|
|
Post by catking on Jul 24, 2018 12:35:42 GMT
Let's pretend the PLP don't lend nominations to Corbyn to widen the debate in 2015.
Who becomes Labour leader? What impact does that have on the EU Referendum? Where are we now? |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,278 
|
Post by ricmk on Jul 24, 2018 12:49:55 GMT
Let's pretend the PLP don't lend nominations to Corbyn to widen the debate in 2015.
Who becomes Labour leader? What impact does that have on the EU Referendum? Where are we now? I reckon Andy Burnham would have tacked to the left with a clear flank and won comfortably. A far more conventional opposition, but would have stuck in his NHS comfort zone without really engaging on the strategic issues affecting the country, and we'd still have seen much of the same polarisation. The EU referendum would have much the same sadly, although Burnham would have got stuck into the remain campaign and Labour would have been more united, may have been enough. Following Jo Cox's death and the referendum result, there would have been much more on rebalancing north and south and uniting the nation. I think Labour would have led in polls, exploiting all the pitfalls of Brexit far more competently than Corbyn has. The Tories would never have dared to call a General Election, and with a wafer thin majority may have ended up with an arrangement with the DUP anyway. Would a Burnham-led Labour have backed a 2nd referendum by now? I doubt it somehow, I think he'd have sat in his comfort zone and just criticised everything the Tories have done. So would life really be that different? |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,924
|
Post by mondialito on Jul 24, 2018 12:50:56 GMT
Let's pretend the PLP don't lend nominations to Corbyn to widen the debate in 2015.
Who becomes Labour leader? What impact does that have on the EU Referendum? Where are we now? There has been a thread on this already, but I shall update my answer. Like in real life, the media push Liz Kendall as the leader in waiting and like in real life, Andy Burnham would tack rightwards in response. Unlike in real life, Yvette Cooper would define herself as the 'Anyone but Liz' candidate and win comfortably in the second round. As Labour leader, she would probably make more of an effort at winning the referendum than Corbyn, but Leave would still win. As for afterwards, that's hard to tell. I doubt Cooper would face a leadership challenge and get as poor poll ratings. Perhaps there wouldn't be an election in 2017 as a result, but I can see the government's struggles being the trigger for both parties getting 40%+ in the polls as Leavers go Tory and Remainers go to Labour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 13:09:20 GMT
Feel the Burn(ham)
|
|
|
|
Post by catking on Jul 24, 2018 15:35:04 GMT
To answer my own question, I think Burnham wins the leadership contest, which is based on entirely different parameters. Kendall gets around 20% as opposed to 4.5% and gets a senior shadow cabinet post as a result.
Having a LOTO and a Labour Party united and enthusiastically campaigning for remain makes the difference and Remain wins narrowly.
From that point, it's hard to tell exactly where we go.
Cameron manages to face down the opposition from the ultra-leavers and continues as PM, focusing on his domestic agenda. No snap election is called.
We'd likely be in a position with Labour and the Tories roughly level in the polls. The big debate in UK politics is "who will succeed Cameron as leader?" as we rapidly approach his likely departure date. Osborne has the overwhelming backing of most Tory MPs but Boris remains the darling of the grassroots. Theresa May has announced her intentions to stand down from Maidenhead following her sacking from the cabinet in the post referendum reshuffle.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 25, 2018 2:02:06 GMT
Either Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper would have become leader, and we would have a normal sensible ordinary Labour Party in opposition.
That means that Labour would have been much higher in the opinion polls, which in turn means that Mrs May would never have called the 2017 election.
We would be in a much better situation, with a clear majority Conservative government and a clear majority in the House of Commons to be able to get a much more proper Brexit than the process we are stuck in now.
