WI: No 2010 coalition government

[V-J]

Like he wasn't already? He came up with a rebranding almost every single year.

But positioned firmly on the centre-left all the while. With the Lib Dems floating around on the one side and the Tories on the other, he's going to be subject to more cross-currents than OTL. The idea that 'we can gobble up the former Lib Dem centre-left vote and that's all we have to do to win' will not be as unchallenged as it was IOTL either internally within Labour or outside the party. So what's the electoral strategy here? What voters are targeted?

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.

I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here.

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.

The SNP being diminished is certainly a positive for Labour but 'crucial' is over-egging it - Milliband was consistently well behind Cameron in leadership polling before that campaign got underway, the SNP issue simply crystallised existing heavy doubts about his abilities - namely that he was too weak to deal with Alex Salmond as a junior partner. And leadership polling has frequently proven a rather better indicator of how elections will go than party polling, as it proved to be in that election IOTL. How does that change ITTL?

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.

There would also be significantly less centre-left voters opened up without the breaking of the lib dems, and the division of that vote should help the Tories. Ultimately all the Tories have to do is tread water based off the 2010 result - not a great challenge, most governments over the last forty years have been returned at elections barring some major catastrophe in terms of both the economy and the political standing of the government.

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.

The problem is you're taking these things for granted when as I've stated - and you've totally ignored that section of my argument and just re-stated your own, which is a strange thing to do if you're responding specifically to critique mine - there are very good reasons that the Tories will actually feel more compelled to stick closer to the centre ground, with another viable opposition party which has complete freedom of action and commentary on the government's actions. Centre and Centre-right voters are going to be more comfortable potentially defecting to Clegg's Lib Dems than they were Milliband Labour, and if it looks like the government is losing ground badly then there will be a course correction.

There was an awful lot of rage directed specifically at the Lib Dems in the first few years of the parliament, but by the middle and in particular the end of the parliament, no-one was in any way fooled by who had control of domestic policy and especially the economy. (I would argue no-one ever was on the economy, despite Lib Dem attempts to attach themselves to that policy sphere - a fruitless exercise) After the aborted Cable-Oakeshott coup the Lib Dems slid entirely from the media narrative and the government was treated as if it was simply another Conservative government. In any case even if every voter had believed it was a government stuffed with Lib Dem influence their recourse was clear if they wanted to change government - vote Labour.

Quite why you're assuming austerity will be significantly harder ITTL is anyone's guess, since Clegg and co have basically admitted since the election that they were very much fighting a losing battle on that score in challenging Osbornomics.

I'm not sure what division you're envisaging as you haven't spelt that out.

 

[Politibrit]

I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here.

The Tories aren't going to win as many votes from the Lib Dems as in OTL because the former are incumbents and the latter aren't junior partners in a coalition. Therefore, if Labour can win a significant number of votes off the Lib Dems, things might work out better than OTL as the Tories are not being compensated equally with ex Lib Dem voters as in OTL.

The SNP being diminished is certainly a positive for Labour but 'crucial' is over-egging it - Milliband was consistently well behind Cameron in leadership polling before that campaign got underway, the SNP issue simply crystallised existing heavy doubts about his abilities - namely that he was too weak to deal with Alex Salmond as a junior partner. And leadership polling has frequently proven a rather better indicator of how elections will go than party polling, as it proved to be in that election IOTL. How does that change ITTL?

You are assuming that Cameron is still more popular than Miliband in this scenario, when that is not neccessarily the case, seeing as he will be leading the party bearing the brunt of the blame for the governments mistakes, and given that the Tories would likely pursue a harder line than in OTL, there would be more to blame them for. However, if that is not the case, then I would argue that there are times when leadership polling isn't the be all and end all. Hilary was more popular than Trump, Callaghan was more popular than Thatcher, and in this scenario, Miliband would not even need to beat the Tories to have a good shot at government, just win a similar number of seats, and then his ability to outbid them in coalition negotiations would given him the advantage.

There would also be significantly less centre-left voters opened up without the breaking of the lib dems, and the division of that vote should help the Tories. Ultimately all the Tories have to do is tread water based off the 2010 result - not a great challenge, most governments over the last forty years have been returned at elections barring some major catastrophe in terms of both the economy and the political standing of the government.

Most governments begin life with a handy majority, which in this case, the Tories do not have. Tory MPs would be at similar levels to 1951, 1970, and 1992. Note that only in one case did they win re-election next time around, and the economic picture looks less rosy in 2015 than in 1955.

The problem is you're taking these things for granted when as I've stated - and you've totally ignored that section of my argument and just re-stated your own, which is a strange thing to do if you're responding specifically to critique mine - there are very good reasons that the Tories will actually feel more compelled to stick closer to the centre ground, with another viable opposition party which has complete freedom of action and commentary on the government's actions. Centre and Centre-right voters are going to be more comfortable potentially defecting to Clegg's Lib Dems than they were Milliband Labour, and if it looks like the government is losing ground badly then there will be a course correction.

