Subject: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:50:47 +0100 From: "Ed Thomas" Organization: Customer of PlusNet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. Oh, and bonus points if the Liberals get in. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: 8 Jun 2001 19:51:19 -0700 From: mwhittingt@sprynet.com (Mark Whittington) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 (1) Someone with more charisma and imagination leads the Tories besides Haugue. (2) Blair pushes too hard to integrate the UK into the EU. (3) A strike rocks the National Heath Service (Which may happen in OTL soon anyway.) "Ed Thomas" wrote in message news:... > OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, > have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't > know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. Oh, and bonus points > if the Liberals get in. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:44:46 +0100 From: "Richard Mallender" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 >"Ed Thomas" wrote in message news:... >> OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, >> have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't >> know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. Oh, and bonus points >> if the Liberals get in. Hmmm, getting the LibDems (I assume you mean them & not the handful of remaining Liberals) to win is very difficult. Getting the Tories to win means them doing something sensible, and Labour screwing something up. I can't think of anything bad enough to swing hugely swing things back to the Tories, so let's give them a little outside help :-) -- Okay, Labour wins in 1997. 1. Tories Do Something Sensible They elect Kenneth Clarke as leader after realising that having a eurosceptic monomaniac in charge will cast them into the political wilderness. Clarke is canny enough to know that he still needs the smarter eurosceptics though, and runs on the promise of John Redwood as shadow chancellor. Hague ends up in the Shadow Cabinet as agricultural spokesman or somesuch. 2. Labour Screw Something Up They back-pedal over devolution for Scotland & Wales - not openly, but in the same way as they have done on electoral reform, ie: continually putting it off, citing 'events' and the need for parliamentary time to be devoted to 'real issues affecting the whole nation'. The referenda in Scotland & Wales are delayed by two years instead of being carried out almost immediately. By this time the SNP are screaming blue murder about betrayal; ditto Plaid Cymru. The referendum in Scotland shows an overwhelming majority (greater than in OTL) in favour of an elected parliament. The one in Wales goes 55/45 in favour (almost 50/50 in OTL). The government agrees to put 'actions in hand for setting up devolved assemblies'. The delayed referendums are held at the same time as the June 1999 euro-elections - the first UK-wide elections under PR. And Labour has seen the result, and it doesn't like it. In OTL in Wales 31% vote Labour, 29% vote Plaid Cymru and in Scotland 28% vote Labour and 27% vote SNP. In this TL the Labour & nationalist votes are reversed - and in Scotland the SNP get over 30%. Blair plays it clever, dumping any idea of early elections & sets June 2000 as the date for the Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly elections. 'New Millenium, New Beginnings', etc. - lots of positive spin. More Millennium funding is thrown at Scotland & Wales as polls show the SNP neck & neck with Labour, and Plaid Cymru biting at their heels or level with them. In Wales, it works - the results are roughly as per-OTL. In Scotland it backfires: the SNP complaining that Labour is trying to 'Gift wrap that which is ours by right'. The Conservatives do better than expected, recovering under Clarke with the more wildly eurosceptic defecting to the fringe UKIP and thence to obscurity through lack of publicity. TheTories win a handful of constituency seats but a lower percentage of the vote so fewer top-up seats. The SNP win more, almost entirely at the expense of Labour and the LibDems, and a higher percentage of the vote so more top-up seats. The SNP are the largest party and scrape together an SNP/SSP/Green coalition with one MSP more than the Labour/LibDem alternative (no one wants to deal with the Tories). In practice they do more or less the same as the Labour/LibDem coalition of OTL, but the publicity it gets the SNP & the obvious contrast to what Labour is doing in England (tuition fees, etc.) seriously embarrases the Blair govt. In England, the Conservatives are getting it back together. It is the mirror image of OTL, with the one-nation faction running the show & going toe-to-toe with New Labour over public services and the euro-sceptics either out of the party or grinding their teeth but staying (generally) silent. Portillo has done his time in the wilderness and is back in parliament as the strange social-liberal of OTL. He replaces Redwood as shadow chancellor - keeping the Tory right sweet but getting rid of 'the Vulcan'. The public like Clarke but are still wary of the Conservatives. New Labour are getting nervous: the LibDems are moving to their left and picking up support, the Tories are proving an effective opposition (petrol tax, the dome, etc.), the SNP are making trouble for them via the Scottish Parliament. Labour's lead in the polls, already down on the 1997 election continues to fall. February 2001: Foot & Mouth disease. The outbreak spreads as in OTL, but the Tories are far more effective as using it as a stick to beat Labour - and shadow agriculture minister Hague looks & sounds good in the countryside with berbour jacket and wellies (unlike OTL where he looks a total muppet in urban environments). The SNP