There are two new voting intention polls in the Sunday papers, tackling the issue of measuring TIG support in different ways…

Deltapoll for the Mail on Sunday have standard voting intentions of CON 43%, LAB 36%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 5%. Respondents were then asked how they would vote if The Independent Group put up candidates at the next election – voting intention under those circumstances switches to CON 39% (four points lower), LAB 31%(five points lower), TIF 11%, LDEM 5%(one point lower). The implication is that the Independent Group are taking some support from both Labour and Conservative though, as we saw with the YouGov poll earlier in the week, it’s not necessarily as simple as a direct transfer – part of the difference may well be people saying don’t know. Fieldwork was between Thurs and Saturday, full results are here.

Opinium for the Observer meanwhile only asked their standard voting intention question, but have begun including TIG in that. This flags up an interesting dilemma for polling companies. The Independent Group are obviously not a political party. While the widespread expectation is that at some point in the future they will become a political party, they aren’t registered as one yet, and aren’t putting up candidates yet. This means that most polling companies are asking hypothetical questions about the level of support they would get if they did stand, but are not currently including them in standard voting questions.

Opinium however are offering them as a current option – presumably their thinking is that it’s only a matter of time before they register and if poll respondents’ intention is already to vote for them when they do, they should register it. The approach Opinium has taken will clearly be the correct way to do it once the TIG do evolve into a political party, the question is whether it’s too early to do it now. Either way, for what it’s worth Opinium’s first polling figures with TIG included as an option are CON 40%(+3), LAB 32%(-5), LDEM 5%(-3), TIG 6%(+6), UKIP 7%(nc). Fieldwork was Wednesday to Friday, and changes are from a week ago. Full results are here.

To be complete, as well as the SkyData and Survation polls I’ve already written about here, which showed TIG support at 10% and 8% respectively, there was also a YouGov poll midweek. That found standard topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 33%, LDEM 10% and hypothetical figures of CON 38%, LAB 26%, LDEM 7%, TIG 14% (full write up is here. Overall that means, depending on the different questions asked and approaches taken, the initial level of support for the TIG seems to be between 6% and 14%.


1,929 Responses to “Latest voting intention polls & measuring potential TIG support”

1 2 3 4 39
  1. So would the ERG prefer to delay exit to 2021 and have no transition/ small transition period over May’s deal. Possible yes because there would be the opportunity to replace May as PM and have more influence on the process.

    With regards to May’s deal and the Irish backstop with UK tied to the customs Union with guarantee over the Irish border leavers fears are probably more than the EU keeping UK in against its will, not trusting the UK government who would find excuses to keep the UK in the customs union for longer.

  2. @ON

    March, July, October, May
    Nones the 7th, Ides the 15th day

    Are you disputing the applicability of this ancient rhyme? O tempora, O mores!

  3. Delaying brexit to the end of 2020 does mean the European Parliament elections will go ahead on May 23rd.

    There are two reasons both Labour and Conservative parties don’t want them. Firstly, because some other parties might do better than them, which really would look bad.

    Secondly, because the results of the elections will help determine the amount of broadcasting time each party gets in the next general election. More publicity for the new UKIP or some remain party?

    The other thing is that brexit at the end of December would be a very bad time to rely on vegetables from the garden.

  4. @ HAL

    “Delaying brexit to the end of 2020 does mean the European Parliament elections will go ahead on May 23rd. ”

    I really don’t believe this is going to happen, but I will keep on hoping. Come on, admit it, as polling geeks, we’d all love to see what would happen in a nationwide vote like this, particularly one without the usual distortions our FPTP GE system, and with all the fun of Farage’s return and new parties. As if politics watching isn’t entertaining enough already.

  5. Charles

    I prefer
    “Thirty days hath September,
    April, June, and November;
    All the rest have thirty-one,
    Excepting February and the Brexit one,
    The first has twenty-eight days clear
    And twenty-nine in each leap year
    The Brexit one goes on for bloody ever!”

