• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

  • Thank you to everyone who reached out with concern about the upcoming UK legislation which requires online communities to be compliant regarding illegal content. As a result of hard work and research by members of this community (chiefly iainbhx) and other members of communities UK-wide, the decision has been taken that the Sea Lion Press Forum will continue to operate. For more information, please see this thread.

When did OTL leaders become 'plausible'?

Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India from 1966-1977 and 1980-1984, was discussed as a potential prime minister in 1964 after her father (Jawaharlal Nehru, PM from 1947-1964) died, and she was given various half-hearted offers to become PM; however, she refused as she was still in grief from her father's death. She had, during her father's tenure, served the powers which would be traditionally associated with the first lady in most nations - serving as a secretary of sorts and also accompanying him on various trips - and through this she gained a lot of foreign policy experience which made her a potential PM.

Morarji Desai, a longstanding member of the Indian National Congress who was considered relatively right wing for his social conservatism, attempted to become PM in both 1964 and 1966, but both times he was sidelined by the Congress establishment (known as the Syndicate). During Indira's early tenure as PM, Desai tried multiple time to have her removed from power to make way for him, but he failed. Ironically, Indira tossed both Desai and the Syndicate out of power (the Congress party removed Indira from the party in 1969, but she walked out with most Congress MPs so essentially her faction became the real Congress party) and they later joined up with the opposition. in the 1977 elections, the opposition unified as the Janata Party and won in a landslide (after Indira suspended democracy in the Indian Emergency), and Desai became the first non-Congress PM. But then he failed horribly, due to the Janata Party being a little too much of a big tent and also because he was past his prime. It's entirely plausible, of course, that he would become PM in 1964 or 1966. So in effect, he was a plausible PM for 13 years at least.

V.P. Singh was an interesting guy - he was born into aristocracy (as a child, he was the king of a small princely state), but despite this he joined socialist student politics and later joined the Congress party. For most of his career, he was mostly loyal to the leadership. He became a notable name when, as chief minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh in the early 1980s, he successfully combated the issue of dacoity, and as a cabinet minister later on, he launched large campaigns against corruption. He was later defence minister, but he broke away from the Congress party in 1987 after revealing the Bofors scandal, of massive corruption dealing with kickback schemes in the purchase of fighter jets, and in the two years between 1987 and 1989 he made himself the leader of the opposition. Running under the slogan Raja nahin fakir hai/desh ki taqdeer hai (He is not a king but a fakir/he is the destiny of the nation), he then became PM in 1989 to 1990, for one very chaotic year in power. He was not a "plausible" PM until 1987, as before that he was just a Congress member, but then suddenly in 1987 he became as such.
 
Last edited:
I'm quite pleased at the quiet revival of this thread, so here's a topical one: Keir Starmer?

Instinctive answer is after the Chicken Coup, and the hollowing out of previous 'future leaders' from the Labour front benches that pushes him to frontrunner/plausible status. That said, in the Nandy-verse we'd all be saying "well obviously it had to be a woman this time".

But I remember him getting disproportionately high coverage for a PPC in 2015, so a "future leader" narrative was being crafted even then - though it also was for a lot of the 2010-2015 intake, given the generational churn of those elections..
 
I'm quite pleased at the quiet revival of this thread, so here's a topical one: Keir Starmer?

Instinctive answer is after the Chicken Coup, and the hollowing out of previous 'future leaders' from the Labour front benches that pushes him to frontrunner/plausible status. That said, in the Nandy-verse we'd all be saying "well obviously it had to be a woman this time".

But I remember him getting disproportionately high coverage for a PPC in 2015, so a "future leader" narrative was being crafted even then - though it also was for a lot of the 2010-2015 intake, given the generational churn of those elections..
Let’s not forget that people were trying desperately to “draft” Starmer as soon as he was an MP.

Beyond being seen as a potential future leader, he was being asked to stand as soon as the speculation began for the race that began as soon as he was elected. Crazy in hindsight but it was part of that frenzy of asking Nandy, Jarvis, etc. to stand.
 
