It's DD For Me - a British Politics Timeline

[Mustard]

On May the 5th 2005, the electorate of the United Kingdom went to the polls to determine who would represent them in the oncoming Parliament and, as a result, who would form the next British Government. The result would prove to be a mixed result for all three major parties – tarnished by the Iraq War, the incumbent Labour Party led by Prime Minister Tony Blair saw its majority drastically reduced, from 413 seats at the 2001 general election to 355 seats (excluding the Speaker) in the new Parliament. Meanwhile, the Conservatives, led by former Home Secretary Michael Howard, saw sizeable gains (having only secured a net gain of one seat in 2001) for the first time since 1983, yet with only a slight increase in their share in the vote. The Liberal Democrats, led by Charles Kennedy, achieved the best result for themselves or their predecessors since 1929 (when the Liberals under David Lloyd George secured 59 seats), winning 62 seats – yet this was far from the breakthrough which many Liberal Democrats had been hoping for (or indeed what some polls had indicated they would secure).

In the immediate aftermath of the general election, Howard decided to retire as leader of the Conservatives after two years in the position (having entered the position half-way through the previous Parliament after Iain Duncan Smith, his predecessor, failed to rejuvenate the Conservatives’ position). Overall, Howard’s leadership had been a largely successful one, having rescued the Conservatives’ electoral position after two landslide defeats and put the Party in a position where it had enough seats in the House of Commons to effectively challenge the Blair Government, yet he recognised that, being sixty-four years of age, it would be best to allow someone else to take the helm and, hopefully, lead the Conservatives into Government in 2010 (the last date at which a general election could take place).

And so, a leadership election was triggered, with David Davis, who had served as Shadow Home Secretary under Howard, becoming the initial frontrunner, while Liam Fox (Shadow Foreign Secretary), Kenneth Clarke (Chancellor of the Exchequer during John Major’s Government) and Malcolm Rifkind (Foreign Secretary in the Major Government) also entering their hats into the ring. At one point, future Mayor of London and then-Shadow Education Secretary David Cameron also pondered over the possibility of entering the leadership contest, yet eventually deciding against it and instead established a pact with Clarke (the two both being on the left of the Party) whereby Cameron would serve as Clarke’s deputy if he won.

The opening salvo of the leadership election would come at the Conservatives’ Party Conference, at which Fox, Clarke and Rifkind were all judged to have made effective speeches which kickstarted their campaigns – Davis, on the other hand, failed to galvanise support at the conference and this, in the eyes of many pundits, threw the race wide open, with betting markets rapidly increasing the odds of the other three candidates winning the leadership. Yet all predictions would come to a close when the first round of voting (which, as with all rounds until only two candidates remained, was open to Conservative MPs only), which saw Clarke take the lead with the backing of 78 MPs to Davis’ 62, Fox’s 42 and Rifkind’s 16. This left Rifkind as the candidate with the least support and therefore eliminated, leading to the second round which saw Fox eliminated, with 51 MPs to Davis’ 57 and Clarke’s 90.

At this point, Clarke was now the firm frontrunner in the race, yet history has told (and would tell after 2005) that Conservative leadership elections always swing against such a contender – during the hustings prior to the third round (which would be open to all members of the Conservative Party) Davis successfully rejuvenated his campaign, performing effectively on a Question Time Special featuring himself and Clarke prior to the memberships’ vote. This, combined with the fact that the membership naturally drifted towards Davis’ Thatcherism over Clarke’s Europhilia (which was largely detested by most Conservatives), ensured that Davis secured victory when the result of the third round was declared on December the 6th 2005, with 55.7% of the vote to Clarke’s 44.3%.

And so, it would be Davis who succeeded Howard as leader of the Conservative Party and held Blair to account over the dispatch box at Prime Ministers’ Questions (PMQs) and other debates in the Commons.

Establishing himself in his new office, Davis heavily emphasised civil liberties and their continual erosion, making it a cornerstone issue for the Conservative Party under his command. Meanwhile, scandals such as Cash for Peerages began to dog Blair and his Government, thereby allowing the Conservatives to open up a firm, consistent polling lead over Labour – their first since the Fuel Protests of 2000. However, Labour would recover and open up a lead of their own in June 2007, when Blair conducted the long-anticipated handover of power to his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who would subsequently enjoy a honeymoon period after accepting the Queen's invitation to form a Government.

This polling lead, combined with the fact that many argued that Brown lacked a mandate from the people to govern, led to speculation growing that a snap general election would be called by the Prime Minister to capitalise and potentially increase Labour’s majority after the Party’s losses in 2005. Speculation would reach critical mass on September the 24th 2007, when Brown delivered his first speech as leader to the Labour Party Conference and Labour’s polling numbers remained in the mid-40s, high above the Conservatives. In said speech, Brown (remembering Davis’ lacklustre speech to the Conservatives’ Party Conference in 2005 and therefore drawing to the conclusion that any Conservative election campaign in a subsequent election would also fail to energise the public) would ultimately take the plunge and announced that he intended to call a general election, which would held exactly two months’ after the announcement, on November the 24th, so as to (in Brown’s own words) ‘provide myself and my Party with the mandate and effective majority to carry out our policies in the years ahead’.

For a moment, it appeared as though Brown had made a great political manoeuvre and would soon return to Downing Street with an increased majority – yet the Prime Minister would soon find himself eating his words. For, since his speech to the Party Conference in 2005, Davis had recognised that oratory was crucial and so, when Davis’ turn to deliver a speech at the Conservative Party Conference came on October the 3rd, the Leader of the Opposition delivered what was regarded by many as the best speech of his career, in which Davis called into question Labour’s honesty and decency (reviving the spectre of Cash for Honours and the Iraq War) and their record on civil liberties.

