WI The 2015 UK election ended in a hung parliament

[Pericles]

What if the 2015 UK election had ended up with a hung parliament, as it was supposed to? I did a 5% swing from the Tories to Labour, so the Tories win the popular vote by a margin of 1.48%. This actually produced surprisingly few seat changes compared to OTL, but still enough to make a difference. Electoral Calculus is useless for 2015, so I used this swingometer. Here are the results of that shift(I also adjusted the vote of minor parties like the LibDems, UKIP and the Greens).
2015 UK election
David Cameron-Conservative: 305-1 34.71%
Ed Miliband-Labour: 252-6 33.23%
Nicola Sturgeon-SNP: 57+51 4.85%
Nick Clegg-LibDem: 12-45 8.56%
650 seats
326 for majority
Note that due to Sinn Fein abstention only 324 would be needed, plus the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and the number for an effective majority is probably 322, rather than 326.

As some of the seat changes, Ed Balls survives and Vince Cable wins Twickenham. The Tories still have the advantage in this scenario, but it's a much more uncertain situation. Bringing back the Conservative-LibDem coalition only gets them to 317 seats, presuming the LibDems are still up for a formal coalition after that hammering. The DUP and the UUP could get them to 327 seats, which would be a narrow but workable majority. However, the DUP as a partner may be hard for the LibDems to swallow. Labour, the SNP, the Greens, PC and the SDLP add up to 316 seats, which is also short of a majority. Adding the LibDems to that block gets them to 328 seats, which would also be a majority. However, Labour may also struggle to have such a government be seen as legitimate and it had promised not to do a deal with the SNP. Plus, the LibDems rejected a rainbow coalition in 2010 and wouldn't be much more likely to change their minds. What government would ultimately be formed from this outcome? What PoD could make this the election result? How would UK politics be impacted? What if?

 

[Star Eater]

I imagine the need for serious electoral reform would probably be close to unavoidable now, simply because FPTP has not only produced a hung Parliament for a second time in a row but has produced a situation where a majority government is virtually impossible and so cannot be considered a tool of stability. Labour would likely throw their support behind it if for no other reason than to drain some of that terrifying support from the SNP and I imagine a lot of backbench Tories would start considering it as acceptable if it meant closer partnership with UKIP which could push the anti-EU platform they want. Obviously no such UKIP partnership would come without heavy infighting for the Tories.

There's certainly the possibility of a Conservative-Labour coalition but I imagine the Labour leadership would see what happened to the Lib Dems and think ehhhhhh maybe not. The Labour-led rainbow coalition could happen but seems unlikely and would take a couple months potentially of negotiations to put together; and it likely wouldn't last to the summer. Such an arrangement also wouldn't come without a direct commitment for maybe even proportional representation without a referendum - the argument being that it's now so clearly in the national interest that it can't be endangered by referendum.

So I guess my proposed TL for this would see the Labour-led rainbow coalition put together for the sole purpose of forcing through electoral reform. Once that's passed you could potentially have a second referendum as early as the autumn. When that happens it's anyone's guess what comes next. A Labour-Lib or Labour-Lib-Green arrangement or a Conservative-UKIP one, and both obviously have very different implications. Hell, Brexit might not ever happen.

 

[V-J]

I'm confused - you say a 5% swing, and then provide numbers of popular vote share which aren't a 5% swing.

No way in hell is electoral reform being resurrected literally only a few years after it's been overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate - the Conservatives alone would never support it. It's not going to be any more catastrophic for FPTP than the 2017 result was - and you'd almost certainly get the same result here, a DUP confidence and supply to support a Conservative minority government, albeit it might be a three-way here with the Lib Dems. Might be another election within a year or two - but people always generally over-state that as a possibility.

As for "There's certainly the possibility of a Conservative-Labour coalition" - lol.

 

[Politibrit]

The Lib Dems would once again be kingmakers in this scenario, but the results are so bad they clearly wouldn't be looking to go in coalition any more, and whoever takes power will have a majority that is so shaky that they will almost certainly have to call a new election within a few months. I am inclined to believe that it would be the Tories who would continue in power after passing a Queen's Speech with the support of the Lib Dems and the NI unionists, particularly because Clegg was pretty adamant that he wouldn't support a government propped up by the SNP.

So the Tories make a few giveaways at the Queen's Speech, and calls a new election for around September, where I'd expect the Tories to make gains, particularly if UKIP don't have the resources to field candidates in every constituency.

The main question I have would be about the party leaders. The Tories might get sick of Cameron and replace him with Johnson in pursuit of a majority. Equally, the result for Labour and the Lib Dems would still be below par, so perhaps they decide to roll the dice and get rid of their current leaders in hope of improving their performance.

I imagine the need for serious electoral reform would probably be close to unavoidable now, simply because FPTP has not only produced a hung Parliament for a second time in a row but has produced a situation where a majority government is virtually impossible and so cannot be considered a tool of stability. Labour would likely throw their support behind it if for no other reason than to drain some of that terrifying support from the SNP and I imagine a lot of backbench Tories would start considering it as acceptable if it meant closer partnership with UKIP which could push the anti-EU platform they want. Obviously no such UKIP partnership would come without heavy infighting for the Tories.

