Just to catch up on the post-budget YouGov polling from yesterday’s Times, carried out on Monday evening and Tuesday morning.

At the simplest level, the budget appears to have polled well. All the measures within met with approval and overall people thought it was a fair budget (44% fair, 14% unfair). Compared to other recent budgets, that’s a very positive score. However, in all fairness that’s what one should expect – it was very much a giveaway budget, with the Chancellor making several large spending announcements and very little in the way of tax increases. Even those tax increases that were announced – mostly notably the plastics tax and tax on internet companies – were ones that were largely popular. It’s hardly surprising that sort of budget gets net positive ratings – increases to NHS funding, the personal allowance and the National Living Wage are always likely to go down well.

A positively received budget does not, however, necessarily translate into a boost in the polls. The voting intention figures in the poll are CON 41%(nc), LAB 39%(+3), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 5%(+1). The three point increase in Labour support doesn’t necessarily mean anything – it’s within the normal margin of error – but it certainly doesn’t point towards a budget boost for the Tories.

The poll also asked about the wider perceptions around the “end of austerity”, and here the figures are far less rosy for the Conservatives. Looking back, by 36% to 29% people think that the austerity polices followed after the 2010 election were necessary, though by 36% to 30% they now think they didn’t help the economy and by 43% to 20% they think they were unfair.

58% of people now think it is right to end austerity (27% who think it was wrong to begin with, 31% who thought it was right at the time, but it is now time to end it). Unfortunately for the government, while people may be in agreement with their stated policy, they don’t actually believe they are doing it – only 10% think the government have ended austerity policies, 50% think they have not.

Full tabs are .


2,159 Responses to “YouGov post-budget poll”

1 38 39 40 41 42 44
  1. @Garj

    “I’ve always believed that there was only really one form of Brexit which you could genuinely call leaving, which is to become a third country with a Canada-style trading relationship. You could also take the EEA option for closer ties and respecting the letter of the referendum, but crucially that doesn’t involve a customs union. As soon as you add that in then there is no aspect in which the deal could arguably be any better than remaining…”

    ———

    Well, whether it’s better than remaining or not depends to some extent on your perspective.

    If your chief concern is that we’re not subject to the EU way of doing things on trade etc., and want freedom to cut other deals, then yes being locked into customs deal etc. is problematic.

    If, however, your priority is limiting free movement, and wanting the state to be able to be more interventionist, then this deal has more value. And if you want to lock out the more “chlorinated” trade deals, then being tied to the EU can be considered something of an advantage.

    If you also want to limit the exodus of business, then keeping ties to the EU market also helps, given how integrated the supply chains are these days, as Colin has been at pains to point out, and how economies of scale pressure firms to choose the EU over locating here.

    Now, there are potential benefits to being outside a customs union etc.: we might get more import substitution, and have trade deals elsewhere, but how much of a hit do you take in the meantime, how much will that damage a party’s prospects, and how much will we wind up better off, as opposed to simply swapping one set of issues for another?

  2. Last (dumb?) thought. Why can’t the U.K. just sign the exit deal and move on? If the politicians push for a soft deal then there won’t be a problem. If the hard side win the argument and Europe refuses to budge, then the U.K. could move to no deal, which is no different from our choices now. The backstop would come in and ‘after years of failing to get a anywhere’ the U.K. could ask the EU to cancel it. If they refused the U.K. could just walk. Who is going to enforce the backstop at that point? The EU army?

    I’m not advocating any of this, I’m only asking whether a backstop can be enforced in the long run if one party doesn’t want it. I think we all know what might happen one day if the U.K. wanted to keep the backstop and the EU wanted to cancel it for some presently unknown reason.

  3. @ToH
    I doubt there is a ‘grand conspiracy’ to keep the UK in the EU, and especially that the EU is involved in such a thing – it would be so destructively counter-productive were it to be true.

    Their logical approach, and the one they have generally followed apart from an occasional [email protected] from Juncker, is to allow the UK government to develop an understanding of the contradictions in its own position, and for the internal UK politics to play out to a conclusion.