This would lead to the movement of opinion polls gradually shifting – the Conservatives began to reclaim ground, eventually tying themselves neck-and-neck with Labour mid-way through the campaign, while Brown suddenly found himself in a dangerous position. Neither Party would be able to make a breakthrough by the time polling day arrived, yet it was clear to most that the increased majority Brown had sought after would not arrive – instead, most predictions indicated either a slim majority for Labour or a Hung Parliament which would leave the Liberal Democrats (who, under the leadership of Menzies Campbell, had failed to build on their result in 2005 and instead found their share in the vote in opinion polls squeezed by the two main parties) holding the balance of power.

Eventually, on 10pm of November the 24th, Davis and Brown both found themselves holding their breaths – the exit poll, broadcast on the BBC, ITV and Sky, indicated Labour would have a majority of one in the new Parliament, yet, as the results flooded in over the course of the night, it became clear that the governing Party would not even achieve that – Brown’s firm position in the Commons had all but dissolved.

Spoiler: Enlarged Map

Overall, both parties gained support as their vote shares increased at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, who fell to their worst result since 1997 in terms of seats and the Party’s worst ever result in terms of share of the vote. The primary beneficiary of the collapse of the Liberal Democrats was the Conservatives, who recovered a significant portion of the seats in South West England which had been lost to the Liberal Democrats over previous election cycles, while Davis’ Party also gained seats from Labour and the SNP (which put the Conservatives on three seats in Scotland after having been stuck with a single MP from there after 2001 and 2005), leaving the Conservatives on 259 seats once all the results had been declared along with a plurality of the vote, with 37.5% of votes cast in the Conservatives’ favour in comparison to Labour’s 36.2%. This put the Conservatives in their strongest position since being relegated to Opposition in 1997 and greatly strengthened Davis’ leadership, with many no longer talking of if but when Davis took the Conservatives back into Government. Meanwhile, although Labour saw some gains over the course of the night (unseating Respect MP George Galloway and gaining a few former Liberal Democrat seats), Brown’s position was far weaker than prior to the election, as Labour had fallen to 322 seats, which in theory meant that a Hung Parliament had occurred, yet in practise Brown continued to hold a slim working majority due to the abstention of Sinn Fein MPs as well as the Speaker and his Deputies. As for the minor parties, in Northern Ireland no seats changed hands, although the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) solidified its vote share and position as the largest party from the province, while in Great Britain, the Green Party entered the Commons for the first time (with Party leader Caroline Lucas winning the seat of Brighton Pavilion), the UK Independence Party (UKIP), led by Nigel Farage, cemented its position as Britain's fourth-largest party (in terms of the vote, winning 2.8% nationally), albeit without winning any seats, and, to the shock of many, the British National Party (BNP) gained Parliamentary representation, with Party leader Nick Griffin securing the seat of Barking after a close result which involved several recounts that led to Barking being the last seat to declare.

The new Parliament would certainly be an interesting one, as the Liberal Democrats entered a leadership election following Campbell’s resignation, the Conservatives welcomed in sixty-one new MPs to their ranks and speculation of a leadership challenge to Brown began to mount in the media.

 

[Mustard]

Bump.

Any thoughts?

 

[Politibrit]

Not sure that Griffin would win Barking. Other than that, a good start which basically mirrors how i think a David leadership would go.

 

[Mustard]

Following the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen’s Speech, Brown’s Government precariously began to set out its legislative agenda, ever aware of its frail position. As previously mentioned, Labour held 322 seats following the 2007 General Election, two short of the 324 seats that were technically needed to hold a majority in the Commons. Yet, when one factored in the abstention of Sinn Fein’s 5 MPs, the Speaker and the three Deputy Speakers, then it was possible for a Government to command control of the Commons with more than 315 seats – Labour held this, and so initially Brown’s position, although shaken, was relatively safe. Indeed, a boost would come to the Prime Minister in early 2008 when John Bercow, Conservative MP for Buckingham, announced his defection to the Labour Party (which had been long-anticipated by many in the media), thereby lifting the number of Labour MPs to 323. Yet such an increase would be fleeting, as in May 2008 Labour lost the Crewe and Nantwich by-election to the Conservatives (who, since the general election, had held a lead of between five and fifteen points over Labour in all opinion polls), followed in June of the same year by the Glasgow East by-election, which saw Labour lose a further seat to the SNP.

Amidst the electoral setbacks faced by Labour was the onset of the Global Financial Crisis, which would be triggered in September 2008 by the filing for bankruptcy of the US investment bank Lehman Brothers, leading to international markets experiencing significant downturns (the British FTSE 100 saw its largest fall in a single day since 1987 in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers). Brown’s response to the crisis came in October 2008, when a stimulus package of approximately £500 billion was announced with the intention of stabilising the British economy and preventing further losses. The reaction to such a package internationally was one of praise – the US and Europe would both follow Britain’s lead in organising bailouts and stimulus packages of their own in a bid to stop their economic freefall – while domestically the FTSE 100 recovered somewhat in the aftermath of the announcement. However, the cost of such a package did lead to the UK’s budget deficit (already on the rise due to increases on spending over the course of Labour’s tenure in Government) drastically increasing, which drew significant criticism from Davis and the Conservatives, who argued that Brown was neglecting Britain’s long-term economic future by allowing the deficit to grow to such a large rate.

The Great Recession would also add to the electoral damage sustained by Labour – anger at the Government for its economic policies prior to the crash (such as Brown’s decision to sell off much of Britain’s gold reserves at a time when the value of gold was at a significant low, rather than maintaining the gold reserves, which could have been sold off during the Financial Crisis to stimulate the British economy) led to the Conservatives’ polling lead increasing to over twenty points in most polls, while a further blows to the Government would come from the European Parliament elections in May 2009 (which saw the Conservatives secure a firm victory following Davis’ commitment that, if victorious at the next general election, the Conservatives would offer an In-Out Referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union) and a by-election defeat in July of that year, in Norwich North, which the Conservatives won from Labour. Labour’s seat total was now down to 320.

