No UKIP in 2010

[Deleted]

Here's a list of seats where the UKIP vote exceeded the Labour majority in 2010.

Bolton West
Derby North
Dudley North
Great Grimsby
Hampstead & Kilburn
Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland
Morley & Outwood
Newcastle-under-Lyme
North East Derbyshire
Plymouth, Moor View
Southampton Itchen
Telford
Walsall North
Walsall South
Wirral South

I'm not saying the Conservatives would've won all or even most of these had UKIP not stood but what do people think would've happened had UKIP not contested any seats in 2010 and Cameron promised an In/Out referendum on the EU that year?

[Deleted]

We’d have won a few more seats but probably not a majority so the referendum would’ve been dropped in the coalition negotiations. This probably would’ve strengthened UKIP in 2015. That’s just my opinion though.

[rivers10]

A lot of churn and noise but at the end of the day not much difference. We must remember that back then UKIP was a complete fringe party supported solely by racists who didn't have the option of the BNP to vote for, anti EU fanatics and weird ultra Libertarian types, these people would have found some other party to vote for before going to the Tories.

Consequently pretty much the same result, maybe the Tories winning the odd extra seat, coalition talks would have then took the EU ref off the table though as alluded above which would only have strengthened UKIP. The media's total obsession with UKIP even back when it was an irrelevance in 2010-2011 is what led to its rise. If Cameron had to abandon a key election pledge in the coalition talks you can bet your bottom dollar Farage would have been on every TV station and political talk show back to back for a whole year bemoaning Cameron's betrayal. Result earlier peak UKIP but ultimately not much else.

[Deleted]

I think the only change of any real significance may have been Ed Balls being defeated very narrowly. This would've given the Tories their 'Portillo moment'.

Grimsby might've been talked about as a sensational result but it would've been overshadowed by Cameron still falling short.

Even if the Conservatives had won the whole lot (unlikely) they'd still have ended up with 321 so might've ended up working with a party other than the Lib Dems.

Now suppose the Lib Dems continue to do well in opposition and gained ground in 2015...

[Deleted]

Alot of these seats Conservatives won in 2015

[swanarcadian]

Feb 22, 2018 18:01:20 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Alot of these seats Conservatives won in 2015

When UKIP polled 12.6% of the vote, which perhaps puts paid to the suggestion that UKIP cost the Conservatives a lot of seats in 2010 (and even in 2005).

[greenchristian]

Odd to see people suggesting that an absence of UKIP in 2010 would have led to them being strengthened in 2015. If they weren't there in 2010, then there is no way the broadcast media would have been able to give them the level of coverage that led to their rise during the Parliament. It probably also means no Carswell defection (and, hence, no Reckless defection either).

The apparent irrelevance of UKIP at Westminster level if they didn't even stand probably means Cameron doesn't feel as pressured to posture on the EU, so the famous renegotiation thing probably never happens, and the idea of an in-out referendum probably gets kicked into the long grass, so Brexit doesn't happen.

[rivers10]

Feb 22, 2018 18:47:58 GMT greenchristian said:

Odd to see people suggesting that an absence of UKIP in 2010 would have led to them being strengthened in 2015. If they weren't there in 2010, then there is no way the broadcast media would have been able to give them the level of coverage that led to their rise during the Parliament. It probably also means no Carswell defection (and, hence, no Reckless defection either).

The apparent irrelevance of UKIP at Westminster level if they didn't even stand probably means Cameron doesn't feel as pressured to posture on the EU, so the famous renegotiation thing probably never happens, and the idea of an in-out referendum probably gets kicked into the long grass, so Brexit doesn't happen.

My scenario took the hypotheticals a bit further, I was working on the pretext that UKIP existed but was perhaps only contested EU parliament elections or perhaps a splinter group of the BNP led by Farage or some such. 

[rivers10]

Feb 22, 2018 17:58:27 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

I think the only change of any real significance may have been Ed Balls being defeated very narrowly. This would've given the Tories their 'Portillo moment'.

Grimsby might've been talked about as a sensational result but it would've been overshadowed by Cameron still falling short.

Even if the Conservatives had won the whole lot (unlikely) they'd still have ended up with 321 so might've ended up working with a party other than the Lib Dems.

