UK General Election 2005 - The Shadow of Iraq

April 27th 2005 - Tomorrow, an historic event is set to take place - the first ever televised party leaders debate. Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy have been preparing themselves for this occasion for months, one way or the another.

PoliticalBetting.com:

New NOP poll gives Labour a ten-point lead

Labour - 40% (+3)
Conservatives - 30% (-2)
Liberal Democrats - 21% (NC)


Mike Smithson

355 comments:

1. First! And....lol....poor Michael.
by LabourMan1

2. The polls usually tend to overestimate Labour. There's no way they'll get 40% next Thursday.
by BrianH

3. Howard will completely own Blair and Kennedy tomorrow night. I'm not too concerned by this.
by TrueBlue55

4. Oh, and for the record, these figures would give Labour 407 seats, to the Tories' 159, and the Lib Dems' 53 - a Labour majority of 168.
by Mike Smithson

April 28th 2005:

The Official Leaders Debate Disscussion and Update Thread

Mike Smithson

688 Comments

1. Wow, a great opening statement by Charlie Kennedy.
by MickB

2. Howard looks nervous tonight. Blair looks....Blair. Kennedy looks Prime Ministerial.
by John15

3. Wow, Kennedy just completely slapped down Blair over the Iraq question. Go get em' Charlie boy!
by LibDemSupporter500

4. Blair has the look of someone who's kitten just passed away.
by LiamA

5. Wait, isn't this supposed to be a three-way debate? Howard isn't having any impact at all.
by Mike Smithson

6. Charlie sounds like a member of the Socialist Worker's Party.
by Thatcherite6

7. Wow, another master punch on Blair by the Lib Dem leader over tuition fees there!
by Socialist150

Snap Poll by YouGov shows Kennedy to be clear winner of the debate

Who won the televised leaders debate?
Charles Kennedy - 54%
Tony Blair - 21%
Michael Howard - 17%
Don't know - 8%

Mike Smithson

520 Comments

1. Well, even as a Tory, I'll admit that Charles won....in a landslide.
by ToryLady28

2. I think I may not vote for Labour for the first time ever in my life, after that dreadful display from Blair.
by LabourSupporterInSunderland

3. I can't wait to see the next VI poll....
by MichaelD

April 29th 2005:

Liberal Democrats surge into the lead in first post-debate voting intention poll from YouGov

Liberal Democrats - 33% (+9)
Labour - 30% (-7)
Conservatives - 29% (-4)

Mike Smithson

776 Comments

1. Looks as if Gordon will be taking the Labour reigns sooner than we thought....
by AdrianB

2. Finally, it looks as if the two-party system is going to be purged.
by LibDemInLondon

3. I would say that David Davis is now destined to be the next Tory leader....but he's in a marginal constituency....
by LabourBloke180







 
This is probably what Kennedy should have done in 2005, instead of his decapitation strategy on the Tories which was a miserable failure, he should have gone all out on Blair over Iraq to capitalise on the huge discontent among Labour voters. Great start looking forward to the next updates!
 
This is probably what Kennedy should have done in 2005, instead of his decapitation strategy on the Tories which was a miserable failure, he should have gone all out on Blair over Iraq to capitalise on the huge discontent among Labour voters. Great start looking forward to the next updates!

The decapitation strategy was a bad idea in theory although he went about it the wrong way, it might be more successful here.
 
Interesting...

Perhaps we should call this "For Want of a Debate - the Prequel". Seriously, very interesting idea and a good start.

Charles Kennedy (assuming he turns up sober and relaxed) is going to do well at this - he wasn't called "Chatshow Charlie" for nothing and there was no real talk of coalitions or "hung Parliaments" in the run-up to 2005 though of course there would be AFTER the debate in this TL and that would cause problems of the LDs then.

Howard would do better I think than the thread suggests - he was actually good on tv though not as spontaneous as others. He's a QC and the nature of the debate (assuming it would be the same as 2010) would work well. His weakness would be Iraq as well.

In OTL, Blair realised he had everything to lose and nothing to gain from a debate so he didn't do it. As Prime Minister for eight years, he would be forced to defend every apect of Government policy including of course Iraq.

Consider me subscribed and good luck with this. :)
 
May 1st 2005:

Charles Kennedy holds a rally at the NIA in Birmingham, which is the main headline on the BBC's, ITV's and Sky's evening news. Despite many thinking that it would backfire in the way that Neil Kinnock's rally in Sheffield apparently did in 1992, this rally is nowhere near as triumphalistic. A snap poll by ICM shows that 56% viewed Kennedy's speech favorably, 24% unfavorably, with 20% undecided. 18% said they are now more likely to vote for the Liberal Democrats, 7% less likely, and 75% said it made no difference or were unsure.