    Agreed, Labour and Tory moderates, the Lib Dems, Blair & Major etc, all want us to stay in the EU and are working to achieve that end. I am also working to keep the UK in the EU – it’s not because I despise ordinary voters, but I because I firmly believe that exiting the EU will reduce the quality of life and opportunities of my children, of people in general, and the UK as a whole.

    I find it really hard to understand where you are coming from on occasions, but I try very hard not to ascribe malign intent to your opinions – I hope and trust that you are not racist, or selfish, etc. but that you hold your views because you genuinely think they are best for people.

    Equally, I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me and my opinions, and those who share them…

  4. Good point from Kevin Maguire as quoted on the BBC:

    “Rees-Mogg’s confidence vote could be May’s lifeline. Survive and means no leadership formal challenge for another year, including after losing a Brexit plan vote in Parliament when she really should go.”

  5. @Charles – “So I would suggest that parliament sorts out whether if we leave it wants May or no deal. It can then test whether the country wants the favour leave option or remain. The choice would be clear and we would have to live with it and make it work for those who oppose it as well as those who support it.”

    I would applaud your sensible post. This is the way out of the impasse.

    While we could have a three way vote, realistically it would have to be on a transferable vote basis to ensure one option gets 50%+ and we aren’t left with a contradictory result where either no option or more than one option gets 50%+.

    We originally asked to leave in 2016, but without knowing what this would involve. Since then, government and parliament has worked through the process and has in effect two sets of leaving terms – the deal, or no deal.

    Parliament should decide for itself which of those terms is their preferred option, and then put this to the country in a binary leave/remain confirming referendum.

    This is fundamentally democratic, allowing the country to decide on the basis of confirmed information, and also eliminates the difficulties of a three way choice.

  6. “This backstop involves a sub-optimal relationship,” a senior EU official responsible for Brexit negotiations said. “Our ambitions on both sides go beyond that. We will do our utmost to ensure this backstop is not used.”

    Thanks Carfrew, for the above.

    Thanks also to everyone for giving me much better information than any mainstream media source.

    It seems to me that if both sides are committed to not using the backstop, then it is a small step to move away from the ‘Hotel California’ option, and simply have a backstop, that, is, well, a backstop.

    If TM can negotiate away the Hotel California component in the next week or so, then I suspect there is a majority in the Commons for her deal.

    I base that on the suspicion that parliamentarians are increasingly realising that the public want a deal, almost any deal, and to ‘get on with it’.

  7. BFR

    @”I doubt there is a ‘grand conspiracy’ to keep the UK in the EU,”

    I agree.

    I am a considerable EU Sceptic.

    But I do think that there is a group of people who simply refuse to trust anything that the EU say or do. The Irish Backstop in the WA is front & centre of May’s problems. Her Tory opponents think it really is an EU plot to keep UK in the EU without membership thereof.

    I hope that the EU can flesh out the first draft of the Political Framework & make statements which will facilitate more trust in May’s belief that the backstop will never be used because we will be in a FTA/Customs Area arrangement with the EU before it is required.

    The Rees Mogg’s will still go on prattling about vassal state & “clean ” Brexit of course. But he is a minority.

  8. DANNY

    The aim of the UK government has been to put the UK into a permanent colony status

    I can buy that it’s been the aim of May, Robbins, Hammond and the treasury, but given the repeated ways in which she’s cut her ministers out of the loop (including both that were supp[osedly leading negotiations) and repeatedly tried to bounce the cabinet into accepting agreements and plans which they had no prior knowledge of, I don’t think it’s been the aim of the government, and certainly not of the Tory party as a whole as you seem to think.

    TW

    There has been a reluctance on the part of more moderate Tories to give May the shove, but once the vote of confidence is called they’ll have to ask whether they can allow her to continue for another year. Her style of governance has been disastrous, and the absolute last thing they need is for her to try to call another election once parliament rejects the WA. There are also several candidates that might be superior; Raab, Javid and Hunt are all in the running, it’s very unlikely that Mogg or someone similar could get on the ballot (even if he wants to, I rather think he prefers the backbenches). Raab in particular could be sold as a good person to try to get Brexit over the line, given his closeness to negotiations. It’s not like he can rip the deal up and start again, but he might be able to get the concessions to make it acceptable to parliament that May seems to have been unable or unwilling to pursue.

