Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor poll for the Standard was published yesterday. Topline voting intentions were CON 39%, LAB 37%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 5%. The two point lead is unchanged from MORI’s previous poll in September, and are very much in line with the other recent voting intention polls since my last update. YouGov and Kantar polls last week both showed 5 point Conservative leads, a Survation poll a one point Tory lead.

While voting intention polls continue to show a small Tory lead, the underlying figures remain poor. People don’t rate the government or the Prime Minister (net satisfaction for the government is minus 48, for Theresa May it’s minus 32), economic optimism is low (61% expect the general economic condition of the country to get worse over the next year) and confidence in May’s ability to get a good Brexit deal continues to trickle downwards, this latest poll has 19% saying they are confident, 78% saying they are not.

Full tabs for the MORI poll are here.

796 Responses to “Ipsos-MORI/Standard – CON 39, LAB 37, LDEM 10”

1 14 15 16
  1. Come to think of it, maybe the whole of parliament should be reading up their Burke.

  2. DANNY

    @”Come to think of it, maybe the whole of parliament should be reading up their Burke.”

    Indeed so-the current Leadership of the Labour Party would do well to re-read this.:-

    “Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion…………..
    …………..To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,–these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.”

    Edmund Burke
    Speech to the Electors of Bristol

    3 Nov. 1774


    @”More “blinking” on services from EC as they accept Enhanced/Expanded Equivalence.”

    Where is this reported please ?

  4. Colin,
    “Indeed so-the current Leadership of the Labour Party…..”

    I was trying to keep that non-partisan.

  5. Colin again,

    I dont quite understand why you addressed you comment in particular to labour. The nation is now more remain than leave. Tory MPs were always more remain than leave. So it would presumably behove the government to listen to Burke and stop brexit?

  6. DANNY

    I didn’t have Brexit in mind .

    Just Corbyn’s concept of “Democracy”.

  7. “”More “blinking” on services from EC as they accept Enhanced/Expanded Equivalence.”
    Where is this reported please ?”

    BBC (via Reuters) reported this 20 minutes ago:

    Reuters quotes an unnamed EU official as saying the Times report on the UK striking a post-Brexit financial services deal with the union is wrong.
    The official said there was no such thing as guaranteed access to the EU market and that the “equivalence” regime, which the EU has been offering to Britain since July, could only ever be unilateral.
    “The article is not correct,” said the official, who is close to the negotiations.

  8. Corbyn of course as a back-benchers adopted the \burkian approach regularly and seems genuinely fairly relaxed about whip breakers within the PLP.

    It is not him, imo, who is seeking to turn MPs in to CLP mandate heavy delegates, no Jon McDonnell.

    There are those who back him who do wish things to move in this direction but I have found some newer members, who joined on a pro-Corbyn wave and/or the policies being advocated, have become better informed and therefore less dogmatic. These newer members have not dimmed in their support for the policy platform and for the leader they see best to advance those as this time, although less wedded to the individual perhaps and more understanding of MPs roles and obligations.

  9. You can hardly expect “oldnat” to be anything but blinkered about the darker underbelly of “nationalism”. He prefers to think about determining ones own fate (including making ones own mistakes) rather the reality of the monstering of, say, the English by some Scots.

  10. @ Colin

    “Just Corbyn’s concept of “Democracy”.”

    And could you explain how that differs from others in parliament? It’s not at all clear to me what you mean.

    If we take it, as in the above quote, to mean how well someone represents his/her constituents, then it might be worth noting that JC has one of the largest majorities in the UK, with 73% voting for him. That’s more than, for example, TM at 65%. But this would be, of course, a rather narrow definition of democracy, so I’m interested in yours.

  11. @ JJ – A TFA that UK and EC believe “solves” NI border is still the issue that could scupper the whole thing. I doubt DUP would agree to ‘Le Touquet+’ arrangements and although LAB Arch Leave and LAB abstainers might offset 10 DUP the risk of SCON backing DUP makes the maths much harder.

