Cameron gets a majority in 2010

[Andrew Hudson]

Thew 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament with the Conservatives having the largest number of seats and a coalition was formed with the only other sustainable alternative being a minority conservative government.

What if the Tories had managed to win more seats and had either a small majority or one of around 30 or so? A lot of noises have come from backbenchers including calls for tougher law to restrict strikes, increased powers for employers to fire at will and a lot of anti-EU rhetoric. Would these voices be restrained if Cameron could argue his strategy had won and would the anti EU rhetroic have been toned down or would the "nasty party" tendency be dominant

 

[Scientist Shan]

The only realistic way the Conservatives would have got a majority in 2010 (and likewise at future elections) is by hoovering up the rightist white working class vote which instead went UKIP/EDP/BNP.

You would then have a situation where the Conservative victory had been achieved DESPITE Cameron's liberal metropolitanism and not because of it.

A Conservative party increasingly dependent upon populist working class voters would likely demand a tougher line on immigration, crime, welfare and Europe but would be dubious about such things as NHS reform, tax cuts for the rich, environmentalism, 'big business and bankers', overseas aid and anything else in a 'globalist' agenda.

Exactly the opposite to Cameron and his followers in effect.

You would see tensions arise rapidly between a Cameron globalist/metropolitan leadership and localist/populist backbenchers. With both sides accusing the other of damaging the Conservative party's image. With some justification in fact - the localists/populists do damage the image of the Conservative party among the metropolitan middle classes while the globalists/metropolitans do damge the image of the Conservative party among the provincial lower middle and working classes.

Something which happens to centre-right political parties in other countries around the world.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

The only realistic way the Conservatives would have got a majority in 2010 (and likewise at future elections) is by hoovering up the rightist white working class vote which instead went UKIP/EDP/BNP.

I disagree with that, and to me the scenario sounds a little like wishful thinking. The combined UKIP/BNP voteshare in 2010 was only 5%, remember, and I don't see Cameron realistically being able to get much of that, no matter how hard he tried. These are the people who generally rejected the Conservative offering in 2005 and 2001 as well, after all.

A majority in 2010 was always (with hindsight) very unlikely, because of the sheer size of the electoral mountain the Tories had to climb. That said, the way to do it, in my view, is to butterfly "Cleggmania", and the idea in the minds of the public that there was an alternate way of kicking Labour without having to vote Conservative. Despite what UKIP may claim, the Lib Dems were an infinitely greater spoiler to the Conservatives than UKIP were in 2010.

So, no Cleggmania means the LDs and squeezed from their 2005 success, and the question is increasingly asked "why vote for this irrelevant party?" This is asked at every election, of course, but ITTL, Clegg's not able to provide a convincing answer in the form of his debate performance. You don't need to knock down the LD voteshare dramatically from its 2005 result to achieve this: say take the Lib Dems down to maybe 18% of the vote, with the majority of their 2010 converts voting Conservative. The end result would be something like 40/31/18, with the effect that the Conservatives are able to take maybe a dozen seats from the Lib Dems, and 15-20 more from Labour. The party now has 335 or so seats, a small but just about workable majority of about 20.

As for changes: obviously there's not going to be an AV referendum ITTL, and no moves to Lords Reform, although the shrinking of the House of Commons will go ahead. The lack of a crushing defeat for AV may very well mean it becomes part of Labour's electoral platform quite early on in the TL, which will obviously be quite a big change for the alternate 2015 election. The Lib Dems and Labour will, obviously, remain closer than IOTL.

As for the Government, I'm not sure the changes will be too radical. The Beecroft recommendations will probably largely be passed wholesale, and there may be marginally more aggressive attempts to regain powers from the EU early. Cameron's still unlikely to be bounced into offering a referendum until late 2012/early 2013, although here we might well see the referendum date being set sometime before the 2014/5 election, or even on the same date as the General Election. Speaking of GEs, there's not going to be a fixed term Parliament act.

The top rate of tax could be cut to 40%, but a part of me suspects Osborne will still go for 45% so he can claim that it is higher under the Conservatives than Labour. I reckon the Tories will probably steal the LD policy on personal allowances, but perhaps not pursue it as aggressively as the LDs have. There'd probably be a greater presentational focus on cheap energy, rather than green energy, so the progress of fracking developments will probably move maybe six months quicker ITTL. Transport investment I see largely going ahead as OTL, same for gay marriage. Cameron's still likely to try to outflank Salmond by bouncing him into a pre-2015 Scottish independence referendum: incidentally, a Conservative majority Government might well have two or three Scottish seats, rather than just one.

It'd be an interesting TL to see, I think. If only I could write political timelines!

 

[The Red]

The only realistic way the Conservatives would have got a majority in 2010 (and likewise at future elections) is by hoovering up the rightist white working class vote which instead went UKIP/EDP/BNP.

