The LibDems in 2005 famously tried to take out the big figures in the Conservative Party, a strategy that didn't work out too well for them (other than Tim Collins losing his seat). Their lofty goal was to take out Oliver Letwin, David Davis, Theresa May, and Michael Howard, allowing for Kennedy to appear as the true leader of the opposition. Let's wave a magic wand and assume that these four seats flip but the general election is otherwise the same.
First of all, how does the immediate post-election narrative change? On the Tory side, the goodwill Howard got for the party's minor recovery would be greatly overshadowed by criticism of his dog-whistling on immigration. Michael Ancram would serve as an acting leader, which is crucial for the careers of David Cameron and George Osborne. Cameron was boosted in his elevation to the frontbenches by his history working for Howard and Osborne was the third choice for Shadow Chancellor. If you eliminate Osborne and Cameron along with the "decapitated" Tories, the race suddenly becomes a more interesting affair. The race would be between Fox and Clarke, which Fox likely wins due to Clarke's toxicity with the party membership. I don't see Ancram running for the leadership himself (his health issues could put a damper on his tenure regardless). Boris had just resigned from the shadow cabinet a year ago, and he backed Clarke anyway (though having a Tory leader who wanted to impeach Blair would be very interesting).
With the LibDems, I imagine the initial calls for Kennedy to resign don't happen after his risky maneuver pays off. The real question is, can the goodwill over unseating the Tories allow him to move past the alcoholism scandal? With the Labour Party, it's possible Blair delays his retirement, though I don't see that happening. The biggest change is that Brown is convinced to call an election in 2007, which is something that's been explored in the past. With a weaker Tory leader and the LibDems still being met with scandal, he likely gets the majority he wanted.
In the long term, the people in the Tory leadership are going to be very different. What sort of figures could rise with the absence of Letwin, Davis, and May?
First of all, how does the immediate post-election narrative change? On the Tory side, the goodwill Howard got for the party's minor recovery would be greatly overshadowed by criticism of his dog-whistling on immigration. Michael Ancram would serve as an acting leader, which is crucial for the careers of David Cameron and George Osborne. Cameron was boosted in his elevation to the frontbenches by his history working for Howard and Osborne was the third choice for Shadow Chancellor. If you eliminate Osborne and Cameron along with the "decapitated" Tories, the race suddenly becomes a more interesting affair. The race would be between Fox and Clarke, which Fox likely wins due to Clarke's toxicity with the party membership. I don't see Ancram running for the leadership himself (his health issues could put a damper on his tenure regardless). Boris had just resigned from the shadow cabinet a year ago, and he backed Clarke anyway (though having a Tory leader who wanted to impeach Blair would be very interesting).
With the LibDems, I imagine the initial calls for Kennedy to resign don't happen after his risky maneuver pays off. The real question is, can the goodwill over unseating the Tories allow him to move past the alcoholism scandal? With the Labour Party, it's possible Blair delays his retirement, though I don't see that happening. The biggest change is that Brown is convinced to call an election in 2007, which is something that's been explored in the past. With a weaker Tory leader and the LibDems still being met with scandal, he likely gets the majority he wanted.
In the long term, the people in the Tory leadership are going to be very different. What sort of figures could rise with the absence of Letwin, Davis, and May?
Last edited: