WI: Brown wins slim majority in 2007, how does 2012 go?

As it says on the tin, what would happen if five years later Brown went to the polls in 2007 and won a fourth consecutive yet slim Labour victory? Brown would face the blunt of being the party of government for 15 years, having a recession under his leadership, with a sure defeat come 2012. Just how bad would that defeat be for Labour? Would we see Cameron stay on after 2007, and if so would he be the main beneficiary to Brown's decline, or could the Lib Dems take Labour spot as the opposition, possibly even denying the Tories a majority or overtake them after seeing the opposition take four straight losses?
 
Assuming Brown's majority is anywhere from Labour's Oct 1974 figure to the Conservative's 1992 majority then Brown is in for a harder time than he had OTL imo due to the financial crisis, as he has less of a solid majority to push necessary legislation/measures that would be unpopular through. Furthermore another GE not due till 2012 removes some of Brown's security regarding his leadership as a big factor in his survival OTL was because no challenger wanted to depose him less than two years before a general election.

Cameron likely stays on given he could claim a victory as even a Labour majority of 22 would give the Conservatives a rough seat gain from the 198 mark to 250, a gain of 50 seats or more in the worst case scenario here. Best case, a small Labour majority of around 4 would put the Tories on roughly 263, a gain of 65 seats on 2005. He may get a challenge however given a fumbled poll lead, it really depends on who might stand against him.

Brown likely resigns some time around September 2010 or 2011 depending on how the rest of his Premiership goes, probably replaced by Miliband who goes on to lose in 2012 most likely.
 
Assuming Brown's majority is anywhere from Labour's Oct 1974 figure to the Conservative's 1992 majority then Brown is in for a harder time than he had OTL imo due to the financial crisis, as he has less of a solid majority to push necessary legislation/measures that would be unpopular through. Furthermore another GE not due till 2012 removes some of Brown's security regarding his leadership as a big factor in his survival OTL was because no challenger wanted to depose him less than two years before a general election.

Cameron likely stays on given he could claim a victory as even a Labour majority of 22 would give the Conservatives a rough seat gain from the 198 mark to 250, a gain of 50 seats or more in the worst case scenario here. Best case, a small Labour majority of around 4 would put the Tories on roughly 263, a gain of 65 seats on 2005. He may get a challenge however given a fumbled poll lead, it really depends on who might stand against him.

Brown likely resigns some time around September 2010 or 2011 depending on how the rest of his Premiership goes, probably replaced by Miliband who goes on to lose in 2012 most likely.
More or less an accurate assessment, though a 2012 election might be closer than many think. Miliband would enjoy a bit of a honeymoon after taking over, Cameron would have been around for seven years and so no longer something new and interesting, and the vote would likely be held in the wake of London 2012, and the bounce in the national mood, plus the fact it can be traced directly back to the actions of a Labour government, may make it unexpectedly competitive.
 
I think Labour is pretty much doomed in a 2012 election. They've been in power for 15 years, most of their senior figures are either old and waiting to retire or young and inexperienced, their record includes an unpopular war and a recession and if they're led by Miliband, their leader is an uncharismatic policy wonk. The factors mentioned above will probably keep it from being 1997 in reverse but I'd expect the Tories to end up with a larger majority than in OTL 2015- without the SNP they might pick up a few seats in Scotland and depending on who the Lid Dem leader is, probably a few of theirs, although I'd expect the most vulnerable will have been picked up in 2007.
In the long run I'd expect Labour to be in a better position than in OTL, although that depends on who becomes leader. They'll have overseen a partial recovery, they'll not lose Scotland and the Lid Dems will still be around to hamper the Tories in the south.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
As it says on the tin, what would happen if five years later Brown went to the polls in 2007 and won a fourth consecutive yet slim Labour victory? Brown would face the blunt of being the party of government for 15 years, having a recession under his leadership, with a sure defeat come 2012. Just how bad would that defeat be for Labour?
Brown will likely be long gone by 2012, replaced with someone like David Miliband. If they can pull off a slim majority and do what Major did for five year, then it's going to be a brutal election.
Would we see Cameron stay on after 2007, and if so would he be the main beneficiary to Brown's decline, or could the Lib Dems take Labour spot as the opposition, possibly even denying the Tories a majority or overtake them after seeing the opposition take four straight losses?
Cameron was from the outset a 'two election strategy', with the Tories making waves by declaring that even if they didn't win 2010 Cameron would have remained leader, a la Neil Kinnock. The Tories will more than likely be the main benefactors come 2012 and will likely beat Labour in a landslide equatable to 1997- if the LibDems aren't in coalition by that point (which was the likeliest outcome to a snap 07/08 election, AIRC), then they stand to benefit from Labour's collapse, possibly even placing them in the only position they could achieve ~100 seats. They won't, however, overtake Labour unless Labour hits the opposition benches like glass falling from the fifteenth floor. It's unlikely that they even can deny the Tories a majority.
 
