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 54 55 56 57 58 68
  1. @sam

    Re the qoute from the Irish Times:

    “Judges will join MPs as enemies of the people – ….”

    except for viewers in Scotland:

    https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1172038330491555840?s=19

  2. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Sounds all too chillingly relevant today…..

  3. Yougov 9-10 sept.

    cons -2, lab no change, lib -1, Bxp +1 WNV -1, DK +1.

    Changes pretty small of course, but trend was a reversal of the conservative’s recovery seen in recent times.

    Labour voter retention compared to 2017 is the worst of the big three. Which either means they dont have a very attractive message, or it means there is more scope for them to attract back people historically inclined their way.

    Judging by Kinnock and others, it remains a war whether the way to go for labour is to seek a compromise with leavers, or to strongly resist leaving. BJ has plainly nailed his colours to going firmly with leavers. Libs found to their cost that simply ‘tory light’ was not an attractive brand image.

  4. Operation Yellow Hammer – timeline

    Firstly a modern spin of an old phrase:

    “Yesterday’s news is today’s recycling”

    Now the timeline:

    24 July – Boris becomes PM (HMG = “new management)

    Week1 – Purge1 Remain and anti-Boris MPs from HMG (bit OTT IMO as mentioned at the time). Get the “Holy Trinity”[1] back for the reuinion tour (same old songs as VoteLeave1 and the unreleased album of Boris GE’17 and Mayb0t’s solo tour was awful)

    Week 2 – Asses the incompetence of the last “management”

    2 Aug – Report on state of play AT THAT TIME (ie Mayb0t controlled by Arch-Remain Hammond + Gaukward squad had done very little as we see in the release of some of this old info)

    Summer – busy, busy, busy, busy

    Early Oct – hope MPs don’t force you to release the info but anticipate that they probably will and with Arch-Remainer Bercow as “ref”, expect you’ll have to release some info.

    I had no clue what they would release but it is very likely they expected they’d have to release something and although this is “old news” then it has allowed another long blow on the dog whistle of Remain press.

    Lots of polling on “short-term” disruption and whether folks think it exaggerated (ie Project Fear2) or not.

    I’ve always stated they’d be some “issues” both risks and opportunities (and initially the former would be both larger and the immediate priority). I refuse to use the “mitigation” word anymore and much “comprehesive package of solutions” but seems even new management are using the old baggage laden term – for now anyway.

    So what next?

    Well we know BoE have updated their bonkers doomsday scenario (not a prediction – some folks still don’t understand the difference) to horrific from catastrophic but look at why they changed, when they changed and by how much they changed.

    BoE Catastrophic (old HMG) becomes Horrific (new HMG and already out of date)

    New HMG has said they’ll release more info and anyone doubt Bercow will permit SO24s to demand the release of that info.

    So Goke has a few weeks to make sure the new info is much better than the old info.

    It’s often called “Expectation management”

    Anyone with a Real World background that has ever had performance related pay will know the term – you allow a feeling of “bad” to set in and then having built up the “under promise” feeling then you “over deliver”

    At least that’s what I’m hoping and expecting but for sure y’day was not a good day for the “Holy Trinity” but then the tour hasn’t started yet and the big concert of GE day is still in the future.

    “All to play for”

    PS Did anyone spot CON nicking another one of Corbyn’s plans (“Build it in Britain”) and seizing an opportunity of being outside the EU?
    Nope, me neither, they really didn’t spin that very well and seem to have the old saying backwards.

    “A bad day to release good news”

    FFS VoteLeave1b don’t f*k it up AGAIN. It’s not just 2 for 1 on our side but it’s 2 for 1 for LAB-Remain (ie PM Corbyn and Remain in EU). The steaks are high (and will very high in 2nd half of Oct)

    [1] Ropey old boy band but Boris = The (G0d)father, Goke = The son (and in charge of drugs), Dom = The Holy Ghost (everywhere and nowhere at the same time)

  5. @Statty

    “But I’m sure the article was good. :D”

    ——

    Although you weren’t keen on the author, inspired by the fact you didn’t seem to disapprove of the article itself, and its critique of EU appointments, I read the article Colin posted about the latest batch of “new executive appointees to oversee us all.”

    Including the “Vice President for “Protecting our European Way of life”.”

    Which has aroused some consternation. “A Dutch liberal MEP, Sophie in ‘t Veld, told The Independent that implying “Europeans need to be protected from external cultures is grotesque and this narrative should be rejected”. Other Europhiles denounced the title as “grotesque”…”

  6. Can anyone offer informed speculation about what might happen in practice if the SC decides the prorogation is illegal under Scottish law and not justiciable under English law?