  6. @oldnat
    “Every binary referendum is “rigged”, simply because some options have been excluded in order to reduce the choice to two.”

    Indeed. So for a new referendum, Parliament (both Commons and Lords separately, as some legislation would be needed) need to be able to agree with a majority on which two options to rig it to.

    This seems even less likely to me than them agreeing with a majority on one option. But perhaps a majority could be found where each half thought one option would win, if the alternative was the option the other half wanted on the ballot paper. Seems implausible to me, even ignoring the possibilities of Lords filibusters, legal challenges, the DUP, etc.

    I don’t see how the timings work at this stage without either an extremely substantial extension to A50 beyond that the EP elections would allow the EU to practically grant – or unilateral executive revocation to buy time … and perhaps encourage the Leave side to play along as the only practical way to get A50 resubmitted.

  7. ON
    “Not that I knew all of that, till I looked it up! :-)”

    I’m disappointed. An idol has fallen.

  8. Pete B

    More appropriately, “the idle has idly done a google search”.

  9. @ADW – “The minority desire is to Remain. Leave won.”

    A more accurate description is:

    “The minority desire in June 2016 was to Remain. Leave won in June 2016. We are now in February 2019”.

    As t happens, psephologists have calculated that based on polling data and death rates, sometime in January we passed the point when the electorate would have voted remain, even if no one changed their minds.

    You are now in the minority @ADW. You need to accept that, and then start thinking about how you can accomodate the wishes of remainers.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean we remain – democracy is about keeping the losers happy enough to avoid civil wars. Think about it a bit more.

  10. @ADW – “The minority desire is to Remain. Leave won.”

    A more accurate description is:

    “The minority desire in June 2016 was to Remain. Leave won in June 2016. We are now in February 2019”.

    As t happens, psephologists have calculated that based on polling data and death rates, sometime in January we passed the point when the electorate would have voted remain, even if no one changed their minds.

    You are now in the minority @ADW. You need to accept that, and then start thinking about how you can accomodate the wishes of remainers.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean we remain – democracy is about keeping the losers happy enough to avoid civil wars.

    Think about it a bit more.

  11. Pete B and Charles

    I didn’t mean to be flippant.

    I simply used set theory to map it out. What I didn’t add (deliberately by the way) that since 1931 we know that it doesn’t work as a fully functioning system in spite of Russell and others since then as there is no possibility of fully formalizing human thinking.

    However, polling companies use set-theory (not quite declared as such, but it is). Thus, the outcome of any polling would be subject to the question asked (Russell cheated with his barber question and he knew it – add the word “other” to his question and his problem diaappears. He knew it, but he preferred to play the game, and many eminent people still fall for it. Oh, the question is: the barber’s clients in the village are those who don’t shave themselves.)

    So, my set-setting is actually more than legitimate. But at the same time flawed.

    The referendum set the question in which remain was a minority and likely majority at the same time. However, with a different question you can have different sets and hence different outcomes for the same population it is not about the people, it is about polls and elections. It is a major question by the way.

    Parties (just as businesses) use the method of setting sets and it can.create various outcomes. There are no predetermined outcomes as the number of sets is larger than the number of respondents. Of course reality (objective thruth) comes through eventually if we are still alive then.

    One of the oddities of YouGov’s alternative model is that it sets the sets differently from their normal polls which then leads to the interesting question of identical answers leading to different conclusions.

  12. CIM

    “I don’t see how the timings work at this stage without either an extremely substantial extension to A50 beyond that the EP elections would allow the EU to practically grant – or unilateral executive revocation to buy time”

    I largely agree, though for some time it has appeared possible that the EU might allow a lengthy extension of the A50 process to allow England to make up its bloody mind what it wants!

    On the role of referendums within what the UK describes as its constitution (making it up as it goes along) there are some clear lessons to be learned from the disastrous Cameronian use of them.

    All other referendums have had a clear purpose – to seek confirmation from the electorate that a Government proposal had specific electoral support and, therefore, providing popular mandate for pursuing that policy.

