Prorogation polling

Three polling companies – YouGov, Ipsos MORI and Survation – have so far released polling on the government’s decision to prorogue Parliament in mid-September.

YouGov polled on the issue twice – a snap poll on the day of the announcement itself, with the same question repeated overnight. The on-the-day figures were 27% acceptable, 47% unacceptable, 26% don’t know. The follow-up poll had a similar split, but with the number of don’t knows dropping off as people became aware of the story – 31% said it was acceptable, 53% unacceptable, 16% don’t know. Tabs are here)

Ipsos MORI did an unusual online poll (almost alone among pollsters these days, most of their polling is done by phone). They found 30% thought the decision to prorogue Parliament was right, 46% thought it was wrong. Tables are here.

Finally there was a Survation poll for today’s Daily Mail. This found a closer result, with the public fairly evenly split – 39% were supportive, 40% opposed (note this is rounding the totals for support/oppose after they’ve been summed, hence the apparent discrepancy with the tables). Tables are here.

Overall it looks as if the public are opposed to the prorogation decision – though it is unclear to what degree. Whether that really matters or will make any dent in the government’s support is a different matter. Opposition to prorogation is concentrated among Remainers (in YouGov 82% of Remainers think the move is unacceptable, but only 24% of Leavers, in MORI’s poll 74% of Remainers think it was wrong, only 20% of Leavers, in Survation 74% Remainers, 14% leavers). If most of the opposition to the move comes from people who are opposed to the government’s policy anyway (and I expect the more fervent opposition comes from those who were most fervently opposed already) the government are hardly likely to worry too much over losing the crucial “people who hated us anyway” vote.

Both YouGov and Survation included voting intention in their surveys:

YouGov’s topline figures were CON 33%(-1), LAB 22%(nc), LDEM 21%(+4), BREX 12%(-1), GRN 7%(-1)
Survation’s topline figures were CON 31%(+3), LAB 24%(nc), LD 21%(nc), BREX 14%(-2), GRN 3%(nc)

Changes in the YouGov poll are from a poll earlier this week, before the announcement. In Survation changes are from a poll three weeks ago. There is a little movement up and down, but certainly nothing that suggests the announcement has done immediate damage to Conservative support.

3,389 Responses to “Prorogation polling”

1 51 52 53 54 55 68
  1. Has anyone mentioned the Comres poll in the Telegraph?

    Should the result of the referendum be respected?

    Yes – 54%
    No – 25%
    Don’t Know – 21%

    No wonder Labour don’t want an election!


    On many occasions I’ve pointed out that prorogation was a “distraction”

    I’ve stated WHY with very basic maths (the number of days the HoC was able to sit before the start of prorogation being greater than the number of days it took Bill#5 to pass) – simples ;)

    As usual, the Usual Suspects display a shocking ability to read or understand my posts and/or a shockingly bad memory.

  3. @PETE B

    As you well know, Labour DO want an election, but not until no-deal has been binned.


  4. If the Supreme Court has any sense which I’m sure it has it will find in favour of the Government re suspension of Parliament next week, if only on the grounds that the remainer action is absolutely nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with stopping brexit .The courts are being used by a motley cross party bunch of remainers to overturn a democratic vote of the people in 2016 .
    Today the English court have made a judgement in another remainer action on the same matter and came basically to the decision that the legal system on the subject of Suspension of Parliament is a matter for the PM not the courts.
    Personally I hope Labour/SNP keep on with there shenanigans it can only strengthen Johnson’s hand in the next election in those marginal seats in Labours heart land.

  5. @PTRP

    “There in lies the paradox how can we have such a good economy and yet so many unhappy……….

    So saying we have less than 4% unemployment sounds good saying we have pay increasing over inflation this year is good but faced with losses of the previous years does not help at all

    it is rather stupid to think that people are happy.”


    Yes, but we had several decades of the policy, begun with Thatch and continued through the years of New Labour, of being more accepting of mass unemployment, and its downward pressure on wages.

    That policy changed under Cameron/Osborne/Clegg etc. and the policy was to get people back into work. Even if it was only a few hours a week self-employed or zero hours to begin with.