It was at this point, after having lost the Party’s majority, seen significant losses for Labour at local and European Parliament elections and lost three by-elections, that many Labour MPs reached breaking point with Brown. Speculation abounded, many MPs openly voiced their dissatisfaction with Brown in Parliament and a few Junior Ministers called for Brown to go, only to be duly sacked from their portfolios. Initially, Brown resisted all calls to resign, insisting that he would carry on and fight the next general election – yet the Prime Minister eventually recognised that something needed to be done to assert his authority and establish a revived legitimacy for his premiership. In order to do this, Brown resolved to follow in the footsteps of the last Conservative Prime Minister John Major, resigning from the Labour leadership and challenging any of his opponents to ‘put up or shut up’. Then, Brown hoped (and many of his close advisors, such as Peter Mandelson, also agreed with such logic), a challenger from the left of the Party would emerge, stand against Brown and be decisively defeated. It appeared as a flawless plan.

Of course, what Brown had not anticipated was a challenge from the right of the Party.

When the Prime Minister announced that he intended to allow a leadership election to take place, daring any opponents to come forward, he had made the mistake of not going around his Cabinet securing the support of each individual Secretary of State. Therefore, the impression gained by many was that Brown was challenging the Cabinet as well as backbench MPs to stand – and, as it happened, one member of the Cabinet did. Foreign Secretary David Miliband had been the subject of speculation for a leadership challenge for several years (particularly in 2008, when an article written by him in The Guardian was interpreted by many as a veiled challenge at Brown’s authority) and, initially, Miliband had dismissed any talk of challenging Brown. Yet the combination of setbacks suffered by Labour, along with the Conservatives’ vast polling lead, eventually spurred the Foreign Secretary to act and, a week after Brown’s announcement, Miliband confirmed his intention to stand for the leadership of the Labour Party.

This threw the race wide open, as John McDonnell (the left-wing candidate whom Brown had expected to run) stood down and instead backed Brown over Miliband. This meant that the Prime Minister had unintentionally created a serious threat to his leadership and, as hustings took place, opinion polls of the Labour Party membership, Labour Party supporters and the British electorate as a whole darted between leads for Brown and Miliband. For Labour MPs, members and supporters who would be making the decision, there was intense debate over who to endorse – on one hand many felt a loyalty to Brown and an urge to stick with the Prime Minister. On the other, Brown’s performance at the 2007 General Election, combined with the Party’s subsequent by-election losses, led many to consider Miliband, who they believed could successfully rejuvenate the Party, as an effective alternative.

Eventually, the leadership race would come to a close on the first day of the Labour Party Conference on September the 27th at Brighton. The result would be close, with only a few votes separating the two contenders, yet ultimately what could have been a perfect opportunity for Brown to re-assert his leadership backfired.

​

David Miliband was now leader of the Labour Party, yet he did not rush to ask Brown to tender his resignation to Elizabeth II. Instead, Miliband resolved to embark on a risky strategy to restore Labour’s position – establishing an agreement with the Liberal Democrats, either a confidence and supply arrangement or a full-blown coalition government. At first, many were confused and bewildered at the new leader’s strategy, as Labour still held 320 seats, ahead of the 315 which was needed to hold an effective majority in the Commons and so, although the Party’s position was precarious, no agreement was necessary. Yet Miliband had a justification for wanting to pursue an agreement with the Liberal Democrats – outwardly, it was to establish a government with a firm majority which could make the decisions in the national interest without hesitation at a time of economic crisis, while, when conferring to aides and other Party officials, Miliband had far more Machiavellian reasons for wanting such an agreement. The new leader believed that, if the Liberal Democrats entered into any sort of agreement which would result in them influencing – and holding a degree of responsibility over – Government, then they would cease to be the natural party of protest, resulting in many voters returning to the two major parties. And, since it was widely believed by many that most Liberal Democrat voters were left-of-centre, Miliband hoped that this would primarily benefit Labour and allow the Party to once again overtake the Conservatives in opinion polls.

And so, with Miliband’s outside justification seeming reasonable to most commentators (and his real reasoning delighting many within the Labour Party), Brown remained Prime Minister while the new Labour leader assembled a negotiating team to commence talks with the Liberal Democrats, now led by Vince Cable (who, following Chris Huhne’s defeat in his Eastleigh constituency in 2007, had become the standard bearer of the Party’s Social Democratic faction and had narrowly defeated Nick Clegg (the leader of the Orange Book faction) for the Party leadership following Campbell’s resignation). Cable, and most Liberal Democrats, had initially been sceptical of Miliband’s offer of an agreement and privately suspected that the Labour leader’s reasonings were designed to harm them, yet, having been put on the spot, the Liberal Democrats ultimately had very little choice but to go ahead with talks – after all, with a Hung Parliament in place and the next general election appearing ever more likely of a large Conservative majority, this posed the best opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to see their policies implemented in Government, while Miliband’s emphasis of ‘national interest’ meant that rejecting any offer of an agreement outright would appear to the public as putting party before country. Therefore, a Liberal Democrat negotiating team was assembled to talk with its Labour counterpart and, for two weeks, the two sides remained behind closed doors discussing a programme of Government.

Eventually, one was arranged – it was agreed that the Liberal Democrats would receive seven Cabinet positions in a coalition government (with Miliband serving as Prime Minister and Cable rejecting the office of Deputy Prime Minister, which was regarded by many as ‘worthless’, in favour of the office of Business Secretary) which would implement several areas of the Liberal Democrat Manifesto, including several constitutional reforms (such as introducing fixed-term Parliaments), while Labour agreed to hold a referendum on whether or not Britain should continue to use First Past the Post (FPTP) for general elections or instead switch to the Single Transferable Vote (STV) instead (such a referendum had been a red line for the Liberal Democrats, and any attempt by Miliband to compromise by offering the Alternative Vote (AV) without a referendum failed). With a deal between Labour and the Liberal Democrats confirmed, Brown duly travelled to Buckingham Palace on October the 19th 2009, offering his resignation, shortly after which Miliband would accept an invitation from the Queen to form a Government. And so, the Miliband-Cable Coalition was inaugurated – yet how long would it last?

