As it says on the tin, what would the effects have been if there had not been a Con-Lib coalition government after the 2010 uk election? Let's say the Tories draw a tad more from Labour and set up either a majority government or a government along with either the DUP or UUP. How would this effect things differently, for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, the latter of whom are avoided the tuition fees failure and other embarrassing marks on their party? Without a junior scapegoat, can the Tories survive in the government? Would Cameron attempt to hold off as long as possible for an election ala Major? What position would the Lib Dems be in for the next election?
WI: No 2010 coalition government
- Thread starter Prussian1871
- Start date
Towelie
Banned
The Conservatives by and large if you look at the 2010 and 2015 results lost a substantial amount of votes to UKIP (far more than Labour did, without a doubt) and won a substantial amount from the Lib Dems, and came out about 1% better.
Without the Lib Dems to take from, the Tories are simply going to be losing voters. I believe that they would have a minority government because the SNP wipeout should still happen, but a Lab-Lib coalition I think would be a lot more likely than it was in 2010.
Without the Lib Dems to take from, the Tories are simply going to be losing voters. I believe that they would have a minority government because the SNP wipeout should still happen, but a Lab-Lib coalition I think would be a lot more likely than it was in 2010.
Uhura's Mazda
Banned
See, the issue here is whether UKIP still become a thing ITTL. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a significant proportion of the UKIP boom was down to a feeling in a certain section of society that the Tories were being too socially liberal, and without the Lib Dems as a moderating influence, you get less Cameroonism and more of the Tory Right in terms of the flavour of policy. This means more Euroscepticism within the Conservative Party and less outside, which means that UKIP don't have the latent base which they gathered up in OTL 2013. This means that all the Tories need to do on 2015 is see of the challenges in the marginals.
I don't see any major threat to the Lib Dems in a situation where they aren't in government, though.
Towelie
Banned
To be honest, I've never really understood what the Lib Dems's shtick was. They are less liberal than the Conservatives economically, and not that more liberal than Labour socially (this is debatable, and the growing Muslim influence in local Labour Party activism might tamper this, but I think it might be fair to argue at this point). Perhaps I really don't understand them, but I've just always seen them as an anomaly that only became briefly relevant because Blair became intolerable for a segment of the population and the Tories were still the enemy within to them.
UKIP was a protest vote that formed against Cameroonism to an extent, I will agree with you there, but one that always seemed sort of half hearted. There was a wide swathe of voters who voted UKIP for MEP and Tory for everything else, and only the truly angry went with UKIP across the board. The idea of a Labour-UKIP switch amongst old Labour voters got a lot of media attention but sort of fizzled out. If I had to guess, the Tories will get a lot of these UKIP voters back at the next election but will have lost some to the Lib Dems, or at least for one cycle they might have.
I wonder however if Cameron would have stayed a bit more to the right if he was alone in government. I think that based off of the internal party tensions revealed between Cameron's inner circle and the Association heads in the run up to Brexit, as well as a few years back with the snipes about loony activists, that there is a genuine aversion on Cameron's part to the Tory Right. The guy is basically a cosmopolitan rich Europhile who used to write for the Guardian at one point and who actively dislikes the Tory label. Now, does that mean he would do a lot of stuff on Clegg's demand sheet if not prompted to? I doubt it. But I don't think he would take the kinds of stances that many who left for UKIP wanted him to take on migration and Europe.
Uhura's Mazda
Banned
Don't know where to start with this paragraph, so I won't.
Oh, there was absolutely a swing from Labour to UKIP in the Northern urban heartlands, but my contention is that without the media attention as the Tory Right began to consider UKIP worthy of votes for EUParl or Westminster (and for most of the UKIP voters in 2015, voting for UKIP in the 2014 Euros was a gateway drug, so to speak), this surge of low-information Labour voters would not have happened. I mean, I can remember knee-jerk protest voters in the Midlands in 2015 saying they were going to vote BNP: they'd managed not to watch the news for the previous two years and were unaware that UKIP was now flavour of the month. Without Tories alienated by the Coalition to kick-start that, the Labour-UKIP voters go elsewhere or stay Labour.
