ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,619 
|
Post by ricmk on Nov 2, 2022 11:33:48 GMT
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. I'm not convinced there would have been an LD-Con coalition on those numbers. Everything they agreed on had been done in 2010-15 so the live issues were more things they didn't agree on. The parties were poles apart on the EU and I can't see any position that would have held a majority. Remembering that LD members have a veto on any coalition deal, I think they may well have scuppered it - the mood was mutinous in 2015 and I'm not convinced holding onto 12 or so more seats would have been enough to change that. What big things would the Tories offer that the LDs would have liked? We were ready on Digital Bill of Rights and similar initiatives not on the Tory radar, but I think it would have just been too difficult to put an acceptable deal together. Far more likely a Con minority in those circumstances I reckon. Also Tim Farron may well have challenged for the leadership in those circumstances anyway which would have made the leadership much more sceptical about working with the Cons. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 2, 2022 11:38:28 GMT
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? Well it was very very close in 2015 for one thing.... |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Nov 2, 2022 11:50:01 GMT
Well it was very very close in 2015 for one thing.... aye but there was a number of close calls |
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Nov 3, 2022 7:30:09 GMT
I'm not convinced there would have been an LD-Con coalition on those numbers. Everything they agreed on had been done in 2010-15 so the live issues were more things they didn't agree on. The parties were poles apart on the EU and I can't see any position that would have held a majority. Remembering that LD members have a veto on any coalition deal, I think they may well have scuppered it - the mood was mutinous in 2015 and I'm not convinced holding onto 12 or so more seats would have been enough to change that. What big things would the Tories offer that the LDs would have liked? We were ready on Digital Bill of Rights and similar initiatives not on the Tory radar, but I think it would have just been too difficult to put an acceptable deal together. Far more likely a Con minority in those circumstances I reckon. Also Tim Farron may well have challenged for the leadership in those circumstances anyway which would have made the leadership much more sceptical about working with the Cons. Both LD and Con manifestos were aligned for another coalition term - things like free school meals for all kids was agreed in the run up to the election (and dumped by the Tories afterwards). Would Clegg have gone to the members for another vote on coalition? There was a momentum (not that one  ) behind another deal which only disappeared because of the Lib Dems inability to hold their seats. Given Cameron's deliberate targeting of Lib Dem seats the interesting dynamic would have been how this would have affected the personal trust that Clegg and Cameron personally had? The Lib Dems problem was not having a credible exit strategy over a substantive policy issue in 2010-15 - given the alignment of their manifestos in 2015 - finding a way to walk away would have been difficult. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,398
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Nov 3, 2022 10:53:24 GMT
I'm not convinced there would have been an LD-Con coalition on those numbers. Everything they agreed on had been done in 2010-15 so the live issues were more things they didn't agree on. The parties were poles apart on the EU and I can't see any position that would have held a majority. Remembering that LD members have a veto on any coalition deal, I think they may well have scuppered it - the mood was mutinous in 2015 and I'm not convinced holding onto 12 or so more seats would have been enough to change that. What big things would the Tories offer that the LDs would have liked? We were ready on Digital Bill of Rights and similar initiatives not on the Tory radar, but I think it would have just been too difficult to put an acceptable deal together. Far more likely a Con minority in those circumstances I reckon. Also Tim Farron may well have challenged for the leadership in those circumstances anyway which would have made the leadership much more sceptical about working with the Cons. Both LD and Con manifestos were aligned for another coalition term - things like free school meals for all kids was agreed in the run up to the election (and dumped by the Tories afterwards). Would Clegg have gone to the members for another vote on coalition? There was a momentum (not that one ) behind another deal which only disappeared because of the Lib Dems inability to hold their seats. Given Cameron's deliberate targeting of Lib Dem seats the interesting dynamic would have been how this would have affected the personal trust that Clegg and Cameron personally had? The Lib Dems problem was not having a credible exit strategy over a substantive policy issue in 2010-15 - given the alignment of their manifestos in 2015 - finding a way to walk away would have been difficult. I agree that the Lib Dems were probably angling for a refreshed coalition with the Tories but I don 't think Cameron was: or else he wouldn't have expended so much time and energy campaigning in Lib Dem seats in the south west (and very successfully, it must be said). Thinking back, the surprise on the night wasn't so much the outcome in Labour-Tory contests - it was the Tories' demolition of the Lib Dems, including the capture of seats that the yellows had held for several elections past and in which they seemed entrenched. (The scale of the SNP's success in Scotland was also a surprise, but less relevant to the current discussion.) Going slightly farther back, in the heady days just after the rose garden a number of influential Tories floated the idea that the coalition agreement should be entrenched by an electoral pact in which the Tories would step aside in seats defended by the Lib Dems and also in the small number of seats where the Lib Dems were the main challengers to Labour, and in return the Lib Dems would not contest seats held by the Tories or Labour seats where the Tories were the main challenger. But the Lib Dems made it very clear that they weren't interested in such an arrangement, so you can't really blame the Tories for going after them so aggressively in 2015. (I can't but wonder what would have happened if such a deal had been entered into. The combined forces of the coalition would surely have achieved a solid majority in 2015, with a large Lib Dem contingent. What would have happened after that I'm not sure.) |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 3, 2022 13:15:18 GMT
A formal Tory/LibDem electoral alliance in 2015 would almost certainly have been returned to power, but maybe not as decisively as some might imagine. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a stronger Labour performance in that event, at least - could the Tories attack them on the SNP as effectively then, for example?
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Nov 4, 2022 16:15:34 GMT
I stand by my long-held view that the Coalition government was the best I've seen in my lifetime.
It is unfortunate that so many Lib Dems lost their seats in 2015, but this was ultimately a consequence of them spending years strategically positioning themselves as an anti-Tory party and doing fuck-all to realign things, despite governing in Coalition with us for five years.
I'd genuinely like it to have gone differently. But too many of them still saw us as 'the enemy' rather than Labour.
|
|
) behind another deal which only disappeared because of the Lib Dems inability to hold their seats. Given Cameron's deliberate targeting of Lib Dem seats the interesting dynamic would have been how this would have affected the personal trust that Clegg and Cameron personally had? 