The Election That Wasn't

AndyC

Donor
I'd imagine that Brown's position ad Leader has been fatally damaged, though. Calling an election just 2-and-a-half years into a Parliament and losing his entire majority and fifty seats down on that which an unpopular Blair delivered - the men in grey suits will be starting to manouevre.
 
I'd imagine that Brown's position ad Leader has been fatally damaged, though. Calling an election just 2-and-a-half years into a Parliament and losing his entire majority and fifty seats down on that which an unpopular Blair delivered - the men in grey suits will be starting to manouevre.

I'm imaging that the coalition negotiations will be basically Labour but with a referendum on whether to keep FPTP or something else.
 
An extract from Liberal Democrats in Government—The Coalition in Full, Nick Clegg
After some preliminary discussion on Saturday morning, we decided to begin on the issue of health, which all present felt was the easiest of our four areas to find agreement on. Indeed, most of the problems came not in principle, but from Alistair’s concern that the agreement would need to be affordable. This quickly led onto the question of taxation, where we found most of the Labour team, though the Chancellor was a notable exception, were broadly receptive to the idea of a new higher rate of taxation, though they balked at the band and the rate. After some discussion, we settled on a 45p rate for those earning more than £125,000 a year, designed to offset both raising the tax allowance and the numerous health and education commitments we were hoping to reach.

An extract from Reform: The coalition agreement (draft)

health

  • [FONT=&quot]We remain committed to the founding principles of the NHS, developed by a Liberal and first implemented by a Labour government, of fairness and control.[/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]We will seek reform based around local needs and priorities, not around targets imposed from the top.[/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]We will increase the control exercised by patients over their healthcare by encouraging the implementation of Personal Healthcare Plans[/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]We will legislate to introduce legally binding patient guarantees on the right to see a cancer specialist within 18 weeks of diagnosis.[/FONT]

  • We will end the NHS’s relative underperformance in dentistry by encouraging more dentists to take NHS patients, and by abolishing charges for dental check-ups.

  • We will reduce those long-time conditions requiring a prescription charge.
 
Labour—Liberal Democrat coalition talks
Cabinet Office, Saturday October 14th

Bloody tuition fees. After three hours of positive and constructive talks, it all got stuck at tuition fees.

“It’s not a question of political will,” Alistair said from his left. “It’s a question of economics. The economy is extremely fragile at the moment—this 50p tax you’re proposing to pay for the fees could be incredibly dangerous at a time like this.”

“We understand that, Alistair,” replied Ed Davey, “but our MPs, not to mention our voters, need to see that there’s a commitment to reduce fees. Now, we’ve outlined how it can be done over six years—”

“Which is far too fast,” chipped in Harriet.

“—but I think we can compromise on the exact timescale, as long as there is a clear commitment to take some action over this parliament.”

An extract from Reform: The coalition agreement (draft)

[FONT=&quot]higher education
[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]We remain committed to widening access to Higher Education, which is a vital part of social mobility.[/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]We will encourage more students from low-income backgrounds to apply to university by providing mentoring schemes, summer schools and other tools to aid in a UCAS application.
    [/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]We will reduce the cap on tuition fees to £2800 a year, as a prelude to possible abolition, but whilst maintaining a secure and long-term funding solution for our universities.[/FONT]

  • [FONT=&quot]We will make the expansion of Foundation Degrees and part-time study a priority in the coming Parliament, with the aim of further widening the backgrounds of those studying.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Labour—Liberal Democrat coalition talks
Cabinet Office, Sunday October 15th

“I know Gordon is committed to reviving the question of constitutional reform; but there needs to be support for this across the political spectrum, Ed. That’s why we’re proposing an all-party commission—”

“Harriet, we’ve been down this road before—there’s no way Liberal Democrats are going to accept another commission on electoral reform that’s only going to be ignored when it reports. We need a bankable commitment on reform as part of the agreement. Something we can take to the Party.”

An extract from Reform: The coalition agreement (draft)

political reform
  • We will rebalance the powers of the Prime Minister and Parliament by entrusting to Parliament a number of prerogative powers, including the power to declare war and to dissolve Parliament.

  • We will reform the Intelligence and Security Committee as a Joint Committee of both Houses, answerable to Parliament.

  • We will introduce a Business Committee to allow backbench Members of Parliament more control over the business of the House of Commons.