I really doubt this. The vast majority of MPs oppose electoral reform, and would consider the decisive rejection of AV to have ended the conversation around it. And that wasn't even full PR, because the Tories were too resistant to it to even allow a referendum, as were Labour during their time in government. They aren't just going to roll over now and let it happen without resistance. Besides, one of the main reasons most MPs oppose it (outwardly at least) because it doesn't produce majorities, and more recently, because it could result in UKIP having an influence on the government, which is exactly what they have now in this situation. Maybe pro-reform figures could use that as an argument with voters as to why we might as well have PR anyway if FPTP fails to do the thing which is supposed to be its main selling point, but seasoned politicians who have long since decided which side of the debate they are on aren't going to view it as a solution to the current impasse.

There's certainly the possibility of a Conservative-Labour coalition but I imagine the Labour leadership would see what happened to the Lib Dems and think ehhhhhh maybe not. The Labour-led rainbow coalition could happen but seems unlikely and would take a couple months potentially of negotiations to put together; and it likely wouldn't last to the summer. Such an arrangement also wouldn't come without a direct commitment for maybe even proportional representation without a referendum - the argument being that it's now so clearly in the national interest that it can't be endangered by referendum.

There is no way in hell Labour would get into bed with the Tories. The only time that solution has ever been considered is in a time of national emergency of World War like proportions. And as I've already explained, Labour is never going to buy into the idea that PR without a referendum is an urgent necessity in this situation. They didn't even offer PR without a referendum in 2010, and now they have actually had one in 2011, there is a precedent that they would have to violate to get it done. And even if they somehow managed it, their reward would likely be to be turfed out by a Tory-UKIP Coalition, which is more than likely if the initial results are repeated.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The Liberal Democrats aren't kingmakers in this scenario. Their dozen MPs helps no one get to a majority. Both major parties would always need other parties and an unweildy coalition at cross-purposes.

The only stable government is a Conservative -Labour one.

Assuming Labour refuses to participate, the default is a minority Conservative government under Cameron, looking to call new elections at the first sign they can win. Remember that Cameron remains Prime Minister until he is actively thrown out, or decides himself to quit.

The Tories could not get a referendum on the EU through this Parliament, though in the next election they would almost have to make a serious play for UKIP voters.

 

[RepMR]

Miliband probably becomes Prime Minister at the head of either a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and/or Lib Dems or a coalition with the SNP, both of which would be very controversial with 'Middle England' and so I see the Miliband government not lasting more than two years before a new election had to be called.

 

[V-J]

Miliband probably becomes Prime Minister at the head of either a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and/or Lib Dems or a coalition with the SNP, both of which would be very controversial with 'Middle England' and so I see the Miliband government not lasting more than two years before a new election had to be called.

I don't see the Lib Dems going for Labour+SNP if Labour both lose the popular vote and finish so far behind in seats - it's against the traditional metrics the Lib Dems have used, I think Clegg explicitly talked about them as factors in 2010. It's also a lot easier for the Tories to sew up a deal with the DUP than it is for Labour to do one with the SNP, and then the Tories are really in the driving seat. (Tories+DUP outnumbers Lab+SNP) I don't see the Lib Dems keeping faith with the Tories for a full parliament even on a flat confidence basis though, particularly once Fester or Farron inevitably take over.

 

[Maeglin]

Cameron remains PM until the Queen's Speech (he's the incumbent. He can do that).

I see the Liberal Democrats opting to vote against the Speech. That leaves Labour in a February 1974 situation, running an awkward minority government - no coalition or even confidence and supply agreement. The lack of a formal Labour-SNP agreement leaves the Liberal Democrats wiggle-room to not bring Labour down immediately.

 

[Oppo]

The LibDem membership would never accept a second Cameron-Clegg coalition.

 

[hammo1j]

Interestingly the factor that gave the Tories an absolute majority rather than the hung Parliament you're talking about, was the fact that they promised a referendum on Europe.

So the likelihood is that with your scenario we would still be in Europe.

 

[Pericles]

There were also concerns the Tories would try to do a Queen's Speech regardless of whether they had the numbers. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp....-onto-power-coalition-majority-lib-dem-tories

 

[Wendell]

Interestingly the factor that gave the Tories an absolute majority rather than the hung Parliament you're talking about, was the fact that they promised a referendum on Europe.

So the likelihood is that with your scenario we would still be in Europe.

And would not making that promise have given UKIP some of the seats thought to be in play for them at the time?

 

[JDGiant]

I'm confused - you say a 5% swing, and then provide numbers of popular vote share which aren't a 5% swing.
.

Yeah, a 5% swing in a UK context would mean a Labour popular vote lead of around 3%.

As for the question, a really 'fun' result would have been what the 'on the day' YouGov poll showed. I think it had the Tories on 284 seats, Labour on 263, the Lib Dems on 31 and the SNP in the mid-40s. So Tories/LDs wouldn't have had a majority between them, but nor would Labour and the SNP. A Labour-Lib Dem-SNP deal would have been subject to 'coalition of the losers!' howls given that Labour would be over twenty seats behind the Tories, and presumably behind in the popular vote too. A Tory-LD-DUP deal would have probably scraped a majority (taking into account the Sinn Fein absentees)...but would the Lib Dems want anything to do with the DUP?

