AHC WI: Labour Government After 2010

What if the UK Labour Party had managed to stay in government after the 2010 UK election, even all the way to 2015? What PoD could accomplish this? What scenario would this be? The PoD has to be after 2008. What would be the effects? What if?
 
This is quite difficult because of the post-2008 requirement: I was ready to go into a massive spiel about Blair staying on forever or Gordon calling a snap election until I saw that bit. ;)

I think, ultimately, Brown as PM did he right thing most of the time, economically speaking, but it was his image issues, electoral fatigue, and the state of the economy that sunk him. Ultimately, there wasn't any better fix for the last two of those, and the only way they could solve the first was by getting rid of Brown. The problem there is that New Labour was very fond of loyalism-to-a-fault, and any decent challenger would be too chivalrous to actually challenge. People like Geoff Hoon and David Miliband (MEADOW KLAXON) were judged with real vitriol within the Party, however you felt about Brown, and they'd never have got to a vote, let alone won.

So the best I can do is say 'Brown calls an early election in 2008'. This would probably result in a hung Parliament, but Clegg might have ended up going into coalition with Labour if the numbers and the deal had been right. I think one of Clegg's coalition demands for Labour in OTL 2010 was for Brown to resign as PM, so that might be an interesting situation.
 
It is a difficult one, all the best shots to have Labour continue on post 2010 are gone after the financial crisis, it wasnt that they handled things badly in the short term but Brown was an electoral liability and there wasnt much of a realistic prospect of getting rid of him, and he wouldnt have gone by himself with just two or three years and no election victories to his name.
My best suggestion would be 'Cleggmania' in 2010 carries on into polling day, possibly because of debates closer to the election, producing an outcome where the Conservatives come first in popular vote by getting in the low thirties while Labour and the Lib Dems are on around 29% each. However, due to the boundaries and the illogicalities of FPTP, Labour just about emerge as the largest party (very much possible under these results) and Clegg opts for a coalition with them as they are more open to a referendum on PR. Due to the disproportional result and less of a sense of a betrayal from Clegg by the public if he can get a better deal on tuition fees, the public votes yes to STV in a referendum.
Brown would probably go as part of the coalition agreement, or if he didnt he would leave at some point in that to be replaced by David Miliband. The Tories would have likely ousted Cameron, and if the rise of UKIP sufficiently knocks them off balance, there is every chance that the first elections under STV produce a hung parliament, and the Lib Dems opt for a second coalition with Labour.
So the best I can do is say 'Brown calls an early election in 2008'. This would probably result in a hung Parliament, but Clegg might have ended up going into coalition with Labour if the numbers and the deal had been right. I think one of Clegg's coalition demands for Labour in OTL 2010 was for Brown to resign as PM, so that might be an interesting situation.
Clegg wanted Brown gone because of his unpopularity with the public, in 2008 that would be less of an issue, particularly if Labour are largest party in a hung parliament. But if your going for a PoD where he calls an election in 2007 for 2008, it is likely that Ming Campbell would still be in the job, who was better disposed to Brown.
 
What PoD could accomplish this? What scenario would this be? The PoD has to be after 2008. What would be the effects? What if?

Doesn't need to be anything too major, I don't think. Let's say Cameron comes down with a bad cold in the middle of April 2010, and fails to put in relatively decent debate performances in the second and third debates. A few small local factors add up here and there to slightly increase the amount of "floating anti-Labour" that IOTL were considering the Tories and shied at the last moment and you end up with something like Con 290, Lab 265, Lib 65.

The Coalition negotiations that follow see the formation of a Labour Government with Liberal Democrat support in exchange for a commitment to introduce the Alternative Vote system: this is later brought down by Labour rebels with Conservative support. The Government struggles from the start with unpopularity and perceived illegitimacy, and the spending cuts and tuition fee rises see both parties taking a battering in the polls, beginning with a heavy defeat in the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election. Further by-elections that follow, in safe Labour seats, are mostly won comfortably however, though in some seats the Tories see their best results since the 1960s.

The wild cards for this scenario are what happens to David Cameron, and whether a UKIP surge of some sort happens. I think the Lib/Lab government would go down to defeat in 2015, but whether it's a comfortable 1979-ish Conservative victory, or a 1997-style Conservative landslide probably depends on these two factors.
 
