Tony Blair wins a smaller majority in 2005?

Hi guys

I'm considering doing a fairly short TL about the 2005-2010 Parliament, in which the POD is the Tories doing rather better in the General Election of 2005. Not anywhere near well enough to come close to returning to Government, mind you, but still, enough to cause some significant changes. I had in mind seat totals of roughly this following the election...

Labour Party: 343 seats (OTL 355). Net loss of 60 seats
Conservative Party: 214 seats (OTL 198). Net gain of 49 seats
Liberal Democrat Party: 62 seats. (OTL 62). Net gain of 11 seats.
Scottish National Party: 9 seats
Democratic Unionist Party: 6 seats
Plaid Cymru: 3 seats
Sinn Fein: 5 seats
Ulster Unionist Party: 1 seat
Independents: 2 seats
Speaker of the House: 1 seat
TOTAL: 646 seats

Here, the Lib Dem number hasn't changed because while their "decapitation strategy" only cost the Tories one seat ITTL (as opposed to three IOTL), they managed to capture a couple of extra Labour seats.

So I'm opening this thread to ask a few questions:

- Firstly, what would be happening with the smaller parties in such a scenario? With the Labour vote being more squeezed than it was in OTL, and the Conservatives doing slightly better, will the SNP or PC lose any seats to the Tories or Lib Dems? Will anything change in Ulster, or does this require additional PODs? I'd like to keep the Ulster Unionists going as a force, if possible.

- Secondly, how is only holding a majority of 40 seats going to impact upon Government policy making over the next five years? I can see the result of losing so many seats reflecting very badly on Blair himself, and think he might be forced out a little earlier than OTL, so how will Brown cope?

Thanks for your thoughts and ideas.
 

Thande

Donor
Why are the Tories doing better? Is it a case of them doing better, or Labour doing worse (e.g. more scandals)?
 
Why are the Tories doing better? Is it a case of them doing better, or Labour doing worse (e.g. more scandals)?

Yes, this would definitely make a difference. The Tories doing better may lead to them doing better in by-elections, which would have further butterflies. Maybe they have a better leader, I mean Howard didnt exactly inspire public support. David Davis? Labour doing worse might lead to further tension between Brownites and Blairites, possibly even breaking out into open war?
 
Why are the Tories doing better? Is it a case of them doing better, or Labour doing worse (e.g. more scandals)?

It's going to be a couple of small things. A friend of mine who has a hell of a lot of experience working on elections worldwide reckons the key moment was when Howard publicly called Blair a "liar": this cost the Conservatives a point or two in the opinion polls, and put off swing voters. This will be one thing that doesn't happen. Labour won't be doing much worse than they were doing IOTL. I consider a majority of 40 to be about as low as they could plausibly go in 2005.
 
It's going to be a couple of small things. A friend of mine who has a hell of a lot of experience working on elections worldwide reckons the key moment was when Howard publicly called Blair a "liar": this cost the Conservatives a point or two in the opinion polls, and put off swing voters. This will be one thing that doesn't happen. Labour won't be doing much worse than they were doing IOTL. I consider a majority of 40 to be about as low as they could plausibly go in 2005.

So its more a point of the Conservatives avoiding a few gaffes rather than any Labour screw ups/ Conservative performances? In this case I imagine Howard is still gone, although there may be less of a feeilng of need for someone new and radical to come in, so maybe Davis beats Cameron (no Cameron, my personal wish). Like I said, maybe a worse Labor performance leads to even more Brownite/Blairite hostility, which would have interesting consequences. I'm no expert though, so I could be talking out of my arse
 
So its more a point of the Conservatives avoiding a few gaffes rather than any Labour screw ups/ Conservative performances? In this case I imagine Howard is still gone, although there may be less of a feeilng of need for someone new and radical to come in, so maybe Davis beats Cameron (no Cameron, my personal wish). Like I said, maybe a worse Labor performance leads to even more Brownite/Blairite hostility, which would have interesting consequences. I'm no expert though, so I could be talking out of my arse

The vague scenario I had planned out was Howard staying rather longer than OTL: he was forced to stay until December 2005 more or less against his own will, so with him doing rather better, I think he might be encouraged to remain as leader until perhaps mid to late 2006. As for Brown/Blair hostility, I agree that this will erupt ITTL with interesting consequences: possibly a very open coup against the PM sometime in 2006, and a genuine leadership battle for the Labour Party. Brown will win, of course, but he could engender a lot of ill feeling, which will be interesting once the by-election losses of a Parliament start to whittle away at his majority.
 
The vague scenario I had planned out was Howard staying rather longer than OTL: he was forced to stay until December 2005 more or less against his own will, so with him doing rather better, I think he might be encouraged to remain as leader until perhaps mid to late 2006. As for Brown/Blair hostility, I agree that this will erupt ITTL with interesting consequences: possibly a very open coup against the PM sometime in 2006, and a genuine leadership battle for the Labour Party. Brown will win, of course, but he could engender a lot of ill feeling, which will be interesting once the by-election losses of a Parliament start to whittle away at his majority.

Interesting, I'd never considered the chance of a better show in '05 helping Howard. You think Brown could beat Blair? Despite Iraq, this is the guy that won Labour the general election an unprecedented 3 times, and party unity, or at least an image of unity, is going to be vital in any upcoming by-elections. Who would be the most prominent Blairites in said battle? D. Miliband obviously, and I would imagine Johnson would be too. Blair does of course still have attack dogs like Campbell and Mandelson( I think), and this is likely to be a big help.
 
To be absolutely frank, I don't see a great deal changing.

Howard only stayed as long as he did in order to manage the succession in favour of the young generation, (Although not neccessarily modernisation; I think Howard very much had his eye on Osbourne rather than Cameron) not out of any great desire to still be in post. The fact that the Tories did better than OTL is simply going to boost modernisation within the party as well.

Brown was always massively cautious about pushing Blair. I suspect the timing for that is going to be advanced but not by a great deal. Brown will still pick his battles carefully and ease out Blair rather than bludgeoning him.

The one thing that might be subject to butterflies is Brown's abortive election. I can't see him going to the country in 2006 (assuming Blair does go earlier) because it's simply too early but the very fact that Brown has come in earlier and will be forced to postpone any thought of an election for a year (again, assuming a 2006 instalation) which may result in changes.
 
Last edited:
Top