There have been a few threads about "The Election That Never Was," but most were from well before the actual May 6 election. So with the benefit of seeing actual results, how would Labour and Brown have fared in an October 2007 election?
I suspect they would not have done badly. I'm aware that in OTL, the election was called off because the Tories' post-conference poll surge seemed to wiped out any gains for Labour and appeared to put enormous pressure on their Lab-Con marginals. Stan Greenberg told Brown that at best, he'd be able to expect a majority of 20, so even if Labour "won" it would be a meaningless cull of MPs.
Having seen the 2010 results, though, I think the reality may have proven better. As it was, despite all the disasters of the past two years, Labour managed to retain 2nd place in the polls and held onto 250+ seats, while the Tories' topped out at 36-37% and were denied a majority.
Remember that in 2007, Brown was still in his honeymoon phase, and though the Tories would have given him a scare, it's unlikely the British public would have wanted to switch PMs after just a few months. Cameron, moreover, never fully made the sale even during the 2010 campaign, and the Lib Dems under Ming Campbell were a disaster.
So I can see the results shaking out at something like Lab 39, Con 35, LibDem 18, with Labour with anywhere between 340-370 seats, the Cons with 210-240 seats, LibDems with around 40, and others on 28 or so. Overall Labour might pick up a few seats or lose a few, with the Tories mostly making gains at the expense of the Lib Dems.
Post-election, this gives Brown greater authority as PM, and a somewhat longer sustained honeymoon, while also potentially sending the Tories into a nasty spat. Cameron probably remains as leader, but only after fending off a RW challenge, perhaps from Liam Fox. The Lib Dems dump Ming Campbell for a Clegg-Huhne battle, as in RL, probably picking Clegg.
The basic result is simply to put Brown in a somewhat more dominant position throughout the past three years, though it ultimately just delays the '10 results to 2012. Though perhaps if his popularity declines as in RL, Brown will be willing to step down in 2011 in advance of a poll, secure in having avoided the label of "unelected PM." (Not that far-fetched, as we now know he seriously considered pledging to step down in 2011 pre-campaign.)
I suspect they would not have done badly. I'm aware that in OTL, the election was called off because the Tories' post-conference poll surge seemed to wiped out any gains for Labour and appeared to put enormous pressure on their Lab-Con marginals. Stan Greenberg told Brown that at best, he'd be able to expect a majority of 20, so even if Labour "won" it would be a meaningless cull of MPs.
Having seen the 2010 results, though, I think the reality may have proven better. As it was, despite all the disasters of the past two years, Labour managed to retain 2nd place in the polls and held onto 250+ seats, while the Tories' topped out at 36-37% and were denied a majority.
Remember that in 2007, Brown was still in his honeymoon phase, and though the Tories would have given him a scare, it's unlikely the British public would have wanted to switch PMs after just a few months. Cameron, moreover, never fully made the sale even during the 2010 campaign, and the Lib Dems under Ming Campbell were a disaster.
So I can see the results shaking out at something like Lab 39, Con 35, LibDem 18, with Labour with anywhere between 340-370 seats, the Cons with 210-240 seats, LibDems with around 40, and others on 28 or so. Overall Labour might pick up a few seats or lose a few, with the Tories mostly making gains at the expense of the Lib Dems.
Post-election, this gives Brown greater authority as PM, and a somewhat longer sustained honeymoon, while also potentially sending the Tories into a nasty spat. Cameron probably remains as leader, but only after fending off a RW challenge, perhaps from Liam Fox. The Lib Dems dump Ming Campbell for a Clegg-Huhne battle, as in RL, probably picking Clegg.
The basic result is simply to put Brown in a somewhat more dominant position throughout the past three years, though it ultimately just delays the '10 results to 2012. Though perhaps if his popularity declines as in RL, Brown will be willing to step down in 2011 in advance of a poll, secure in having avoided the label of "unelected PM." (Not that far-fetched, as we now know he seriously considered pledging to step down in 2011 pre-campaign.)
Last edited: