AHC: Prime Minister Ed Balls
- Thread starter SlideAway
- Start date
Something happens to Gordon Brown, but he demands that Balls becomes leader and runs unopposed for the leadership in 2009 to stop David Miliband. Is elected unanimously by the NEC, and probably goes onto lose the 2010 election.
That, or he wins the 2010 leadership election and - somehow - wins the 2015 general election for Labour. And doesn't lost his own seat in the process.
That, or he wins the 2010 leadership election and - somehow - wins the 2015 general election for Labour. And doesn't lost his own seat in the process.
My PoD is in 2005, but not the labour party 
Mr Charles Kennedy, is able to hold on to his leadership, with Vince Cable and Menzies Campbell, making sure he kicks the alcohol and becomes more of a figure head, while the other two run the party.
In 2010 the results come in to show that Mr Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, win the most seats for the LD's since its creation in 1983 and the most seats of a third party since, United Kingdom general election, 1923.
By gaining 39 seats, he was able to take the party to 101 seats.
Although the Conservatives under David Cameron had the most popular votes, Charles Kennedy argued that he would not form a coalition with them as his party was more inclined to support Labours policies and in turn their supports would more likely support their policies.
However their was one thing that Kennedy did not support and that was having Gordon Brown as Prime Minister in the coalition, so the question became who would succeed him as leader, Harriet Harman stated that she did not want to be the second female Prime Minister, so that was her ruled out.
David Miliband was thought to be the main candidate, however things between him and his brother Ed, was though to be at tipping point, so instead the party went with the second candidate, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls.
And so began the Coalition of Ed Balls' Labour and Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, a strong coalition, with voters in 2015, keeping the status quo with no real changes to the political map of the United Kingdom.
Mr Charles Kennedy, is able to hold on to his leadership, with Vince Cable and Menzies Campbell, making sure he kicks the alcohol and becomes more of a figure head, while the other two run the party.
In 2010 the results come in to show that Mr Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, win the most seats for the LD's since its creation in 1983 and the most seats of a third party since, United Kingdom general election, 1923.
By gaining 39 seats, he was able to take the party to 101 seats.
Although the Conservatives under David Cameron had the most popular votes, Charles Kennedy argued that he would not form a coalition with them as his party was more inclined to support Labours policies and in turn their supports would more likely support their policies.
However their was one thing that Kennedy did not support and that was having Gordon Brown as Prime Minister in the coalition, so the question became who would succeed him as leader, Harriet Harman stated that she did not want to be the second female Prime Minister, so that was her ruled out.
David Miliband was thought to be the main candidate, however things between him and his brother Ed, was though to be at tipping point, so instead the party went with the second candidate, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls.
And so began the Coalition of Ed Balls' Labour and Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, a strong coalition, with voters in 2015, keeping the status quo with no real changes to the political map of the United Kingdom.
My PoD is in 2005, but not the labour party
Mr Charles Kennedy, is able to hold on to his leadership, with Vince Cable and Menzies Campbell, making sure he kicks the alcohol and becomes more of a figure head, while the other two run the party.
In 2010 the results come in to show that Mr Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, win the most seats for the LD's since its creation in 1983 and the most seats of a third party since, United Kingdom general election, 1923.
By gaining 39 seats, he was able to take the party to 101 seats.
Although the Conservatives under David Cameron had the most popular votes, Charles Kennedy argued that he would not form a coalition with them as his party was more inclined to support Labours policies and in turn their supports would more likely support their policies.
However their was one thing that Kennedy did not support and that was having Gordon Brown as Prime Minister in the coalition, so the question became who would succeed him as leader, Harriet Harman stated that she did not want to be the second female Prime Minister, so that was her ruled out.
David Miliband was thought to be the main candidate, however things between him and his brother Ed, was though to be at tipping point, so instead the party went with the second candidate, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls.
And so began the Coalition of Ed Balls' Labour and Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, a strong coalition, with voters in 2015, keeping the status quo with no real changes to the political map of the United Kingdom.
Plausible.
I guess I'll give a couple scenarios:
(1) Slight variation on Meadow's "For Want of a Paragraph" - failed David Miliband leadership coup against Brown in '08 discredits him; his brother doesn't stand and Balls manages to win with heavy union backing. Now to only get Balls to somehow win in '15...
(2) Bigger POD: Davis beats Cameron (or Cameron doesn't run) in '05. Against a more RW, less "modernizing" Tory leader, Labour doesn't lose its polling lead under Blair in '06-'07; Blair survives a year longer, Brown takes power in '08 with his honeymoon in this case corresponding with his milder OTL bounce around the financial crisis - he calls an election in May or June of 2009 and Labour wins or emerges as the largest party. Or Labour simply does better and emerges as the largest party in 2010. Either way, Brown survives a few more years, Balls becomes chancellor, Brown steps down around 2012-2013 and Balls beats, say, David Miliband and winds up PM going into the next election (2013, 2014, 2015 depending).
The rest seems somewhat plausible, though this part makes me raise an eyebrow: this would effectively be a fifth term Labour Government, which really does seem to be stretching the democratic "elastic" to breaking point and beyond. I think you can also pretty much argue that LD collapse will be close to as dramatic ITTL as it was IOTL: they'll lose a large chunk of their anti-Labour vote to the Tories, and I suspect the "generic protest" vote will drift off too, as I can't see a Balls-led administration agreeing to abolish tuition fees or offer meaningful electoral reform, for example.
All of this also depends on how the Conservatives react to an unambiguous defeat in 2010, that said. If the Party ends up on, say, 270 seats, then maybe Cameron can hold on, but it might well be touch and go for his leadership, though where the Party goes from here is anyone's guess. I really do struggle to see a fifth successive Labour victory though, no matter what's happening with the Tories.