Correct.... Think the majority would have been maybe 120/130 with Smith as he was still to some extent Old labour.. Remember the day after the 97 Election Sporting index offered a spread bet of the Tories getting 247/250 seats in the following election and it was the only time i was tempted by a spread bet as i knew there would be no chance of them getting them anywher near that but didnt have the bottle to lamp on it.....................
My favourite political joke at a period shortly after the sad demise of John Smith - an instance where Peter Mandelson asked if anyone had a ten pence piece, as he needed to ring a friend, Gordon Brown chipping in with, 'Here's twenty pence - ring all of them !'
Blair in 1994 inherited by far the strongest hand out of any incoming leader of the opposition during my lifetime. Labour already had 271 seats in the Commons after gaining 42 during the 1992 GE, and so were pretty close to power in terms of simple parliamentary arithmetic. The Tories' slim majority of 21 following the 1992 GE was further reduced after some bi-election defeats in 1993. The Tories had been in power for 15 years and were deeply unpopular. They were basically finished in government and had already lost the 1997 GE after the events from September 1992 - March 1993, with the ERM crash and then putting VAT on fuel in the next budget. That destroyed the public's confidence in them in terms of managing the economy and taxes. It also allowed Labour to open up a 20 point plus lead in the opinion polls before John Smith died. To compound matters the Tories continued to self destruct and publicly feud over Europe which most members of the public didn't really care about at the time. Also Neil Kinnock had already taken several measures in the 80s to reduce the power and influence of the left wing of the party, and move it in the direction that Blair wanted. So the party were already guaranteed to win a comfortable majority at the next election when he became leader regardless of what he did. Now his charisma and ability to woo middle England and get the Murdoch media on side, increased the margin of victory and turned that already inevitable comfortable majority into a super landslide.
On the matter of putting taxes up, the money was needed to pay for services and the economy rebounded very well. You are correct on public perception though and Blair writes that he knew that Labour would win, though they were still vigilant in case.
I knew John Smith was a formidable political figure when he was appointed Labour leader following the party’s fourth consecutive election defeat in 1992. However, I thought was he fit for the job health wise because he suffered a major heart attack when he was the Shadow Chancellor four years earlier and would he survive to lead the party at the 1997 general election? Sadly, my worst fear came true. I cried over the untimely death of Mr Smith in 1994 who was just 55 because not only Britain had lost a great prime minister and world statesman in waiting, but I kept thinking Labour’s chances of winning the general election three years later died with him and the thought of another five more years of Tory misrule including fears for the future of the NHS.
I think John Smith would have won in 97. The Tories were having a nervous breakdown because of Europe. But John would have been an easier target for the Tories because he'd served in the last Labour government and as Shadow Chancellor been responsible for Labour's shadow budget and economic policy in the run up to the 92 election. I still think however that Labour's majority under John Smith would have been around 100. I remember in the local elections held in May 94, just a week before his death, Peter Snow's forecast had it been a General Election, Labour's majority would have been around 80 at that time.
A very forgotten moment that was extremely momentous in British political history. Also I agree John Smith would have won in 1997 but I wonder if he could have sustained momentum like Blair did to win in 2001 and have won with the same convincing majorities.
@@alanberkeley7282 Yes would definately have won in 05 but 2010 possibly a hung parliament maybe Labour larget party. I would have guessed at Labour 300 Tories 270 ish
Kinnock should have resigned after 1987 GE defeat.. A gain of 20 seats... He should have realised he was the problem not the solution not the answer... A Smith-brown - Blair opposition would have been far superior against Thatcher then major... Labour would have won in 1992 by 40?.... Then John Smith would have become PM til his death in May 1994... Now this is the question.. There would then have been a leadership contest not for just the leadership of the labour party but also no10.... The contest would have taken may til Sept... Brown would not have stood down..the chance to be PM.. Blair would definitely have stood.. Too... Margaret beckett would have had to be acting PM....? . The PLP of? 350 would have split 175 each..? Then it would have gone to the membership and the unions?.. Would Blair have won?.. Or would brown have won?... Then what would have happened from 1994 - 2010..the next 15 yrs.. . This is the series.. Steve Richards should write... The what if... Maybe perhaps coulda shoulda woulda...
