There are two new voting intention polls out today – YouGov for the Times, and Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor in the Evening Standard.

Ipsos MORI‘s topline figures are CON 38%(nc), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 4%(nc). Fieldwork was between Friday and Tuesday (1st-5th), and changes are from MORI’s last poll back in December.

YouGov‘s topline figures are CON 41%(+2), LAB 34%(nc), LDEM 10(-1), UKIP 4%(-2). Fieldwork was on Sunday and Monday, and changes are from YouGov’s last poll in mid-January.

This does not, of course, offer us much insight on what is really happening. At the weekend a lot of attention was paid to a poll by Opinium showing a big shift towards the Conservatives and a 7 point Tory lead. Earlier in the week Opinium also published a previously unreleased poll conducted for the People’s Vote campaign the previous week, which showed a four point Tory lead, suggesting their Observer poll was more than just an isolated blip. Today’s polls do little to clatify matters – MORI show no change, with the parties still neck-and-neck. YouGov show the Tories moving to a seven point lead, the same as Opinium, but YouGov has typically shown larger Tory leads anyway of late so it doesn’t reflect quite as large a movement.

I know people look at polls hoping to find some firm evidence – the reality is they cannot always provide it. They are volatile, they have margins of error. Only time will tell for sure whether Labour’s support is dropping as events force them to take a clearer stance on Brexit, or whether we’re just reading too much into noise. As ever, the wisest advice I can give is to resist the natural temptation to assume that the polls you’d like to be accurate are the ones that are correct, and that the others must be wrong.

Ipsos MORI tables are up here, YouGov tables are here.


541 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Ipsos MORI voting intention polls”

1 2 3 4 11
  1. Alec,
    “remain wasn’t Labour policy. ”

    Alec, I have read the manfesto several time. It states labour will not support any brexit which harms the Uk. As a remainer, I can confidently state that is all of them. Therefore, labour is a remain party.

    Obviously the manifesto is worded in this round about way to be all things to all men. But that simply means the 75% leabour remain supports know it is a remain party with a remain policy. Yes, it was their policy as far as the majorty of its supporters are concerned. And that is what matters.

    ” Corbyn putting forward a realistic plan that the EU would back,”

    the plan still has plenty of impossible requirements so labour can be confident the EU could not accept it. EU has said the WA will not be renegotiated. The PD is just floss.

    Here’s a prediction: if labour support a brexit, Amber Rudd may yet be PM in the not too distant future.

  2. RAF

    I can see that the real test of popularity would be to stand as an independent.

    But that isn’t the point.

    The question being debated by those people on twitter may be expressed like this

    Am I -a voter of this constituency but not a member of the Political Party to which my MP belongs -not as entitled as those party members to have my views represented by him/her ?

    The Party Member in that exchange would clearly respond-yes provided it is a view which I approve of. In the Berger case party members have gone one step further-towards removing her from the list of Candidates at the next GE.

    The unaligned voter in that exchange was indicating that he/she wanted Berger as an MP.

    Clearly, under the existing system Parties select & fund most candidates in GEs.

    But once MPs are selected by all the voters in a constituency, under the principle which I believe in , that MP should use their own judgement in HoC votes on matters which affect all their constituents. They should be Representatives of their Constituents.

    The principle being described by that Party Member in Wavertree was quite different-that the change in status from Party Candidate to Elected MP is irrelevant. The MP remains a Delegate of and Spokesperson for, the views of Party Members.

    Or to put it another way-for The Few & not The Many.

  3. @ Alec Quite a reasoned and low hysteria item on no deal outcomes – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries

    I found this the most convincing account yet of the likely consequences of no deal

    @old nat

    Interesting analysis from the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions on the funding that would be available to regions of the UK for the next EU budgetary cycle.

    https://cpmr.org/cohesion/cpmr-analysis-uk-to-lose-e13bn-regional-funding-post-brexit/20525/

    The report is likely to be of most interest to those in West Wales and the Valleys : Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly : South Yorkshire : Tees Valley & Durham : Lincolnshire.

    Aren’t these mainly leave voting regions? The report certainly should be of interest to them but I am not convinced that it will!