    Personally I reckon SCON would “blink” as the extra friction of ‘Le Touquet+’ would be minimal and Scotland doesn’t have a land border with EU27. Politically May can throw some money at Scottish fishing and farming and make it look like SCON fought and won that concession in return for SCON MPs accepting Min Deal (free ports another option that has gone “quiet”)

    More important than that though is the issue of May having to accept that her TFA version in Chequers is dead. With services agreed then the EC might agree to something close to her Facilitated Customs Agreement (FCA or NCP2) but ERG+ won’t. Getting enough LAB to offset ERG is very unlikely.

    From the EC side they also need to show a “Min Deal” is worse than being a full member and Expanded/Enhanced Equivalence with a low friction TFA that enables UK to strike trade deals with rWorld is going to look “too generous” even in return for ‘Security’ agreements, etc.

    However, it is good to finally see that the “behind the scenes” lobbying of EC by corporate EU is getting them to “blink”. I thought they’d blink on customs before services given the net trade balances of goods v services and hence very happy to see them blink on services first!

  12. On the Guardian

    The Electoral Commission has just sent out this press release.

    A number of companies and individuals have been referred to the National Crime Agency for suspected criminal offences committed during the EU referendum.

    Following its investigation into funding for the 2016 EU referendum, the Electoral Commission has referred: Better for the Country, the organisation that ran the Leave.EU referendum campaign; Arron Banks; Leave.EU; Elizabeth Bilney; and other associated companies and individuals. The National Crime Agency has now launched a criminal investigation.

    The investigation focused on £2m reported to have been loaned to Better for the Country by Arron Banks and his group of insurance companies and a further £6m reported to have been given to the organisation, on behalf of Leave.EU, by Arron Banks alone.

    £2.9m of this money was used to fund referendum spending on behalf of Leave.EU and donations to other campaign groups during the EU referendum.

    Following its investigation, the Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect that:

    – Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m loans made to Better for the Country.

    – Loans to Better for the Country, on behalf of Leave.EU, involved a non-qualifying or impermissible company – Rock Holdings Limited, which is incorporated in the Isle of Man.

    – Arron Banks, Elizabeth Bilney and others involved in Better for the Country, Leave.EU and associated companies concealed the true details of these financial transactions.

    – A number of criminal offences may have been committed.

    Due to multiple suspected offences, some of which fall outside the Commission’s remit, the Commission has referred this matter and handed its evidence to the National Crime Agency.

    What do they mean by outside the Commission’s remit?

  13. @ COLIN – the news on services was apparently first reported in Times. Most others picking it up even the Remain press, FT link below:

    “The Times said negotiators had reached a “tentative agreement on all aspects of a future partnership on services”


    Sure it is rumour but the various and relevant EC bods met y’day and anyone/everyone who understands the risks of EC cutting themselves off knew the EC were bluffing. As I just mentioned to JJ, the interesting aspect is the timing – in that it came before a “customs” agreement.

  14. I see Arron Banks has been referred to the National Crime Agency after investigation of the referendum funding (BBC news). Will this improve the chances of a second referendum? Probably not.

  15. @ EOTW

    Thanks for that – extraordinary stuff re Arron Banks.

    An offence ‘outside the Electoral Commission’s remit’ is presumably any offence apart from one involving electoral law.

  16. Back to polling. A short “Austerity” related poll from YG.

    Lots of DKs and uncertainty but the two highest scores for what “end of austerity means” are:

    The govt will be spending more money on public services: net +12

    There is no longer any need for spending cuts: net +3

    Obviously CON more willing to accept those “definitions” than LAB but even within LAB 33% accept those definitions.


    Turning that into a VI boost might be trickier though!

  17. TRIGUY

    @” It’s not at all clear to me what you mean.”

    My impression-gleaned from remarks by Corbyn & Momentum Leaders is that the Burkean ideal of Democratic Parliamentary Representation does not sit easily with Labour’s emphasis now on the power & authority of Party Members.