    Over time, as unemployment falls, it can assist an upward pressure on wages. And we’ve been seeing some of that, But the full effect would take time, it’s not going to happen overnight.

    Not that I’m saying I agree wholeheartedly with the policy. (I might have preferred the state creating more jobs, though with rather more care than usual as to what jobs you’re creating). But just that the full effects of the policy might be yet to be felt.

  6. Joke O’clock ?

    Q: What’s the similarity between a Unicorn and the Constitution?

    A: You can’t kill something that doesn’t exist :-) :-)

    PS I know Lord Voldemort lived of the bl00d of unicorns but Harry got him in the end, just took 7 movies to get there…

  7. @tonyebert “by convention referendums are usually considered ‘once in a generation’ events”

    As there have only been three UK wide ones is that really enough to establish convention?

    Regardless, I’m not comfortable with the concept of putting some kind of validity time limit on these things at all, there’s been a huge effort by all parties to read things in to these votes that are legally irrelevant.

    It was a non binding event, it’s validity as a measure of public opinion is confined to the day that it was taken, like any such data point, the further you attempt to project from that, the greater the uncertainty. There’s no fixed point where suddenly it’s past a sell by date.

    There was no specified winning conditions and no specified consequences, it was very simply a big opinion poll that came out with the numbers it did. Absolutely everything from that point is subjective interpretation.

    One of the reasons we’re in this mess is precisely because that window for interpretation was left so open wide.

  8. Joke O’Clock [2]

    Q: What’s the difference between a Leaver and a Remainer?

    A: Leavers are th!ck skinned, Remainers? no skin :-) :-)

    [2] Remember it 2 for 1 with meerkat movies at VoteLeave.dom

  9. @Danny

    “So we might be in the extraordinary situation that Scottish MPs are lawfully constituted to pass laws over the entire UK, whereas their English colleagues are barred from joining them?”

    Don’t you trust your Scottish brethren?

    “Lead us, don’t leave us”, was the clarion call.

    *Open a fresh tub of popcorn*

  10. Pere B;

    The result of the referendum was a 2-2 draw.

    That question that you are delighting in was ambiguous – some interpret it like you but many others take a deeper view, or one coloured by where they stay.

  11. PTRP

    @”I am not surprised but I suspect you realise whether you recognise it or not it did happen………”

    Oh I know it happened-as I just explained to you. I just don’t think it a desirable benchmark for economic wellbeing & progress.


    @”In fairness not much different to other crashes……or am I missing something.”

    I think you might be. I recommend Michael Lewis’s “The Big Short”.

    @”. Whether you think it is good or not or indeed whether I think it is good or not is actually not the point.”

    Indeed-my question is whether it represents a desirable data point for plotting sustainable economic progress.

    @”I could say you belief is that the your average voter should be grateful for where we are ”

    I feel sure they are not-and why should they be?. No politician will ever say -you/we were living beyond sustainable means. You don’t get elected that way.


    Will await his first Red Book to see Spend/Income/Debt forecasts-then I will decide.

  12. @ CIM – Excellent points made as always:

    “if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Session ruling that the prorogration was null and void, presumably that means that Parliament returns in the 2017-2019 sitting, not in the new 2019-? sitting”

    Indeed. That has a quite a few implications doesn’t it and not just the bullet back in the chamber and political “spin”. As folks will know I’m keen to see as many “rainbow zombie unicorns” released as possible especially the Mayb0t deal herd that might be considered lame if it’s still “current sitting”.

    However, since conventions mean absolutely nothing anymore then we just have to add another adjective (or sequencing of time)

    “lame, rainbow, zombie unicorns” ;)

    optional lipstick wearing as well…

    Avengers Assemble but we need the Rabble Alliance to dis-assemble.

