Labour Party leadership election, 1994.

Labour Leadership Election

  • Tony Blair

    Votes: 14 25.9%
  • Gordon Brown

    Votes: 27 50.0%
  • Margaret Beckett

    Votes: 4 7.4%
  • John Prescott

    Votes: 9 16.7%

  • Total voters
    54
In honour of the Labour leadership election, which will be over in five days time, I have decided to create a poll/disscussion thread based on the 1994 election that sprung Tony Blair to the top position and then on to Downing Street. The POD is that, instead of a "special arangement", between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (an arrangement that many blame for the ineffeciency of the Labour government), Brown stands against Blair in the leadership election.

Bringing us to the poll, ignoring any prejudices that you may have after experiencing what Blair and Brown were like in office, vote for who you want to lead the party and explain.

After that, the discussion is about how Brown standing in the election could change things. Maybe it'll end the party tribalism? Maybe he could even wallop Blair and go on to lead the party into office? You decide...

*Poll coming soon*
 
Last edited:
Oh come on, no comments? I know that this is sort of similar to the thread posted by President_Gore, but it's not that similar...
 
Last edited:
I think, in 1994, he may just do it. Personally, looking back, at the time, I'd rather Brown won than Blair, who even then I felt something 'wrong' about him.

Brown should win, though it will be close. This would mean a Brown premiership from 1997 after Major is defeated. Blair.... probably senior Labour figure, but I can't see him ever making PM.
 
I think that a Brown premiership from 1997 will find a good balance between the principles of Old Labour, and the wide appeal of pre-Iraq New Labour.
Gordon just needs to shine past Blairs rehetoric and charisma. And avoid massive wars.
 

Thande

Donor
I'd quite like to see a Prescott leadership...he would keep Labour closer to its roots and, with his gaffes and class warfare, wouldn't have Blair's star quality and mass appeal...I've always thought Labour's unassailable majority in '97 was very bad for British politics, just as much as the endless years of Tory domination that preceded it...bring it back to the pre-Thatcherite era where governments lost elections rather than oppositions winning them...maybe even see a Lib-Lab coalition government years earlier, as was suggested at the time before the scale of Blair's victory became apparent.

Beckett would probably be quite similar.

Brown in '97 is a terrifying prospect, although it's the sort of thing you'd want to see - from the safe distance of another country or, preferably, planet...
 
If it was really 1994 and I was in a position to chose I would have gone for Blair. It's just that having lived through the Blair government, particularly his decision to go to war in Iraq, but also the erosion of civil liberties, that mean that with the benefit of hindsight I would want to chose someone else. But had any of the other candidates been in charge of the party and events had otherwise gone as OTL, I'm not sure they would have acted much differently.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read of the build-up to the contest, a big reason for the deal was fear on all sides that a vicious, close-run campaign would remind the public of the chaotic Conferences of yesteryear. Better a nice civilised transfer.

Regardless, had Brown listened to the likes of Ed Balls and gone for it, I think he could have scraped it. However he would desperately need the Unions to clinch it. He would get it but again, the idea of TUC influence within the Labour leadership would probably worry members more than they thought it would worry the general public.

I'd argue a major reason for some of the more devisive policies put forward by New Labour was a constant paranoia and memory of the dark days of 1983. Even reading hagiographic books regarding Blair and the 'New Labour Project' it strikes very obvious that is was as much, in not more so about running away from 'Old' Labour as it was about a new approach. To quote John Smith's character in The Deal regarding Blair's "Tough On Crime" meme being popular with the Right, 'well its nice to popular with someone'.

On a purely theoretical level it would be very interesting to see Brown's approach to the War on Terror and Iraq in particular. His economic focus and less than perfect relationship with Bush makes me wonder how he would have taken the issue
 
Regardless, had Brown listened to the likes of Ed Balls and gone for it, I think he could have scraped it. However he would desperately need the Unions to clinch it. He would get it but again, the idea of TUC influence within the Labour leadership would probably worry members more than they thought it would worry the general public.
Ah but how will this affect his future economics? I know much of the Tory party will blanch at the thought of Left-wing Scottish PM with TUC backing, though personally I think it may help prevent the economic mistakes that destroyed his reputation.

On a purely theoretical level it would be very interesting to see Brown's approach to the War on Terror and Iraq in particular. His economic focus and less than perfect relationship with Bush makes me wonder how he would have taken the issue.
Well in OTL Brown was very supportive of the Special Relationship, hence he agreed to Iraq and all those desecrations of civil liberties to keep the terrorists down.
However this Brown, may be a little more cynical about following the Yankees on some Middle Eastern adventure for oil and prestige. He'll probably try to foster an understanding with Clinton due to ideological similarities at the very least, though his reaction to Bush (if he gets in) will be nothing like Blairs. A President Gore on the other hand...

Though this begs the question, if Brown isn't going with the wannabe Texan, will he try to go with Europe?
My guess is no. Brown's attitide towards Europe seems to be one of ambivilence, much like a lot of Old Labour. He doesn't mind it so he's not going to try and leave, though he's not going to try and persuade the people to embrace a European identity.
 
Top