A hung parliament in 2005

[wargamer6]

After watching some old 2005 election footage, some of the BBC commentators were thinking that there would be a hung parliament.

What if the 6% swing in Putney and the 7% swing in Peterborough were replicated across the marginals and the end result ended with Labour in the lead but no majority? Supply and confidence with the Liberal Democrats?

 

[Thande]

It wasn't a serious prediction, it was just some talking heads wrongfully extrapolating individual seats' swings even when cooler heads tell them not to, it happens every election. You'd have to try really hard to get a hung parliament in 2005.

 

[V-J]

You'd have to try really hard to get a hung parliament in 2005.

Not really. Give the opposition around another thirty Labour seats between them and you'd be about there; about another two percent UNS to the Tories and that would do it. Considering how small some of the Labour majorities were in many Tory-Labour marginals at the end of the night this wouldn't be especially taxing at all. A hung parliament or a tiny Labour majority was a very real possibility in 2005 and if the Tories hadn't so conclusively ballsed up the Parliament on their own side then it would probably have happened. A Ken Clarke or a Portillo or even a David Davis in 2001 and it would have been goodnight Vienna for Labour, certainly governing on its own anyway.

 

[The Red]

Not really. Give the opposition around another thirty Labour seats between them and you'd be about there; about another two percent UNS to the Tories and that would do it. Considering how small some of the Labour majorities were in many Tory-Labour marginals at the end of the night this wouldn't be especially taxing at all.

Where exactly were these 32 Tory-Labour marginal seats that only needed a 2% swing?

 

[iainbhx]

Where exactly were these 32 Tory-Labour marginal seats that only needed a 2% swing?

There's 28 of them and the LibDems might grab 2 more on top. Note OP's use of 2% swing not 2% margin.

 

[The Red]

There's 28 of them and the LibDems might grab 2 more on top. Note OP's use of 2% swing not 2% margin.

That's still a Labour majority however, if a tiny one.

 

[AndyC]

Labour marginals at the end of the 2005 General Election:

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge05/labmaj.htm

A 1% swing to the nearest challenger in the closest constituencies gives 18 or 19 Labour seats lost (reduction in majority from 66 to 30 or 28).

A 1.5% swing gives 25 or 26 seats lost (majority down from 66 to 16 or 14)

A 1.92% swing drops 34 seats, taking it to a hung Parliament.

(Lab 321, Con 220, LD 67, Plaid 4, SNP 7)

 

[Peelitebkearns]

After watching some old 2005 election footage, some of the BBC commentators were thinking that there would be a hung parliament.

What if the 6% swing in Putney and the 7% swing in Peterborough were replicated across the marginals and the end result ended with Labour in the lead but no majority? Supply and confidence with the Liberal Democrats?

Supply and Confidence with Labour as the governing party is the most likely outcome from a hung parliament with labour as the largest party, especially if the result is near a parliamentary majority. The idea of a coalition isn't totally out of the question though I expect.

This would put Blair in an even more dificult position than he was in OTL-could the Libs ask for Blair's resignation in return for a Supply and Confidence deal, or even a coalition?

 

[Meadow]

I think they'd wait to see if he resigned. Demanding his head on a platter a la Clegg/Brown in 2010 (or Clegg himself come OTL 2015) is merely going to anger a party still dominated by Blairites. It's also dangerously undemocratic for the party that supports the right of the party with most votes to govern to demand (from third place) the removal of an elected head of government.

 

[V-J]

I think they'd wait to see if he resigned.

Depends on what Kennedy wants. If he has his eyes set on coalition, (and I don't see why he, or any other Lib Dem, for that matter, wouldn't) then Blair going would be a sine qua non of that. There's no earthly way he could get into bed with Blair after cashing in on the anti-war vote, much of which was extremely personally vitriolic against Blair. Rather hard in any case for the man who started the war to implement a pullout plan. Ironic in a way as in other circumstances Blair would be the ideal person to oversee a Lab-Lib coalition, but by 2005 he's too tainted in Lib Dem eyes. (That's before we get onto the rude awakening in Labour that Blair has gone from electoral hero to electoral zero. In a hung parliament situation there's not going to be many Blairites willing to die in a ditch for Tony. Apart from a few exceptions most of them were opportunists at heart. Charles Clarke might urge him to go down with the ship and John Prescott would probably be angry at chuffin' Liberals dictatin' to The Movement but they'd be in a minority of two I think.)

 

[The Red]

Labour marginals at the end of the 2005 General Election:

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge05/labmaj.htm

A 1% swing to the nearest challenger in the closest constituencies gives 18 or 19 Labour seats lost (reduction in majority from 66 to 30 or 28).

A 1.5% swing gives 25 or 26 seats lost (majority down from 66 to 16 or 14)

A 1.92% swing drops 34 seats, taking it to a hung Parliament.

(Lab 321, Con 220, LD 67, Plaid 4, SNP 7)

So Labour would have lost the election but would be the largest party by a large margin? Looks like Kennedy would have a much stronger mandate for electoral reform in any coalition negotiations. Although Labour could go it alone somewhat comfortably with SDLP support.

 

[V-J]

Although Labour could go it alone somewhat comfortably with SDLP support.

I don't know by what process you arrive at the idea that a single figure majority is a "somewhat comforta[ble]" position to be in, but that's not true I'm afraid. Being at the mercy of the whims of people like Jeremy Corbyn is a hand-to-mouth existence which is not a position any government wants to be in when there's other political options.

 

[The Red]

I don't know by what process you arrive at the idea that a single figure majority is a "somewhat comforta[ble]" position to be in, but that's not true I'm afraid. It's a hand-to-mouth existence which is not a position any government wants to be in when there's other political options.

What I mean is that the Government could survive confidence votes by a small but clear margin provided that all Labour MP's do what they're told. Implementing the legislative program would be hell of course, probably making an agreement of some sort with either the Liberals or the Tories necessary, or at least trying to find ways of playing them off against each other.

 

[V-J]

provided that all Labour MP's do what they're told.

Annnnnnnndd there's the problem with that one.

Implementing a legislative program would not be "hell", it would be impossible. A minority government can be okay if your aim as a government is to just stay in power, less so if you have any, you know, actual policies you want to implement. Being able to scrape a confidence vote amounts to nothing politically, it's the day-to-day stuff which matters.

There's no reason to pursue such a course of political masochism if Labour is serious about staying in government. They'd need at the least a second Lib-Lab pact, ideally a coalition.

 

[The Red]

A minority government can be okay if your aim as a government is to just stay in power, less so if you have any, you know, actual policies you want to implement.

Well it is New Labour