Primus Inter Pares - March 2006 General Election

[Devout Centrist]

Lol these elections are a joke.

I'm not blaming the author, this is a great TL, but the voters...my god.

[NeverAgain]

Ugh. This is literally awful to choose from. I am making a very Reluctant Red Ken vote.

[mvd10]

Lol these elections are a joke.

I'm not blaming the author, this is a great TL, but the voters...my god.

Yeah. In real life Labour under Livingstone with these economic conditions would have been defeated in a landslide in 2005, even with Widdy as Tory leader.

[Intell]

Lol these elections are a joke.

I'm not blaming the author, this is a great TL, but the voters...my god.

Yeah. In real life Labour under Livingstone with these economic conditions would have been defeated in a landslide in 2005, even with Widdy as Tory leader.

Left-Wingers vote for the left-wing candidate shocking.

[Lumine]

Lol these elections are a joke.

I'm not blaming the author, this is a great TL, but the voters...my god.

Yeah. In real life Labour under Livingstone with these economic conditions would have been defeated in a landslide in 2005, even with Widdy as Tory leader.

Probably. In all fairness I have tried to make this TL as plausible as humanly possible, but short of outright sabotaging the Labour Party or giving the Conservatives an extra bonus every election I'm not sure on what to do.

[White Trash]

New Deal sounds like the perfect party.

[Lumine]

Open question, would people object if I introduced a penalty bonus?

Rather than just targeting Labour, the idea would be that if a party is reelected in a General Election it faces a penalty the next election to the benefit of the main opposition, and the penalty grows as more elections are won (to reflect how hard it is to win more than three to four GE's in a row).

[PPT Spiral]

Open question, would people object if I introduced a penalty bonus?

Rather than just targeting Labour, the idea would be that if a party is reelected in a General Election it faces a penalty the next election to the benefit of the main opposition, and the penalty grows as more elections are won (to reflect how hard it is to win more than three to four GE's in a row).

That's okay with me.

[Reluctant Republican]

Open question, would people object if I introduced a penalty bonus?

Rather than just targeting Labour, the idea would be that if a party is reelected in a General Election it faces a penalty the next election to the benefit of the main opposition, and the penalty grows as more elections are won (to reflect how hard it is to win more than three to four GE's in a row).

That might be a good idea. You also might look at what I've seen some people on AH do. They let players select the leaders of the various parties and then decide the next election based on the quality of each leader, popularity of the government, and how the campaign goes(all based off of dice rolls.)

As a side note I'm really enjoying this timeline, even if I don't comment( that's more in general than just specific to this thread, I suppose.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Going with LibDems this time, for a change.

[Intell]

Open question, would people object if I introduced a penalty bonus?

Rather than just targeting Labour, the idea would be that if a party is reelected in a General Election it faces a penalty the next election to the benefit of the main opposition, and the penalty grows as more elections are won (to reflect how hard it is to win more than three to four GE's in a row).

I would, but that's me, and I want domination. Also I believe you could start with a % loss if a party wins more than 4 elections in a row. So the next election if labour wins this one.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

How about next election have Ken say something really anti Semitic?

[Lumine]

How about next election have Ken say something really anti Semitic?

That could be possible (particularly if he rolls badly on "personal scandals", and both times he's recieved a high score). I do have a few ideas for the next election, although a lot will depend on the results.

As an aside, my current calculations with the penalty for Labour produce a bit of an hilarious parliament.

[Lumine]

Open question, would people object if I introduced a penalty bonus?

Rather than just targeting Labour, the idea would be that if a party is reelected in a General Election it faces a penalty the next election to the benefit of the main opposition, and the penalty grows as more elections are won (to reflect how hard it is to win more than three to four GE's in a row).

That might be a good idea. You also might look at what I've seen some people on AH do. They let players select the leaders of the various parties and then decide the next election based on the quality of each leader, popularity of the government, and how the campaign goes(all based off of dice rolls.)

As a side note I'm really enjoying this timeline, even if I don't comment( that's more in general than just specific to this thread, I suppose.)

Thank you! I really wanted this TL to work, and it has done so reasonably well (to the point in which I'm considering a version starting in the 70's, or earlier). That would be an interesting idea, although there is a lot of fun in giving players the choice to vote in the GE's (even if the results can be really weird at times).

For the time being at least I'll just work with penalties if things get even weirder.

[Intell]

Open question, would people object if I introduced a penalty bonus?

Rather than just targeting Labour, the idea would be that if a party is reelected in a General Election it faces a penalty the next election to the benefit of the main opposition, and the penalty grows as more elections are won (to reflect how hard it is to win more than three to four GE's in a row).

That might be a good idea. You also might look at what I've seen some people on AH do. They let players select the leaders of the various parties and then decide the next election based on the quality of each leader, popularity of the government, and how the campaign goes(all based off of dice rolls.)

As a side note I'm really enjoying this timeline, even if I don't comment( that's more in general than just specific to this thread, I suppose.)

