Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2022 7:57:21 GMT
What happens to Cameron and Osborne etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Feb 15, 2022 8:55:55 GMT
If remain won, Cameron stays in post. Osborne wouldn’t be moved in any summer reshuffle (BoJo would join however). Cameron would continue until 2017/18. A better question might be with such a narrow loss, how much momentum would remain today in the leave camp? Also see: vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/12002/52-remain-2016 |
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,264 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 15, 2022 12:37:22 GMT
Interesting postulation. Cameron would have coped with that result very much better than he did the Leave clear Win. He would point to the result but temper it with stressing the complete division of the country into two camps, and suggest that the division was more than an argument over economics and the belonging to a unifying group of European nations, it was about national identity and resistance forming to many perceived elements of social, cultural and societal change. He would suggest a high-powered Royal Commission with a very broad brief to take soundings and to hear opinion with a view to a Report on the Cultural State of the Nation. I think that would have been fairly well received by many in the party, the core of the Conservative voters and most people who were not hard line Remain or Leave.
In general politics the whole dynamic would be the reverse of 2016-2022 with resentment and rancour on the Leave side at seeing the chance of victory so very narrowly extinguished. It would have probably led to an upsurge of UKIP activity, recruitment and success. Very gradually UKIP would change from campaign blunt force to actual political party with far better quality candidates and more electoral success. There is no Cameron resignation, Osborne stays in office. So no May Administration, no disaster 2017 GE and minority government. A GE takes place when Cameron feels he can both win and expand the majority, possibly 2018 or 2019 after the publishing of the Royal Commission report and development of a series of policies to address the issues of the 'Left behind' that are fairly well received. This is real heartland Cameron country and he would probably have gained a majority of 50-75 with possibly some UKIP entrants and pressure on both LD and SNP in that different environment. Cameron would have coped with Covid better and gained political capital.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,474
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 15, 2022 12:46:11 GMT
A vote as close as *that* either way would have led to conspiracy theories flourishing, with all the likely negative consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Feb 15, 2022 12:59:25 GMT
If Leave lost narrowly, I'm sure they would be following the advice they give to Remainers to move on...
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Cromwell on Feb 15, 2022 17:33:26 GMT
We don't have three years of hell with a deadlocked parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 15, 2022 17:53:55 GMT
A vote as close as *that* either way would have led to conspiracy theories flourishing, with all the likely negative consequences. It would be so worryingly close as to hinge on the result in one particular borough. And there would be one heck of a investigation into the situation there. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 15, 2022 18:35:53 GMT
A GE takes place when Cameron feels he can both win and expand the majority, possibly 2018 or 2019 after the publishing of the Royal Commission report and development of a series of policies to address the issues of the 'Left behind' that are fairly well received. This is real heartland Cameron country and he would probably have gained a majority of 50-75 with possibly some UKIP entrants and pressure on both LD and SNP in that different environment. Cameron would have coped with Covid better and gained political capital. Cameron had already pledged to not seek a third term and had also turned the necessity of having to concede the crap that is the Fixed Term Parliament Act into a virtue so it would be exceptionally difficult for him to call and win a snap election without an exceptionally good reason for going back to the country and doing so early. Everything he'd said would be thrown back at him. By contrast a new leader could easily make a pledge to put the FTPA in a bin marked "Unworkable Liberal Democrap". |
|
|
|
Post by jakegb on Feb 15, 2022 19:07:43 GMT
Cameron and Osbourne would stay in post; however, I think Cameron would have resigned within a year. At the time of the 2015 election, he mentioned that he wasn't going to lead the Tories into a third election campaign.
As for UKIP, their momentum would have rested on Nigel Farage's future; if Farage stayed as leader, then I think UKIP could have maintained a strong showing in electoral politics, making strong gains in the red wall and East Anglia.
