WI: Gordon Brown calls snap election in 2007

[Uhura's Mazda]

In hindsight, the Labour Party should really have milked the post-Blair buzz for all it was worth and gained a mandate for Brown before Christmas 2007. However, GB and others got cold feet and pushed on until 2010, which they obviously lost. So what if Brown had gone straight for the polls? Presumably he would have won a majority which might have lasted until 2012 if he'd pushed the term to its full length. But how would the years 2010-2012 have differed without the coalition in power, and what would the election of 2012 have been like?

 

[Maeglin]

My guess is reduced Labour majority in 2007. However, assuming TTL Brown performs as he did in real life, I think you're looking at majority Tory Government in 2012. Which in turn means that the Lib Dems aren't utterly screwed.

 

[Pseudo]

My guess is reduced Labour majority in 2007. However, assuming TTL Brown performs as he did in real life, I think you're looking at majority Tory Government in 2012. Which in turn means that the Lib Dems aren't utterly screwed.

IIRC Brown had performed pretty well up to the point where he decided against an early election. It was from there that the perception of him being indecisive stemmed. A more confident Brown might handle things differently and may get more credit for his central role in dealing with the global financial crisis. The aftermath of which could have given him a purpose and direction that his premiership had lacked up to that point, having accomplished so many of his political goals as Chancellor.

I'm not saying that an early election leads to a victory in 2012, but I certainly think it changes the way that Brown reacts to events subsequent to the autumn of 2007.

 

[Jonathan]

In 2007, Menzies Campbell is still leader of the Liberal Democrats so we might see him gain a few seats.

On 12 July, the first MORI poll of Gordon Brown's reign as prime minister showed the Labour government six points ahead of the Conservatives on 41%.

He calls the election for Thursday 2nd August 2007. The results fall like this:
Labour 41 %
Cons* 33 %
LibDem 15 %
Other 11 %

This is the first hung parliament since World War Two. Gordon Brown is able to form a government but with a coalition with Liberal Democrats.

Brown 2nd Administration Cabinet:
Prime Minister: Gordon Brown
Deputy Prime Minister: Menzies Campbell
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Alistair Darling
Home Secretary: Harriet Harman
Education Secretary: Nick Clegg
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Trade and Skills: Dr Vince Cable

 

[Sideways]

Those figures might be reasonable for the time, based on opinion polls. But it wouldn't mean a hung parliament. It would mean that Brown had outperformed Blair in 2001.

I doubt he'd do that well, but he could still come away with a healthy majority.

He would then get blamed for the recession, right up until 2012, when things were still pretty bad.

With Labour less popular, and a probably quite strong Conservative government, we might have seen Scotland leaving in 2014.

Also, perhaps Boris Johnson would forego a second term as mayor and run for election in 2012. I wonder what job he'd get. Foreign Secretary, perhaps? Or maybe Home Secretary?

The Liberal Democrats would, presumably, still be the focus of protest votes. So UKIP would be less powerful.

 

[Thande]

In 2007, Menzies Campbell is still leader of the Liberal Democrats so we might see him gain a few seats.

The Lib Dems were not doing well in 2007 in OTL, in part do to their leadership, so I doubt it. Note that poll you just quoted where they were substantially below the 22% or so they got at the 2005 general election.

This would have interesting consequences because the seats the Lib Dems might/would lose would include ones that they had gained off Labour from their 2005 anti-war campaign, so it might lead to a (perhaps incorrect) impression that the Iraq war was less of a millstone around Labour's neck.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

The results fall like this:
Labour 41 %
Cons* 33 %
LibDem 15 %
Other 11 %

This is the first hung parliament since World War Two.

Are you sure that 41% translates into a minority in seats? I don't think any govt won a majority of the popular vote in the last few decades, but almost all of them won enough constituencies to avoid a hung parliament.

 

[Pseudo]

In 2007, Menzies Campbell is still leader of the Liberal Democrats so we might see him gain a few seats.

On 12 July, the first MORI poll of Gordon Brown's reign as prime minister showed the Labour government six points ahead of the Conservatives on 41%.

He calls the election for Thursday 2nd August 2007. The results fall like this:
Labour 41 %
Cons* 33 %
LibDem 15 %
Other 11 %

This is the first hung parliament since World War Two. Gordon Brown is able to form a government but with a coalition with Liberal Democrats.

I'm not sure how likely it is that a six percent swing from Lib Dem to Labour since 2005, with the Conservatives seeing no change in their performance would result in Labour losing seats. Obviously the UK doesn't have a proportional voting system, but for you to get a hung parliament from those results you'd have to have some very unlikely constituency results. You're more likely looking at a Labour majority of over 100 seats.

 

[Thande]

Are you sure that 41% translates into a minority in seats? I don't think any govt won a majority of the popular vote in the last few decades, but almost all of them won enough constituencies to avoid a hung parliament.

41% definitely does not translate to a minority in seats. That's the sort of number Thatcher used to get. (Furthermore, there was a hung parliament in 1974 so it wouldn't the first since WW2 either anyway!)

Now an interesting question is whether a 2007 election would use 2005 or 2010 boundaries, because I believe the 2010 boundaries were finalised some time in 2007 but it might have been too early to use them.

 

[Pseudo]

Are you sure that 41% translates into a minority in seats? I don't think any govt won a majority of the popular vote in the last few decades, but almost all of them won enough constituencies to avoid a hung parliament.

41% isn't a majority, it's a plurality. The last time that a victorious party failed to win a plurality of the popular vote was Wilson in February 1974.