    If there was an insufficient popular mandate, the status quo continued.

    Any Brexit2 referendum, has to get England out of the mess that Cameron dumped it into before becoming Brave Sir Robin (“He bravely turned his tail and fled”).

    If any return to a sensible use of referendums is sought, then any binary version has to return to the pre-Cameronian model – the government proposal as opposed to the status quo – or a radically new constitutional model of reaching consensus through a series of votes, where the least popular scenarios are progressively deleted.

  13. So ADW tells us simply that Leave won the referendum, and clearly thinks they have the right to ignore all those who voted Remain.

    To most people the result of the 2016 referendum was a 2-2 draw, and respecting that result, as parties promised beforehand and in their manifestos afterwards, means taking notice of the two Remain decisions, and compromising between them and the Leave decisions.

    When we listen to Results, as from football and rugby, we don`t just get, win, win, lose, win, lose. We get scores, and that helps us to assess our teams` and our opponents` performance. That`s why getting the decisions from each polity was part of David Cameron`s plan – to advise governments.

    Theresa May`s policy of ignoring our democratic voting will have grave percussions, with continuing trouble, boycotts, disobedience across the UK.

  14. Davwel

    “That`s why getting the decisions from each polity was part of David Cameron`s plan”

    Cameron had no such plan. The SNP (and presumably others in Wales & NI) wanted that, but it was rejected by the MPs from all the English polity based parties.

    While we know the votes from each polity, that is only through aggregating the results from each LA within polities. It was not part of the scheme.

  15. @DAVWEL

    But our politics means that there is a winner and a loser we tend to mandate it and when given the vote for somethign different we decided against that. You can argue that as I have that the electorate tends to be behind the curve and often regret their decisions (if you look at the polling for PR for example it is at the highest levels I have seen and would most probably we over 50%)

    The problem is that we are used to the largest minority winning, Cameron had an overall majority with 37% of the those that voted 63% of those that voted got no say. To turn this situation around would take a huge change of thinking and I don’t think that is going to happen

    So yes May’s policy of ignoring what is happening is often the thing that those in charge do what is different is that with brexit I see no coming back.

  16. Laszlo
    “The referendum set the question in which remain was a minority and likely majority at the same time.”

    A bit like Schroedinger’s cat?
    ———————–
    Davwel
    “…means taking notice of the two Remain decisions…”

    Can you elucidate what those were?

  17. Here’s perhaps an oddity.

    The claim that the referendum result represents democracy in action and frees us from the undemocratic EU could per challenged by looking at the Referendum result under EU rules set up after the Lisbon Treaty.

    The changes gave more power to the larger most populous states like the UK ( our share rose from 8% to 12%).

    The rules are;

    “In contrast to the previous majority rules, which are said to have better protected smaller and medium-sized Member States, the new system focuses on the demographic weight of Member States.

    The adoption of acts by the Council now requires the approval of 55% of Member States (16) (72% if the act has not been proposed by the Commission), which must represent at least 65% of the EU’s population!”

    So under these rules, at 2-2 it would have failed on states but the England and Wales votes might have reached the 65% figure because of England’s far greater size than the other three put together.

    If Gibralter was counted in it’s own right We wouldn’t have left.

    Peter.

  18. @Alec

    Regarding democratic will of the people: “The ‘as expressed in the Referendum’ was just as well. As expressed in other ways, and through parliament […]”

    That’s just the thing though, isn’t it? Whether or not Parliament in any way expresses the will of *the* people (i.e. the demos) rather than the will of “some people” depends on how our representatives function. The more they act as robotic delegates, the more it skews to the former; the more they act as Burkean trustees, the more it skews to the latter. Constitutionally of course they are purely trustees: pressure to add some delegate behaviour into the mix arises entirely through political pressure rather than any formal channel.

    It was in many ways a disjunction on this issue that was behind the pressure that led to the EURef in the first place. Having had the vote, we still haven’t directly addressed that representation question, even on the narrow issue of the referendum question, and it’s quite possible to see it as a more fundamental issue than any details of EU membership/non-membership.

