PoD: In October 1987, an enterprising reporter from the News of the World does a little digging around the private life of the new Chief Secretary of the Treasury. A few phone calls and one obliging (if anonymous) Police protection officer later, the paper gets a nice little headline- "OH YES, MINISTER!". There's a scandal, although not a particularly large one; while the resignation of two Ministers is embarrassing for the Government, it's not exactly Profumo. The controversy is brief and soon knocked off the front pages by Michael Fish failing to predict a hurricane. Nonetheless, the terminal years of the Thatcher administration will have to do without two of the Conservative Party's rising stars; John Major and Edwina Currie.
Thoughts? The immediate knock ons will not be huge; we probably won't see the salmonella crisis for a start, as Currie's successor (perhaps Virginia Bottomley?) will be less likely to speak without first engaging brain. There will be slightly different cabinet positions in 1989-1990 without John Major; maybe John Gummer, Douglas Hurd or John Moore end up as Foreign Secretary or Chancellor? I doubt this would change a massive amount however. The one potential divergence caused by a lack of Major in No. 11 involves the ERM- Major was the one who convinced Thatcher to join the mechanism, although IMO another Chancellor may have done the same.
The big difference comes of course in 1990. I see no reason for the first ballot of the Tory leadership contest to go any differently; Thatcher gets 204 votes while Heseltine gets 152. This is enough to initially convince her to fight on, but after consulting her colleagues she decides to withdraw from the race on November 22nd. So far, so OTL.
But what then? Heseltine will stand for sure. It's pretty certain that Douglas Hurd would as well. OTL many Thatcherite loyalists were unconvinced by Hurd, and thought he stood little chance against Hezza- the same is likely to happen ATL. Another candidate is needed, but who?
One option is John Moore. OTL he was regarded as a potential PM for quite some time, although by the time Thatcher was ousted his star had fallen. ATL however, if he replaces Major after his resignation (a plausible move considering he was a veteran of the Treasury) he may be more fortunate. I suspect this is unlikely though. Moore never quite seemed to be up to the job OTL, and if he was unable to handle the DHSS I can't see him doing a wonderful job as Foreign Secretary or Chancellor. I suspect that by the autumn of 1990 he will be seen as being on the decline, albeit less quickly then OTL.
Another option will be Tom King. OTL King was regarded as a 'safe pair of hands', and was considered to have been successful in Northern Ireland. In his diaries Alan Clark noted that he felt that King was the best man to beat Heseltine, but he encountered little enthusiasm for the idea. In an ATL without Major things may be slightly different...
In the second ballot then, instead of the Heseltine/Hurd/Major race of OTL, we have a Heseltine/Hurd/King contest. Will things be that different? I'm not sure. On balance, I can't see Heseltine doing much better; 'he who wields the knife' and all that. That said, I imagine King might do a little less well then Major did OTL. Maybe in TTL instead of 131, 56 and 185 votes respectively, Heseltine gets 140, Hurd 60 and Tom King 170. Unlike OTL, the vote goes through to a third ballot on November 29th; King wins convincingly, 233 votes to 152.
Where now? It’s difficult to say. I imagine that in many ways the early days of a King Premiership would be little different to that of the Major one; the Gulf war will probably raise the new PM’s profile, and many of the policies would remain the same although the faces in cabinet may be rather different. Come 1992 though, I can see the Tories doing less well. While Kinnock will still be… well, Kinnock, the lack of a soapbox may harm the Government’s chances. We may see a minority Labour Government or a hung Parliament. More interestingly, the Tories may squeak home with a single figure majority.
Any thoughts on how a King Premiership might look and how long it might last?
Thoughts? The immediate knock ons will not be huge; we probably won't see the salmonella crisis for a start, as Currie's successor (perhaps Virginia Bottomley?) will be less likely to speak without first engaging brain. There will be slightly different cabinet positions in 1989-1990 without John Major; maybe John Gummer, Douglas Hurd or John Moore end up as Foreign Secretary or Chancellor? I doubt this would change a massive amount however. The one potential divergence caused by a lack of Major in No. 11 involves the ERM- Major was the one who convinced Thatcher to join the mechanism, although IMO another Chancellor may have done the same.
The big difference comes of course in 1990. I see no reason for the first ballot of the Tory leadership contest to go any differently; Thatcher gets 204 votes while Heseltine gets 152. This is enough to initially convince her to fight on, but after consulting her colleagues she decides to withdraw from the race on November 22nd. So far, so OTL.
But what then? Heseltine will stand for sure. It's pretty certain that Douglas Hurd would as well. OTL many Thatcherite loyalists were unconvinced by Hurd, and thought he stood little chance against Hezza- the same is likely to happen ATL. Another candidate is needed, but who?
One option is John Moore. OTL he was regarded as a potential PM for quite some time, although by the time Thatcher was ousted his star had fallen. ATL however, if he replaces Major after his resignation (a plausible move considering he was a veteran of the Treasury) he may be more fortunate. I suspect this is unlikely though. Moore never quite seemed to be up to the job OTL, and if he was unable to handle the DHSS I can't see him doing a wonderful job as Foreign Secretary or Chancellor. I suspect that by the autumn of 1990 he will be seen as being on the decline, albeit less quickly then OTL.
Another option will be Tom King. OTL King was regarded as a 'safe pair of hands', and was considered to have been successful in Northern Ireland. In his diaries Alan Clark noted that he felt that King was the best man to beat Heseltine, but he encountered little enthusiasm for the idea. In an ATL without Major things may be slightly different...
In the second ballot then, instead of the Heseltine/Hurd/Major race of OTL, we have a Heseltine/Hurd/King contest. Will things be that different? I'm not sure. On balance, I can't see Heseltine doing much better; 'he who wields the knife' and all that. That said, I imagine King might do a little less well then Major did OTL. Maybe in TTL instead of 131, 56 and 185 votes respectively, Heseltine gets 140, Hurd 60 and Tom King 170. Unlike OTL, the vote goes through to a third ballot on November 29th; King wins convincingly, 233 votes to 152.
Where now? It’s difficult to say. I imagine that in many ways the early days of a King Premiership would be little different to that of the Major one; the Gulf war will probably raise the new PM’s profile, and many of the policies would remain the same although the faces in cabinet may be rather different. Come 1992 though, I can see the Tories doing less well. While Kinnock will still be… well, Kinnock, the lack of a soapbox may harm the Government’s chances. We may see a minority Labour Government or a hung Parliament. More interestingly, the Tories may squeak home with a single figure majority.
Any thoughts on how a King Premiership might look and how long it might last?