  4. @ WB61 – Leave lawyers are certainly aware of some “routes” that are possible. I’ll skip the legal stuff as clock is on our side but I will point out the political aspects:

    1/ Who is going to pursue these routes? (Clearly Cooper, Grieve+co will try but we’re going to hit parliamentary process and partisan issues – huge hurdles)

    2/ This still doesn’t deal with “what next” and the need for either Revoke or request to Extend (I covered the difference between a “Leadsom” mini extension and a “Cooper” extension past EP elections in post on last thread)

    3/ If it Revoke then we’re back to “who” is going to do that, show me the HoC maths that wants to Revoke A50 (sure they might back a Cooper2 extension to avoid “no deal” but it kicks the can, MPs still need to “enable” something and anything other than Revoke brings EC-EU27 unanimous approval into it)

    In short, having “possibilities” is one thing. Having the process and the people (MPs in this case) to action those possibilities is another.

    If you go through all the scenarios then you should end up with the conclusion that in order to Stop Brexit you will need either:

    a/ enough CON Remain MPs to side with Corbyn and we end up with a GE
    b/ May to decide she will risk split of her party and we end up with a GE

    Many LAB and LDEM would love either of those (as would the EC-EU27), but IMHO (and I’m aware of partisan bias) they are both very low probability – not impossible, just v.unlikely.

    PS Thank you for your detailed post.

  5. The EU must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of Corbyn’s Brexit.

    No wonder they are so quick to welcome it. For the reasons John TT so pithily set out .

    The party political elephant trap , so neatly expressed in the Guardian cartoon ,will be no concern of theirs.
    Indeed they must surely find it hard to imagine a more attractive proposition than a UK hogtied to the EU with no representation in it, led by a Bennite Government with a Fortress Britain Industrial Policy .

    Albion morphs into Albania

  6. Two articles highlighting the “high hurdle” of the partisan issues (both from biased sources I admit):

    LAB MPs under pressure not to back any CON deal and give CON 4 more years of power:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/07/labour-mps-who-back-tory-brexit-face-moment-of-reckoning-say-activists

    CON Leave are not scared of “No Brexit” threat, the greater ev!l is the current backstop or worse a CU compromise:
    https://capx.co/inflexible-yes-extreme-no-why-hard-brexiteers-are-sticking-to-their-guns/

    FWIW. The second article is v.close to my view. The first article also highlights that any LAB support May relies on now will be v.short lived.

    i don’t see the LAB Leave rebels caving to the demands of a faction of momentum but I certainly do see enough CON Leave MPs unyielding to support any deal could end up with us in CU (and CON whips will know that).
    Also obviously DUP not going to back any deal that the backstop.

    Happy to go through HoC maths again if required but folks should look to the Cooper and Brady amendments for the numbers. That might change as the clock ticks down but the surprise last week was the size of the defeat on Cooper and the fact Corbyn did not discipline his rebels.
    (actions speak louder than words!)

  7. @ COLIN – I haven’t been following the Berger situation but LAB activists seem keen to deselect “Blairites” and “Leavers”, so who will be left?

    I’m glad Corbyn is finally being drawn out into the open.

    Corbyn’s just walked into “no man’s land” and will be taking heavy fire form both sides!

    Mind you he’ll still have the “I’d have done it differently” card to play so glad to see “Project After” is finally being taken seriously by cabinet – better late than never!

  8. TW

    PTRP and I agree about very little on Brexit or politics in general I suspect, except he agrees that leaving with No Deal (WTO) is the most likely outcome. He has had that view almost as long as I have from memory so i suggest it would be polite of you to acknowledge that.

  9. Colin – agree re MPs and who they represent, sadly many of the newer LP members don’t understand it.

    I see it as the party members being the short-listing panel and the voters the selection panel for the job of MP for 5 years or less sometimes.

    Of course, it is reasonable that party members feel the candidate they shortlisted on becoming an MP performs their representative duties in a way not inimicable those shortlisting (party members) and they must have the right to not shortlist for the next GE if they see fit.
    That does not change the fact that the first obligation of MPs in a local context is to all voters in their constituency not party members and that MPs can’t be mandated.

  10. Owen Smith’s ‘might leave the party’ comments are petulant and smack of someone wanting the limelight but him being sacked for expressing an opinion contrary to party policy while other junior shadow ministers aren’t even publicly reprimanded might have been a driver.

  11. TW

    I wonder whether Corbyn is in control. Once you transfer power to The Members , does it really matter who THe Leader is?

    Provided The Leader is chosen by The Members , the Members only have to demand loyalty to The Leader from their MPs to achieve complete control of the Parliamentary Agenda.

