After two landslide victories over the Tories in 1997 and 2001, Tony Blair’s Labour looks to be in a more precarious position going into the 2005 General Election. Britain’s controversial intervention in Iraq with the USA has seen the Prime Minister’s popularity plummet, and the government’s polling lead narrow significantly as the troubled Tory opposition restores some semblance of unity under former Home Secretary Michael Howard, and the Lib Dems take advantage of their anti war stance to increase their support.

Can Labour overcome their difficulties to win a record breaking third term in the style of their past two triumphs? Or will the Tories be able to bridge the gap and form their first government in eight years? And can charismatic Scot Charles Kennedy lead his Lib Dems to he breakthrough to major party status that they have been aspiring to for so long?


United Kingdom – 2005

10 thoughts on “UK-2005”

  1. An integrity rating of 5 for Ian Paisley is very inaccurate. He and Adams would get integrity of 2 at best.

  2. Very good, had a lot of fun winning as Blair and forcing the Tories into a worse result than 1997. Only a few comments I managed to hold a few seats such as Wimbledon and Wellingbourgh which Labour lost in 2005 but they counted as gains for some reason. I managed to hold off respect but I had too but alot of effort in with lots of footsoliders and campagins HQ so maybe nerf them a little as Galloway only won by one percent in real life.

  3. I think William Hague’s charisma should be a 4 if not a 5, rather than a 3. He is and was one of the best public speakers in the House in modern times.

  4. That would really come under the category of debating skills rather than charisma for me. Besides, how a politician performs in parliament often bears very little relation to how they are perceived by the public. Michael Foot is widely regarded as one of the best parliamentarians and platform speakers of the 20th century, but also as an extremely uncharismatic party leader. So I generally try to stick to how id rate them as election campaigners when creating leaders.

  5. Trouble is that it takes weeks of work to do a scenario. Right now I don’t really have the appetite for that, but I might come back to it in the future at some point if that does change.

  6. Would you consider coming back to make a scenario, say 1970 or the two 74 scenarios? Excellent work, shame you did not return.

  7. Yes! I very much agree with the comment about a 1970 or February/October 1974 scenario. The result in those elections was so close and unexpected, it would be really fun to try and change history!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *