A hung parliament in 2015

[rockefeller]

If the Green vote went to Labour in a handful of seats, the Conservatives don't win a majority in 2015: CON 321, LAB 242, SNP 56, LD 7

LAB gain from CON (6): Bedford; Brighton, Kemptown; Bury North; Croydon Central; Plymouth, Sutton & Devonport; Weaver Vale. 

LAB holds on to Derby North,;Gower; Morley & Outwood (Ed Balls re-elected); Telford, 

LAB gain from LD: Leeds North West. Clegg holds on by 588 votes in Sheffield, Hallam. 

The closest result is Plymouth, Moor View, which goes Conservative by 3 votes.

[Pete Whitehead]

Plymouth Sutton & Devonport would have gone Labour

[The Bishop]

Would the Tories falling just short of a majority have made much practical difference, though?

As actually happened after 2017, they could have relied on the DUP to keep them afloat on those figures.

I suppose one possible factor would have been Ed Miliband not feeling obliged/forced to resign the day after the GE, and indeed the nature of the eventual Labour leadership campaign maybe being somewhat different - less, if anything, of an opening for Corbyn in that scenario?

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 28, 2022 9:43:51 GMT The Bishop said:

Would the Tories falling just short of a majority have made much practical difference, though?

As actually happened after 2017, they could have relied on the DUP to keep them afloat on those figures.

I suppose one possible factor would have been Ed Miliband not feeling obliged/forced to resign the day after the GE, and indeed the nature of the eventual Labour leadership campaign maybe being somewhat different - less, if anything, of an opening for Corbyn in that scenario?

rockerfeller's figures aren't too far from the exit poll forecast which after a few hours on the night a lot of Labour folks would have taken!

[mattbewilson]

I always thought it was a mistake for Ed to resign. However, he was under pressure to make way for someone else from 2014 onwards. To lose seats like this, I can't see the people moving in on Ed letting up. Tbf Gaitskill lost seats in 59 but he was Kinnock like figure getting the party back from the wilderness years.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 28, 2022 10:32:41 GMT mattbewilson said:

I always thought it was a mistake for Ed to resign. However, he was under pressure to make way for someone else from 2014 onwards. To lose seats like this, I can't see the people moving in on Ed letting up. Tbf Gaitskill lost seats in 59 but he was Kinnock like figure getting the party back from the wilderness years.

Though Kinnock did increase the Lab vote and seats at both elections he fought tbf Gaitskell the Lab tide was still going out in 1959

[rockefeller]

Does Ed Balls run for leader?

In this scenario Balls holds by 800 votes and the Morley & Outwood result is:

LAB 40.6% CON 38.9% UKIP 16.5% LD 3% YP 1%

[clyde1998]

I seem to recall some data from this election which suggested the one the factors which lead to the Conservative majority was 2010 Lib Dem voters switching to Labour (and possibly the Greens) in Lib Dem-Conservative contests. Doing a quick look at the results of the 2015 election shows 26 of the 27 seats which saw the Conservative gain from the Lib Dems had an increase in the Labour vote share.

I've found in Lewes; Eastbourne; Thornbury and Yate; Kingston and Surbiton; and Twickenham, the Conservative majority over the Lib Dems was smaller than the increase in the Labour share of the vote; there may be more. The same is true in Bath when you add in the Green vote share increase; St Ives becomes a razor-thin Conservative gain.

There may have been a group of 2010 Lib Dem voters who decided not to vote in 2015 too, or switched to UKIP as a protest vote.

[clyde1998]

Oct 28, 2022 9:43:51 GMT The Bishop said:

Would the Tories falling just short of a majority have made much practical difference, though?

As actually happened after 2017, they could have relied on the DUP to keep them afloat on those figures.

I suppose one possible factor would have been Ed Miliband not feeling obliged/forced to resign the day after the GE, and indeed the nature of the eventual Labour leadership campaign maybe being somewhat different - less, if anything, of an opening for Corbyn in that scenario?

Possibly, although it depends on how far short; on the figures in the OP it probably wouldn't've lead to much difference. With a larger gap to a majority, they may have held off on the EU referendum due to the increased chance of a rebellion or lack of opposition support - that would've radically changed history.

[aargauer]

Oct 28, 2022 10:32:41 GMT mattbewilson said:

I always thought it was a mistake for Ed to resign. However, he was under pressure to make way for someone else from 2014 onwards. To lose seats like this, I can't see the people moving in on Ed letting up. Tbf Gaitskill lost seats in 59 but he was Kinnock like figure getting the party back from the wilderness years.