    The Leader becomes a totem , just like the MPs.

    Pandora’s Box.

  12. TW

    I wonder whether Corbyn is in control. Once you transfer power to The Members , does it really matter who THe Leader is?

    Provided The Leader is chosen by The Members , the Members only have to demand loyalty to The Leader from their MPs to achieve complete control of the Parliamentary Agenda.

    The Leader becomes a totem , just like the MPs.

    Pandora’s Box.

  13. TW

    I wonder whether Corbyn is in control. Once you transfer power to The Members , does it really matter who THe Leader is?

    Provided The Leader is chosen by The Members , the Members only have to demand loyalty to The Leader from their MPs to achieve complete control of the Parliamentary Agenda.

    The Leader becomes a totem , just like the MPs.

    Pandora’s Box.

  14. JIM JAM

    Thanks-I agree

  15. Interesting article in the Dundee Courier about Scottish Independence & Brexit, John Curtice had a talk on his latest views:

    Sir John Curtice, Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde, said the issues of Brexit and Scottish independence had become more closely aligned, which makes the cause for an independent Scotland “more difficult rather than easier”.

    Speaking at The Courier Business Briefing, in association with Fairways, at Apex City Quay yesterday, he said people’s views on Europe made little impact on how they voted in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

    However, Brexit had caused support for independence to become fractured.

    He said: “The problem for the SNP is that independence is now much more clearly linked to the idea of remaining inside the EU, particularly because the SNP has come out in favour of a second EU referendum.

    “It does mean their ability to retain the support of leave voters becomes more difficult and the net effect is we are still at yes 45%, no 55%. We are still short of the majority the SNP are seeking.

    “They have gained some people but lost others but because the issue of Brexit now fractures the independence movement, it has arguably made their task of getting over the 45% and up to the 50% mark is more difficult rather than easier, for the time being at least.”

    Sir John said the most recent polling suggested the Scots remainers were split evenly on the issue of Scottish independence, while Brexit supporters were 2-1 in favour of retaining the Union.

    Sir John also outlined the difficulties facing the Prime Minister in getting a Brexit deal through the House of Commons.

    He said she was faced with either changing the arrangements for the Northern Ireland backstop or pursuing a softer Brexit.

    “What looks difficult is coming up with a change to the backstop she can get the European Union to offer that would be acceptable to the DUP, acceptable to enough Brexiters that together with a bit of support of the Labour party she could get it through,” he added.

    “That’s what she’s trying to achieve but the European Union don’t look as if they are keen on budging.

    “The alternative potential path, which the Labour party are clearly not saying no to, is that she goes for a softer Brexit, a Norway style arrangement.

    “Quite possibly there is a majority for that in the House of Commons.

    “The trouble is it’s a majority that is based on a bit of the Conservative party and much but not all of the Labour party and as a result both parties split.

    Against that backdrop although the Prime Minister may have got the Withdrawal agreement through and rewritten the political declaration whether or not she is still in a position to sustain a Government is another matter.”

  16. Statgeek

    I was looking for a comparison to a Westminster seat, so Canavan’s success in the FPTP constituency section was relevant to the discussion.

    You are, of course, entirely right about Margo, and her success in the Lothian list

  17. “JIM JAM
    Owen Smith’s ‘might leave the party’ comments are petulant and smack of someone wanting the limelight but him being sacked for expressing an opinion contrary to party policy while other junior shadow ministers aren’t even publicly reprimanded might have been a driver.”

    I think you can discount the “might” JJ.

    Just reading through today’s news about the variety of opinion from those at the top of the party on whether a 2nd referendum is a possibility makes me despair.

    If they can’t have a settled, believable way forward then it is increasingly hard to see why one should give them any support.

    What saddens me is that an intelligent speech from Corbyn on what a new referendum might be about, and why it may become essential, would be so easy to give. But, until it is he doesn’t seem to be very convincing at all.

    Allowing senior members of his team to go against the party line without so much as a comment is just the thin end of a very large wedge.

    Paul

  18. CapX – 57 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL

    An address that has appeared several times before, I understand. And everyone there argues that they aren’t extremists.

    @Colin – “The EU must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of Corbyn’s Brexit…….

    Indeed they must surely find it hard to imagine a more attractive proposition than a UK hogtied to the EU with no representation in it….”

    I’m struggling to understand what your point is here Colin?