42-15809324.jpg


Other ICM poll figures:

Who would make the best Prime Minister?
Charles Kennedy - 35%
Tony Blair - 30%
Michael Howard - 21%

Who is the most likeable?

Charles Kennedy - 52%
Tony Blair - 24%
Michael Howard - 15%

Are you satisfied or dissatistied with the way Tony Blair is doing his job as Prime Minister?

Satisfied - 31%
Dissatisfied - 64%

Are you satisfied or dissatistied with the way Michael Howard is doing his job as Leader of the Opposition?

Satisfied - 27%
Dissatisfied - 55%

Are you satisfied or dissatistied with the way Charles Kennedy is doing his job as Leader of the Liberal Democrats?

Satisfied - 64%
Dissatisfied - 14%

Which party do you intend to vote for May 5th?

Liberal Democrats - 34% (+12)
Labour - 29% (-10)
Conservatives - 29% (-2)
May 2nd 2005:

Mori shows smaller Lib Dem boost

Labour - 31% (-5)
Conservatives - 28% (-5)
Liberal Democrats - 28% (+6)
Mike Smithson

445 Comments

1. Well, that is a relief for Labour supporters such as myself, and most Tories I'd suspect.
by LabouriteGeorge

2. My predictions is that the Lib Dems will get 23-25% on election day. Many Labour supporters won't be quite able to bring themselves to vote Lib Dem, in fear on letting the Tories in.
by TinaB

3. As long as Kennedy keeps doing what he's doing - potraying himself as a decent, warm, family man, the Lib Dems could surge up even further in the next four days.
by LiberalPeter

May 3rd 2005:

Prime Minister Tony Blair barnstorms working-class areas of London throughout the day, and is booed and heckled on several occasions by passers-by, and several protest groups including one organized and led by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

42-15816405.jpg


42-15816403.jpg


10:00PM:

YouGov shows an increased Lib Dem lead

Liberal Democrats - 36% (+3)
Labour - 28% (-2)
Conservatives - 28% (-1)
Mike Smithson

1. So....there IS such a thing as bad publicity then....
by JimS

2. Which pollster are we supposed to believe?
by TimmyA

3. Methinks this election will mark the end of the swingometer.
by Mike Smithson

4. Deary me....I sincerely hope that we aren't on the verge of having a far-leftist like Kennedy in No. 10.
by ThatcherWasGreat

5. Someone had better call Anthony King!
by JonW

6. Great! I'm looking foward to a new era of honesty, integrity, and leadership in Downing Street.
LibDemsForTheWin

May 4th 2005:

Final polls show mixed messages for all three main parties

ICM:
Liberal Democrats - 32% (-2)
Labour - 30% (+1)
Conservatives - 29% (NC)

MORI:

Labour - 30% (-1)
Conservatives - 30% (+2)
Liberal Democrats - 29% (+1)

YouGov:

Liberal Democrats - 35% (-1)
Labour - 30% (+2)
Conservatives - 29% (+1)

May 5th 2005 - Election Day:

9:00AM:

(JB dials TB's number):

TB: Hello?
JB: Yeah, it's John. We are receiving both good news and bad news.
TB: The bad news first please....
JB: Well, it looks as if we may take a battering in the North East. The turnout in the working-class areas appears to be very low thus far. The good news is that we may well hold our own in London. Oona King is said to be very optimistic, and rumour has it that Sarah Teather has more or less conceded defeat in Brent East.
TB: Well....thanks for letting me know John. Call me back when you hear more.
JB: Okay Tony, I will. See you later.

(Call ends)

10:00AM:

Charles Kennedy and his wife Sarah cast their votes in Fort William, Scotland, to much applause and cheering.

42-15296888.jpg


10:30AM:

Michael Howard casts his ballot along with his wife Sandra, and daughter Larissa,
in the village of Lympne near Folkestone. There appears to be some minor protests outside, but nothing too significant.

42-15297097.jpg


11:30AM: Tony Blair and his family (wife Cherie and sons Euan and Nicky) cast their votes at Trimdon Colliery. There are also some minor protests here.