  19. PTRP.
    Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. Thanks to FPTP, every Prime Minister gets used to going against the wishes of the majority of people while portraying what they do as “the will of the people” as demonstrated by a GE.

    This results in this bizarre world where a person’s favourite version of Brexit is interpreted as “what the people voted for” and where the views of Tory and DUP voters count for more than any other voter.

  20. Pete
    So actually counting the number of rough sleepers is less accurate than sticking your finger in the air and having a guess? But then it is the Guardian so am I surprised?

    Lots of double speak last night on here obviously intended to convince people that remain won the referendum in 2016. They say that if a lie is repeatedly oft enough, it will eventually be believed. Orwell would have been proud.
    The question was leave or remain, leave won, so the only question now is, leave with Mays deal or leave with no deal. But I can see that the result might be stolen unless May plays it very clever over the next few weeks.

  21. @Davewll – “So ADW tells us simply that Leave won the referendum, and clearly thinks they have the right to ignore all those who voted Remain.”

    What @ADW actually said was.

    “The minority desire is to Remain. Leave won.”

    The second sentence here is factually correct. The first is not – or at least, it is incorrect based on the available evidence (polling).

    What she needed to say was ‘the minority desire was to leave’. That would have been factually correct.

    Like I have said for a while now, leavers need to take the simple step of acknowledging that they are now the minority – according to current polling, a significantly smaller minority than remainers were at the time of the referendum.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t leave the EU now. That is a political argument about how advisory referenda should be handled and how such time limited snapshots of public opinion should be applied in terms of policy delivery.

    It is very important that people like @ADW stop making false claims about remainers being in the minority, as these are l!es. It is also important for them and their wellbeing that efforts are made to develop a much more consensual decision on how we leave, if we actually leave at all. If they fail to do this, they will take the blame for everything that follows, and if they get Brexit wrong, this won’t be pretty.

    Long term, it is very much in leavers interests to develop a much wider consensus on what happens next.

  22. Tectonic plates appear to be moving to me. I would not be surprised if May gives tacit, if not overt permission, for a vote to ask for a extension to Article 50

  23. Oldnat
    “While we know the votes from each polity, that is only through aggregating the results from each LA within polities. It was not part of the scheme.”

    Not sure that’s strictly true. My recollection is that the counting regions were part of the official scheme so we know officially the scores for Wales, Scotland, NI and Gib, although for England we do have to aggregate the results ourselves. That gives a 9-4 score of course. While strictly speaking Davwel’s model gives 2-3 not 2-2.

    None of these is inherently and fundamentally a more appropriate way of making a decision. The point is though, as you make, that none was chosen. Popular vote, for better or worse, was. People don’t see it as 2-2 because it wasn’t.

  24. It’s fascinating watching people make up constitutional principles on the spot to justify what they want. And while I’m tempted to criticise the various claims, I know that I have made similar claims in the past (“No referendum result has not been implemented!” – with the ambiguous case of the 1979 Scotland devolution referendum…) with as little actual basis.

    I’m a fan of the UK constitution (or lack thereof) but Brexit has pushed me in the direction of at least a somewhat more systematic, centralised, and formalised approach.

  25. ON:

    My memory is of Hireton or BZZ, or another of those on here with Scotland backgrounds actually posting lines from Hansard reporting the Brexit Bill debates, and the government lead said that the counts in each polity were to inform the governments (plural) and would be RESPECTED.

    I wish I had copied out the references. But now have too much to do, delving etc, for searching back.

    You may be right, and that it was just a wish of David Cameron and he was overruled by his far-right Tories when the bill was finally worded.

  26. @ Alec

    You’re getting as bad as Danny, even worse I’d say.

    Leave won.

    60% of Labour and 70% of Conservative constituencies voted Leave. Decisive.

    Both parties MPs were voted in to respect the result. Those that can’t really should jump in the TIG refuse bin.

    Again – Leave won.