The English Democrats are an electoral irrelevance, whilst some of the BNP vote might have been from the Tories their electoral make-up was overwhelmingly ex-Labour and 'Sod the lot of you' voters, generally concentrated in safe Labour seats, which the Conservatives wouldn't have won even if all that vote did move to them. UKIP did lose the Conservatives seats, but if memory serves it was only around four or five, which would put them in a stronger position for coalition with the Liberals, or even Minority with DUP Confidence and Supply, but still rather far from a majority.

 

[Scientist Shan]

I disagree with that, and to me the scenario sounds a little like wishful thinking. The combined UKIP/BNP voteshare in 2010 was only 5%, remember, and I don't see Cameron realistically being able to get much of that, no matter how hard he tried. These are the people who generally rejected the Conservative offering in 2005 and 2001 as well, after all.

But its not 5% everywhere its concentrated in lower middle and white working class constituencies. The sort of constituencies which make up a higher proportion of the marginals.

 

[Scientist Shan]

A majority in 2010 was always (with hindsight) very unlikely, because of the sheer size of the electoral mountain the Tories had to climb. That said, the way to do it, in my view, is to butterfly "Cleggmania", and the idea in the minds of the public that there was an alternate way of kicking Labour without having to vote Conservative. Despite what UKIP may claim, the Lib Dems were an infinitely greater spoiler to the Conservatives than UKIP were in 2010.

So, no Cleggmania means the LDs and squeezed from their 2005 success, and the question is increasingly asked "why vote for this irrelevant party?" This is asked at every election, of course, but ITTL, Clegg's not able to provide a convincing answer in the form of his debate performance. You don't need to knock down the LD voteshare dramatically from its 2005 result to achieve this: say take the Lib Dems down to maybe 18% of the vote, with the majority of their 2010 converts voting Conservative. The end result would be something like 40/31/18, with the effect that the Conservatives are able to take maybe a dozen seats from the Lib Dems, and 15-20 more from Labour. The party now has 335 or so seats, a small but just about workable majority of about 20.

You're way overestimating the effect of Cleggmania IMO.

By election day it had petered out and produced very little effect where it mattered, which is why the LibDems lost MPs in the election despite having a higher overall vote than in 2005.

Without Cleggmania there would probably have been 2 or 3 extra Conservative gains from the LibDems but probably not more - remember where the LibDems have MPs they've already won the support of the sort of 'non-political voters' which temporarily fell under the spell of Cleggmania.

And I doubt the Conservatives would have made any extra gains from Labour at all without Cleggmania, its possible that Labour instead would have held one or two extra marginals instead.

Cleggmania wasn't a cause of Cameron failing to 'seal the deal' it was a consequence of it.

People were looking for change but Cameron failed to convince enough people that he was the right man for the new circumstances.

Cleggmania was a consequence as very briefly he looked attractive to voters but that appeal was already fading fast by the election hence an increase in support for minor parties and a consolidation in both Conservative and Labour support.

To have an overall Conservative majority you need an earlier POD with the Conservatives finding a more successful strategy and/or effective tactics and/or likeable leadership.

 

[Scientist Shan]

The English Democrats are an electoral irrelevance, whilst some of the BNP vote might have been from the Tories their electoral make-up was overwhelmingly ex-Labour and 'Sod the lot of you' voters, generally concentrated in safe Labour seats, which the Conservatives wouldn't have won even if all that vote did move to them. UKIP did lose the Conservatives seats, but if memory serves it was only around four or five, which would put them in a stronger position for coalition with the Liberals, or even Minority with DUP Confidence and Supply, but still rather far from a majority.

I think there was well over 30, possibly as many as 50, constituencies where the combined UKIP/EDP/BNP vote was larger than the non-Conservative majority.

If the Conservatives had been able to win this voting block - and doing so would likely have won them some extra Labour and LibDems voters and abstainers from similar backgrounds - they would have had an overall majority.

To do this though would have required an earlier POD with the Conservatives chosing a different electoral strategy with appropriate policies and campaigning.

 

[The Red]

I think there was well over 30, possibly as many as 50, constituencies where the combined UKIP/EDP/BNP vote was larger than the non-Conservative majority.

A You Gov poll in 2009 found that 29% of the BNP vote was from a Conservative background, compared to 59% from Labour. UKIP figures vary more widely, but even if you gave them all that UKIP vote gained in 2010, and that BNP third, and all the English Democrat vote, they still don't get to the finishing post, although a deal with the DUP would likely allow them to govern very uncomfortably in minority.

Personally, though I expected Labour to win a plurality of seats in 2010, a Conservative majority of 1 or 2 was my desired outcome, a poisoned chalice worse than that of 1992.

 

[Scientist Shan]

A You Gov poll in 2009 found that 29% of the BNP vote was from a Conservative background, compared to 59% from Labour. UKIP figures vary more widely, but even if you gave them all that UKIP vote gained in 2010, and that BNP third, and all the English Democrat vote, they still don't get to the finishing post, although a deal with the DUP would likely allow them to govern very uncomfortably in minority.

Personally, though I expected Labour to win a plurality of seats in 2010, a Conservative majority of 1 or 2 was my desired outcome, a poisoned chalice worse than that of 1992.

