Alternate UK Election 2010 result

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Suppose that after the 2010 general election in the UK, the Conservatives won 343 seats, the Liberal Democrats won 149 seats, and Labour won 133 seats.
How would this likely happen, and what would likely follow?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

First off, it's obvious that Labour is down to third place.  The Lib Dems are the Loyal Oppisition.

[Sumner 1868]

The LibDems have few consistent ideological positions besides being hardcore EU supporters; there 2005 and 2010 levels of support were artificial response to Labour's disastrous foreign policy and economic decline. I don't see them holding more seats than Labour, who were already in the worst place imaginable in 2010 and yet maintained there status as a major party.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The LibDems have few consistent ideological positions besides being hardcore EU supporters; there 2005 and 2010 levels of support were artificial response to Labour's disastrous foreign policy and economic decline. I don't see them holding more seats than Labour, who were already in the worst place imaginable in 2010 and yet maintained there status as a major party.

What could have caused Labour support to implode that much, in your opinion?

[Sumner 1868]

The LibDems have few consistent ideological positions besides being hardcore EU supporters; there 2005 and 2010 levels of support were artificial response to Labour's disastrous foreign policy and economic decline. I don't see them holding more seats than Labour, who were already in the worst place imaginable in 2010 and yet maintained there status as a major party.

What could have caused Labour support to implode that much, in your opinion?

Several things, but I think there was one main reason.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The LibDems have few consistent ideological positions besides being hardcore EU supporters; there 2005 and 2010 levels of support were artificial response to Labour's disastrous foreign policy and economic decline. I don't see them holding more seats than Labour, who were already in the worst place imaginable in 2010 and yet maintained there status as a major party.

What could have caused Labour support to implode that much, in your opinion?

Several things, but I think there was one main reason.

What if you somehow made Blair continue as PM until 2009?  How much would that hurt Labour support?  The key thing here is to weaken the party to the point it falls to third place in seats.

[Sumner 1868]

The LibDems have few consistent ideological positions besides being hardcore EU supporters; there 2005 and 2010 levels of support were artificial response to Labour's disastrous foreign policy and economic decline. I don't see them holding more seats than Labour, who were already in the worst place imaginable in 2010 and yet maintained there status as a major party.

What could have caused Labour support to implode that much, in your opinion?

Several things, but I think there was one main reason.

What if you somehow made Blair continue as PM until 2009?  Would that help hurt Labour support?  The key thing here is to weaken the party to the point it falls to third place in seats.

Hurt Labour, but even then I don't see it. You'd need something like the pound to collapse.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

[Sumner 1868]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

[Sumner 1868]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead to a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

[Sumner 1868]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

Didn't think of that.  Cameron's majority is likely to be as precarious as Major's was in 1997, if not more so.  We could get a new election and then get a Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

[Sumner 1868]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

Didn't think of that.  Cameron's majority is likely to be as precarious as Major's was in 1997, if not more so.  We could get a new election and then get a Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

I have no idea how an early election would play out. Besides the fact that turnout will be the lowest in UK history.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

Didn't think of that.  Cameron's majority is likely to be as precarious as Major's was in 1997, if not more so.  We could get a new election and then get a Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

I have no idea how an early election would play out. Besides the fact that turnout will be the lowest in UK history.

It's a safe bet an early election, perhaps sometime in 2012, would have the lowest turnout in British history.  Any difference in how Cameron would behave though?  He'd likely be more forthcoming in using Conservative strength in Parliament to push the party's priorities.  You expect, say, bigger austerity.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We seem to have a basic framework in place here.

[Sumner 1868]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

Didn't think of that.  Cameron's majority is likely to be as precarious as Major's was in 1997, if not more so.  We could get a new election and then get a Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

I have no idea how an early election would play out. Besides the fact that turnout will be the lowest in UK history.