Maybe Cameron and Osborne would like to move closer to the centre ground, but they would be dependent on the full support of their MPs on the eurosceptic, free market right, to get anything past the Commons. Such a centrist course might be very difficult to pursue.

Quite why you're assuming austerity will be significantly harder ITTL is anyone's guess, since Clegg and co have basically admitted since the election that they were very much fighting a losing battle on that score in challenging Osbornomics.

Because Clegg has actually said that that is what they wanted to do. It was the Lib Dems who convinced Osborne to abandon the target of dealing with the deficit in one parliament. They also prevented him from dropping corporation tax to 40p, and the exemption of those earning 10k or less from tax was a Lib Dem idea that the Tories might not have run with without the coalition.

I'm not sure what division you're envisaging as you haven't spelt that out.

It is a Tory government, so Europe is obviously going to be a dividing line. With a slim majority, the right of the party would have more of an influence, and could prevent legislation from getting past if they rebel even in relatively small numbers. The fact that Cameron and Osborne can't use Clegg as an excuse for not being more right wing, as others have touched on, would also likely exacerbate tensions.

 

[V-J]

The Tories aren't going to win as many votes from the Lib Dems as in OTL because the former are incumbents and the latter aren't junior partners in a coalition. Therefore, if Labour can win a significant number of votes off the Lib Dems, things might work out better than OTL as the Tories are not being compensated equally with ex Lib Dem voters as in OTL.

Well IIRC Labour got more than twice as much of the former 2010 lib dem vote in OTL 2015 than the Tories did - so precisely how disproportionate are you expecting the Labour advantage to be in this respect? Three times? Four? Fantasy expectations.

You are assuming that Cameron is still more popular than Miliband in this scenario, when that is not neccessarily the case, seeing as he will be leading the party bearing the brunt of the blame for the governments mistakes,

I have a significantly different recollection of the last parliament than you - George Osborne was utterly carpeted on the frequent occasions when he did bugger up and Cameron was whacked over a week when phone hacking was on the go. The focus on the Lib Dems only really lasted until Omnishambles. I'm still not sure how you think the notion that everyone was blaming the Lib Dems in 2015 for everything that had gone wrong and pardoning the Tories worked out in real life. The Lib Dems were just a dead force by the time the election came around - they weren't really a thing either way.

However, if that is not the case, then I would argue that there are times when leadership polling isn't the be all and end all. Hilary was more popular than Trump,

She was by a lot of people's estimations the second most disliked nominee in history, behind Trump. Hardly a gaping advantage.

Callaghan was more popular than Thatcher,

Yes but Callaghan had other troubles which this didn't compensate for.

and in this scenario, Miliband would not even need to beat the Tories to have a good shot at government, just win a similar number of seats, and then his ability to outbid them in coalition negotiations would given him the advantage.

You sound a lot like a lot of Labour people before 2010. The Lib Dems are not automatically Labour's chums however much Labour people want it to be so - I would have thought the events of 2010-2015 would confirm that but apparently not.

Tory MPs would be at similar levels to 1951, 1970, and 1992. Note that only in one case did they win re-election next time around,

Surely not a serious point. You know as well as I that in each of those instances the incumbent government faced very different challenges and circumstances and had very different histories, trying to extrapolate an outcome for 2015 simply based off the random metric of historical seat numbers is tres dodgy.

The more useful point based off history is that first-term governments which are seen to have either done fair or good are generally returned with increased standing - this happened in 1955, 1966, 1983 and 2015 OTL. Blair's first majority was so enormous that it was unrealistic to expect it to be increased in 2001 but he did a decent job of maintaining it comfortably in three figures.

Maybe Cameron and Osborne would like to move closer to the centre ground, but they would be dependent on the full support of their MPs on the eurosceptic, free market right, to get anything past the Commons. Such a centrist course might be very difficult to pursue.

No more difficult to pursue than when a lot of Tory MPs were animated by the presence of the Lib Dems and resented Cameron neglecting the backbenches. In any case we were told that the backbenches would go berserk after 2015 and that really hasn't transpired. The biggest problem the government has faced so far is coming not from the right, but from Remain MPs. The primary policy interest - public finance - you have here is something in any case which governments generally have a lot of leeway over.

It was the Lib Dems who convinced Osborne to abandon the target of dealing with the deficit in one parliament.

Not sure about this, but in any case austerity simply wasn't the big issue in 2015 that the left and a lot of the media expected it would be. It very rarely came up on the doorstep. You are overplaying it as an issue here.

They also prevented him from dropping corporation tax to 40p, and the exemption of those earning 10k or less from tax was a Lib Dem idea that the Tories might not have run with without the coalition.

Both fair points but I don't see them as electoral tipping points. Osborne got an absolute mountain of ordure piled on him for cutting down to 45p - are you really expecting it to be much different if it goes to 40p?

It is a Tory government, so Europe is obviously going to be a dividing line.

Well you yourself have already dealt with this - the issue wouldn't play out any differently really to OTL. If you believe that Cameron would go more to the right as you do you can hardly say in the same breath 'he wouldn't promise a referendum ITTL'.

 

[MartinD]

Aye, it's definitely TL worthy. One those interesting "it's the little things that count" ones.

