Always on about Europe: British Political TL

[Shads]

Brown’s Mandate
​

Gordon Brown was over the moon. Labour had secured a third term and Brown had a strong majority of his own. Labour was obviously equally jubilant in that the Tories had not made any major strides towards power and the party was united behind Brown. Brown found himself being well liked by the public as a combination of the optimism of Blair and New Labour but yet a more down to earth statemanlike approach to politics. A benefit to Brown of the lost seats is that many of the most marginal Labour seats had been held by ardent Blairites who disliked the increased cooperation between the left and right that Brown had extended. In the manifesto Brown had pledged to look into renationalisation of the railways due to the increased wait times and fares under network rail in a move praised by backbenchers such as Jeremy Corbyn and Dennis Skinner. The policy was popular with at least 65% of likely voters supporting such a move. Of course there was no chance of the “Beast of Bolsover” being welcomed to cabinet anytime soon with the traditionally Republican Skinner making one of his traditional black rod quips of “51 years, is it past it’s sell-by date?”. Crucially after the Iraq war vote, under Brown Labour was feeling like a united party once again.

The election proved, as comparisons had been made on Election Night, to be the Conservatives 1987 moment only they were roughly 100 seats less than Kinnock was after his dissapointing first election. There were mixed feelings on whether or not Howard should step down as leader as although at least this time the Tories had gained seats they were nowhere near a majority. Howard had proved a good unifying figure amongst the Tory party but he was not a very charismatic or inspiring leader. It was announced that Howard would be staying on as leader for the time being so as to not disunite the party with a leadership contest. One of the few gains made from Labour was Nigel Farage, former UKIP MEP candidate, getting a surprise victory in South Thanet after he had returned to the Conservatives 4 years prior. The 3rd place in the popular vote was disheartening but the Conservative Party would stress to its members that it was seats that mattered and there was still a significant distance between the two parties. There was plenty of time to prepare for the next election and the scar of 1997 was finally starting to heal.

The Pact too had cause for disappointment but also for celebration. Once again the Tories had remained as the opposition despite hopes that Clarke and Daveys charisma would be able to outshine Howard and many had thought a period as the opposition would be the natural step forward to a 2007 or 2008 Government. However, together they had overtaken the Tories in the popular vote by a narrow 0.2% margin. The fact that they had less seats and yet had came second furthered their calls for electoral reform more than ever before. The day after the election Davey called for the introduction of proportional representation in all future general elections although these sympathies weren’t widely held outside the Lib Dems and the minor parties. The parties 82 seats would continue their strong voice in Parliament. However, just like before 1988, whispers of calls for a merger of the two parties in The Pact would grow louder.

 

[Shads]

If anyone has any suggestions for a Conservative party leader to follow Howard in late 2003 or 2004 (preferably not Cameron to differ from OTL) I’d be all ears. Also struggling to think up of a name for a united pro-euro Tory Lib Dem party.

 

[jhenderson 20]

The Democrats.
Simple and catchy. Not a longwinded acronym either. The media will lap it up. Oh there would be dissenters but it would be a good name.

 

[Shads]

The Democrats.
Simple and catchy. Not a longwinded acronym either. The media will lap it up. Oh there would be dissenters but it would be a good name.

Yeah I was considering it, was wondering if it sounded too American though.

 

[sarahz]

Thanks for the constructive criticism. My idea was that Howard would try to turn the war vote into an effective vote of no confidence and used the “more preparation” excuse to conceal it. I’ll admit there are issues in the plausibility of it all as this is my first TL. I always saw Kennedy as more of a new labour social democrat type and in 1983 otl Brown invited Kennedy to join Labour (though he refused at the time most likely because of the whole “hard left” image) so maybe with a Pact hostile to his views he might be tempted to join his own party. Daveys constant chanting of “nanny state” wouldn’t have helped matters either. Huhne’s environmental concerns may have been over the more pro business platform from the pre orange book orange books.