  27. I have always thought the PR would be better than FPTP. The shambles in Parliament strengthens that conviction. However, if a referendum was required to ensure it, then I would have reservations about pursuing it, given our current circumstances. That we are in constitutionally insecure times is trite, to make that worse by dividing the population again (I have no doubt it would be added in to in the Brexit debate).
    That raises a difficult question for someone like me. I have always been left of centre (at the Tony Banks rather than the Tony Blair end of that spectrum, but not quite over there with Corbyn and McDonnell). I am clearly a Remainer, but one who believes that compromise with leavers is necessary to avoid civil strife. I do not believe that the current system permits that compromise to take place but a PR Parliament might. How am I to vote? If I vote Labour, especially if they move to a Peoples Vote position (which appears more and more likely) I will be voting for the policies I tend to believe in but will be continuing support for a system, which I consider is fundamentally broken, to continue. If, however, I vote for a party with some prospect of preventing the system continuing, I will be voting for policies which I do not agree with. It occurred to me that this is the type of dilemma many have faced in the past under the two party system (the least worst option vote).
    I think about politics and am engaged with current affairs generally, but I do wonder if we have reached that stage where those who are not as engaged are thinking in these terms. Whilst Brexit is underway I do not foresee much movement in the Conservative vote in the polls as I see a solid group of Brexiters who see the Conservative party as their route to Brexit, I see movement in Labour polling because Remainer’s do not see Labour as their route to Remain. Post Brexit I can imagine a sea change on all sides and a fracturing of voting, I just wonder whether it will be sufficient to change our system or will instead result again in governments with large majorities on minority votes because of a fractured opposition?
    Finally, my arguments for PR I believe undermine one of the arguments for FPTP. That argument is that our coalitions occur before the election so we know what we are voting for: (1) Polling shows us that people with similar demographics tend to think similarly, it appears logical therefore that the compromises made by those who vote a particular way would be similar to the compromises of the parties they voted for (2) recent events demonstrate that minority views can take over parties so that there is no compromise coalition view being presented.

  28. Pete [email protected]: “…means taking notice of the two Remain decisions…”

    Can you elucidate what those were?

    Scotland, NI

  29. The version of representative democracy that I have always favoured and subscribe too is;

    Rule by majority consent for the good of all.

    In effect you elect the representatives you want and then expect them to do the best they can for their constituents and the country.

    That creates the Brexit dilemma for MP’s; What if what the majority want is you feel bad for them and the country?

    Put simply;

    “What’s Popular isn’t always Right and what’s Right isn’t always Popular!”

    Do you do what’s popular with the majority even if you think it will harm them, or do you do what you think is best even though they won’t like it!

    I am pretty sure I’ve mentioned this one before, being at a hustings where a Candidate said;

    “I’ll always back what my Constituents want!”

    To which someone near the back called out;

    “what if they want to get rid of the Jews!”

    Peter.

  30. Alec

    “It is very important that people like @ADW stop making false claims about remainers being in the minority, as these are l!es. ”

    Well actually they are not lies at all, the only meaningful data on leaving the EU was the referendum of 2016 and as ADW rightly said Leave won.

    Opinion polls are just that, snaps shots of public opinion which may or may not be correct, they are certainly not meaningful in the same sense as the referendum. For all we really know Remainers may well still be in the minority. Opinion polls have been shown to be incorrect quite frequently.

  31. Jones in Bangor

    “Again – Leave won.”

    Unfortunately some Remainers cannot face up to the truth of the Referendum result.

  32. JiB

    Your scores don’t matter either to be fair. There are ways that it could have been run that could have produced a clearer headline leave win or a remain win. There are ways it could have been run that could have required a threshold not met by a remain win. None of those was used.

    The one that was produced a narrow leave win. Everything else is nonsense.

    And yes, the polling evidence, such as it is given that most polls prefer a predictively useless hindsight question, does suggest that lead may well have gone. But that doesn’t retrospectively alter the result either.

  33. “For all we really know Remainers may well still be in the minority. Opinion polls have been shown to be incorrect quite frequently.”

