WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,277
Member is Online
|
Post by WJ on Aug 7, 2018 21:39:27 GMT
Not sure if this one has been done before.
Let's say that the crash that Farage was in during the 2010 Buckingham by-election was fatal. Who would have been the runners and riders to replace him, would they have maintained the momentum of the party that ultimately lead to the fear of attack from the right that meant the Brexit referendum? Or would it have made little to no difference?
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050 
|
Post by middyman on Aug 7, 2018 22:01:10 GMT
The question being asked, I think, is how much influence Farage had in both causing the referendum and then its result. Going back a step, it is asking how much influence UKIP would have had without Farage. This requires thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 7, 2018 22:23:03 GMT
This is a case where I think the absence of a key player might have had a very major difference. For all his manifest faults Farage embodied the UKIP cause and without him I think there would have been a lower profile, less media interest in the party, fewer members, less money, far fewer votes, less success at the Euro Elections, thus not so much pressure on Cameron and the Conservatives, a larger majority in 2015, no Referendum and no Brexit and no May and no 2016 GE and Labour miles behind in the polls.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Aug 8, 2018 5:50:36 GMT
Not sure if this one has been done before. Let's say that the crash that Farage was in during the 2010 Buckingham by-election was fatal. Who would have been the runners and riders to replace him, would they have maintained the momentum of the party that ultimately lead to the fear of attack from the right that meant the Brexit referendum? Or would it have made little to no difference? Nice try but I think this thread will get probably shut down by the Moderator under the standing rule about not envisaging the death of any well known personality. Alternate History is full of such suppositions - so the answer is no. It's a reasonable point of departure and has been done sensibly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 8:55:10 GMT
This is a case where I think the absence of a key player might have had a very major difference. For all his manifest faults Farage embodied the UKIP cause and without him I think there would have been a lower profile, less media interest in the party, fewer members, less money, far fewer votes, less success at the Euro Elections, thus not so much pressure on Cameron and the Conservatives, a larger majority in 2015, no Referendum and no Brexit and no May and no 2016 GE and Labour miles behind in the polls. I agree. As a party leader, Farage was terrible. As a front-man for the eurosceptic cause, he was indispensable. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Aug 8, 2018 9:03:59 GMT
This is a case where I think the absence of a key player might have had a very major difference. For all his manifest faults Farage embodied the UKIP cause and without him I think there would have been a lower profile, less media interest in the party, fewer members, less money, far fewer votes, less success at the Euro Elections, thus not so much pressure on Cameron and the Conservatives, a larger majority in 2015, no Referendum and no Brexit and no May and no 2016 GE and Labour miles behind in the polls. I wouldn't quibble with this at all. Farage was a very good frontman and it is difficult to see anyone taking his place easily. Most electors would at the time struggle to name many people in UKIP apart from Farage. I still think they would have a reasonable amount of success in the Euro-elections however, but not poll-topping. A slightly lower turnout 2015 GE, probably a lot less UKIP candidates, some additional votes for the Tories, some staying at home, some going to sceptic alternatives and possibly some staying with their usual NOTA parties. Not sure if it gets rid of the Referendum, I seem to remember that was policy in 2010 but the can might get kicked down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Aug 8, 2018 9:14:14 GMT
This is a case where I think the absence of a key player might have had a very major difference. For all his manifest faults Farage embodied the UKIP cause and without him I think there would have been a lower profile, less media interest in the party, fewer members, less money, far fewer votes, less success at the Euro Elections, thus not so much pressure on Cameron and the Conservatives, a larger majority in 2015, no Referendum and no Brexit and no May and no 2016 GE and Labour miles behind in the polls. I wouldn't quibble with this at all. Farage was a very good frontman and it is difficult to see anyone taking his place easily. Most electors would at the time struggle to name many people in UKIP apart from Farage. I still think they would have a reasonable amount of success in the Euro-elections however, but not poll-topping. A slightly lower turnout 2015 GE, probably a lot less UKIP candidates, some additional votes for the Tories, some staying at home, some going to sceptic alternatives and possibly some staying with their usual NOTA parties. Not sure if it gets rid of the Referendum, I seem to remember that was policy in 2010 but the can might get kicked down the road.