    We will see how it pans out though. I hope I’m wrong.

  18. TW
    Thanks-I saw the Times report-I referred to it yesterday on UKPR.

  19. @PatrickBrain

    “I’m wondering why everyone is so relaxed about the Trevors. At the very least these people have been dish0nest.”


    Lol, he has let people know others used his account. If he hadn’t done that, people wouldn’t be able to have a go at him about it. There could be others posting here who let others post on their account for all we know.

    Also, if all the Trevors used separate accounts all backing each other up, it would be like sock puppetry, giving the impression of more support for a view. They could actually post MORE if they used separate accounts. Other people on this board team up at times, remember.

    Also, if it happens to be several people chipping in, it makes sense to consolidate all the views in a single post.

    It is true that some of what Trevors post is decidedly open to challenge, but that’s what happens when flying kites – which is a practice that will give rise to more error but which also helps bring new ideas to a board, and helps people develop their thinking – and the truth is that some of it is more robust. Such variability is not an unusual phenomenon on here, or elsewhere in fact.

    The issues really are that such is the attempt at brevity it seems pretty impenetrable at times, and because it’s several people it ups the rate. Also if someone points out a difficulty Trevors may throw up some chaff and pivot to something else, but again, that’s not limited to Trevors either. Sometimes people at odds with Trevors do that themselves, but they or others who perhaps agree with them just can’t see it.

    I don’t mind too much if someone pivots to save face, because it means a tacit acceptance of what you were saying, rather than contesting needlessly, and for me it’s not about proving you’re “winning” to others anyway. (It can be a bit burdensome if they rope you into a whole new hornets nest however. Though you can also learn from it).

    My view is not that there are no issues at all, but that issues are not confined to Trevors and that it can help to recognise the better bits and encourage more of that rather than just hammering the negative, because to hammer the negative doesn’t necessarily let them know what to substitute in its place.* Since others have the negative pretty well covered I thought I’d offer something a little different.

    *This is more of a view born of having worked in education, but admittedly, it isn’t necessarily always that commonplace a view in education either.

  20. JIM JAM

    I know you don’t share my concern on Lab. MPs.

    I recognise your personal experience & greater knowledge at LP level.

  21. @OLDNAT

    I presume you couldn’t find a suitable chair in a local shop (I know that’s a bit archaic).”


    Local things, for local people!!

  22. Trevor Warne,
    “LAB Arch Leave and LAB abstainers might offset 10 DUP the risk of SCON backing DUP makes the maths much harder.”

    I do see a deal as possble. If May stays true to form, she will at the last moment accept a guaranteed open Irish land border, including the implication either the Uk as a whole stays inside the EU market, or there is a sea border. This will upset the DUP, and that is why she will leave it to the last moment.

    Then not having a parliamentary majority will not be her concern. It will go to parliament, and whatever happens, happens.

    What she has to have is something to take to parliament.

    This could precipitate an election, or losing the DUP could do so because of no ongoing majority. (although the DUP might still prefer con to lab and a new election)

  23. @Trevors

    “@ CARFREW – :-) :-) Your reply on paranoia was followed by several examples! I’m totally fine with banter and a bit of trolling and find it very funny and quite flattering ;)”


    I know you’ve got a thick skin but I wouldn’t ignore all of the comments Trevs. Might be an idea to slow down a bit and spend some time trying to make some of it a bit clearer! Especially the stuff obviously done in a rush and rather clipped…

  24. @Alec

    “On the services, trade and Brexit issue, someone posted this link recently (@Carfrew I think) – http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/24/the-eu-isnt-protectionist-its-one-of-the-most-open-economies-in-the-world/
    I was struck by something the authors said in their conclusion, which perhaps highlights things both leavers and remainers have paid little attention to. They conclude by saying –

    “…the most direct way for Britain’s trade policy to be much freer than today would be a radical, unilateral liberalisation. From a purely economic point of view, this option offers great gains, but it also creates enormous social dislocations, and it is far from clear that it would find political support in the United Kingdom.”