Charles was of course elected at 26 as SDP so yes a Social Democrat, but very much a Jenkinsite rather than an Owenite. The thing is most Liberal Democrat Members and most Councillors and MP's were not economic liberals/orange bookers actually a rather unpopular brand in the party outside of Nick Clegg/David Laws and a few others, the main result of which was helpful in establishing a relationship with Cameron but otherwise not so much. My view is you can achieve the result you want, but it needs some work on what the policy issues are here that are different. Perhaps Davy revives some of Grimond's more radically anti-statist policies, particularly in relation to competition? Perhaps as Charles and Chris campaign in the future they could clarify why they left?

 

[Shads]

Charles was of course elected at 26 as SDP so yes a Social Democrat, but very much a Jenkinsite rather than an Owenite. The thing is most Liberal Democrat Members and most Councillors and MP's were not economic liberals/orange bookers actually a rather unpopular brand in the party outside of Nick Clegg/David Laws and a few others, the main result of which was helpful in establishing a relationship with Cameron but otherwise not so much. My view is you can achieve the result you want, but it needs some work on what the policy issues are here that are different. Perhaps Davy revives some of Grimond's more radically anti-statist policies, particularly in relation to competition? Perhaps as Charles and Chris campaign in the future they could clarify why they left?

I was thinking of having an interview with Charles and Chris as to why they changed party. (Charles comfortably held his highlands seat due to being a popular mp while Chris’s Eastleigh seat was far more narrow and has became something of a 3 way marginal) thanks for the clarification on Grimond. I’m far from an expert on the post war liberals but I could definitely see Davey reviving said anti-statist policies given his record on advocating for allowing smoking in pubs as well as his OTL support for the free market, criticism of price controls advocated by Ed Milliband and stating how he is “in favour of competition” .

 

[Shads]

The Two Cabinets
​

After the hype of his victory started to die down Brown was able to reveal his cabinet appointments. It reflected an obvious shift from the “Blairite” wing of New Labour to the “Brownites” that reflected a slight shift leftward as well as a more nationalist tone noted by his stance on the Pound.

Cabinet of the Prime Minister

Prime Minister - Gordon Brown
Chancellor of the Exchequer - Alistair Darling
Foreign Secretary - Hilary Benn
Home Secretary - Jack Straw
Education Secretary - David Milliband
Defence Secretary - Des Browne
Health Secretary - Alan Johnson
Business Secretary - Jim Murphy
Trade and Industry Secretary - Ed Balls
Food, Fisheries and Agriculture Secretary - Margaret Beckett
Environment Secretary - Ed Milliband
Transport Secretary - Yvette Cooper
Scotland Secretary - Douglas Alexander
Wales Secretary - Kevin Brennan
Northern Ireland Secretary - Harriet Harman

The Milliband brothers were some of the most notable promotions, both of whom had promise as future leaders of the party. Most saw David as friendlier to Blair who incidentally remained as member of Parliament for Sedgefield and, despite rumours that he could be foreign secretary, had chosen a term as a backbencher. One of the first motions of the new government was the beginning of the renationalisation of British rail which could easily be done with the strong economic gains of the last 6 years.

The Conservative Shadow Cabinet changed significantly, with Michael Howard performing a decisive reshuffle to accommodate some rising stars in the party. Some snickers were made at the appointment of the single Welsh and Scottish mps to the respective positions.

Conservative Shadow Cabinet

Leader of the Opposition - Michael Howard
Shadow Chancellor - Philip Hammond
Shadow Foreign Secretary - William Hague
Shadow Home Secretary - David Cameron
Conservative Party Chairman - Michael Portillo
Shadow Education and Employment Secretary - John Bercow
Shadow Defence Secretary - Eric Pickles
Shadow Health Secretary - Liam Fox
Shadow Business Secretary - George Osborne
Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary - Damian Green
Shadow Food, Fisheries and Agriculture Secretary - Boris Johnson
Shadow Environment Secretary - David Davis
Shadow Transport Secretary - Iain Duncan Smith
Shadow Scotland Secretary - David Mundell
Shadow Welsh Secretary - David Davies
Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary - Jeremy Hunt

