Charles Kennedy leads Libdems in 2010 GE

[markf]

Charles Kennedy leads the Libdems in the 2010 general election

[LDCaerdydd]

Three very different scenarios to consider:

Charles Kennedy without the 2005/6 alcohol revelations?
Charles Kennedy who took six months out in 2006 to get (and stay) sober?
Charles Kennedy who resigned in Jan 2006 but came back in Oct 2007?

Quite possible that he'd have won more votes than Clegg in 2010 - how that would have transpired into seats, I don't know but at the absolute most 80 or so?

[Lord Twaddleford]

Another key question, would a Kennedy led Lib Dems have entered into a coalition with the Conservatives? If I'm not mistaken (and some do correct me if I am), but didn't he oppose the coalition agreement, or something like that?

[greenhert]

He did oppose the coalition agreement-and I do not believe he would have wanted a coalition with Gordon Brown either.

[markf]

80 seats is more than Clegg won

[LDCaerdydd]

Aug 3, 2017 8:41:51 GMT markf said:

80 seats is more than Clegg won

Yes I know, I didn't say it wasn't.

I'm sure he would have woe more votes, but as we all know extra votes for the Lib Dems won't necessarily equal extra seats under FPTP.

He certainly wouldn't have won anywhere near enough to form/lead a government or even be on an equal footing seat wise with Labour.

[markf]

80 seats , an increase on 2005, would have put the Libdems in a better strategic position after the 2010 GE.

[The Bishop]

Not least because it would have meant fewer Tory MPs of course.

[greenhert]

And also fewer Labour MPs of course-they would have also captured Oxford East, Sheffield Central, Islington South & Finsbury etc.

[greenchristian]

Would it have put them into the situation where both a Lib-Con and a Lib-Lab pact were numerically viable? If so, a Kennedy-led Lib Dem team could probably have managed a deal that wouldn't cost them as dearly with anti-Tory votersin the next GE.

Even if a Lib-Con deal was the only viable option, Kennedy would have carved out a very different deal (the Lib Dem negotiating team would not have been entirely composed of Orange Bookers). And the deal wouldn't have been announced in the same way (the Rose Garden press conference where Clegg and Cameron gave the impression of being on the same page set the tone for the entire coalition, and enabled the Lib Dems' opponents to successfully portray them as simply a Tory-lite party).

[LDCaerdydd]

Aug 4, 2017 16:15:08 GMT greenchristian said:

a Kennedy-led Lib Dem team could probably have managed a deal that wouldn't cost them as dearly with anti-Tory votersin the next GE.

What about the anti-Labour voters?

You know the ones who were pissed off regarding Iraq, Spin, the deficit, ID Cards...

Do you think the Conservative party and right wing press would have just sat back for five years? (Especially if Labour were still the second party and the Conservatives had won more votes and seats)

[gwynthegriff]

Aug 4, 2017 16:15:08 GMT greenchristian said:

Would it have put them into the situation where both a Lib-Con and a Lib-Lab pact were numerically viable? If so, a Kennedy-led Lib Dem team could probably have managed a deal that wouldn't cost them as dearly with anti-Tory votersin the next GE.

Even if a Lib-Con deal was the only viable option, Kennedy would have carved out a very different deal (the Lib Dem negotiating team would not have been entirely composed of Orange Bookers). And the deal wouldn't have been announced in the same way (the Rose Garden press conference where Clegg and Cameron gave the impression of being on the same page set the tone for the entire coalition, and enabled the Lib Dems' opponents to successfully portray them as simply a Tory-lite party).

Was it?

[Deleted]

I think the Lib Dems would've done better in Scotland under Kennedy. I imagine they\d have gained the following seats:

Aberdeen South; Edinburgh North & Leith; Edinburgh South; Glasgow North. Maybe Dunfermline & West Fife might've stayed Lib Dem.

And I also wonder if the student vote would've been stronger in places like Sheffield Central, Oxford East, Hull North etc.

Who knows? The Lib Dems could've won 100 seats, or won 20 under Kennedy in 2010.

[yellowperil]

I'm finding this whole concept very difficult to get my head around because it depends on the notion that Charles Kennedy was not Charles Kennedy.He was a man with enormous strengths and terrible weaknesses and the two were inextricably part of the man he was.I am very wary of attempts to paint him as an all-conquering political superhero as an unsubtle way of denigrating his successors.If you look back at the campaigns he was actually involved in there are flaws which have nothing to do with the alcohol issue, as far as I am aware - like the question of dodgy Brown money. I will deplore the rightward shift of the Lib Dems after Kennedy as the Orange Bookers tightened their hold, but I am not sure that that shift actually weakened the electoral performance of the Lib Dems or that Clegg at the cusp of power (as in Cleggmania) was not every bit as appealing to the electorate as Charlie at his best.The Lib Dems problem in 2010,I would maintain, was not in the election campaign but what happened afterwards, and as suggested already maybe Kennedy at his best would have avoided the mistakes made in the coalition agreement- where the Orange Bookers were very much in control. The best thing about Kennedy was his ability to be right on the really big decisions.

[Khunanup]

Aug 5, 2017 13:27:50 GMT yellowperil said:

I'm finding this whole concept very difficult to get my head around because it depends on the notion that Charles Kennedy was not Charles Kennedy.He was a man with enormous strengths and terrible weaknesses and the two were inextricably part of the man he was.I am very wary of attempts to paint him as an all-conquering political superhero as an unsubtle way of denigrating his successors.If you look back at the campaigns he was actually involved in there are flaws which have nothing to do with the alcohol issue, as far as I am aware - like the question of dodgy Brown money. I will deplore the rightward shift of the Lib Dems after Kennedy as the Orange Bookers tightened their hold, but I am not sure that that shift actually weakened the electoral performance of the Lib Dems or that Clegg at the cusp of power (as in Cleggmania) was not every bit as appealing to the electorate as Charlie at his best.The Lib Dems problem in 2010,I would maintain, was not in the election campaign but what happened afterwards, and as suggested already maybe Kennedy at his best would have avoided the mistakes made in the coalition agreement- where the Orange Bookers were very much in control. The best thing about Kennedy was his ability to be right on the really big decisions.

Exactly. It's like the old alternative history chestnut of Hitler not invading the Soviet Union at least when he did. That was a complete historic inevitability so why even consider the alternate history (because the leader of Germany would not have been Hitler's for that circumstance to happen). Charles Kennedy, with all the things that made up who he was, for good or ill, would not have lead us into the 2010 General Election other than as a completely undermined and weakened leader. If on the other hand you transpose a Charles Kennedy who became our leader in c.2004 leading us into 2010 who knows (but then 2001 & 2005 would have been different elections with the former under who knows who as Lib Dem leader).

That's the ultimate point about alternate histories, the premise has to have a plausible single thing that is different that changes everything else but the fundamentals remain the same.