The Effects of a Early 90s John Smith Government?

[Time Enough]

So what would be the effects of a John Smith Government? I know @Yokai Man has called him a ‘A socially Conservative Brownite Government’ but I think it would be interesting to consider what an Early 90s one could be, since Brownism is more of a Late 90s thing.

I’ll do two scenarios, One is Smith coups Kinnock in 1989 or something and wins in a 1991 election or something. So Pre-ERM, be interesting if he still does it.

The other one is, a Kinnock 1991 election occurs, Major has a slim majority, Smith takes over and wins a 1993 election when ERM goes tits up or something.

So we have a Pre and Post ERM scenarios for which to play with.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Brown's still the Chancellor, so a lot of economic decisions are the same (though I assume Brown would be less powerful as he hasn't been in the Shadow Chancellor job as long and isn't Smith's peer & former rival for leader).

Looking at this and sticking to things they can back up, a few things:

As shadow chancellor, Gordon Brown considered introducing a 50p top rate of income tax, but was overruled by Blair. Smith would have agreed to it: he proposed the same when he was shadow chancellor before the 1992 election.

Smith also supported introducing a national minimum before it was Labour Party policy

And an article on his 1993 speech on constitutional reform (oddly dated 2011?):

For its boldness and explicit argument will make it a hard speech to walk away from, or forget. There was little mention of some of the measures, such as voting reform or a written constitution, that are considered essential by some enthusiastic reformers. But Mr Smith's initiative was bold, nevertheless. If its measures were implemented by a future Labour government, it would seriously affect the administration. Prime Minister Smith would hand over considerable power to judges and local politicians. His freedom of information measures would embarrass both mandarins and ministers, and jolly up the lobbyists and Tory opposition. His Human Rights Act would stop any future Labour education secretary who wanted to attack private schooling. His suggestion that pre-Budget secrecy should be swept away would make life harder, not easier, for a Labour chancellor.

These are substantial offerings to any British citizen who thinks government is lazy, over-centralised and incompetent. A checklist, though, misses the point. Last night's speech was clearly the beginning of something, not a one-off. It was process, not event. The most important thing about last night was that an innately cautious man closed his eyes and jumped. He jumped towards a constitutional agenda that may or may not appeal to new millions of voters, but which carries its own dangers and pitfalls.

(Some of this stuff, of course, happened anyway because of Smith running Labour.)


And every account has him being very pro-Europe, and Scottish and Welsh devolution were from him.

 

[Time Enough]

Brown's still the Chancellor, so a lot of economic decisions are the same (though I assume Brown would be less powerful as he hasn't been in the Shadow Chancellor job as long and isn't Smith's peer & former rival for leader).

Looking at this and sticking to things they can back up, a few things:

Interesting, I get the sense that a John Smith Labour would probably be more in line with European Social Democratic Parties of the period instead of the Third Way ideas of Tony Blair. Probably wouldn't see Rail Privatisation but we won't be getting any renationalisation's either, the Trade Unions will have a bit more of a say, but I doubt there would be vast repeals.

The 50p Income Tax thing interests me because there were a number of people on both sides of the party who disagreed with it, Ken Livingstone took the view it would scare off potential Middle Class voters alongside Blair so you could have a surreal situation of Livingstone and Blair joining forces.

His suggestion that pre-Budget secrecy should be swept away would make life harder, not easier, for a Labour chancellor.

Oh I see Brown loving that idea, very much. It's interesting that much of Smith's suggestions are for more open and transparent Government in a way, which I could see getting through Post-Major sleaze which would have some interesting results if anything.

And every account has him being very pro-Europe, and Scottish and Welsh devolution were from him.

I would be interested to see what the differences in devolution would be? Maybe there's more of a firm push for more regional devolution away from Scotland or Wales.

 

[Nyvis]

Interesting, I get the sense that a John Smith Labour would probably be more in line with European Social Democratic Parties of the period instead of the Third Way ideas of Tony Blair. Probably wouldn't see Rail Privatisation but we won't be getting any renationalisation's either, the Trade Unions will have a bit more of a say, but I doubt there would be vast repeals.

Simply halting privatization is already a pretty big change for our era, I guess.

The 50p Income Tax thing interests me because there were a number of people on both sides of the party who disagreed with it, Ken Livingstone took the view it would scare off potential Middle Class voters alongside Blair so you could have a surreal situation of Livingstone and Blair joining forces.

The modern middle class does reliably oppose things for hurting people a thousand times as rich as them, doesn't it? So they're probably right about it hurting quite a bit...

Oh I see Brown loving that idea, very much. It's interesting that much of Smith's suggestions are for more open and transparent Government in a way, which I could see getting through Post-Major sleaze which would have some interesting results if anything.