    Remainers don’t feel comfortable acknowledging gains could be made from unilateral liberalisation with rest of the world, while leavers take these gains and bank them, without acknowledging that much of the Brexit vote was based on dissatisfaction with the impacts of liberalising trade with the EU. In other words, liberalising trade with the rest of the world, will just bring more of what we have already had.“


    Yep, I did indeed post that, Alec. Regarding the view that further liberalisation inevitably leads to economic gains, this view is commonly espoused, but it isn’t always the case that economists take everything into account.

    Thus, maybe opening up,trade to elsewhere in the world might allow a country to source tyres cheaper from Indonesia, say. And some might go “Great! Now we can get tyres $2 dollars cheaper! Isn’t that more efficient? See?”

    But the problem is, that it may also mean shutting down a country’s own tyre production, costing jobs and other businesses dependent on making tyres.

    You have to take all of that into account before deciding if it’s really good economically or not.

    I don’t know whether it’s true that Leavers inevitably bank the gains of liberalisation. Leavers like Trevor, or indeed the more left wing Leavers who aren’t so common on here these days, often argue that leaving the EU is an opportunity to restore or substitute and create or protect jobs, even if it might mean being a bit inefficient in terms of the price of some things.

    Myself, I’m not really sure where the balance lies in terms of lowering prices vs. keeping jobs and suppliers etc.

  25. Somerjohn

    You should have noted that I opened my remarks by saying that if Snyder’s book was typified in the long quote made by CB11, then I would certainly not read it.

    If you consider that it is “sneering” to point out the incoherent intellectual infantilism in those words, then you are perfectly entitled to do so. I would suggest that CB11’s response (as with Nick P’s comment above) as being a more accurate use of the term.

    The worst part in it isn’t the selection of a particular characterisation of “nationalism”, but the entirely unsubstantiated paen to “patriotism”.

    Without even a single quotation from any source, Snyder paints a picture of the cognate concept of patriotism as entirely beneficent, with no negative connotations, but as the way of achieving an ideal world.

    There are many overlapping concepts which include loyalty to “the group” (itself a very basic survival mechanism in many species) – nationalism, patriotism, localism, imperialism, jingoism, racism among others.

    Th suggest that one of these terms is entirely evil (except for my last example), while another is perfection itself is such obvious nonsense, that I was surprised that someone of CB11’s ability and usual perception could have failed to see how intrinsically nonsensical it was.

    In “1066 And All That” such wilfully simplistic thinking is nicely satirised.

    Borrowing that style, one might say In that section, Snyder sees Trump as a Bad King, therefore any term he uses must be a Bad Thing. Others want to do some similar things to the Bad King, but since they are Good Kings, their version must be a Good Thing.

  26. @Alec

    I should add, that the economists acknowledge the “dislocation” brought by liberalisation, but they don’t necessarily engage with the idea that this dislocation doesn’t just disrupt lives, but might introduce economic costs to set against the gains of liberalisation.

  27. Anton Muscatelli on the “tentative Brexit deal on financial services” –

    I do find it astonishing that this is presented as news. If what is agreed is standard 3rd country equivalence and not something better then this is not a triumph. It’s not financial passporting, and it comes with strict requirements.

  28. @ Colin

    “… Labour’s emphasis now on the power & authority of Party Members”

    That’s a fair point, thanks for explaining. As has been covered many times on these pages before, the balance between party/constituency/personal views can be a tricky conundrum for MPs. I don’t feel there’s a definite right or wrong answer to this, so to the need to condemn Corbyn for shifting the emphasis a little more one way than another is not so clear to me.

  29. EOTW,

    “What do they mean by outside the Commission’s remit?”

    It’s just a guess, but if the financing was through a tax haven then it might fall foul of either foreign donation rules or money laundering legislation.

    That doesn’t make it “dirty money” rather than circumventing the rules that are there to make sure it’s clean.