  9. “If TM can negotiate away the Hotel California component in the next week or so, then I suspect there is a majority in the Commons for her deal.”

    She can’t do that. Neither could any other possible leader. If the backstop is not indefinite, then by definition it ceases to be a backstop.

  10. “Equally, I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me and my opinions, and those who share them…”

    If so, that would be a major shift. He normally describes people like you as unpatriotic saboteurs, or somesuch. Not at all pleasant.

  11. Further to that last post, I can’t think how any Tory MP would be unaware of the damage to their prospects that winding up with BINO or remain would do, and as seems to be May’s direction of travel (seemingly intent on becoming the Conservative party’s own Ramsay MacDonald). Their voters and membership are overwhelmingly leave supporters and would be absolutely livid, it’s a path to electoral oblivion.

  12. My guess for new DexEU – James Cleverly

    and I say that with a heavy heart. I was a huge fan of Cleverly and JC4PM but I can’t see any “big” name wanting the job as it is a non-job under President May and the unelected Robbins.

    However, the post has to go to someone who backed Leave and we do need someone in there who will ensure No Deal implementation starts in earnest asap. A better name for the dept is “Ministry for No Deal”

    I think a mix of realistic ambition (he doesn’t want her job), malleability, previous Clean Brexit belief and loyalty might persuade May to offer him the job and Cleverly might accept the thankless job.

  13. Alec,
    “In which case, your talk of a conspiracy is misplaced”

    I dont think I started calling it a conspiracy, that was someone else.

    The Trevors,
    “May held the GE in order to silence the b4st4rds”
    No. May held the election as a manifesto about ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, so that she could support the b4st4rds. I cant tell what negotiations went on beforehand, but she essentially committed the party to their cause.

    The result was a hypothetical 20% majority just vapourised. She then concluded the party could no longer support hard Brexit.

    It is possible this was always the outcome she expected, but she gave them their chance.

    It is similar to her tactic placing leavers in charge of negotiating Brexit. They are now complaining they were not permitted to form the deal, but they were in as good a place as possible to know what was happening and contribute.

    May’s deal was always intended to be a third option, between remain and hard leave. I expect the leavers always understood that. It is quite possible no one involved ever intended it should really happen.

    The purpose of the deal is so that May can take it to the commons, and then let them fight out what should happen.

  14. Cant see why those Tory MPs who want rid of May are submitting their letters now. She will surely survive the vote and then is safe (from them, anyway) for 12 months.

    They should be waiting till her deal fails the meaningful vote. Only after that has happened and if she is still refusing to budge should they file for no confidence. At which point they would surely succeed.

  15. @David Colby – “Why can’t the U.K. just sign the exit deal and move on? If the politicians push for a soft deal then there won’t be a problem. If the hard side win the argument and Europe refuses to budge, then the U.K. could move to no deal, which is no different from our choices now. The backstop would come in and ‘after years of failing to get a anywhere’ the U.K. could ask the EU to cancel it. If they refused the U.K. could just walk. Who is going to enforce the backstop at that point? The EU army?”

    This is the point I have made now and then for some time. We can, at any time, simply tell the EU where to get off, if Rees Mogg were ever to become PM. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which I assume would be relevant here, each party has the right to terminate any treaty.

    This is where the ‘permanent vassalage’ stuff is just pure lunatic fringe idiocy of the highest order. We could revoke the deal and take what comes – a no deal scenario, where we get no rights and privileges, planes stop flying, Dover clogs up etc etc.

    We are agreeing to the backstop as a means to get something we want (decent trade). Whatever happens, we can ditch the backstop, and hand back all the advantages this brings us, whenever we want. All that the WA does is insert a legally binding backstop that we have to adhere to if we want to hold on to the rest of the WA terms. Nothing more than that, and no one could force us to accept the WA terms indefinitely against our will.

    @Millie and @Colin – I have been saying for some considerable time now that May’s defence will be that the backstop doesn’t matter as we will have a good trade deal the ensures it won’t be necessary.

    The Future Framework is only seven pages long, and the majority of that is on non economic things, but it clearly signals an extremely close trading arrangement for the whole UK. As @Colin keeps saying – this is the important stuff, not the other 585 pages which we knew about already.

