I'm not sure if we need a sub-forum for this: political "what if" questions.
I often wonder what might have happened if David Cameron had not decided to hold the Brexit referendum. I am not an expert on these matters, but I'm suggesting my guess on events below, which may or may not have been correct.
I do wonder whether Cameron actually needed to suggest the referendum as a way of obtaining a majority. From what I can see the main factor behind the Tory majority in 2015 was the collapse of the Lib Dem vote on the back of the tuition fees issue, which meant many people in 2010 Lib Dem seats switched their vote elsewhere, allowing large numbers of seats to go Tory. This was particularly the case in South West England and to me, seemed to be the major factor in allowing Cameron to do as well as he did. This would, in my opinion, have happened without the referendum in the manifesto. Plus, Ed Miliband was seen (wrongly, IMO) as a weak leader and this would still have been the case without the referendum.
So in this alternate universe, Cameron would, IMO, still have won, perhaps with a wafer-thin majority of only 5 or so. The politics of the 12 months following the election would have been much the same: a reaction on the left against Cameron's win, anti-austerity marches, and Corbyn becoming Labour leader.
The rest of Cameron's second term would, however, without the referendum, have been more stable. The country would be strongly divided on anti-austerity lines, but with the economy presumably recovering, there would be less austerity and perhaps attitudes to Cameron might have softened a little. Nonetheless I'd have expected to see the Tories and Labour neck-and-neck in the polls. Cameron would have completed 10 years as PM and thus have done better, personally, by not holding the referendum.
What then happened for a theoretical 2020 election would have been interesting. I remember Cameron saying he would not seek a third term, thus there would be a Tory leadership contest. The two most obvious candidates would seem to be Osborne, as Cameron's sidekick and Chancellor, plus a certain A.B. de Pfeffel Johnson.
I suspect the result of the 2020 election would have depended on which of the two individuals would have won. Had Osborne won there would have been a real ideological battle in the election - Osborne vs. Corbyn - and with Osborne less popular than Cameron and more directly blamed for austerity, who knows what might have happened? This would probably have been a 2017 election like scenario where Corbyn could, perhaps, have ended up PM.
However I think it's more likely that the Tory membership would have seen Johnson as the one of the two with more "star quality" and thus he would have been elected as Tory leader. Thus we end up with the 2020 election being very like the actual 2019 election - Johnson vs Corbyn. I suspect the Brexit question's time will have passed, with the country on a better economic footing and less reason for the EU to be a scapegoat for people's problems - and Johnson would have stood on a populist Tory platform, but without the question of leaving the EU.
Thus I suspect the result of this 2020 election would have been much the same as the actual 2019 election, with a clear majority for Johnson. But without Brexit he would have been less unpopular with some of us - though the left would still not be keen on him. Perhaps though the left, in this alternate scenario, would see him as an improvement on Cameron and Osborne?
In this alternate reality there is no Covid to complicate things, and so without Partygate, and without such a strong backlash against him from pro-EU people, I suspect he would have lasted a bit longer than he actually did. Nonetheless at some point people would have worn thin of his bluster and arrogance, he'd have eventually slipped up somehow, and we'd currently, right now, be in a situation where Johnson's personal polls would be falling fast, and with a May 2025 election around 18 months away, the Tory party would in the coming months be facing the decision whether to keep him on or not. So not a million miles away from what actually happened, but crucially, minus Brexit. But perhaps with the Tories not lurching so far to the right and without the elimination of many of the moderates, there would be someone else waiting in the wings who might still rescue them for 2025. Theresa May, perhaps? She would perhaps be a refreshing change for many after four years of Boris bluster.
The notional 2025 election would thus, perhaps, be looking like a defeat for the Tories on balance, but perhaps they would still have a chance. So perhaps the referendum was bad, in the long run, for many of the players: Cameron, Boris and the Tory party itself.
As I said I am no expert, this is pure guesswork.
