Why would the Lib Dems have more of a protest vote on their side in 2012 than 2010? The PM will be newer and more popular (whatever can be said about Miliband, he couldn't be much worse than Brown) and it's likely their approach to cuts will be fairly similar to each other, as it was in 2010, given that both advocated for delaying them for a couple of years at that time until the recovery had taken hold.
Miliband's popularity will only last as long as he is seen as competent and, importantly, a fresh figure. And given what he would be facing, the proverbial shine is going to tarnish quickly, with his association with Blair becoming a liability with a greatly increased potential of a 'more of the same' response.
As noted, the LibDems increase of the protest vote would derive from the collapse of the Labour's vote share due to fatigue from the electorate, not matter how fresh Miliband is seen, and with Labour presiding over intense economic strife unless they do everything perfect, they will be seen as a party that mucked up the economy. Labour voters will look for alternatives- a great deal would go to Cameron, who would be offering a belt tightening German-style austerity, however you would also see many more who would not go through with that transfer but also not stick with Labour go towards the LibDems.
I have no doubt Miliband would want the debates, but Cameron would reject them for the same reason Blair did in 1997; there is no need to jeopardise the majority which he is obviously going to win.
And he was certain he was going to win a majority in 2010, but still went for the debates. Having the debates and having the Liberal Democrats take part will open up the potential for a greater transfer from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, which, from Cameron's perspective, means he has a greater potential to gain seats thanks to vote splitting. Granted, yes, this doesn't really pan out when put into practice, but it's the kind of think that would be going into any decision.
And bear in mind the Lib Dems were looking at double digit losses in 2010 before the debates came along. I am not sure what they could have done so differently to reverse their fortunes so dramatically over just a couple of years. A more focused approach in terms of seat targeting might help, but only to an extent.
Well yes, but my argument is that if there is an election in 2007, then the conditions that led to the gradual decline in 2005-2010 will be changed because there will have been, well, a general election in 2007.
Remember part of the reason why they lost seats in 2010 was that they spent too much time targeting the kind of seats they would need to get to 100, rather than the ones they would need to tread water. That would preclude them from making any large scale breakthrough.
Well yes.
I did write that ~100 was a
possibly, not
more than likely.