 

[Pseudo]

An interesting premise. I look forward to seeing Miliband's plan backfire spectacularly when the electoral reality of a Lib Dem collapse hits him.

 

[TerenceCrep]

Looks good. There aren't that many Lib-Lab coalition TLs that centre around 2007 rather than 2010, and while I think both ideas are similarly doomed, it's interesting to see. I personally think David Davis was as flawed as Cameron in terms of winning a majority, just in different ways (too libertarian for the hardline Tories he generally made common cause with, too conservative otherwise for liberal suburbanites). Still, will be interesting to see how his premiership (which I imagine is on the way in 2011 or so!) goes.

 

[Mustard]

Not sure that Griffin would win Barking.

My thinking was that a combination of 2007 being around the 'peak' of the BNP's fortunes and a focusing of most of the campaign on Barking (much like how the Greens focused most of their efforts on Brighton Pavilion in 2010 and 2007 ITTL) would push Griffin narrowly ahead of Labour. But don't worry, he shan't be in Parliament for much longer...

Other than that, a good start which basically mirrors how i think a David leadership would go.

An interesting premise.

Looks good.

Thank you!

 

[Tovarich]

My thinking was that a combination of 2007 being around the 'peak' of the BNP's fortunes and a focusing of most of the campaign on Barking (much like how the Greens focused most of their efforts on Brighton Pavilion in 2010 and 2007 ITTL) would push Griffin narrowly ahead of Labour. But don't worry, he shan't be in Parliament for much longer...

Still one hell of a leap for the BNP to go from about 17% of the vote and overtake a near absolute majority Labour vote (well over absolute majority in every election save '05, in fact.)

Factor in that the CLP, after letting 12 of the little racist bastards sneak onto the Borough in '06, were shocked out of their complacency & finally began to actually tackle the seat's endemic racism rather than indulging it (TTL 'encouraged' by 12 solid months* of me & the other footsloggers going "I fucking told you so!" every chance we got).

Also, there's the fact that Griffin himself was a godsawful candidate.
About as far removed from an actual 'man of the working class' as Nigel Farage, but with none of the charm or bonhomie; indeed, just the opposite, Griffin is actually repulsive as a character, regardless of his politics.
In the film of when he did stand for Barking in '10, Steve Buscemi has that role in the bag.


* (OTL it was four years, didn't want 'em forgetting)

 

[Mustard]

Upon the formation of the new Coalition Government, neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats wound find enjoyment in their new positions. For the Liberal Democrats, constitutional reforms found significant opposition both from Parliament and the electorate – while a Fixed-Term Parliament Act (which removed the ability to dissolve Parliament from the Royal Prerogative and set four years as the maximum lifespan of a Parliament, thereby moving the date of the next general election back from 2012 to 2011, as well as the month it would take place from November to May) was passed through the Commons and Lords and granted Royal Assent in December 2010, a House of Lords Reform Bill introduced in April 2010 (which would have turned the upper house into a semi-elected body) was rejected on its Second Reading in the Commons due to opposition from Conservative MPs (who opposed Lords reform on the grounds that it would threaten the supremacy of the Commons and dilute the Lords’ role as an independent body of experts) and left-wing Labour MPs (who opposed the specific Bill as it did not go far enough – either establishing a completely elected second chamber or abolishing the Lords outright). Meanwhile, the referendum on changing the voting system to STV was rejected by a firm margin by the electorate (albeit on a low turnout), with 54.3% of votes cast in favour of retaining FPTP, with the 'No' campaign receiving significant support from Conservative and Labour MPs and appealing to more voters based on its argument that STV would lead to instability amongst other points.

Meanwhile, Labour also struggled in the new Government as Britain’s economic situation struggled to improve in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis – while it was confirmed in January 2010 that the United Kingdom had officially left recession after a growth in Britain’s GDP of 0.1%, recession would return in the fourth quarter of 2010 as a result of severe weather hindering economic growth. Therefore, Miliband and his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ed Balls (an appointment made largely to appease the Brownites, who had remained disgruntled in the aftermath of what was seen by many as a Blairite coup), struggled to talk positively about Labour’s economic record in the face of such a dismal showing.

The problems faced by Labour and the Liberal Democrats would be reflected upon in opinion polls – shortly after Miliband’s ascension to the Premiership, both Labour and the Conservatives experienced a rise in support as (as the Prime Minister had correctly predicted) the Liberal Democrats saw their support plummet from an average of 17% prior to entering Government to a mere 10% by mid-2010. Such a collapse, combined with a natural honeymoon period which was typically enjoyed by new Prime Ministers, allowed Labour to overtake the Conservatives in opinion polls for the first time since the 2007 General Election, yet as the initial shine wore off Miliband this lead declined until, by 2010’s Conference Season (September to October), the Conservatives once again held a firm lead of between three and six points. Such a lead would only expand from there onwards – when it was announced in January 2011 that Britain was once again in recession, a fifteen-point gap emerged between the Conservatives and Labour (such a gap would decrease slightly after Britain’s successful role in the NATO intervention in Libya in March 2011, which overthrew Muammar Gaddafi). Added into the mixture was the rise of a new entity in British politics – UKIP. Many protest voters who had previously supported the Liberal Democrats largely out of disdain for the two major parties were unwilling, with the Liberal Democrats having ‘sold out’ (in their opinion), to endorse either the Conservatives or Labour. Therefore, many switched to UKIP, which enjoyed a gradual rise in opinion polls over 2010, which would only expand after the initial influx of protest voters, as the emergence of the Party as a credible force meant that many socially conservative working-class voters who had previously supported Labour, yet grown increasingly disenchanted with what was seen as the Party’s out-of-touch Europhilia and social liberalism, switched to UKIP. This sudden rise in support was treated with surprise and bewilderment by not only political commentators but also many within UKIP – the Party had, since the removal of its first leader, Alan Sked, been a Thatcherite to Libertarian grouping, yet had failed to win over many of the voters to whom such a platform would appeal, due to the Conservatives’ firm positioning on the right of the political spectrum under the leadership of Davis. So the fact that UKIP had begun to rise without winning over such a base was treated with interest by pollsters and the public alike.