Venustiano Carranza is really interesting in this category, considering that for most of his career he was a low-ranking Porfirian and certainly not someone with anything like presidential ambitions – I suspect he saw himself as nothing more than a loyal governor of Coahuila, and then a devoted supporter of President Bernardo Reyes, maybe a member of Reyes' cabinet, and Reyes would easily succeed the aging Porfirio Diaz and be the next president... right?

The first rift Carranza had with Diaz, then, was when the old man didn't, for whatever reason, back him for the governorship of Coahuila – we don't really know why? Anyways, that's what Carranza went to the Maderistas, figuring that he had nowhere else to go, especially since Reyes was content to meekly slip into the shadows in 1910 when Porfirio Diaz told him to stop running for the succession. Even still, he wasn't much of anything while Madero was president – it was only when Huerta took power that Carranza finally became a force to be taken seriously.

There were plenty of other liberal leaders and generals, but most of them weren't in the right position (geographically or literally, since they'd been shot) to oppose Huerta's coup. It would have been Madero's close confidant and ally Abraham Gonzalez, the man who inducted Pancho Villa into the revolutionary cause, but he was, like I say, dead. So it was Carranza, a man who no one looked to as a likely leader or as a man to take seriously (no one liked him. No one.) who became Primer Jefe of the Revolution's second stage.

Relatedly, I think Obrégon is a likely future president as soon as he takes Mexico City, but that's only if the Carrancistas actually win, which, of course, they needn't – but they probably will.
 
Let’s not forget that people were trying desperately to “draft” Starmer as soon as he was an MP.

Beyond being seen as a potential future leader, he was being asked to stand as soon as the speculation began for the race that began as soon as he was elected. Crazy in hindsight but it was part of that frenzy of asking Nandy, Jarvis, etc. to stand.

The Guardian definitely had a thing for him right from the start, presumably in part because of his previous public role, but also because he is, well, very Guardian.

That article is a wonderful post-Miliband pre-Corbyn time capsule though. Some choice quotes:

[On Keir] "Silence speaks volumes"

"People are demoralised and have been looking for hope in these candidates and not many have found it."

"Lord Myners, who funded Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. Speaking on LBC radio, Myners suggested he was underwhelmed by the current contenders.

He said: “I wouldn’t be surprised to see other names come forward. I would like to see someone really quite radical." "
 
In that sense, the sort of "inevitable" figure brings Scott Walker and Kamala Harris to mind, different parties and different cycles but still having many of the same issues. They both checked all the boxes for a formidable contender on paper, but failed when the campaigning actually started.
haha past person you made a reasonable comment in the context of your time that's now ironic with present context
 
This is the classic Thatcher POD isn't it - and as above being LotO is generally a good place to be to rise further. Has anyone ever really explored a Joseph leadership?

As tumultuous as OTL 1974-1979 was, I do find intriguing a lot of the contemporary speculation that was founded on the assumption that Thatcher wouldn't win the next election - and who might therefore succeed her.

I can't find the contemporary newspaper clipping I've found previously, which corroborates this, but the below is from Francis Pym's 2008 obituary.

"By 1977 commentators began to see Pym as possibly the next Tory leader because of his moderate reform proposal. When Thatcher named him shadow foreign secretary (1978-79) as well, his views seemed very Tory conformist. These included opposition to economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa."

The clipping I've read elaborates that Pym was especially popular with the parliamentary party at this time, and as such a favourite for any leadership contest that might arise.

For Thatcher, it seems reasonable to assume that winter 1978/9 is the 'point of inevitability'?
Joseph was an electoral.liabiliy.
 
Until Gaitskell gets poorly, I don't know how many people saw Wilson as anything other than a 'he's ambitious but would probably only get the leadership in his prime in another universe', because Hugh was going to win and then presumably be PM for at least five years.
I believe that Gaitskell's outspoken views on immigration and race would have reversed the 1964 and 1966 GEs.Wilson in 1970.
 