Oh, there was certainly a tactic during the Coalition of the Cameroons proposing a liberal policy and justifying it to the backbenchers and membership by saying that it was a Lib Dem idea which they had to go along with. If there wasn't a Coalition, those policies would have to come openly - and that means that some would be made more palatable to the Right before they were even proposed, while others would fail or be amended by the Right. IOTL, the major threat to the Government was perceived to be the challenge of keeping the Lib Dems on board - ITTL, the threat comes from the Bastards. And that gives them a lot of influence.
I think the Tories would struggle in 2015. In OTL, they could offload much of the blame for austerity and other problems onto the Lib Dems, whose vote they could subsequently steal at the next election to get themselves into majority. Not only would that not be the case, but the absence of a moderating influence would mean they press ahead with some of there more unpopular proposals of OTL, for instances dropping the top rate of tax to 40p, and pressing harder with austerity.
I can't see UKIP's rise not taking place, but the continued existence of the Lib Dems as the anti establishment party (who now have a popular high profile leader after the debates) would limit them somewhat, and they probably wouldn't end up with any MPs. Maybe Cameron would be pressed into promising a referendum by the right of the party in response, but given his precarious majority, I can't see it being till after the next election.
The consequences of a stronger Lib Dem presence could also mean no SNP majority in 2011, and thus, no IndyRef, and no SNP dominance of Scottish seats at Westminster. Like UKIP, there rise would still happen, but be more limited. The charges of Labour being in pocket of the SNP will be less potent. However, Clegg will also attract a number of voters from both parties, seeing as he would likely be considerably more popular than both of the other party leaders. I would predict a tight race, with Labour and Tories more or less even, and the Lib Dems picking up 70-80 seats or so. I would lean toward them opting to work with Labour in this scenario, they, and particularly, Miliband were more open to electoral reform than the Tories, and they wouldn't be offering an EU referendum either.
I can't see UKIP's rise not taking place, but the continued existence of the Lib Dems as the anti establishment party (who now have a popular high profile leader after the debates) would limit them somewhat, and they probably wouldn't end up with any MPs. Maybe Cameron would be pressed into promising a referendum by the right of the party in response, but given his precarious majority, I can't see it being till after the next election.
The consequences of a stronger Lib Dem presence could also mean no SNP majority in 2011, and thus, no IndyRef, and no SNP dominance of Scottish seats at Westminster. Like UKIP, there rise would still happen, but be more limited. The charges of Labour being in pocket of the SNP will be less potent. However, Clegg will also attract a number of voters from both parties, seeing as he would likely be considerably more popular than both of the other party leaders. I would predict a tight race, with Labour and Tories more or less even, and the Lib Dems picking up 70-80 seats or so. I would lean toward them opting to work with Labour in this scenario, they, and particularly, Miliband were more open to electoral reform than the Tories, and they wouldn't be offering an EU referendum either.
The Tories would win in 2015. I assume the parliament would run the full course without the FTPA if the polling is like OTL.
A viable Lib Dems would keep far more pressure on Cam to stay closer to the centre ground than the Lib Dems actually managed when they became a (frankly fairly useless) Tory government faction. ITTL they would be able to do their usual highly effective thing of being atrocious and voluble opportunists on every issue. (The Libs have historically been a repository of disaffected centre-right voters - this changed from the nineties onwards when their vote became increasingly more centre-left but they're still an easier sell for a lot of people on the centre-right than Labour) It would also put paid on Milliband's ability to execute his OTL 35% strategy of gobbling the former Lib Dem vote. So the idea above that it would only be the Tories losing out is very strange - what else is Labour going to base its entire strategy on if the Lib Dem hold on their vote doesn't collapse? Milliband is going to be pushed and pulled in all sorts of directions ITTL.
Politics in 2010-2015 would be far more multipolar and multi-faceted - and likely much better than OTL.
UKIP will still rise to at least something equivalent to OTL's level where they go beyond a fringe party because the fundamentals are still in place but I don't think they would quite have the media monopoly they did in 2014. It depends on how insistent Cam is on keeping the Lib Dem vote in check though.