Rumours had begun to circulate that The Pact was assembling their own cabinet due to their position that, as the 2nd place in the popular vote, they wanted their own voice as the opposition in Parliament. The party struggled to get representative positions between Clarke and “Junior and Senior” with the only parts of the cabinet confirmed for now were Davey as “leader of the opposition” and Clarke as Chancellor. Clarke and Davey continued to peruse a Libertarian economic and social policy with Daveys frequent cries that the “Nanny State” of Blair hadn’t changed under Brown. Clarke had a more layed back less flashy criticism of Brown but was well respected as an elder statesman. It was further and furthered argued that Britain had become a source of three party politics.

 

[mymatedave10]

Really enjoying this TL, very nicely done.

 

[Shads]

A Return to Labour
​

Newsnight Interview with Charles Kennedy and Chris Huhne

Gavin Esler: Tonight we have with us Charles Kennedy, the member of Parliament for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and Chris Huhne, member for Eastleigh. Both of whom were prominent Liberal Democrats before defecting to the Labour Party in the aftermath of Gordon Brown’s ascension to the leadership. Both of whom were able to retain their seats in the recent election. Mr Kennedy, why did you choose to leave your party?

Charles Kennedy: Well to say the least, it’s a decision I’ve been going over since around 2000. When Ed was elected leader, whilst I didn’t agree with his views, I believed Ming would act as a stabilisation force to prevent the party from morphing into something I didn’t stand for. But as we went through to 2000 with the formation of the pact with the EuroTories, which was something I never agreed with in the first place, I saw the Liberal Democrats going down this... other path.

Gavin Esler: Did you ever consider rejoining your old Social Democratic Party?

Charles Kennedy: No, lets just say I don’t and never did see eye to eye with David Owens wing of the party.

Gavin Esler: So The Pact caused you to tug your collar, but what was the straw that broke the camels back?

Charles Kennedy: As I said, the party just kept changing into something I didn’t recognise anymore. The Pact increasingly began to discuss a merger and this time I was opposed. The preferred coalition partner of Davey and Clarke’s was the Tories and I couldn’t believe how aftert splitting from them that Clarke would want to prop up a minority Tory administration handing out cuts to public services left and right. After my good friend Gordon became leader I knew I had to make the tough decision to rejoin my own party. Labour had once again become the party of my interests.

Gavin Esler: Thank you Mr Kennedy. Chris Huhne, I imagine you left for similar reasons?

Chris Huhne: To an extent, Gavin. I agree with Charles on the image of the party. However, my concerns have always been with the Environment and recently I have observed a disturbing element in regards to The Pacts environmental policies. Davey in the past few years has come out in favour of fracking, against any sort of “green tax”, in favour of contributing to export large quantities of natural gas from nations such as Qatar and the UAE in contrary to the green tax that I had proposed as well as defending as well as advocating for privatisation. These policies are fundamentally against those of the Social Democratic Party I used to be a part of.

Gavin Esler: You nearly lost your seat in the election by just hanging on by just over 200 votes from a strong three way challenge from the Lib Dems and the Conservative. Do you regret your choice given your now shaky position in your seat?

Chris Huhne: Not at all. I rejected that party on almost every principle and I’m happy the people of Eastleigh agreed with my decision and returned me as their mp.

Gavin Esler: To both of you. As you were the most vocal oppositions of the merger. Do you think a merger will take place now?

Charles Kennedy: It’s inevitable. I’m glad to have left it for the true progressive force of the country. The party is morphing into a fiscally and socially Libertarian party and it’s a shame to see it become this.

Chris Huhne: With the rate it’s going at, I would expect further defections to either Labour or the Greens.

Gavin Esler: A rather ominous note to leave us on Mr Huhne. Charles Kennedy, there’s been rumours that you could be promoted in a future cabinet reshuffle. Can you shed some light on this?

Charles Kennedy: *chuckles* I couldn’t possibly comment, Gavin . Gordon Brown is a very capable prime minister and I’m honoured to serve in his government.

