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 35 36 37 38 39
  1. SAM

    The relevant para is Article 127 of the EEA treaty.

  2. @Hireton

    “I don’t know what scope the Tories have for shortening their leadership process short of MPs agreeing on a unity candidate obviating the need for a membership vote. But could they agree on one?

    Of course, the Palace could take the view that if the Tory Party has to take months to find a new leader there is no reason why the country should have to wait for the gerontocracy of the party to do so. In that case, it might manage a process to find a PM who can command a HoC majority at least for a year or so.”

    I suspect that Rudd /Hammond or their chosen candidate would win among the MPs, will they play a second Remainish candidate to stop the Brexiteers? The Brexiteers will insist on going to the membership if their candidate is in the running when it comes to the last two.

    Fascinating situation now for the observer.

  3. @ JAMESB – We could certainly do with more polling companies asking realistic questions and ensuring “trackers” are 100% word perfect trackers.

    Part of the problem is “keeping up with events”.

    Polling companies can ask hypothetical questions but those have “cake” issues.

    May’s deal wasn’t known until a few months back and the Brady amendment to send her back to ask for concessions was even more recent.

    MPs will face a series of important votes again next week and although flawed ComRes did ask a relevant question on the options that MPs will have.

    However, yes its only one poll, the previous one had subtle wording difference, the wording is somewhat “leading”, etc. The Torygraph is well… the Torygraph and hence their write-up will have some bias as well.

    The other problem for polling companies at the moment is that by the time they ask the relevant question of the day and have collected the fieldwork and published the poll then events might well have moved on.

    For now the only polls that matter are in HoC with n=639 and quite likely some n=28 discussions concerning the terms of an extension (or fudge) amongst EU leaders, with the “sherpas” and EC setting out the options

  4. @ Old Nat

    Civil war in England? Vivid imagination in play or have you had the uisge-beatha out?

  5. It’s commonplace in the UK to see stories about money, and foreigners, corrupting politics in the USA.

    Perhaps less common for us to see stories in the USA about the corruption of politics in the UK by money (and foreigners) – especially supporting the xenophobic supporting political strand.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-more-we-learn-about-brexit-the-more-crooked-it-looks/2019/03/08/b011517c-411c-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.ad28e3554432

    The Washington Post may not be quite the investigative cutting edge that it was during Watergate, but it’s not too bad. As it reported on Watergate – “Follow the money”.

    British industry might suffer after Brexit, and British power will be reduced. But the gray zone — where politics meets money, where foreign money can become domestic, where assets can be hidden and connections concealed — will survive. Perhaps that was the point all along.

  6. Bantams

    “Civil war in England?” You may not resort to pikes and cannons, but the conflict between Parliament and the Executive was the core of your 17th century difficulties.

    Now, it may well be the case that the current crop of Parliamentarians have been so corrupted and bought by the Crown (that’s the institution, not Brenda) that they will happily yield the rights of every freeborn Englishman (sod the serfs).

    As England sails off into the sunlit uplands of the16th century [1], you’ll at least have someone to guide you, as Re-Smog knows those treacherous paths rather well.

    [1] That was, of course, the middle of the Little Ice Age, so the uplands might be somewhat frozen.

  7. OLDNAT “but the only two I know of are the 1706 Treaty of Union between England and Scotland, and the 1800 Treaty between GB and Ireland.”

    None of the UK/Ireland Treaties that we’re being exercised about in respect of Brexit has an exit clause. From the 1921 original to the 1998 IGA they’re all indefinite. Nor did the Treat if Rome (pre Lisbon). It’s not that uncommon.

  8. Peter W

    That was precisely the point I was making! So we can agree that David Davis is a blithering idiot?

  9. The Trevors,
    “May’s deal wasn’t known until a few months back”

    Surely the contentious bit was agreed in 2017!