The Greens would be much less of a thing ITTL.
I don't see Labour getting close to the Tories in 2015 with the Lib Dems as an alternative source of loyalty and as a vote drain for change-minded voters. Of course you would also have pull on the Tory vote but that should at most balance out I suspect. A hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party and a good chunk of Lib Dems would be the most likely outcome.
A viable Lib Dems would keep far more pressure on Cam to stay closer to the centre ground than the Lib Dems actually managed when they became a (frankly fairly useless) Tory government faction. ITTL they would be able to do their usual highly effective thing of being atrocious and voluble opportunists on every issue. (The Libs have historically been a repository of disaffected centre-right voters - this changed from the nineties onwards when their vote became increasingly more centre-left but they're still an easier sell for a lot of people on the centre-right than Labour) It would also put paid on Milliband's ability to execute his OTL 35% strategy of gobbling the former Lib Dem vote. So the idea above that it would only be the Tories losing out is very strange - what else is Labour going to base its entire strategy on if the Lib Dem hold on their vote doesn't collapse? Milliband is going to be pushed and pulled in all sorts of directions ITTL.
Politics in 2010-2015 would be far more multipolar and multi-faceted - and likely much better than OTL.
UKIP will still rise to at least something equivalent to OTL's level where they go beyond a fringe party because the fundamentals are still in place but I don't think they would quite have the media monopoly they did in 2014. It depends on how insistent Cam is on keeping the Lib Dem vote in check though.
The Greens would be much less of a thing ITTL.
I don't see Labour getting close to the Tories in 2015 with the Lib Dems as an alternative source of loyalty and as a vote drain for change-minded voters. Of course you would also have pull on the Tory vote but that should at most balance out I suspect. A hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party and a good chunk of Lib Dems would be the most likely outcome.
Last edited:
Maybe I can.
The Liberal Democrats are a party that was formed after the merger of the long-standing Liberal Party and the Social Democrats (a splinter party from Labour) and represents the radical centrist party of Britain today. Their shtick is that they are a moderate, reformist party that has policies that generally advocate for efficient government, financial responsibility, increased benefits, government reform, internationalism, free trade, and social liberalism. One of the things that made them prevalent in the 21st century was their ability to take a popular issue and run with it, with examples such as Iraq in 2005, tuition fees in 2010, and remaining in the EU now.
Assuming that the Conservatives are either just short or have a small majority (so in the 315-330 range, as opposed to the 306 that they actually won, with Labour down to 230-250 (was 258) - equivalent to an additional swing of 1-2% from Labour to Conservative), they would be the next Government without the need for a coalition. This has some fairly significant butterflies - a few off the top of my head:
- No Fixed Term Parliaments Act, so David Cameron could call the next election at the time of his choosing - possibly as early as autumn 2010 if the Conservatives were short of a majority and the polls looked good... Europe would almost inevitably become a major issue, as the parliamentary arithmetic would mean that Tory Eurosceptics would effectively be able to hold the Government to ransom, and the leadership wouldn't be able to use the Europhile Lib Dems as an excuse for not being able to do anything on the issue. It's also likely that it would be more difficult for the Conservatives to get proposed cuts to public spending through Parliament
- Gordon Brown is almost certain to resign as leader of the Labour Party in the days after the election (although this may have been delayed until a new leader was elected, with no need to try to reach agreement with the Lib Dems), but the possibility of a snap election could concentrate the minds of the Labour leadership, leading to a more compact timetable for the election of a new leader (I'd guess that the candidates would be similar to OTL although possibly without Ed Balls - a majority of around 1,100 means that he may not have been reelected...)
- The Lib Dems are able to stay in opposition, so avoid being seen as Tory enablers - while it's likely that their polling would drop back a little from the mid-20s after the election (as is normal for the Lib Dems outside of election campaigns), it would be nothing like the 50%(ish) drop in support that occurred in the second half of 2010. This would translate to significantly better results in council elections and that Lib Dem speciality, winning seats in by-elections.
