WI: No debates held in 2010 UK election

What if the debates had not been held in the 2010 UK election? 2010 seems to have been the perfect storm where all 3 leaders saw it was in their interest to have a debate, yet it could easily have ended up with Brown deciding he would do badly in a debate or David Cameron deciding not to risk his poll lead. So, what if no debates had been held? How would the election go in their absence? I've seen on this site no debates used as the PoD for both a Labour win or a Conservative majority. What do you think the outcome would be? IMO, the most likely outcome would be something like this;
2010 UK election
David Cameron-Conservative: 317+107 38.7%
Gordon Brown-Labour: 262-87 31.0%
Nick Clegg-LibDem: 43-19 20.6%
650 seats
326 for majority
However, a range of outcomes are possible. What would be the effect on the UK of the above results in the 2010 election(yes, I noticed the similarity to 2017)? Or of the other possible outcomes? Thoughts?
 

Deleted member 109292

I cannot say that there is a single outcome. The Tories are most likely to form a coalition with the Lib Dems based on your predictions (like OTL).

Another outcome, but unlikely, is Labour having the most seats in Parliament. This is because most governments are mostly voted out due to the recession that is affecting the UK and other countries.
 
What if the debates had not been held in the 2010 UK election? 2010 seems to have been the perfect storm where all 3 leaders saw it was in their interest to have a debate, yet it could easily have ended up with Brown deciding he would do badly in a debate or David Cameron deciding not to risk his poll lead. So, what if no debates had been held? How would the election go in their absence? I've seen on this site no debates used as the PoD for both a Labour win or a Conservative majority. What do you think the outcome would be? IMO, the most likely outcome would be something like this;
2010 UK election
David Cameron-Conservative: 317+107 38.7%
Gordon Brown-Labour: 262-87 31.0%
Nick Clegg-LibDem: 43-19 20.6%
650 seats
326 for majority
However, a range of outcomes are possible. What would be the effect on the UK of the above results in the 2010 election(yes, I noticed the similarity to 2017)? Or of the other possible outcomes? Thoughts?
its actually doubtful whether the debates overall really helped clegg there are some people who think it actually lost the Lib Dems seats as they diluted efforts in key targets by trying to win too many seats, a sort of euphoria effect.
 
What if the debates had not been held in the 2010 UK election? 2010 seems to have been the perfect storm where all 3 leaders saw it was in their interest to have a debate, yet it could easily have ended up with Brown deciding he would do badly in a debate or David Cameron deciding not to risk his poll lead. So, what if no debates had been held? How would the election go in their absence? I've seen on this site no debates used as the PoD for both a Labour win or a Conservative majority. What do you think the outcome would be? IMO, the most likely outcome would be something like this;
2010 UK election
David Cameron-Conservative: 317+107 38.7%
Gordon Brown-Labour: 262-87 31.0%
Nick Clegg-LibDem: 43-19 20.6%
650 seats
326 for majority
However, a range of outcomes are possible. What would be the effect on the UK of the above results in the 2010 election(yes, I noticed the similarity to 2017)? Or of the other possible outcomes? Thoughts?

It's likely that Cameron would declare victory outright in this scenario, there's less need for a "big, open, comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems when a Lab-Lib deal is far less feasible than it was IOTL. There might still be negotiations with the Lib Dems with the view that a pork barrel deal with the DUP is always an alternative but I doubt they're likely to come to anything when Tories aren't going to be desperate enough to offer electoral reform.
 
its actually doubtful whether the debates overall really helped clegg there are some people who think it actually lost the Lib Dems seats as they diluted efforts in key targets by trying to win too many seats, a sort of euphoria effect.

Maybe but the debates hurting the LibDems seems a bit of a stretch, though it does seem plausible that there was no effect(as the LibDems did similarly in local election results). However, it's likely IMO that they'd struggle more to get their message out and get squeezed as it becomes a pure two-party race. The LibDems actually polled slightly under 20% before the debates, and the polls in 2010 did end up overestimating them.
 
