After Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair in 2007, many expected the new PM to call a general election. At the time Brown was enjoying a honeymoon period and Labour was leading in the polls. However, Brown decided not to call an election. The following year Labour slipped in the polls in the midst of the economic crisis, and ultimately Brown and his party lost to David Cameron's Tories in 2010. What if Brown had decided to call an election in 2007?
WI: Gordon Brown Calls A General Election in 2007
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
VadisDeProfundis
Gone Fishin'
If they could win, then maybe Cameron gets the boot from the Conservative leadership. But what would happen if there was a hung parliament? Could that happen? From a quick glance at Wikipedia, that honeymoon period lasted about three months for Brown, so the premise must be a GE before September. At that point, could Labour have got away with 38-40 % of the vote tally? I think that is reasonable.
So, two plausible scenarios: Brown wins the election outright, the conservatives have to seriously question their leaders as well as tactics, maybe they turn away from Cameron‘s liberal conservatism into something more radical, or maybe they move even closer to the Centre, perhaps like the German CDU. Then again, Labour is almost guaranteed to lose the next election, so the conservative leader could be the next PM.
The other scenario, I guess would be for Brown to win, but for labour to not get enough seats for a majority: a hung parliament. At that stage, Cameron may cling on, and we might have a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition government or some sort of deal. I think that such an agreement is going to end up pretty badly for both labour as well as the Liberal Dempcrats, considering the collapse about to occur.
So, two plausible scenarios: Brown wins the election outright, the conservatives have to seriously question their leaders as well as tactics, maybe they turn away from Cameron‘s liberal conservatism into something more radical, or maybe they move even closer to the Centre, perhaps like the German CDU. Then again, Labour is almost guaranteed to lose the next election, so the conservative leader could be the next PM.
The other scenario, I guess would be for Brown to win, but for labour to not get enough seats for a majority: a hung parliament. At that stage, Cameron may cling on, and we might have a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition government or some sort of deal. I think that such an agreement is going to end up pretty badly for both labour as well as the Liberal Dempcrats, considering the collapse about to occur.
Do early general elections in honeymoon periods actually work out for the governments in pure parliamentary systems? We have limited data, but it seems every time this tactic has been tried the government winds up way under-performing its opinion poll levels.
IMO the most likely result is Labour wins the election but with a reduced majority from 2005. Depending on how the loss is perceived by the public, Cameron might be allowed to hold on as Tory leader. (I'm referring to whether or not the loss is blamed on his unlikability (in which case he might be pushed out), or if the reduced majority is really a pyrrhic victory for Labour that gives momentum to the Tories (in which case he stays on)). That said, Labour would certainly lose the 2011 or 2012 election.
After the Expenses Scandal, a Labour majority is going to be impossible, and a strong Lib Dem showing is likely.
So an election for Labour called beforehand would be best. My view, Gordon Brown's best hope is in the honeymoon period, and yes, it likely does not match up to the opinion polling much like May's call in 2017 led to a worse result for her than the polling.
If Brown ekes out a small majority, I think Cameron survives, but is weakened. If he wins largely around the 2005 levels, Cameron gets the boot. Keep in mind that a lot of his ideological reforms (on Europe, on crime, on cultural messaging and social values, etc.) were not popular with membership, and those who he was bringing into the party were not necessarily signing up as members.
So an election for Labour called beforehand would be best. My view, Gordon Brown's best hope is in the honeymoon period, and yes, it likely does not match up to the opinion polling much like May's call in 2017 led to a worse result for her than the polling.
If Brown ekes out a small majority, I think Cameron survives, but is weakened. If he wins largely around the 2005 levels, Cameron gets the boot. Keep in mind that a lot of his ideological reforms (on Europe, on crime, on cultural messaging and social values, etc.) were not popular with membership, and those who he was bringing into the party were not necessarily signing up as members.
Brown would have won, with a reduced but good working majority. With an election victory under his belt, he may well then have had the self confidence to actually be a real Prime Minister.
Brown's difficulty was always his personal "demons"....bitten finger nails, defensive aggressive personality, culminating in being asked if he was on "medication " by Andrew Marr. The rumour at the time was that he was on tranquillisers to cope with the pressure of the job.
Therefore I don't think events would have just played out as in OTL. He may well have been able to win another election; he almost won in 2010 against the slick PRO man Cameron.
Brown's difficulty was always his personal "demons"....bitten finger nails, defensive aggressive personality, culminating in being asked if he was on "medication " by Andrew Marr. The rumour at the time was that he was on tranquillisers to cope with the pressure of the job.