led coalition place border checks along country roads, disinfecting any vehicle passing through. The main roads (M6, A1) have no such checks, but the point is more political than anything else. By April, Blair is forced to postpone May's local council elections to 7th June. The polls are showing Labour only slightly ahead of the Tories - in England. In Scotland the SNP are 10 points ahead & stretching the lead. Labour is torn: the treasury is warning of possible economic downturn if they wait another year, but if they go to the country now a win cannot be guarenteed. Blair decides to go to the country sooner, although Foot & Mouth forces postponement to June 7th. There is massive tactical voting in Scotland for the SNP who are now way ahead of Labour. There is little tactical voting in England for the LibDems, most of the votes going to the recovered Tories who effectively promise middle-England that they will be New Labour without the spin. Labour & Tories enter the campaign neck & neck, both in the mid-high 30% range. By the end the Tories are a few points ahead. Result: Party OTL ATL Lab 413 250 Con 166 310 LibDem 52 27 SNP 5 46 PC 4 6 others 19 20 Result, minority Conservative government - unless the Labour hold their nose for an SNP coalition? Richard. . Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:36:38 +0100 From: Alison Brooks Organization: Dis Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article , Ed Thomas writes >OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, >have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't >know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. Oh, and bonus points >if the Liberals get in. > For those bonus points. Do you mean Liberals, or do you mean Liberal Democrats? There is a difference. -- Alison Brooks http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: 9 Jun 2001 07:24:39 +0100 From: alaric@alaric.org.uk (Iain Bowen) Organization: TRES Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article , Alison Brooks wrote: >In article , Ed Thomas >writes >>OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, >>have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't >>know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. Oh, and bonus points >>if the Liberals get in. > >For those bonus points. Do you mean Liberals, or do you mean Liberal >Democrats? There is a difference. I can probably manage the Liberal Democrats, but the Liberals are difficult after all - they only stand in a few seats and only get one second place (Liverpool, West Derby). Hmm, a LibDem government. Don't think I can manage that, but I think I could manage Leader of the Opposition. Well, the PoD has to be the Tory leadership race and the Vulcan has to win and purges the party of all those unsound on Europe resulting in an exodus of about 20 MP's who having seen the fate of the Alliance decided that they have to join the LibDems. The added credibility of the old Tories means that a couple of Labour by-elections go LibDem and their pollshare goes up into the mid 20's. When it comes to election time, the LibDems look very credible with Ken Clarke as their Treasury spokesman and people get tired of Redwood's "not part of Europe, but nuking Europe until it glows" solitary drum beat. When it comes to "Der Tag", turnout is up a little on this time as there are a lot more clear contest (turnout was ~5% higher in contest where the LibDems looked credible) and we end up with Lab 40% LDm 31% Con 24%. There is no UKIP as their role is fulfilled by the Tories. Voila. LibDem Opposition. Off topic: If the Tories make the wrong choice of leader, then I suspect the LibDems will be the opposition in 2009. Iain -- \/ Member of the UK Usenet Committee, also Control for uk.* Full information on uk.* newsgroups at http://www.usenet.org.uk Iain Bowen. in deepest B13. Also available at alaric(at)alaric.org.uk West Midlands Election Site at http://www.harlech.demon.co.uk/election.html Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:22:22 +1200 From: Gareth Wilson Organization: University of Canterbury Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Ed Thomas wrote: > OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, > have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't > know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. Have foot-and-mouth virus mutate to cause disease in humans. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gareth Wilson Christchurch New Zealand ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:58:41 +0100 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:22:22 +1200, Gareth Wilson wrote: >Ed Thomas wrote: > >> OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, >> have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't >> know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. > >Have foot-and-mouth virus mutate to cause disease in humans. And to selectively attack Labour voters. Yes, I think this is the only way. Pete Barrett Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Labour defeat Date: 10 Jun 2001 22:58:59 GMT From: john0714@aol.com (John0714) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: AH Challenge: Labour defeat >From: "Ed Thomas" ed@thequarryhouse.com >Date: 6/8/01 3:50 AM Central Daylight Time >Message-id: > >OK, a difficult challenge here: With a POD of no earlier then May 2nd 1997, >have there be a change of govenment in the British 2001 elections. I don't >know if this is possible, but it should be interesting. Oh, and bonus points >if the Liberals get in. > > Tony Blair is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl:) I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend until YOUR DEATH your right to say it! --Austin 3:17 JOHN A. MONTGOMERY