It is a difficult one, all the best shots to have Labour continue on post 2010 are gone after the financial crisis, it wasnt that they handled things badly in the short term but Brown was an electoral liability and there wasnt much of a realistic prospect of getting rid of him, and he wouldnt have gone by himself with just two or three years and no election victories to his name.
My best suggestion would be 'Cleggmania' in 2010 carries on into polling day, possibly because of debates closer to the election, producing an outcome where the Conservatives come first in popular vote by getting in the low thirties while Labour and the Lib Dems are on around 29% each. However, due to the boundaries and the illogicalities of FPTP, Labour just about emerge as the largest party (very much possible under these results) and Clegg opts for a coalition with them as they are more open to a referendum on PR. Due to the disproportional result and less of a sense of a betrayal from Clegg by the public if he can get a better deal on tuition fees, the public votes yes to STV in a referendum.
Brown would probably go as part of the coalition agreement, or if he didnt he would leave at some point in that to be replaced by David Miliband. The Tories would have likely ousted Cameron, and if the rise of UKIP sufficiently knocks them off balance, there is every chance that the first elections under STV produce a hung parliament, and the Lib Dems opt for a second coalition with Labour.

Clegg wanted Brown gone because of his unpopularity with the public, in 2008 that would be less of an issue, particularly if Labour are largest party in a hung parliament. But if your going for a PoD where he calls an election in 2007 for 2008, it is likely that Ming Campbell would still be in the job, who was better disposed to Brown.

I think we agree largely on how this Government would be formed, but I disagree with you on the aftermath.

1. I think the Libs are going to get kicked for any rise in tuition fees, even if only to £6k for example. After all, IOTL they tried to point to rising support for students from low income backgrounds and the fact the burden would be shifted onto higher earners, all to no avail. I suppose the only saving grace is that a Lib/Lab coalition might not get the Browne report through the Commons, but I suspect the Tories would vote with the Government on this...?

2. If you can get a vote on an STV referendum past the Labour backbenches, which I have some doubt about, I think it'll fail for much the same reason AV did: a confused message, and an opportunity to kick an unpopular figure. IOTL this was Clegg, ITTL I think it'll just be the basically "illegitimate" Lib/Lab Government.
 
I think we agree largely on how this Government would be formed, but I disagree with you on the aftermath.

1. I think the Libs are going to get kicked for any rise in tuition fees, even if only to £6k for example. After all, IOTL they tried to point to rising support for students from low income backgrounds and the fact the burden would be shifted onto higher earners, all to no avail. I suppose the only saving grace is that a Lib/Lab coalition might not get the Browne report through the Commons, but I suspect the Tories would vote with the Government on this...?

2. If you can get a vote on an STV referendum past the Labour backbenches, which I have some doubt about, I think it'll fail for much the same reason AV did: a confused message, and an opportunity to kick an unpopular figure. IOTL this was Clegg, ITTL I think it'll just be the basically "illegitimate" Lib/Lab Government.
In this scenario the Lib Dems would have considerably more sway over Labour than OTL, maybe it would be possible for them to get Labour to keep it at £3,000, that way they can claim some semblance of a victory, there would be blowback but not quite as much.
Even if they didnt I think STV is still a viable option in this situation, due to the disproportionate result. You would have Labour with the most seats having got roughly the same share of the vote as the Lib Dems who would have about 90. Meanwhile the Tories would have clearly got the most votes, and still be the second party. The flaws of First Past the Post would be there for all to see, and a lot of Labour and Tory MPs would be won over to electoral reform, or in the case of Labour, be convinced to swallow it as the price of being in government. With that, the coalition could likely limit the damage from the Labour backbenches and bolster there support with a few rebels from the Tories and the various minor parties to get a referendum past.
I think it would go differently from AV because First Past the Post would be viewed as having caused the illegitimate Lib/Lab government. If voters wished to give a kicking to an unpopular Gordon Brown led Labour, as they surely would, voting to keep the system which has perpetuated their time in government would see like an odd way of doing it. Coupled with that, there probably wouldnt be all that much serious opposition, any Labour voices who spoke up against would not be taken seriously, and Tory voters wouldnt have all that much of an appetite for keeping the system that robbed them of power, and many Tory MPs are unlikely to be very enthusiastic about there support for FPTP, even if they still want to keep it. The public's dislike of Clegg would be downplayed if he got some concessions on tuition fees, and even if he didnt a lot of the animosity would be redirected to Brown and Labour. The fact that he opted for Labour rather than the Tories would also limit the damage as many of there left wing voters felt that they had betrayed them not just because of tuition fees, but by getting into bed with the Tories.
What is forgotten about the AV referendum is that Yes was leading right up until the final weeks of the campaign, if there isnt a strong No campaign, and the public are also angry at FPTP perpetuating a Brown government, they would likely vote for STV.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps along with what has been said already, Osborn or IDS or someone makes one too many unwise statements about it being the age of orsterity etc. I vaguely remember the Tories lead slipping in the runup to the 2010 campaign because of comments by Cameron and Osborn. Also, it'd probably help if Europe somehow becomes a bigger issue in 2010 than it was in OTL, though with the economy as a backdrop, engineering such a thing could be tough.
 
Top