AHC/WI: An autumn 2010 UK general election?

[Basileus Giorgios]

This is a possibility that's often discussed in British politics, as well as on this board. What if, instead of the surprisingly solid Cameron/Clegg coalition, Britain gets in May 2010 a shaky minority Government of some flavour, that sets out its stall for governing before going to the polls again in, say, October or November of the same year.

What circumstances could bring this about, and would the result be any more decisive than they had been the previous May?

 

[Thoresby]

I think a key issue would be money. While Britain isn't the US and we have tight electoral spending limits money still matters a hell of a lot. All parties obviously emptied their warchest during the General Election but Labour's is emptier thanks to the Party's large debts. Now the Unions can cover that to an extent but it isn't a bottomless well so they'll be in serious. Also while Labour and the Lib Dems would be eligible for Short money as they'd be in Opposition its an annual payment so might not have come through yet. The Lib Dems would also be in serious trouble, they haven't got Labours debts but they also haven't got the Unions. Finally the Tories are in a relatively good position with relatively few debts and deep pocketed donors. So they'll be able to outspend their rivals by a substantial margin in a second election.
Additionally the Tories have the incumbancy factor now working in their favour, while their new MP's haven't had much time to build up incumbancy at least it's not working against them and they've got a much shorter target list.
Finally Labour are either in the middle of an leadership election or have only just anointed a new leader who is yet to settle in.
All those factors make me think that unless the Tories do something really unpopular in their first 6 months you are going to see a Tory majority and possibly quite a decent one (40+ seats).

 

[Tovarich]

All those factors make me think that unless the Tories do something really unpopular in their first 6 months you are going to see a Tory majority and possibly quite a decent one (40+ seats).

I know I would say this but.....well, I don't think they're going to be able to help themselves.
Cameron may still be wanting to modernise, but his authority is going to be down from OTL (negotiating the Coalition really was an impressive feat of politics, pretty much ensuring the Tories got plenty of what they wanted & the LibDems hardly anything).
I can imagine TTL Conservatives not just beefing up Atos, actually going for scrapping ESA & DLA altogether (after 13 years, barracudas get hungry).
That could prove plenty unpopular, though, people don't like seeing the 'deserving poor' getting hit.

Of course they might also go for something very popular(ist) and get an In/Out EU referendum set up with indecent haste.

I expect the other members will be looking at the UK as definitely out from that moment on, but somebody with a better grasp of economics than I shall have to tell us how that'd work out.
They're glad to see the back of us, or total Euro collapse?

 

[V-J]

All those factors make me think that unless the Tories do something really unpopular in their first 6 months you are going to see a Tory majority and possibly quite a decent one (40+ seats).

You do realise how terribly difficult it is for the Tories to gain even a tiny majority under the current boundaries, right?

For the kind of majority you're talking about, they would probably need a ten percent margin or more over Labour, and they were nowhere near that mark in the period stated by the OP. Now, you have to factor in the alternate political development here; if the Tories are planning on a Autumn election, Osborne will make his emergency budget a giveaway one in a few key respects, no coalition means no LD defectors to Labour, etc, but it's not going to be enough to propel the Tories to a strong majority.

Incumbency factor and a new leader work both ways, btw. A lot of people just wanted Labour out in 2010 because they were visibly exhausted as a party of government and had become utterly dysfunctional under Brown. And no, the new Labour leader ITTL need not be Ed Miliband; it could quite easily be his brother instead. David could make a very compelling argument, and he really never had any IOTL; we're on the cusp of getting back into power. This second election that's just around the corner, I'm the man to win it. With no coalition, there would also be less tribalistic leftyrage, and David, again, would be able to point to himself as the man most suited to court the Lib Dems.

So the most likely outcome of an autumn election would be... a hung parliament. Possibly one in which the Tories diminish or imperil their existing status. Why bother?

Coalition was by far the most sensible outcome for the Tories in 2010. There was no majority just waiting round the corner, after just one more heave.

(To go to the heart of the matter, I guess I should state that I don't believe for a moment that a second election is the most likely outcome even in a non-coalition scenario; I think Cam would work as hard as poss to keep whatever sort of Lib-Con pact emerges as a going concern. [And that's realistically the minimum you're going to get with OTL's political actors] All this 'gotta have a second election if there's a minority' psuedo-conventional wisdom stuff which seems to underpin some people's arguments on here, people are basing that entirely off a single precedent from forty years ago in which the incumbent minority govt inched a tiny six-seat majority.... and was eventually forced to enter into a pact with the Liberals anyway.)