 

[Shads]

A Not So Special Relationship
​

President Bush couldn’t understand what had happened. The UK had voted against the Iraq War and ,with the loss of the UK from the alliance, he was facing very little assistance in the invasion. Furthermore, his warm relationship with Tony Blair had been replaced with a slightly steely one with Gordon Brown. He shouldn’t have been surprised though, as Iraq proved to be more and more unpopular in his own country. The post 9-11 approval rating of Bush continued to steadily drop. Meeting with Gordon Brown in London, Bush definitely found himself unwelcomed by both the Labour government and the British public. With figures such as Tony Benn holding anti-Iraq War protests during Bush’s early July visit that garnered mass public support.

As the US tried to nation-build a democratic Iraq after the invasion finished in early June they struggled with continued guerilla attacks on their supposedly “secure” bases. Protests throughout America caused a general anti-war consensus in the country. Brown stated his lack of faith in the idea that Saddam Hussein maintained weapons of mass destruction, privately stating to John Prescott “I’m bloody glad we didn’t enter that mess.”. Brown made a statement in that Britain had focused too much on trying to help “rebuild” other nations and needed to reflect on the people still in poverty in the country.

​

As The Pact held their 3rd joint conference in September in Brighton, the steps towards a merger were finally being put to paper. It was agreed by both Davey and Clarke that the party would be called the “Democratic Party” to reflect the advocation for democracy as well as personal freedoms offered by the party. The party would be fiscally and socially libertarian, pro free-trade, pro Europe and generally pro business. Ed Davey would become Leader as the Lib Dems made up the majority of the mps and Clarke would be his deputy leader. This was however for a temporary basis while the party unified and some time between 2005-2007 a double leadership election would take place to elect a unity leader, although some had hinted that Davey or Clarke would be perfectly capable of taking this role. The media was drawn to Brighton as the Democratic Party, Britain’s definitive third party, was born.

 

[TheLoneAmigo]

​

President Bush couldn’t understand what had happened. The UK had voted against the Iraq War and ,with the subsequent pull out of Australia, he was facing very little assistance in the invasion. Furthermore, his warm relationship with Tony Blair had been replaced with a slightly steely one with Gordon Brown. He shouldn’t have been surprised though, as Iraq proved to be more and more unpopular in his own country. The post 9-11 approval rating of Bush continued to steadily drop. Meeting with Gordon Brown in London, Bush definitely found himself unwelcomed by both the Labour government and the British public. With figures such as Tony Benn holding anti-Iraq War protests during Bush’s early July visit that garnered mass public support.

Australia pulling out from the Iraq War under John Howard would be extremely unlikely - a conservative Prime Minister with a strong personal relationship with George Bush. Even if butterflies have led to the Australian Labor Party taking office in the 2001 election, it should be noted that the ALP under Kim Beazley (the most likely ALP PM) would be very likely to support the US, given his strong personal pro-American views and the ALP's overall commitment to the US alliance.

 

[Shads]

Australia pulling out from the Iraq War under John Howard would be extremely unlikely - a conservative Prime Minister with a strong personal relationship with George Bush. Even if butterflies have led to the Australian Labor Party taking office in the 2001 election, it should be noted that the ALP under Kim Beazley (the most likely ALP PM) would be very likely to support the US, given his strong personal pro-American views and the ALP's overall commitment to the US alliance.

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I’ll adjust that accordingly.

 

[TheLoneAmigo]

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I’ll adjust that accordingly.

No worries - I'm enjoying this TL immensely!

 

[Shads]

The September Surge
​

The first test for the Democratic Party came in the Brent East By-Election. Just a few days after being re-elected the current Labour MP, Paul Daisley, had died unexpectedly of cancer despite having previously received treatment. Most of 2003 had proved a smooth year for Labour with the second ever elections in the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament resulting in a Labour Majority of 31 Seats and a Labour led coalition with the Scottish Socialists respectively. Although previously the generally Social Democratic Scottish Liberal Democrats had worked with Scottish Labour they had refused to with Labour after the election leading to a relatively left wing Scottish Parliamentary administration. Brown had without a doubt helped improve the Labour vote in Wales and his native Scotland.