On the other hand, yeah, that sounds like something you can market to people. Especially if you can dig out a few bits of less than transparent nonsense past administrations did and claim that'll never happen again with this.

 

[Charles EP M.]

The halt to privatisation is definitely going to be a huge deal. And that's a point too, that after the early sleaze and the ERM mess and all manner of stuff, Smith could sell a lot of things a government might not like being stuck with because it'd be Transparent. Then "oh no" but it'll be too late (for all parties!) by then

you could have a surreal situation of Livingstone and Blair joining forces.

I bet Ken knows of a historical figure who also had a surreal joining of forces!

 

[Time Enough]

Simply halting privatization is already a pretty big change for our era, I guess.

Indeed. I get the sense that Smith if he won in 91 or 93 election would would keep rail privatisation of the budget. Of course that may annoy Gordon Brown.

The modern middle class does reliably oppose things for hurting people a thousand times as rich as them, doesn't it? So they're probably right about it hurting quite a bit...

It was part of the view that people like Gould, Livingstone and Blair all equally shared. This is where Smith’s more Fundamentalist views make themselves known because he believed people would agree with the idea of the rich paying slightly more tax to help others after about a decade of Thatcher.

The halt to privatisation is definitely going to be a huge deal. And that's a point too, that after the early sleaze and the ERM mess and all manner of stuff, Smith could sell a lot of things a government might not like being stuck with because it'd be Transparent. Then "oh no" but it'll be too late (for all parties!) by then

Indeed, I was thinking to, if we have persay a 1993 Smith Government, there is a strong chance that his majority wouldn’t be massive and he would maybe have to rely on then Lib Dem’s for additional support. Which would help with the transparency stuff.

Given Post 92 to Blair Labour spent a lot of time talking about PR there is a chance that a 93 Smith Government may implement some form of Proportional Representation (which would be easier to swallow if after over a decade of Tory Labour doesn’t have a Blair size Majority).

 

[Nyvis]

Indeed, I was thinking to, if we have persay a 1993 Smith Government, there is a strong chance that his majority wouldn’t be massive and he would maybe have to rely on then Lib Dem’s for additional support. Which would help with the transparency stuff.

Given Post 92 to Blair Labour spent a lot of time talking about PR there is a chance that a 93 Smith Government may implement some form of Proportional Representation (which would be easier to swallow if after over a decade of Tory Labour doesn’t have a Blair size Majority).

Convincing Labour that FPTP structurally favour the Tories over them would be interesting. A referendum with Labour on side might pass.

A combination of PR with regional devolution to maintain local voices would be a neat change of pace for Britain.

One thing I have to worry about is what national PR lists would combined with party control of nominations. You could easily end up with much more uniform parties depending on what faction control the body in charge of that. Which would probably lead to minority factions just splitting and running alone.

 

[RyanF]

Indeed, I was thinking to, if we have persay a 1993 Smith Government, there is a strong chance that his majority wouldn’t be massive and he would maybe have to rely on then Lib Dem’s for additional support. Which would help with the transparency stuff.

Given Post 92 to Blair Labour spent a lot of time talking about PR there is a chance that a 93 Smith Government may implement some form of Proportional Representation (which would be easier to swallow if after over a decade of Tory Labour doesn’t have a Blair size Majority).

I can imagine any deal being an independent commission with a referendum on implementing their findings. The makeup of that commission will dictate what winds up on the ballot, whether it be STV (which I think the Lib-Dems would be hoping for), MMP (wonder if attention might be paid to what's going on in NZ), or even AV+ (just keep Woy away from the thing, please).

Wonder too if said commission might be asked to make recommendations for proposed assemblies, so might wind up with them recommending STV for Scottish/Welsh/regional assemblies and a mixed system for Westminster.

 

[Elektronaut]

Honestly if you're looking for enormous policy differences with OTL then you're going to be disapointed. Labour would be slightly to the left of Brown OTL on the economy and taxation but that's about it. Smith had no interest in PR (With no Blair palling around with Ashdown and the joint constitutional cabinet committes you might not even get FPTP scrapped for Euro elections, so potentially UKIP having a totally different development) or either nationalisation or privatisation.

The big difference would be that politics long-term both nationally and in Labour would be slightly more to the left than OTL and authentic. With Labour winning while pretty comfortable in its own skin, you'd never get New Labour or Corbyn. The politics of image and the Blair era would be totally aborted, and the politics of the last few decades would be very different.

 

[Charles EP M.]

you might not even get FPTP scrapped for Euro elections, so potentially UKIP having a totally different development

UKIP does seem quite screwed, in the form it took, if it can't exploit the MEP election system. And if UKIP doesn't look too strong, then that's the last ten years of politics quite different!