What could make this map realistic? (LDs overtake Labour, 2010)

uk-general-election-2010-labour-screw-png.386124

I ask because this is one of my more odd scenarios and it might be interesting to see how it might possibly come about...
 
I don’t think the libdems would do that well in working class parts of wales. The Welsh Libdems aren’t the most powerful in the world
 
I don’t think the libdems would do that well in working class parts of wales. The Welsh Libdems aren’t the most powerful in the world
Labour would have to be discredited and reduced to losing everywhere in Wales but their safe Valleys constituencies wouldn't they...
 
A different electoral system might work - a French-style two-round system, or IRV.

Getting that in place is another matter.
This map pretty much has to be under FPTP, because otherwise the Tories wouldn't be winning 11 seats in Metro Leeds, and 7 seats in Greater Manchester, while being well short of a majority. That can probably only occur with vote splitting, and a weak enough Tory leader who does well enough in the Midlands but poorly in London and the "Celtic Fringe".
One could easily see the Lib-Lab government instituting AV though, and thus ditching FPTP for Westminster elections.
 
Britain not only joins in the invasion of Iraq, but the US and UK forces are actually defeated by the Iraqi army in the conventional battle. This is actually the second election after the Labour vote completely collapses in the first post-war election.
 
Difficult without a PoD before the merger. My suggestion would be to have Labour win in 1992. They subsequently manage to hold onto power with relatively small majorities until the mid 2000s thanks to a strong economy and a Tory opposition badly divided over Europe. Perhaps have Clarke lead the party briefly before being deposed, resulting in a small number of Tory defectors to the Lib Dems, who would perform well in this period due to general disillusionment with both the government and opposition.

When Kinnock retires in the late nineties, Blair is elected to replace him. He wins Labour a third term, and takes Britain into Iraq with Tory support. The next election is close, and so the major party leaders are talked into debates, which Kennedy (who has taken the pledge) manages to win, enhancing his popularity on the back of his party's anti war stance. A poor campaign from Labour see's the Tories gain a narrow majority, with some gains from the Lib Dems at the same time.

Then you could have the new Tory government manage to bring Brexit about ten years early, just in time for a recession that is even worse than IOTL. If things get really bad, maybe Labour (or parts of it) agrees to join in a National Government with the Tories until the next election, though that might be a bit of a stretch. Either way, someone from the right of the party manages to beat Brown for the leadership (Has to be someone who isn't Scottish to justify those huge gains north of the border, Charles Clarke or John Hutton maybe?), and they proceed to alienate many liberally minded voters by not being sufficiently pro-EU, whilst also failing to win over Eurosceptics by not being pro-Brexit enough. Come the next election, Kennedy is a well established public figure and Vince Cable is taking credit for successfully predicting the financial crisis, plus there is a strong anti-establishment mood amongst the electorate, and so the Lib Dems see a surge in their support (particularly in remain areas like London and Scotland) which produces this result.

That's my best shot at it. It would require minimal butterflies, but I think it's plausible.
I don’t think the libdems would do that well in working class parts of wales. The Welsh Libdems aren’t the most powerful in the world
As I recall, they used to do quite well in places like Pontypridd, Bridgend, and Swansea in the pre coalition days.
 
Last edited:
Difficult without a PoD after the party's foundation. My suggestion would be to have Labour win in 1992. They subsequently manage to hold onto power with relatively small majorities until the mid 2000s thanks to a strong economy and a Tory opposition badly divided over Europe. Perhaps have Clarke lead the party briefly before being deposed, resulting in a small number of Tory defectors to the Lib Dems, who would perform well in this period due to general disillusionment with both the government and opposition.

When Kinnock retires in the late nineties, Blair is elected to replace him. He wins Labour a third term, and takes Britain into Iraq with Tory support. The next election is close, and so the major party leaders are talked into debates, which Kennedy (who has taken the pledge) manages to win, enhancing his popularity on the back of his party's anti war stance. A poor campaign from Labour see's the Tories gain a narrow majority, with some gains from the Lib Dems at the same time.