    As regards polls, I dont see what that has to do with how MPs behave now. If polling showed a clear will to leave or remain, hard or soft, then probably thats what they would do. However, they do not. (note also my previous post arguing the sample used by comres is flawed)

    MPs still show every indication of worrying that proceeding with brexit would be terminal for their careers. Yet not proceeding would have similar results.

  10. JIM JAM

    Thats much better-always best to be clear.

  11. My 8:15 pm

    Autocorrect … Leave meant to be peace.

  12. Peter W

    On second thoughts, I don’t agree with your “It’s not that uncommon.” in regards to a sovereign nation joining a union, and being unable to leave without the permission of the other side.

    The 1921 Treaty between UK and Ireland was only seen as between sovereign states by the Irish. The UK pretended that that were still the sovereign power over all-Ireland, but were granting it dominion status within the Empire.

    The treaty was about dissolving a union – not creating one.

    There have been many arrangements that have involved dissolving the British Empire (and they have all been indefinite – not one ex-territory has ever wanted to rejoin).

    I partly agree re the Treaty of Rome, but that was not creating a political union, but an economic one. You might be better to argue that case for the Maastricht treaty.

    Which treaties would you cite as creating a formal union between sovereign powers? I presume you would wish to exclude treaties like the Treaty of Utrecht, which parcelled up areas and transferred them like objects, without the consent of their inhabitants?

  13. Staggering to see that speculation regarding the Conservative Party leadership is now back in full swing.

    Beggars belief that we are being run by such a bunch of stupid people. As if changing the leader will solve anything.

  14. Alec

    “As if changing the leader will solve anything.”

    It may not “solve” anything, but if the Queen’s Prime Minister exerts the constitutional power that she claims – and if that isn’t challenged by the people’s representatives – then it may “change” things.

  15. @Oldnat – I had previously assumed all international treaties could be unilaterally revoked, but when I researched the backstop issue I discovered that this wasn’t the case, and that the UK is party to number of treaties that do not permit unilateral revocation. Sadly, I haven’t kept the post and haven’t the time to repeat the research, but it basically revolves around the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties and whether or not the treaty has an exit clause or was clearly internded to have an exit mechanism.

    I think our UK obligations are covered by such an unbreakable treaty, and the maritime conventions also, but I can’t recall all the examples in detail.

    Basically, the argument that the WA is unique in international law in this regard is wrong, as are most argumnets put by Brexiters.

  16. Alec

    The Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties doesn’t actually apply to Treaties concluded before it.

    It does embody much of what was recognised as customary international law, so that even non-signatories like the USA recognise some of its provisions.

    Earlier treaties (and I still haven’t been given an example of a Treaty of Union between sovereign states, other than within the British Isles) are influenced by the doctrine of Clausula rebus sic stantibus (changes which the original negotiators could not have reasonably be held to have considered).

    That was a major legal factor in Iceland successfully overturning the earlier treaty with the UK on fishing rights (though the success of Iceland in the Cod Wars was due to a much greater complexity of factors).

  17. oldnat,
    ” the success of Iceland in the Cod Wars was due to a much greater complexity of factors”

    Fishery protection vessels cutting trawler nets so it fast became uneconomic for UK trawlers to operate there?

  18. “Senior Tories are urging Theresa May to pull tomorrow’s meaningful vote on her Brexit deal if she fails to secure significant concessions from Brussels….

    ..leading Conservative MPs have warned that the prime minister could face another three-figure defeat…..

    Tory MPs have advised May to replace the planned vote with a motion setting out the kind of Brexit deal that could keep the party together. They feel such a move would send a clear message to the European Union about the kind of concessions that might secure a parliamentary majority.”

    https://www.theweek.co.uk/100109/tories-tell-theresa-may-to-cancel-tomorrows-meaningful-vote

    A motion that could keep the party together..? How many decades too late..?

  19. “Senior Tories are urging Theresa May to pull tomorrow’s meaningful vote on her Brexit deal if she fails to secure significant concessions from Brussels….

    ..leading Conservative MPs have warned that the prime minister could face another three-figure defeat…..