42-15296784.jpg


2:00PM:

(CK dials a BBC friend's number):

BBC F: Yeah?
CK: Hey Jim, how ya doing?
BBC F: Fine. I suppose you want news right?
CK: Yes please.
BBC F: Well, from what we can tell so far, the final exit poll numbers at going to show a 31/31/31 split.

(A brief pause)

CK: Wow....that's erm....interesting. Well Jim, thanks for letting me know.

(Hangs up)
 
9:55PM:

election_2005_generic_270.jpg


BBC-election-studio-006.jpg


David Dimbleby: Hello, good evening, and welcome to the BBC's election night coverage. All through the night we'll be bringing you the most reliable service of results that you can find. We'll be talking to Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor, Professor Anthony King, the election guru, and we will be joining Jeremy Paxman for interviews with the winners and the losers. In a few moments time, we will bring you our exit poll. Here's Peter Snow to tell us more.

Peter Snow: Yes, we went to 150 polling stations across the country, asking voters to fill out a form and put them in our very own ballot boxes.

DD: And we can now bring you our exit poll:

We believe that the Labour Party will be returned to government, but with a majority down from 160 to just 10, with 327 seats. The Conservatives are projected to have 186 seats. The Liberal Democrats, we think, will have 103 seats.

Well, what do you make of it Andrew?

Andrew Marr: Well, if it's right, then Labour will, I suspect be both disappointed and relieved. Many predictions over the past few days have put them below 300 seats. The Conservatives, I think, have appeared to done about as well as expected, and the Lib Dems will be quite disappointed I'd suspect. They were talking about 150 seats, and becoming the second largest party. Maybe they still will be, who knows?

Anthony King: This would obviously be a truly remarkable result. If this exit poll is anywhere near correct, then this is what could be called a realigning election, with many, many people rejecting the two main parties.

10:45PM:

DD: I think Sunderland South is ready to declare.

Chris Mullin, Labour - 16,100 - 47.2% (-16.7%)
Gareth Kane, Liberal Democrats - 10,283 - 30.1% (+18.4%)
Robert Oliver
, Conservatives - 6,071 - 17.8% (-2.3%)
Joesph Moore, UK Independence Party - 747 - 2.2% (+0.7%)
David Guynan, British National Party - 610 - 1.8% (NC)
Mad Cow Girl Warner, Monster Raving Looney - 309 - 0.9% (NC)
Swing from Labour to Lib. Dem. of 17.5%
Labour HOLD
DD: Well Anthony, a huge swing in a safe Labour seat. We can we make from that?

AK: Well, Chris Mullin is actually quite a popular MP, so this result must be very worrying for Labour. Also, if these figures were repeated across the country, the Liberal Democrats would win the popular vote with 36%, to the Conservatives' 31%, and Labour's 25%.


 
Last edited:
I think the Lib Dems are becoming the new Enoch Powell - a vastly misunderstood political force that everyone on AH.com seems to want to wank into power, regardless of the havoc they cause.

Still, this is well-written and I continue to watch with interest. I'd like to see a PoD that caused Blair to agree to a debate, however - I don't see him doing so in any circumstances in OTL 2005, as it would obviously play into Kennedy's hands and increase the anti-war, anti-Blair vote.
 
I'll follow this cautiously, but please don't big up the Liberal Democrats too much or I really won't believe it. ;)

Are you planning on the Liberal Democrats getting a plurality of the votes but only third place in terms of seats while Labour get a majority of seats but come third in the popular vote. That would be amusing.
 
DD: Well, as we wait for Sunderland North to declare, we can now go back to Peter for some more exit poll details.

PS: Thank you David. I want to show you what our national popular vote projection is:

(flashes up on the big computer screen)

We think that Labour will end up with 30% of the vote, down 12% on the 2001 General Election. That is pretty much what the polls during the last week of the campaign were telling us. Now, this would be their lowest share since their disasterous result in 1983. We predict that the Conservatives will also get 30% of the vote. Although this is actually a tad higher than some of the polls were suggesting, this would actually be a lower share than in their 1997 landslide defeat to Labour. And now....we are predicting that the Liberal Democrats will win 32% of the vote, despite being predicted to be in third place in terms of seats. Back to you David.

DD: Yes, and I think we can now join Jeremy Paxman, who is with Shirley Williams, Boris Johnson, and Peter Mandelson.

JP: Yes, thanks David. Shirley Williams, a disappointing result for your party?

SW: Well of course not Jeremy. We are predicted to gain over 50 seats, and I think that we will do better than that, plus we are projected to win the popular vote. This is an historic night.