 

[Politibrit]

The Liberal Democrats aren't kingmakers in this scenario. Their dozen MPs helps no one get to a majority. Both major parties would always need other parties and an unweildy coalition at cross-purposes.

The only stable government is a Conservative -Labour one.

Assuming Labour refuses to participate, the default is a minority Conservative government under Cameron, looking to call new elections at the first sign they can win. Remember that Cameron remains Prime Minister until he is actively thrown out, or decides himself to quit.

The Tories could not get a referendum on the EU through this Parliament, though in the next election they would almost have to make a serious play for UKIP voters.

There are two blocs of parties in this situation for whom it is fairly easy to predict whether they'd back a Labour or a Tory government. But they are both roughly of equal strength, and neither are in a position to get a majority without the Lib Dems putting them over the top. That makes them the kingmakers, because in practice the SNP won't back the Tories and the DUP won't get behind a Labour government backed up by nationalist parties. That is not to say whatever government forms will be a stable one, but they would get the opportunity to set the agenda in the run up to a new election in a few months time.

Interestingly the factor that gave the Tories an absolute majority rather than the hung Parliament you're talking about, was the fact that they promised a referendum on Europe.

So the likelihood is that with your scenario we would still be in Europe.

The EU referendum was an important factor among other issues, but I wouldn't assume from this result that Cameron hasn't pledge a referendum, particularly since the swing would likely be Conservative to UKIP, rather than Conservative to Labour, which is what it seems to be in this scenario. Unless of course, Labour jumped the gun and pledged a referendum instead. Anyway, if Cameron hadn't pledged a referendum before 2015, he likely would after this result.

 

[GeographyDude]

Was the June 2016 Brexit vote in theory merely advisory? And why in God’s name wasn’t a second vote held six months to a year later to make sure this is what the British people really wanted? (similar to our Trump vote, major component of angry protest vote)

PS I’m a Yank, far from expert!

 

[V-J]

Cameron remains PM until the Queen's Speech (he's the incumbent. He can do that).

I see the Liberal Democrats opting to vote against the Speech. That leaves Labour in a February 1974 situation, running an awkward minority government - no coalition or even confidence and supply agreement. The lack of a formal Labour-SNP agreement leaves the Liberal Democrats wiggle-room to not bring Labour down immediately.

I don't see this happening at all - one of the things the Lib Dems, particularly under Clegg, have prized themselves on was being 'responsible', in Clegg's case a 'responsible' party with governmental pretensions. They're not going to vote down a Queen's Speech simply to create a chaotic and uncertain situation. If they vote down a Queen's Speech, it'll be because they've exhausted the confidence and supply discussion process.

 

[Scerus]

Was the June 2016 Brexit vote in theory merely advisory? And why in God’s name wasn’t a second vote held six months to a year later to make sure this is what the British people really wanted? (similar to our Trump vote, major component of angry protest vote)

PS I’m a Yank, far from expert!

I don't think a minority Tory government would try to do it with virtually no security in the commons. There would either have to be an October election or it would have to be shelved. But the Czar Nicholas approach of "ignoring populists and hope for the best" doesn't seem to working well currently.

 

[KingCrawa]

The Liberal Democrats aren't kingmakers in this scenario. Their dozen MPs helps no one get to a majority. Both major parties would always need other parties and an unweildy coalition at cross-purposes.

The only stable government is a Conservative -Labour one.

Assuming Labour refuses to participate, the default is a minority Conservative government under Cameron, looking to call new elections at the first sign they can win. Remember that Cameron remains Prime Minister until he is actively thrown out, or decides himself to quit.

The Tories could not get a referendum on the EU through this Parliament, though in the next election they would almost have to make a serious play for UKIP voters.

Assuming Labour refuses to participate?

Why on earth would they?

 

[V-J]

Was the June 2016 Brexit vote in theory merely advisory? And why in God’s name wasn’t a second vote held six months to a year later to make sure this is what the British people really wanted? (similar to our Trump vote, major component of angry protest vote)

PS I’m a Yank, far from expert!

This is Chat discussion - take it to there if you're interested. CalBear sometimes kicks people for going off-topic and/or into current politics.

 

[Politibrit]

Was the June 2016 Brexit vote in theory merely advisory? And why in God’s name wasn’t a second vote held six months to a year later to make sure this is what the British people really wanted? (similar to our Trump vote, major component of angry protest vote)

PS I’m a Yank, far from expert!

It was technically advisory, but a lot of things are in UK democracy, given that we have a monarchy and an uncodified constitution. General Elections are in theory only advisory verdicts on who should run the country, there was nothing to stop the Queen from appointing someone other than David Cameron after 2015, or simply to dissolve parliament and rule on her own. In practice though, everyone knows that won't happen, and the same goes for the referendum. The UK doesn't really do legally binding democratic exercises, it's largely based on convention.