WI - Lib-Lab Coalition in 2010

I may be verging on the precipice of current politics here, so I'll happily ask this to be moved if it is.

With that being said...

What if, at the 2010 general election, the result is slightly different, with the Liberal Democrats meeting expectations and gaining seats, securing 72 to Labour's 263 and the Conservatives' 287 (based off of an electoral calculus prediction). This would mean that, unlike IOTL, both main parties could form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and consequently the Lib Dem negotiating team take the prospect of an agreement with Labour more seriously. Eventually, perhaps with Cameron unable to convince his party to allow a referendum on AV to be held, talks between the Lib Dems and Tories fall through and a coalition government is established between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on the condition that Brown stands down as Prime Minister following a leadership election.

What would the impact of this be?
 
Interesting but there are still problems here. Would significant factions within Labour prefer to go into opposition? Apparently in OTL they didn’t take coalition talks properly, failing to prepare and just offering their own manifesto. Would things be different here? And would the Lib Dems still insist on Gordon Brown resigning? Lots of variables here but might make a fun TL whether a coalition proved workable or not.

A minority Tory administration after coalition talks failed might be an interesting scenario too.
 
Labour are the Lib Dem’s natural allies I believe and it could be worked out if the negotiations go well. Who would become PM in this case as I can’t see Brown staying on long? Also what position would Clegg get would with increased Lib Dem numbers?
 
I may be verging on the precipice of current politics here, so I'll happily ask this to be moved if it is.

With that being said...

What if, at the 2010 general election, the result is slightly different, with the Liberal Democrats meeting expectations and gaining seats, securing 72 to Labour's 263 and the Conservatives' 287 (based off of an electoral calculus prediction). This would mean that, unlike IOTL, both main parties could form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and consequently the Lib Dem negotiating team take the prospect of an agreement with Labour more seriously. Eventually, perhaps with Cameron unable to convince his party to allow a referendum on AV to be held, talks between the Lib Dems and Tories fall through and a coalition government is established between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on the condition that Brown stands down as Prime Minister following a leadership election.

What would the impact of this be?
Budget cuts wouldn't begin for a couple more years, and when they do, they would be weaker than IOTL. Still, if events on the continent are anything to go by, implementing austerity rarely works out well for social democratic parties, so Labour would probably lose quite badly at the next election. The Lib Dems might be able to hold onto more of its left wing support ITTL, so maybe 2015 is not quite so devastating for them, though the Tories would have a great opportunity to decimate them in the south west and other places like that. I actually think that this situation would be a great premise for a Green Party wank. With both Labour and the Lib Dems losing votes, they might be able to pick up some more support, especially if they choose someone other than Bennett for leader.

As for the voting system, the Lib Dems would probably want a referendum on PR. I'm still inclined to say that voters will still vote to keep FPTP to spite the Lib Dems, but I think its possible they vote for it if a NZ style two round system is used, and you have a popular Labour PM throw their full weight behind it, perhaps Alan Johnson, given that he is a supporter of PR.
Interesting but there are still problems here. Would significant factions within Labour prefer to go into opposition? Apparently in OTL they didn’t take coalition talks properly, failing to prepare and just offering their own manifesto. Would things be different here? And would the Lib Dems still insist on Gordon Brown resigning? Lots of variables here but might make a fun TL whether a coalition proved workable or not.

A minority Tory administration after coalition talks failed might be an interesting scenario too.
They didn't take talks seriously in 2010 largely because they didn't view a coalition as viable, as it would still have a minority, and would be dependent on the good will of half a dozen parties to keep it going. If a Lab-Lib arrangement could command a majority of the Commons, then I think they would try a lot harder to make a deal than they did IOTL.
Labour are the Lib Dem’s natural allies I believe and it could be worked out if the negotiations go well. Who would become PM in this case as I can’t see Brown staying on long? Also what position would Clegg get would with increased Lib Dem numbers?
Either of the Miliband's would be strong candidates, though David more so than Ed given that he was considerably more senior in the cabinet and could market himself as a PM in waiting. Apparently IOTL Alan Johnson decided he would run in the event that a Lab-Lib coalition was formed and Brown stepped down, so he'd also be a strong contender, but he might be overshadowed by David Miliband if he also ran.

As for Clegg's position, he was apparently offered Home Secretary by the Tories but turned it down, so im not sure he would accept a great office of state if it were offered to him. Maybe Education? There was speculation that Labour would have offered him that if we ended up with a Lab-Lib coalition in 2015.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Labour were the Lib Dem’s natural allies I believe and it could be worked out if the negotiations go well. Who would become PM in this case as I can’t see Brown staying on long? Also what position would Clegg get would with increased Lib Dem numbers?
FIFY

The New Labour centrists had a firm grip at the time. No far off the Social Liberal position. National Liberals and Democratic Socialists are going to hate this, but it is a continuation of the "Better Than The Tories" position that has bought their acquiescence so far.
 