Going backwards in opposition is unacceptable for a major party.

Even going forward but losing will usually be the end of a leader's career - labour kept on Kinnock and Corbyn and both were defeated again.

[aargauer]

Oct 28, 2022 11:12:54 GMT rockefeller said:

Does Ed Balls run for leader?

In this scenario Balls holds by 800 votes and the Morley & Outwood result is:

LAB 40.6% CON 38.9% UKIP 16.5% LD 3% YP 1%

Presumably the highly marginal seat would have counted against him in the leadership contest, and had he tried to stand up for a remain type position would likely have lost it sooner or later.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 28, 2022 13:56:35 GMT aargauer said:

Oct 28, 2022 10:32:41 GMT mattbewilson said:

I always thought it was a mistake for Ed to resign. However, he was under pressure to make way for someone else from 2014 onwards. To lose seats like this, I can't see the people moving in on Ed letting up. Tbf Gaitskill lost seats in 59 but he was Kinnock like figure getting the party back from the wilderness years.

Going backwards in opposition is unacceptable for a major party.

Even going forward but losing will usually be the end of a leader's career - labour kept on Kinnock and Corbyn and both were defeated again.

A government that have previously been reelected with a reduced majority and then being reelected with an increased one hadn't happened since 1865 but did in 2019 but yes I agree it is unacceptable for an opposition party.Has happened few times post war.

[michaelarden]

Oct 28, 2022 11:53:55 GMT clyde1998 said:

I seem to recall some data from this election which suggested the one the factors which lead to the Conservative majority was 2010 Lib Dem voters switching to Labour (and possibly the Greens) in Lib Dem-Conservative contests. Doing a quick look at the results of the 2015 election shows 26 of the 27 seats which saw the Conservative gain from the Lib Dems had an increase in the Labour vote share.

I've found in Lewes; Eastbourne; Thornbury and Yate; Kingston and Surbiton; and Twickenham, the Conservative majority over the Lib Dems was smaller than the increase in the Labour share of the vote; there may be more. The same is true in Bath when you add in the Green vote share increase; St Ives becomes a razor-thin Conservative gain.

There may have been a group of 2010 Lib Dem voters who decided not to vote in 2015 too, or switched to UKIP as a protest vote.

I think that's a better scenario than the OP. What would have happened if the Lib Dems had scraped 20 seats so the result was something like Con 310, Lab 240 and LD 20 with the SNP on 55.

The coalition would have a bare overall majority - significantly down on 2010 and the Lib Dems would have taken a huge hit for being in coalition (but not as big as they did in reality). Clegg and Cameron would have little alternative but to continue but it would be a fractious and fragile coalition - potentially wiped out by a handful of by-election losses.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 28, 2022 13:56:35 GMT aargauer said:

Oct 28, 2022 10:32:41 GMT mattbewilson said:

I always thought it was a mistake for Ed to resign. However, he was under pressure to make way for someone else from 2014 onwards. To lose seats like this, I can't see the people moving in on Ed letting up. Tbf Gaitskill lost seats in 59 but he was Kinnock like figure getting the party back from the wilderness years.

Going backwards in opposition is unacceptable for a major party.

Even going forward but losing will usually be the end of a leader's career - labour kept on Kinnock and Corbyn and both were defeated again.

personally I think leaders should stay after defeat even if they step down before the next election. I think that was always the plan with Corbyn had we got to 2022 before an election. Clearly Kinnock needed to stay after 87 as there was still rebuilding to do but perhaps he should have stepped down in 1991. Gaitskill might have won 64 but regardless he continued to rebuild the party after 59 to make Wilson's victory possible.

Churchill lost in 45 and no one would suggest he should have resigned. Heath was right to stay on after 66 and modernise the Tories to win in 70

[finsobruce]

Oct 28, 2022 10:32:41 GMT mattbewilson said:

I always thought it was a mistake for Ed to resign. However, he was under pressure to make way for someone else from 2014 onwards. To lose seats like this, I can't see the people moving in on Ed letting up. Tbf Gaitskill lost seats in 59 but he was Kinnock like figure getting the party back from the wilderness years.

Politics allowed leaders a second chance back then (Heath in 66). That hasn't been the case for quite a while.

