If Brown had called an election just after the conference season then wouldn’t this have become public close to polling day? IIRC Labour’s OTL polling took a significant hit from it, imagine if it had happened in the final days of an election campaign.
 
If Brown had called an election just after the conference season then wouldn’t this have become public close to polling day? IIRC Labour’s OTL polling took a significant hit from it, imagine if it had happened in the final days of an election campaign.
I'd imagine a post-conference election possibly taking place on 8 November, so it wouldn't have an effect. Unless, of course, the change in circumstances led to knowledge of it leaking beforehand.
 
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.
Its rather getting into the "what is whatever-ism" realm, but surely Major was effectively a Blairite? The privatisation of British Rail (an utter disaster) was his show to be Thatcherite but the rest was proto-Blairism. In fact didnt Brown actually continue the Tory economic policy for Blair's first term?
Major was seen to be directly responsible for the ERM debacle; Brown was not seen as responsible for the Credit Crunch. He may be seen as someone who sorted out the mess; with better PR that would play well during Brown's "own" term as PM. He was also more acceptable to "old Labour".
Strangely enough, I am not a Labour supporter, or indeed now support any particular Party. I think there are "flows" in history. Thatcherism would have happened in some form even without Thatcher; as would the resultant Blairism. After the Credit Crunch, a revival of "Red" Socialism seemed likely to me; and we have Corbyn as a major player.
Had Brown called the election in 2007, he would have got my vote.
 
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.
Actually, I'm not sure Brown would run again at the next election, especially if the result of a 2007 Election was a hung parliament, which would significantly weaken his standing within the PLP. There were several attempts to oust him from the leadership IOTL, staring down the barrel of an even bigger defeat next time, things would probably be even worse for him in this situation. And with another year or so next to his name in the history books, he might be more willing to go than IOTL. I could see him stepping down in 2011 to make way for David Miliband, or possibly Alan Johnson would run as an interim leader, as he wanted to do IOTL if there had been a Lab-Lib coalition after 2010.
Its rather getting into the "what is whatever-ism" realm, but surely Major was effectively a Blairite? The privatisation of British Rail (an utter disaster) was his show to be Thatcherite but the rest was proto-Blairism. In fact didnt Brown actually continue the Tory economic policy for Blair's first term?
Major was seen to be directly responsible for the ERM debacle; Brown was not seen as responsible for the Credit Crunch. He may be seen as someone who sorted out the mess; with better PR that would play well during Brown's "own" term as PM. He was also more acceptable to "old Labour".
Strangely enough, I am not a Labour supporter, or indeed now support any particular Party. I think there are "flows" in history. Thatcherism would have happened in some form even without Thatcher; as would the resultant Blairism. After the Credit Crunch, a revival of "Red" Socialism seemed likely to me; and we have Corbyn as a major player.
Had Brown called the election in 2007, he would have got my vote.
Brown continued the Tories spending plans for the first two years of New Labour government- but then proceeded to increase public spending beyond what it had been in the Major years-and even that move was seen as more of a concession to public opinion than ideological agreement. Then you also have things like the minimum wage and opting back into the social chapter-things that Major had opposed, but New Labour had implemented. Blair undoubtedly accepted more of the tenets of Thatcherism than any Labour leader before or after, but his government was still clearly to the left of Major on the economy-and that is before we get into the realm of social issues and other things.
 
Hm. I think this does depend on the PoD. I often see the "Brown bounce" being attributed to Brown being seen as a decisive leader and his being seen as more of a straight talker than Blair. As events unfolded, Brown was definitely seen as less decisive, and I think that very much hurt him. And then of course the Financial Crisis hit which rather flipped the political apple cart.

Had Brown opted to call an election in 2007 because he was feeling more decisive, I can see him winning with a reduced majority.

If he called an election in 2007 but was not feeling decisive, I think winning with a threadbare majority or having a hung Parliament are more likely, since voters will pick up on Brown's discomfort and hesitancy.

Either way, I think this has a huge impact. If Labour gets a majority, the response to the financial crisis is dealt with MUCH differently. Brown is often credited for organizing the international efforts to blunt the crisis, and it's notable that international coordination became less coordinated and effective after Brown lost in 2010. Now, some loss of coordination may have been inevitable. But a longer period of Labour government could well mean a very different economic trajectory both for Britain and the world.

If it's a hung parliament, I think there's good odds the Conservatives form the next government, even with less seats or a lower popular vote than Labour. At the very least, I suspect many in Labour would want to out Brown as leader after calling a snap election and loosing all of their majority. And as others have pointed out, Tory internal polling said they'd likely emerge with more seats in a hung parliament. Such a government would also mean a very different reaction to the financial crisis an apparent Tory bungling of the economy (since the crash would hit the UK under their watch) which would have interesting political effects.

I do wonder what Sir Menzies Campbell would have done as far as coalition forming, had such an election resulted in a hung parliament.

fasquardon
 
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.
However it is somewhat more likely that the Lib Dems could have got electoral reform out of Labour than the Tories, especially if Labour really thought they would lose in 2011/12, depending on how and what a Tory majority might be avoidable....
 
Top