Now suppose the Lib Dems continue to do well in opposition and gained ground in 2015...

Don't buy that at all, the BNP put a lot of effort into Morley as well in 2010, what little UKIP vote their was would have went overwhelmingly to them, some of it might have gone Con but nowhere near enough to overturn Ball's 1,000 plus majority.

The scenario does raise the prospect though of what might have happened had Balls lost in 2010 and I honestly think it would have helped Labour, Ball's wasn't a very good choice for shadow chancellor, he was just as weird as Milliband and the public clearly didn't think much of him at all, his absence alone would have provided a wee boost to Lab me thinks, nothing of any real note but something.

What's more interesting is that Balls apparently was the main opponent of some of Milliband's more radical policies and reigned him in multiple times, I've heard rumours that Mil wanted to scrap tuition fee's outright and renationalise the railways, putting aside the hypothetical electoral impacts this further shift to the left might have had it very probably would have been enough to stave off Corbyn's rise 

Lessons for the Labour moderates to be found their me thinks.  

[kitesurfer]

I wonder if the Tories may have done even worse in 2010 had Cameron made the in/out referendum pledge.

Before 2010, they tried awfully hard to convince the voters that it would not go into office and ‘bang on about Europe’ and that they were a modern compassionate party. Putting this referendum in their manifesto would have seriously undermined the message that they were trying to send out. The other parties would have made capital of the idea that the party had not changed and they were still the ‘nasty party’.

The Tories did relatively well in London that year. Had they included the referendum in their manifesto, it may have stopped them winning places like Richmond Park, Ealing C&A, Brentford, Enfield North and Ilford North.

The Tory victory in 2015 was largely a result of the virtual wipe out of the Lib Dems following the coalition. Had the Lib Dems not gone into coalition, one has to ask whether 2010 was as good as it would get for the Tories. If UKIP had not stood, a lot of the protest vote would have gone to the Lib Dems and may have saved the Lib Dems in the few marginals that they lost to the Tories in 2010.

In 2010, Cameron’s Tories were a bit of an unknown quantity in terms of the economy. Gordon Brown’s statement that ‘now is no time for a novice’ had a degree of traction in spite of the fact that people felt that Labour had left the country in a financial mess. Had the Tories included an in/out referendum in their manifesto, people may have felt that voting Tory would be too big a risk.

The issue of Europe would also have played heavily into the hands of Nick Clegg and made him look like the only grown up. Cleggmania may have been even greater and lasted for longer.

If the Tories had done much worse in 2018, a rainbow coalition would have become a possibility as would proportional representation. Ironically, however, a rainbow coalition and PR could easily have led to a Tory-UKIP coalition in 2015...

[lefty]

Feb 22, 2018 19:05:43 GMT rivers10 said:

Feb 22, 2018 17:58:27 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

I think the only change of any real significance may have been Ed Balls being defeated very narrowly. This would've given the Tories their 'Portillo moment'.

Grimsby might've been talked about as a sensational result but it would've been overshadowed by Cameron still falling short.

Even if the Conservatives had won the whole lot (unlikely) they'd still have ended up with 321 so might've ended up working with a party other than the Lib Dems.

Now suppose the Lib Dems continue to do well in opposition and gained ground in 2015...

Don't buy that at all, the BNP put a lot of effort into Morley as well in 2010, what little UKIP vote their was would have went overwhelmingly to them, some of it might have gone Con but nowhere near enough to overturn Ball's 1,000 plus majority.

The scenario does raise the prospect though of what might have happened had Balls lost in 2010 and I honestly think it would have helped Labour, Ball's wasn't a very good choice for shadow chancellor, he was just as weird as Milliband and the public clearly didn't think much of him at all, his absence alone would have provided a wee boost to Lab me thinks, nothing of any real note but something.

What's more interesting is that Balls apparently was the main opponent of some of Milliband's more radical policies and reigned him in multiple times, I've heard rumours that Mil wanted to scrap tuition fee's outright and renationalise the railways, putting aside the hypothetical electoral impacts this further shift to the left might have had it very probably would have been enough to stave off Corbyn's rise 

Lessons for the Labour moderates to be found their me thinks.  