    Tom Watson already slipping in the sequencing stuff (ref then GE or GE then ref) but I’m not sure any of the people I read posted S.Kinnock’s desire to bring back May’s (possibly lame, TBC) “rainbow, zombie unicorn” and we certainly want that back one back as folks like Hammond and Gaukward squad will happily ride that of the cliff rather than boil their heads (well probably, nothing is certain)

    I hear the EC-EU27 have a lot of money riding on the May deal herd (it was and still is their deal as well). I’m not going to even consider whether or not the judiciary were in anyway influenced by that (I’ll leave that to the RW press if/when needed)

  13. @tobyebert

    I would say one referendum per issue per Parliament would be a sensible rule. If the voters want a re-run, they simply need to elect a majority in Parliament for doing so at the next election.

    @Pete B

    Yes, though note Anthony’s recent post on the inherent bias of “do you agree with this statement?” questions – especially one like that. As that Comres poll is full of them, and the positive answer bias is very real, you reach some very silly conclusions by comparing the answers to two separate questions in it.

    52% of poll respondents said that the referendum result should be respected, but 50% of poll respondents (i.e. at least 2% overlap) said that they would prefer to remain in the EU if the alternative was Corbyn as PM.

    Among those over 55, the overlap rises from 52/50 to 70/54, so at least 24% of over 55s believe that “Leave means Leave unless it also means Corbyn”. Similar overlap for “voted Leave in 2016” where at least 30% both want the result respected *but* would rather Remain than have Corbyn as PM.

  14. @turk

    “If the Supreme Court has any sense which I’m sure it has it will find in favour of the Government re suspension of Parliament next week, if only on the grounds that the remainer action is absolutely nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with stopping brexit .The courts are being used by a motley cross party bunch of remainers to overturn a democratic vote of the people in 2016 .”

    The Supreme Court will make their decision on the legal issues before them, nothing less nothing more.

  15. Pete B,
    “Should the result of the referendum be respected?
    Yes – 54%
    No – 25%”

    Perhaps they were thinking the result of the NEXT referendum should be respected?
    What result would you predict if they asked:
    ” if another is held and the answer is different to the first, which should be respected?”

  16. @ TURK – “Personally I hope Labour/SNP keep on with there shenanigans it can only strengthen Johnson’s hand in the next election in those marginal seats in Labours heart land.”

    Indeed. I did hear there was a ‘People v Elite’ GE coming up and that CON and LAB were already in campaign mode (LDEM bit slow to catch up?)

    SNP were gonna win most/all of Scotland anyway and CON will lose the few seats they currently have in Arch-Remaina parts of E+W (ie London, Uni seats and the odd tiny “liberal elite” pocket in SE/SW E).

    However, the Midlands, North and Wales LAB-CON marginals are far greater in number (and although democracy seems to be “optional” for some folks then a majority of MPs is still a majority of MPs and at least CON will be rid of the decades old civil war over EU membership once we’ve left[1])

    What CON need now is for LDEM to raise their game and lower the threshold in LAB-CON marginals by nibbling away at a bit of LAB’s Arch-Remain vote. Swinson is in Corbyn’s pocket but she doesn’t seem to realise (maybe she needs a nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

    ‘All to play for’

    [1] Yes, I’m aware we’ll need to sort out a future relationship with EU but I’d rather do that from a position of being outside (and I’m very ready for the Boris in Trumps pocket stuff – as I expect he is)

    One for @ COLIN as well. Once we’ve left then I very much hope Boris builds the bridge for many (not all) of the victims of the purge. Folks like N.Boles who went early should be welcomed back IMO and Boris looks like he’s not just ending “austerity” but also ending “hostile environment”. I guess he does follow the polling (see the “immigration” in latest YG Eurotrack)

    Most important problems (p1), immigration:

    GB 11 (-4)
    other EU countries are all at least double that.

    That trend has been going on for a while (ie GB folks views on immigration has changed)

    Some other good questions in there but no major change from previous polling

  17. AC

    “Firefighters!! It’s so American…”


    Best word – both dead trendy and non-sexist – is “Firepeeps.”

  18. @COLIN

    I have read the big short. The difference in the crash was not what and why it had happened but it was scale. We have had several of these crashes before LTCM crash which some actually believe led to the 2008 crash due to the idea of too big to fail

    So what did I miss in 2008 that did not occur in 1998……..