    That is just about possible, but the polls would need to be wrong on this issue to an even greater extent than they were even for the 2015 General Election. The average of polls taken so far in 2019 is a 7-8 point lead for Remaining. And we are approaching a full year since any poll showed a lead for Leave – the last was on 8 March last year.

    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/?removed

  34. @ Peter W

    “And yes, the polling evidence, such as it is given that most polls prefer a predictively useless hindsight question, does suggest that lead may well have gone.”

    Actually, it is only YouGov which asks the ‘in hindsight’ question, and there is a load of other polling such as that which I’ve linked above, which asks how people would vote in a second referendum.

    But the two questions show very similar patterns, in any case.

    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/?removed

  35. @ Peter W

    “And yes, the polling evidence, such as it is given that most polls prefer a predictively useless hindsight question, does suggest that lead may well have gone.”

    Actually, it is only YouGov which asks the ‘in hindsight’ question, and there is a load of other polling such as that which I’ve linked above, which asks how people would vote in a second referendum.

    But the two questions show very similar patterns, in any case.

    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/?removed

  36. Jonesinbangor,
    “You’re getting as bad as Danny, even worse I’d say. Leave won.”

    They really didnt! Do you not see what is going on now?

    Technically leave got more votes, but it was only about 1/3 of the electorate and remain got nearly as many. What we see now is the consequence of leave having no mandate.

    In fact, of leave having no plan. What was promised was impossible to deliver, and different leave proponents contradicted each other over what would happen. There was no plan agreed upon, and what we have seen is that attempts to creat one unified plan heve merely entrenched divisions regarding the aims of Brexit.

    If I was a remainer, I would argue that since there is now a majority to remain, we should remain. If I was a leaver, I would argue we need more time to try to decided what sort of Brexit is acceptable.

    If I was an anti democratic bully, I would demand we just charge ahead, because I could see the whole brexit concept being utterly discredited and collapsing.

    The Other Howard,
    “Opinion polls have been shown to be incorrect quite frequently.”

    Well have another referendum then to check. If you dont, then we must rely on the best information we have, which is remain leading.

  37. @ HIRETON – your link is to a question:

    “If there was a referendum tomorrow..”

    is there going to be a referendum tomorrow?

    I’ll happily accept the Opinium poll is somewhat hypothetical but it is closer the reality of the choices currently on offer.

    @ ALEC – OMG, you really do not read your own or others people’s posts. I’ll repost your source:

    “Food businesses COULD be..”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p070mr65

    If you actually bothered to read (as in understand) my posts then you’d see I am highly critical of HMG’s current approach[1]

    Beyond Deal or No Deal though there is a huge amount HMG can and IMHO SHOULD be doing to “assist” UK agri-food businesses.

    WILL = certainty, which is clearly not the word to use when so much is unknown (and why you source did not use that word)

    COULD = a possible scenario subject to a specific set of assumptions (in this case a “static” response from both the market and HMG)

    As with all “scenarios” you have to look at the assumptions to see if that “scenario” is realistic or not. You don’t see any Leavers on UKPR posting the lastest “lobbying” articles from likes of Shanker Singham and then subtely changing a few words to say CPTPP WILL be 45% of World GDP in a few years time (but it COULD be)[1]

    I have always accepted a WTO Brexit will be a huge challenge and that we COULD c0ck it up if we make the wrong decisions (or procrastinate and make no decisions which).

    [1] – I’ll post the Shanker Singham piece to highlight the “spin” of an Arch-Leave free trade fanatic. Like most articles there are lots of facts, which are useful, but you have to respect the “spin” and hence treat and future scenarios with a heavy pinch of COULD, not a WILL.

    https://brexitcentral.com/department-international-trades-no-deal-planning-advanced-doomsayers-believe/

  38. @JiB – “Leave won.”

    Indeed. That’s what I said. Leave narrowly won (past tense) in an advisory referendum that technically carries no constitutional importance in a vote that took place nearly three years ago.