  7. DANNY

    @” Thats all very well, but brexit isnt something amenable to compromise. ”

    He thinks it is-that is to say he thinks there is a majority in HoC to be found for it.

    I have no idea whether he is correct on the numbers, but I agree with him on the objective.

  8. T -2 days to LDEM conf (Glee Club) so get the posters, song sheets and logistics sorted

    Posters:

    Vote Swinson = Get Corbyn

    Songs:

    No more “It’s a sin” (Farron shop boys)
    and “Ode de joy” is on hold due to LAB (ie LDEM) Brexit policy of delay, fence sit, delay, who knows..

    So start printing out and practising:
    “Red Flag” (Marx brothers)
    “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn” 2 Nation Army (as Scotland and NI will be gone under his watch)

    Logistics: bad news

    The taxi bill for MPs has gone up. This year 4 taxis will be required but don’t blame the currency for the inflation and at least you’re smart enough to not let anymore xCONs in

    You might need Soubs, Hammond, etc to go under the bus for you if you do actually have a plan:

    Plan A: “Operation Bounce Corbyn” – sincere good luck if you can pull that off ;)

    Plan R: “Revoke” – create the chaos under which Macron says Revoke v No Deal and ensure you’ve been following the polling (ie be first to commit fully to outright Revoke and then a conf.ref to follow. Since the conf.ref is in the future then quietly drop it later)

  9. CIM,

    Labour won’t reopen the WA unless the EU wanted to due to PD changes as that is what Labour will concentrate on.

  10. @B&B

    Sadly, not mine. I saw it in another (private) discussion group and thought it deserved wider circulation. The only thing that the anonymous author and I have in common are we are both G&S fans.

  11. @Danny

    “Yellowhammer cat and mouse continuing, the government having merely released the document already in the public’s hands, which I seem to recall it said at the time it was first leaked…was already out of date and no longer the working version.”

    Very good point.

  12. CIM
    As far as I can tell the real problem for Lab is that TM’s govt acceded to EU demands on sequencing. The acceptability of Brexit to Lab leadership depends on having a suitable future relationship that is defined in a treaty (so it can’t be dismantled by a Tory govt). In other words, Lab can only afford to countenance Brexit if they get to negotiate the future relationship, so they need to win an election before the WA is passed.

    It doesn’t make any sense to have a 2nd ref until we know what relationship we would have with the EU if we were to leave, but the EU won’t agree a new relationship whilst we’re still members…

  13. Error in 9:44am (and no time to anticipate the teed- up pedantic response)

    “the steaks are high”

    Accidental or deliberate mis-speling?

    Pigs (and pegasus-unicorn x-breeds) can fly but cow’s can’t.

    This sh!t is real as they say in Tufton St and we don’t want to be treading in Corbyn’s stuff ;)

    Yes, I spent a bit of the Summer not just reading scripts and watching movies but writing a few of my own… more later.. at the appropriate time…

  14. Presumably the People’s Vote campaign will drop the Lib Dems when their policy moves to campaigning for revoke rather than referendum? It seems that Labour candidates should be the ones endorsed in most cases.

    Curiously, there’s nothing about it on their website or twitter feed.

  15. @Danny – “Yougov 9-10 sept.

    cons -2, lab no change, lib -1, Bxp +1 WNV -1, DK +1.”

    Where are you getting that from?

    This is Britain Elects

    CON: 32% (-3)
    LAB: 23% (+2)
    LDEM: 19% (-)
    BREX: 14% (+2)
    GRN: 7% (-)

    via @YouGov, 09 – 10 Sep

  16. Hal – I think Swinson may have over played her hand with the revoke move and a number of her MPs are on record as backing ref 2.

    One positive I suppose is that it obviates the question Labour are facing; what would be the leave option on the ref 2 ballot?

    Taking a position to avoid have to make a tough one is not a good enough reason in itself for shifting, imo.

  17. @sorbus

    In the event that the Supreme Court upholds both lower court decisions, then Parliament would need to be recalled to comply with Scottish law (as the judgement under English law doesn’t *require* that Parliament is prorogued right now, just allows that it could be)

    @sorbus / @Jim Jam

    Points taken on the WA/PD issues – thanks.

    @Jim Jam / @Hal

    Yes, there does seem to be some pushback from the “Democrats” half of the party on this – conference next week may be interesting to see if there’s actually enough of them to affect the outcome. Strictly their policy would be to revoke only if the Lib Dems win a majority, and work with other parties for a referendum otherwise, so in practice it’s still a referendum but *looks* remainier than Labour.