    Tory MPs have advised May to replace the planned vote with a motion setting out the kind of Brexit deal that could keep the party together. They feel such a move would send a clear message to the European Union about the kind of concessions that might secure a parliamentary majority.”

    https://www.theweek.co.uk/100109/tories-tell-theresa-may-to-cancel-tomorrows-meaningful-vote

    A motion that could keep the party together..? How many decades too late..?

  20. Anyone got any thoughts on my post about the recent comres poll, that it seems to have too many tory remainers and too many labour brexit dont knows, which is likely to be skewing its results on what should be done now?

  21. There certainly seems to be a lot going on on these islands at the moment, not least the struggle between the House of Commons and the executive.

    Whatever the outcome of Brexit it is hard to imagine politics being quite the same again. Unless there is a landslide victory for one party at the next Westminster election – but I don’t think polls are indicating that, are they?

  22. Both main parties need to agree their Brexit positions, and present it to the electorate in a General Election.

    The Leader of the Tories in such an election clearly cannot be Theresa May.

    “Brexit means Brexit” is the most ambiguous, duplicitous and nebulous statement yet made.

  23. Oldnat

    The 19th Century has plenty of examples surely.

    The Treaty of Annexation of the Republic of Texas to the United States created a permanent union between two sovereign states.

    The incorporation of Savoy into France likewise.

    And Italy and Germany? No exit clauses there.

  24. Jonesinbangor,
    “Both main parties need to agree their Brexit positions, and present it to the electorate in a General Election.”

    What would that solve? The conservative policy is the government deal. The labour policy is a better deal than this. The former has been rejected by parliament and the nation, and the latter is arguably unattainable and likely to be rejected by the nation anyway.

    Th majority wants to remain. Even if one of the parties now stands for remain, you know perfectly well that a general election is about a lot more than one issue. Many people will not vote for what they want on brexit but for other issues. A big chunk will vote for UKIP, new brexit, libs, greens, all sorts, and will not win any MPs who represent their views. Both conservative and labour will get more MPs than their vote share entitles them to. A massive victory for SNP in Scoland will get them no closer to achieving the policies they want for scotland.

  25. The Trevor Collective, (et al.)

    The news just stated that approcimately 10% of Uk bank assets have already been moved out of the UK into the EU in anticipation of Brexit, and more will follow. That this equates to 1% drop in tax revenue. (which apparently is about £7.5bn). Which incidentally is most of our annual payment to the EU right there in this one item. More money is expected to follow.

    Going back to those economic models about the effects of brexit, Do any of them include this?

  26. A lot of leavers told us not to worry about the impact of Brexit on the City of London. I think it was @TOH who said he would be shocked if more than 10,000 jobs were lost, and others pointed to the relatively limited number of job transfers as evidence of overblown Project Fear.

    This morning, we have a new analysis, from a financial think tank New Financial, dedicated to better capital markets, with no obvious bias, which paints a disturbing picture.

    Instead of jobs, they have focused on assets. They identified 275 firms moving or preparing to move assets – “Banks have moved or are moving around £800bn in assets from the UK to the EU, insurance firms are moving tens of billions of assets, and asset managers have transferred more than £65bn in funds.”

    This closely matches an earlier (January) analysis by the FT, so seems pretty valid. They highlight that this is not a projection – it has happened, and is permanent –

    “….for many firms in banking and finance, Brexit effectively happened some time last year. The political uncertainty since the referendum has forced firms to assume the worst-case scenario of a ‘no deal’ Brexit with no transition period, and to prepare accordingly. Many large firms have had their new entities in the EU up and running for months, and having spent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on their contingency plans are not going to relocate business back to the UK anytime soon.”

    On the jobs front, they explain the discrepancy thus –

    “…we think the debate about how many staff have been moved so far and whether that is higher or lower than expected a few years ago is a red herring. Firms are keen to move as few staff as possible and so far at least regulators have been flexible. This will change in the next few years. We have identified nearly 5,000 expected staff moves or local hires in response to Brexit, but this is from only a small minority of firms and we expect this number to increase significantly in the next few years.”