The Democratic Party however received a boost in support due to the media friendly conference. Polls showed Labour on 35%, the Democrats on 32% and the Tories on 30%. In the general election the Lib Dems had been in a distant second place but the by election raised hopes of closing the gap. The party selected Sarah Teather, a former Islington councillor for the Lib Dems, who led a well recieved ground game campaign with support from Ed Davey. Little did the party expect such a shocking by-election win.

Brent East By-Election Results

Democratic-Sarah Teather: 8,549 41.2%
Labour-Robert Evans: 7,201 34.7%
Conservative-Uma Fernandes: 1,847 8.9%
Greens-Noel Lynch: 291 1.4%
Others: 2,241 10.8%

The by-election was a surprise gain for the Democratic Party resulting in immense jubilation for them. Unlike the Liberal Democrats founding where they remained shaky for a few years the Democrats had already started to hit hard. Labour was disappointed at the result but the devastation was not nearly on the same level as the Tories with a nearly 10% drop in their vote share. The results caused questioning into Howard’s leadership of the party as it seemed the Conservatives were now once again falling backwards in support. With the Conservatives decisively in 3rd places and only breaking 30% in polls as well as questions about the age of Howard some began to think it was time for a more youthful new leader to lead the party forward. Howard remained quiet on this issue of the by election however as well as refusing to comment on the questions about his leadership. Rumours did start to emerge that some in the Shadow Cabinet had plotted to challenge Howard for leadership. It seemed that there was still “something of the night” about Michael Howard.

 

[Shads]

Gordon’s Prosperity
​

Darling’s first budget as Chancellor roundly continued the economic success of the government. Brown remained a popular prime minister with voters compared to the bland opposition of Howard. However the Democratic Party was able to hold up in opinion polls behind Labour closely followed by the Tories. As 2003 turned to 2004 the Democratic Party remained at an all time high. Contrary to the belief of Kennedy and Huhne the “mass exodus” of the Social Democrats from the party was yet to happen. The chance that they could become the opposition or even in government as well as the surge in popularity was holding the party together for now.

“The Conservative Party is the party for British prosperity. I am proud of the achievements we have made in the past 3 years. However we must realise that despite our successes we must overcome the problems we have had in delivering our message to voters. In the most recent General Election our party was once again unable to command anything near a majority. I believe it’s time for change in the Party and I believe I am not the leader to take the party forward in this step. Therefore I am going to resign as leader of the Conservative Party. I thank everyone who has supported me for the past 3 years and I leave this to another member of the Conservatives to lead us to a prosperous future.” - Michael Howard delivering his resignation speech, January 10th 2004

In early January 2004 Michael Howard announced his resignation as leader of the Conservative Party. The ensuing leadership election would lead to many names from the Shadow Cabinet putting their name forward. Firstly came the traditional shadow chancellor candidate of Phillip Hammond promising stability and an “economy first” policy favouring trust in the banks. Although a moderate his greatest flaw was that he wouldn’t be able to improve on the perceived “dullness” of Howard. Returning from 2001 Iain Duncan Smith was once again the torchbearer of the Thatcherite right which was legitimised with a personal blessing from the Iron Lady herself. George Osborne, representing youth and strength on the economy, would put his name forward however would face accusations against his Etonian background that he would be unable to connect with the electorate. David Davis would emerge as a “cooperation candidate” to “make an open offer” to work with the Democratic Party on certain issues. Finally, Eric Pickles would emerge as something of a dark horse candidate with many not expecting him to stand. Rumours about Hague making a return never amounted to anything as he stated he was “comfortable in my current position as Shadow foreign secretary”. In a few short weeks the mps and later the party members would vote on one of these 5, but who would be the one to be the leader of the Conservatives?

