Tory majority in 2010 (UK)

What-if the Tories had achieved an overall majority in 2010, say of around 20 (workable for a full term)?

To start, quite a few things would be butterflied out, such as the Fixed Terms Parliament act (meaning a possible election in 2014 if the polls were optimistic enough for the government), the AV referendum, and possibly same-sex marriage. The Blairite wing of the Labour Party would have seemed more credible than the Brownites, thus David Miliband perhaps wins the ensuing leadership election (which he only lost by a single percentage point or so in OTL). The Lib Dems continue to scoop up most of the 'protest vote'.
 
This was a feature of the 'Politics of Respect' TL I did a while ago, although it wasn't the premise.

Basically, we would see many of the measures brought the Tories carried out in the 2015-16 period brought forward as part of an accelerated program of austerity, and you'd see the kind of deterioration in public services that we have seen over the last few years a little early. We know that Clegg vetoed things like Osborne's changes to child tax credits, the trade union act, cutting the top rate of income tax to 40p, scrapping the Human Rights Act, a free vote on fox hunting, and I think also an unlimited top rate of tuition fees.

I don't buy that all of those things would be implemented if the Tories had a majority, as some of these things might have been floated by the Tories to gain leverage on the Lib Dems, but I think its safe to say at least a few of them would get passed, as they did later IOTL. That would undoubtedly leave the Tories more vulnerable than IOTL. Gay marriage would most likely still happen though-it wasn't in the coalition agreement, and it was something Cameron had been personally in favour of beforehand. The votes to get it passed would still be there.

As for Labour, I'd agree that David Miliband stands a higher chance of winning the leadership in this scenario if devouring the Lib Dem vote does not look like a viable path to victory at the next GE. Without that, Ed might not even be convinced to put his name forward. The one thing I would note is that the extra MPs Labour have lost in this scenario would come disproportionately from David's camp-so that might cost him a couple of points in the electoral college. Another interesting development would be that Ed Balls loses his seats five years early-which probably might mean Cooper runs in his place, thus preventing Abbott from being on the ballot as the only woman candidate. Certainly, Cooper would have a stronger claim to the role of Shadow Chancellor.

The Lib Dems would have a brighter future ahead of them-although quite how bright would depend on whether there were any debates in this scenario. Without them, Clegg would be a somewhat popular but also fairly unknown party leader-who would have questions hanging over his leadership after a loss of seats, but with them, he would be a highly popular figure who would have a similar kind of profile to the PM and Leader of the Opposition. That would prevent the LDs collapsing-and they'll probably win the Oldham East and Saddleworth a few months into the parliament. They'd also be far less likely to see their vote collapse in the 2011 Scottish Parliament Election, which would mean no pro-indy majority, and no referendum-which would mean no huge SNP surge for the Tories to throw at Labour-although maybe we would see a majority for a referendum in 2016 instead.

Though they might not ultimately poll so well, UKIP would still rise, and still probably take a lot of LD votes as well as Tory and Labour ones. Cameron would still pledge a referendum, still probably after 2015 in order to bring eurosceptic voters into the Conservative camp. My guess for the outcome of the next GE would be another hung parliament, with Lib Dems and Labour making enough gains to form a government. David Miliband would become PM, probably with Clegg as Deputy, in return for a referendum on PR, and various other things-any changes to tuition fees would probably be towards reducing payments or some sort of graduate tax, rather than scrapping them altogether, so there is still the potential for some sort of Lib Dem betrayal narrative to develop. Austerity would still be taking place, albeit in a less extreme form.

Cameron would resign, and be replaced by someone who pledged a referendum on leaving the EU as part of there platform-most likely Boris.
 
A Conservatives WIN 2010 would likely mean the LDs had a bad election and went back quite a bit - under 50 anyway - which perhaps would have happened had Clegg not had a good debate. Although I guess a counter to that is had he not had a Good Debate the party may not have diluted resources into unwinnable targets
 

Thomas1195

Banned
endum on PR, and various other things-any changes to tuition fees would probably be towards reducing payments or some sort of graduate tax, rather than scrapping them altogether, so there is still the potential for some sort of Lib Dem betrayal narrative to develop.
A graduate tax can still be considered a win situation for the Libdems, since free education is technically tax-funded education, and the electorate probably would buy this as an alternative to (above market rate) interest-charged student debt.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Cameron would resign, and be replaced by someone who pledged a referendum on leaving the EU as part of there platform-most likely Boris
And with stronger, undiscredited Libdems, Remain camp may actually win. If not, they could become Party of 48% unlike OTL.
 
And with stronger, undiscredited Libdems, Remain camp may actually win. If not, they could become Party of 48% unlike OTL.
I'm not so sure. If the Tories only win a narrow majority in 2010, then I am doubtful they would win another five years later, for the reasons I listed above. That either means a Labour majority-which would mean no referendum-or at least, not even David or Ed were in charge, or some sort of coalition between the Lib Dems and one of the two main parties-which would still leave them discredited. With the long term trend toward fragmentation in party support, Lib Dem involvement in some form of coalition or confidence and supply is very difficult to avoid in the long run-it would take more than just a slightly different 2010 result to keep the Lib Dems on the rise.
 
A Conservatives WIN 2010 would likely mean the LDs had a bad election and went back quite a bit - under 50 anyway - which perhaps would have happened had Clegg not had a good debate.

Or maybe Cameron is more cautious and less eager to please his mates at News International, and they don't happen at all.

At one point he had committed to take on Clegg head-to-head with Sky irrespective of whether Brown committed to them or not - madness.
 
And with stronger, undiscredited Libdems, Remain camp may actually win. If not, they could become Party of 48% unlike OTL.
hmm just how are the Lib Dems not becoming the party of the 48 per cent OTL?. They have just had their best ever local election and european elections as a result of the anti-brexit stance whereas Labour appears to be going ever backwards....
 

Thomas1195

Banned
hmm just how are the Lib Dems not becoming the party of the 48 per cent OTL?. They have just had their best ever local election and european elections as a result of the anti-brexit stance whereas Labour appears to be going ever backwards....
ITTL, the Libdems would have consistently outpolled either Tories or Labour. IOTL, they still trail behind (although closely). Note that, ITTL, their starting point (before European Election) would not be 8-9%, but 14-16% or more. There was a time a new centrist party was considered more popular than the Libdem IOTL (although it ended up being that joke of ChangeUK). We could see them grabbing 40-50% of youth vote by 2017-2019 without tuition fee debacle (the graduate tax path would be accepted by the electorate, especially after 5 years of Tory majority with even higher tuition fees than OTL).
 
Top