  19. YG poll of folks views about who does/doesn’t want a GE[1]

    Boris: Net +7
    Wants a GE: 43
    Doesn’t want a GE: 32
    DK: 25

    Corbyn: Net -2
    Wants a GE: 37
    Doesn’t want a GE: 39
    DK: 24

    Not that much variance in the x-breaks but each “home team” is a bit more +ve

    Some Brexit questons as well – is Boris trying to get a deal or not?

    [1] Doesn’t specify a time period which is obviously very important but please note the absurd logic of FTPA Route 1 v Route 2 and the “old convention” of only wanting a GE if you thought you could win it

    See several posts from a few days back about risk of “puppet-squatter” PM and “squatter” PM and LAB’s 2020 (maybe 2021) calendar

    “Boris – still in #10 – exactly where we left him to stew”

  20. TO

    “Overall, I feel that the SC would do well not to attempt to reconcile the 2 different decisions, because I think it would necessitate creation of law rather than interpretation.”

    Not only that but, if their Lordships confirm that both the E&W High Court and the Inner House correctly interpreted the different constitutional principles in their relative jurisdictions, then any “reconciliation” would require the creation of new law in two different legal systems.

    Alternatively, they would require to prioritise one set of constitutional law over another – with no basis in law to do so.

  21. Are the Remainers in the HoC starting to look like a big bunch of playground bullies?

    I never thought about this until I saw their behaviour but I’d be interested in what the opinion of the people is.

    Anthony, any chance of including a couple of questions in the next Yougov poll on this issue but covering both Remain & Leave?

  22. @ BANTAMS – “They (Trevors) or their lawyers obviously missed the Scottish and possibly the Irish legal angle on the prorogation and the overall impact it might have”

    :-) :-) :-)

    So, now apparently, I’ve never posted anything about QC Phil E Buster (HMG-defense) or QC Ivor GE Towin (HMG-attack) knowing all the courts, all the time periods, etc that could contest cases but both are SMogg-spreading on the benches coz they haven’t YET been needed?!?

    One of the final lines in Usual Suspect[1] is:

    “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist”

    [1] I know you’re a Leave chap/lass but a Remainer friend of mine has watched that movie 100x and still doesn’t know how Keyser Soze pulled it off. It suits me for folks to think Leave are ?Roger “Verbal” Kint.

    Watch the movie, anticipate the decisions and actions of the players involved and maybe realise that appearing st00pid is maybe not a bad thing – especially if you’re lining up a “People v Elite’ campaign and are bovvered about losing seats you don’t even have (see AW’s point in the lead to this thread and build a GE prediction model or use Electoral Calculus with a big pinch of salt)

    PS Once we have left then I fully expect that will be challenged but then it won’t just be UK courts. There are 27 other EU countries and oohhh shocker quite a few of those have different states, regions, etc as well. So if we don’t Leave or keep delaying then maybe we know that as well!

    We could have made some challenges already but missed a few very short windows under “compliant” Mayb0t and note the main player (HMG) is of course under “new management” possibly a non-complaint “squatter” in #10 who appears to play by different “norms” (but then “no-norms” is the “new normal” isn’t it – especially if this is “unprecedented” or wasn’t written down)

  23. I’m genuinely confused.

    If PM Johnson has l1ed to the Queen about the reasons for prorogation as stated by Scottish judges, doesn’t that mean he also l1ed to Parliament?

    Instant resignation?

  24. YG Scots crossbreak (usual caveats)

    SNP 52% : SCON 19% : SLD 11% : SLab 8% : BrX 7% : SGP 3%

  25. PTRP

    @”So what did I miss in 2008 that did not occur in 1998…”

    If , by “1998” you mean LTCM- I am tempted to reply:-

    The collapse of large parts of the Western Banking system & a fundamental revision of global Banking Regulation.

    LTCM was a single organisation with a business model based on arbitrage of global value differences for liquid securities. It got caught out by the collapse of the Thai currency & subsequent 1997/8 Asian Financial Crisis.