    There is ample evidence available that today, leavers are in a minority. Like I said, this raises the question of how we account for shifts in opinion over time and how we resolve these with advisory public votes when the detailed options were not known.

    Simply repeating what happened in 2016 is not the issue here. The issue is how we try to bring people together and identify a suitable path forwards.

    As I’ve already said twice now, the fact that the evidence suggests remainers are now in a majority does not necessarily mean we don’t Brexit. It does mean that leavers should start being very careful about what option they pursue.

    It is beholden on the winners to craft a policy platform that takes account both of the minority, and also the recent shifts in opinion. A form of Brexit that is more acceptable to remainers seems the obvious way through this.

    @TOH – “For all we really know Remainers may well still be in the minority. Opinion polls have been shown to be incorrect quite frequently.”

    These statements are not incorrect. The best way to find out is to hold another referendum.

  39. Just to be pedantic. As an advisory referendum it also carried no specified winning condition. To assume a simple majority was sufficient is just an opinion and interpretation as equally valid and constitutionally irrelevant as everyone elses.

  40. @Danny
    If you don’t vote, you don’t count.

    By any measure, the turnout in 2016 was very high.

    Unfortunately for the arrogant remain side, a lot of voters disengaged by the Ne0-L1b Cameron and Blair “rule by apathy” model actually turned out.

    There isn’t a cat’s chance in hell chance of any side getting 17.4 million again!

  41. The lesson -from Parliament , and from UKPR-is that unless Referenda produce a very significant majority , the result will not be accepted by many of the ” losing side”.

    I think that, because , in a Referendum, a complex subject must be reduced to a simple ( ? simplistic) binary choice , a closely balanced vote outcome may well be indicative of uncertainty. Of course it may equally be true that a substantial majority is indicative of failure to understand the complexity !

    So the lesson I draw from this disastrous Referendum is that any future ones must feature a winning threshold & include a DK voting option .

  42. @Alec

    There’s a lot of sensible points in your last post which I agree with.

  43. Respecting the wishes of 48%

    Plenty of folks did post-Ref analysis of the reasons why each side voted as they did. I’ll pick Ashcroft and highlight the Remain side biggest factor:

    ““the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%)”

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

    Interestingly Leave voters get this assumption of Remainers spot on:

    “Fear/uncertainty: 43%”

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/12/16/why-other-half-vote

    Therefore to “respect” the wishes of the 48% should not mean “betraying” the wishes of the 52% but instead dealing with many of the reasons why Remainers voted as they did (ie fear and uncertainty)

    Uncertainty will end if we leave with No WA and move to WTO (possibly with a paid for fudge). Uncertainty will continue if we sign the WA and have years of ongoing negotiations as it would if we have a 1-1 result from a 2nd ref and go on to a “tie-breaker”

    Economic “Fear” can be reduced with various mitigation measures:

    1/ BoE could cut rates, which is far more realistic than hiking them (as we’ve already seen!)

    2/ HMG can deliver a strong economic boost via “emergency” budget (far more realistic than a “punishment” budget and again as we’ve already seen, although in a very limited sense)

    3/ Market forces will likely see our terms of trade improve and due to our woeful and widening trade deficit with EU the private sector will have significant opportunities to boost domestic production and dangle “macro” substitution of EU imports in return for better trade deals (better for UK, not France-Germany).

    The above should interact and HMG can deliver more #2 if #3 needs a “nudge” (e.g. investor of last resort to kick start the release of the investment backlog).

    What “helps” HMG is that polls show most folks expect a negative outcome so the bar is set pretty low. IE Project Fear have so totally overdone the “Br-armeggedon” that many of the 48% will likely be very grateful should Carney, Hammond[1], etc “save the day” and avoid the disaster that many have predicted.

    You can’t please all the people all the time, but CON need to please enough people to stay in power and hence respecting the reasons folks voted Remain is important!

    If CON c0ck it up then in the next GE we kick ’em out – simples!

    Also any party that wishes to campaign to rejoin EU via A49 is obviously able to have that policy and put that to the electorate at the next GE – I wish them luck with that!