Thank you! I really wanted this TL to work, and it has done so reasonably well (to the point in which I'm considering a version starting in the 70's, or earlier). That would be an interesting idea, although there is a lot of fun in giving players the choice to vote in the GE's (even if the results can be really weird at times).

For the time being at least I'll just work with penalties if things get even weirder.

Yes start with 1945!

[Lumine]

Yes start with 1945!

I'm considering the 1945 General Election, the 1963 Tory and Labour Leadership and then the 1964 Election, or the 1975 and 1976 Conservative and Labour Leadership Elections. The only problem I'll face with those is that Electoral Calculus starts with 1983, so calculating seats would be an issue.

As to Primus Inter Pares, it should go on until the present day.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd say go for 1945.

[NeverAgain]

I'd say go for 1945.

[Lumine]

March 2006 General Election:

March 2006 - Kilroy-Silk, man of the hour

Labour Party: 30% (292 MP's)
Conservative Party: 28% (246 MP's)
Liberal Democrats: 14% (43 MP's)
New Labour: 11.5% (36 MP's)
New Deal: 11.5% (6 MP's)
Others: 5% (27 MP's)

The campaign began amidst a sense of uncertainty, with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems under new leadership and the polls constantly predicting a hung parliament, a complicated outcome to have due to the hostility amongst New Labour and many Lib Dems towards both Iain Duncan Smith and Ken Livingstone. Despite the desire for change in a large part of the electorate, the Conservative campaign soon became infamous not only for its poor propaganda (due to IDS's placing key but less competent allies in CCHQ), but for the total lack of charisma by their own leader, which hampered the entire operation to defeat Livingstone. But while some expected the Lib Dems to capitalize on the weakness of the Conservatives it soon became clear Simon Hughes was not the man for the task. Despite a strong start, Hughes's efforts became unraveled as newspapers leaked the fact that he had had homosexual experiences in the past, bringing questions to his opposition to gay marriage.

As the campaign went for the first few days and Hughes and IDS faced hostile scrutiny some predictions turned towards Labour making a few gains off the Conservatives and securing a small but workable majority. Then Robert Kilroy-Silk made his mark. It was the first time a leader's debate was to be held in the UK, and after much speculation Livingstone, IDS, Hughes, Blair and Kilroy-Silk managed to agree to have a five-way debate. It was to become known for Blair's well managed and well-recieved appearance (giving extra life to New Labour), for Livingstone's famous cornering of Hughes's on gay marriage, and more importantly, for the live and complete evisceration of Iain Duncan Smith by Kilroy-Silk, who went after him with all guns blazing and left the Conservative leader unable to respond to fierce criticism about his character and his policies.

The effect on the polls was explosive. Kilroy-Silk was the man of the hour as New Deal began to  rise, easily hitting 20% in the national polls despite the fact that his party had no candidates in most of the country. The collapse of the Conservative campaign led many to fear a wipeout, and with IDS ineffective as ever it took a collective effort from popular figures like Patten and Clarke to take over the campaign and renew their attacks into Livingstone and Kilroy-Silk. In the end, with economic conditions failing to improve as unemployment rose all the way to election night, the nation woke up to an even more Hung Parliament. Labour and the Conservatives alike had lost 4%, meaning that Labour, once again the victor, stood at 292 MP's with just over 30% of the vote, almost thirty seats away from a majority. The Conservatives won some twenty extra MP's on ridiculously margins, spared only by the divisions across the board. Hughes and Kilroy Silk faced disappointment at their own respective performances, Hughes dragging his party back to 2000 levels as Kilroy-Silk only returned 6 MP's despite winning more than 10% of the vote overall. The one winner of the election was, ironically, Tony Blair, by claiming the ideological center and massively expanding to almost 36 MP's, close to the Lib Dems.

With only a Labour government being remotely feasible, Livingstone sent for Hughes and began to discuss the possibility of a coalition government, making significant progress before finding trouble again on electoral reform. Even if Livingstone and many of his allies believed in voting reform, a large part, if not the majority of the party opposed it, making it impossible to sail through parliament. Hughes, on the other hand, had to contend with the right of his party informing him that he would face a leadership challenge, making a coalition unsustainable. A couple of days before a vote of no confidence ousted Iain Duncan Smith as Conservative Leader and Nick Clegg challenged Hughes for the Lib Dem leadership, Labour and the Lib Dems signed onto a basic Supply and Confidence arrangement, allowing Livingstone to pass a Queen's Speech and a Budget before facing the country again by the end of the year.

Many wondered whether the political crisis was ever to end.

[Lumine]

For the record, results were calculated by taking almost half of the New Deal voteshare (but leaving the seats they would have won had they polled 20% across the country), and by giving Labour a penalty of 4% against the Conservatives (1% per election victory).

[Intell]

For the record, results were calculated by taking almost half of the New Deal voteshare (but leaving the seats they would have won had they polled 20% across the country), and by giving Labour a penalty of 4% against the Conservatives (1% per election victory).

A penalty gets a penalty for re-election, damn that's tough.