Maybe but the debates hurting the LibDems seems a bit of a stretch, though it does seem plausible that there was no effect(as the LibDems did similarly in local election results). However, it's likely IMO that they'd struggle more to get their message out and get squeezed as it becomes a pure two-party race. The LibDems actually polled slightly under 20% before the debates, and the polls in 2010 did end up overestimating them.
I think that targeting has traditionally played more importantly for Liberals and Lib Dems than other parties and the debate-led victory diseasee played havoc with targeting in that election.
 
I also made a Labour wins scenario on no debates, but it would require butterflies changing other points in the campaign such as 'bigotgate' and/or Labour managing to get out its case and cast doubt on the Tories a lot more than OTL with Cleggmania.
PoD is no 2010 UK election debates, as they get snuffed out in organizational issues as all debates prior to 2010 were. Butterflies also result in Labour running a stronger campaign, such as no bigotgate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation looked hopeless for the UK Labour Party heading into the 2010 general election. After nearly 5 years behind in the polls, and just over 2 of those getting clobbered under Gordon Brown, and 13 years of Labour government, it looked like Britain would turf Labour out and put the Tories in. The deep economic recession Britain was in and Gordon Brown's continuing unpopularity seemed to assure a brutal defeat. Indeed, the polls also told that picture, the first poll of 2010, taken by YouGov had the Tories at 42%, Labour 12 points behind on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 17%.

However, slowly but surely, over the months heading towards the general election on 6 May, the polls began to narrow, and Labour climbed up from their 2009 lows in the mid to low 20s and started polling 30% and higher. Labour was also helped by good growth numbers in Q4 of 2009, with the recession now in the rearview mirror and the long-awaited economic recovery beginning. Labour ran on a platform of steering Britain to the economic recovery and against Tory austerity, instead providing the economy with the investment it needed to grow. The Tories still had the advantage on the economy, and more broadly in the polls, but doubts about the party and their agenda would not go away, and their lead began to fall towards hung parliament territory. YouGov's poll, the first after the calling of the general election, now had the Tories at 37%, Labour at 32% and the Liberal Democrats at 19%.

As the campaign continued, Labour began to look as if it may be able to again form the government. David Cameron's campaign performed weaker than expected, while Labour suffered no major errors in its campaign, but managed to play on doubts about the Tories. Increasingly, voters grew warier of electing the Tories back to power and their fears about the party came back to the forefront. With the economy continuing to grow in Q1 of 2010, Labour was able to avoid being hurt by the economy any more. There were no leader's debates in the 2010 campaign, and speculation from 2009 that such debates would occur was forgotten by almost everyone. The Liberal Democrat vote instead was squeezed by both major parties, though antipathy to both Labour and the Tories kept it around 20%. The final YouGov poll had the parties closer than ever, with the Tories at 37%, Labour at 33% and the Liberal Democrats at 21%. The Tories seemed to have thrown away a sure majority, and a hung parliament was now almost the likely outcome.
"Now, in a moment as Big Ben strikes Ten we'll be able to give you the results of our exit poll. For the first time not an opinion poll, not people saying how they intend to vote, but people answering the question-how did you vote?" David Dimbleby's said as Big Ben counted down to Ten "And that's how this is for them, we went to 130 different polling places to find this out, but remember this is only an exit poll, if it was dead accurate there'd be no need for anyone to go and vote." Big Ben strikes ten "Ten o'clock"
"And this is what we're saying, it's going to be a hung parliament-with, if this poll is dead right, a perfect tie between the Tories and the Labour Party, both parties short by 36 seats of an overall majority"
290 Labour, 290 Conservative, 43 Liberal Democrat
View attachment 378970
Following the election, five frantic days of negotiations took place. The Tories protested that they had gotten the most votes and so had the greater legitimacy, but instead the incumbent Prime Minister and winner of the most seats, Gordon Brown, got the first go. The Liberal Democrats got a referendum on the Alternative Vote and seats at the cabinet table, as well as Brown's resignation set for mid-2011, at which point he was replaced by Alan Johnson as Prime Minister. Labour got a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and a fourth term in government. As for the Tories, they were stuck with 5 more long years in opposition.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Q: How much change in swing districts was almost built-in from Labour being blamed for the 2008 financial institution crisis?
 
Top