  30. Burke

    Burke was a Whig from the latter half of the 18th century. This was an era of rotten and pocket boroughs and election to Parliament and the relationship with the electors was very different from that of today. This sort of context is important in understanding Burke’s “representative mandate” argument was used in a speech when seeking election in 1774 in Bristol (which was considered a genuine electoral contest). It is to be expected that the electors of Bristol understood this. The second element of context is the relative fluidity of “political party” as a concept during this era when the expectation of manifesto commitments was unheard of. This is not to say that the Burkean concept of “representative mandate” has no modern validity but it is unlikely that the stricture of a manifesto commitment would have had a place in his desiderata
    “his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. … Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” this seems to allow little room for my party has a manifesto and I am elected on that platform “You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament” and this does not play in well to the type of “pork barrel” speeches we see from MP’s (I hold members of all parties guilty of these transgressions)

    The truth is that there is a continuum in this sort of thing a party that doesn’t follow its manifesto is dishonest, unless there is a 2008 situation when sticking rigidly to a manifesto commitment would be destructive. A similar approach can be taken at individual MP level, standing for election on a manifesto commitment implies that a member of a party will support that, a resolution from the local party about the planning application for the new sewage treatment plant is more down to the conscience of the MP.

  31. @ COLIN – Equivalence “rumours”.

    I must have missed your post y’day but I think the addition from y’day to today was the bit around ‘Enhanced/Expanded’ and sticking with ‘E’s – Extended.

    – Enhanced/Expanded: breadth of scope.
    On a scale of 0=GATS with EU-US at a 5 and EU-EFTA at a 7 I expect we’ll come in at an 8 (folks would give “passporting” a 10 in terms of breadth but that means EC rulebook rather than mutual recognition).
    Frankly the EU side need an ‘8’ level of access to UK more than we need an ‘8’ level of access to EU!

    – Extended: period of notice. It’s usually a 3mths notice if one side wants to break Equivalence in a specific sector. The talk is that we’ve agreed 12mths.

    IMHO an Extended and Enhanced/Expanded Equivalence (EEE) is better than the deal we currently have and certainly better than people expect. Dragging the whole EU along towards opening up Global Equivalence was tricky before they grew to 27 and had govts like the new one in Italy – breaking the chain of “Passporting” is important (IMHO).

    The Remain press have toned the rumours down to simply copy+paste of EU-US which is probably the “minimum” that would keep EU away from a new financial crisis.

    NB EEE won’t stop banks moving some operations to Dublin for lower tax (they were doing that before Brexit as well) but it will help as UK pivots away from EU-centric model to Global Britain – a process that benefits from gradual refocus and/or a more assertive HMG.

    @ CARFREW – Maybe I should hand myself into the police to save people the complex issue of using the scroll bar? :-) :-)

    Re: Liberalisation. A lot depends on how you define that term and can’t be bothered getting into ALEC’s debate other than a rushed/clipped view that numbers talk, BS walks.


    Before the 3min google experts jump on it then I’ll just add that Expanding Equivalence at a global level is not a race to the bottom on liberalisation of rules. Given UK exposure to Fin.services we have a strong vested interest in keeping global standards high and ensuring international access to ‘London’ isn’t for all and sundry!

    EU stress tests due tomorrow and they are far weaker tests than BoE conduct. I expect they’ll have plenty of banks only narrowly passing quite easy tests – something I hope Carney has explained to Olly Robbins!!


  32. Thanks for the words of support last night, but there’s no need. As a veteran of UKPR, I know OldNat, both his strengths and vices, from way back when and am familiar with his wit (strength) and his quickness to anger (weakness), especially when he’s burning some midnight oil! Without resurrecting the argument, I thought Snyder’s distinction between nationalism and patriotism was both clear and, to me, compelling. The former comes close to an aggressive and self-important “love” of country, a sort of “my country right or wrong” mentality, whereas the latter implies to me a non-aggressive nuanced love of and loyalty to country. An acceptance that no one has a monopoly of virtue and wisdom. An overall tolerance and celebration of otherness. Call it being more of a critical friend rather than a blinkered acolyte.