    What JC has done is essentially replicate all the promises made by the government, regarding regulation, alignment, security, and involvement in ongoing programs, as well as overtly stating the CU policy which is in effect May’s stated end point within the PD.

  19. ALEC

    THe PD proposes a Customs Arrangement and such regulatory alignment which facilitates cross border trade in Goods free of Tariff & Non Tariff barriers.

    A Customs Union ties its members to a common External Tariff /Non Tariff Barrier. Trade terms with non members are therefore agreed by & for the whole Union.

    Non Trade co-operations & agreements with EU on Security, Data etc are probably not an area of dispute between JC & May.

    If you read Jim Jam’s posts you will see that if there is any real substance to Corbyn’s CU demand it rests in a fear that detailed negotiation of the PD may fall to a more right wing PM who would shift the Customs Arrangement towards a Canada style FTA. This would be sector based rather than universal-though I must confess I can’t understand why Labour would be particularly concerned with a Canada outcome.

  20. Paul – slight quibble, I forget the rules but am sure some-one will put me right.

    No Shadow Cabinet members failed to follow the 3 line whip on the Cooper/Boles amendment but a number (8 I think) junior frontbenchers did and 3, I think, falied to vote against the Brady amendment.
    None reprimanded which gives a green light to peoples vote supporters to push their line and allowed shadow ministers such as De Cordova and Pennycock to imo overstep knowing they cant be disciplined.

  21. @JIM JAM

    “Colin – agree re MPs and who they represent, sadly many of the newer LP members don’t understand it.
    I see it as the party members being the short-listing panel and the voters the selection panel for the job of MP for 5 years or less sometimes.“

    ———-

    And if someone is bothered about influencing the shortlist they can consider becoming a member.

    (Alternatively, we could take another page from the Americans and have Primaries, even Open Primaries).

  22. ALEC

    The move from a Free Trade Area to a Customs Union also raises the rules on Free Movement.

    Chakrabati on DP yesterday was unable to say what Labs policy under the CU proposal would be on Free Movement.

    A Further issue with THE CU ( and it will be THE CU -won’t it ?)-is how many of the SM PIllars can you be absolved from and still be in the CU.

    But the main question remains-if you want to stay so close to EU on Trade that you accept the External Trade Barrier-why on earth would you leave membership of the European Union & the votes & influence it gives you ?

  23. The CapX (pro-Leave) article did mention “new party” – that being a pro-Brexit RoC party.

    I’ve no idea if Umunna+co will ever find the bottle to quit LAB but the risk of CON splitting is not to be ignored and the greater existential risk for CON is Leave split. No offence to Soubs+co but look at VI on any Brexit question and losing a few Arch-Remain MPs is a much lower existential risk to them as a party.
    (ie May would destroying her own party by “betraying” Brexit)

    UKIP have gone extreme these days but Farage has started a new party and played well he can ditch some of the “rac!st” baggage, or ERG+ form a new party. Either of those would split CON and see them haemorrhage VI and seats at next GE.

    If we take Douglas Carswell as example of someone who had the courage to recently leave a main party:

    2010 GE: Carswell (CON): Majority 12,068 (28%)
    2014 by-election: Carswell (UKIP): Majority 12,404 (35.1%)

    When he quit CON to join UKIP and stand for re-election he increased his majority. Also note turnout at that 2014 by-election was very high at 51.2% (usually by-elections have much lower turnout than in a GE)

    Of course some will look to 2015, but by that time Cameron had been “forced” to run on a referendum policy. Even so, he kept his seat:

    2015 GE: Carswell (UKIP): Majority 3,437 (7.8%)

    By 2017 he’d gone to write books or something as “job done” so CON retook a safe “blue-Leave” seat:

    2017 GE: Watling (CON): Majority 15,828 (35.8%)
    (NB UKIP did stand in that seat taking 3,357 or 7.6% of the vote but as “mission accomplished” it’s fair to say UKIP voters overwhelmingly went back to CON at that point, in this seat and many others)

    Lest CON forget!

  24. CARFREW

    I think there is a lot to be said for Open Primaries

    You get MPs like Sarah Wollaston.

  25. Colin, thanks for the name-check. Your analysis of how an MP should represent their constituents is very relevant. Where a low majority exists, it’s all the more important for the chosen MP to bear in mind the views of
    all their constituents, not merely their sponsors, or party.

