Labour win in 1997, but not by a landslide

Thande

Donor
The inspiration for this thread was me reading an article by Boris Johnson published in 1996 in which he offhandedly states that, while the opinion polls had Tony Blair on course to win the next election, they suggested that it would be with a small majority. Boris then went on to state that this implied that Blair would probably have to take a cautious compromise agenda.

Of course, as every schoolchild doesn't know thanks to the vagaries of the British Education System, in reality Labour won in 1997 by one of the largest landslides in British political history and Blair had a majority of over 160 to work with, allowing him to effortlessly push through a relatively radical agenda with no need for compromise with opposition parties.

So, what if Boris' Tory-optimistic prediction had come true? We can look at any number of minor PODs in the years 1994-97 -

  • Brown holds out for more compromise with the old left at the Granita deal in 1994, diluting Blair's attempts to steer the party to the centre and pick up disaffected Conservative voters
  • Major calls the election earlier, though I cna't think of a reason why he would
  • Fewer Conservative scandals blowing up
  • Back to Basics is never announced or doesn't backfire quite so badly

And so on. Any combination of these. That's not so important.

So at the election, New Labour comes to power with a workable but smallish majority of 20-30. What happens now? While Labour still doesn't have to compromise with opposition parties, it's now much more vulnerable to old left backbench rebellions than OTL. Also, the Conservatives will have lost fewer big names in shock decapitations - which could be either a good or a bad thing for the Leader of the Opposition, probably not still William Hague in TTL - and hence fewer Blairite Labour candidates have been elected in their places.

Another reasonable idea is that Blair might not leave Paddy Ashdown out in the cold in TTL and would carry through on his earlier hints to involve the Lib Dems in government.

So, thoughts?
 
Interesting. The immediate consequence seems to be that the Tories don't recede into the political wilderness the way they did ITTL...but is that a good thing for them, with discredited 'Big Beasts' and hardline policies?

Certainly I think that if Labour could only win a narrow majority after the Conservatives FOURTH term in office, they would more seriously consider systemic reform to up the chances of their getting into power again in the first half of the next century.

A serious campaign with (obviously) backing from the Lib Dems in favour of adopting some form of PR, opposed only by the recently thrown into opposition Tories, and orchestrated by Mandelson and Campbell before we knew what they were like :eek:

Likely consequences of that include a more pro-European policy, more respect for civil liberties than that shown by New Labour ITTL, and in-government voices against every foreign policy adventure from Kosovo on...
 

Thande

Donor
A serious campaign with (obviously) backing from the Lib Dems in favour of adopting some form of PR, opposed only by the recently thrown into opposition Tories, and orchestrated by Mandelson and Campbell before we knew what they were like :eek:

Good point re PR. In a case like this it's probably in Labour's interests as well as the Lib Dems' to adopt it.

Which also has interesting consequences because it means small parties like the Greens or the BNP will probably get themselves parliamentary representation at the first election held under the new system.
 
Well, that depends on the exact form of PR adopted, surely?

Assuming the Conservatives manage to exert some influence [advice on form of PR by Royal Commission or similar?] I could see us getting multiple member constituencies, in which case there would almost certainly be Green representation in Parliament, and quite possibly BNP as well...
Alternatively, however, if we had regional or even national lists, I could see the Lib Dems self-interestedly pushing for a voting threshold as close to the lower bound of their polling figures as they dared; to get themselves as large a slice of the pie as possible while denying others the same advantage.
 
Most Tories had their crack pipes out during the 1992-1997 Parliament. Whilst every opinion poll had Labour consistently around twenty points ahead, people still believed, on the back of the '92 polls, that the real result would be closer. A comforting self-delusion.

What your POD is has serious implications on the rest of the speculation, as until a few days ago, Brown was hardline against many of the things Blair was in favour of, such as PR etc. If you have a small majority with a more powerful Brown, then that will impact on these kinds of things.

A small majority with Blair in charge would make a coalition with Ashdown, which was basically what Blair wanted from the beginning of his leadership until Kennedy became LD leader, a much more realistic proposition. It almost happened in OTL; here it may be more likely than unlikely. In which case, a full merger of New Labour and Ashdownite Lib Dems - particularly if PR gets through - would probably not be far off.

Well, that depends on the exact form of PR adopted, surely?