  18. “No, it’s claire fox for goodness sakes. She’s several clowns short of a circus. Gone from bonkers marxist to bonkers libertarian.”

    ——-

    Ah, you don’t approve of her either. Still, even if she’s a Marxist, or indeed a Libertarian, I don’t think she’s responsible for the latest EU appointments pointed out in the article, including the VP for Protecting the European Way of Life.

  19. Guy Verhofstsdt tweets

    “Note to the new @EU_Commission: there is a European way of Life that deserves protection. It’s our desire to live in a free & tolerant society, our love for democracy, our attachment to the free market ànd strong social security. From Stockholm to Naples, from Dublin to Riga(1/2)”

  20. CIM,

    Does that LD policy mean they can avoid answering the what leave option on the ballot question?

    They could say our policy is to revoke and only back Ref 2 if we are in not in control. As such we would want to see what suggestions the lead party in Government have etc etc.

  21. A question for anybody who has been following the prorogation cases more closely than I have – much is being made of the idea that Johnson misled the queen, but is there any evidence of that? The court has certainly found that there was a difference between the government’s public pronouncements and what was discussed internally, but if that were a crime then every politician in the country should be locked up. Is there evidence covering what was actually discussed with old queenfeatures, if anything even was?

    I wonder if the government have got themselves into trouble by playing politicians over this and insisting that it was routine. If they had just admitted that it benefitted them to ensure that the conference recess went ahead, might both courts have been forced to rule that it was a political matter and so not justicable? According to some chatter from legal types this morning, the judgement in Scotland might not be based on any different law than the english one, so that sounds like it’ll be the crux of the case.

    COLIN

    Times report sounds very much like what I have always thought should happen. It seems that the government is trying to remove the backstop by agreeing the final status of NI, and if the DUP are on board then who knows. Allowing Stormont a role could be a real sticking point though, the EU have always rejected the idea of the people of NI having any say in their future.

    ALEC

    In answer to your earlier question about what leavers think their side have done wrong, I’m happy to agree that the government were wrongfooted recently. I think that the hardline stance, the prorogation, and the kicking out of the 21 were all moves intended to eat the hard Brexit vote and force an election. Having done so and secured a majority, I reckon the plan was to immediately pivot into passing a deal. Now that that’s backfired the government is going to have the difficulty of getting the deal (which, as per whispers I mentioned in a previous post, is actually much closer to agreement than you might think) past a fractious and divided commons. It might be achieveable, but it runs not inconsiderable risks of being amended to include nasties such as a second referendum, or a customs union.

    JIM JAM

    I don’t think most of the Lib Dems will have much difficulty in coming round to a straight-up revoke policy. It would seem a necessity for them to maintain their position of most remain-y party if they’re to hold on to their polling numbers, and it’s an easier sell on the doorstep than Labour’s still convoluted mess of a policy. After all, it’s not like the Tories or BXP are going to feel any need to offer a second referendum in their manifestos.

  22. @Sam

    I have a feeling the last part on ‘strong social security’ doesn’t sit well with right-leaning Tories. It will translate as ‘benefits culture a.k.a. high tax’ to them, and that could be part of their overriding reason to want to dump the EU.

    Although, I’m more inclined to investigate any 3rd party communications and mutual friend links between ERG MPs, and the millionaires shorting on Brexit and the markets. It stinks of lobbying of the worst sort.

  23. Hireton – what is happening to the Hootsmon?

  24. CARFREW

    @”Ah, you don’t approve of her either. Still, even if she’s a Marxist, or indeed a Libertarian, I don’t think she’s responsible for the latest EU appointments pointed out in the article, including the VP for Protecting the European Way of Life.”

    :-) :-) :-)

  25. @Sam

    “Note to the new @EU_Commission: there is a European way of Life that deserves protection. It’s our desire to live in a free & tolerant society, our love for democracy, our attachment to the free market ànd strong social security. From Stockholm to Naples, from Dublin to Riga(1/2)”

    ——

    Yes, that must be it, because that’s unique to the EU, innit.

  26. SORBUS

    Are these tweets useful?

