Cameron doesn't make a big open comprehensive offer

[catking]

The Tory-Lib Dem Coalition wasn't inevitable following the outcome of the 2010 general election. Indeed, until it actually happened, most of us found it hard to get our heads round such an idea.

So what would have happened if Cameron hadn't made his "big open comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems?

In that scenario, I think it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Lib-Lab-SNP Coalition. Clegg had made it very clear the Tories as the party who won the popular vote had the right to try and form a government first. I doubt they'd have agreed to such a deal even with Brown being replaced by someone else. Such a coalition would arguably have been even bigger electoral suicide for the party.

I think there are two plausible scenarios.

1) A Tory minority government that limps on for a few months. It has its emergency budget defeated and (in the context of significant market uncertainty) Cameron uses it as a pretext to call another general election to seek an overall majority. The outcome of such an election is highly uncertain, especially as Labour will almost certainly be led by someone other than Brown.

2) A Tory minority government manages to struggle on for close to a full parliament, with the Lib Dems supporting budgets in a very unofficial supply-and-confidence arrangement but generally being very limited in its legislative ambition (similar to the current minority government excluding Brexit).

What do you think would have happened and where do you think things would be now?

[Adam in Stroud]

Jun 26, 2018 14:29:25 GMT catking said:

The Tory-Lib Dem Coalition wasn't inevitable following the outcome of the 2010 general election. Indeed, until it actually happened, most of us found it hard to get our heads round such an idea.

So what would have happened if Cameron hadn't made his "big open comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems?

In that scenario, I think it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Lib-Lab-SNP Coalition. Clegg had made it very clear the Tories as the party who won the popular vote had the right to try and form a government first. I doubt they'd have agreed to such a deal even with Brown being replaced by someone else. Such a coalition would arguably have been even bigger electoral suicide for the party.

I think there are two plausible scenarios.

1) A Tory minority government that limps on for a few months. It has its emergency budget defeated and (in the context of significant market uncertainty) Cameron uses it as a pretext to call another general election to seek an overall majority. The outcome of such an election is highly uncertain, especially as Labour will almost certainly be led by someone other than Brown.

2) A Tory minority government manages to struggle on for close to a full parliament, with the Lib Dems supporting budgets in a very unofficial supply-and-confidence arrangement but generally being very limited in its legislative ambition (similar to the current minority government excluding Brexit).

What do you think would have happened and where do you think things would be now?

Tory minority, Cameron calls new election with or without budget defeat, on a platform of "only the Conservatives can form a government, only the Conservatives have the balls to deal with the deficit, give us the mandate and we'll finish the job." It's a winning position anyway when fixing the deficit was the overwhelming top priority of the day for all parties, but a new leader of Labour isn't going to help them either, it's almost certainly a Miliband anyway; neither of them can effectively distance themselves from the Brown govt or the financial crisis (nor the hangover of Iraq and the expenses scandal), either will be attacked as complicit in "failing to fix the roof while the sun shone" (i.e. exactly the line of attack successfully deployed by Cameron vs Ed Miliband) and neither has the balls to either refuse to apologise for Brown's economics nor to do a Corbyn-type volte-face on Blairism.

LDs collapse (maybe not quite as bad as 2015) because Cleggmania is a one-off and the Tories squeeze us hard on the line that the only choice is Con v Lab and we are a wasted vote. They call us immature and irrelevant for failing to go into coalition. Also the Tories are the only party with the cash to run a serious campaign.

Conservatives win majority of 30-50. No FTPA, no AV+ referendum, probably no Brexit Referendum. LD vote share about 15%; possible Lab-LD coalition in 2015?

[Crimson King]

what he said

[catking]

My guess is that in that circumstance, Labour woulnd't have elected Ed Miliband as leader. The liklihood of a much more immediate election would, I think, have led to someone with more experience and more obviously ready for office to get the nod. So almost certainly would have been David over Ed. Not that I reckon it would have made that much difference in any election following shortly afterwards.

I'm not convinced an election shortly afterwards would have resulted in a Tory majority. I don't think the fundamentals would have changed enough to shift that many votes. Those who stuck with Labour or voted Lib Dem would still be very nervous about the prospect of a Tory government that would cut public spending. The only thing that I think would really shift votes would be if the market panicked and there was a severe shock.

I also think Cameron would have done his best to avoid an early election as defeat would surely have resulted in him being removed as Tory leader, putting him at risk of going down in history for being PM for only a matter of months.

[The Bishop]

Though part of the argument for a quick second election giving the Tories an outright win is that both Labour and the LibDems would be short of money not long after the hard fought 2010 campaign. Not such a problem for the blue team, of course......

Plus that historically, such a tactic worked for Labour in 1966 and 1974 (even if less than gloriously the second time) But we now have 2017 as well!

[Deleted]

I think Cameron would have sought formal C&S from the Lib Dems at least. Challenging the combined opposition to vote down his QS wasn't particularly in his temperament and also there was a fair amount of compatibility between the Tory and LD manifestos on a number of domestic issues, so if an agreement on budgets could have been made there wouldn't have been a huge number of day to day problems that would not have arisen through a coalition anyway.