[Deleted]

What might have been more interesting is if the Tories had fallen short because the LibDems held up better and kept the balance of power. Cameron would have been caught between a eurosceptic wing demanding their referendum and a coalition partner who refused to even think about it

[greatkingrat]

Oct 28, 2022 19:22:48 GMT @europeanlefty said:

What might have been more interesting is if the Tories had fallen short because the LibDems held up better and kept the balance of power. Cameron would have been caught between a eurosceptic wing demanding their referendum and a coalition partner who refused to even think about it

Wasn't the referendum originally a Lib Dem policy?

[greenhert]

Oct 28, 2022 7:33:58 GMT rockefeller said:

If the Green vote went to Labour in a handful of seats, the Conservatives don't win a majority in 2015: CON 321, LAB 242, SNP 56, LD 7

LAB gain from CON (6): Bedford; Brighton, Kemptown; Bury North; Croydon Central; Plymouth, Sutton & Devonport; Weaver Vale. 

LAB holds on to Derby North,;Gower; Morley & Outwood (Ed Balls re-elected); Telford, 

LAB gain from LD: Leeds North West. Clegg holds on by 588 votes in Sheffield, Hallam. 

The closest result is Plymouth, Moor View, which goes Conservative by 3 votes.

Or rather if UKIP had done better or if some Liberal Democrat voters had not tactically voted Conservative in such constituencies as Derby North.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 28, 2022 20:14:13 GMT greenhert said:

Oct 28, 2022 7:33:58 GMT rockefeller said:

If the Green vote went to Labour in a handful of seats, the Conservatives don't win a majority in 2015: CON 321, LAB 242, SNP 56, LD 7

LAB gain from CON (6): Bedford; Brighton, Kemptown; Bury North; Croydon Central; Plymouth, Sutton & Devonport; Weaver Vale. 

LAB holds on to Derby North,;Gower; Morley & Outwood (Ed Balls re-elected); Telford, 

LAB gain from LD: Leeds North West. Clegg holds on by 588 votes in Sheffield, Hallam. 

The closest result is Plymouth, Moor View, which goes Conservative by 3 votes.

Or rather if UKIP had done better or if some Liberal Democrat voters had not tactically voted Conservative in such constituencies as Derby North.

why Derby North?

[kitesurfer]

Oct 28, 2022 14:26:17 GMT michaelarden said:

Oct 28, 2022 11:53:55 GMT clyde1998 said:

I seem to recall some data from this election which suggested the one the factors which lead to the Conservative majority was 2010 Lib Dem voters switching to Labour (and possibly the Greens) in Lib Dem-Conservative contests. Doing a quick look at the results of the 2015 election shows 26 of the 27 seats which saw the Conservative gain from the Lib Dems had an increase in the Labour vote share.

I've found in Lewes; Eastbourne; Thornbury and Yate; Kingston and Surbiton; and Twickenham, the Conservative majority over the Lib Dems was smaller than the increase in the Labour share of the vote; there may be more. The same is true in Bath when you add in the Green vote share increase; St Ives becomes a razor-thin Conservative gain.

There may have been a group of 2010 Lib Dem voters who decided not to vote in 2015 too, or switched to UKIP as a protest vote.

I think that's a better scenario than the OP. What would have happened if the Lib Dems had scraped 20 seats so the result was something like Con 310, Lab 240 and LD 20 with the SNP on 55.

The coalition would have a bare overall majority - significantly down on 2010 and the Lib Dems would have taken a huge hit for being in coalition (but not as big as they did in reality). Clegg and Cameron would have little alternative but to continue but it would be a fractious and fragile coalition - potentially wiped out by a handful of by-election losses.

Privately, Cameron would have preferred that to the actual result. He much preferred dealing with the Lib Dems to the ERG.

Clegg probably would not have resigned, as 20 MPs would have been much less damaging than what did happen.

With that result, Cameron could have ‘agreed’ with the Lib Dems not to hold an EU referendum. He would have stayed in power for much longer. He probably would have handed over to Osborne in 2018 or something like that.

The next election probably would have been held in 2021 due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act and then the pandemic delaying it by a year.

If the government had made Partygate/mini-budget style errors, they may have lost their majority in by-elections to Labour. Indeed, it is likely that more Tories would have defected to UKIP and caused by-elections. However, on balance, I believe they would probably have made it to 2020/2021 with a majority given that they probably could have relied on the DUP like May did in 2017-19.

The result of the subsequent election would have depended probably entirely on how the government dealt with the pandemic. As there was no Brexit, the vaccines would not have been rolled out so quickly, but maybe the start of the pandemic may have been handled better.