Prime Minister Portillo and other things that never happened Edited by Duncan Brack and Iain Dale Politico's, 384pp, £16.99

Chairman Mao was once asked what he thought would have happened if in 1963 Khrushchev had been assassinated instead of Kennedy. He replied: "Well, I'll tell you one thing. Aristotle Onassis wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev."

This is a delicious book of "What ifs . . . ?". A host of journalists, academics and politicos, including Sir Bernard Ingham, offer a tantalising counterfactual glimpse into how things might have been, for better or worse, if fortune had smiled differently.

What if Lee Oswald had missed? Kennedy was facing a difficult election in 1964 but would probably have won it. He knew his way around Indo-China, so it is fair to suggest that he would not have made President Johnson's mistake of committing so many troops to Vietnam. He certainly hinted at withdrawal to Walter Cronkite just before he was killed. But then what? Simon Burns MP suggests there would have been no Nixon presidency, and no Watergate scandal with all the cynicism and distrust that have bedevilled democratic politics since. The world might have been a better place.

The same would have been true, Helen Szamuely argues, if Lenin's train had not reached Petrograd in 1917. There would have been no Bolshevik coup, since men such as Molotov would probably not have been sufficiently bold or organised to seize power. "Perhaps it would not have occurred to them," she says, since they were happy to collaborate with other socialist groups. Instead, the constituent assembly lasted one day in January 1918, to be followed by civil war; Russia's brief experiment with liberalism and freedom had come to its swift end.

Most of the authors look at British politics and pose questions we must all have asked ourselves. Suppose Harold Wilson, Barbara Castle and the unions had agreed "In Place of Strife" in 1969? The next words bear the ache of missed opportunity: "For the first time in its history, the TUC agreed to an ambitious and visionary reform programme to transform industrial relations in the country," writes Robert Taylor. No, I don't think it was possible either, but let's suspend disbelief for a moment. The social con-tract leads to a "British model" of superb worker-employer relations coupled with productivity improvements (think "Swedish model"), making the UK the envy of the world. So Wilson wins the election of 1970. And Labour governs for the next 30 years.

What is chilling is how close we sometimes came to a totally different and disastrous result. As John Charmley points out, Churchill's becoming prime minister in 1940 was hardly a foregone conclusion. Many voices were raised for peace, with genuine fears that the British empire could not survive a sustained conflict and that the suffering of bombed cities and thousands of dead civilians was not worth it. I wonder. If Lord Halifax had become PM, there is no way the British would meekly have accepted a peace pact with Hitler. It is just as likely that Churchill (or younger men such as Eden or Macmillan) would have gone underground and led an active resistance, causing serious disruption to the German war effort and thus ensuring the eventual fall of Nazism.

The liveliest pieces are written as if the events described really took place. Charmley's provocative piece is excellent, even if I disagree with its conclusions. Paul Richards's elegant history has Jim Callaghan as prime minister for 16 years until 1992, when, at the age of 80, he loses to Michael Portillo. And I enjoyed the "memoirs of the late Lord Maudling of Barnet" by John Barnes.

My only quibble is that some of the writers are too equivocal. This is not an academic exercise, it is entertainment. The editors should have stamped on such sophistry as "none of these factors would have made the outcome radically different, given the problems which would have handicapped [those in power]". Nonsense: if you believe, as I do, that individuals make a difference, then it matters who wins or loses. The skills of oratory and perception, as applied by a Churchill, can change the course of history. Paranoia, as in Nixon's case, or ruthlessness, as in Lenin's, can lay waste an entire nation.

Intriguingly, Portillo keeps popping up in this book. The title comes from Iain Dale's supposition that, had he held on to his Enfield Southgate seat in 1997 and become leader of the defeated Tories, as everyone expected, he would have gone on to win the country in 2001. But Michael's past would have caught up with him sooner or later, Dale reckons, and there he is wise. So, too, is his subject. The real Portillo has signed my copy of the book with "Surprisingly, it didn't turn out to be Prime Minister Currie either". And, for that, the Gods be thanked.

Edwina Currie's This Honourable House is out in paperback from Time Warner

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website