I assume the "quad" would have been replaced with an informal arrangement (though more formal as the years went by) to discuss budgets and offer occasional goodies to LDs to keep their support going. On the non-fiscal legislative agenda there would have been more fighting and probably many fewer bills passed. The duration of the agreement would depend to some extent on the relative fortunes of the parties, but I don't imagine Tories and LDs would have been so confident of their electoral prospects at any stage that they would feel a serious incentive to collapse the agreement for no other reason.

2015 election, I could imagine LDs still being hammered in Labour areas for propping up the govt but perhaps faring a little better elsewhere and holding on to their bourgeois urban seats like Twickenham and Bath etc, ie the ones they regained last time anyway.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jun 27, 2018 9:11:34 GMT catking said:

My guess is that in that circumstance, Labour woulnd't have elected Ed Miliband as leader. The liklihood of a much more immediate election would, I think, have led to someone with more experience and more obviously ready for office to get the nod. So almost certainly would have been David over Ed. Not that I reckon it would have made that much difference in any election following shortly afterwards.

I think if experience was the major criterion, it's unlikely either Miliband would have been the beneficiary.

That said, I'm not sure it would have been that significant - it has to be remembered that we'd been in government for 13 years, the selectorate was eager for a changing of the guard and most of the old guard weren't too eager to hang around either.

[johnloony]

I think that a quick second election would have resulted in a big loss of Lib Dem seats, with voters worried that the Lib Dems might just "let Labour back in" in the event of another hung parliament.

[tiberius]

Jun 26, 2018 16:16:50 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Jun 26, 2018 14:29:25 GMT catking said:

The Tory-Lib Dem Coalition wasn't inevitable following the outcome of the 2010 general election. Indeed, until it actually happened, most of us found it hard to get our heads round such an idea.

So what would have happened if Cameron hadn't made his "big open comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems?

In that scenario, I think it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Lib-Lab-SNP Coalition. Clegg had made it very clear the Tories as the party who won the popular vote had the right to try and form a government first. I doubt they'd have agreed to such a deal even with Brown being replaced by someone else. Such a coalition would arguably have been even bigger electoral suicide for the party.

I think there are two plausible scenarios.

1) A Tory minority government that limps on for a few months. It has its emergency budget defeated and (in the context of significant market uncertainty) Cameron uses it as a pretext to call another general election to seek an overall majority. The outcome of such an election is highly uncertain, especially as Labour will almost certainly be led by someone other than Brown.

2) A Tory minority government manages to struggle on for close to a full parliament, with the Lib Dems supporting budgets in a very unofficial supply-and-confidence arrangement but generally being very limited in its legislative ambition (similar to the current minority government excluding Brexit).

What do you think would have happened and where do you think things would be now?

Tory minority, Cameron calls new election with or without budget defeat, on a platform of "only the Conservatives can form a government, only the Conservatives have the balls to deal with the deficit, give us the mandate and we'll finish the job." It's a winning position anyway when fixing the deficit was the overwhelming top priority of the day for all parties, but a new leader of Labour isn't going to help them either, it's almost certainly a Miliband anyway; neither of them can effectively distance themselves from the Brown govt or the financial crisis (nor the hangover of Iraq and the expenses scandal), either will be attacked as complicit in "failing to fix the roof while the sun shone" (i.e. exactly the line of attack successfully deployed by Cameron vs Ed Miliband) and neither has the balls to either refuse to apologise for Brown's economics nor to do a Corbyn-type volte-face on Blairism.

LDs collapse (maybe not quite as bad as 2015) because Cleggmania is a one-off and the Tories squeeze us hard on the line that the only choice is Con v Lab and we are a wasted vote. They call us immature and irrelevant for failing to go into coalition. Also the Tories are the only party with the cash to run a serious campaign.

Conservatives win majority of 30-50. No FTPA, no AV+ referendum, probably no Brexit Referendum. LD vote share about 15%; possible Lab-LD coalition in 2015?

^would 2015 resemble this?

[The Bishop]

What are the actual seat numbers there?

[tiberius]

Jun 28, 2018 9:14:50 GMT The Bishop said:

What are the actual seat numbers there?

SW: 37 C, 10 LD, 8 L
SE: 72 C, 9 L, 3 LD, 1 G, 1 Speaker
London: 43 L, 25 C, 4 LD, 1 G
E: 46 C, 8 L, 3 LD, 1 UKIP
Wales: 27 L, 6 C, 3 LD, 3 PC
W Midlands: 31 L, 27 C, 1 LD
E Midlands: 26 C, 20 L
NW: 57 L, 15 C, 3 LD
Yorkshire: 36 L, 15 C, 1 LD
NE: 27 L, 1 C, 1 LD
Scotland: 23 L, 23 SNP, 11 LD, 2 C
NI: 6 DUP, 4 SF, 3 UUP, 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance, 1 I
Total: 289 L, 272 C, 40 LD, 23 SNP, 6 DUP, 4 SF, 3 PC, 3 SDLP, 3 UUP, 2 G, 1 Alliance, 1 I, 1 Speaker, 1 UKIP

[Lord Twaddleford]

Jun 28, 2018 8:14:27 GMT tiberius said:

^would 2015 resemble this?