    Less ‘Project Fear’, it seems, more ‘Project Complacency’.

    What are the real economy impacts though? the report finds that –

    “£800bn in bank assets is nearly 10% of the UK banking system. The final tally is likely to be much higher, which will reduce the UK’s tax base, supervisory influence and ultimately have an impact on jobs.”

    On a straight line comparison, the financial sector is responsible for around 6.5% of GDP, so that means we’ve potentially lost just over 0.5% of GDP on a permanent basis already.

    More alarmingly, finance plays an important role in the tax base, contribution around 11% of government revenues, which suggests a loss to the treasury of between £7bn – £8bn, again on a permanent basis. In a somewhat neat symmetry, this is very close to our current net contribution to the EU. No Brexit Bonus.

    There will be many leaver posters on here who dismiss this and come out with reams of data as to why yet another independent specialist group is wrong, but to repeat, this is not a forecast or a projection of what may happen in years 1 – 15 post Brexit. this stuff has happened. It’s a report from an insider research group that has simply counted the announcements and joined the dots. It is backed up by other data, from other independent sources.

    The loss of City jobs turns out to the be the red herring. These losses will follow, but it is the relocation of a huge chunk of the financial sectors assets that is the real Brexit story, and on this, Leavers have now completely lost the argument.

    Everyone else has just lost the money.

  27. Interesting survey,

    “Those aged 50-years-old and over who voted for Brexit, are “looking forward” to “fewer terrorist attacks,” a rise in their pension pot value, as well “cost of living falling.”

    That’s according to research by Atomik Research, on behalf of financial services company SunLife, which surveyed 1,000 people over 50 on 4 March this year.

    The group found of the 53% of respondents that voted leave the European Union in 2016, 87% would vote the same again, while 7.2% would now vote remain and the rest wouldn’t vote. Of the 42% that voted remain, 82% still would while 16% would now vote to leave the bloc.”

  28. JAMES B

    ” There was a reason I specifically said several, not a couple.”

    I believe there are several earlier I am sure you will find them if you look.

  29. OLDNAT

    “The arrogance of Charles I and his claim of divine right to rule, appears to be being replicated by May and her Ministers (though they invoke the deity of a referendum as opposed to an extra-terrestrial creator).

    I smiled at that one, remembering that the Stuarts were originally a line of Scottish kings, one of whom, James IV was silly enough to invade England and fight on poor ground so his pikemen were not effective against the English who were outnumbered. The battle was Flodden of course (Branxton would be more correct). Losses on the Scottish side were large in comparison to the English. The English were commanded by the Earl of Surrey.

  30. OLDNAT

    Thanks for your interesting reply.

    Indeed there are far too many refugee families in UN camps , few of whom had a choice in being caught in the war zone which came to them. ISIS Brides of course chose to go to a war zone & have children there.

    Sadly I agree with you that an International Programme for the ISIS children is unlikely. It will fall to Nations who recognise their own nationals amongst those children to do something.

    I’m pleased to see a report in The Times today that Hunt & Mordaunt are trying to find a way of repatriating ISIS children who have British Nationality. The key problem described is the need to get them from Syria to a country where UK has a diplomatic presence, like Turkey. The report doesn’t mention the vexed question of separation from their ISIS mothers.

    Yes the story of Australian native people is one of shame & sadness.

  31. Alec

    “The loss of City jobs turns out to the be the red herring. These losses will follow, but it is the relocation of a huge chunk of the financial sectors assets that is the real Brexit story, and on this, Leavers have now completely lost the argument.”

    Not at all Alec, job losses obviously not happening as forecast which you now accept. As to the movement of assets that will be reversed in due course if the UK leaves properly and starts to flourish as I expect. Nothing to worry about long term IMHO, if we leave properly.

    I would also point out that yet again you are equating Brexit with economic matters. It is much more than that as you well know.