An In-Out referendum was policy in 2010....for the Lib Dems. Not for the Tories. In 2010 they promised a "referendum lock" and legilsated for it but opposed an In-Out referendum and whipped against it on a vote on the issue in a backbench business debate in 2012 (I think). It was the size of that rebellion (and UKIP performance in the 2012 locals) that pushed Cameron to make his "renegotiate then referendum "announcement in January 2013. The announcement had already been made prior to the 2014 European Parliament elections.
Ultimately, I think the outcome would have been broadly similar despite no Farage.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 8, 2018 10:44:33 GMT
Tbh I'm not completely convinced the Tories would have done better in the 2015 GE in this scenario. I fully see why people think that, but it shouldn't be forgotten the promise of a referendum did a great deal to shore up Cameron's "right flank" then. And with the European issue less prominent generally without Farage (not just then but in the preceding few years) the campaign might have given greater prominence to issues the opposition were more comfortable with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 10:51:40 GMT
UKIP would’ve got fewer votes without Farage and Cameron not have pledged a referendum at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Aug 8, 2018 10:58:21 GMT
We can't rule out a martyr effect that this would have on a referendum campaign.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Aug 8, 2018 11:01:44 GMT
Not sure that he would have been portrayed as a martyr. He was in an electioneering stunt which went wrong. There was no one else to blame. He would not have died because of the actions of someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by catking on Aug 8, 2018 11:43:51 GMT
I have always thought the whole episode is a good indicator of why Farage never won a parliamentary seat and why UKIP struggle in FPTP elections in general.
Why on earth was Farage in the plane on polling day? He should have been out knocking on doors and getting promises to go and vote. Even if he really really wanted to do the stunt (which was pointless anyway), he didn't need to be in the plane himself. This failure to follow even the most basic principles of campaigning never ceases to amaze.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2018 12:12:49 GMT
I have always thought the whole episode is a good indicator of why Farage never won a parliamentary seat and why UKIP struggle in FPTP elections in general. Why on earth was Farage in the plane on polling day? He should have been out knocking on doors and getting promises to go and vote. Even if he really really wanted to do the stunt (which was pointless anyway), he didn't need to be in the plane himself. This failure to follow even the most basic principles of campaigning never ceases to amaze. On the contrary, it only shows your total lack of appreciation of the Farage/UKIP tactics altogether. It was all about stunts and capturing the media attention towards the SOLE objective of an actual Brexit. So, maximising the coverage, getting in front of cameras and the highest possible countrywide vote was the SOLE object. Gaining seats was useful in high profile by-elections but of no consequence at all at a GE. The traction of UKIP was the psychological suasion on Cameron/Conservatives through force of vote size and loss of votes in their marginals. I never fail to be astonished by people like you thinking that nut and bolt politics on the ground mattered? Of course it didn't. This was the Farage Show leading if possible to Brexit. Having MPs was totally irrelevant. Good job you had nothing to do with our campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Aug 8, 2018 12:16:53 GMT
I have always thought the whole episode is a good indicator of why Farage never won a parliamentary seat and why UKIP struggle in FPTP elections in general. Why on earth was Farage in the plane on polling day? He should have been out knocking on doors and getting promises to go and vote. Even if he really really wanted to do the stunt (which was pointless anyway), he didn't need to be in the plane himself. This failure to follow even the most basic principles of campaigning never ceases to amaze. On the contrary, it only shows your total lack of appreciation of the Farage/UKIP tactics altogether. It was all about stunts and capturing the media attention towards the SOLE objective of an actual Brexit. So, maximising the coverage, getting in front of cameras and the highest possible countrywide vote was the SOLE object. Gaining seats was useful in high profile by-elections but of no consequence at all at a GE. The traction of UKIP was the psychological suasion on Cameron/Conservatives through force of vote size and loss of votes in their marginals. I never fail to be astonished by people like you thinking that nut and bolt politics on the ground mattered? Of course it didn't. This was the Farage Show leading if possible to Brexit. Having MPs was totally irrelevant. Good job you had nothing to do with our campaign.
I appreciate that any other day but on polling day? And if the crash hadn't happened, would anybody have reported him flying a plane over Buckinghamshire?