Then you could have the new Tory government manage to bring Brexit about ten years early, just in time for a recession that is even worse than IOTL. If things get really bad, maybe Labour (or parts of it) agrees to join in a National Government with the Tories until the next election, though that might be a bit of a stretch. Either way, someone from the right of the party manages to beat Brown for the leadership (Has to be someone who isn't Scottish to justify those huge gains north of the border, Charles Clarke or John Hutton maybe?), and they proceed to alienate many liberally minded voters by not being sufficiently pro-EU, whilst also failing to win over Eurosceptics by not being pro-Brexit enough. Come the next election, Kennedy is a well established public figure and Vince Cable is taking credit for successfully predicting the financial crisis, plus there is a strong anti-establishment mood amongst the electorate, and so the Lib Dems see a surge in their support (particularly in remain areas like London and Scotland) which produces this result.

That's my best shot at it. It would require minimal butterflies, but I think it's plausible.

As I recall, they used to do quite well in places like Pontypridd, Bridgend, and Swansea in the pre coalition days.
Would Labour have a great chance of recovering in this scenario? Or would the Lib Dems most likely stay ahead of them?
 
Would Labour have a great chance of recovering in this scenario? Or would the Lib Dems most likely stay ahead of them?
Given that this scenario would most likely produce a LD-Labour coalition (indeed, the map specifies it), I'd expect the Labour vote to basically collapse at the next election, and for politics to realign along an American style socially liberal vs conservative lines, kind of like we are seeing now, but turbo charged. Labour could still survive end up with 50-100 seats if STV were brought in, though. If FPTP is till in place, they'd probably be looking at the bottom end of that range or even lower.
 
Last edited:
Given that this scenario would most likely produce a LD-Labour coalition (indeed, the map specifies it), I'd expect the Labour vote to basically collapse at the next election, and for politics to realign along an American style socially liberal vs conservative lines, kind of like we are seeing now, but turbo charged. Labour could still survive end up with 50-100 seats if STV were brought in, though. If FPTP is till in place, they'd probably be looking at the bottom end of that range or even lower.
What kind of electoral reform would the Lib Dems put forth? Is it possible they renege on their electoral reform pledge* for self-interested reasons? (a la Trudeau Jr)
*I assume they put some electoral reform plank in the manifesto because, well, they are Lib Dems
 
What kind of electoral reform would the Lib Dems put forth? Is it possible they renege on their electoral reform pledge* for self-interested reasons? (a la Trudeau Jr)
*I assume they put some electoral reform plank in the manifesto because, well, they are Lib Dems
They have been in favour of the Single Transferable Vote basically since they started supporting PR, so I think that would be the one they would be most likely to go for. I don't think I could see them going back on that pledge, seeing as PR has long been the holy grail for the Lib Dems in a way it hasn't for their Canadian counterparts. But their would be a good chance that they would put it to a referendum, and it is possible, perhaps likely, that they would lose it in much the same way just as Clegg lost the AV referendum ITTL. That would be the most likely scenario for no electoral reform.
 
Rebirth of a Liberal England seems an odd title when most of the gains are outside of England excluding Cornwall and London.
 
Rebirth of a Liberal England seems an odd title when most of the gains are outside of England excluding Cornwall and London.
Just under half of the Lib Dem MPs are in Wales, Scotland, and the SE. In a way it's an odd title, yes, as you rightfully pointed out. But without any penetration into the Midlands (or English college towns and small towns), Labour would be ahead of the LDs, and that would heavily alter the political atmosphere post-election.
 
Best Chance Charlie gives up bottle. Blair announces intention to go on and on before 2005 election maybe IDS stays as tory leader
 
Afternoon all :)

It's an intriguing idea but how to get there ? 136 seats would be Labour's worst performance since 1945 - far worse than the 209 they won under Foot in 1983. We could put such a fall down to the virtual political collapse of Labour - to get that number of seats they would be polling 15-20% at most so we are looking at a much more severe global recession in 2008 or perhaps a continuation of British military involvement in Iraq with large numbers of UK casualties which has undermined Labour among the middle classes.

Given the bulk of the LD gains (197, makes "For Want of a Debate" look tame) seem to be in more Labour areas, we could imagine a protracted stalemate in Iraq and huge disillusion with the war. The Conservative Party under David Davis stands on a rigid austerity programme as the only way to resolve the economic crisis and while Davis privately sees value in the British military involvement, he is equivocal about an immediate withdrawal.