Even with the successful referendum result, it is telling how much UKIP support dropped from late 2016 onwards. Because of his personality/profile, Farage would have, in my view, provided a stronger challenge to May (and Corbyn) on Brexit in the 2017 GE, compared to Nutall's lacklustre performance. This would have saved many more deposits, though not their sole seat (Clacton).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 15, 2022 19:33:18 GMT
It would have been clear had the result been as close as that, that a majority of UK citizens voting would have voted to Leave the EU but that this majority would have been overturned by the votes of foreign nationals, including citizens of a foreign and hostile country whose head of government actively campaigned on the side of Remain in the referendum (actually an outrageous intervention which may have only been overlooked because it didn't tip the result). Obviously such an outcome would not have been accepted by those of us who believe in returning sovereignty to the British people.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,264
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 15, 2022 21:42:05 GMT
A GE takes place when Cameron feels he can both win and expand the majority, possibly 2018 or 2019 after the publishing of the Royal Commission report and development of a series of policies to address the issues of the 'Left behind' that are fairly well received. This is real heartland Cameron country and he would probably have gained a majority of 50-75 with possibly some UKIP entrants and pressure on both LD and SNP in that different environment. Cameron would have coped with Covid better and gained political capital. Cameron had already pledged to not seek a third term and had also turned the necessity of having to concede the crap that is the Fixed Term Parliament Act into a virtue so it would be exceptionally difficult for him to call and win a snap election without an exceptionally good reason for going back to the country and doing so early. Everything he'd said would be thrown back at him. By contrast a new leader could easily make a pledge to put the FTPA in a bin marked "Unworkable Liberal Democrap". Those are well made points that I entirely concede. I had quite forgotten those pledges from now seems a different age. |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 568
|
Post by nyx on Feb 15, 2022 22:01:54 GMT
In general politics the whole dynamic would be the reverse of 2016-2022 with resentment and rancour on the Leave side at seeing the chance of victory so very narrowly extinguished. It would have probably led to an upsurge of UKIP activity, recruitment and success. Very gradually UKIP would change from campaign blunt force to actual political party with far better quality candidates and more electoral success. There is no Cameron resignation, Osborne stays in office. So no May Administration, no disaster 2017 GE and minority government. If the government firmly takes the line of respecting the result, and UKIP surges in the polls, I can't help but wonder if some more Euroskeptic Conservative MPs might defect to UKIP and make the government's majority rather shaky indeed. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 15, 2022 22:43:04 GMT
Interesting postulation. Cameron would have coped with that result very much better than he did the Leave clear Win. He would point to the result but temper it with stressing the complete division of the country into two camps, and suggest that the division was more than an argument over economics and the belonging to a unifying group of European nations, it was about national identity and resistance forming to many perceived elements of social, cultural and societal change. He would suggest a high-powered Royal Commission with a very broad brief to take soundings and to hear opinion with a view to a Report on the Cultural State of the Nation. I think that would have been fairly well received by many in the party, the core of the Conservative voters and most people who were not hard line Remain or Leave. In general politics the whole dynamic would be the reverse of 2016-2022 with resentment and rancour on the Leave side at seeing the chance of victory so very narrowly extinguished. It would have probably led to an upsurge of UKIP activity, recruitment and success. Very gradually UKIP would change from campaign blunt force to actual political party with far better quality candidates and more electoral success. There is no Cameron resignation, Osborne stays in office. So no May Administration, no disaster 2017 GE and minority government. A GE takes place when Cameron feels he can both win and expand the majority, possibly 2018 or 2019 after the publishing of the Royal Commission report and development of a series of policies to address the issues of the 'Left behind' that are fairly well received. This is real heartland Cameron country and he would probably have gained a majority of 50-75 with possibly some UKIP entrants and pressure on both LD and SNP in that different environment. Cameron would have coped with Covid better and gained political capital.
That sounds like a far better reality than the one we actually had...
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,264
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 15, 2022 22:58:19 GMT
Interesting postulation. Cameron would have coped with that result very much better than he did the Leave clear Win. He would point to the result but temper it with stressing the complete division of the country into two camps, and suggest that the division was more than an argument over economics and the belonging to a unifying group of European nations, it was about national identity and resistance forming to many perceived elements of social, cultural and societal change. He would suggest a high-powered Royal Commission with a very broad brief to take soundings and to hear opinion with a view to a Report on the Cultural State of the Nation. I think that would have been fairly well received by many in the party, the core of the Conservative voters and most people who were not hard line Remain or Leave. In general politics the whole dynamic would be the reverse of 2016-2022 with resentment and rancour on the Leave side at seeing the chance of victory so very narrowly extinguished. It would have probably led to an upsurge of UKIP activity, recruitment and success. Very gradually UKIP would change from campaign blunt force to actual political party with far better quality candidates and more electoral success. There is no Cameron resignation, Osborne stays in office. So no May Administration, no disaster 2017 GE and minority government. A GE takes place when Cameron feels he can both win and expand the majority, possibly 2018 or 2019 after the publishing of the Royal Commission report and development of a series of policies to address the issues of the 'Left behind' that are fairly well received. This is real heartland Cameron country and he would probably have gained a majority of 50-75 with possibly some UKIP entrants and pressure on both LD and SNP in that different environment. Cameron would have coped with Covid better and gained political capital.