- In Scotland, the SNP would probably win the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, but would win fewer seats than the OTL election - my understanding of that election is that the SNP were the major beneficiaries of the unpopularity of the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition (effectively a chance for Scottish voters to cast a protest vote against the UK Government), particularly in the northern part of the country, an area where the Lib Dems are traditionally strong (for example, the SNP won every constituency seat in the North East region (taking 2 Lib Dem seats), and had enough support to take a regional list seat as well!) With no majority in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum on independence, Scottish politics would inevitably be very different to OTL...
King Thomas
Banned
The reputation of the Lib Dems would be a lot better. As it was they went down like a Nazi fleet attempting Operation Sealion.
Indeed. People used to say that the Lib Dems didn't matter, but now it is clear that they were holding the fabric of British politics and keeping it from spinning off into chaos.
Aye, it's definitely TL worthy. One those interesting "it's the little things that count" ones.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Depending on how big his majority is, and how big the DUP is, Cameron could potentially hold off for the whole five years (basically if the Tories end up partying like it's 1976, they can fall back on DUP supply/confidence).
However, assuming they can last to 2012, that backbench stirring could develop into an outright coup against Cameron if he is unable to deliver and the 2012 Locals/Assemblies go to toss.
However, assuming they can last to 2012, that backbench stirring could develop into an outright coup against Cameron if he is unable to deliver and the 2012 Locals/Assemblies go to toss.
I'm almost certain Thande did a TL about this kind of thing (and obviously AndyC's the Fourth Lectern)
The DUP could probably get up to 10 seats in 2010 if they have a good election - East Belfast should've gone their way, while South Belfast, if (and it's a big if) the Unionists don't cock up, could go the DUP or UUP's way. If the UUP don't saddle themselves to the UCUNF project, then they have 1 MP in the bag - Lady Hermon, with maybe one in South Antrim for Sir Reg Empey - so that's a potential 10-11 MPs for the Tories to rely on in Ulster.
A small Cameron victory? I know AndyC's was about a UKIP surge, but I don't know if this specific scenario was covered.
Can I ask what a DUP-Tory alliance would look like? I know they're more eurosceptic than the UUP and would confine the Tories on the right.
I think the DUP would vote for most Tory legislation, in return for some concessions from the Tories on NI.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
The PoD is that Chris Huhne wins the LibDem Leadership, and UKIP are invited to the debates with 2010 ending with Labour holding a minority with LibDem supply and confidence and a snap election the next year. Not exactly what you're asking for, mind.
Thande's TL is here. It has been a while since I've read it.
But again, there is a serious question regarding how long Cameron can survive if he doesn't have the counterweight of the LibDem's.
Towelie
Banned
The DUP would support Labour too if they got more funding for NI. The problem with the DUP and the Northern Irish parties in general is that if you rely on them, your majority might not stand up to attrition and defections on big votes.
The DUP would be willing however to back out if the government tried to whip them on something like gay marriage. They are generally Euroskeptic but I don't think its an animating cause celebre for them.
Like he wasn't already? He came up with a rebranding almost every single year. He still may see targeting the Lib Dem vote as a viable strategy, even if they are not about to collapse, they might be seen as a threat to Labour that needs to be dealt with, and that strategy might have the potential to be more effective than OTL, seeing as the Lib Dems aren't going to shed votes to an incumbent government massively. But Miliband probably wasn't the right man to win those votes, in either scenario.
The thing is, Labour already has a strong representation in the Commons for a party that won 27% of the vote at around 250 seats. In this TL, Labour are unlikely to lose many seats to a less popular Tory party, and presumably without an indyref, the SNP aren't going to eat up there Scottish constituencies at such an alarming rate, which is a double bonus as that also means that the Tories have been denied a crucial line of attack from OTL.
Labour would basically just need to win ten seats more if they take back the seats they kept in OTL but lost in 2010 in this one, and also win the other ten seats they took off of the Tories in OTL 2015. The Lib Dems might take the odd seat off of them, but there wouldn't be a huge swing to them from Labour given both are in opposition, they will mainly take Tory marginals back. I find it difficult to believe that a Tory government that is divided, pushed austerity harder than OTL, and without a key scapegoat or an effective line of attack from OTL would not suffer at the ballot box.