WI Brown in '97?

If Brown became Labour leader in '95 instead of Blair, what would the effects be? Would Blair pull a coup like Brown did 2 years ago? Labour would still win in '97, but not if Clause IV was retained. Would Brown do that? How would British politics develop till today?
 
Well unless something changes radically in 1995-97, the Tories are not winning in 1997, regardless of who is in charge of Labour, same goes for the next election in 2001/2002.

How things would pan out is difficult to say, since there's plenty to indicate Brown had a major role in policy before even becoming PM, very much a Cross to Blair's Disreali.

Ironically some of the big international events might have similar British reactions as Blair will most likely get the Foriegn Office (assuming a similar 'Deal' is made).
 
First things first, the leadership election in question was in '94. Second things second, Labour would win in '97 with or without Clause Four. They may not win as big (Although personally, I think Clause Four was close to being irrelevant; the wider actions of the leader and their personality, and policy direction were probably more important) but they would still win.

Brown would try to reform Clause Four, but you have to hold out the possiblity that he would not be succesful. He was not popular at the time of Smith's death, as he'd spent the last two years trying to abandon Labour's '92 commitments. He's a poor politician generally, and he's especially bad at persuasion. But I think he would nose it through, particularly if Prescott is deputy. But he may get Beckett, in which case, all bets are off. Brown would stick to more of the '92 commitments than Blair, but he would be cagey about it.

Most PMs angle to pack Cabinet with their supporters or competent (or not so competent) nonentities, but Brown has fetishised this. Big names in a Brown cabinet would be Andrew Smith, Alastair Darling, Nick Brown, and, depending on what happens in the leadership election, Peter Mandelson. Rivals like Blair (Assuming he yet liveth in this scenario) and Cook would be shunted off into dead-end departments at the earliest available opportunity. Without Blair's communication skills, drive, and abilities in managing people, there's every chance that Brown may arse things up pretty quickly - if not in the first term, very likely in the second.

If Brown doesn't win as strongly as Blair did, and IMO he is very likely not to, then Michael Portillo would be Tory leader; with Brown drifting and under fire from within his party, the Tories would probably be back in in 2005/6 under him or his successor.
 
Last edited:
Any Labour leader apart from Tony Benn could beat the Tories in '97 even Kinnock but Brown would not get the same landslide that Blair got. Portillo would thus be Tory leader, unless he decides to wait till the situation is less dire then you might get Hague or someone else.
Once in government Brown would be forced to give a senior post to Blair as the only way he could have become leader is with his support. As a much less effective communicater Labour would lose its popularity faster, it would also be a lot less 'New' Labour and more in line with the '92 manifesto. Even so the Thatcher legacy would mostly be preserved.
In foreign policy the would be little change (as Blair might well be foreign sec though I would bet on Chancellor), the UK would still support the US in the Balkans, Afgan and probably Iraq.
The one possibilty is the Labour would be more sucessful as there would be less infighting though maybe I'm giving to much credit to Blair.
Personally I would bet on a reduced majority in 2001 and a tight election in 2005, while a Brown government would be less popular and less sucessful I don't know if eight years is long enough to detoxify the Tories.
One big change would be for the Tories. Without Blair to steal all the clothes and without the decapitation suffered in '97 Cameron and the vote blue go greens would probably never appear. With a more left wing and tribal Labour party the Tories would be more able to stick to their base.
In my opinion this would be a very good thing. Any democracy requires real choice and Blair threatened that. To be honest a part of me prefers Tony Benn to David Cameron, as despite being a nutter Benn believed in something, Cameron believes in getting elected.
 

hammo1j

Donor
1997 - wins with less of a majority than Smiler.
2001 - minority government with Liberal support.
2003 - no Iraq: GB very cautious + Libdems antiwar
2005 - win with bigger majority than OTL
2010 - gets slaughtered and nearly eradicates Labour party per FOTL
 
Top