 

[Shads]

5 Men for the Leadership
​

The elimination rounds between the MPs would take place throughout January. Hammond, Osborne and Duncan-Smith would emerge as the frontrunners in the race with big name support from members of the Shadow Cabinet. Osborne was supported by Michael Howard, emphasising his youth, and Shadow Home Secretary David Cameron. Hammond had the support of Michael Portillo as well as former leader William Hague. Duncan-Smith found support from Thatcher and Liam Fox. Eric Pickles developed an unexpected surge in grassroots support however his lack of support amongst MPs would lead to great annoyance amongst party members. Davis was endorsed by the Democratic Party but this did little in his favour. The Conservatives had all endorsed their chosen candidate and now it was time for the first round.

Conservative Party Leadership Election First Round

Phillip Hammond: 35 22.8%
Iain Duncan-Smith: 32 20.8%
George Osborne: 47 30.5%
David Davis: 26 16.9%
Eric Pickles: 14 9.1%

Pickles, never having much parliamentary support, was eliminated in the first round. He did however acknowledge the large amount of grassroots support for him by stating that he would only announce his endorsement in the members vote as that was when most of his supporters could vote.

Conservative Party Leadership Election Second Round

Phillip Hammond: 38 24.7%
Iain Duncan-Smith: 38 24.7%
George Osborne: 48 31.2%
David Davis: 30 19.5%

Davis was eliminated and with his was his “offer” to the Democratic Party. Unlike Pickles, perhaps trying to prevent Smith from the currently deadlocked 2nd place, would endorse Phillip Hammond as the best candidate for the job and this would benefit Hammond immensely allowing him to surge into first place in the third round.

Conservative Party Leadership Election Third Round

Phillip Hammond: 62 40.3%
Iain Duncan-Smith: 39 25.3%
George Osborne: 53 34.4%

Hammond now took the lead and Duncan-Smith once again found himself falling short of enough support from MPs. Duncan-Smith would remain quiet on an endorsement but the widely hyped up Pickles endorsement would come a few days before the members vote.

“Friends, my message is simple. Do we want stagnation or a bright future for conservatism? Do we want another 3 years of the same or the future to be different? Do we want to be in the dull streets of opposition or the bright street of government? If you want the next government to be a Conservative one then vote George Osborne for Conservative Party Leader!” - Eric Pickles “Conservative Future” Speech

Conservative Party Leadership Election Members Vote

Phillip Hammond: 80,174 43.8%
George Osborne: 100,576 56.2%

 

[Shads]

The Race Across The Pond
​

2004 marked the next US Presidential Election as President Bush, who’s favouribility rating had fallen to low 40s in recent times, was facing a difffult challenge in his bid for re-election. The Iraq War has proven unpopular as many believed it had simply took too long and too many lives had been lost. In the Democratic primaries in early 2004 Vermont Governor Howard Dean had cruised to victory against his challenger John Edwards. Edwards, a senator from North Carolina, had been warmly received in the south and had sweeped the region as well as winning the contests in Wyoming, Idaho and Utah. Polls had the Democrats on roughly 52%, Republicans on 46% and other minor parties in 2%.

Throughout 2004, Dean led an exciting campaign of optimism and energy that got Democrats and Independent voters fired up. The Democrats focused on 7 key swing states that they reckoned would determine the results of the presidential race. These states were Ohio, the infamous Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri and Colorado. Dean’s decisive opposition for the Iraq War proved popular with voters as well as his advocacy for universal health care and fiscal responsibility. His strong grassroots support allowed him to efficiently fundraise. At the Democratic National Convention Dean would announce Edwards as his running mate in a move that would unify the Democratic base around the ticket. In the presidential debates Dean emphasised his consistent opposition to Iraq, US torture policy as seen in the reports of Abu-Ghraib prison that had shocked the nation and his support for an efficient healthcare system. Bush often was described as “unable to keep up” with the firey and energetic Dean and, as if in repeat of 1960, was described as looking nervous and tired. On Election Day President Bush suffered the same fate as his father.

​

Howard Dean had won. He was able to flip the states of New Hampshire, Ohio and Missouri to become President Elect with 51.2% of the popular vote to 47.3% for the Republicans. The remaining 1.5% had mostly gone to the Libertarian party as somewhat of a right wing protest vote against the Iraq War. Democrats had narrowly gained the senate 51 to 49 and had also recaptured the house more decisively. The Republicans had suffered their second single term president in a row and now it seemed as if Dean would be the Bill Clinton of the 2000’s.