Well what was proposed historically by the Commission Blair set up on this very issue would seem like a good place to start in respect of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK)
 
A 20-30 seat majority, while smaller than 97 or current majorities is still quite a workable margin by historical standards. So under a traditional FPP system such a result should end in the normal result of single party rule, at least so I would have thought.

So just how close did we get to this LD/Labour coalition? I had assumed it was more of a whatif there is or is almost a hung parliament.
 
A 20-30 seat majority, while smaller than 97 or current majorities is still quite a workable margin by historical standards.

A 20-30 seat majority is almost nothing really. And this goes to the heart of what Blair was looking to do with Ashdown: guard his back against his own backbenchers. Blair always wanted to be Prime Minister, but wasn't all that bothered about being Labour leader. A 20-30 seat majority leaves Blair hugely exposed to the whims of his own party. Fifteen rebels, and the government can be defeated.

It's a workable majority - as long as you're happy to be a weak PM. Coalition would still be hugely attractive to Blair here.

So just how close did we get to this LD/Labour coalition?

Pretty close. Blair stated in 2000 than not going into coalition with the Lib Dems was his biggest regret at that stage. Labour pretty much had coalition on the single issue of constitutional reform with the Lib Dems under Ashdown.
 
I can see Portillo becoming Tory leader after the election(without such a wipeout Twiggs victory would be impossible)

Im guessing Labour would still win in 2001 but with probably only a 20 seat majority.Hague would probably become party leader at this point.

In 2003 Iraq probably wont pass through if Brown has more control,but if it does Labour civil war to that end.

Brown becomes leader by a recount,wins in 2005.Goodbye Hague hell Mr Smith or possibly Mr Cameron.

Tiny labour majority in 2009,Brown steps down Miliband takes over.
 
I can see Portillo becoming Tory leader after the election(without such a wipeout Twiggs victory would be impossible)

Im guessing Labour would still win in 2001 but with probably only a 20 seat majority.Hague would probably become party leader at this point.

In 2003 Iraq probably wont pass through if Brown has more control,but if it does Labour civil war to that end.

Brown becomes leader by a recount,wins in 2005.Goodbye Hague hell Mr Smith or possibly Mr Cameron.

Tiny labour majority in 2009,Brown steps down Miliband takes over.

How do you see Labour still being in charge in *2009?
If they were down to a 20 seat majority in 2001, then have major infighting over Iraq, they'll be out in '05.
With a majority that slim and an issue that divisive, you could almost certainly only pass a vote on Iraq with Conservative votes. That could be poisonous...as it was we had Cook stepping down, and [eventually, after faffing] Clare Short...but it could have been worse. Could we have seen a mass Cabinet rebellion?
 
How do you see Labour still being in charge in *2009?
If they were down to a 20 seat majority in 2001, then have major infighting over Iraq, they'll be out in '05.
With a majority that slim and an issue that divisive, you could almost certainly only pass a vote on Iraq with Conservative votes. That could be poisonous...as it was we had Cook stepping down, and [eventually, after faffing] Clare Short...but it could have been worse. Could we have seen a mass Cabinet rebellion?

Wed probably see an earlier divide betwen Brownites and Blairites.

Brown would win in 2009 due to not being in Iraq as well as a better recession,albeit by a tiny majority (possibly a miniority).
 
Any attempt to go to war against Iraq would end the Lab/Lib coaltion as well, assuming that in ATL everything outside British politics goes as OTL.

I don't think it's definite that Portillo will become leader in 1997, though it is likely. Heseltine showed that ambition is not a desired quality in a leader, as his part in Thatcher's downfall contributed to his loss of the leadership election. If Malcolm Rifkind keeps his seat, he might be a viable leader, while Kenneth Clarke might just be able to pull it off (though probably not).

Rifkind as leader is an interesting prospect, particularly if Labour attempts to take Britain to war with Iraq, as in OTL he spoke out against war with Iraq. Without Conservative or Lib Dem support, I see little chance of British involvement in Iraq.
 

Deleted member 5719

Sorry, but describing Labour as radical is crazy, much of their agenda was to the right of the tories. With a smaller majority they would actually be pushed to the left, the LD's were to the left of Labour by 97, and Labour would have been dependent on its own left wing for a majority. Blair wouldn't have been able to get away with half of his nonsense, and would probably have been forced to abandon the commitment to keep to Tory spending plans.

We may even see an early rail renationalisation, rail's privatisation being perhaps the most unpopular act undertaken by Major's shambolic wrecking crew.
 
Top