  32. “Both main parties need to agree their Brexit positions, and present it to the electorate in a General Election.”

    I agree. We’re in a parliamentary democracy (albeit with faults and virtues of FPTP). That would be fair.

  33. Should have said quote above is from Jones in Bangor, apologies.

  34. The other Howard,
    “Not at all Alec, job losses obviously not happening as forecast which you now accept. As to the movement of assets that will be reversed in due course if the UK leaves properly and starts to flourish as I expect.”

    The current departures are because the banks cannot function in the UK, so must relocate to the EU. There is a cause and effect which has always been clear to me.

    What will cause banks to move into the UK?

    “I smiled at that one, remembering that the Stuarts were originally a line of Scottish kings,”

    Just because its amusing, go get a history of the scottish kings and their diasters and you will have a synopsis of the extraordinary events making up the plot of ‘game of thrones’.

    “The group found of the 53% of respondents that voted leave the European Union in 2016, 87% would vote the same again, while 7.2% would now vote remain and the rest wouldn’t vote.”

    Thats the thing. So what happens if instead they discover their pension funds are shrinking after brexit? Or even if their funds, invested in industry, are doing OK now those companies have relocated, but their children and grandchildren have lost their nice jobs? There is massive scope for disenchantment with brexit and demand for retribution against the politicians who pushed it through.

  35. @Sam

    “Senior Tories are urging Theresa May to pull tomorrow’s meaningful vote on her Brexit deal if she fails to secure significant concessions from Brussels….

    ..leading Conservative MPs have warned that the prime minister could face another three-figure defeat…..

    Tory MPs have advised May to replace the planned vote with a motion setting out the kind of Brexit deal that could keep the party together. They feel such a move would send a clear message to the European Union about the kind of concessions that might secure a parliamentary majority.”

    https://www.theweek.co.uk/100109/tories-tell-theresa-may-to-cancel-tomorrows-meaningful-vote

    A motion that could keep the party together..? How many decades too late..?”

    I’m not sure it’s possible to write on this without breaching the Comments Policy. But I’ll try. The PM promised a second meaningful vote by 12th March. She promised that if parliament rejected her MV2 proposal, other motions would be allowed including the “no deal” motion, and the “A50 delay” motion. Yet again the PM is moving the goalposts in a desperate attempt to save her Premiership and her Party.

    I’m sure most people want the votes to go ahead as promised and to let the dice fall where they may. Withdrawing the dice is not going to solve the problem – whether in term of her job, her Party or the UK as a whole.

  36. The immediate cost to the UK of Brexit, and the uncertainties about the deal and especially “no deal”, are being given little acknowledgement by the media. For example, I reckon the average reader of the Daily Mail does not realise that much funding for university research comes from the EU, and unentangling the arrangements could be difficult and slow.

    Those trying to cope, such as my son at Edinburgh University, have had long emergency meetings on this in the past month, so impeding their research and teaching work. Legal experts have been present, advising on how possibilities like Theresa May`s deal and “no deal” will be interpreted. I paste a wee bit of what has been posted on “no deal”:

    “”In the event of a ‘no deal’, the UK’s departure from the EU would mean we will be unable to access funding for Horizon 2020 projects immediately after exit day. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in 2016 that the government will guarantee funding for EU projects submitted before we leave the EU, including Horizon 2020 projects. This is referred to as the ‘underwrite guarantee’.

    Simply put, funded projects will continue as normal, but after the date of Brexit we will be paid by the UK Government rather than the European Commission. The University’s Finance Department has registered all the University’s existing awards with UKRI in preparation for this scenario. Should ‘no deal’ transpire, you will be contacted with further information and details of any action required as these materialise.””

    A major worry is that London civil servants will be slow to take over functions done meantime efficiently and smoothly by EU staff. They may be pernickety and awkward, like the Home Office has been in many of its functions. And how long will the UK funding continue, what happens about staff replaced in ongoing projects after exit day, how will payments for activity split by exit day (? March 29th) be managed, are among many questions not answerable. It is significant to me that a 2016 statement by the CoExch is being relied on.

