Cameron's Majority

[jluk234]

In 2015, David Cameron was reelected with a small majority of 12 seats which came as a surprise to everyone. The election produced a mixed bag of results with both Labour and the Conservatives winning and losing seats. However, what if the results were clearer and some of the 2010 Lib Dem voters who backed Labour in OTL had switched to the Conservatives instead?

This thread explores this. I then proceed to analyse the impact it would have on the EU referendum and the elections after this one.

[johnloony]

I have been greatly frustrated ever since last April, being constantly tormented by the thought that Mrs May recklessly threw away our majority and called an unnecessary and unwanted general election. Why I spoke to Gavin Barwell about it at the time, he explained (in so far as it is possible to explain such things) that the reason she had done it was because the majority of 12 was not enough to get Brexit through easily, when having to deal with the rebels at either end (the Ken Clarkes and the Peter Bones).

I have often wondered, in my own mind, what I would do if I could go back in time and change just one thing, to make things better. There are a number of options.

1. Win the 2017 election properly.
Mrs May gives instructions, as soon as she is PM, for the Conservative Party to get on with selecting candidates properly (instead of the sudden scramble which actually happened), and for a proper manifesto to be prepared (instead of the shambles we had), just in case a snap election is needed, but without explicitly saying that there will be an early election. Result: a proper campaign, proper bashing of Corbyn's policies, and a reasonable win in 2017 (albeit not a landslide).

2. Win the EU referendum by a bigger margin - perhaps 58-42 instead of 52-48 - so that a quicker, firmer, Brexit can be enacted more easily.

3. Stop Mrs May from calling the 2017 election, and just carry on with the 2015 parliament.

4. Stop David Cameron from resigning, so that we never get lumbered with Blunderwoman in the first place. In constitutional terms, it was bad that he resigned anyway, because it gives legitimacy to the idea that the people can get rid of a prime minister by voting a certain way in a referendum (instead of voting on the issue of the referendum itself). He should have given himself the job of enacting Brexit (as ordered by the voters) and would presumably not have been stupid enough to call the 2017 election like Mrs Hubris did.

5. Improve the result of the 2015 election, so that Mrs May doesn't think that the majority is "not enough" and therefore doesn't call the 2017 election.
One way of doing this would be to combine the best bits of 2015 and 2017 (for example, 13 seats in Scotland, and a few gains in northern England, from 2017, unseating Dennis Skinner perhaps, and southern England from 2015). In the autumn of 2014, when UKIP was on 17% in the opinion polls, it looked as though it would get about 5 seats, instead of only getting 13% and 1 seat. To make the result more "fair", I would like the idea of UKIP having 5 seats instead of 1 (perhaps Thurrock, Thanet South, Grimsby, Hartlepool as well as Clacton). A few more seats for the UUP instead of DUP. SF gaining the seats from the SDLP earlier, so that there are 2 or 3 fewer de facto Labour votes in the Commons. Overall, I like the idea that UKIP got 13% in a general election as well as a Conservative majority.

Number 5 is the most fanciful, but number 4 is the most straightforward. I am increasingly thinking that Mrs May is blundering along (e.g. the recent botched reshuffle) not just because she lacks a majority, but because she is not fit for the job. I never wanted David Cameron to resign in the first place, so I would vote for option 4.

[johnloony]

P.S. The other danger of option 5 is that it might, as the OP suggested, have influenced or changed the result of the referendum. That is a danger which cannot be allowed. Brexit is the most important thing, even more important than a Conservative majority or Cameron or May or even Corbyn.

[The Bishop]

Re option 4, it is widely speculated that Cameron would have quit if the 2014 Scottish independence referendum had been lost (ie if there had been a "YES" vote)

[mondialito]

Jan 16, 2018 16:48:29 GMT The Bishop said:

Re option 4, it is widely speculated that Cameron would have quit if the 2014 Scottish independence referendum had been lost (ie if there had been a "YES" vote)

Instead he whipped the tiger of English Nationalism when NO won. 

[Pete Whitehead]

I like option 5. Never mind Dennis Skinner's seat - just holding all the seats won in 2015 and making all the gains made in 2017 would have resulted in a comfortable enough majority. Gaining Westmorland would have been a nice bonus

[jluk234]

So here we go then.

The changes for the following are based on the 2010 election

Conservatives 40.7% - up 3.7%
Labour 28.4% - down 1.3%
UKIP 12.9% - up 9.7%
LD 8.1% - down 15.5%
SNP 4.8% - up 3.1%
Green 3.8% - up 2.8%
Others 0.8% - down 2.6%
Plaid Cymru 0.6% - no change

Conservatives 355 - up 48
Labour 207 - down 51
UKIP 1 - up 1
LD 9 - down 48
SNP 55 - up 49
Green 1 - no change
Others 1 - no change
Plaid Cymru 4 - up 1
DUP 8 - no change
Sinn Fein 4 - down 1
SDLP 3 - no change
UUP 2 - up 2
Alliance 0 - down 1

Seeing as the OTL 2015 election had inaccurate polling, I've made the polling for this result inaccurate too. The polling ranges for this result would be roughly

Conservative 35% to 38%
Labour 31% to 34%
LDs 8% to 11%
UKIP 11% to 14%
Green 3% to 6%

A map.

[Deleted]

I agree with four. I didn’t want Cameron to resign I liked him. I didn’t agree with everything, but he was a good PM. His personality and moderate policies are what convinced me to switch from being a member of Labour to the Conservatives. He wouldn’t have called the election, he wouldn’t have produced the shitty manifesto and the country would not be as divided as it is today.

[jluk234]

This map shows the gains and losses.