    The general point you make about a tendency towards aggressive and intolerant disagreement on UKPR is a good one though, and leads all to often, sadly, to the site becoming an argumentative chatroom between 3 or 4 posters who, without putting too fine a point on it, seem to live on the site. This makes for dull reading as these seemingly endless spats continue apace, quite often descending into partisan unpleasantness.

    It may be that I have a different view about what UKPR is intended to be and, at its best, what it once was. I don’t see it as an extension of Tw*tter, a social media chatroom, or someone’s personal blog. I don’t subscribe to this rather odd view that every post is there to be argued with, debunked or, in some cases derided by what appear to be our handful self-appointed “debunkers” and arbiters. I see it not as a discussion board at all but as a place to post thoughts on opinion polls and the politics that influence them. There to be read, absorbed or cheerfully ignored. The odd exchange of comments, maybe, with as wide a variety of posters possible involved, but essentially short-lived. That’s how I remember it from the good old days. Some good natured and entertaining regulars (many now long gone alas) but lot’s of new posters popping up almost daily.

    I wonder if the lack of new posters is telling us something almost as much as the disappearance of past regulars does.I think we may well have bored a lot of people into submission. It does indeed seem, as you observed with OldNat’s reply to my post yesterday evening, a much more tetchy and less humorous place than it once was. Quite what the lurkers make of it now is anyone’s guess, but I suspect, if we were a daily newspaper, we’d be getting increasingly concerned about a falling circulation!

    Maybe Anthony could enlighten us on the current hit rate on the UKPR website??

  33. Quick correction to last post. In most areas parties can revoke equivalence with 30days notice (not the 3mths I stated).

  34. WB61

    Excellent point re 18th century parliamentary democracy, and that developments from parliamentary factions into parties are part of a continuum.

    Perhaps worth adding that “modern”, mass membership parties didn’t develop until the late 19th century when the 1884 Reform Act increased the electorate by 88% (75% in England, 88% in Scotland and Wales, and a massive 222% in Ireland).

    Prime functions of the “party” outwith Parliament were to get as many of their own supporters as possible to apply to placed on the electoral register (still the case in most/all US states) and funding elections and their parliamentary registers through membership fees.

  35. Not often that I praise an ex-Minister in this UK Government, but Tracy Crouch’s resignation on the further delay to Betting and Gaming legislation is honourable.

    Her “Politicians come and go but principles stay with us forever” would appear to be a stinging rebuke to the PM.

  36. “Re: Liberalisation. A lot depends on how you define that term and can’t be bothered getting into ALEC’s debate other than a rushed/clipped view that numbers talk, BS walks.”

    And they’re walking.

    Anyone else see the funny side of this?

  37. @OLDNAT
    Not often that I praise an ex-Minister in this UK Government, but Tracy Crouch’s resignation on the further delay to Betting and Gaming legislation is honourable.
    Her “Politicians come and go but principles stay with us forever” would appear to be a stinging rebuke to the PM.

    Agree, it was obviously something she cared deeply about and her resignation on the matter does her credit

  38. Fresh polling published by Scotland for a People’s Vote, conducted by Survation, shows that 64% of people in Scotland believe that a new referendum would result in the UK voting to stay in the EU, with 36% thinking the result would be to leave.

    Scots also back a People’s Vote by 59% to 41% – including big majorities across SNP, Labour and Lib Dem voters.

    Scotland voted overwhelming to Remain in the EU in the 2106 vote and this remain largely unchanged with 63% backing remain (a point higher than in the 2016 referendum) while 37% back Leave. (Scotsman)

    By party VI, those wanting a 2nd vote are SNP 75% : SLAB 71% : SLD 68% : SCon 19%.

  39. @Trevorae

    “@ CARFREW – Maybe I should hand myself into the police to save people the complex issue of using the scroll bar? :-) :-)“


    Haha, you mean having to keep scrolling back up to try and reread it?!