JP: Yes, but despite winning the popular vote, you look as if you will come third in terms of seats.

SW: Well, electoral reform is obviously needed. I sincerely hope that Labour does not end up with an overall majority. In a hung parliament situation, electoral reform is much more likel.

JP: Boris Johnson, yet another terrible night for the Tories!

BJ: Oh don't be silly Jeremy, we are going to gain at least 20 seats, and I think the exit poll has vastly overstated the Lib Dems. Many people have come up to me and said how worried they are about a far-left party taking power.

JP: The Liberal Democrats? Far-left?! You're having a laugh aren't you?

BJ: Well, what about their strong support for an integrated Europe? What about their strong support for a socialised education system?

JP: You know, many members of the Tory Party support an "integrated Europe" and a "socialised education system".

BJ: I know, and I think that they need to be kicked out of the party. They are Conservatives-In-Name-Only.

JP: Peter Mandelson, a return of a Labour Government, but with a pathetic share of the vote, and a laughably small majority.

PM: Well, we are returning to government. Who cares what they facts and figures are?

JP: Ok....back to David.

 
Oy vey. I say this in the nicest possible way, but this is really rather ASB on numerous levels. It's well-written, but I just don't buy it as plausible AH. You had this problem in your Alliance Wins TL (forgive me if that wasn't you) - you simply had the Alliance win thanks to 'no Falklands' and took things from there. The problem here is the TV debates - you've offered no PoD for why they happened and why Blair, comfortable as the incumbent and only with ground to lose if he exposed himself to a debate against Howard (who would win over some populists with anti-Immigration rhetoric) and Kennedy (who would beat him over the head with the word 'Iraq' until he bled). Brown on the other hand had nothing to lose in 2009/10. I'd like to see a reason for Blair to accept these debates other than there being a need for Kennedy to have a reason to do better in the election.

Then we have the problem of the Tory press, as Iain said, not pointing out to the British public that they're about to elect an alcoholic to be Prime Minister. I can think of no reason that the Torygraph or the Mail wouldn't do it, or indeed the Mirror or (then Labour-backing) Sun to hit him from the Red team. Kennedy's alcoholism may have been an open secret to people like us but the press would have expertly released it and (probably successfully) gutted his chances if it looked like he'd do 'too well' for the Establishment's liking.

On another note, I don't see 2005's Boris Johnson trotting out the phrase 'Conservatives-in-name-only'. Boris is famed for his appeal to right and left within the Tories (as demonstrated by his time as Mayor, and Mayoral campaign) and 'they should be kicked out' is quite a lunatic thing to say if you want to be Tory leader (which he does). But that's a minor quibble compared to the major problems here.

I am the first to admit that as a Labour man I observe all these Lib Dem TLs with some scrutiny - but I hope Stodge and Iain will tell you that I am entirely fair in my criticisms and, at least from my perspective, am very happy with the plausibility of their TLs because they really do their homework and come up with plausible reasons for things to happen. Stodge putting Clegg in Number 10 would have been laughable in other circumstances, but with his humiliated Cameron, a Lib Dem victory in the popular vote and time ticking away as in OTL, it just about worked. Similarly, Iain has had a swing to the Lib Dems like no other in his TL but he's worked it all out with a spreadsheet, seat by seat, and provided real insights into how elections are won or lost, making the whole thing a lot more plausible. Here we've just got Charles Kennedy doing well in one (apparently one, did I read right?) debate, the press for some reason not revealing to the public that he's an alcoholic, and suddenly a 32/30/30 exit poll with no real justification.

I'm sorry, I probably seem rather rude to come in and tell you everything I think is wrong with this TL, but I do mean all this constructively. I'd love to see a TL involving Charles Kennedy - he is a greatly interesting political figure - but from my own perspective I'd recommend a 'return of the King' situation whereby he rides out the storm from his alcohol revelations and either hangs onto the leadership or returns after Ming Campbell goes. Sticking him in the 2010 campaign and the debates would be very interesting indeed. But as for this 2005 PoD - there's certainly some fun to be had, but I don't see the Lib Dems topping the popular vote unless there's a very far-back 'Iraq goes horribly wrong and many many many more Britons die' PoD. Don't forget the 'Lib Dem surge' of OTL in 2010 ultimately translated into a decimal increase in voting percentage (about 1 million votes more IIRC) and fewer seats. That was in a perfect storm of an unsuccessful opposition leader attacking an unpopular Prime Minister and the people of Britain suddenly seeing someone they might actually like to vote for rather than against. How has a worse situation for the Lib Dems in 2005 resulted in them topping the popular vote? How have you got round the 'John Cleese problem' ('we would vote for you if we thought you'd win')? And above all, you've ignored the fact that the Lib Dems (IIRC, Iain will correct me I'm sure) had next to no money in the 2005 campaign, blowing almost their entire ad budget on full-page adverts in the Broadsheets in the opening week of the campaign. How have they managed to build on a debate that took place once (admittedly closer to the election than OTL) with no money?