    We are merely moving towards a tightly bound economic deal with the EU, in a permanent customs arrangement, probably not concluding our own trade deals, paying into specific EU budgets, and everyone getting along as we are now, except not being able to vote on new regulations and with the theoretical ability to control immigration.

    Three years down the line and no one will notice the difference.

  16. Former Permanent Sec to the Foreign Office on David Davis this morning:

    “David Davis was a terrible #Brexit Secretary. He could hardly be bothered to go to Brussels & rapidly lost respect there. Preposterous for him now to suggest that EU deliberately delayed negotiations. They spent months waiting for him to engage..”

    Rarely has there been such a useless cabinet member.

    Also: The EU is swinging into action this morning, with Merkel and others stating clearly that this is it for negotiations and the details for the summit on the 25th being worked out.

    I get the feeling that the EU is seeking to apply the Israeli maxim of ignoring all the fuss and fury and just get on with making things happen on the ground.

    Before the Tory plotters know what’s happening there will be a deal ready and waiting for the ink, with the heavy burden on their shoulders of whether to try and bring the entire UK economy crashing down for the sake of some misguided principle.

  17. Millie,
    “I base that on the suspicion that parliamentarians are increasingly realising that the public want a deal, almost any deal, and to ‘get on with it’.”

    Polling guy on the radio this morning (was it Curtice?) arguing this isnt really true. Based on the massive numbers putting brexit as top issue, plus 40% or so adamant about their views in either camp. I dont think he mentioned the lack of people changing sides since the referendum, but he might have done that too.

    Colin,
    “I hope that the EU can flesh out the first draft of the Political Framework”

    I suspect this has not happened (by mutual agreement), because filling in intended closer integration with the EU would simply make the deal less palatable to leavers.

    Garj,
    ” There are also several candidates that might be superior; Raab, Javid and Hunt are all in the running,”

    So what would be the consequence of having a PM who could not agree a deal? The government position would shift to proposing a no deal hard brexit. It is predictable there would be a tory revolt. The proposal would be defeated in parliament. What would have changed?

    May has twice to my hearing said her deal is the only sort of Brexit which stands a chance of happening.

    ” I can’t think how any Tory MP would be unaware of the damage to their prospects that winding up with BINO or remain would do”

    Quite a few have remain or neutral constituences, including some of the most marginal. I’d think they would be quietly pleased. Others have rock solid majorities and would be unaffected. Others are distancing themselves from the direction of the government.

    So long as the tories can still veer to the leave side of the debate, they should still be able to see off remainish labour candidates. What happens about the normal run of left/right politics and the Corbyn factor, is a separate issue.

  18. Good morning all from a mild and cloudy Winchester.

    Westminster voting intentions (GB-wide, Panelbase):

    Labour 40%
    Conservatives 40%
    Liberal Democrats 8%
    UKIP 5%
    SNP 4%
    Greens 3%
    Plaid Cymru 1%

    Should Scotland be an independent country? (Scotland only):

    Yes 45% (+1)
    No 55% (-1)

    Westminster voting intention (Scotland only):

    SNP 37% (-1)
    Conservatives 28% (+1)
    Labour 25% (+1)
    Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)
    Greens 2% (n/c)
    UKIP 2% (-1)

    EU referendum vote (GB-wide):

    Remain 53%
    Leave 47%

    EU referendum vote (Scotland only):

    Remain 64% (+1)
    Leave 36% (-1)

    Holyrood constituency ballot:

    SNP 39% (-2)
    Conservatives 27% (+1)
    Labour 24% (+3)
    Liberal Democrats 6% (n/c)
    Greens 3% (n/c)
    UKIP 1% (-1)

    Holyrood regional list ballot:

    SNP 37% (+2)
    Conservatives 26% (n/c)
    Labour 22% (+2)
    Greens 6% (-1)
    Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)
    UKIP 2% (n/c)

  19. Link to the above polls.

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/

  20. Interesting polling on the EU for GB wide.

    EU referendum vote (GB-wide):

    Remain 53%
    Leave 47%

    Taking into account the 3% margin of error then things look to be neck and neck and should send shock waves over to they moaning #peoplesvote malarkey.