 

[TheLoneAmigo]

I think the interesting thing ahead in this timeline is that the UK under Gordon has the chance to decisively avoid austerity and protect the British economy to a much greater extent than happened in OTL when the GFC hit - not to mention the fact that a Democratic administration across the pond might be in position to hit the stimulus button a lot earlier than OTL.

You can see the results of this in OTL Australia - which avoided recession in the same time period, thanks partially due to the Labor government’s commitment to stimulus and also because of the very helpful stimulus being conducted in Australia’s major export market, China...

That said, while the subprime crisis is probably fairly inevitable, its timing in late-2007 through 2008 could change...

 

[Shads]

I think the interesting thing ahead in this timeline is that the UK under Gordon has the chance to decisively avoid austerity and protect the British economy to a much greater extent than happened in OTL when the GFC hit - not to mention the fact that a Democratic administration across the pond might be in position to hit the stimulus button a lot earlier than OTL.

You can see the results of this in OTL Australia - which avoided recession in the same time period, thanks partially due to the Labor government’s commitment to stimulus and also because of the very helpful stimulus being conducted in Australia’s major export market, China...

That said, while the subprime crisis is probably fairly inevitable, its timing in late-2007 through 2008 could change...

Thanks for the insight. My thoughts were indeed that if Brown could handle and mediate the crisis after being pm for a year then he could certainly have done even better if he had the wheel since 2003. I will say now that Dean and Brown will have a good working relationship especially on economic matters.

 

[Shads]

The Dawn of the Osborne Leadership
​

George Osborne was quick to begin to shape the party in his image. He stated the need to reduce the state however not to the levels proposed by the Democratic Party as well as need to diversify the British economy away from London. He was a fan of William Hague’s leadership of the party and stated that his leadership would represent “part 2” of Hague’s modernisation plan for the Conservative Party. Although identified as being on the more socially liberal side of the party he maintained traditional conservative policies such as cutting spending to fund lower taxes and speaking out against the “harshness” of inheritance tax. Osborne launched his Shadow Cabinet just 2 days after becoming leader.

George Osborne Shadow Cabinet

Leader of the Opposition - George Osborne
Shadow Chancellor - David Cameron
Shadow Foreign Secretary - William Hague
Shadow Home Secretary - Boris Johnson
Conservative Party Chairman - Michael Portillo
Shadow Education and Employment Secretary - John Bercow
Shadow Defence Secretary - Eric Pickles
Shadow Health Secretary - Liam Fox
Shadow Business Secretary - Nigel Farage
Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary - Damian Green
Shadow Food, Fisheries and Agriculture Secretary - Francis Maude
Shadow Environment Secretary - Jeremy Hunt
Shadow Transport Secretary - Iain Duncan Smith
Shadow Scotland Secretary - David Mundell
Shadow Welsh Secretary - David Davies
Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary - Mark Simmonds

The first test for Osbornes Leadership came in the 2004 local and EU Parliament elections. The Conservatives won 38%, the Democratic Party won 31% and Labour won 29% in a decisive upset for Brown. Osborne meanwhile celebrated a strong victory for his party whilst Davey claimed the results showed that they could best either of the two main parties in elections. Nationwide opinion polls now showed the Conservatives and Labour tied on 33% and the Democratic Party on 31% with the chance of a hung parliament being incredibly likely in this scenario. The EU Parliament Elections were more of a disappointment for Osborne as he lost on Hagues 1999 result with the Democrats and fervently eurosceptic BNP both getting high vote percentages that chipped away at the two major parties support. Osborne announced that he was “open” to working with the Democratic Party however stressed his goal was to achieve a Conservative Majority in 2008 which Osborne saw as “increasingly likely”. The Leicester South by election in July also resulted in a gain for the Democratic Party as their momentum continued to grow. Would Osborne or Davey be able to dethrone Brown?