Therefore I don't think events would have just played out as in OTL. He may well have been able to win another election; he almost won in 2010 against the slick PRO man Cameron.
I think Brown would have had a chance of winning but it would be a very narrow majority and there would be a extremely strong possibility of Labour falling behind the Conservatives in the popular vote. In this period for various reasons Labour had a 'seat bonus' - even if they won the same level of votes as the Conservatives they would win more seats. You can see this when looking at OTL 2005 and 2010. In 2010 Labour dropped below 30% of the vote and the Conservatives had a 7% lead but Labour still won 258 seats and denied the Conservatives an overall majority. In 2005 the Conservatives won a larger share of the vote than Labour did four years later and the gap was much smaller... but the Tories still didn't crack 200 MPs and Blair had a healthy majority.
I know it is seats that matter not votes but if the Conservatives win a million more votes than Brown's Labour and still come in a distant second (which on 2005 boundaries is very possible) that won't help Brown's feelings of confidence or his image with the public. It would potentially see the Conservatives rethink their stance on electoral reform.
I know it is seats that matter not votes but if the Conservatives win a million more votes than Brown's Labour and still come in a distant second (which on 2005 boundaries is very possible) that won't help Brown's feelings of confidence or his image with the public. It would potentially see the Conservatives rethink their stance on electoral reform.
I agree. I particularly think that Brown would have had a decent chance at winning a second term if he waited until autumn 2012, when he could capitalise on the national good feeling that the Olympics had generated.
As pdf27 points out, Brown's team were apparently on the verge of a calling a snap election with an expected small majority, but abandoned the plan at the last minute when new polling showed that the margin would be tiny-to-nil depending on how the votes fell in key marginals. Prospect Magazine actually covered the same topic a couple of years ago:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-if-gordon-brown-had-called-an-election-in-2007
In my opinion it would have bought Brown more time but 2008 would have finished him whatever, for the same reason that the Falklands finished Galtieri. My recollection is that Tony Blair's name was mud in 2007, but Brown had successfully deflected blame for the Iraq War and in 2007 the economy was doing well, so for a short while it looked as if he might be a competent Prime Minister.
Prospect's piece imagines a hung parliament leading to a Lib-Lab pact, with Cameron being turfed out in favour of David Davis. In the absence of the 2008 financial crisis, and if Brown took a crash course in presentation - if he managed to develop the knack of successfully imitating a human being - I can imagine David Davis ending up like William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, but as Prospect points out 2008 would probably have destroyed Brown no matter how he performed.
The thought of David Davis as prime minister is fascinating. In the same way that the scene in Melancholia where the Earth is obliterated by another planet is fascinating.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-if-gordon-brown-had-called-an-election-in-2007
In my opinion it would have bought Brown more time but 2008 would have finished him whatever, for the same reason that the Falklands finished Galtieri. My recollection is that Tony Blair's name was mud in 2007, but Brown had successfully deflected blame for the Iraq War and in 2007 the economy was doing well, so for a short while it looked as if he might be a competent Prime Minister.
Prospect's piece imagines a hung parliament leading to a Lib-Lab pact, with Cameron being turfed out in favour of David Davis. In the absence of the 2008 financial crisis, and if Brown took a crash course in presentation - if he managed to develop the knack of successfully imitating a human being - I can imagine David Davis ending up like William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, but as Prospect points out 2008 would probably have destroyed Brown no matter how he performed.
The thought of David Davis as prime minister is fascinating. In the same way that the scene in Melancholia where the Earth is obliterated by another planet is fascinating.
I tend to agree with this analysis. Brown in 2007 was in a similar place to where May was in 2017 in that both were enjoying a honeymoon period and were seen as strong leaders, but they had also managed to obscure the fact that they were totally lacking in charisma. That would come out over the course of a 2007 campaign, and Labour's lead would evaporate. Possibly there would be a hung parliament and some sort of Lab-Lib arrangement, or maybe Brown would just squeek a majority.
My one issue is that I couldn't see Cameron being ousted after a result like this. He wouldn't have won, but the narrative of such a result would be of Brown snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and all the momentum would be with the Tories. He would be in a similar position to Corbyn in the months following 2017 in that regard.
I doubt it. They are more likely to complain about how unfair the boundaries are. Shit, they are still doing that to this day, even when the current arrangements actually favour them over Labour now.