  21. Alec,
    “I get the feeling that the EU is seeking to apply the Israeli maxim of ignoring all the fuss and fury and just get on with making things happen on the ground. ”

    Its the right thing for them to do. They need to confirm its a real deal as far as they are concerned and get it ratified so it is there for a last minute agreement if it comes to that.

  22. @Allan

    Remain 53%
    Leave 47%

    Taking into account the 3% margin of error then things look to be neck and neck.

    Or it could be Remain 56%; Leave 44%

  23. @ Norbold (& Allan Christie)

    Indeed.

    All recent polling has shown leads for Remain in the region of 53:47 or 54:46 – so this poll will not create any ‘shockwaves’. For Leave to be ‘neck and neck’ the pollsters would need to be systematically wrong on about the same scale as they were in 1992.

  24. @Allan Christie
    Remain has been hovering around 53-54% in a succession of polls for the last two months (including a monster 20k sample poll); this is pretty much bang in line…

  25. Question for FTPA experts.

    We all know the CON leadership challenge issues. Let’s assume CON MPs try and fail to oust May so she gets an extra year.

    – The current Queen’s speech runs for 2yrs (ie until Jun’19)
    – The budget (finance bill) has passed

    Now consider this from CON b4st4rds perspective.

    – May stays with a “zombie” govt
    – 2/3 of MPs is a high hurdle (back to the HoC maths)
    – The default is crashing out (which they want along with McDonnell, SNP, DUP, etc – for different reasons)
    – Govt (even in “zombie” form) control the legislature
    – May does not want a new ref and will not want to revoke A50 (even if the ECJ say she can), she believes her deal will prevail

    Please, please, correct any errors in this thought process but I see a high risk of CON b4st4rds getting what they want by trying and failing to remove May. They are relishing the n4ivity and resulting divisive chaos of the Remainers desire for a new ref.

    I maintain “links” (imminently about to break) with these kinds of folks and they are v.v.v.happy with current events and seem to know that a leadership challenge now will probably fail – yet they want it anyway!

    @ GARJ – good to see you back. I’d very much like Javid to take over via the “caretaker” route I described y’day. My concern is the CON b4st4rds do to CON what Corbyn has done to LAB. I’m not “tribal” CON by any means but there is no “centre” Leave party and whilst I’m sure we disagree on many details I think you are one of the few that understand the risks of “head in sand” CON “loyalists”.

  26. Similar figures to Sky Data Poll

    Leave 46
    Remain 54

    also

    New Referendum 55
    No referendum 35
    Rest d/k

  27. A poll we might have missed – new ref Divisive or Decisive

    Divisive!

    “People would accept the result (Remain win a new ref) and the issue would be settled for the foreseeable future” 16%

    Campaign starts for a 3rd ref: 31%

    “People would not accept the result, and it would
    risk civil unrest”
    31%

    None/DK 22%

    X-breaks maybe not as split as you’d think – only 19% of LAB think this would be settled for the foreseeable!

    last page on:
    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/f7un4iy29l/Times_181019_Trackers.pdf

    Even if somehow the govt want one and HoC arrange it in time or EU agree to extend A50, even if it is possible to revoke A50 (new news on HMG contesting the Nov’27 ECJ case) and even if Remain won (assuming that is possible on pre-existing terms) a new ref would be extremely divisive making the last one look “friendly”!

  28. NORBOLD
    @Allan

    Remain 53%
    Leave 47%

    Taking into account the 3% margin of error then things look to be neck and neck.
    …………
    Or it could be Remain 56%; Leave 44%
    __________

    That’s correct but I was looking at it from another angle. :-)

  29. BIGFATRON
    @Allan Christie
    Remain has been hovering around 53-54% in a succession of polls for the last two months (including a monster 20k sample poll); this is pretty much bang in line…
    _____________

    Remember what our very own poling expert (AW) said regarding monster polls!!

    They are no more accurate than normal polling.

    Anyway…I don’t know why polling peeps are polling on leaving the EU, we’re leaving.

  30. Charles/Alec

    It seems perfectly possible – as I understand the procedures – for the HOC to vote for a binding amendment which states that, in the event of a vote in favour of the proposed deal being accepted in Parliament, the final decision should then be made by the public at large.