Last edited:
Brown will likely be long gone by 2012, replaced with someone like David Miliband. If they can pull off a slim majority and do what Major did for five year, then it's going to be a brutal election.

Cameron was from the outset a 'two election strategy', with the Tories making waves by declaring that even if they didn't win 2010 Cameron would have remained leader, a la Neil Kinnock. The Tories will more than likely be the main benefactors come 2012 and will likely beat Labour in a landslide equatable to 1997- if the LibDems aren't in coalition by that point (which was the likeliest outcome to a snap 07/08 election, AIRC), then they stand to benefit from Labour's collapse, possibly even placing them in the only position they could achieve ~100 seats. They won't, however, overtake Labour unless Labour hits the opposition benches like glass falling from the fifteenth floor. It's unlikely that they even can deny the Tories a majority.
Highly doubt this. Labour shed an awful lot of votes in 2010 as well, and the Lib Dems couldn't even break 60 seats then. Keep in mind that, in a hypothetical 2012 election, Labour likely have a more charismatic leader, and the Lib Dems are likely starting from a lower base, as a 2007 election would see them loses 20 seats or more to the Tories in all likelihood, with more losses on the way to them five years down the line too probably. Also bear in mind that it's doubtful whether there would still be the debates too boost their support as well, especially in a scenario where the Tories are looking at a landslide, and they have no motivation to rock the boat. In this situation, the Lib Dems would steadily be becoming less and less relevant.
 
I think Labour is pretty much doomed in a 2012 election. They've been in power for 15 years, most of their senior figures are either old and waiting to retire or young and inexperienced, their record includes an unpopular war and a recession and if they're led by Miliband, their leader is an uncharismatic policy wonk.
It would probably be David, not Ed, who takes over from Brown in such a scenario. Certainly, the nature of the contest, choosing a next PM rather than party leader, and the more MPs sitting for marginal seats who tend to be from the right of the party or just want someone they think will give them the best shot of staying in parliament, makes it more likely David would triumph in this scenario, if Ed even bothered to throw his hat in.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Highly doubt this. Labour shed an awful lot of votes in 2010 as well, and the Lib Dems couldn't even break 60 seats then. Keep in mind that, in a hypothetical 2012 election, Labour likely have a more charismatic leader, and the Lib Dems are likely starting from a lower base, as a 2007 election would see them loses 20 seats or more to the Tories in all likelihood, with more losses on the way to them five years down the line too probably. Also bear in mind that it's doubtful whether there would still be the debates too boost their support as well, especially in a scenario where the Tories are looking at a landslide, and they have no motivation to rock the boat. In this situation, the Lib Dems would steadily be becoming less and less relevant.
Operative word is possibly; bear in mind that the hypothetical 2012 election will be one that contains a collapse of the Labour vote share due to voter fatigue and Labour being thoroughly discredited on matters regarding economic and social policy, with many voters seeking an alternative to a party on its last legs but also wanting something that wasn't the brutal variation of the German style of austerity that Cameron was demanding during his Opposition years. The LibDems are starting from a lower base and will take an electoral axe swing in 2007, however they also have a much larger protest vote on their side going in, as well as a Leadership (be it still Clegg, or Huhne and Cable- the former though is unlikely to survive long enough in such a position given the events of OTL) that's more focused and taking less for granted. It's also worth noting that the causes for the LibDems gradual loss of relevance over 2005-2010, in part thanks to the gradual decline of the prominence of Iraq in the public conscious and thus the LibDems as being the opposition to the war and thus an alternative to Labour, will not be present in 2012 as the playing field will have changed to shift onto domestic affairs. We saw this during the 2010. Ultimately the priorities of the party will shift, and the party that enters 2012 will have diverged heavily from the one that entered 2012.

Additionally, on the bolded, whilst I don't necessarily agree that D-Mil was all that charismatic (though YMMV), he would likely jump at the debates for much the same reason Major called for them 1997- because he knows that he is on the verge of a landslide defeat and will do anything to cushion the fall. And the Liberal Democrats would be invited, even in a diminished state of only ~40 seats, for the same reasons they were invited OTL debates of 2010.
 