Alternate opinions now welcome!
I often wonder what might have happened if David Cameron had not decided to hold the Brexit referendum. I am not an expert on these matters, but I'm suggesting my guess on events below, which may or may not have been correct.
I do wonder whether Cameron actually needed to suggest the referendum as a way of obtaining a majority. From what I can see the main factor behind the Tory majority in 2015 was the collapse of the Lib Dem vote on the back of the tuition fees issue, which meant many people in 2010 Lib Dem seats switched their vote elsewhere, allowing large numbers of seats to go Tory. This was particularly the case in South West England and to me, seemed to be the major factor in allowing Cameron to do as well as he did. This would, in my opinion, have happened without the referendum in the manifesto. Plus, Ed Miliband was seen (wrongly, IMO) as a weak leader and this would still have been the case without the referendum.
So in this alternate universe, Cameron would, IMO, still have won, perhaps with a wafer-thin majority of only 5 or so. The politics of the 12 months following the election would have been much the same: a reaction on the left against Cameron's win, anti-austerity marches, and Corbyn becoming Labour leader.
The rest of Cameron's second term would, however, without the referendum, have been more stable. The country would be strongly divided on anti-austerity lines, but with the economy presumably recovering, there would be less austerity and perhaps attitudes to Cameron might have softened a little. Nonetheless I'd have expected to see the Tories and Labour neck-and-neck in the polls. Cameron would have completed 10 years as PM and thus have done better, personally, by not holding the referendum.
What then happened for a theoretical 2020 election would have been interesting. I remember Cameron saying he would not seek a third term, thus there would be a Tory leadership contest. The two most obvious candidates would seem to be Osborne, as Cameron's sidekick and Chancellor, plus a certain A.B. de Pfeffel Johnson.
I suspect the result of the 2020 election would have depended on which of the two individuals would have won. Had Osborne won there would have been a real ideological battle in the election - Osborne vs. Corbyn - and with Osborne less popular than Cameron and more directly blamed for austerity, who knows what might have happened? This would probably have been a 2017 election like scenario where Corbyn could, perhaps, have ended up PM.
However I think it's more likely that the Tory membership would have seen Johnson as the one of the two with more "star quality" and thus he would have been elected as Tory leader. Thus we end up with the 2020 election being very like the actual 2019 election - Johnson vs Corbyn. I suspect the Brexit question's time will have passed, with the country on a better economic footing and less reason for the EU to be a scapegoat for people's problems - and Johnson would have stood on a populist Tory platform, but without the question of leaving the EU.
Thus I suspect the result of this 2020 election would have been much the same as the actual 2019 election, with a clear majority for Johnson. But without Brexit he would have been less unpopular with some of us - though the left would still not be keen on him. Perhaps though the left, in this alternate scenario, would see him as an improvement on Cameron and Osborne?
In this alternate reality there is no Covid to complicate things, and so without Partygate, and without such a strong backlash against him from pro-EU people, I suspect he would have lasted a bit longer than he actually did. Nonetheless at some point people would have worn thin of his bluster and arrogance, he'd have eventually slipped up somehow, and we'd currently, right now, be in a situation where Johnson's personal polls would be falling fast, and with a May 2025 election around 18 months away, the Tory party would in the coming months be facing the decision whether to keep him on or not. So not a million miles away from what actually happened, but crucially, minus Brexit. But perhaps with the Tories not lurching so far to the right and without the elimination of many of the moderates, there would be someone else waiting in the wings who might still rescue them for 2025. Theresa May, perhaps? She would perhaps be a refreshing change for many after four years of Boris bluster.
The notional 2025 election would thus, perhaps, be looking like a defeat for the Tories on balance, but perhaps they would still have a chance. So perhaps the referendum was bad, in the long run, for many of the players: Cameron, Boris and the Tory party itself.
As I said I am no expert, this is pure guesswork.
Alternate opinions now welcome!
Last edited:
