Kinnock resigns as Labour leader in 1987

[Deleted]

A counterfactual that has occasionally crossed my mind but I don't think I've ever really seen it discussed or mentioned: what if Neil Kinnock had decided to resign as leader of the Labour Party after its landslide defeat in the June 1987 election? Indeed, what is the reason he decided to carry on?

Possible bidders for the succession would probably have been Roy Hattersley, John Smith, Bryan Gould, John Prescott and Tony Benn. It was probably too soon for either Blair or Brown, who were still working their way gradually through the ranks.
Had John Smith taken over, which is a likelihood, it is doubtful it would have been possible for him to continue at the very top level after his 1988 heart attack. Neither Hattersley nor Prescott strike me as leadership material, and Benn's moment had probably passed. Which opens the door to Bryan Gould, who might have had a better chance than Kinnock of winning in 1992.

[greatkingrat]

Robin Cook might be a possibility?

[finsobruce]

Jan 11, 2015 22:54:12 GMT swanarcadian said:

A counterfactual that has occasionally crossed my mind but I don't think I've ever really seen it discussed or mentioned: what if Neil Kinnock had decided to resign as leader of the Labour Party after its landslide defeat in the June 1987 election? Indeed, what is the reason he decided to carry on?

Possible bidders for the succession would probably have been Roy Hattersley, John Smith, Bryan Gould, John Prescott and Tony Benn. It was probably too soon for either Blair or Brown, who were still working their way gradually through the ranks.
Had John Smith taken over, which is a likelihood, it is doubtful it would have been possible for him to continue at the very top level after his 1988 heart attack. Neither Hattersley nor Prescott strike me as leadership material, and Benn's moment had probably past. Which opens the door to Bryan Gould, who might have had a better chance than Kinnock of winning in 1992.

Given the tonking that Gould received when he stood against Smith in 1992 I couldn't agree with that. He simply wasn't as popular in the party as he/the media thought he was. Not actively disliked to be fair but not actively liked either. 

edit: great king rat just read my mind after I posted...

[Merseymike]

Gould was an interesting character. Not on the right of the party by any means, but a very convinced moderniser in terms of the way the party worked
Labour being something of a sentimental party, he wasn't entirely trusted by some
Robin Cook would have been an excellent choice, and if I was a conspiracy theorist which I am definitely not I might ask why he died so young and so suddenly

[Deleted]

I hadn't thought of Robin Cook as a possible contender. I did see him once when he visited Yorkshire: in October 2003 he went to Waterstones in Leeds to do a talk, a Q & A and book signing when his "Point of Departure" had just been published. I went along and sat in the audience. It was the day after IDS had resigned. Coincidentally I was in that Waterstones only yesterday and am always reminded of the event when I visit.  The rest of the audience seemed to be a group of hard-lefties, judging by some of the questions that were asked, so I almost felt as though I was an under cover spy.

[Merseymike]

Jan 12, 2015 0:39:25 GMT swanarcadian said:

I hadn't thought of Robin Cook as a possible contender. I did see him once when he visited Yorkshire: in October 2003 he went to Waterstones in Leeds to do a talk, a Q & A and book signing when his "Point of Departure" had just been published. I went along and sat in the audience. It was the day after IDS had resigned. Coincidentally I was in that Waterstones only yesterday and am always reminded of the event when I visit.  The rest of the audience seemed to be a group of hard-lefties, judging by some of the questions that were asked, so I almost felt as though I was an under cover spy.

Very bright man, sharp sense of humour, though as he once said, he thought looking like a garden gnome might have gone against him. I was always a huge fan. He was on the soft left of the party, but was principled enough to resign over Iraq. He could, in my view, have beaten Brown had he lived. Blair knew that too. Hence the conspiracy theories (which I don't sign up to, but losing him was a tragic shame)

[Pete Whitehead]

'I'm not a conspiracy theorist but...'
I must use that some time

[Devil Wincarnate]

Jan 12, 2015 9:52:10 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

'I'm not a conspiracy theorist but...'
I must use that some time

" I'm not a conspiracy theorist,but the tin foil keeps my head warm".

[Devil Wincarnate]

Cook was a million times better than Brown. Are there any people out there calling for the return of Brownism?

[Deleted]

1987 was the last time a leader of either the Conservative or Labour parties stayed on after a general election defeat. It doesn't seem to be the done thing any more.