I feel as if someone wrote this TL before, but it surely would be a good revisit now since eight years have passed and we have the benefit of hindsight. There are, however, two problems here. Said TL would have be researched like a Black Hole by a Hawking grad student, because the Politicized Brits here would tear it to pieces if someone got the color of the button on the blazer of Harriet Harman wrong. The other problem for me is Brown. By the time he realized he had to go, it was a bit too late. And Clegg's precondition that Brown had to go made the talks turn nasty. The Tories take the wheel from their Leader as soon as s/he makes three questionable left turns on the way to a party. While, in my view, Labour would rather criticize the driver for going in the wrong direction and getting them lost than take the keys away from them.

That being said, I'd love to read this TL to escape the current state of the world. So if someone wants to give it a go, I'll happily comment in it and try to help ward off the rabid ones who'd foam at the mouth re: Harman's blazer button color.
 
"As for Clegg's position, he was apparently offered Home Secretary by the Tories but turned it down"

This itself is a valid POD because it blocks Theresa May from getting the job and later becoming PM.
 
As for the voting system, the Lib Dems would probably want a referendum on PR. I'm still inclined to say that voters will still vote to keep FPTP to spite the Lib Dems, but I think its possible they vote for it if a NZ style two round system is used, and you have a popular Labour PM throw their full weight behind it, perhaps Alan Johnson, given that he is a supporter of PR.

I tend to think that PR could really fracture the British political landscape, to the point that all kinds of things could be up for grabs by 2015.

Most likely Labour still chooses a relatively moderate leader to replace Brown, with Ed M representing about as far left as they'd plausibly go. If it turns out to be David Miliband or Alan Johnson, I could see Labour's left, under someone like McDonnell, Corbyn, or Diane Abbott, finally jumping ship and forming a separate Socialist Party or something. I'm guessing that the trade unions mostly stick with Labour, but either way, I could see the new Socialist Party maintaining at least the standing of, say, Die Linke or Melenchon's group. If Britain follows the lead of the Continent with both the far-right and further-left rising in stature, the Socialists could have a SYRIZA/Podemos-style breakthrough next time.

The Tory split over the EU probably becomes a full-blown party split since doing so would no longer be mutually assured destruction as it would be under FPTP. Am I correct in thinking that most of the pro-EU Conservatives also tend to be the more moderate "One Nation" types in general? The really interesting question is what Cameron and the other soft-Eurosceptics do if this occurs, if the choice is between, to put it in crude terms, throwing in their lot with the Ken Clarkes or the Iain Duncan Smiths. (Or, heck, maybe *three* right-of-center parties end up forming from within the Conservatives.) UKIP might find itself marginalized earlier than IOTL, with the right-wing, anti-EU Conservative faction absorbing much of their support.

The Lib Dems might have a bit of an identity crisis given that the demand for a single "mostly right of Labour, mostly left of the Tories, and big enough to actually win seats" party would no longer take the same form. If they split, do the social liberals team up with the Blairites and/or the market liberals with the One Nation Tories?

The SNP would not be able to run the table in Scotland to the extent that they did in 2015, because they still only won 4.7% of the national popular vote that year and yet ended up with 8.6% of the MPs. Also, if there's a minimum percentage threshold and they're worried about some of their FPTP seats, could some of the left-leaning nationalist parties end up forming some sort of alliance to run on a joint party list? Not Sinn Fein, obviously, but maybe the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the SDLP. Similarly, the UUP and DUP might find it advantageous to share a list with one of the various British right-of-center parties.
 
The SNP would not be able to run the table in Scotland to the extent that they did in 2015, because they still only won 4.7% of the national popular vote that year and yet ended up with 8.6% of the MPs. Also, if there's a minimum percentage threshold and they're worried about some of their FPTP seats, could some of the left-leaning nationalist parties end up forming some sort of alliance to run on a joint party list? Not Sinn Fein, obviously, but maybe the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the SDLP. Similarly, the UUP and DUP might find it advantageous to share a list with one of the various British right-of-center parties.
I think that it is most likely that the UK adopts STV (which eliminates the need for thresholds) or Scotland style AMS with smaller regional lists imposing natural thresholds. Having a national threshold of support is unlikely. Even if that is adopted, countries like NZ and Germany both make exceptions for regional parties, and partirs that win a small number of constituency seats. I imagine the SNP, Plaid, the DUP and Sinn Fein would all meet those requirements if they were replicated for the UK. Maybe the smaller parties in NI would struggle, but I'd imagine some sort of exception would be made for them anyway.

Mind you, if we get AMS with low regional thresholds or none at all, I could just about see an English regionalist party bagging a seat in Yorkshire or the North East.
 
Top