    Two choices: 1/Leave with agreed deal or 2/ Stay in as now.

    A simple, fair, binary choice.

    ps What a horrible man Steve Baker is.

  31. TREVOR WARNE

    “A poll we might have missed – new ref Divisive or Decisive”

    Divisive!

    “People would not accept the result, and it would
    risk civil unrest” 31%
    _____________

    I reckon we will see major civil unrest if the initial result is in anyway overturned.

    So far the Liberal establishment has been very vocal in it’s opposition to Brexit and encouraging mass moans or better known as megaphone diplomacy.

    If they do get their way then inadvertently their so-called peoples vote may actually turn into the peoples nightmare.

  32. Paul,

    I try to keep comments about people and MPs to a minimum, as it is easy to find fault with those one disagrees with, but agree re Steve Baker.
    He comes across as a an arrogant, rude, self-important, know-all with no sense of balance.

    Courtesy should be the first requirement of being an MP.

  33. New Survation poll: “public-surveyed-on-the-draft-government-withdrawal-agreement”

    https://www.survation.com/public-surveyed-on-the-draft-government-withdrawal-agreement/

    May’s phrase comes to mind: Nothing has changed!

    May’s deal is disliked, doesn’t honour result of ref, etc. (although a lot of neither and DKs)

    Elsewhere LAB are keener for May to be replaced than CON. The CON x-break

    34% think right for MPs to call leadership contest v 53% against and 13% DK (ie net 19% staying loyal to May, possibly due to the alternatives on offer)

    I hope Brady sits on those letters for a while and/or is as bad at counting as Julian Smith!

  34. It’s interesting to see the ‘not being settled’ option used as an excuse not to have a new vote. We might as well say general elections don’t settle politics and conclude that we need never bother voting. It’s a pointless question.

    It’s also doubly pointless, in that not having a vote doesn’t settle this either – that’s the biggest thing.

    If this deal goes through, the ERG will constantly have something to complain about and seek to overturn. Brexit will not have been settled.

    If the deal fails, we crash out, and lots of people get hurt, and a campaign to get back in gains strength and nothing is settled.

    The most likely way in which this would all be settled, for a while at least, is to have a second vote, in the hope that a slightly clearer majority could be found, either way. If the leaving deal were to be accepted, then it’s 2-0 to leave, and I don’t really see any comeback for remain, even if the vote was very tight. There would be little cause for complaint if voters saw the deal and agreed to it.

    If remain were to win by 53 or 54%, that’s 1-1 and remain wins on the away goals rule. The whingers would still whinge, and depending what were to happen within the Tory party this could still become a future problem, but if the 2017 election taught us anything, it was that voters don’t like parties that just bang on about Europe – we really do have more important stuff to deal with.

    No – the people are wrong on this one. The best means to bury this is to have another vote, and nothing else would have a chance of settling the issue.

  35. Trevor,

    What do you based your assertion on that McDonnell and the SNP would like a crash out?
    I can only guess that you think they calculate that their long term aims are more likely if this happens.
    As an English person who hopes that Scotland decides to stay in the Union I don’t think that the SNP would want years of economic problems as a price worth paying for indy ref 2.
    Nor do I think a similar approach applies to McDonnell or most of the DUP (although Wilson seems close to the ERG).

  36. Alec

    Because I can’t stand listening to people arguing I rarely watch any political programmes. But I commented on Baker because, first I was struck by all the things you just described, but also because, once he’d had his prolonged say, a perfectly polite, young, female Labour MP was being interviewed for her views and he cut across her rudely and continuously.

    I had a slight interest in him anyway as I read in Paul Waugh’s daily bulletin that he writs letters to fellow Tory MPs that begin “Dear brother in christ”.

    Which find a bit weird…

  37. Paul – take Chris Grayling for example (ToHs MP I think).

    I find him incompetent and he has views I disagree with strongly but I never seen him be discourteous or rude.
    I think Jon McDonnell is another classic example and that his delivery disarms people as he seldom raised his voice or patronises.

    In fact I think most MPs are normally courteous if bombastic on occasions as passion will sometimes get the better.

  38. @ ALLAN CHRISTIE – The “Leave” campaign has so far been solely focussed on “Chuck Chequers” where as HMG et al have been trashing “No Deal”.
    This has split “Leavers” as we see in the Survation poll I just linked to.

