No EU referendum

[LDCaerdydd]

In January 2013 Cameron publicly promised an election during the 2015-2020 Parliament. What would have happened had their been no promise of an EU referendum?

Would Cameron have survived as leader to fight the 2015 election?
Would he have won a majority?
Would he still be PM now?
Would Corbyn have become Labour leader, would the Labour leadership election of 2016 have happened?

[johnloony]

I got the distinct impression from campaigning in the 2015 election that the promise of a referendum was a significant factor in squeezing the UKIP vote in the final weeks and days. Without such a promise, there would have been no majority for the Conservative Party, so a minority Conservative government. Probably still Cameron as PM, and probably still Corbyn as Labour leader.

[The Bishop]

The latter at least is highly unlikely in those circumstances.

Without a Tory majority, there would never have been the attempted Blairite "coup" that the membership reacted so violently against.

Indeed, the question then might have been if Ed M could have stayed on - at least for a while.....

[slon]

The referendum was unnecessary, more to keep his own party in line than because of any serious threat from UKIP.
The stupid promise of a referendum probably played to the advantage of UKIP by legitimizing the cause.

Milliband was unelectable (not as much so as Corbyn, but still unelectable). The Lib Dems had shot themselves in both feet by betraying core supporters on very important policy issues.
Cameron would have walked the election in 2015, and would still be PM.
Corbyn would still have become Labour leader.

[The Bishop]

Why would he have "walked" such an election any more than he actually did?

Part of the problem with last year's GE outcome being unexpected is that many (on all sides) talked afterwards as if the Tories had won a 1980s-style landslide.

In fact, their majority was about half what Major got in 1992.

[spqr]

Dec 2, 2016 16:17:09 GMT slon said:

The referendum was unnecessary, more to keep his own party in line than because of any serious threat from UKIP.
The stupid promise of a referendum probably played to the advantage of UKIP by legitimizing the cause.

Milliband was unelectable (not as much so as Corbyn, but still unelectable). The Lib Dems had shot themselves in both feet by betraying core supporters on very important policy issues.
Cameron would have walked the election in 2015, and would still be PM.
Corbyn would still have become Labour leader.

'Unelectability' is an absolute. You can't be a little less 'unelectable' than someone else - you either are or you aren't.

I can only conclude from this that you think Miliband was 'electable', after all.

[slon]

Dec 2, 2016 19:04:49 GMT spqr said:

Dec 2, 2016 16:17:09 GMT slon said:

The referendum was unnecessary, more to keep his own party in line than because of any serious threat from UKIP.
The stupid promise of a referendum probably played to the advantage of UKIP by legitimizing the cause.

Milliband was unelectable (not as much so as Corbyn, but still unelectable). The Lib Dems had shot themselves in both feet by betraying core supporters on very important policy issues.
Cameron would have walked the election in 2015, and would still be PM.
Corbyn would still have become Labour leader.

'Unelectability' is an absolute. You can't be a little less 'unelectable' than someone else - you either are or you aren't.

I can only conclude from this that you think Miliband was 'electable', after all.

Splitting hairs a little here are we not?
Let us just agree Miliband was a liability, and Corbyn is even more of a liability.

[Deleted]

Of course I think Cameron promised the EU vote thinking the LD's would block it. No one quite saw their collapse especially int he SW which in effect gave the Tories the majority. At this stage Cam could not back out and the rest as they say is history.

[Merseymike]

Cameron also thought that any referendum would be easily won which is why he wasn't too worried about making that promise.

I think that Labour would have imploded eventually. The achievement of Ed Miliband in holding things together even though he too faced the hostility of the fringe right and its obsession with preserving the New Labour mistake, should not be ubder-estimated

The way Labour continue to deal with the entire EU issue may determine its future. I still think the party can't think about what their vision of Britain outside the EU would be. Perhaps because it would emphasise the internal contradictions even more.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2017 14:48:52 GMT Merseymike said:

Cameron also thought that any referendum would be easily won 

heard many say that and I think they are totally wrong. Anyone looking at it knew it was tight and I was very pessimistic about remain winning because the core elderly vote on out was coming out.

It is no mere coincidence the Turkey lies was heavily done when postal votes went out and like we saw with Comey and the lies he did, unable to correct it.

for all talk of the voting pattern one simple truth the older population the more euro sceptic and the more they vote anyway .... easy maths then 

[slon]

Just thought to revisit this ..... What if there had been no referendum on EU membership?
In fact what if there had been no promise in 2012 and no referendum commitment in the 2015 Tory manifesto?

UKIP became a serious contender for power only after 2012, and only gained a significant GE vote in the 2015 election.

A chicken and egg question

• Did the promise of a referendum move public opinion and lead to the rise of UKIP?
• Did public opinion as seen by the rise of UKIP lead to the desperate Tory gamble of an EU referendum?

[The Bishop]

Mostly the latter, I would say.

Of course, when Dave made his announcement the performing seals that are lobby "journalists" were almost unanimous in proclaiming it a masterstroke with no downsides.

[slon]

Aug 11, 2017 9:25:38 GMT The Bishop said:

Mostly the latter, I would say.

Of course, when Dave made his announcement the performing seals that are lobby "journalists" were almost unanimous in proclaiming it a masterstroke with no downsides.

Difficult to say .... does anyone have any poll predictions for UKIP pre 2012?

In the GE 2010 UKIP had about 3.5% vote and some suggested swung the balance in some marginals .... prior to that UKIP share was about 2%
They were not regarded as significant so the usual polls did not even include them as an option, by late 2012 the suggestion was 10% plus and from that point on the opinion polls started to track progress.

[The Bishop]

UKIP started their poll upswing in 2011 I think, but it was very gradual to begin with.

[slon]

opinion polls up to 2010

No real indication of the anti-immigration anti-EU movement to come.
within 2 years we had UKIP on steady 10%+ , something happened between 2010 and 2012

One view is that Cameron started it all by legitimising the case for UKIP in the form of a commitment to a referendum back in in 2012

btw. grey line is 'other' UKIP were not identified

[The Bishop]

But it clearly shows a spike upwards in their ratings around the time of the 2009 European elections (when they pushed Labour into 3rd place)

There was also non-negligible BNP support during that period for UKIP to pick up later following the Griffinite implosion.

[slon]

Then moving forward

UKIP below 5% until 2012.
Announcement of referendum (Jan 2012) promises Tory recovery, but short-lived UKIP are the real winners given this agenda.

[The Bishop]

You have your dates wrong - the referendum announcement was at the start of 20*13*. Which in itself puts a rather different spin on things.

(the Tory bump at the turn of 2011-12 was due to Cameron's "veto" boost)

[jigger]

Why are we even trusting polls from this period?  They were proved to be very wrong in 2015.   

[The Bishop]

They weren't/aren't so wrong that they can't show overriding trends.