07 on Oct 25, 2014 8:41:05 GMT
And we would have had devolution much earlier! How? Would John Major facing Smith in the Commons have conceded the case for devolution?
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,557
|
Post by cibwr on Oct 25, 2014 9:23:52 GMT
And we would have had devolution much earlier! How? Would John Major facing Smith in the Commons have conceded the case for devolution? I think we would have had it without referendums - so in place in 1998.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,404
|
Post by john07 on Oct 25, 2014 9:59:48 GMT
How? Would John Major facing Smith in the Commons have conceded the case for devolution? I think we would have had it without referendums - so in place in 1998. A lame response. There wasn't a hope in hell of devolution being granted for Scotland without a referendum. As for Wales, forget it!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,303
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 25, 2014 10:00:50 GMT
One year earlier, then - hardly "much".
As for Smith's possible successor - might that have been the same as IRL?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 10:23:30 GMT
One year earlier, then - hardly "much". As for Smith's possible successor - might that have been the same as IRL? The prospect of Blair becoming PM in 2003/4 (supposing Smith would have retired around then) might not have been quite as good a proposition for him as it would have been in 1997. He knew he was cruising to a landslide victory IRL. Brown might have been more prepared to fight a losing battle.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,303
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 25, 2014 10:25:24 GMT
Blair might have thought only he could win Labour a historic third term, though?
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Oct 25, 2014 13:05:04 GMT
The last opinion poll before John Smith's death was Lab 43%, Con 27%, LD 25%. I'm not convinced it would have been a landslide victory as the Tories would have pulled back a bit although it would have probably been a victory. Perhaps the main difference would be that no-one would have heard of the Granita restaurant.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 25, 2014 22:43:40 GMT
I have always imagined that if John Smith had been leader, then Labour would have got 384 seats in 1997 and the Conservative Party 213.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 25, 2014 22:49:24 GMT
Blair might have thought only he could win Labour a historic third term, though? I would imagine that Blair would have been a less than stellar cabinet minister and wouldn't have been well placed to take over as PM.
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 26, 2014 8:30:58 GMT
Blair might have thought only he could win Labour a historic third term, though? I would imagine that Blair would have been a less than stellar cabinet minister and wouldn't have been well placed to take over as PM. Well quite. Every single job Blair had before becoming PM, barrister, backbench MP, opposition frontbench spokesman and finally opposition leader, all were based around being a persuasive advocate for some cause. He had never had a single job that involved actually having to come up with the goods on something and like you I suspect he would not have flourished in or enjoyed such a job. I remember throughout the Blair-Brown years these two were always reported as being the two 'big beasts' of the Labour party towering above everyone else. I have to say I always wondered why this was the case and what was it so special. My puzzlement later turned to amazement what large sections of the media held up the deeply unimpressive David Miliband as being the next 'big beast' with no explanation for how they came to this judgement.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,303
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 26, 2014 10:34:16 GMT
Well, I have to disagree with the above posts to some extent.
It is easy to regard Blair with a jaundiced eye given what we know now, but 20-25 years ago things were rather different.
He was one of the "big beasts" then, no question.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 26, 2014 10:38:21 GMT
The one I've never got is Brown. I can see why Blair could be seen as a big beast, but not Brown. He was vastly over promoted even then.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,303
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 26, 2014 10:50:24 GMT
He showed it in patches - for instance absolutely pummelling Lawson when John Smith was indisposed in the winter of 1988-89.
It was his "psychological flaws" - like surrounding himself with sycophants, not being genuinely inclusive as Blair was then - that did for him IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 11:02:30 GMT
The most likely scenario for me would be John Smith winning a second term with a reduced majority in 2002 and retiring in 2004 on grounds of age. Gordon Brown succeeds him and goes on to lose the 2007 election. Michael Howard then becomes Prime Minister, despite being the same age as Smith when he left office. Howard serves just three years as PM before retiring in 2010, sparking a Conservative leadership election.
Tony Blair is Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, then Foreign Secretary between 2001 and 2004 before leaving Parliament for a top job in Europe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 12:28:24 GMT
I grew up through the Blair era, from 8 to 18, and will always remember him as a real political colossus. Labour are wrong to try to disown him. John Smith on the other hand was average at best and a very unpleasant man personally, and would probably have been a one term leader.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,303
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 26, 2014 12:34:33 GMT
I grew up through the Blair era, from 8 to 18, and will always remember him as a real political colossus. Labour are wrong to try to disown him. John Smith on the other hand was average at best and a very unpleasant man personally, and would probably have been a one term leader. Since you are not old enough to remember him properly, what exactly are you basing this on? Few who knew the man would agree with the latter point, in particular.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 12:36:11 GMT
I grew up through the Blair era, from 8 to 18, and will always remember him as a real political colossus. Labour are wrong to try to disown him. John Smith on the other hand was average at best and a very unpleasant man personally, and would probably have been a one term leader. Since you are not old enough to remember him personally, what exactly are you basing this on? Few who knew the man would agree with the latter point, in particular? I have heard from quite a few people that he was not a pleasant person to work for (and that 90% of the time GB was alright).
|
|