    I’m a bit old-fashioned in that I would want my MP to represent my interests rather than only my views. That way, my MP enjoys my trust.

    Thanks for making me think (as ever!)

  26. JOHN TT
    @” I would want my MP to represent my interests rather than only my views. That way, my MP enjoys my trust.”

    What a pleasure to see that-I could have guessed who wrote it without your name showing !

    Hmmm- So……in what circumstances do you envisage your “interests” being at odds with your “views”.

    I’m not talking Ghandi here-just you the ordinary voter citizen .

  27. Colin/Carfew,

    ”I think there is a lot to be said for Open Primaries

    You get MPs like Sarah Wollaston.”

    Which is why Tory (and Labour) Party managers are against them, can ‘thave our MPs being too independently minded now can we?

    Balance needed as a HOC of independents achieves nothing so parties required.

  28. @ COLIN – I see you point re:LAB members but look to history to see what happens when “members” of far-Left parties get hold of power! My guess is if they deselect too many Blairites they’ll lose VI and seats so unless CON split I can’t see them winning a clean majority and “doing their worst” – although we shouldn’t be complacent about that risk!!

    I’ll avoid a long post on “tiered democracies = de facto autocracy” but the EU is a good case study (“far-Centre” version of autocracy)

    Momentum membership 40,000? (0.1% of UK electorate)

    also, McCluskey elected on 59,067 votes (just over 12% turnout of Unite membership but clearly has a lot of influence over Corbyn+McDonnell)

    NB I acknowledge “lobby groups” have too much influence over May+Hammond and hence a “reflexive” switch to too much influence from unions and far-left under the catchphrase of “for the many, not the few” is very persuasive to those too young to remember the 1970s or too blind to look to Venezuela, etc

    @ TOH – I was joking with PTRP about his Central Line epiphany (I know he meant Lancaster House not Lancaster Gate), bit of banter.

    However, fair enough.

    @ PTRP – My apologies for taking banter too far. Given your frequent comparison of Brexit to the Iraq War I, along with everyone else, is very aware you saw “No Deal” as v.likely ages ago. If that view went back to Lancaster House then you’ll remember Lancaster House had a Plan B for “No Deal” – one hastily having the dust blown off it as I type! About time!!

    As you know I only ever saw Brexit as the “catalyst” to force change. Our “end goal” is not so different, we just see different “paths” to get there.

  29. Mr Corbyn is playing his hand very well, in my opinion. He is an ardent brexiteer, in the Bennite tradition, as his parliamentary voting record shows.
    He does not want Britain to remain in the EU and certainly does not want another vote of the people, asking them the same question they answered in 2016.
    A deal will be done – EU economic figures this week will focus minds across the Channel – and I believe some form of CU will emerge.
    We’ll leave on, or near, 29th March, and the Labour “moderates” won’t do a thing.
    And if Owen Smith is representative of Pontypridd people, then I’m a Dutchman’s uncle.

  30. Tevor
    “show me the HoC maths that wants to Revoke A50”

    The HoC can’t revoke Article 50 so the HoC maths doesn’t look relevant. It’s a prerogative act. It’s down to the PM. The only procedural requirement appears to be the bizarrely quaint insistence by the CJEU that she has to write a letter.

    If you are arguing that the HoC may need to be part of a Parliamentary legislative process to authorise the PM to do so I’d be interested ina source. I have seen no argument that has come close to convincing me that it would need to be (my disagreement with Danny yesterday is over the different point of whether it has already done so, not whether it needs to do so).

  31. TW

    Yes -clearly the ultimate test for the Momentum model is The Ballot Box at the GE.

    This is so for all who wish to enter & influence Parliament.

    But as JohnTT said-you have the case of small majorities to deal with-where the Representative vs Delegate argument is important.

  32. @ ALEC – I acknowledged CapX was biased (pro-Brexit).

    Will you acknowledge the Guardian is biased (anti-Brexit, anti-Corbyn)?

    Few “articles” are bias free but if you know the source is biased and read it suspicious of their intent rather than through “cognitive consistency” support for your own view then you can still take out some useful nuggets.

    The risk of a “new UKIP” is not new for UKPR readers (or hypothetical polling questions!) but a timely reminder is important as May flirts with the idea of gaining more LAB support at risk of losing CON support.