It would probably be David, not Ed, who takes over from Brown in such a scenario. Certainly, the nature of the contest, choosing a next PM rather than party leader, and the more MPs sitting for marginal seats who tend to be from the right of the party or just want someone they think will give them the best shot of staying in parliament, makes it more likely David would triumph in this scenario, if Ed even bothered to throw his hat in.
I meant David. In terms of personality, he's really not all that different from his brother.
 
Operative word is possibly; bear in mind that the hypothetical 2012 election will be one that contains a collapse of the Labour vote share due to voter fatigue and Labour being thoroughly discredited on matters regarding economic and social policy, with many voters seeking an alternative to a party on its last legs but also wanting something that wasn't the brutal variation of the German style of austerity that Cameron was demanding during his Opposition years. The LibDems are starting from a lower base and will take an electoral axe swing in 2007, however they also have a much larger protest vote on their side going in, as well as a Leadership (be it still Clegg, or Huhne and Cable- the former though is unlikely to survive long enough in such a position given the events of OTL) that's more focused and taking less for granted. It's also worth noting that the causes for the LibDems gradual loss of relevance over 2005-2010, in part thanks to the gradual decline of the prominence of Iraq in the public conscious and thus the LibDems as being the opposition to the war and thus an alternative to Labour, will not be present in 2012 as the playing field will have changed to shift onto domestic affairs. We saw this during the 2010. Ultimately the priorities of the party will shift, and the party that enters 2012 will have diverged heavily from the one that entered 2012.

Additionally, on the bolded, whilst I don't necessarily agree that D-Mil was all that charismatic (though YMMV), he would likely jump at the debates for much the same reason Major called for them 1997- because he knows that he is on the verge of a landslide defeat and will do anything to cushion the fall. And the Liberal Democrats would be invited, even in a diminished state of only ~40 seats, for the same reasons they were invited OTL debates of 2010.
Why would the Lib Dems have more of a protest vote on their side in 2012 than 2010? The PM will be newer and more popular (whatever can be said about Miliband, he couldn't be much worse than Brown) and it's likely their approach to cuts will be fairly similar to each other, as it was in 2010, given that both advocated for delaying them for a couple of years at that time until the recovery had taken hold.

I have no doubt Miliband would want the debates, but Cameron would reject them for the same reason Blair did in 1997; there is no need to jeopardise the majority which he is obviously going to win. And bear in mind the Lib Dems were looking at double digit losses in 2010 before the debates came along. I am not sure what they could have done so differently to reverse their fortunes so dramatically over just a couple of years. A more focused approach in terms of seat targeting might help, but only to an extent. Remember part of the reason why they lost seats in 2010 was that they spent too much time targeting the kind of seats they would need to get to 100, rather than the ones they would need to tread water. That would preclude them from making any large scale breakthrough.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Why would the Lib Dems have more of a protest vote on their side in 2012 than 2010? The PM will be newer and more popular (whatever can be said about Miliband, he couldn't be much worse than Brown) and it's likely their approach to cuts will be fairly similar to each other, as it was in 2010, given that both advocated for delaying them for a couple of years at that time until the recovery had taken hold.
Miliband's popularity will only last as long as he is seen as competent and, importantly, a fresh figure. And given what he would be facing, the proverbial shine is going to tarnish quickly, with his association with Blair becoming a liability with a greatly increased potential of a 'more of the same' response.

As noted, the LibDems increase of the protest vote would derive from the collapse of the Labour's vote share due to fatigue from the electorate, not matter how fresh Miliband is seen, and with Labour presiding over intense economic strife unless they do everything perfect, they will be seen as a party that mucked up the economy. Labour voters will look for alternatives- a great deal would go to Cameron, who would be offering a belt tightening German-style austerity, however you would also see many more who would not go through with that transfer but also not stick with Labour go towards the LibDems.
I have no doubt Miliband would want the debates, but Cameron would reject them for the same reason Blair did in 1997; there is no need to jeopardise the majority which he is obviously going to win.
And he was certain he was going to win a majority in 2010, but still went for the debates. Having the debates and having the Liberal Democrats take part will open up the potential for a greater transfer from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, which, from Cameron's perspective, means he has a greater potential to gain seats thanks to vote splitting. Granted, yes, this doesn't really pan out when put into practice, but it's the kind of think that would be going into any decision.
And bear in mind the Lib Dems were looking at double digit losses in 2010 before the debates came along. I am not sure what they could have done so differently to reverse their fortunes so dramatically over just a couple of years. A more focused approach in terms of seat targeting might help, but only to an extent.
Well yes, but my argument is that if there is an election in 2007, then the conditions that led to the gradual decline in 2005-2010 will be changed because there will have been, well, a general election in 2007.
Remember part of the reason why they lost seats in 2010 was that they spent too much time targeting the kind of seats they would need to get to 100, rather than the ones they would need to tread water. That would preclude them from making any large scale breakthrough.
Well yes.