[Foggy]

Jan 16, 2018 16:43:58 GMT johnloony said:

4. Stop David Cameron from resigning, so that we never get lumbered with Blunderwoman in the first place. In constitutional terms, it was bad that he resigned anyway, because it gives legitimacy to the idea that the people can get rid of a prime minister by voting a certain way in a referendum (instead of voting on the issue of the referendum itself). He should have given himself the job of enacting Brexit (as ordered by the voters) and would presumably not have been stupid enough to call the 2017 election like Mrs Hubris did.

5. Improve the result of the 2015 election, so that Mrs May doesn't think that the majority is "not enough" and therefore doesn't call the 2017 election.
One way of doing this would be to combine the best bits of 2015 and 2017 (for example, 13 seats in Scotland, and a few gains in northern England, from 2017, unseating Dennis Skinner perhaps, and southern England from 2015). In the autumn of 2014, when UKIP was on 17% in the opinion polls, it looked as though it would get about 5 seats, instead of only getting 13% and 1 seat. To make the result more "fair", I would like the idea of UKIP having 5 seats instead of 1 (perhaps Thurrock, Thanet South, Grimsby, Hartlepool as well as Clacton). A few more seats for the UUP instead of DUP. SF gaining the seats from the SDLP earlier, so that there are 2 or 3 fewer de facto Labour votes in the Commons. Overall, I like the idea that UKIP got 13% in a general election as well as a Conservative majority.

You make a very good point about the principle having been established that a Prime Minister can be forced to resign by the outcome of a referendum. It's another argument against direct democracy above anything but the most local of levels.

Wishing for the wipeout of SDLP two years earlier than it happened to the benefit of Sinn Féin is just pure, horrid, partisan tactical nastiness. 

Of course, I also vehemently disagree that scenario 2 could possibly have been a positive thing.

[jluk234]

There shall be no incorporation of parts of the 2017 election. My idea is to see what would happen if you moved some of the 2010 Lib Dem voters who voted Labour in 2015 to the Conservatives. And to those talking about the EU referendum. Let me say this - there is NO BREXIT! Otherwise this wouldn't be alternate political history and having BREXIT would be my timeline converging with OTL.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jan 16, 2018 18:36:40 GMT Foggy said:

Jan 16, 2018 16:43:58 GMT johnloony said:

4. Stop David Cameron from resigning, so that we never get lumbered with Blunderwoman in the first place. In constitutional terms, it was bad that he resigned anyway, because it gives legitimacy to the idea that the people can get rid of a prime minister by voting a certain way in a referendum (instead of voting on the issue of the referendum itself). He should have given himself the job of enacting Brexit (as ordered by the voters) and would presumably not have been stupid enough to call the 2017 election like Mrs Hubris did.

5. Improve the result of the 2015 election, so that Mrs May doesn't think that the majority is "not enough" and therefore doesn't call the 2017 election.
One way of doing this would be to combine the best bits of 2015 and 2017 (for example, 13 seats in Scotland, and a few gains in northern England, from 2017, unseating Dennis Skinner perhaps, and southern England from 2015). In the autumn of 2014, when UKIP was on 17% in the opinion polls, it looked as though it would get about 5 seats, instead of only getting 13% and 1 seat. To make the result more "fair", I would like the idea of UKIP having 5 seats instead of 1 (perhaps Thurrock, Thanet South, Grimsby, Hartlepool as well as Clacton). A few more seats for the UUP instead of DUP. SF gaining the seats from the SDLP earlier, so that there are 2 or 3 fewer de facto Labour votes in the Commons. Overall, I like the idea that UKIP got 13% in a general election as well as a Conservative majority.

You make a very good point about the principle having been established that a Prime Minister can be forced to resign by the outcome of a referendum. It's another argument against direct democracy above anything but the most local of levels.

Wishing for the wipeout of SDLP two years earlier than it happened to the benefit of Sinn Féin is just pure, horrid, partisan tactical nastiness. 

Of course, I also vehemently disagree that scenario 2 could possibly have been a positive thing.

I'm not sure it is an established principle: on results morning Tories were queueing up to say Cameron should stay on before he pulled the rug from under their feet.

The problem that Cameron had (and had already gambled on in Scotland) is that he called a referendum on an issue of fundamental constitutional and political importance and then fought on one side. That left him with the choice of (a) resignation or (b) staying on as PM with a govt that was going to have to spend the majority of its term of office on carrying out a policy which he disagreed with.  I think he could have stayed on if he'd wanted to but the question is why would he want to?

Had Theresa May been PM in 2015 she could have campaigned for Remain but stayed on because she was always ambivalent; same for Boris or David Davis coming from the other angle if Remain had won (come to that Boris could have campaigned on either side). But (entering the realms of drug induced nightmares here for all concerned) if Rees-Mogg were to be PM and lost a second referendum on reversing Brexit/re-entry I think he'd go because he'd see it as a point of principle not to preside over that process.

[Deleted]

I don't think the size of the majority was May's problem - it was small but workable, and the Tory "rebels" have been mostly unwilling to actually rebel on Brexit votes, the 'meaningful vote' amendment being an exception (and even then the amendment would have failed had the Tories had their pre-election majority).

The bigger problem was that the Government's mandate was due to expire in 2020. As we now know, this will be midway through the transition period (assuming one is agreed, which I think overwhelmingly likely) and so the election would inevitably have been run on almost the single issue of the post-transition arrangement. While the loss of majority causes all kinds of domestic problems, for Brexit it hasn't been so bad from a Conservative POV because their preferred post-transition arrangement will in theory have had a year to bed in by the election. Even if the transition ends up being extended, that's still extra time for the government to define the terms of the new arrangement.