    The 2007/8 Banking Crisis is described by Wiki as “considered by many economists to have been the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, to which it is often compared.[1][2][3][4]”

    As you say-of a different scale -and certainly with a different cause.

  26. YG a bit like buses and court cases today – you wait for ages and then 3 come along at the same time!!

    So new Westminster one.

    Sum(Leave) = 46 (-1)

    Sum(Remain +NATS) = 54 (+1)

    PS With all these polls you’d think LDEM would work out their is a GE coming?!? Non??

  27. @davwel

    “Will the Supreme Court next week have any Scotland judges sitting, I wonder? And if not, won`t this be a serious problem for the UK-wide acceptance of their decision.”

    I’d be surprised if all the justices don’t sit on this case given its significance (as they did with the A50 notification case).

    In any event, I believe it is UKSC practice to have a justice or justices with a background in the jurisdictions from which cases arise. There are two Scottish justices ( Lord Reed, the Deputy President and soon to be President of the Court, and Lord Hodge) and one from Northern Ireland.

  28. @ TW

    I was meaning the Government lawyers may have missed the subtle differences between the Scottish, Irish & English courts when defending the actions of Downing St. They also seem to have missed asking for a hold on the Scottish decision being implemented until the Supreme Court have judged on this. Are they a bit lightweight?

  29. Trevor WARNE: As usual, the Usual Suspects display a shocking ability to read or understand my posts and/or a shockingly bad memory.
    What’s wrong with that? Are you not trying to be read and understood?

  30. Thanks Hireton.

    That is reassuring.

  31. Not so sure that this judgement will have little impact on government support.

    Yes, it’s about arcane aspects of the constitution, which frankly bores voters, and yes, it’s part of a campaign to frustrate Brexit which infuriates many leavers (but really gets the majority remainers going) but….

    It may depend how the media report it. It’s noteworthy that the Mail and Torygraph online editions are sidetracking the main story to headline on the aspect of a row over Scottish judges’ impartiality. However, other media outlets (including BBC, ITV and Sky) are all covering the angle that Johnson has been judged to have abused his power and misled the Queen.

    If an impression that you l!e on a whim for your own political ends gets ingrained in public consciousness, then I think you have a problem.

    Secondly, whatever the reason, it’s another defeat. Strongman politics depends on being a strongman, but Johnson has been pasted repeatedly on all fronts and looks variously outplayed, outwitted and beaten.
    Again, voters love winners and tire of losers.

    On both counts, Johnson is now vulnerable. He is simultaneously promising to deliver the impossible and insisting he has the strength to do that. If he starts to look dishonest and weak, there is no reason left to back him.

  32. @turk

    “If the Supreme Court has any sense which I’m sure it has it will find in favour of the Government re suspension of Parliament next week, if only on the grounds that the remainer action is absolutely nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with stopping brexit ”

    It’s worth remembering that the Scottish case arose when there were briefings from within the UK Government ( following suggestions in the Tory leadership contest) that the UK Parliament should be prorogued for the entire period up to 31 October to prevent Parliament from having any involvement or oversight of the Johnson administration’s actionincluding a no deal. Do you think that prorogation would have been “democratic”.

  33. Anyone else seen the latest YG poll (9th/10th Sept).

    It seems that VI is

    Con 32 (-3)
    Lab 23 (+2)
    LD 19 (-)
    BRX 14 (+2)

    still a hefty lead, but moving in line with the others.

  34. Since Johnson became leader Yougov have seen between 9% and 12% leads. I think that 14% poll was just an outlier but it is not obvious that there has been any real movement since he became leader.

  35. @COLIN

    A CATO Institute study says the Federal Reserve didn’t need to rescue LTCM because it would not have failed. An investment group led by Warren Buffett offered to buy out the shareholders for just $250 million to keep the fund running. Shareholders were not happy with the price. He would have replaced management.

    But the Fed intervened and brokered a better deal for the LTCM shareholders and managers. That was the precedent for the Fed’s bailout role during the 2008 financial crisis. Once financial firms realized that the Fed would bail them out, they became more willing to take risks.