[Deleted]

I think we'd need another counterfactual to trigger this, rather than it being the counterfactual itself. There was no pressure either internally or externally for Kinnock to step down after 1987, as it was generally perceived that he (and Labour) had run a good campaign and the defeat was outside their immediate control.

You're right though that something changed in political culture between 1987 and 2001 such that it was less acceptable for a leader to hang on after defeat - though Howard could probably have stayed after 2005 if he wanted to, at least to be given a chance for a year or two.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Jan 12, 2015 18:31:49 GMT swanarcadian said:

1987 was the last time a leader of either the Conservative or Labour parties stayed on after a general election defeat. It doesn't seem to be the done thing any more.

I reckon Cameron will- the alternatives are fairly mediocre. Which makes Hague's departure even more regrettable.

[neilm]

There are conspiracy theories about the death of Robin Cook? Brilliant.

Although now I think about it... Would he have stood against Brown?

[The Bishop]

Jan 11, 2015 23:45:17 GMT Merseymike said:

Robin Cook would have been an excellent choice, and if I was a conspiracy theorist which I am definitely not I might ask why he died so young and so suddenly

For the record, Cook was four years older than John Smith had been when he had his fatal heart attack.

"Troofer-ists" have tried to suggest that was suspicious as well, part of a "plot" to ensure Blair "hijacked" the party - though they then have to explain why Smith nearly passed away in late 1988 when the MP for Sedgefield was still very much an also-ran in the leadership stakes. Robin Cook died suddenly and tragically, end of story.

[Merseymike]

Jan 13, 2015 11:31:05 GMT The Bishop said:

Jan 11, 2015 23:45:17 GMT Merseymike said:

Robin Cook would have been an excellent choice, and if I was a conspiracy theorist which I am definitely not I might ask why he died so young and so suddenly

For the record, Cook was four years older than John Smith had been when he had his fatal heart attack.

"Troofer-ists" have tried to suggest that was suspicious as well, part of a "plot" to ensure Blair "hijacked" the party - though they then have to explain why Smith nearly passed away in late 1988 when the MP for Sedgefield was still very much an also-ran in the leadership stakes. Robin Cook died suddenly and tragically, end of story.

As I say I'm not a conspiracy theorist, though when I fulminate about Blair and Iraq I sometimes wish I was.

[The Bishop]

I know you're not, I was just setting out the facts (its easy to forget Cook would be approaching 70 if he was still with us now)

Some people seem to think fatal heart attacks/strokes don't happen without previous history. This is actually far from the case.

[johnloony]

I think I read recently that Robin Cook was on Ministry of Defence land when he had his heart attack. Or whatever. Which obviously proves he was murdered.

[neilm]

Jan 13, 2015 11:31:05 GMT The Bishop said:

Jan 11, 2015 23:45:17 GMT Merseymike said:

Robin Cook would have been an excellent choice, and if I was a conspiracy theorist which I am definitely not I might ask why he died so young and so suddenly

For the record, Cook was four years older than John Smith had been when he had his fatal heart attack.

"Troofer-ists" have tried to suggest that was suspicious as well, part of a "plot" to ensure Blair "hijacked" the party - though they then have to explain why Smith nearly passed away in late 1988 when the MP for Sedgefield was still very much an also-ran in the leadership stakes . Robin Cook died suddenly and tragically, end of story.

I appreciate that Tony Blair was considered to be serious contender for high office but did anyone consider him likely to run for the leadership should the job have opened up in the late 80s?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

1988 as Shadow Secretary of State for Energy.

[The Bishop]

ISTR Blair first being mentioned as a future Labour leader in around 1987/88 - but the emphasis then was very much on "future".

He was only seriously put forward an immediate contender were there a vacancy after 1992 and Smith taking over - especially after Brown went through a bit of a rocky patch in his early days as shadow Chancellor (the timing of Smith's death was unfortunate for him, and very fortuitous for Mr Tony - one of the things that gets the conspiracy theorist tongues wagging)

Indeed, there is a rather spooky story from spring 1994 of Smith having a chat with his underlings - and the subject arising of what might happen if (as the euphemism went) he became "suddenly unavailable". He is reported to have said "well in that case, it just has to be Blair doesn't it?"

Which does rather give the lie to another conspiracy, that TB was basically foisted on an unwilling party by the MSM on May 12 1994 and its immediate aftermath. Talking to my old man just a few hours later, neither of us were in any doubt - "its got to be Blair". He was simply the right person for Labour at the time - I duly voted for him then and have no regrets about it, however tragically it all went wrong in the end.