And so, the stage for the 2011 General Election was set – an ailing Labour-Liberal Democrat Coalition, beset by a confident and ready for Government Conservative Party and an insurgent UKIP, would soon face the electorate in the polls.

***​

During the campaigning for the General Election (which experienced a brief pause on April the 29th for the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton), each party would outline its own vision for the future of the United Kingdom. In their election manifesto, the Conservatives emphasised an alternative solution to solving Britain’s economic woes through a return to Thatcherism, a commitment to a referendum on membership of the EU, the restoration of capital punishment for the most serious crimes and a plethora of Libertarian policies spearheaded by Davis, including a pledge to establish a British Bill of Rights (to replace the Human Rights Act) to enshrine freedom of speech and civil liberties, as well as a commitment to repeal sections of previous legislation which was deemed to have ‘corroded’ civil liberties further. Meanwhile, Labour found itself in a difficult position over the course of the campaign – had Britain not returned to recession in late-2010 then the Party would have had a far easier job of discussing its economic record (and indeed most economists have recognised that the contraction of the British economy was due to events outside the Government’s control), yet the fact that it had meant that no emphasis of a strong economy (as Labour had done in 2001, 2005 and 2007) came from Labour spokespeople. Instead, Miliband and other Labour officials adopted the line that, in a time of economic crisis, Britons should not ‘change horse midstream’ and that Labour, having been in Government throughout the crisis, had more information on how to tackle it. As for the Liberal Democrats, Cable and his team sought to justify their involvement in the Coalition Government and argued that the Liberal Democrats would ‘moderate’ either main Party if in a ‘Kingmaker’ scenario – yet the fact that opinion polls consistently suggested a Conservative Majority was in sight made this line largely void.

Eventually, the long-awaited date of May the 5th arrived and the people of the United Kingdom cast their ballots. At five to 10pm, many Britons would turn on their televisions, to be greeted by the familiar tune of Richard Wakeman’s ‘Arthur’, which signalled the start of the BBC’s election night coverage. At ten o’clock, David Dimbleby would unveil the exit poll and, shortly afterwards, each newspaper had enough information to write their headlines for the following day – ‘CONSERVATIVE VICTORY’, ‘WELCOME TO DOWNING STREET, PRIME MINISTER’, ‘MILIBAND AND LABOUR GIVEN THE BOOT’, ‘LIB DEMS SLAUGHTERED’ and ‘UKIP BREAKTHROUGH’ would all appear on May the 6th.

Spoiler: Enlarged Map

The result was Labour’s fourteen years in Government and the Conservatives’ stint in the political wilderness coming to an end – the Conservatives gained 95 seats overall to put the Party on 354 seats (excluding the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir George Young), far above the 326 needed to secure a majority in the Commons. Furthermore, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) gained the seat of South Antrim from the DUP (after losing Parliamentary representation after MP for North Down Sylvia Hermon left the Party mid-way through the previous Parliament), meaning that, as a result of an electoral alliance between the Conservatives and UUP established in 2009 (known as the ‘Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force’), Davis could rely on 355 MPs to sit on the Government benches in the new Parliament. Meanwhile, Labour experienced significant losses over the night, losing several multiple seats (including several key figures in the Party such as Chancellor Balls, whose loss in Morley and Outwood became the ‘Portillo Moment’ of 2011) to the Conservatives yet gaining a few from the Liberal Democrats, putting the Party on 256 seats (a net loss of 66) by the time all results were declared. As for the Liberal Democrats, the Party lost over three-quarters of its MPs, reducing its total in the Commons to a mere 8 seats – a far cry from the 62 the Liberal Democrats had won only six years prior. The bulk of said losses came in Southern England, where many right-leaning Liberal Democrats had felt a sense of betrayal for the Party having entered into a coalition with Labour, and consequently cast their ballots out of protest for the Conservatives, allowing Davis’ Party to sweep up the Liberal Democrats’ former strongholds in the South-West. In London, the Liberal Democrats would lose all their seats (including Cable’s own seat of Twickenham) aside from Simon Hughes’ constituency of Bermondsey and Old Southwark, while, in Wales, the Liberal Democrats lost all their seats, marking the first time in which no Liberal MP was elected from the country which had previously been the Party’s stronghold. Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats would enter the new Parliament with a mere eight MPs, all of whom came from constituencies in Northern England or Scotland were a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition had been considered acceptable, while Cable duly resigned as leader of the Party, to be succeeded by Nick Clegg (who had narrowly held his seat of Sheffield Hallam) in an unopposed leadership election, finally allowing the Orange Book wing to take control of the Party.

As for the minor parties, the support for UKIP in opinion polls would be translated into reality in 2011 as the Party increased its support across areas where Labour had previously been dominant, securing 6.4% of the vote overall. Yet this increase in support did not translate well into seats, for the Party only won a single seat - Newcastle-under-Lyme (where UKIP held a strong local government position), won by David Nixon who would become UKIP's first MP. On election night, Farage (who stood and came second in the seat of Thurrock, which the Conservatives gained from Labour) hailed UKIP's success and vowed to play a key role in the EU Referendum which, given the Conservatives’ election victory, appeared only years (at most) away, yet also declared that the result of the election proved the need for voting reform given UKIP only held 0.15% of seats in the Commons from 6.4% of the vote.