Charles Kennedy has been LD leader for eleven years and has overseen a renaissance in the Party's fortunes with gains at every election but few could have envisaged the huge advance in 2010. As always, Kennedy sparkled in the tv debate while Prescott retreated into blustering and Davis lacked empathy. Many claimed the debate prevented a Conservative majority as Kennedy's charisma and bonhomie (and the birth of his fourth child during the campaign) all added to his popularity. The key LD message was an immediate British withdrawal from Iraq though that was opposed by President McCain but on the economy the LDs struggled and commitments to supporting spending on health seemed hollow as the country entered its third year of recession with GDP down 2% year on year.

John Prescott resigned as Labour leader at 3am on the Friday morning after the election.

Davis had gone into the election refusing any deal or talks about forming a Government with other parties. He had privately sought and obtained the support of both the DUP and UUP but their nine extra MPs left him with only 296 seats - well short of being able to form a Government.

Kennedy had not expected to finish second in terms of seats but there was little appetite in his Party for a deal with Davis and the Conservatives. It was a phone call to Kennedy from Prescott's Deputy, David Miliband, which had changed everything. Miliband, backed by former Labour Home Secretary Tony Blair and others, agreed to talk to Kennedy about supporting a minority LD Government.

Davis and the Conservative press were horrified but there was little they could do and on Monday afternoon, Kennedy and Miliband announced the formation of the first Coalition Government since 1945. Miliband would become Deputy PM and Home Secretary with Sir Menzies Campbell as Foreign Secretary and Steve Webb as Chancellor supported by Frank Field as Social Services Secretary with a remit for reform in both the NHS and pensions.

Crucially, the new Government sought to introduce significant constitutional reform including the Single Transferrable Vote for all elections from 2011. When he heard this, Davis slumped in his chair - he knew he had failed and the future belonged to the Lib-Labs.
 
Afternoon all :)

It's an intriguing idea but how to get there ? 136 seats would be Labour's worst performance since 1945 - far worse than the 209 they won under Foot in 1983. We could put such a fall down to the virtual political collapse of Labour - to get that number of seats they would be polling 15-20% at most so we are looking at a much more severe global recession in 2008 or perhaps a continuation of British military involvement in Iraq with large numbers of UK casualties which has undermined Labour among the middle classes.

Given the bulk of the LD gains (197, makes "For Want of a Debate" look tame) seem to be in more Labour areas, we could imagine a protracted stalemate in Iraq and huge disillusion with the war. The Conservative Party under David Davis stands on a rigid austerity programme as the only way to resolve the economic crisis and while Davis privately sees value in the British military involvement, he is equivocal about an immediate withdrawal.

Charles Kennedy has been LD leader for eleven years and has overseen a renaissance in the Party's fortunes with gains at every election but few could have envisaged the huge advance in 2010. As always, Kennedy sparkled in the tv debate while Prescott retreated into blustering and Davis lacked empathy. Many claimed the debate prevented a Conservative majority as Kennedy's charisma and bonhomie (and the birth of his fourth child during the campaign) all added to his popularity. The key LD message was an immediate British withdrawal from Iraq though that was opposed by President McCain but on the economy the LDs struggled and commitments to supporting spending on health seemed hollow as the country entered its third year of recession with GDP down 2% year on year.

John Prescott resigned as Labour leader at 3am on the Friday morning after the election.

Davis had gone into the election refusing any deal or talks about forming a Government with other parties. He had privately sought and obtained the support of both the DUP and UUP but their nine extra MPs left him with only 296 seats - well short of being able to form a Government.

Kennedy had not expected to finish second in terms of seats but there was little appetite in his Party for a deal with Davis and the Conservatives. It was a phone call to Kennedy from Prescott's Deputy, David Miliband, which had changed everything. Miliband, backed by former Labour Home Secretary Tony Blair and others, agreed to talk to Kennedy about supporting a minority LD Government.

Davis and the Conservative press were horrified but there was little they could do and on Monday afternoon, Kennedy and Miliband announced the formation of the first Coalition Government since 1945. Miliband would become Deputy PM and Home Secretary with Sir Menzies Campbell as Foreign Secretary and Steve Webb as Chancellor supported by Frank Field as Social Services Secretary with a remit for reform in both the NHS and pensions.

Crucially, the new Government sought to introduce significant constitutional reform including the Single Transferrable Vote for all elections from 2011. When he heard this, Davis slumped in his chair - he knew he had failed and the future belonged to the Lib-Labs.
Thanks for your interest!
I actually had David Davis as a possible Tory leader here, lol.
 
Top