    Meantime staff are dropping like flies, off for months through stress, heart attacks, etc, or simply EU nationals leaving for new jobs because they feel unwanted by many people in the UK.

    And the UK`s reputation among the research community has collapsed – we have become a laughing stock.

  37. @ DANNY – Appalling as it is many MPs see Brexit as an opportunity for their careers.

    Various CON MPs see it as a chance for the top job or “promotion”.

    Corbyn, McDonnell and LAB in general see it as a chance to get into power.

    Then, slightly more subtle and with a lot of IMHO:

    TIG – (Blairites) see if it partly as a way to break the far-left and hoping it is a way to stop Brexit, possibly looking at the “semi-retirement” opportunities in EC/EP (and are probably doing more harm than good for both their causes)

    SNP – see it as an opportunity to push their “raison d’etre”

    @ REMAINER BANK “EXPERTS” – Assets are not “value add” in terms of jobs or most taxes. Please just give the source to the reheated Project Fear story giving specific tax revenue numbers.

    The other question is whether this is directly “Brexit” related anyway. Banks had been moving to Dublin BEFORE Brexit as RoI has much lower taxes (income tax schemes such as SARP as well as corporation and bank related taxes).

    Lobby groups.. lobby… companies promote their self interests. A govts job is to listen to them as they should listen to trade unions – however, neither lobby groups nor trade unions should control govt policy.

    Influence, Yes. Control, No.

    The UK bank levy is a good case of bank lobbying (aka Project Fear) and the “compromise” it achieves. Here’s the Graun from back in 2015 when big banks were threatening to move HQs unless Osborne changed the bank levy:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/07/hsbc-to-reveal-plans-over-uk-headquarters-in-face-of-bank-levy

    Osborne did then water the bank levy down a bit and HSBC etc all stayed. Bank lobbying “influenced” HMG policy but it did not control HMG policy.

    There are plenty of ways HMG can “incentivise” banks to stay/expand/move to UK, some of which will be easier outside of EU. TBA if they do.

    Finally, any LoC worried about “City” jobs should really think about wanting to put McDonnell in #11. Compared to Brexit, McDonnell would be much worse. Now Gruan is anti-Brexit and anti-LAB so read this with “bias filter” on:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/27/corbyn-becoming-pm-is-worse-threat-to-british-business-than-brexit-says-bank

  38. The contrast between @Alec’s 8:18am post and @TOH’s 8:19am post re the financial benefits of Brexit is startling.

  39. @alec

    Predictably we have had the “Made it Ma! Top of the world!” response to your post about the financial sector.

  40. @ The other Howard

    It is interesting that you quote the findings of one survey of 1000 people in preference to the vast amount of polling which has taken place in recent months on whether people still want to Leave the EU or Remain.

    On the finding that 16% of the 42% of the sample who voted Remain would now opt for Leave – the number of those involved is far too small (well under 100) to be reliable. Polling generally shows almost no net movement among older voters – or indeed among those who voted at all. It is non-voters and those aged 18-20 who have produced the apparent 5% swing to Remain in the past 3 years.

    And ‘Atomic Research’ are not a conventional polling organisation, but a PR company whose own marketing shows that their aim is to draft questions and produce research which suits their clients’ agenda.

    “Atomik Research is an online creative market research agency that delivers qualitative and quantitative research results that will get people talking. Specialising in both quantitative and qualitative research methods we can help businesses, brands and agencies provide insights and generate headlines in the UK and abroad.
    As the in-house research division of 4media group, we have a strong PR and marketing background which enables us to script the most resourceful questions to get the best results and provide vital news links for strong editorial features.”

    https://www.atomikresearch.co.uk/about-atomik-research/

  41. @eotw

    I would say alarmingly predictable. Extreme Brexiters are beyond reason and every bit of scorched earth – political, social, economic and diplomatic – that they can create is simply evidbce to them that they are winning.