 

[Thoresby]

The Tories only need 17 more seats to win a (one seat) majority and based on my reading of the list of the most marginal seats where the Tories are second that lucky seat number 17 is Newcastle-under-Lyme where Paul Farrelly has a 3.6% margin or a 1.8% uniform swing. I don't think it's ASB to imagine that a Tory Party with a significant financial advantage, a short target list and a electoral platform based on "Labour have completely screwed everything up, we've looked at the books and they're terrible please give us a mandate to fix things" would win. The Lib Dems are going to be squeezed further as it's more of a two horse race and Labour might have David Miliband or if it's before September 25th they might have Harriet Harman as caretaker.

I don't think the Tories are going to get a decent majority, the current gerrymander ensures that but I think they'd win.

 

[The Red]

The Tories only need 17 more seats to win a (one seat) majority

Even if it were achievable majority of one really isn't really anymore stable than a minority government however, being constantly vulnerable to rebellions of which there have ben record numbers in the last three years, and only requiring a few by-election defeats to have the government collapse altogether, as happened to the Major government by had a majority of 20 starting out.

I don't think the Tories are going to get a decent majority, the current gerrymander ensures that but I think they'd win.

Independent reports from Boundary Commissions are a Gerrymander?

 

[V-J]

I don't think the Tories are going to get a decent majority, the current gerrymander ensures that but I think they'd win.

The Tories had the financial upper hand in 2010 OTL, and they were making the financial case with the wind in their sails too. They also had an excellent electoral asset in the form of Gordon Brown and his associated non-government. Said Gordo had one of the worst election campaigns in recent history. They didn't get a majority.

As such, I really don't see why Election 2: Return of the Killer Election will deliver such a majority. And as Red says, a single-figure majority is a pointless pursuit in any case, and, for Cameron, utterly politically unintuitive.

Between working with Nick Clegg, or going off on a quixotic pursuit of a majority, which even you admit is only likely to be a micro specimen - which will make himself beholden to Peter Bone and friends - which do you honestly think the man is going to choose?

 

[Well]

(To go to the heart of the matter, I guess I should state that I don't believe for a moment that a second election is the most likely outcome even in a non-coalition scenario; I think Cam would work as hard as poss to keep whatever sort of Lib-Con pact emerges as a going concern. [And that's realistically the minimum you're going to get with OTL's political actors] All this 'gotta have a second election if there's a minority' psuedo-conventional wisdom stuff which seems to underpin some people's arguments on here, people are basing that entirely off a single precedent from forty years ago in which the incumbent minority govt inched a tiny six-seat majority.... and was eventually forced to enter into a pact with the Liberals anyway.)

To be fair, there's 1974 and then there's 1964/1966. I accept it's not a true 'minority turns to majority with a second election' story, but the 1964 Labour majority was so thin it might have been absent. And yes, the most recent double election was forty years ago, but we haven't had any non-coalition minority parliaments since then, so the result is surely not proven, rather than decisively against. And other parliamentary systems seem to like snap elections in minority situations (Canada 2006/2008, Quebec 2007/2008 off the top of my head).

 

[Thoresby]

Independent reports from Boundary Commissions are a Gerrymander?

Well as it takes the Tories a 7% lead to get the same number of seats its hardly fair. But you're right I think the term is malapportionment.

 

[V-J]

To be fair, there's 1974 and then there's 1964/1966. I accept it's not a true 'minority turns to majority with a second election' story, but the 1964 Labour majority was so thin it might have been absent. And yes, the most recent double election was forty years ago, but we haven't had any non-coalition minority parliaments since then, so the result is surely not proven, rather than decisively against. And other parliamentary systems seem to like snap elections in minority situations (Canada 2006/2008, Quebec 2007/2008 off the top of my head).

I think you miss my point. I'm not trying to establish any kind of universal rule, I'm arguing against universal rules. You can't say 1974 establishes anything either way, because in politics or in life each individual circumstance is different, the factors are different, the individuals are different. There are no precedents when it comes to hard electoral calculations, made by different individuals, in different political circumstances. I'm essentially arguing against people unthinkingly assuming 'no coalition in 2010 = second election'.

 

[Thoresby]

I'm essentially arguing against people unthinkingly assuming 'no coalition in 2010 = second election'.

I agree with everyone else that a Con-Lib coalition was the most likely result of 2010 but I think the assumption that Con minority=Second election within the year is pretty likely. A Tory minority government is essentially unworkable when you consider the economic situation and Cameron is fully aware that the longer they wait the less chance they have of improving their position.

 

[V-J]

I agree with everyone else that a Con-Lib coalition was the most likely result of 2010 but I think the assumption that Con minority=Second election within the year is pretty likely. A Tory minority government is essentially unworkable when you consider the economic situation and Cameron is fully aware that the longer they wait the less chance they have of improving their position.