I did write that ~100 was a possibly, not more than likely.
 
Last edited:
Miliband's popularity will only last as long as he is seen as competent and, importantly, a fresh figure. And given what he would be facing, the proverbial shine is going to tarnish quickly, with his association with Blair becoming a liability with a greatly increased potential of a 'more of the same' response.

As noted, the LibDems increase of the protest vote would derive from the collapse of the Labour's vote share due to fatigue from the electorate, not matter how fresh Miliband is seen, and with Labour presiding over intense economic strife unless they do everything perfect, they will be seen as a party that mucked up the economy. Labour voters will look for alternatives- a great deal would go to Cameron, who would be offering a belt tightening German-style austerity, however you would also see many more who would not go through with that transfer but not stick with Labour go towards the LibDems.
But a new PM who's only been in place for a year or two is likely going to mitigate two years extra of voters fatigue with Labour. The economic problems in 2010 aren't going to be terribly different from 2010, especially since Labour wouldn't be pursuing austerity at that point as the coalition were in OTL. Even if it was, there isn't a great deal of reason why voters should jump ship to a party that would be promising something similar.
And he was certain he was going to win a majority in 2010, but still went for the debates. Having the debates and having the Liberal Democrats take part will open up the potential for a greater transfer from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, which, from Cameron's perspective, means he has a greater potential to gain seats thanks to vote splitting. Granted, yes, this doesn't really pan out when put into practice, but it's the kind of think that would be going into any decision.
As I recall, a Tory majority was by no means certain as of the time the debates were agreed too. A hung parliament had been talked about as a possibility for the best part of a year, though it became more of a possibility after Cleggmania.
I did write that ~100 was a possibly, not more than likely.
But they would fall well short of that number even if they pursued a a more realistic targeted, strategy of channelling resources into seats they could genuinely win, that would likely give a max return of sixty, given that they would not be expecting to gain much more than that in an election where their remaining Tory marginals were also under threat.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
But a new PM who's only been in place for a year or two is likely going to mitigate two years extra of voters fatigue with Labour.
Miliband would likely become leader in 2009, following a disaster in the Euro Election, which itself nearly dethroned Brown IoTL. This gives him three years before he has to go to the country, and given his close association with the previous two Labour governments I don't see a reason how he can really mitigate voter fatigue regarding Labour. In many ways he embodies the more of the same attitude, and excluding a post-leadership bounce like what Brown received, I don't see how he can do well.
The economic problems in 2010 aren't going to be terribly different from 2010, especially since Labour wouldn't be pursuing austerity at that point as the coalition were in OTL. Even if it was, there isn't a great deal of reason why voters should jump ship to a party that would be promising something similar.
Someone better versed in Miliband's economic proposals will have to address the first half of this, but regarding the second, 'Sensible middle ground' was the buzzphrase of the time, IIRC. Whether it was sensible YMMV, and I do agree that it wasn't really much difference on paper. But my point is that even if the LD economic policy isn't all that different, they are still seen as a 'softer' alternative for those jumping ship who can't bear to jump to the Tories.

Just to cover myself, I'm not saying more will jump LD- like IOTL, the majority of the transfer will go from Labour to Conservative, I'm just noting that there will be a lot of voters who will leave Labour but go LibDem. And if an equivalent to Cleggmania happens- and I don't see why it shouldn't if we assume a debate happens- a lot of voters who are dissatisfied with Labour but think Cameron would take it to far are going to find a home with the LibDems and see them as an alternative. Enough to stop a Tory landslide? No. But a lot would likely make that jump.
As I recall, a Tory majority was by no means certain as of the time the debates were agreed too. A hung parliament had been talked about as a possibility for the best part of a year, though it became more of a possibility after Cleggmania.
Really? I know that hung was talked about for a while, but I was under the impression that a majority was seen as being likely.
But they would fall well short of that number even if they pursued a a more realistic targeted, strategy of channelling resources into seats they could genuinely win, that would likely give a max return of sixty, given that they would not be expecting to gain much more than that in an election where their remaining Tory marginals were also under threat.
Well, yes.
 