    The Cleveland Fed countered by saying the Buffett deal was only for LTCM’s assets, not its portfolio. That consisted of derivatives. Their failure would have damaged the global economy. Technically, the Fed didn’t bail out LTCM. It used no federal funds. It merely brokered a better deal than the one Buffett offered.

    Almost $100 billion worth of derivative positions could have unraveled, according to The Independent. Large banks throughout the world would have lost billions, forcing them to cut back on loans to save money to write down those losses. Small banks would have gone bankrupt. The Fed stepped in to soften the blow.

    Unfortunately, government leaders did not learn from this mistake. The LTCM crisis was an early warning symptom of the same disease that occurred with a vengeance in the 2008 global financial crisis.

    I will use my Iraq analogy on WMD, some people say that LTCM would have been bought out anyway but the shareholder would have been sunk and the Fed basically help get a better price. My view is that once people saw that you could get bailed out the issue of risk management became more ‘flexible’ we saw this in terms of interest rates for greek bonds where they were at the same level as german bonds for the EZ financial crisis. One could argue that it was madness (and indeed some people did argue it was madness as they did over UK house prices and the like)

    So the cause was actually the same the mismanagement of risk.

  36. “I never thought about this until I saw their behaviour but I’d be interested in what the opinion of the people is. ”


    A leaver wanting to know what the opinion of the people is?

    Let’s have another referendum….:)

  37. @Nickp – “If PM Johnson has l1ed to the Queen about the reasons for prorogation as stated by Scottish judges, doesn’t that mean he also l1ed to Parliament?2

    Of course he has, and we knew that already.

    I think the saddest thing about this is that we had a bunch of pro leave posters on here proclaiming that the 5 week prorogation was perfectly normal, and was purely to get a new Queen’s Speech past. They knew this was rubbish, but they still trotted out the l!e.

    It would be far better if we could just acknowledge that ‘our side’ has done something wrong/for purely political reasons, and then discuss the ramifications/pitfalls.

    So what if the prorogation was really about preventing parliament stop a no deal? if that’s what posters say they want, just admit it. Then, once the courts have decided it is or isn’t legal, we can discuss whether it was a smart move. We don’t have to suck up the politicians excuses. UKPR posters can be a little better than that.

    I for one am very worried about Speaker Bercow’s moves. While he has taken actions which suit my outlook, I am of the view that politicizing the Speaker’s role has been a very dangerous move, and threatens the core of parliamentary democracy. I’m not sure it was a good thing to do.

    Now – leavers – come on and admit that prorogation was nothing to do the the Queen’s Speech. Johnson l!ed to parliament and you know it.

  38. @ BANTAMS – I see your point.

    I know HMG folks were busy all Summer while Bercow was sipping G+T in 4* Turkish hotel and “hearsay” likes of Miller, Cherry, Grieve, Starmer, Hammond+co were enjoying a (possibly virtual) trip to Brussels.

    However once Team Dom took over then indirect lines went down, firewalls went up and although I can see (inspired guess!) some of the “moves” I can’t see all of them and of course it still relies on someone to make the “move” OR choose not to.

    My only other inside intel is that beyond looking very tired the HMG folks didn’t seem to be very worried which way the Prorogation cases went (possibly due to the dates maths issue I’ve posted multiple times?) but I have no idea if that was complacency (ie missing something possibly due to sleep depravation?), incompetence or simply – bovvered.

    I have to careful for personal bias. I’d like Indy Scotland so anything that puts a wedge between Scotland and rUK suits me.

    However, as I’ve said in many other posts legal cases are not just about the legal aspects. As we see with the “outrage” of Remainer press and Remainer folks over the initial decision to ask the Queen then political “spin” is a major factor and we see that again today (with Remainer press and Remainer folks).

    So was the point you make a deliberate oversight or a careless mistake?