Meanwhile, the Greens also saw an increase in support as some former Liberal Democrat protest voters switched to support them (leading to the Greens securing 1.7% of the vote overall), although the Party failed to improve on its 2007 performance seat-wise, with Party Leader Caroline Lucas remaining the only Green MP in the Commons. However, while UKIP and the Greens both saw increases in support, the BNP saw the exact reverse – its support wholly collapse as a result of infighting within the Party as well as outside factors. In Barking, Nick Griffin had become deeply unpopular since his election in 2007 – poor attendance in his constituency (only appearing in his seat three times between 2007 and 2011) combined with outrage over his inflammatory remarks in the Commons to deliver a sharp swing against the BNP - Griffin not only lost his seat but also saw the BNP's vote share in Barking fall down to a mere 0.9%, with Labour re-taking the constituency.

In Northern Ireland, there was a drop in support for both of the two main local parties, the DUP and Sinn Fein – Sinn Fein would lose Fermanagh and South Tyrone to the Independent Unionist ‘Unity’ candidate Rodney Connor, while the DUP, as well as losing South Antrim to the UUP, also lost Party Leader Peter Robinson’s constituency of Belfast East to the Alliance Party. Meanwhile, in Scotland, the Conservatives’ revival continued, as two Liberal Democrat seats (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, and Argyll and Bute) moved into the Tory column, while the SNP (which won a majority in elections for the Scottish Parliament held on the same day as the General Election) picked up three Liberal Democrat seats in the Highlands, putting the Party on seven seats in total.

One stand-out story of the 2011 General Election was the shift in support amongst the working-class electorate. Aside from the UKIP breakthrough amongst 'Old Labour' voters, Davis and the Conservatives also experienced a surge in support amongst the blue collar electorate, for similar reasons for why Margaret Thatcher secured strong working-class support in her three election victories - many aspirational working-class voters saw the Thatcherite economic policies, of deregulation and reductions in taxation, as an opportunity to advance in society. This, combined with Davis' background (having grown up on a council estate in Tooting to achieve success, first as a member of the SAS, then as a senior executive in Tate & Lyle and finally in politics) resonating with many, led to the Conservatives being readily endorsed by the working-class, with voters in the C2 bracket voting 43% for Conservatives, 27% for Labour, 21% for UKIP, 6% for the Liberal Democrats and 3% for Minor Parties, while amongst DE voters the breakdown was 40% for Labour, 35% for Conservatives, 20% for UKIP, 4% for the Liberal Democrats and 1% for Minor Parties. This surge amongst the working-class would help Davis and the Conservatives win several key seats in Northern England, bringing the Party into Government.

***​

With the results clear, Miliband conceded defeat and travelled to Buckingham Palace, tendering his resignation to Elizabeth II and recommending that she invite Davis to form a Government. Davis readily accepted the Queen’s offer when he arrived at the Palace shortly after Miliband and was subsequently driven to Number Ten Downing Street where, for the first time in fourteen years, a Conservative Prime Minister would walk through the door.

 

[Mustard]

Any thoughts on Chapter Three?

 

[Politibrit]

Any thoughts on Chapter Three?

Couple of things. First, whilst its entirely possible, indeed likely in my view that the electorate would reject PR, I don't think voters holding out for AMS over STV would really be much of a factor. There isn't any real evidence I know of to say that the AV referendum was swung by voters who favoured electoral reform holding out for something more proportional, and AV was a far less satisfactory choice than STV would be for those who want change ITTL. To be honest, the vast majority of voters probably don't understand the distinctions between AMS and STV, let alone have any strong feelings about it one way or the other.

The bigger thing for me is probably UKIP somehow winning three seats on half their 2015 vote share. Even if they focus their resources well, their share of the vote is too low for them to overcome with a strong campaign, which they were never particularly good at IOTL anyway. Also bear in mind that Davis would probably win over a number of those who voted UKIP in those constituencies, seeing as he has a far stronger blue collar appeal than Cameron ever did.

Other than that, good stuff. Look forward to reading Chapter Three.

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

I eagerly await more, curios to see how DD does. I'm a bit fond of him, and I liked his stuff he did with the BBC on Tony Benn and some other stuff like that. Interested to see how he does.

Ah, and ofcourse I must inquire as if you've given any thought as to who is the current MP for Herefordshire? I do love hearing about home. Oh and if you've thought about who the current MP for North East Somerset (ie, is it JRM?).

Loving it, though I do agree with comments that I don't see anyone really preferring a PR system that isn't STV. Speaking personally I don't care much about FPTP versus PR, but I'd fight tooth and nail for STV over any other PR systems.

 

[Charles James Fox]

Interesting so far and look forward to more. As stated above, I think it's unlikely that UKIP would receive the same boost in support without a Cameron government, as the Tories are led by a Eurosceptic and are in Opposition it's difficult to see why they would bolt over.

 

[Mustard]

Couple of things. First, whilst its entirely possible, indeed likely in my view that the electorate would reject PR, I don't think voters holding out for AMS over STV would really be much of a factor. There isn't any real evidence I know of to say that the AV referendum was swung by voters who favoured electoral reform holding out for something more proportional, and AV was a far less satisfactory choice than STV would be for those who want change ITTL. To be honest, the vast majority of voters probably don't understand the distinctions between AMS and STV, let alone have any strong feelings about it one way or the other.

Loving it, though I do agree with comments that I don't see anyone really preferring a PR system that isn't STV. Speaking personally I don't care much about FPTP versus PR, but I'd fight tooth and nail for STV over any other PR systems.

Good points - I'll modify the Chapter so as to gave STV rejected as a result of the argument that it will 'cause instability, allow losers to be elected, give some voters more power than others, etc.'

The bigger thing for me is probably UKIP somehow winning three seats on half their 2015 vote share. Even if they focus their resources well, their share of the vote is too low for them to overcome with a strong campaign, which they were never particularly good at IOTL anyway.