    In a 3-way (table 10):
    Remain: 43
    May’s deal: 16
    No Deal: 28
    DK 13

    but Leave X-Break is 54% No Deal, 24% May’s deal where as Remain X-break is 83% Remain

    But if you go to the 2-way (table 8):
    May’s Deal: 32
    No Deal: 34
    DK: 34

    CON x-break narrowly back No Deal (42% to 37% for May) but Leave x-break is clearly (54% v 24%). Huge DK!

    I’ve long argued for turning “No Deal” to amicable etc in order to unite CON and Leave but it seems we might have to go through the HoC voting May down first.

    I do at least hope enough folks within CCHQ start to realise they need to stop trashing “No Deal” and instead start full scale implementation – the money is there, the plans are there (many have been there since Oct’17!!), it is the clock we have to worry about (and it is already too late on the longer lead time issues).

    If you have 2mins try this challenge:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/nov/15/can-you-get-mays-brexit-deal-through-parliament

  39. “I reckon we will see major civil unrest if the initial result is in anyway overturned.
    If they do get their way then inadvertently their so-called peoples vote may actually turn into the peoples nightmare.”

    It might be worth remembering this:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

  40. JJ Sorry – my last post was, obviously, meant for you, not Alec.

  41. @Garj

    I should have mentioned earlier, there is also the problem that parties have to contend with, of keeping their backers happy. Thus, if union backers want Corbyn to prioritise Jobs, and business backers want Theresa to not hurt their supply chains and tariff-free access to EU, this might help explain a reticence to do otherwise.

    Some keen on a more complete Brexit, might be OK with waiting years or even decades for a net benefit to accrue. But if you’re a CEO with shareholders breathing down your neck who think in terms of returns over the next few months rather than years, the idea of a more complete Brexit might be sobering.

    (Especially if you are aware that demographic changes may mean that just as you’ve finally adjusted to the new reality of life outside the EU, we rejoin the EU again anyway).

  42. ALEC

    There has always been the possibility of the UK tearing up the backstop and walking away in future, that’s true, but with the proposals May has put together it’s going to be very hard for the UK to come out of the situation with anything except BINO. She has a long history of closeting herself with a couple of advisors to concoct schemes, sidelining her ministers and party along the way (never mind parliament and the public). It’s what happened in the election, then when she went over Davis’ head the first time with the draft agreement and the backstop she and Robbins thought they could outfox the EU and trick them into agreeing a wider ranging trade deal in the WA (the end result she’s brought back represents something approaching a success in that regard), it happened again when it turned out she’d been plotting Chequers in secret, and now she’s done it to Raab by changing swathes of the WA and PD while excluding him from negotiations. The problem is that it’s never turned out as she expected it to, and the end result has always been something of a disaster. It’s her style of government, and if she somehow makes it past the vote of no confidence then it will just happen again and again.

    DANNY

    I don’t necessarily think that any of the alternative PMs will fail to pass an agreement. As I see it May is most of the problem, a different leader could win back the trust of the leavers in the party and thereby squeeze something through. Whether she wins the vote or not, May has lost the confidence of a hefty chunk of her MPs and almost all of her party membership. Something as simple as a change of leadership could reassure them that they’re not going to be subjected to another attempt to bounce them into accepting May’s secret plans.

    TW

    The leadership process makes it very tricky for the headbangers to mount a takeover, I can’t see Mogg or another extremist making it to the final two. If anything that ought to make it easier for Con MPs to pass a motion of no confidence, as they can likely ensure that the final competition is between more rational options. The prospect of May staggering on must surely be more terrifying as the other options, and I’ll bet that the candidates are out there trying to reassure the moderates that they wouldn’t send us crashing out with no deal. Though I think that Javid would do a better job of the stuff beyond Brexit I ponder Raab; because he bears responsibility for most of the WA he can give reassurances that he’s not going to try to rewrite the lot, just soften the edges and return the parts of the political declaration on trade back to allowing for other options. There are certainly candidates who stand a better chance of uniting the party and avoiding a disastrous split and the no deal exit, referendum, or election campaign May seems to be heading for.