    I dunno but I’m not uncertain of the flip-side “spin” given Boris is clearly running a “People v Elite” GE campaign and I’m not uncertain that Dom understand the political and economic “baggage” of Scotland (and “hearsay” he’s not a CON and UNIONIST member)

    I’d also point out that precedent are popping faster than cherries in freshers week and once you make/break one then.. well…

    @ TO – I guess I should be flattered by how many peeps don’t read my posts anymore, but frankly… bovvered ;)

  39. @Alec

    “It may depend how the media report it.”

    I noticed that despite it being 9/11, CNN has headlined the Scottish courts article all afternoon. Reuters is similar. Fox…nope. ;)

    So it seems to be permeating out of the UK and that’s unusual for UK news (other than elections, royalty, and major disasters) to be headlining internationally.

  40. @Alec

    “I am of the view that politicizing the Speaker’s role has been a very dangerous move, and threatens the core of parliamentary democracy. I’m not sure it was a good thing to do.”

    Has he? He’s been favouring parliament which is pretty much what the speaker should be doing. Much of this constitutional mess has occurred because we have a government that doesn’t actually have the confidence of the house but which the house is happy to leave in rather than either go for a GE or find anyone else amongst themselves who could command confidence. It’s equally arguable that it would be political for the speaker to side with HMG against the majority of MPs. Seems quite an unenviable position to me, you’d probably get told you’re biased whichever way you choose.

    “Are the Remainers in the HoC starting to look like a big bunch of playground bullies?”

    I’m sure that is something that will vary on the perspective from which the situation is viewed. That said, I’m struggling to see it given the aggressive nature with which johnson and cummings have tried to cut them out of proceedings (and their own cabinet for that matter)

    I think perhaps they may be looking irresponsible, they evidently have the numbers to do something but are trying to get someone else to do it for them. I think brenda’s reported comments about the inability of the present politicians to govern is probably accurate and that seems to apply to most of them.

  41. @Turk

    “if only on the grounds that the remainer action is absolutely nothing to do with democracy”

    If we go down that conspiracy-esc line of thinking, consider that Scotland did not want a Brexit referendum, and its voter were 2/3rds against it, and 100% of it’s constituencies voted against it.

    And all this at a time (2016) when 58 of 59 MPs were denied a role in Scotland’s governance, and were ignored by all and sundry when the warnings were raised (by parties of all colours in Scotland).

    Now what was that you said about democracy?

  42. @ BANTAMS – Quick PS and I fully admit I’m catching up a bit myself as I closed off a whole bunch of branches on Tues 1:20am-ish and have to try to reopen them (and the guy who built the system is “off-coms”).

    I do know folks knew the likely timelines of various cases and party conf dates.

    That is probably more than I should give away for today though ;)

    I do hope LDEM’s start to twig that Cobyn = TINA as the stakes start to get a lot higher if they don’t.

  43. PTRP

    For the reasons I have given & as already stated, I think the 2007/8 Banking & Credit Crisis was of a different order to the failure of the hedge fund you quote.

    Different in scale, effect & cause.

    More significantly, again as I have tried to outline, the underlying theme of the pre-2007 Crash-ie unsustainable deployment & use of cheap credit is still with us as Central Banks attempt to do heavy lifting for mendacious politicians.

    Anyway-much of this subject is in the history books , which we can both read at our leisure.

  44. I don’t suppose this will get any plaudits here………..but its an interesting point of view I think :-) :-) :-) :-)

  45. [email protected]: Would they be able to decline to comment therefore throw it out because of irreconcilable laws or would they vote on which follws the spirit of the law best

    So I believe if the latter is the case then Justice Sumption comment that Boris l!ed would be seen as a fact but in English courts is seen as unimportant but Scottish court as important.

    Taking the last point first, exactly that. Which is where the conundrum rises for the SC.

    On the first point, let’s take a step back. To prove a case, it must be proven on facts and on law. Others here, including WB61 and Hireton will be able to put it more accurately in legal terms, but the essence is that to prove on facts, you must show that the alleged act took place and to prove on law, you must show that the thing proven to have been done is unlawful. Effectively, in your terminology, declining to comment is actually to throw the case out on law, ie even if it did happen, it is not unlawful.