Probably an election would be held before 2012. If a general election in 2007 was a narrow Labour majority similar to October 1974, then it is likely that the Government which followed would fall in similar circumstances to Callaghan's. When the recession comes in, Brown would see his majority whittled away due to by-elections, allowing Cameron and the Conservatives to pass a no-confidence motion with the support of the DUP, UUP and (possibly) the Lib Dems. Then an early general election would be held, which would see a landslide victory for the Conservatives.
 
I think Labour is pretty much doomed in a 2012 election. They've been in power for 15 years, most of their senior figures are either old and waiting to retire or young and inexperienced, their record includes an unpopular war and a recession and if they're led by Miliband, their leader is an uncharismatic policy wonk. The factors mentioned above will probably keep it from being 1997 in reverse but I'd expect the Tories to end up with a larger majority than in OTL 2015- without the SNP they might pick up a few seats in Scotland and depending on who the Lid Dem leader is, probably a few of theirs, although I'd expect the most vulnerable will have been picked up in 2007.
In the long run I'd expect Labour to be in a better position than in OTL, although that depends on who becomes leader. They'll have overseen a partial recovery, they'll not lose Scotland and the Lid Dems will still be around to hamper the Tories in the south.

Note that the only reason the Tories are in with a shot of taking Scottish seats this time, is because they've positioned themselves as the party of the Unionist majority vs SNP Independence rhethoric.

No, 2010 election means - probably - no IndyRef. No IndyRef means no SNP surge, means no Labour alternative in Scotland, means no room for the Tories to make pickups.
 
Could he have went to the polls in '07? The devolved assembly elections were in the May of that year, and he arrived in June, so there's already an SNP government in Edinburgh. Would he want a rapid snap one? So August at the earliest? Maybe September / October to avoid summer, though the longer he waits the closer to the beginnings of the banking crash he gets.

In the short term, he perhaps avoids some of the tabloid hostility he later faced for being 'unelected.' And I imagine Cameron could get lynched by the right of his party if they get the scent of blood in the water.

In the long run, it would depend on how he reacts to the looming Credit Crunch and whether the media backs him or goes hostile. By 2012 he could be deeply unpopular, facing a Tory party backed by the media with a similar message to OTL.

It could still end up in roughly similar territory, just delayed; Labour thought of as having crashed the economy, Blair / Brown descredited and a looming period of Tory rule propelling the SNP in Scotland.
 
I agree that a lot will depend on how labour would handle the crash and the worse they do the bigger the Tories gain. Also would Clegg be leader in 2012? I assume so but would a loss of seats in 2007 change the direction of the leadership maybe. I believe that Brown would have handed over the reins to a younger figure in 2010/11be it a miliband/ball/ or cooper and that leader will gain a bump off the Olympics.
 
Also would Clegg be leader in 2012? I assume so but would a loss of seats in 2007 change the direction of the leadership maybe.
They would have lost quite a few seats to the Tories in this scenario, so on one hand, you could say Clegg might be more likely to become leader than OTL because of the added need to appeal to bring Tory voters back in to the fold, or equally it could have gone the other way and they might have decided that they needed to move back to the left in anticipation of Labours inevitable loss next time out. The main issue with that is that its quite likely Huhne has lost Eastleigh, given that there were only a few hundred votes in it in OTL, so that party doesn't have anyone to coalesce around. Maybe Cable or someone would be persuaded to throw their hat in, or maybe there would just be a Clegg coronation.
 
Could he have went to the polls in '07? The devolved assembly elections were in the May of that year, and he arrived in June, so there's already an SNP government in Edinburgh. Would he want a rapid snap one? So August at the earliest? Maybe September / October to avoid summer, though the longer he waits the closer to the beginnings of the banking crash he gets.

In the short term, he perhaps avoids some of the tabloid hostility he later faced for being 'unelected.' And I imagine Cameron could get lynched by the right of his party if they get the scent of blood in the water.

In the long run, it would depend on how he reacts to the looming Credit Crunch and whether the media backs him or goes hostile. By 2012 he could be deeply unpopular, facing a Tory party backed by the media with a similar message to OTL.

It could still end up in roughly similar territory, just delayed; Labour thought of as having crashed the economy, Blair / Brown descredited and a looming period of Tory rule propelling the SNP in Scotland.

In answer to your top paragraph, just after becoming PM in June 2007 Brown's ratings were very good, Labour retook a lead in the polls they hadn't had for a long time and so people began hyping up a snap election prospect when it looked as if Brown could beat Blair's 2005 result. It was thought to be for September-November 2007. The major reason why Brown called it off was because Cameron rebounded at the 2007 Conservative conference with a brilliant speech that turned the polls back in his favour.
 
Top