  • We will legislate for a fixed-term Parliament of four years, with a mechanism to allow early dissolution by a vote of 60% of MPs, along the lines of the Scottish Parliament and other devolved bodies.

  • We will legislate to introduce the alternative vote (AV) system for future by-elections and general elections to the House of Commons.

  • We will legislate for a confirmatory referendum on the alternative vote before May 2009, also to include the option of further reform.
 
In OTL Labour offered AV without a Referendum, why have the changed their stance here? Also have they noticed that in light of the deficit the question on spending isn't going to be making new commitments but choosing where to cut.
 
Ouch, The Liberals going in to an election, never mind government with Ming Campbell leading. :(

To be fair that's probably better for them than their current coalition. As the majority of their MP's are in the south against the Tories, a coalition with Labour will be more understandable to their base.
 
In OTL Labour offered AV without a Referendum, why have the changed their stance here? Also have they noticed that in light of the deficit the question on spending isn't going to be making new commitments but choosing where to cut.

I did ummm and err over that one for a bit, but this is my thinking:

- Labour's offer of AV was always a fairly spurious one--Ed Balls ridiculed it in the negotiations several times, and pointed out that a lot of Labour MPs would vote against it.
- The main reason here tho' is that Labour are less desperate, because there's absolutely no prospect of a Tory-led government; it's a question of Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition or Labour minority. The compromise is that the referendum will be structurer in such a way that AV is considered the 'status quo' choice.

And very much so, but this is only 2007--the full scale of the crisis is yet to dawn on everyone, except perhaps Alistair Darling. Remember, David Cameron et al. are still talking about 'sharing the profits of growth' at this point both IOTL and ITTL.
 
An extract from Liberal Democrats in Government—The Coalition in Full, Nick Clegg
By Monday 16th, it was clear that a coalition deal that both parties could agree to was close to being reached, with most of the parties’ core priorities having been met. Discussions, therefore, began to move towards what shape a coalition government might take. There were two obvious models; the ‘integrated government’ model, in which each department would have a presence from both parties in rough proportion to their representation in the House of Commons, and the ‘primacy’ model, in which certain departments would be assigned in their entirety to one or other party.
Both parties quickly agreed that squabbling over ‘ownership’ of a policy, particularly during an election campaign, was likely to be hugely destructive, and primarily for this reason, we came to favour the ‘primacy’ model. It was decided that three of the departments most corresponding to Liberal Democrat priorities, Innovation, Universities and Skills; International Development; and Health, along with the Scotland Office, would be manned entirely by Liberal Democrat ministers, appointed by the Prime Minister on the advice of Ming Campbell as Deputy Prime Minister. Furthermore, we agreed that both the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the new Minister for Constitutional Reform to be created in the Ministry of Justice would be held by Liberal Democrats.
 
Last edited:
And very much so, but this is only 2007--the full scale of the crisis is yet to dawn on everyone, except perhaps Alistair Darling. Remember, David Cameron et al. are still talking about 'sharing the profits of growth' at this point both IOTL and ITTL.

Not entirely true. During the run up to election the Opposition are allowed access to normally secret treasury documents in order to make their spending plans. By this point internal treasury documents were already making the scale of the upcoming fiscal catastrophe clear and it was only Ed Balls determination that was stopping them seeing the light of day. With an election being called the Tory and Lib Dems shadow teams would have been given access by the Treasury Civil Servants to the figures and there would be nothing Balls could have done about it. Vince Cable and George Osborn would thus both be better informed about the situation than in OTL and Vince would be telling Nick Clegg of the scale of the problems.
 
I like this TL - saw it while trawling through the forum. I hope you'll be keeping it up...
 

Thande

Donor
I remember in 2009 they asked Cameron about what he thought would have happened if Brown called an election in 2007, and he said he thought it would have been a hung parliament with a Conservative plurality (in other words, what we have now). I think that was a bit optimistic of him. IMO the 'Brown bounce' would have soon evaporated under the spotlight of an election campaign and people would start to realise what a liability Brown was, but the fact is that it's pretty damn hard for a majority of almost 70 to evaporate in one election. IMO the most likely outcome of a 2007 election would be Labour's majority cut to something like 5-20 seats. Which would make a TL in itself if Brown ended up like Major or Wilson/Callaghan, with by-elections eroding his majority until he loses it. Not to derail this thread.
 
