What if Labour leader John Smith hadn't died in 1994?

[AY1975]

Again following on from the thread about what would have happened if Thatcher had survived 1990 and rail privatisation hadn’t happened at www.railforums.co.uk/threads/long-live-br-an-alternate-history-story.157133/, how different do you think things would have been for the railways if Labour leader John Smith hadn’t died in 1994, and Labour had fought the 1997 General Election with JS instead of Blair as leader?

Obviously for a start there is the question of whether Labour could still have won an election with JS as leader. Personally I think they still could have done, but probably not with such a big majority (between 20 and 50 seats, or at the most up to 100, would be my guess). JS was a highly respected figure right across the political spectrum, and is widely seen as one of the best Prime Ministers we never had. Besides, ever since Black Wednesday in September 1992 it looked as if the Tories would be finished at the 1997 election after 18 years in power.

See also my thread on What if Labour had won again in 1978/79 at www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-if-labour-had-won-again-in-1978-79.157821/

 

[Bevan Price]

I think the public were fed up with 18 years of Tory rule by 1997, and almost any moderate Labour leader could have won. John Smith would probably have made a good PM. Policies ? Well I think he would have been less like to let UK get involved in President Bush's middle eastern wars. Apart from that, i don't think a lot would be different to what happened under Blair. The ministers might have been different, but greedy bankers bonus schemes would have still occurred and made a mess of the UK economy - for which the largely pro-tory press would have blamed Labour. Election dates might have differed, but the Tories would have still won after 2 or 3 Labour governments.

 

[nw1]

Given that John Smith was seen as a nice guy without any arrogance, and yes, given that I suspect he would have been unlikely to fight Bush's wars, I suspect he would have remained a lot more popular than Blair come 2007 or so. Since the economic downturn was a global phenomenon and not UK-specific (despite the right's effort to convince us otherwise at the time) then yes, the Labour government might have suffered as a result of simply being there at the time of the recession but I also suspect that people who dislike the Tories (and there are a lot) might have been somewhat more likely to unite against them with more likeable leaders and without the black mark of a largely unwanted war.

Perhaps, overall, 2010 would have been very marginal, we might have got a Lab/Lib coalition and then the Tories might have finally got in during 2015, again marginally.

 

[AY1975]

Given that John Smith was seen as a nice guy without any arrogance, and yes, given that I suspect he would have been unlikely to fight Bush's wars, I suspect he would have remained a lot more popular than Blair come 2007 or so. Since the economic downturn was a global phenomenon and not UK-specific (despite the right's effort to convince us otherwise at the time) then yes, the Labour government might have suffered as a result of simply being there at the time of the recession but I also suspect that people who dislike the Tories (and there are a lot) might have been somewhat more likely to unite against them with more likeable leaders and without the black mark of a largely unwanted war.

Perhaps, overall, 2010 would have been very marginal, we might have got a Lab/Lib coalition and then the Tories might have finally got in during 2015, again marginally.

Agreed, although I also think that there's a good chance (or at least a better chance than with Blair) that Labour under John Smith would have got its act together and sorted out constitutional and electoral reform, introducing some form of proportional voting system, and maybe even a proper codified constitution for the UK. A proportional voting system would have made it much harder for the Tories to win an overall majority again, and then Brexit would probably never have happened, as it was only by winning a (slender) overall majority in 2015 that they were able to hold a referendum. Also, a proper codified constitution would presumably include provision for how to make a major constitutional change (such as requiring a two-thirds majority, not just a simple majority, in a referendum).

In terms of the railways, I think there's a good chance that Labour under John Smith would have pledged to keep the rail network in public ownership, and to confiscate any franchises that had already been let without compensation for the franchisees, and this could well have deterred any private companies from bidding from any franchises before the 1997 election. (Those on the left of the Labour Party, and even many Labour moderates, tried unsuccessfully to persuade Tony Blair to adopt that sort of stance.) I seem to recall that Blair himself promised in his 1996 Labour conference speech that there would be a publicly owned rail network under Labour, only to quietly renege on this promise once elected.

 

[backontrack]

I seem to recall that Blair himself promised in his 1996 Labour conference speech that there would be a publicly owned rail network under Labour, only to quietly renege on this promise once elected.

Blair did indeed pledge his support for a renationalized rail network only to dump this later on.

 

[bramling]

Blair did indeed pledge his support for a renationalized rail network only to dump this later on.

Not to mention the London Underground PPP, which was an unmitigated fiasco.