That sounds like a far better reality than the one we actually had...
Except for we unrepentant uber-Leavers on a No Deal basis who would have carried on the fight and started to give massive support to UKIP with consequent collateral damage to many Conservative seats. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 16, 2022 0:21:57 GMT
That sounds like a far better reality than the one we actually had...
Except for we unrepentant uber-Leavers on a No Deal basis who would have carried on the fight and started to give massive support to UKIP with consequent collateral damage to many Conservative seats. In this hypothetical scenario, I wonder what UKIP's economic policies would have been as they evolved into a fully fledged party. Would they shift towards a more interventionist approach, perhaps trying to woo former Labour voters in strongly Leave towns in the North and the Midlands, or would they retain the more Thatcherite approach favoured by their activists? |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,966
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 16, 2022 10:31:11 GMT
If Leave lost narrowly, I'm sure they would be following the advice they give to Remainers to move on... Sarcasm duly noted, but it was good advice all the same.
If Remainers had followed it, instead of so many (not all) of them trying to overturn the result, we'd have ended up with a much softer Brexit than the one we got.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Feb 16, 2022 10:52:27 GMT
If Remainers had followed it, instead of so many (not all) of them trying to overturn the result, we'd have ended up with a much softer Brexit than the one we got. Please do explain your thinking behind that. Regards, someone who voted remain and never tried to overturn the result. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,045
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Feb 16, 2022 11:30:19 GMT
I don't have any great views on the original question but if the result had been like that I would think and hope we Leavers would have carried on fighting hard!
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,589
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 16, 2022 12:18:44 GMT
I don't have any great views on the original question but if the result had been like that I would think and hope we Leavers would have carried on fighting hard! I would certainly have been arguing: Ok, but the results clearly show Thus Far And No Further! I would expect the Remainiacs would have been demanding that it clearly shows complete and overwhelming support for full and complete subsumation within a complete and overriding European superstate. Just as in reality the Brexiteers were arguing complete and utter termination, slash everything off at the knees.
Anything between 45/55 either way was a clear indication that our relationship with the EU needed to be rethought and restructed fundamentally. It was never a case of just heave over the line, and it's settled forever.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,966
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 16, 2022 13:11:05 GMT
If Remainers had followed it, instead of so many (not all) of them trying to overturn the result, we'd have ended up with a much softer Brexit than the one we got. Please do explain your thinking behind that. Regards, someone who voted remain and never tried to overturn the result. Well, we're in the same position.
As indeed were the great majority of Remainers in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. I didn't hear any prominent Remainer, at that time, arguing for a 'people's referendum' or for simply ignoring the result ("It's just advisory.") and staying in the EU anyway.
If Remainers had continued to accept the result, then we could have had a sensible discussion not about the principle of leaving the EU, since that was settled, but about the terms. I expect this would have resulted in an alliance between Remainers and moderate leavers, who between them would have commanded enough backing for a relatively soft Brexit to go through. It would probably have looked something like the Theresa May deal, although possibly with the addition of the customs union or the single market (or both).
What happened instead was that as time went by, and especially once May threw away her majority in 2017, many Remainers - not all of them, but a large proportion - started to get creative about finding ways to overthrow the 2016 verdict. As this gained traction, Leavers saw their fairly-won victory of 2016 suddenly under threat and naturally responded by hardening their position. In these circumstances even a Remainer like me found himself willing to accept a relatively hard Brexit for the sake of getting the thing done and demonstrating to everyone that took part in the 2016 referendum that their votes actually mean something.
|
|