My thinking behind UKIP winning three seats was precisely because of their lower polling numbers - IOTL, UKIP, after a far larger polling boost in the run up to 2015, targeted (if I recall correctly) twelve seats, which overextended them and result in the Party winning no seats aside from Clacton. ITTL, with a polling average prior to the GE of 5-7%, UKIP instead targets nearly all of its resources on the five constituencies mentioned in the last chapter (with the Party's activists barely going elsewhere). Such a concentrated campaign allows UKIP to push themselves over the line in three constituencies and, although you are right in saying that UKIP's vote share is low, it is important to remember that other minor parties IOTL have won seats on low vote shares (such as the Independent Labour Party in 1935, which won four seats with 0.7% of the vote).

As stated above, I think it's unlikely that UKIP would receive the same boost in support without a Cameron government, as the Tories are led by a Eurosceptic and are in Opposition it's difficult to see why they would bolt over.

Oh, the Euroceptic right has remained solidly Conservative - there was no Tory to UKIP swing ITTL. UKIP's support ITTL has come from protest voters (who, IOTL, were the first to defect to UKIP, after the Lib Dems ceased to be the 'party of protest') and left-wing social conservatives ('Redkip').

Also bear in mind that Davis would probably win over a number of those who voted UKIP in those constituencies, seeing as he has a far stronger blue collar appeal than Cameron ever did.

Davis has certainly done well with working-class voters ITTL, just as Margaret Thatcher did during her three general election victories for similar reasons, mainly Thatcherism's appeal to aspirational working-class voters who wish to advance in society. This is evident ITTL from the fact that the Conservatives under Davis have won predominately blue-collar seats in 2007 and 2011 which OTL's Conservatives under Cameron failed to secure/only won in 2015, such as Bolton West and Morley & Outwood.

UKIP's support ITTL, on the other hand, has come from 'Old Labour'-type working-class voters who, while socially conservative and Eurosceptic, are opposed to Thatcherism. So, overall, ITTL Labour's working-class vote is squeezed by Conservatives picking up aspirational working-class voters and UKIP picking up Old Labour working-class voters. This allows the Conservatives to do better in the industrial cities, and UKIP to pick up its three seats.

Therefore, at the 2011 General Election I'd estimate that the working-class vote broke down like this:

C2: Con: 43%, Lab: 27%, UKIP: 21%, LD: 6%, Others: 3%

DE: Lab: 40%, Con: 35%, UKIP: 20%, LD: 4%, Others: 1%

Ah, and ofcourse I must inquire as if you've given any thought as to who is the current MP for Herefordshire? I do love hearing about home. Oh and if you've thought about who the current MP for North East Somerset (ie, is it JRM?).

Herefordshire's two constituencies have the same MPs as IOTL - North Herefordshire is still represented by Bill Wiggin, while Hereford and South Herefordshire is represented by Jesse Norman, although he entered the Commons in 2007 (having been selected as the Conservative candidate in 2006 like IOTL and then proceeding to unseat the Liberal Democrat MP for Hereford at the 2007 GE ITTL) rather than 2010.

As for North East Somerset, its predecessor seat of Wansdyke was won in 2007 by Conservative candidate Chris Watt (who contested the seat in 2005 IOTL and was re-selected to fight the snap election ITTL), who subsequently won North East Somerset upon its creation for the 2011 GE. As for Jacob Rees-Mogg, he entered Parliament ITTL in 2011 as MP for Kingston and Surbiton (unseating Ed Davey).

Other than that, good stuff. Look forward to reading Chapter Three.

Interesting so far and look forward to more.

Cheers!

 

[Politibrit]

My thinking behind UKIP winning three seats was precisely because of their lower polling numbers - IOTL, UKIP, after a far larger polling boost in the run up to 2015, targeted (if I recall correctly) twelve seats, which overextended them and result in the Party winning no seats aside from Clacton. ITTL, with a polling average prior to the GE of 5-7%, UKIP instead targets nearly all of its resources on the five constituencies mentioned in the last chapter (with the Party's activists barely going elsewhere). Such a concentrated campaign allows UKIP to push themselves over the line in three constituencies and, although you are right in saying that UKIP's vote share is low, it is important to remember that other minor parties IOTL have won seats on low vote shares (such as the Independent Labour Party in 1935, which won four seats with 0.7% of the vote).

There is only really so much campaigning can do though- it certainly can't increase a party vote share by more than double. I'm fairly sure UKIP must have thrown a fair amount of resources into Buckingham in 2010- and without any of the major parties running, Farage still only came third. Pre-war examples of minor parties are misleading because electoral politics worked differently then. Even the major parties didn't run in every seat, and often endorsed other candidates in certain seats. That means that national vote share isn't an accurate indicator of how much support a party might have among the general population. The ILP only ran 17 candidates in 1935, so 0.7% is likely far lower than the actual support they would have had if everyone had had the chance to vote for them. More importantly, most of their MPs didn't face opposition from Labour, and many were incumbents who had held their seats before defecting to the ILP. Plus there is the strong union organisation which left wing parties like that had back then. UKIP has none of those things on its side here.

 

[Mustard]

There is only really so much campaigning can do though- it certainly can't increase a party vote share by more than double. I'm fairly sure UKIP must have thrown a fair amount of resources into Buckingham in 2010- and without any of the major parties running, Farage still only came third. Pre-war examples of minor parties are misleading because electoral politics worked differently then. Even the major parties didn't run in every seat, and often endorsed other candidates in certain seats. That means that national vote share isn't an accurate indicator of how much support a party might have among the general population. The ILP only ran 17 candidates in 1935, so 0.7% is likely far lower than the actual support they would have had if everyone had had the chance to vote for them. More importantly, most of their MPs didn't face opposition from Labour, and many were incumbents who had held their seats before defecting to the ILP. Plus there is the strong union organisation which left wing parties like that had back then. UKIP has none of those things on its side here.