  43. Alec,
    “The striking thing about where we are today is that we are precisely where we were with the Joint Report last December”

    I don’t think that’s really true.

    Obviously, there is flesh on the bones, if only in the difference between a document with 15 pages and one with hundreds.

    But that flesh includes detail on the transition and on citizens rights that could not have been seen as foreshadowed by (although both sides will argue are consistent with) the the Joint Report and their respective positions.

    The arrangements for Ireland are clearly a movement by both sides from their most rigid initial positions in the sense that a time-limited special arrangement for the UK is neither a permanent arrrangement nor no arrrangement at all.

    Ad the citizenship rights provisions in the generality fall a long way short of the noises the EU side was making at one time. As these provisions even appear to fall short of what the UK has already promised, this would seem to be a unilateral row back by the not a negotiating quid pro quo, and to a shameful extent that might yet give it poltical problems in the EP judging by some noises coming out of there.

    But we are not where we were.

  44. @Allan Christie
    The Establishment in this country is 80+ Conservative. IT has bene thus for a hundred years or more and will doubtless continue to be so.

    This idea that there is a Liberal elite secretly running things is a myth, unless you subscribe to the Carfrew view that all politicians on the spectrum between JRM and Corbyn are really Liberals…

  45. ALEC
    I’m glad I’m not alone.
    Watching politicians on tv (of all persuasion) is so depressing. It seems they still can’t be bothered to inform themselves of the basics. They just memorize the talking points they’ve been handed, and whenever someone points out that they’re criticizing the withdrawal agreement for not covering something that will end up in the future deal, they just tap their earpiece or something like that and mumble ‘We’ve been very clear’ or ‘At the end of the day, this is about….. (fill in the blanks). Then they segue off into another memorized meme. It’s sad.

  46. @DANNY
    The problem with the Brexit question is it lumped together a whole lot of outcomes under the simple heading ‘leave’.

    If you read more carefully you will see I was in fact comparing indy1 with Alec’s suggested Brexit2 (or Brexit3 if you can remember ’75).

    Although your points are generally well made. Indy1 rolled up all manner of potential positions into a binary too.
    A referendum is a crude blunt instrument that I see as having few virtues.

    But if it must be used is at least necessary in my view that it puts a real question that divides the options:
    exclusively
    exhaustively
    on the real point of principle.

    The second one is where Alec’s is deficient.

    The last one might be where Indy1 and Brexit1 (or 2 if you …) score over the euthanasia analogy. It doesn’t make them much better. I still don’t like them. For most of the reasons you give. But it does make them not quite as silly.

    And, if we must have them, I’ve always said a two stage once on the principle and once on the deal when reached, would have been right from the start, both for Indy1 and Brexit1.

  47. TW

    Re the Guardian’s doodad, it makes it pretty clear to me that the only way the Tory party is going to get something through is if they get the Brexiteers back on side. Even if the ‘Nervous Tory Remainers’ and DUP went against it they might still squeeze it by a couple of votes. Anything else will almost certainly fail.

  48. @Millie

    “Thanks Carfrew, for the above.”

    ——-

    No probs, Millie. It seemed to give some indication of where things might be headed next. If Theresa survives, of course…

  49. “May’s phrase comes to mind: Nothing has changed!

    May’s deal is disliked, doesn’t honour result of ref, etc. (although a lot of neither and DKs)”

    ——

    And nearly half would prefer to stay in the EU than have Theresa’s deal.

  50. Trevor Warne,
    “new ref Divisive or Decisive”

    The problem is that the last referendum produced only a half hearted vote to leave. It really was not enough to trigger such a significant change. Leave stated a narrow lose would not settle the matter, so I dont see why a small win would either. The problem is not whether a new referendum would fail to be decisive, but that the first one was already.

    It is increasingly obvious that as things stand the country is against leaving. To carry on in such a circumstance is, well, foolish?

    Allan Christie,
    “I reckon we will see major civil unrest if the initial result is in anyway overturned.”

    So you think leavers are more likely to riot than remainers? Is that a good reason for them to get their way?

    You think that leavers who won a national referendum to overturn settled policy, would deny the validity of a national referendum which overturned settled policy?

1 38 39 40 41 42 44