    [1] I have serious doubts about Hammond being up to the task and accept my hope that CON would have to “OWN” Brexit and hence ensure it is a success isn’t looking as likely as I had hoped back in 2016!

  44. Danny
    “Technically leave got more votes”

    Ah! it was only a technical referendum was it, why didn’t you say earlier. Silly me for thinking that in a vote, one side getting more votes than the other, gave one side victory over the other. So will we be having a technical GE next, in which the loser is declared the winner?

  45. Keep banging your head against the wall @Trevors.

    Ian Wright was talking about what his members are saying based on what the government has told them their ‘dynamic response’ will be after a hard Brexit. There is nothing static about their response.

    On the one hand you tell us that loads of companies are talking ‘dynamic response’ measures to protect themselves (remember when you did that?) and on the other when these companies tell us it will be a disaster, you tell us that these companies can take ‘dynamic response’ measures to protect themselves. But they’ve done this already, according to you, yet it’s still going to be a disaster.

    If you really think you can wriggle around with definitions of ‘could’ and ‘will’, when the representative of the industry open the clip by saying that this is the worst threat to the sector since 1939, then more fool you. Just open your ears for once, and appreciate what people much more experienced than you are saying for a change.

    This is again a pattern emerging from many Brexiters. We’ve seen it on UKPR before. You all admit things like ‘there will be some disruption’ etc, and then when people start to point out what that disruption will be, you deny it, or say we can manage it.

    The food and drink industry has been telling us for a long, long time that a no deal exit will have very serious ramifications. No amount of ‘dynamic response’ will change that. The ‘dynamic response’ is merely a choice between letting firms go bust, or paying firms to stop them going bust. It isn’t a bit of magic that will avoid the cost of a hard Brexit – all ‘dynamic response’ options create a cost.

    Instead of using phrases like ‘“assist” UK agri-food businesses’, why don’t you be honest and say ‘spend shed loads of taxpayers money bailing out UK agri-food in the event of a no deal’?

  46. @Colin – “So the lesson I draw from this disastrous Referendum is that any future ones must feature a winning threshold & include a DK voting option .”

    Absolutely agree. Most other nations are sensible enough to insert some qualification thresholds for major constitutional change.

  47. @ COLIN – Not sure about putting DK on but the threshold idea was put around by Remain with the 37% claim

    17.4million / 46.5million = 37.4%

    Of course that means only 34.7% voted Remain, something they obviously don’t mention!

    16.1million / 46.5million = 34.7%

    If we set the threshold at 50% of total electorate then to win any new ref, on anything, then you can play with the maths but it probably require something like:

    75% turnout
    67% vote for one of the options.

    This is all hypothetical of course. As we’re seeing with the two main parties, neither is going to want a new ref, on anything, for a very long time.

    So by refusing to accept the last ref, Remainers have destroyed the use of referendums in the future (although they’ll obviously not accept that either!)

  48. Alec,

    Although it involves a lot of special treatment for Remainers (Welsh devolution was implemented despite a closer result than Brexit) a lot of what you say has merit. I think that the WA offers a good compromise between Leaver and Remainer concerns; some more compromise towards the Remainer side (such as a longer transition period, a multi-stage transition period with a few years of a Norway-style arrangement tacked-on to the current transition period, or a second referendum towards the end of the WA transition period) would also have been fair.

    On the other hand, I’m sure I’ve read many Remainers argue that the WA is worse than a harder Brexit, as it doesn’t give Leavers what they want either. And some Leavers have argued that it’s worse than remaining, due to a “loss of sovereignty”.

    So compromises are hard to achieve, and they should not be combined with the principle that a change has to be generally considered satisfactory. Otherwise, no change is ever likely to happen!

  49. @ TO – Scottish and NI voters voted for the whole of UK to Remain in EU, not for Scotland or NI alone to Remain in EU.

    Stating NI and Scotland voted to Remain in the EU is a l!e

1 2 3 4 39