I hope you take this criticism in the spirit in which it is meant - friendly and constructive. Do keep writing, you have a knack for it clearly, but there are a number of gaping holes here that I really felt I needed to point out.
 
Meadow - many of the comments you make are quite right. I have considered a three parter with Kennedy (2001, 2005, 2010) for the future.

Balls is a perfect storm, it's what happens if everything went right and is partly done to illustrate how much is down to the vagaries of FPTP - which is why Fourth Lectern could be fascinating, because that really is the territory of FPTP madness. The LibDems got a surge in money in 2010 after the debates, but even then it was absolute chickenfeed compared to the other parties (I think it was about 300k in total). The Tories have businesses and raise a lot at the voluntary party level. Labour have some business and the unions. The LD's have (or had) a lot of goodwill and vast experience of making do with next to nothing and mainly tap the membership (I gave about 5% of my annual salary to three campaigns in the GE). In 2005, we had fuck all cash and spunked it on some broadsheet ads and one poster unveiling, and the sort of extra support we were getting from Iraq was penniless (and also pretty useless at helping out - nothing better than Middle-Class Graun readers to sit on their arses and do nowt).

Also in 2005 we had the wrong strategy, pushed by people who thought they could do no wrong, whilst it should have been bloody obvious that there should have been a quick change in tack. In 2010 where up until the debates, we thought 40 seats with 5 taken from Labour would be a success and then it all went spare, but at least most of that 400k went to target seats.

There's just no way Blair would have had a debate, the election was his to lose and he had nothing to gain from it. The Tories wouldn't have been very keen either, whilst Howard is a good debater, doesn't project humanity very well and there's always the danger of a Paxman moment.

As for Charlies' little problem, let's just say that there was a song in the Liberator songbook featuring the "Charlie is pissed again" line BEFORE he became leader. There's also Charlies' other little problem, but I think that's not very well known although I have seen the odd reference on Popbitch and can be played off fairly easily, wouldn't stop a desperate Tabloid if they had time to do the research.

Now, I must get back to my Balls update.
 
Oy vey. I say this in the nicest possible way, but this is really rather ASB on numerous levels. It's well-written, but I just don't buy it as plausible AH. You had this problem in your Alliance Wins TL (forgive me if that wasn't you) - you simply had the Alliance win thanks to 'no Falklands' and took things from there. The problem here is the TV debates - you've offered no PoD for why they happened and why Blair, comfortable as the incumbent and only with ground to lose if he exposed himself to a debate against Howard (who would win over some populists with anti-Immigration rhetoric) and Kennedy (who would beat him over the head with the word 'Iraq' until he bled). Brown on the other hand had nothing to lose in 2009/10. I'd like to see a reason for Blair to accept these debates other than there being a need for Kennedy to have a reason to do better in the election.

Then we have the problem of the Tory press, as Iain said, not pointing out to the British public that they're about to elect an alcoholic to be Prime Minister. I can think of no reason that the Torygraph or the Mail wouldn't do it, or indeed the Mirror or (then Labour-backing) Sun to hit him from the Red team. Kennedy's alcoholism may have been an open secret to people like us but the press would have expertly released it and (probably successfully) gutted his chances if it looked like he'd do 'too well' for the Establishment's liking.

On another note, I don't see 2005's Boris Johnson trotting out the phrase 'Conservatives-in-name-only'. Boris is famed for his appeal to right and left within the Tories (as demonstrated by his time as Mayor, and Mayoral campaign) and 'they should be kicked out' is quite a lunatic thing to say if you want to be Tory leader (which he does). But that's a minor quibble compared to the major problems here.