Fair enough - you're points are convincing, and I'll change the chapter (when I have the time, so probably tomorrow) so that UKIP only succeeds in capturing one of their target seats (Newcastle-under-Lyme).

Also, I'll include details in the post to mention the increase in support for the Conservatives amongst blue collar/working-class voters under Davis' leadership (again, that will probably come tomorrow).

 

[Jammy]

Very interesting so far, i'm enjoying.

I like how David can't be seen as the Prince across the water here.

 

[Mustard]

Entering the doors of Downing Street triumphant, Prime Minister David Davis would subsequently face the task of assembling his Cabinet and the shape of each Government Ministry. As Leader of the Opposition, Davis had had a Shadow Cabinet, which made his task far easier – the Prime Minister, for the most part, simply transplanted members of the Conservative frontbench into the Government positions which they had shadowed. The first to receive a call to Downing Street by Davis was Liam Fox, who was offered (and accepted) the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, giving him, alongside the Prime Minister, the daunting task of rebuilding the British economy in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis. Former Conservative leader William Hague, who had returned from the political wilderness following the 2005 general election, was also invited to Downing Street, where he accepted an offer from Davis to become Foreign Secretary in the new Government. After Fox and Hague came Alan Duncan, who was granted the position of Home Secretary – like Davis, Duncan was considered a libertarian, and so the Prime Minister recognised that it was crucial for a pro-civil liberties Secretary of State to be in the Home Office. Further appointments made by Davis included another former Conservative leader, Michael Howard (who had recently been granted a peerage in the House of Lords as Baron Howard of Lympne), who accepted the position of Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, and Douglas Carswell (another libertarian within the Conservative ranks) as Local Government and Communities Secretary. Several moderate and one-nation conservatives were also offered positions in the Cabinet by Davis for the sake of Party unity – Ken Clarke declined to serve in the new Government and remained on the backbenches, while George Osborne became Work and Pensions Secretary.

And so, with his Cabinet formed, Davis would embark on the task of implementing the policies which the Conservatives had committed to under his leadership. First and foremost was the economy – prior to the unveiling of the first Budget of the new Government in June 2011, detailed discussions took place between Davis and Fox on how to revive economic growth and the two men agreed that a Thatcherite approach would be the best way forward. Therefore, Fox, upon unveiling his Budget, announced that public spending cuts would be made by the Government so as to reduce the budget deficit which had drastically swelled in size under the previous administration, while inflation would be brought under control through Monetarist principles which involved the Government maintaining a sharp control over money supply in the United Kingdom. Further decisions made by Davis and Fox would come in March 2013 in the second Budget of the new Government – Monetarist principles continued to be enforced as inflation was gradually brought under control, while a further principle of Thatcherism, the rolling back of state control, would also be enacted through privatisation. It was announced that the Government would sell its shares in the Royal Mail, Network Rail and London & Continental Railways, thereby putting the companies into the private sector, and, as with the privatisation schemes embarked upon by Thatcher during the mid-80s, Davis’ Government would encourage employees of the aforementioned companies to purchase the available shares.

***​

Outside of the economy, Davis also focused on the passage of legislation through the Commons and Lords. First would be a Bill which arranged a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, which was accepted almost unanimously in both Houses and granted Royal Assent, scheduling said referendum for October the 25th 2012. Next would be legislation relating to civil liberties – an amendment was introduced in the Commons by the Home Secretary which amended the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to repeal the extension of detaining suspects without charge to forty-two days, therefore returning the detention period to twenty-eight days, while the Identity Cards Act 2006 (which introduced a national identity card scheme, which was criticised by many – including Davis – for its erosion of civil liberties) was repealed outright. This, for Davis and many civil liberty campaigners, were seen as milestone moments on halting the gradual increases in Government power and the decrease in individual privacy, yet the Prime Minister recognised that, at any point in the future a new Government could easily reintroduce the legislation which he had overturned.

Therefore, Davis determined that the best way to enshrine the civil liberties of the British people was through the British Bill of Rights which the Conservatives had pledged to introduce as a replacement for the Human Rights Act 1998. The repealing of the Human Rights Act had been a central goal for many Conservatives prior to Davis’ leadership, largely due to the fact that the Act came entirely from the European Convention on Human Rights, which could only be amended through a unanimous agreement by the nations within the Council of Europe (including Britain), whereas a British Bill of Rights would come from the Government of the United Kingdom and could be amended by Parliament if necessary. Thus, when Parliament re-assembled on January the 10th 2012 after the Christmas recess, Lord Howard (as Justice Secretary) tabled before the Commons the British Bill of Rights, which largely contained the same provisions as the Human Rights Act which it would repeal (Britain was, after all, a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights), yet with several key differences – first and foremost, Section 2 of the Human Rights Act was not included in the British Bill of Rights, meaning that British courts were no longer obliged to take into account rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (thereby allowing rulings by judges in Britain to have the final say on rights). Furthermore, the enshrinement of civil liberties which Davis had discussed before also appeared in the new British Bill of Rights – for example, Article Five of the new Bill of Rights, which, like the Convention, outlined the Right to Liberty and Security, would now feature the length of time someone could be detained without a charge.

After the new Bill of Rights’ contents were announced, the legislation would then proceed to go through the Parliamentary process, passing through all necessary readings in the Commons and Lords before receiving Royal Assent on January the 31st 2013, coming into law and repealing the Human Rights Act. On the right of the political spectrum there was delight – for libertarians such as Davis, the new Bill of Rights took a further step in entrenching civil liberties (although a future Parliament could reverse Davis’ Governments decisions, it would be far more difficult given that many of the civil liberties were now Human Rights and would create a far greater public outcry if modifications were attempted), while those on the right of the Conservatives were delighted that Britain’s judicial independence had been returned.

 

[TimTurner]

Watched

 

[Jammy]

So is Cameron still on the back benches?

Or has he got a lower ministerial position?