A few issues with that map, I find suggestions that Labour could've won the following seats in even those circumstances to be quite fanciful:

• Solihull
• Bosworth
• Oxford West & Abingdon
  
• Altrincham & Sale West
  
• Aldridge-Brownhills
• Sutton Coldfield
  
• Southport
• Chelmsford

There're a few other seats I wouldn't have been sure about either...

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that Labour would have won City of Chester and held onto Holborn & St. Pancras, whilst we're at it.  All of this is assuming that those aren't colouring errors I'm seeing there...

[catking]

Given I'd bet on Labour winning Southport at the next election, that isn't so far fetched. The others in those circumstances are highly unlikely.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Jun 28, 2018 15:07:50 GMT catking said:

Given I'd bet on Labour winning Southport at the next election, that isn't so far fetched. The others in those circumstances are highly unlikely.

Indeed at the next election Southport is within striking distance for us, but back in 2015 and just prior, I wouldn't be so sure. In the scenario presented in this thread, I'd have have it going either Lib Dem or Conservative, depending on John Pugh's actions.

[tiberius]

That map was for a "Lib Dem-Conservative coalition goes less badly for the Lib Dems and the SNP does worse"-type scenario. It might need some adjustment given the differing circumstances...

[pragmaticidealist]

Alan Johnson would have perhaps been more willing to throw his hat into the leadership ring if a second election within the year had been seen as likely. I doubt Ed Miliband or Andy Burnham would have gone for it.

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2018 9:17:31 GMT tiberius said:

Jun 28, 2018 9:14:50 GMT The Bishop said:

What are the actual seat numbers there?

SW: 37 C, 10 LD, 8 L
SE: 72 C, 9 L, 3 LD, 1 G, 1 Speaker
London: 43 L, 25 C, 4 LD, 1 G
E: 46 C, 8 L, 3 LD, 1 UKIP
Wales: 27 L, 6 C, 3 LD, 3 PC
W Midlands: 31 L, 27 C, 1 LD
E Midlands: 26 C, 20 L
NW: 57 L, 15 C, 3 LD
Yorkshire: 36 L, 15 C, 1 LD
NE: 27 L, 1 C, 1 LD
Scotland: 23 L, 23 SNP, 11 LD, 2 C
NI: 6 DUP, 4 SF, 3 UUP, 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance, 1 I
Total: 289 L, 272 C, 40 LD, 23 SNP, 6 DUP, 4 SF, 3 PC, 3 SDLP, 3 UUP, 2 G, 1 Alliance, 1 I, 1 Speaker, 1 UKIP

How exactly do the Greens find a way to win Holborn & St Pancras in this scenario?

[tiberius]

Jun 28, 2018 20:33:57 GMT @benjamin said:

Jun 28, 2018 9:17:31 GMT tiberius said:

SW: 37 C, 10 LD, 8 L
SE: 72 C, 9 L, 3 LD, 1 G, 1 Speaker
London: 43 L, 25 C, 4 LD, 1 G
E: 46 C, 8 L, 3 LD, 1 UKIP
Wales: 27 L, 6 C, 3 LD, 3 PC
W Midlands: 31 L, 27 C, 1 LD
E Midlands: 26 C, 20 L
NW: 57 L, 15 C, 3 LD
Yorkshire: 36 L, 15 C, 1 LD
NE: 27 L, 1 C, 1 LD
Scotland: 23 L, 23 SNP, 11 LD, 2 C
NI: 6 DUP, 4 SF, 3 UUP, 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance, 1 I
Total: 289 L, 272 C, 40 LD, 23 SNP, 6 DUP, 4 SF, 3 PC, 3 SDLP, 3 UUP, 2 G, 1 Alliance, 1 I, 1 Speaker, 1 UKIP

How exactly do the Greens find a way to win Holborn & St Pancras in this scenario?

I wanted to give the Greens a second seat somewhere for variance purposes.

[greenchristian]

Jun 29, 2018 11:25:31 GMT tiberius said:

Jun 28, 2018 20:33:57 GMT @benjamin said:

How exactly do the Greens find a way to win Holborn & St Pancras in this scenario?

I wanted to give the Greens a second seat somewhere for variance purposes.

In which case you should have given us Bristol West or Norwich South. The former is more likely than the latter, since the Norwich Greens would still have experienced the same organisational problems as they did in reality.

Incidentally, looking at the seats I know well, there is no way Solihull would go Labour in such a scenario.

[tiberius]

Jul 2, 2018 1:42:08 GMT greenchristian said:

Jun 29, 2018 11:25:31 GMT tiberius said:

I wanted to give the Greens a second seat somewhere for variance purposes.

In which case you should have given us Bristol West or Norwich South. The former is more likely than the latter, since the Norwich Greens would still have experienced the same organisational problems as they did in reality.

Incidentally, looking at the seats I know well, there is no way Solihull would go Labour in such a scenario.

What seats would need to be flipped around to fit this scenario better while keeping the overall seat count the same?