It's a safe bet an early election, perhaps sometime in 2012, would have the lowest turnout in British history.  Any difference in how Cameron would behave though?  He'd likely be more forthcoming in using Conservative strength in Parliament to push the party's priorities.  You expect, say, bigger austerity.

Behave when? After or before said early election?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

Didn't think of that.  Cameron's majority is likely to be as precarious as Major's was in 1997, if not more so.  We could get a new election and then get a Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

I have no idea how an early election would play out. Besides the fact that turnout will be the lowest in UK history.

It's a safe bet an early election, perhaps sometime in 2012, would have the lowest turnout in British history.  Any difference in how Cameron would behave though?  He'd likely be more forthcoming in using Conservative strength in Parliament to push the party's priorities.  You expect, say, bigger austerity.

Behave when? After or before said early election?

After.  He has a majority, and assuming we don't tweak anything with NI election results, he has a 34 seat majority - bigger than Heath's win in 1970.

[Sumner 1868]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

Didn't think of that.  Cameron's majority is likely to be as precarious as Major's was in 1997, if not more so.  We could get a new election and then get a Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

I have no idea how an early election would play out. Besides the fact that turnout will be the lowest in UK history.

It's a safe bet an early election, perhaps sometime in 2012, would have the lowest turnout in British history.  Any difference in how Cameron would behave though?  He'd likely be more forthcoming in using Conservative strength in Parliament to push the party's priorities.  You expect, say, bigger austerity.

Behave when? After or before said early election?

After.  He has a majority, and assuming we don't tweak anything with NI election results, he has a 34 seat majority - bigger than Heath's win in 1970.

"TAKE THAT SOCIALIST! THATCHER FOREVER!"

Seriously though, if he can maintain government after 2011, it'll go to Tory heads and they'll have endless articles in the Daily Mail about how the right will rule forever, and they'll implement even more austerity. This will help Labour in the long run, of course, but they won't care until it's too late.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want you to know that this is as much about the Lib Dems becoming loyal opposition as it is about Labour losing very bad.  I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

Well, in that case, have the pound collapse. Or have it revealed through visual or audio evidence that Blair knew about Iraq having no WMD's prior to the election. Either case mean a massive loss for Labour no matter who replaces Blair, and they'll likely come third in the popular vote (but not in seats).

Well we could have, on top of that, Blair's successor be ineffectual and delay the world economic recovery.

Yes. I'm also sure that Cameron's austerity will be even worse due to Labour's state.

Hmm...might lead of a Lib Dem government down the road.  Remember, there is no Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, so we can have an early election.  We might end up with a big Lib Dem wank.

No, the euroskeptic wave will still roam, and if they still form coalition with the Conservatives they'll face revolt, except it'll hurt even more than it has now.

Didn't think of that.  Cameron's majority is likely to be as precarious as Major's was in 1997, if not more so.  We could get a new election and then get a Lib Dem-Tory coalition.

I have no idea how an early election would play out. Besides the fact that turnout will be the lowest in UK history.

It's a safe bet an early election, perhaps sometime in 2012, would have the lowest turnout in British history.  Any difference in how Cameron would behave though?  He'd likely be more forthcoming in using Conservative strength in Parliament to push the party's priorities.  You expect, say, bigger austerity.

Behave when? After or before said early election?

After.  He has a majority, and assuming we don't tweak anything with NI election results, he has a 34 seat majority - bigger than Heath's win in 1970.

"TAKE THAT SOCIALIST! THATCHER FOREVER!"

Seriously though, if he can maintain government after 2011, it'll go to Tory heads and they'll have endless articles in the Daily Mail about how the right will rule forever, and they'll implement even more austerity. This will help Labour in the long run, of course, but they won't care until it's too late.

Hmm...perhaps if the Tory Right got some sanity over Europe, we could have a Conservative majority until 2014, or 2015 if Conservative polling numbers is bad.  And when that election is in place, it could be a fight between Labour or the Lib Dems over who is in second place.  We could see a big decline in tactical voting.