I don't agree with Rachel Sylvester. As has subsequently been proved, opinion polls are very unreliable. I still think Brown would have won. People were feeling good generally, Cameron looked like a boy compared to statesman Brown, and many Tory voters actively disliked him. Quite easy at that stage for Labour to portray him as a posh toff playing at politics without the gravitas or experience for the job (as has subsequently been demonstrated).
My doubt is whether Brown could actually be changed enough by his own victory to be sufficiently human to handle the job. Having said which, the response to the financial crisis would be the same; that was technical not political. Also I don't see why he would be damaged by the financial crisis; it was undoubtedly born in the USA. His own financial policies had been effectively backed by Osborne, so the Tories could not attack on that score.
Obviously there are always "events, dear boy"....so plenty of chances for Brown to co.. up. But my money would be on him staying on the full five years and winning another election.
Yet at that point Labour would be in power longer than Thatcher and Major. It's just completely unrealistic for a political party to last that long in the midst of a weak economy. If Labour were to win in 2007, 2011 or 2012 would be for the Tories to lose.
I see no reason why public opinions couldn't be reversed over the course of a snap election campaign; after all, we just saw this happen in much more improbable circumstances in 2017. It's not as if the Tories faced an insurmountable gap, remember the polls turned in their direction pretty much as soon as Brown said he wouldn't be calling an election.
The truth and what voters think are not always the same thing. Regardless of how much they might have had to do with a crisis, a party in power during a recession is usually punished. And the fact that Osborne backed Labour's spending plans right up until the financial crisis did not stop the Tories endlessly labelling Labour as reckless spenders-with some success- in the run up to the 2015 GE. So as a semi-competent opposition, the Tories are going to benefit from the downturn, whether or not they deserve it.
I take your point. However, Major was not, and was not seen as a continuation of Thatcher. Thats why he won in 1992. Its almost as if there were two seperate Tory parties.
The same would apply to Brown; he was not Blair. Also, I think he would want to try for two personal election victories.
The more I think about this, I think there is a chance that Brown could do a May a mess it all up: throw away a winnable election. He could end up still as PM but with a tiny or nonexistent majority (supply and confidence not a coalition with the LibDems) and the Conservatives claiming a victory in spite of losing.
Major wasn't Thatcher, but he was a Thatcherite: he privatized British rail after winning in '92 after all. Brown wasn't Blair, but he was a crucial figure in New Labour and had served as Blair's most important minister for ten years. Brown would probably run again in 2011 or 2012, but he would be fighting a losing game in trying to win a fifth election for Labour.
Agreed.
I'd also note that while Major did win in 1992 he lost crushingly on his second go. Twenty years of Labour government under someone who held one of the two top jobs for that entire time just seems absurdly optimistic, (assuming you are a Labour supporter MickCz.) Especially given the possibility (I'd even call it a probability) that a Brown 'win' in 2007 would see the Conservatives edge out Labour in the vote share.
This is one of the more interesting questions of 21st Century British politics. And it's interesting because unlike in other what ifs, it's really difficult to determine what might've happened.
A majority of 40 was possible for Brown in a 2007 election, according to some internal polling. Other internal polling, however, pointed to a smaller majority - perhaps around 20. Conservative internal polling, meanwhile, was predicting a hung parliament in 2007 with Labour on around 285, Lib Dems on around 40 and the Conservatives on around 290 - so it could have been anyone's game.
If I had to be pushed, I'd say an inverse 2010 was quite likely. Labour hovering around 310 and the Conservatives around 250-260.
Brown might've been better served by putting a stop to all the speculation and carried on doing what he doing and exploiting the opportunity that the Spending Review and Pre-Budget Report offered. That might have then seem him able to pull off a win in early 2008, though still probably not by a massive margin.
A majority of 40 was possible for Brown in a 2007 election, according to some internal polling. Other internal polling, however, pointed to a smaller majority - perhaps around 20. Conservative internal polling, meanwhile, was predicting a hung parliament in 2007 with Labour on around 285, Lib Dems on around 40 and the Conservatives on around 290 - so it could have been anyone's game.
If I had to be pushed, I'd say an inverse 2010 was quite likely. Labour hovering around 310 and the Conservatives around 250-260.
Brown might've been better served by putting a stop to all the speculation and carried on doing what he doing and exploiting the opportunity that the Spending Review and Pre-Budget Report offered. That might have then seem him able to pull off a win in early 2008, though still probably not by a massive margin.