That does sound plausible, and I do wish Ed had maybe been a bit more radical, it did feel like he was holding back. Assuming he still did lose it might have just emboldened both sides within Labour though, both those to the right of Ed who had been proven right in their eyes and those on the Corbyn side who would have seen (or could argue) their policies as more mainstream Labour now than far-left.

[Deleted]

Feb 22, 2018 19:05:43 GMT rivers10 said:

Feb 22, 2018 17:58:27 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

I think the only change of any real significance may have been Ed Balls being defeated very narrowly. This would've given the Tories their 'Portillo moment'.

Grimsby might've been talked about as a sensational result but it would've been overshadowed by Cameron still falling short.

Even if the Conservatives had won the whole lot (unlikely) they'd still have ended up with 321 so might've ended up working with a party other than the Lib Dems.

Now suppose the Lib Dems continue to do well in opposition and gained ground in 2015...

Don't buy that at all, the BNP put a lot of effort into Morley as well in 2010, what little UKIP vote their was would have went overwhelmingly to them, some of it might have gone Con but nowhere near enough to overturn Ball's 1,000 plus majority.

The scenario does raise the prospect though of what might have happened had Balls lost in 2010 and I honestly think it would have helped Labour, Ball's wasn't a very good choice for shadow chancellor, he was just as weird as Milliband and the public clearly didn't think much of him at all, his absence alone would have provided a wee boost to Lab me thinks, nothing of any real note but something.

What's more interesting is that Balls apparently was the main opponent of some of Milliband's more radical policies and reigned him in multiple times, I've heard rumours that Mil wanted to scrap tuition fee's outright and renationalise the railways, putting aside the hypothetical electoral impacts this further shift to the left might have had it very probably would have been enough to stave off Corbyn's rise 

Lessons for the Labour moderates to be found their me thinks.  

95% of UKIP voters are really Tories. We settled this argument last June!

Anyone who disagrees needs their head testing!

(I’m joking of course)

Let’s suppose neither the BNP nor UKIP stood anywhere.

[johnsmith]

Had there been no UKIP in 2010, the BNP vote would have been larger but not enough to have any real electoral impact. The Labour and Lib Dem votes would likely have been larger too. But I suspect the Tory vote would then have been just large enough for them to have gained a small majority.

Consequently, there would have been no Lib/Con coalition. The policy of raising the basic rate tax threshold would probably not have been adopted, and the welfare cuts would probably have been even harsher, with the top rate reduced to 40p in one fell swoop.

The Lib Dems of course would not have become toxic, and would have remained a much more viable challenge to Labour on the left in 2015. Labour would still have lost in 2010, Ed Miliband would likely still have become leader. But in the 2015 election, with the Lib Dems hanging on to much more of the left vote, a more effectively divided left would probably have given the Tories a substantially larger majority than they actually had. The Lib Dems would also likely have held on to enough of their vote in Scotland to prevent quite so total a clean sweep for the SNP in Scotland. They themselves - and Labour and the Tories coming through the middle - would all likely have retained a small handful more seats each, though the SNP would likely still have been the largest party there by some margin.

It is possible that with a better electoral prospect - unless the Tories in government alone had managed to undermine that by unpopular actions - Cameron might not have felt such a need to curry favour by offering a Brexit referendum - especially with no UKIP forcing the issue. And even if he had, a more trusted and less toxic Lib Dem party might have been more effective in arguing against it. Brexit would probably not have happened. And even if a referendum had still taken place, and been won by the Brexiteers, it is likely that the margin of victory would have been much narrower.

Having comprehensively lost under Ed Miliband, the Corbyn leadership would likely still have happened, but with the Tories already enjoying a larger majority, there would probably have been no snap election in 2017, with Corbyn still being sniped at and openly plotted against by the right of his party. And Labour would have struggled so much more to win back the youth vote from the Lib Dems in any case. Corbyn's chances of survival, let alone winning an election, would be looking much bleaker right now.

So having followed this line of reasoning to what appears to me to be it's logical conclusions, I find myself concluding that without UKIP in 2010, we'd probably still be in the EU with no prospect of leaving it anytime soon, but the electoral prospects for the left would be much bleaker.