While that's true about BNP voters that the majority came from a Labour background doesn't mean that the Conservatives couldn't have won them over with the right strategy (after all every change of government is to an extent caused by a political party winning over some of the traditional supporters of another) or that they didn't need to win them over.

Labour support was very brittle among white working class voters in England in 2010 and continues to be so. It really was (and continues to be) the only realistic way to a Conservative majority IMO.

As to poisoned chalices the party which wins in 2015 gets the really big, really poisoned one.

 

[ferrosol]

While that's true about BNP voters that the majority came from a Labour background doesn't mean that the Conservatives couldn't have won them over with the right strategy (after all every change of government is to an extent caused by a political party winning over some of the traditional supporters of another) or that they didn't need to win them over.

Labour support was very brittle among white working class voters in England in 2010 and continues to be so. It really was (and continues to be) the only realistic way to a Conservative majority IMO.

As to poisoned chalices the party which wins in 2015 gets the really big, really poisoned one.

The real poisoned chalice is the Housing bubble. Whichever party is on deck whenever that pops is out of power for a generation. Hence both parties being willing to do all they can to keep propping it up. The irony being that, that is only going to make it worse when it finally does pop.

 

[Scientist Shan]

The real poisoned chalice is the Housing bubble. Whichever party is on deck whenever that pops is out of power for a generation. Hence both parties being willing to do all they can to keep propping it up. The irony being that, that is only going to make it worse when it finally does pop.

Indeed.

The housing bubble is now a parasite upon the whole country.

I think of it as one of those brain worms seen in 'Star Trek II, The Wrath Of Khan'.

I suspect the politicians will sacrifice everything - the productive economy, personal savings, pension schemes - to keep feeding it.

 

[LancyIain]

It'd be an interesting TL to see, I think. If only I could write political timelines!

Thande recently wrote a brief one where a narrow Conservative majority is the outcome of the election. He hasn't (yet) written about the actual Cameron government, though he has said that he will (eventually). It's https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=283000&highlight=careful if anybody's interested.

Personally I'm unconvinced that wooing the BNP and their ilk could have got a Conservative majority. I think that it would have turned off some of those who voted for them in OTL and I'm not convinced that enough would have been made up from those they gain to reach a majority. I'm also fairly convinced that Cameron would not have been willing to try it, so a different party leader would probably be needed if that was the path the Conservatives were to go down.

 

[Scientist Shan]

Thande recently wrote a brief one where a narrow Conservative majority is the outcome of the election. He hasn't (yet) written about the actual Cameron government, though he has said that he will (eventually). It's https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=283000&highlight=careful if anybody's interested.

Personally I'm unconvinced that wooing the BNP and their ilk could have got a Conservative majority. I think that it would have turned off some of those who voted for them in OTL and I'm not convinced that enough would have been made up from those they gain to reach a majority. I'm also fairly convinced that Cameron would not have been willing to try it, so a different party leader would probably be needed if that was the path the Conservatives were to go down.

Not wooing the BNP but showing some empathy towards the working class and provincial lower middle class that they understand the effects which globalisation has on them.

As opposed to targetting the metropolitan middle classes (which didn't work and did lose them many potential working and lower middle class votes), arrogantly condescending towards those lower down the socioeconomic scale and assuming that the economy was sound.

I do agree that Cameron would have been unlikely to try this (I would say that he always aimed at a coalition with the LibDems and prefers this to a narrow overall Conservative majority) but I think he could have managed this strategy if he had tried.

It would have needed a different strategist / shadow Chancellor to George Osborne though.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

You're way overestimating the effect of Cleggmania IMO.

By election day it had petered out and produced very little effect where it mattered, which is why the LibDems lost MPs in the election despite having a higher overall vote than in 2005.

You see, this is where I disagree.

Cleggmania was important because it meant what "should" have happened: the squeezing of the Lib Dem between the big parties vote at a close election, as happened in 1992, did not happen: it meant the LDs "defied gravity", as it were, and enjoyed a greatly inflated voteshare, as waverers who might otherwise have been tempted to vote Conservative to oust Labour opted instead to stick with the party. It didn't give the LDs too many extra votes (although an extra 1% is still hundreds of thousands more), but it did crucially deny the Conservatives a major chunk of anti-Labour floating voters.

The whole strategy of Cameron's leadership was built around winning over these Lib Dem leaning "floaters" who'd generally backed Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s and John Major in 1992. Cleggmania denied him their votes, not just some of their votes, but pretty much all of them, by persuading them to stick with the Liberal Democrats. It also crucially made a difference in Lab/Con marginals, where thousands voted Liberal Democrat despite there being little realistic hope of a LD MP being elected.

For Cameron to get a majority, you need to badly squeeze the Liberal Democrat vote and push them down below 20% of the vote: less than that in the key areas.

Also, of course, you need a more focused Conservative campaign that sticks to the issue of the economy and makes more use of the immigration card: the leadership never really talked about immigration in the General Election despite being the most trusted (or least mistrusted) on the issue.