I am the first to admit that as a Labour man I observe all these Lib Dem TLs with some scrutiny - but I hope Stodge and Iain will tell you that I am entirely fair in my criticisms and, at least from my perspective, am very happy with the plausibility of their TLs because they really do their homework and come up with plausible reasons for things to happen. Stodge putting Clegg in Number 10 would have been laughable in other circumstances, but with his humiliated Cameron, a Lib Dem victory in the popular vote and time ticking away as in OTL, it just about worked. Similarly, Iain has had a swing to the Lib Dems like no other in his TL but he's worked it all out with a spreadsheet, seat by seat, and provided real insights into how elections are won or lost, making the whole thing a lot more plausible. Here we've just got Charles Kennedy doing well in one (apparently one, did I read right?) debate, the press for some reason not revealing to the public that he's an alcoholic, and suddenly a 32/30/30 exit poll with no real justification.

I'm sorry, I probably seem rather rude to come in and tell you everything I think is wrong with this TL, but I do mean all this constructively. I'd love to see a TL involving Charles Kennedy - he is a greatly interesting political figure - but from my own perspective I'd recommend a 'return of the King' situation whereby he rides out the storm from his alcohol revelations and either hangs onto the leadership or returns after Ming Campbell goes. Sticking him in the 2010 campaign and the debates would be very interesting indeed. But as for this 2005 PoD - there's certainly some fun to be had, but I don't see the Lib Dems topping the popular vote unless there's a very far-back 'Iraq goes horribly wrong and many many many more Britons die' PoD. Don't forget the 'Lib Dem surge' of OTL in 2010 ultimately translated into a decimal increase in voting percentage (about 1 million votes more IIRC) and fewer seats. That was in a perfect storm of an unsuccessful opposition leader attacking an unpopular Prime Minister and the people of Britain suddenly seeing someone they might actually like to vote for rather than against. How has a worse situation for the Lib Dems in 2005 resulted in them topping the popular vote? How have you got round the 'John Cleese problem' ('we would vote for you if we thought you'd win')? And above all, you've ignored the fact that the Lib Dems (IIRC, Iain will correct me I'm sure) had next to no money in the 2005 campaign, blowing almost their entire ad budget on full-page adverts in the Broadsheets in the opening week of the campaign. How have they managed to build on a debate that took place once (admittedly closer to the election than OTL) with no money?

I hope you take this criticism in the spirit in which it is meant - friendly and constructive. Do keep writing, you have a knack for it clearly, but there are a number of gaping holes here that I really felt I needed to point out.

Thanks for the feedback. Well, my short answer is that I prefer unrealistic AH to realistic AH. :D My longer answer is that yes the press did make a big deal out of Kennedy's alcoholism, but I would have imagined that it would not have made much of a difference, since it was already quite well-known. Both Kennedy and Howard agreed to an ITV debate, and ITV threatened to represent Blair with an empty chair if he didn't also agree to it. Boris went a bit barmy after the Lib Dem poll surge.
 
DD: Well Andrew, while we wait for that Sunderland North declaration do you have any updates and rumours for us?

AM: Yes I do David. Word has it that Putney is heading towards a recount, Alan Johnson and the Labour team in Hull West and Hessle are looking rather happy, and the Lib Dems are claiming that it's "very close" in Newcastle upon Tyne Central.

DD: Okay, we can indeed now go back to Sunderland.

Bill Etherington, Labour - 15,086 - 49.3% (-13%)
James Hollem, Liberal Democrat - 6,275 - 20.5% (+8%)
Stephen Daughton, Conservative - 5,024 - 16.4% (-1%)
Debi Hiles, British National Party - 1,911 - 6.2% (+4%)
Others - 2,322 - 7.6%

Swing from Labour to Liberal Democrat of 10.9%

Labour HOLD

AK: And again, a big drop in the Labour vote, of which two-thirds appears to have gone to the Liberal Democrats, and the other third to the BNP. Traditional Labour voters are going all around the political spectrum, it seems.

Houghton and Washington East - Labour HOLD

Rutherglen & Hamilton West - Labour HOLD
 
Thanks for the feedback. Well, my short answer is that I prefer unrealistic AH to realistic AH. :D My longer answer is that yes the press did make a big deal out of Kennedy's alcoholism, but I would have imagined that it would not have made much of a difference, since it was already quite well-known. Both Kennedy and Howard agreed to an ITV debate, and ITV threatened to represent Blair with an empty chair if he didn't also agree to it. Boris went a bit barmy after the Lib Dem poll surge.

Righto. I'm not sure you're appreciating the extent to which the press would have rammed the drink problem down our throats, but as you say realism isn't your aim here. Good luck with the rest of the TL.
 
Top