    BoE’s “scenarios” was IMHO an excellent analysis of the extreme worst-case. Carney is smart enough to know folks would “mis-intepret” the analysis but if it kicks HMG into action for “strong mitigation” and finally getting on with “Project After” then I thank Carney for going OTT

    NB Didn’t you “like” the NIESR research on possible road-map to (managed) no-deal. Strong mitigation required!

    NB2 Tusk’s intervention was “helpful” in that it will have embarrassed May into needing to urgently create a “sketch of a plan of how to carry (Brex)it out safely”
    May needed a kick up the you know what and Tusk provided it. So I thank him for his “help”

  33. @Colin – I understand your post regarding the distinctions between Corbyn’s letter and the PD.

    We seem to be navigating through an ever shifting landscape of obfuscation, insecurity and complexity.

    In the immortal words of that literary giant, Warwick Deeping;

    So here we are boys, befogged and benighted
    Bewitched and bewildered, is there a plot?

    Is there a lamplight, a beacon sighted,
    Through the valley, or what?

  34. JimJam, Colin,
    “Colin – agree re MPs and who they represent, ”

    I’m afraid I find both your attitudes rather odd. The reason we have several parties at elections is that they stand for different policies, with the intention of carrying out different policies.

    I’d agree the system is very odd, in that MPs have become some sort of citizens advice centre for their constituents, which really they should not be. Their job ought to be to make laws.

    But fundamentally they are standing for a party and their purpose is to ensure the policies of that party are carried out rather than those of its political opponents.

    It is rather disturbing if political insiders somehow believe they do not stand for the goals of the party but are just part of some interchangeable ruling elite.

  35. Colin -ha!
    As an example that preserves my privacy on contentious matters, here’s a view that my MP doesn’t represent whereas he does represent my interests in two ways : I think it would be right to privatise the provision of education, while continuing to fund it from central taxation

    My MP doesn’t espouse that view but represents my interests firstly by espousing other views which I do share, and more specifically to this issue ensures that the education system is not destabilised by such a fundamental change and made vulnerable to corrupting influences of which I may be unaware.

    I trust my MP to consider my views but act according to the MPs perhaps better grasp of all the factors.

    Please let’s not discuss education- I’m only using it as an example and I don’t hold the opinion I expressed very strongly!

  36. Big swings to Libdems from Labour in council byelections yesterday -20 percent.in Lambeth,10 percent in Bradford.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/02/08/strong-showing-by-the-lds-in-the-local-by-elections-declared-overnight/

  37. Danny – that is a parody of what I (and I think Colin) are saying, indeed I later espouse the need for parties and by implication disciplined policy formulation.

    I also say clearly (and Colin agreed) that party members have a right to change their PPC for subsequent Elections which might be if they felt the MP has strayed too far or too often or on a major matter from the party line.

    In the end, though, MPs are elected by the constituency electorate and are not delegates of local party machines to vote as mandated.

    It is not just Labour that has these tensions as many Tory MPs are less anti-EU than their association members some of whom are in remain seats. This makes life difficult for some of these MPs who feel constrained by their members pulling them in a different direction to their Electorate.

  38. @Laszlo 11.36

    Yep, my Labour Party constituency has a motion down for next week censuring our MP for voting against the Cooper motion. Since it was a constituency voting heavily for remain, this is not one of those party members v voters conundrums discussed above (and for ever unresolvable).

  39. @colin

    Is it not the Single Market which entails FoM not the/a CU? AOr are you saying the the/a CU must mean the SM as well?

  40. @Trevors – “Will you acknowledge the Guardian is biased (anti-Brexit, anti-Corbyn)?”

    Yes.

    The fact that you seemed to think my post was directed at you tells me something about you.

    “NB Didn’t you “like” the NIESR research on possible road-map to (managed) no-deal. Strong mitigation required!”

    Yes I did. So much so that I was the first to post it on UKPR (previous thread) suggesting that it was a reasoned and non-hysterical view of what no deal would look like.

    You must have missed that.

  41. @colin

    You seem to be a little fixated on Momentum, Labour Party members and MPs!

    What is your view about the threats to deselect Nick Boles?

    And how do you feel for example about Scottish Tory MPs representing Remain voting areas supporting Brexit in line with the views of their constituency associations but not their constituents?