I remember in 2009 they asked Cameron about what he thought would have happened if Brown called an election in 2007, and he said he thought it would have been a hung parliament with a Conservative plurality (in other words, what we have now). I think that was a bit optimistic of him. IMO the 'Brown bounce' would have soon evaporated under the spotlight of an election campaign and people would start to realise what a liability Brown was, but the fact is that it's pretty damn hard for a majority of almost 70 to evaporate in one election. IMO the most likely outcome of a 2007 election would be Labour's majority cut to something like 5-20 seats. Which would make a TL in itself if Brown ended up like Major or Wilson/Callaghan, with by-elections eroding his majority until he loses it. Not to derail this thread.

Indeed, and that was the original conception of this TL. In the end tho', slowly killing a Brown government wasn't half as much fun as I thought it was going to be, so I've revised it to give Gordon a very different (tho' it's yet to be seen whether actually *better*) run.

The Cabinet, November 2007

Prime Minister: Gordon Brown, Labour

Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for International Development: Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat

First Secretary of State, Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons: Harriet Harman, Labour

Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords:Janet Royall, Labour

Chancellor of the Exchequer: Alistair Darling, Labour

Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat

Foreign Secretary: David Miliband, Labour

Home Secretary: Jacqui Smith, Labour

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary: Jack Straw, Labour

Secretary of State for Defence: Des Browne, Labour

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: John Hutton, Labour

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Alan Johnson Labour

Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families: Ed Balls, Labour

Secretary of State for Health: Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Hilary Benn, Labour

Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills: Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat

Secretary of State for Transport: Ruth Kelly, Labour

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Hazel Blears, Labour

Secretary of State for Scotland: Alistair Carmichael, Liberal Democrat

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Ed Miliband, Labour

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: James Purnell, Labour

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: Shaun Woodward, Labour

Secretary of State for Wales: Peter Hain, Labour
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]—CHAPTER T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]HREE[/FONT][FONT=&quot]—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Times A-Changing'
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
The Spectator Coffee House, Monday October 16th 2007
What fate for Cameron?
The failure of David Cameron to return the Conservative Party to government has weakened his position, but there is plenty still going for the Tory leader.
What does the fourth successive election defeat mean for the Conservative Party? Perhaps more importantly, what does it mean for David Cameron? The Tory leaders in 2001 and 2005 both resigned following a defeat, the latter despite having made solid gains for the party; will Cameron do the same? And, if not pushed, will he jump? These questions, and imagined answers to them, have been swirling around Westminster since the results of the election became clear last Friday. The Leader of the Opposition has not yet addressed the issue, which implies he’s gauging his support before a final decision is made. Though it may be disappointing for the theorists, Cameron is actually quite likely to stay, for a number of reasons.

For one thing, given the situation he inherited in 2005 from Michael Howard (fewer MPs than Michael Foot returned in 1983 and a public image almost as bad); the result of last week’s general election is quite an achievement. The Conservative Party is in the best post-election state it has been since the victory of 1992 and in both numbers and morale the Party is ready to provide the strongest Opposition to date.

There is also a general consensus amongst the Party that another change of leadership is simply not the answer. It would, after all, be the third change of leader since 2003, and another round of internal fighting and squabbling is hardly what the Party wants or needs. Is there a leader so loved by the electorate that the fallout of perceived disunity can go ignored? Probably not. Both Davis and Fox, Cameron’s would-be-rivals on the Right, are popular with the grassroots but less so with the public at large, whilst the potential successors on the Left are virtual unknowns. Cameron’s public image is a good deal better than any of his potential successors, and most of them know this.

But what will probably save Cameron is his political guile. He is aware that the Party expects some changes in his style and team, and is enough of a compromiser to know when to fight the Party and when to let it have its way. If he is to survive without a challenge to his crown, he will have to expand his inner circle and delegate more to the Shadow Cabinet, relax his presidential style of leadership and make a number of changes to the Tory frontbench. The word in Westminster is that George Osborne, one of those emerging as the man-to-blame for the defeat, has accepted that he will be leaving the front bench, as a burnt offering for his leader. Whether not Osborne is to be cast aside completely, a new Shadow Chancellor and election co-ordinator definitely seems likely, and it will be interesting, to say the least, the choices that Cameron makes.
For those who like a flutter, the smart money is still on Cameron’s survival. The actions he takes in the coming days, weeks and months, however, will make clear whether he would rather be a martyr to the modernising cause, or the next Conservative Prime Minister.
 
Top