A little shift the other way would also be interesting - how would things change if the Lib Dems were in the position of being able to choose between the Conservatives and Labour, with either option giving a majority coalition government? (This would be the case if Labour had managed to get to around 275-280, with the Conservatives at 285-290...)

 

[Politibrit]

Well IIRC Labour got more than twice as much of the former 2010 lib dem vote in OTL 2015 than the Tories did - so precisely how disproportionate are you expecting the Labour advantage to be in this respect? Three times? Four? Fantasy expectations.

Not really, it wouldn't be a case of Labour gaining more votes off the Lib Dems (they probably would win less) so much as the Tories winning less votes off the Lib Dems (and possibly having a net loss to them). I am not saying this scenario would happen, I am saying that it could be seen as a plausible strategy for Labour in 2010.

I have a significantly different recollection of the last parliament than you - George Osborne was utterly carpeted on the frequent occasions when he did bugger up and Cameron was whacked over a week when phone hacking was on the go. The focus on the Lib Dems only really lasted until Omnishambles. I'm still not sure how you think the notion that everyone was blaming the Lib Dems in 2015 for everything that had gone wrong and pardoning the Tories worked out in real life. The Lib Dems were just a dead force by the time the election came around - they weren't really a thing either way.

Tuition fees would be one thing at least where the Tories wouldn't be able to shift the blame. Besides, the Tories would be largely deprived of the Lib Dem voters that they got in OTL that saw them make a net gain. Without those, they would likely be looking at a net loss of votes over OTL.

You sound a lot like a lot of Labour people before 2010. The Lib Dems are not automatically Labour's chums however much Labour people want it to be so - I would have thought the events of 2010-2015 would confirm that but apparently not.

I am not saying they are automatically going to opt for Labour out of the kindness of their heart if given the choice, though there are without a doubt many in the party (Ashdown, Cable, Kennedy) who would prefer a deal with Labour if both parties are viable options, my point was based off of the assumption that Labour could outbid them. To be sure, Clegg might have preferred as deal with Cameron, but Labour would likely offer AV without a referendum, as they did in 2010, and no EU referendum, which Cameron would be hard pressed to match given the feeling of his backbenchers. Any deal had to be approved by both Lib Dem MPs and Conference, ask yourself, which party would they prefer in this scenario?

No more difficult to pursue than when a lot of Tory MPs were animated by the presence of the Lib Dems and resented Cameron neglecting the backbenches. In any case we were told that the backbenches would go berserk after 2015 and that really hasn't transpired. The biggest problem the government has faced so far is coming not from the right, but from Remain MPs. The primary policy interest - public finance - you have here is something in any case which governments generally have a lot of leeway over.

Yes, but the Tories have a smaller majority in this scenario. Even if the strength of feeling on the Tory backbenches was just as strong as in OTL, they would be more of a problem, as even small rebellions would have the capacity to defeat the government. MPs would also be more minded to rebel if they actually think there is a chance of defeating a motion than if it is widely expected to pass. And the backbenches were relatively problematic for Cameron when it came to Europe in this parliament, you had Brexiteer MPs considering a leadership challenge to him in the event of a remain vote even though it would be doomed to fail. Remain MPs are a problem for May now because we are leaving the EU, which we would not be doing in the 2010-2015 parliament.

Both fair points but I don't see them as electoral tipping points. Osborne got an absolute mountain of ordure piled on him for cutting down to 45p - are you really expecting it to be much different if it goes to 40p?

Probably not, but the tax threshold might have had at least a small impact, even if it was half a percentage point, every little helps.

Well you yourself have already dealt with this - the issue wouldn't play out any differently really to OTL. If you believe that Cameron would go more to the right as you do you can hardly say in the same breath 'he wouldn't promise a referendum ITTL'.

Yes, but it would have more of a capacity to prevent the governments plans passing the commons given the slender majority, before Cameron would eventually come around to the idea of a referendum in the next parliament as in OTL.

 

[Prussian1871]

A little shift the other way would also be interesting - how would things change if the Lib Dems were in the position of being able to choose between the Conservatives and Labour, with either option giving a majority coalition government? (This would be the case if Labour had managed to get to around 275-280, with the Conservatives at 285-290...)

That would be. Not sure I've seen a Lab-Lib TL (actually, now that I think about it, a lot British political timelines just stop at the end of an election). I'd imagine if the Lib Dems made Labour stay into government until 2015, the public would definitely be sick of them. Tories would absolutely benefit and might stunt UKIP's growth as a eurosceptic opposition party, and the Lib Dems might take a hit depending on if they can shift blame like the Tories. Labour would definitely go down, on 1997 levels perhaps. Maybe they'd have a Labour version of UKIP that would bother them as well, like a far-left socialist party. Also a very interesting scenario, mate!

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Here are the updated estimates from electoralcalculus.co.uk as to the proportions of voters that shifted from one party to another IOTL 2015:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_votermigration.html

 

[Milo]

David Miliband likely wins as if it's likely that an election will be sooner rather than later Labour (especially MPs) will play it safe