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2018 12:25:20 GMT
On the contrary, it only shows your total lack of appreciation of the Farage/UKIP tactics altogether. It was all about stunts and capturing the media attention towards the SOLE objective of an actual Brexit. So, maximising the coverage, getting in front of cameras and the highest possible countrywide vote was the SOLE object. Gaining seats was useful in high profile by-elections but of no consequence at all at a GE. The traction of UKIP was the psychological suasion on Cameron/Conservatives through force of vote size and loss of votes in their marginals. I never fail to be astonished by people like you thinking that nut and bolt politics on the ground mattered? Of course it didn't. This was the Farage Show leading if possible to Brexit. Having MPs was totally irrelevant. Good job you had nothing to do with our campaign.
I appreciate that any other day but on polling day? And if the crash hadn't happened, would anybody have reported him flying a plane over Buckinghamshire?
No. The flight was unimportant and he certainly didn't need to be on it. I have a vague memory that he was actually using it as a lift to somewhere as well? The real point is your total delusion over using conventional politics. In Buckingham? Against the Speaker? What a monumental small-minded waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Aug 8, 2018 12:29:11 GMT
I appreciate that any other day but on polling day? And if the crash hadn't happened, would anybody have reported him flying a plane over Buckinghamshire?
No. The flight was unimportant and he certainly didn't need to be on it. I have a vague memory that he was actually using it as a lift to somewhere as well? The real point is your total delusion over using conventional politics. In Buckingham? Against the Speaker? What a monumental small-minded waste of time. I agree stadning in Buckingham against the Speaker was a monumental small-minded waste of time but Farage chose to do so anyway...
Farage wasn't getting a lift, the plane had a Vote UKIP banner trailing out the back of it and they were flying over Buckingham. I believe the cause of the crash was the banner got tangled in the plane.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2018 12:43:19 GMT
No. The flight was unimportant and he certainly didn't need to be on it. I have a vague memory that he was actually using it as a lift to somewhere as well? The real point is your total delusion over using conventional politics. In Buckingham? Against the Speaker? What a monumental small-minded waste of time. I agree stadning in Buckingham against the Speaker was a monumental small-minded waste of time but Farage chose to do so anyway...
Farage wasn't getting a lift, the plane had a Vote UKIP banner trailing out the back of it and they were flying over Buckingham. I believe the cause of the crash was the banner got tangled in the plane.
Oh dear! Last try with the difficult pupil. He stood at Buckingham BECAUSE it was the Speaker's seat. Not because he had any chance of winning. It was to gain a profile against one of the chief citizens of the realm and because he could make the point that UKIP were different and did not hold with silly conventions about not standing against the Speaker, etc. I am out of this argument now as I have clearly made my case. You have made yours. We disagree! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 14:02:44 GMT
I agree stadning in Buckingham against the Speaker was a monumental small-minded waste of time but Farage chose to do so anyway...
Farage wasn't getting a lift, the plane had a Vote UKIP banner trailing out the back of it and they were flying over Buckingham. I believe the cause of the crash was the banner got tangled in the plane.
Oh dear! Last try with the difficult pupil. He stood at Buckingham BECAUSE it was the Speaker's seat. Not because he had any chance of winning. It was to gain a profile against one of the chief citizens of the realm and because he could make the point that UKIP were different and did not hold with silly conventions about not standing against the Speaker, etc. I am out of this argument now as I have clearly made my case. You have made yours. We disagree! I agree the convention is silly and am glad the Greens and UKIP have ignored it. However, Farage should’ve stood in South Thanet rather than standing in Bromley and Buckingham just to stay relevant like some Lord Sutch type figure. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Aug 8, 2018 14:56:37 GMT
UKIP circa 2010 was going nowhere under Farage. Their fortunes only really changed when they turned up their anti-immigrant/muslim rhetoric and since there are plenty of UKIPPERs who share these views, I don't see much change in their electoral fortunes.
However, Nige became a darling of the BBC and had that 'bloke in the pub' vibe, so it's fair to say his personality alone attracted people. They may have had a few less MEP's and Carswell and Reckless might have been less reckless in deciding to abandon the Tories, but I would still imagine they have more votes then the Lib Dems in 2015. A referendum would have still happened.
|
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,333
|
Post by slon on Aug 8, 2018 15:00:56 GMT
Could this thread be combined in some way with the one titled "Farage wins South Thanet in 2015"?
|
|
