vileplume
Jr. Member
Posts: 539
|
 |
« on: May 27, 2020, 06:25:11 AM » |
|
A handful of reasons really:
1)Cleggmania. Whilst it never materialised to the extent that it was hyped in the media it did likely prevent Tory gains in Lib Dem seats that would have otherwise happened (Somerton, Sutton, Chippenham etc.) along with causing a couple of losses (Eastbourne, Wells).
2)Cameron heavily targeted 'liberal, metropolitan' types but even with his 'hug a hoodie' campaign, desire for the party to 'stop banging on about Europe' (lol) and 'modernisation' project particularly on things like gay rights, such people were still too suspicious of the Tories to put a cross in their box. This was exasperated by the fact that the Lib Dems became a viable non-Tory option for these types of people who wanted Labour out of office. Had the Lib Dems instead collapsed over the campaign Cameron's strategy may have been more effective.
3)Labour's vote proved to be surprisingly efficient (258 seats on a measly 29% of the vote isn't bad going at all). Now a lot of this was down to Scotland still being a Labour fortress back then but it was also partly down to Labour narrowly holding several northern/midlands seats that the Tories could have won with a campaign more targeted towards them (think Bolton West, Middlesbrough South, Newcastle-under-Lyme etc.) and less towards metropolitan liberals. Conversely if things had gone just a bit better for Labour/worse for the Tories it's quite conceivable that the likes of Cannock Chase, North Warwickshire, Amber Valley etc. (all now essentially safe Tory seats) would have been Labour holds meaning Cameron could well have failed to form a government at all.
|