  42. @TOH
    I would also point out that yet again you are equating Brexit with economic matters. It is much more than that as you well know.

    For you maybe but how many of the 17,410,742 were swayed by the £350,000 a week? If it was unimportant why was it on the side of the bus? Why did every leave politician talk about the saving at every opportunity?

    It was always about the money.

  43. Removing May – order of “ease” but all with consequences for CON party unity and public perception

    1/ Enough cabinet members and/or ministers “threaten” her that they’ll resign if she stays (ie they force her to resign)

    2/ Enough CON and DUP MPs go on “strike” (depending on what TIG do this is a very small number) – CON+DUP make her position untenable so she resigns.

    3/ The “nuclear option” of joining other parties in a VoNC. HoC “sack” her.

    Waiting until Dec’19 is pointless as its so far out and due to “payroll” vote then its almost impossible to turf her out if she doesn’t want to go. I was against the leadership challenge in Dec’18 but in hindsight removing that option was tactically quite astute!

    May now has to “resign” or be sacked by HoC

    Most of 1-3 would possibly mean CON MP defections (Remainers to TIG more likely as ERG have the numbers to “work from within”). I’m sure LAB HQ can do the maths, even if Julian Smith can’t.

    Now you could hold a GE in a 3mth extension. Possibly agree with EC-EU27 that we won’t hold EP elections and hence have legally left EU at 11pm on 29Mar’19 so A50 can no longer be revoked and Remain becomes Rejoin…

    PS Good to see some folks mentioning “caretaker” PM! Members have pitch forks at the ready should we get another “stitch-up” but clearly a brief “caretaker PM” might be required. You even get wild rumours of Boris+Rudd teaming up.

  44. @raf

    If May does pull mv2 she has shown hersel to be both untrustworthy and impotent. She lost her parliamentary majority in a needless electionm she cannot control her Cabinet, she cannot command a majority in Parliament for the most important issue facing the British state for 80 years, her party will not let her lead it into the next election, and she is even incapable of acting with personal integrity. She has deliberately increased divisions in the UK rather than reducing them and followed the dictates of the extreme right wing of her party rather than leading the country. And yet the constitution of UK state is incapable of doing anything about it.

  45. @TOH

    “I believe there are several earlier I am sure you will find them if you look.”

    There were not, I’m sure you’d have presented evidence to support your statement if there were. Also, as I subsequently corrected myself, there aren’t even two, the one in January used different wording.

    Curtice’s whatukthinks site tracks pretty much every poll question and considers this to be asked only once.

    Also seems this same poll, much earlier in its questions and before it got to all the leading agree/disagree statements fed to it by the express found a further referendum at 55% remain, 45% leave…

  46. @TOH – “Not at all Alec, job losses obviously not happening as forecast which you now accept. As to the movement of assets that will be reversed in due course if the UK leaves properly and starts to flourish as I expect. Nothing to worry about long term IMHO, if we leave properly.”

    As I said, Project Complacency.

    You’ve responded to a specialist report into the sector which you’ve been told is saying the short term impact (that has already happened) is much worse than was predicted, and that the long term impact on the UK financial sector is going to deteriorate, and is permanent, and long term, whatever happens to Brexit.

    Your non-expert, inexperienced response, is that everything will be fine, if only your version of Brexit is enacted, despite the fact that all expert opinion says that your version of Brexit will make the financial sectors adjustments even worse.

    Can you see why sometimes people question the intelligence of some leavers?

    On more specific points, this isn’t me saying anything, this is the new Financial think tank, and they didn’t say job losses were less than forecast, they said that in time they will be greater than forecast, as they follow the money.

    Then, on the basis of absolutely no evidence or logic whatsoever, you claim that what you said wouldn’t happen that already has happened, even before we’ve left the EU, will automatically be reversed once we have left the EU.