I'm not arguing for a Tory minority government, though, as I've gone over, because I don't see how such a thing would come about, assuming OTL's election result. The minimum you are going to get is some kind of Con-Lib pact, IMO. And yes, I'm afraid the continuance of a Con-Lib pact would be objectively superior in the mind of Cam to flying away in pursuit of, in a gamble on, a micro-majority which you are now arguing the Tories would garner in a second election, as the supposed best case scenario.

 

[Thoresby]

I'm not arguing for a Tory minority government, though, as I've gone over, because I don't see how such a thing would come about, assuming OTL's election result. The minimum you are going to get is some kind of Con-Lib pact, IMO. And yes, I'm afraid the continuance of a Con-Lib pact would be objectively superior in the mind of Cam to flying away in pursuit of a micro-majority which you are arguing the Tories would garner in a second election, as the supposed best case scenario.

I think we're broadly in agreement that Con-Lib pact was the most likely and best option but it wasn't the only one.

I reckon that the odds were

70% Coalition similar to OTL
20% Supply and Confidence probably with an election prior to 2015, definitely with a worse economic situation.
10% Minority government followed by an election within 12 months and probably 6 which would result in:

50% Tory Majority (probably v. small)
20% Hung Parliament with small gains for the Tories
20% Hung Parliament with small loses for the Tories leaving them the largest party.
10% Labour largest party.

 

[AndyC]

Well as it takes the Tories a 7% lead to get the same number of seats its hardly fair. But you're right I think the term is malapportionment.

Actually, it's not even that. It's simply FPTP in practice.

You see, the term "it takes whoever to get an x% lead" is actually meaningless. It's a reversal of the causality, but we like to see things more simplistically than they are, and this is effectively encouraged by the reporting and presentation of things.

Your national score in FPTP does not give you anything. It is simply a summation of your vote scores in all of the individual battles. From that, you can't really work out what happened in all of those battles. What we still tend to do, despite it being shown time and again to be only a very loose rule of thumb, is take what happened last time in all of the constituencies, see what that totalled up to be, and then estimate a changed total and guess how that would have come about from the sum of the constituency totals. And the loose rule of thumb we use is that every constituency changes exactly the same way. Which, of course, they don't.

We sort of hope all of the differences will cancel out, or at least close enough that it'll be kind of accurate, but after each election, the landscape changes so that the projections based on the last one turn out to have been badly out.

And the projections that we often talk about are:

"How much do the Tories/Labour need for a majority?"
"What is the seat advantage that Labour (or, in the past, the Conservatives) have on equal vote share?"
"What would the lead required be to get an equal number of seats?"

So - here's a table showing what we project(-ed) for the past few elections and the next one. Notice just how much the numbers change. In the table below, the line "2005 election" shows what a projection from the last election said would be these boundaries going in. The line below is based on what actually did happen.

 

[AndyC]

So what causes this seat advantage for Labour (which has collapsed from an advantage of 144 seats at an equal score, to only 52)?

Well, there's anumber of factors:

1: Differential turnout. Seats don't all act the same. In Labour safe seats, turnout is low. That means that they get fewer votes in total for their number of seats. If we could wave a magic wand and force turnout to be equal everywhere, then with exactly the same nationwide opinion and political leaning, Labour's vote share would magically increase. But the seat share wouldn't change at all. This is simply a factor of FPTP.

2: Tactical voting. Often, someone who'd rather support a party other than the Big Two decides that his/her first choice can't win and will vote instead to keep whichever of the Big Two he/she most loathes out of power by voting for their competitor. It's a byproduct of Duvergers Law (that in an FPTP system, third parties (and lower) are squeezed out as their credibility of winning is so low due to the difficult threshold); a rational response to "your first choice will not win". Again, a product of FPTP.

3: Clumping of support. Because you get an MP if you come first in each specific seat and nothing if you don't, a good distribution of your vote is enough-to-win in seats in which you are competitive, and none-at-all in seats where you haven't got a chance. Labour's vote is distributed in a better way than the Tories at the moment. Again, a factor of FPTP.

4: Differential voter numbers. There is a tendency (due to census lag) for inner-city constituencies to have fractionally smaller average electorate sizes than rural ones. As Labour has an advantage in the former, this can help them. This is the only one on which the Tories tend to focus, although it has by far the lowest contribution (about 5-9 seats of the discrepancy).

The first three can change over time easily enough and are simply products of FPTP that make it variable when you aggregate the results over a nation. As in the table before, this does change over time.

All of the issues that the Tories complain about are simply factors of the electoral system - which, ironically, is most strongly supported by them (because single member plurality voting has been the absolute rule for as long as we can ... oh. Since 1951, actually)

(NB - if a 7% lead was "needed" to get an equal number of seats, and there was a 7% lead last time (which there pretty much was), why do the Conservatives have 50 seats more than Labour?)