 

[steve_wilson]

If Brown had won in 2007 he would have been seen as the man who led he western world out of recession through quantitative easing, and given that other western countries were already leaving recession by 2012 (unlike the UK in OTL, thanks to Cameron and Osborne) he could have won more seats in 2012.

Maybe.

 

[Well]

41% isn't a majority, it's a plurality. The last time that a victorious party failed to win a plurality of the popular vote was Wilson in February 1974.

He means will 41% of the popular vote translate into a majority of seats. The answer, incidentally, is almost certainly: Blair won a majority in 2005 on 35% of the vote. For what it's worth, I don't see Brown getting 41%. Polling at the time might have given him that, but polls tend to overestimate change since the last election, not to mention the marginal polls that spooked Brown to begin with.

Tbh, there's only so far we can get pulling numbers out of the air because, hey, it could have gone a lot of ways. For what it's worth, I think a Labour majority is probable, perhaps even an increased one. The Liberal Democrats will lose some support as the Iraq war and tuition fee effects unwind, maybe holding onto between forty and fifty seats.

 

[Nicola]

If Brown had won in 2007 he would have been seen as the man who led he western world out of recession through quantitative easing, and given that other western countries were already leaving recession by 2012 (unlike the UK in OTL, thanks to Cameron and Osborne) he could have won more seats in 2012.

Maybe.

pull the other one it;s got bells it , would would have been bread and circuses business as usual or Neue Arbeit and the UK would end up at the door of the EU and the IMF by late 2010 begging to be bailed out.

 

[Jimmy Ike]

pull the other one it;s got bells it , would would have been bread and circuses business as usual or Neue Arbeit and the UK would end up at the door of the EU and the IMF by late 2010 begging to be bailed out.

Really? How so? Brown was in power until May 2010 without the country having to go cap-in-hand to anyone. What would have happened in the seven months following, then, to run things off the rails? Genuinely curious.

I'm fairly convinced that, had Brown remained as PM - and, remember, with a personal mandate from a 2007 (or possibly 2008?) election win - the country would have been in a better state from May 2010 than was the case OTL.

Now, would the Tories have been able to convincingly fight an election in 2012 or 2013 with a "Labour took us into a recession" message if Labour had also been the party which pulled through into recovery? Possibly not. But on the other hand you'd have had a Labour government in power for fifteen or sixteen years by this stage. Voters get tired of governments.

Something else which has occurred to me is that, had Labour called and won an election in 2007, David Cameron might have ended up as just another Tory leader to follow in the footsteps of Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard - in place for a short while, performed unconvincingly, replaced. Who might have replaced him?

 

[Nicola]

Really? How so? Brown was in power until May 2010 without the country having to go cap-in-hand to anyone. What would have happened in the seven months following, then, to run things off the rails? Genuinely curious.

the money had run out as demonstrated by the infamous letter left by a treasury minister for his successor

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

 

[hammo1j]

Agreed he would have won. Not handsomely like Tone, but with sufficient flair to form a government. (But that took a risk taking mentality that GB lacked).

We would see the end of Flashman and a new Tory wunderkind in whatever form that took.

Gordy would nt escape the financial crisis and that would be a sag in his presidency. But he would jizz away even more zillions to ensure a Labour victory on the "not sure I can do without the Socialist Tit" brigade.

Ultimately the Wankers that make up the British Electorate would not have let him get away with it and pro responsibility milky bar kid would triumph.

 

[steve_wilson]

the money had run out as demonstrated by the infamous letter left by a treasury minister for his successor

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

That was a joke, if that's the best you can do try ASB threads.

 

[Will Lucky]

I suspect he'd win, but not as grandly as 2005. Conservatives notionally gain around 12 seats anyway because of the constituency changes which I believe are in place for this snap election.

Liberal vote is down so they'll lose seats to both sides in all likelyhood. I think it'll be a majority between 20-30 myself. Cameron will make gains certainly, but enough to remain Conservative leader? Well thats another story he would have been Conservative leader for almost two years and managed to make up around...30-40 seats so he might very well hold on for another shot.

Brown won't be thrown out of Downing Street or be forced into a Coalition unless something extraordinary happens.

 

[Sideways]

Really? How so? Brown was in power until May 2010 without the country having to go cap-in-hand to anyone. What would have happened in the seven months following, then, to run things off the rails? Genuinely curious.

I'm fairly convinced that, had Brown remained as PM - and, remember, with a personal mandate from a 2007 (or possibly 2008?) election win - the country would have been in a better state from May 2010 than was the case OTL.

Now, would the Tories have been able to convincingly fight an election in 2012 or 2013 with a "Labour took us into a recession" message if Labour had also been the party which pulled through into recovery? Possibly not. But on the other hand you'd have had a Labour government in power for fifteen or sixteen years by this stage. Voters get tired of governments.

Something else which has occurred to me is that, had Labour called and won an election in 2007, David Cameron might have ended up as just another Tory leader to follow in the footsteps of Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard - in place for a short while, performed unconvincingly, replaced. Who might have replaced him?

I also think Brown would have handled the recession better than most here believe. I imagine a lot of the negative feeling towards him is based on him having to deal with the initial crisis, but this was bad timing.

That said, nobody is going to end the recession by 2012. Which means he'll be punished by the electorate.

I also don't think he could hold on till 2013, by 2008, the time for a snap election had passed somewhat.

 

[Pseudo]

I think the economy would have recovered more, GDP growth had slowly started to recover by the end of 2009, but tanked again at the end of 2010 as conservative austerity policies started to kick in which led to almost no sustained growth until the end of 2013. Though even with a stronger economy 2012 is likely going to be a tight election.

After his defeat in 2007 I imagine Cameron will go and I'd think it would be May that would replace him.