  42. @ PETERW – “The only procedural requirement appears to be the bizarrely quaint insistence by the CJEU that she (ie the PM as Head of State) has to write a letter (to Pres. Donald)”

    So as per my 9:34am she can chose:

    “b/ May to decide she will risk split of her party and we end up with a GE”

    I’ll expand: The balance in cabinet is precarious but for her to go “rogue” and take it upon herself to write that letter seems unlikely to me. They’d have to be a “process” to get to her writing said letter (nod to Gina Miller and Grieve here as well) and IMHO that would split the party, CON+DUP would go “on strike” and we’d end up with a GE

    The other option was a/ where she is no longer the PM. This is maybe what DANNY sees when he thinks Rudd[1] could be PM.

    I’m sure we can both see the problems with that happening, internal CON and FTPA issue (i.e unlike May she doesn’t have the 1y safety of no CON leadership challenge and if she “betrayed” Brexit then she’d be v.unlikely to win a VoC in HoC and get to go visit Brenda – the HoC maths would require enough LAB to elect a new CON PM for 4more years rather than go for a GE).

    Now some kind of c/ “fudge” is possible (Leave lawyers ready for a few but maybe not all).

    Most Leave accept the EU can just make stuff up as they go or selectively apply the rules depending on who is breaking them. EC-EU27 love a bit of fudge and can kicking. We’re into all kinds of legal issues if a “fudge” crops up and the issue of EP elections but I have no doubt about the “creativity” of EC-EU27 to find a route out of the mess that suits them.

    PS Thank you for the reply. I’m keen to bounce this around. I’m obviously biased and might well have missed something. Please note I’m not saying it’s impossible, just v.unlikely.

    [1] Rudd is very unpopular within CON (but I’m sure Remain love her). Lidington would be my guess in that scenario but still a huge long shot with massive procedural hurdles to overcome. Maybe Lidington agreed with Corbyn to Revoke as final act of parliament before a GE – I’m fairly sure EC-EU27 would extend on that basis (issue of EP election would be overcome).

  43. In the interests of accuracy the UK head of state is not the PM but the Queen.

  44. PeterW,

    Yes I agree the PM does not need any authorisation from Parliament to revoke A50. This is because revoking A50 is an international agreement – which can be made by the PM acting for the crown – and does not affect any laws in the UK.

    Of course to give it effect in the UK, a new Act of Parliament would be needed, e.g. to repeal the Withdrawal Act. But that is quite separate – you can do either one without the other, though the result would be chaos.

    In practice, a PM would be best advised to get a vote in the HoC first, approving the revocation at a political level, even if no laws are changed. This would assure the PM that there is a majority for the subsequent legislation needed.

  45. @ ALEC – PETE posted the guardian link to the NIESR piece, not you (unless you are also PETE?)

    Anyway, did anyone else post a link to a CapX piece on UKPR?

    Frankly, whatever, some good posts today from various folks so hopefully we can both resist the urge to go back to slanging matches – but I’m up for it if you are, I have time to k!ll ;

    49d 11h 1m 2s

    to be precise!

    https://www.labourleave.org.uk

  46. If anyone did miss PETE’s Gruan link to NIESR piece (possible “road-map” to a managed no deal that requires strong mitigation) then I’ve cut+pasted from last thread:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/06/uk-can-avoid-no-deal-brexit-recession-says-economic-forecaster

    February 6th, 2019 at 2:59 am

    NB If you look at the kind of stuff NIESR chuck out and their track record on “predictions” then apply a bit of “bias” adjustment rather than just picks the bits that suit “cognitive consistancy”. Always some good nuggets around, even in biased research, but it will take a lot to beat Carney ;)

  47. @Hireton – “You seem to be a little fixated on Momentum, Labour Party members and MPs! ”

    Quite!

    Everything seems a little one sided these days.

  48. DANNY
    “It states labour will not support any brexit which harms the Uk.”

    I’ve just re-read the Brexit section and I can’t see these words. Which page?

    I fully accept that many remainers were able to form a view that Labour was at least more remainy in 2017, if not in reality likely to end up full remain. But I think this was because every time someone stated Labour policy an Owen Smith would pop up to say the exact opposite and/ or because they knew the plp and membership leaned that way, and/ or because most people don’t actually listen that hard, not beacuse the policy ever was that way.

  49. Of course, as regards polling, the perception is all. If a subtantial number thought Labour was remain in 2017, whether this was because they couldn’t read plain English or not, and a chunk of that cohort now realise it isn’t, their vote will shift even if Labour hasn’t.

  50. “In the interests of accuracy the UK head of state is not the PM but the Queen.”

1 2 3 4 11