Labour would probably be 10 to 15% ahead in the opinion polls, but that would be normal for mid-term and no big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 25, 2018 8:05:51 GMT
Either Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper would have become leader, and we would have a normal sensible ordinary Labour Party in opposition. That means that Labour would have been much higher in the opinion polls, which in turn means that Mrs May would never have called the 2017 election. We would be in a much better situation, with a clear majority Conservative government and a clear majority in the House of Commons to be able to get a much more proper Brexit than the process we are stuck in now. Labour would probably be 10 to 15% ahead in the opinion polls, but that would be normal for mid-term and no big deal. Whilst it's possible that Labour would be higher in the polls, that would have to have been at the expense of the Conservatives. Green support in the polls wouldn't have collapsed from #GreenSurge levels back to its base level with a right-wing Labour leader and the Lib Dems had already been squeezed back to their base vote in 2015. With the Tories well behind in the polls, Conservative infighting would likely be much greater than it is at the moment (it's even possible that somebody would actually issue a leadership challenge). On the other hand, assuming that the new Labour leader didn't shift the Brexit vote a couple of points towards Remain, the chances are Labour might be putting forward a coherent attack on hard Brexit - making it much more difficult to end up with the No Deal that we appear to be heading for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 8:18:04 GMT
Either Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper would have become leader, and we would have a normal sensible ordinary Labour Party in opposition. That means that Labour would have been much higher in the opinion polls, which in turn means that Mrs May would never have called the 2017 election. We would be in a much better situation, with a clear majority Conservative government and a clear majority in the House of Commons to be able to get a much more proper Brexit than the process we are stuck in now. Labour would probably be 10 to 15% ahead in the opinion polls, but that would be normal for mid-term and no big deal. Whilst it's possible that Labour would be higher in the polls, that would have to have been at the expense of the Conservatives. Green support in the polls wouldn't have collapsed from #GreenSurge levels back to its base level with a right-wing Labour leader and the Lib Dems had already been squeezed back to their base vote in 2015. With the Tories well behind in the polls, Conservative infighting would likely be much greater than it is at the moment (it's even possible that somebody would actually issue a leadership challenge). On the other hand, assuming that the new Labour leader didn't shift the Brexit vote a couple of points towards Remain, the chances are Labour might be putting forward a coherent attack on hard Brexit - making it much more difficult to end up with the No Deal that we appear to be heading for. i agree with much of what you say but actually I disagree on the no deal scenario. I've come to the conclusion no deal is pretty inevitable and until the transition period ends not a bad thing since we'll still be in SM, CU & FoM. I think there might be a possibility that either A50 or the transition period is extended |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 9:07:59 GMT
Of course in this scenario Turnham and Cameron both campaign for Remain, and while their sharing a platform is derided by the Rees-Mogg types, it swings the country narrowly in favour of Remain.
The result of the EU referendum is:
REMAIN: 50.58%
LEAVE: 49.42%
Farage raises questions about Remain spending in the referendum and claims, just as I believe he would have done, that it was "unfinished business", and "not over". UKIP wouldn't go away. How likely is it that UKIP wins the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election if Remain narrowly edge the referendum. Of course in this scenario Labour would hold Copeland, but of course there may not be a Copeland by-election at all.
Either way, the 2017 local elections would be far less of a walkover for the blues, with UKIP holding enough seats to be seen as a threat to the Tories. There is therefore no snap election. However, if Cameron really did campaign with the Labour leader then the leadership question becomes more pronounced.
Imagine the endless calls on the Leave side for a 2nd referendum. Suppose Britain Stronger in Europe gets fined or something like that.
In this scenario Zac Goldsmith holds Richmond Park in the by-election by a razor-thin margin of 74 votes after 2 recounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Jul 25, 2018 9:24:37 GMT
Burnham wins on the likability factor, no 2017 election, May would probably going for a slightly harder Brexit but nothing dramatically different, the ERG would be making less noise (as would Anna Soubry), Labour lead of between 5 and 10% in the opinion polls with Burnham's personal ratings around 35/50. Oh, and the actual policies of the Labour Party would be surprisingly similar to those under Corbyn.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 25, 2018 9:35:05 GMT
Either way, the 2017 local elections would be far less of a walkover for the blues. I suspect that's an inevitable result of not having the snap General Election to overshadow them, regardless of the additional factors you mention. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 9:36:10 GMT
Burnham wins on the likability factor, no 2017 election, May would probably going for a slightly harder Brexit but nothing dramatically different, the ERG would be making less noise (as would Anna Soubry), Labour lead of between 5 and 10% in the opinion polls with Burnham's personal ratings around 35/50. Oh, and the actual policies of the Labour Party would be surprisingly similar to those under Corbyn. To be fair, May's snap election is to blame for Soubry's majority being cut from thousands to a few hundred - if someone else's entirely avoidable and unnecessary decision nearly cost me my job I'd be critical of them. And I saw Soubry speak at the No Confidence debate at the Oxford Union in 2016 and she made a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Jul 25, 2018 9:59:52 GMT
In this scenario Zac Goldsmith holds Richmond Park in the by-election by a razor-thin margin of 74 votes after 2 recounts. In the scenario of a Remain win, Goldsmith would have been comfortably re-elected and there would be no Lib Dem revival in SW London.
Copeland by-election never happens as Jamie Reed would happily serve a Burnham or Cooper leadership.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,525
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 25, 2018 10:51:35 GMT
I'm not at all convinced that a different Labour leader would have changed the referendum result - not least because, for all the sneering from pundits, Corbyn's "7 out of 10" remain and reform message was one of the few moments in the campaign that a Labour politician cut through to a large number of voters. Certainly much more so than Alan Johnson's constant servile boosterism of Cameron (when he could be arsed at all) or the "the EU is wonderful and unimprovable and anybody who disagrees is a thick racist" schtick from what we have now come to know as the #FBPE brigade.
|
|