    Re: Liberalisation, not sure if anyone has a full set of numbers to determine the outcome one way or the other.

  40. CB11

    Agree with all you say. I’m sure it doesn’t take much, from what I think of as the bar-room bores, to put both old and new posters off.

    I hardly ever bother posting now but still skim through most of it daily.

    As always it seems to be the sort of middle-view posters who disappear.

    I can actually see ON’s point about how words can be forced into slots – but the distasteful aggression with which that opinion was expressed was, to me, so over-the-top as to seem bizarre.


  41. OLDNAT

    @”Her “Politicians come and go but principles stay with us forever” would appear to be a stinging rebuke to the PM.”

    I agree.

    And one well made on this issue as far as I can judge..

    They have zero political “feel” this lot !

  42. Given some comments above, I thought I’d re-read my original post to see if there was “aggression” in it. I was certainly condemnatory (and still am) of the lack of intellectual rigour in the quotation from Snyder, but see no aggression.

    Was I a tad riled by CB11’s “You’re starting to exhibit paranoid tendencies”? Yes. I found that patronising, insulting and aggressive.

    As to disagreements between posters putting off lurkers and others, they may be even more put off by discussion of such disagreements by others.

  43. New thread

  44. “@Trevorae”
    @Carfrew November 1st, 2018 at 6:43 pm


  45. @JiB @ OLDNAT
    “For those interested in the legal arguments to the ECJ by the petitioners in the A50 unilateral revocation case, they are here”
    It is rather ironic that the vested interests that forced the premature invoking of Article 50 (think you Gina Miller and Billionaire backers) don’t like that either!

    I think you mischaracterise the effcet of the Miller case a little. The Act of Parliament it mandated didn’t either give notice “early” or force TM to give notice “early”, it authorised her to do so at a time of her choosing. She still chose to do so when she did.

    However it is significant that the petitioners are seeking a declaration that would state the law to be contrary to that argued (ad perhaps desired to be the case) by both the UK government and the Commission, and would potentialy as such affect both of their positions.

    We tend to focus on the former. The declaration sought would alter the dynamic between the Government and its MPs, if it became clear that it could revoke notice, as this may give those MPs the courage to try to force it to (nothing as yet has given them the courage to do anything mind you, so I am not holding my breath).

    But regarding the latter, it would also alter the dynamic between the UK Government and the Commission by confirming that the UK Government has a power that the Commission argues it does not have. Albeit one that the UK Government publically at present also argues it does not have and suggests it has no wish to excercise.

    This really is a potential all bets off the table moment.

  46. Jo Johnson has helpfully crystalised the framing of the debate.
    Its “vassalage or chaos” vs 2nd ref (or GE)

    May survival is dependant on enough mps buying her threat that its her deal or crashing out. Johnson (J) is certainly not alone in rejecting that as a false choice.

    As has been pointed out above – any deal that the EU agree to will be demonstrably worse than what the uk has already and nobody but May loyalists is going to be defending it.
    The remain supporting media will take Johnson’s position.
    The brexit media will call teh may deal a betrayal.
    Labour will vote against. The tory brexiteers will vote against. The tory arch remainers will vote against.

    May will resign. A50 will be suspended.

    A 2nd ref gives parliament a bit more democratic defence that just calling the whole thing off

    The tory brexiteers can blame May and the establishment for sabotaging brexit from the start. they can call for a no deal crash out, knowing that it wont happen but leaving them with the ideological purity intact.
    the labour party can blame May for making an utter fur-cup of it leaving no option but to suspend A50 or face armageddon whilst arguing that they did their best to respect the ref result but weren’t in power.

    2nd ref may be bitterly resented by a big chunk of the brexit voting population – but id argue that the toxic legacy of brexit goes back to having a referendum in the first place which allowed people to vote for something that was impossible to deliver.

    But then we have the very real possibility that leave wins a 2nd referendum – and oh the joys that will bring.

1 14 15 16