The rise of Attlee to Prime Minister comes off a bit like this, I think in 1931 before the General Election if you said ‘Attlee would be the next Labour Prime Minister’ it would have been seen as unlikely. Hell him being Leader would have been seen as unlikely, folks probably would have thought someone like Arthur Greenwood or hell even Morrison as more likely.

Attlee’s raise to leader comes down mainly to Labour having such a drubbing in 1931 that his rise to Deputy Leader afterwards as one of the few remaining MPs who had Government experience became likely. This combined with Lansbury being a very old man helped.
Most people didn't even know who he was!
 
I wonder who had 'Winston S. Churchill' as 'next leader of the Conservative Party' in the Cabinet office sweepstakes in 1938 or even 1939.

Similarly, I wonder who had 'Harry S. Truman' as 'next Democrat President' in the West wing sweepstakes in 1941.

They must have won a fucking fortune!
I believe Baldwin said they were keeping Winston.in.reserve for a war!
 
There is, of course, a fourth situation where Sanders backs out deciding not to run against his friend, and another member of the progressive wing (maybe Warren, given her poor relationship with Diamond Joseph) decides to take a tilt at it, and becomes the left's standard bearer...
Biden/Clinton ticket?
 
Well I don't know that I'd call Attlee mediocre, seeing that he was, on balance, the best Prime Minister that the Labour Party has ever produced. Not perfect, his nationalisation and health policies were quite unimaginative command and control and the quick bolt out of India cost hundreds of thousands of lives and ultimately left us the legacy of the world's most dangerous nuclear hotspot. But Attlee was a decisive and determined leader and of all the post war PMs, only Thatcher has managed such complete control of the machinery of government. Attlee was also totally ruthless in sacking dead wood while relatively tolerant of differing views within the party.

A V Alexander was kept at the Admiralty (military security being a vital aspect of government during WW2) and never really got a chance to turn his hand to domestic policy. But it is rather intriguing to wonder what Labour's most senior Ministerial supporter of the co-operative movement would have done if the top job had come his way. A lot more worker owned businesses, worker representation at board level and bonus dividends would probably have been the legacy.
Was he ever viewed as a potential PM ?
 
Biden/Clinton ticket?
Clinton's (perceived) grip on the race and her and Obama's pollicking against a Biden campaign was one of the main reasons he didn't run iotl plus I doubt Hillary wouldn't take a veep role in 2016
Let's not count our chickens before they've hatched.
if I jinxed it I'll be the bigger woman and admit defeat by throwing myself into St. Helens
 
It is sort of interesting to note that as early as 2008, Kamala Harris was seen as a possible, if not altogether probable, candidate for president in the event that Hillary somehow didn't make it to the White House: other named options in this article are Amy Klobuchar (lol) and Carly Fiorina!
Speaking of current candidates JD Vance is in an interesting position in terms of plausibility. He's been a possible pick since Hillbilly Elegy came out, but this election will either make him an obvious choice for a future President (if Trump wins) or will totally end any chance of him being seen as a plausible candidate (if the rumors about Trump wanting to kick him off the ticket are true he could get Eagleton'd or at least become a scapegoat if Trump loses).
 
Jair Bolsonaro could run for president as early as 2010 if he joined the far-right, economic nationalist/LaRouchite PRONA (which he considered doing), and the party didn't merge with the PL to form the PR (which is now Bolsonaro's party as the PL). Still, I don't think he'd get very far.
If direct presidential elections were held in Brazil in 1985, Lula could have run. Same with Tancredo Neves (who died before taking office) in a Fourth Republic 1970 election.
 
I've always had an irrational... AH-fondness, to coin a phrase, for William Hague- the first leader of the Tories not to become PM- and I think there's a lot of very near miss timelines where he isn't lost in the wilderness of the Blair years- for context, he's basically the same age as Barack Obama, who wasn't even a senator, much less president, until Hague had already been leader, run off to the backbenches to write history books (Venn diagram of backbench Conservatives and history book authors is a circle), and then came back as shadow foreign secretary under Cameron. A slightly different set of events or a bit of a different culture shift over youth vs experience, and you could plausibly construct Hague as PM at basically any point in the 21st century so far.
 
Back
Top