    WB61 [1131am today] has explained that on appeal, a ruling from a lower court on the facts is normally accepted unless the ruling of fact is obviously perverse.

    So where we are now:


    High Court – Not proven on Law, no ruling on facts


    Court of Session – Not proven on Law, no ruling on facts

    Appeal in Court of Session – Proven on facts and on Law


    So this puts the case into the Supreme Court Proven on the Law and on the Facts in Scotland , but no ruling of fact or law in England.

    This leaves the Supreme Court with a ruling of Proven on the facts from Scotland and no countervailing ruling against on the facts from England, because the English Court did not appear to take a view, since the case was ruled out on law [I have only skimmed the summary judgement, not the full judgement]. My guess is that the Scottish ruling on the facts will be taken at face value especially after Lord Sumption agreed on WAtO today.

    So what about proving on Law? The essence of the difference between the English and the Scottish rulings is the applicable law. My take on this is that as the Scottish ruling is based on unrepealed Scots Law prior to the Act of Union, it will be a hard push to overturn it. At the same time, it seems to me that the English ruling may also be correct on English Law.

    Unless the SC can find grounds to overrule either the English or the Scottish rulings on a matter of Law, I think they are almost bound to uphold both rulings with whatever consequences follow rather than come out with an integrated ruling which overturns either English or Scottish Law. Effectively, if they vote without being able to find one [and only one] of the lower court rulings wrong in Law, they will effectively have to overthrow the Law in either Scotland or England to give a single ruling.

    I am no expert, but I believe that it would be ultra vires [beyond their powers] to overthrow the law in either jurisdiction. So, I think their route through may be to uphold both Scottish and English lower court rulings and then make a UK ruling, which I think would have to be to uphold the Scottish Ruling.

    That in itself has interesting ramifications, in that the UKSC is the only UK Court and I think that such a judgement would be better made in a lower court and reviewed on appeal.

  46. Hello denizens of The Pooliverse
    Two things re the prorogation controversy, first the advice given to the Queen was given in Scotland.
    Therefore, surely the Scottish court should get precedence as to its judgment that that advice was unlawful.
    Secondly, the response to folk signing the anti-prorogation petition, quite cheerfully admitted that the “will of the people” as expressed in the 2016 referendum had to take precedence! And therefore prorogation was fine.
    ( Back in May, at the time of my last visit I said the Tories would continue to make a balls of things, and Jezza will be PM in an Autumn election. Maybe not an election, maybe a cross party agreement?)

  47. I see Johnson has heavily rebuffed Farage’s advances
    A spokesperson said: “The PM will not be doing a deal with Nigel Farage.”
    A senior Tory source added: “Neither Nigel Farage nor Arron Banks are fit and proper persons and they should never be allowed anywhere near government.”

  48. Hireton

    I wonder it that criteria applied to the Scottish Court in a fiercely remain Scotland.

    As to the English Court I trust there independence completely .
    As their is no legal precedents regarding a elected Prime Minister suspending Parliament ,we will see how the Supreme Court view remain MP’s using the courts to control Government decisions they object to.
    Whatever the result the Government must comply with the decision given out by the Supreme Court. At least we can agree to that.

  49. Could this happen in the UK:

    A French company has been found liable for the death of an employee who had a cardiac arrest while having sex with a stranger on a business trip. The firm had argued the man was not carrying out professional duties when he joined a guest in her hotel room.

    But under French law an employer is responsible for any accident occurring during a business trip, judges said.

    He died at a hotel during a trip to central France in 2013, as a result of what the employer called “an extramarital relationship with a perfect stranger”.

    The company challenged a decision by the state health insurance provider to regard the death as a workplace accident.

    The provider defended its position by insisting that sexual activity was normal, “like taking a shower or a meal”.

    In its ruling, the Paris appeals court upheld this view.

    An employee on a business trip is entitled to social protection “over the whole time of his mission” and regardless of the circumstances, it said.

    So in future are Frence businesses are going to have to send out pairs of people handcuffed together on business trips so neither can do anything to endanger themselves.

1 51 52 53 54 55 68