    You then accuse me of “..yet again [you are] equating Brexit with economic matters”, which is again completely untrue. I simply pointed out one very major economic impact from Brexit that has already happened, without any other comment on the wider significance or meaning of Brexit.

    Indeed, I would agree that Brexit is not just about economics, in the same way that shooting oneself in the foot is not just about the resulting medical problems.

  47. Project Fear “reheated leftovers”, I’ll pick a Jun’18 version.

    “UK could lose £10bn a year in City-related tax revenue after Brexit”

    I haven’t found the “new” £7.5bn one in the “usual” places. Hopefully a Remainer can provide their source info so those that want to check the facts can see how they get their number.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/20/uk-could-lose-10bn-a-year-in-city-related-tax-revenue-after-brexit-mark-boleat

    It’s worth rereading the reheated stories though. Apart from the number being lowered in the new “story” they do point out that “Deal” or “No Deal” some of their fag packet maths will still generate a hit on taxes.

    What they obviously don’t consider is the possible benefits of a “Clean” and “Quick” break.

    Quick = EU are not ready so unless they want another debt crisis they’ll have to agree some mini deals (some of which they’ve already done, although with time limits). If we take years then they’ll be ready – they’ve been planning since 2015 (pre Brexit)

    Clean = a whole host of EC regulations can be dropped or tweaked. This is not a “race to the bottom” issue, some EC regulations are just cr4p and have unintended consequences worse than whatever “societal” good they were hoping to achieve (IMHO but more importantly in major banks making location decisions humble opinion!)

    PS I’m very happy to admit, as I always have, that Brexit is a change and there will be some -ves. HMG’s job is to mitigate those whilst also capturing the opportunities of breaking free of EC rules.

  48. The Trevor Collective,
    “May now has to “resign” or be sacked by HoC ”

    Why? Did you not notice she won a pretty decent vote of support at the recent challenge to her party leadeship, and soon after a vote of confidence in the house. I dont see anything has changed.

    May was chosen to be PM because she was the right person for a difficult job no one really wanted. She has succeeded in constraining the choice and making it clear to almost everyone that there is no good outcome from brexit. This was wholly necessary for the conservative party, whatever comes next. Managing expectations.

    Both determined leave and remain amongst conservative MPs can be satisfied she has created a situation which forces an arbitary choice, which has probably increased the chances of both hard leave and remain.

    She has fought hard to force parliament to take over the brexit process, which is about the only way the conservatives can save themselves from Brexit. If they dont make the final decision, then it isnt their fault. Or a least, less so.

    Conservative MPs were always remainers, chose a remainer as PM and would be well content if the final outcome is remain. Better yet if they can blame this on labour or even the EU. Events seem to be going that route as well as could be hoped.

  49. @ ALEC – I’m not paying 250quid+VAT for the full version but I’ll post your source for you:

    https://newfinancial.org/the-impact-of-brexit-on-the-city/

    I’ll also suggest folks find out who this group are and whether or not they have a “bias”. From their “about us” page:

    “What does New Financial do?

    At the heart of New Financial is a managed programme of around 30 private dinners, briefings and workshops a year at its premises in Green Park”

    They don’t disclose how they are funded!

  50. @RAF – I agree that not holding any of these votes represents a serious abuse of parliament. May stood in front of the Commons and made a series of promises, and indeed as I recall, the house voted on an amendment requiring this, as the Cooper amendment wasn’t withdrawn because – guess what – Cooper didn’t entirely trust the PMs word and so wanted her promises to be voted on by the house.

    Should May renege on her word, this would be very serious for her ability to manage the house (what is left of it) as no group would be able to have any trust in her or her government. That is a dangerous place to be.

    Secondly (and I’m no constitutional expert) I wonder about how the Speaker will respond to this. He has already shown a willingness to tear up protocol in order to protect the interests of members against the executive, and in the event of a PM deliberately going back on her word given to the House, I rather suspect actions would be put in train to facilitate the stripping of government control of proceedings in some form or other.

1 35 36 37 38 39

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)