    Jessica Simor QC
    @JMPSimor
    ·
    1h
    The State has three arms: the executive (government), legislature (Parliament) and judiciary (Courts) Only if all three can function effectively do we have democracy. 1

    The Government has the power to close Parliament (usually for a period of 3-5 days) to introduce a new legislative programme, (the power to ‘prorogue’). The Government claimed that this is what it was doing when it closed Parliament, albeit that it did so for 5 weeks. 2/10

    The Scottish Court rejected that explanation for closure. It found on evidence that the Government’s true purpose was to prevent Parliament from carrying out its core function; scrutinising the executive and thus protecting the interests of ‘the people’ whom it represents 3/10

    Unsurprisingly perhaps, the Court found that purpose to be unlawful since it necessarily involved the executive in stymieing the democratic role of the legislature, thus undermining a core tenet of democracy – representation of the people. 4/10

    Unusually, in a case such as this the Government, while claiming that its reason for prorogation was merely for the purposes of a Queen’s Speech, it did not provide sworn evidence as to its reasons or reasoning. 5/10

    Consequently and as a result of other information obtained by Dominic Grieve, Parliament ordered the Government to disclose all relevant communications relating to the decision. This is material that the Government should already have disclosed in the court proceedings. 6/10

    Yesterday, the Government refused to provide that material in defiance of Parliament. Only Parliament can address that failure. The Government is however, treating Parliament as still closed. A catch-22. 7/10

    The Supreme Court will have to deal with all this and more on Tuesday. It will not have the material sought by Parliament, which should already have been disclosed to the Courts. Its approach to that will be interesting. 8/10

    And finally, there is some irony in No. 10 and @KwasiKwarteng claiming that Judges are entering politics. What is happening here is not political but constitutional; the Scottish Court is maintaining the institutional balance of the Constitution that ensures democracy. 9/10

    The Court upheld the institutional rights and obligations of Parliament, the arm of the State that directly represents ‘the people’ vis a vis the executive.
    @RobertBuckland discharged his constitutional obligation to protect the Judiciary in carrying out this fundamental task.10

    https://twitter.com/JMPSimor/status/1172091223886192640

  27. “I don’t think she’s responsible for the latest EU appointments pointed out in the article, including the VP for Protecting the European Way of Life.”

    She isn’t and I don’t doubt that some country’s nominations will not be without chequered pasts, this is politics after all. I just don’t view fox as a particularly reliable source given her tendency to swing between wildly opposing extreme points of view.

    I have now skimmed through (sigh) and I’m feel I must be missing the point as I can’t see any obvious one, other than the EU is protectionist (yes, it is in a number of respects, not quite sure why this keeps being pointed out at some kind of shocking fact), the usual grumbles about the EUs setup (that seem to miss that, in pretty much every democracy, the positions of state in the executive never are directly elected – even here in the UK there is no requirement that even the PM must be an MP, it’s just someone who can obtain confidence of the house, and they can then appoint and fire who they want to and from ministerial positions, who again, don’t have to be MPs – and even when they are, they’re only ever elected by their ~80,000 constituents who are then denied an effective representative because of the time requirements and cabinet collective responsibility, I’ve never been convinced our system is very good in that respect).

    And then it ends with the falsity that the EU is somehow keeping us in against our will.

  28. @Colin

    :-) :-) :-)

    ——–

    Can’t help noticing they are trying to say the “European Way” is stuff lots of folk outside Europe also happen to adhere to, like democracy and the free market. Rather than ordoliberalism, say.

  29. Sorbus,
    “Can anyone offer informed speculation about what might happen in practice if the SC decides the prorogation is illegal under Scottish law and not justiciable under English law?”

    Paliament would not have been prorogued so resumes sitting, or government organises an alternative prorogation or recess.

    Colin,
    “He thinks it is-that is to say he thinks there is a majority in HoC to be found for it.”

    There might be a majority to be found in the commons, but that will not change voters reaction outside the commons. Although I have argued before that whether a majority can be found in the commons critically depends on what MPs believe will be voters reaction. And what MPs really believe…is unlikely to be what they state publicly.

    Alec,

    “This is Britain Elects ”

    I quoted the actual stated voting intention, as I normally do. You are quoting the ‘headline’ voting intention. I happen to believe the raw data is more informative, con on 23% and lab on 16%.

    It shows better how little support they really command, and the change figures are actual numbers of people changing sides. In particular this approach emphasises the 29% undeclared for any party. They mattered a lot last time.

    The headline figures ignore that ‘none of the above’ is currently winning.

  30. @Jim Jam

    If people were seriously asking that question, it shouldn’t get the Lib Dems off the hook, since they’re still going to have opinions on what the leave option should be in that circumstances to bring to the coalition/C&S negotiations, and should be able to state those opinions in advance.

    That said, Labour having set out a definite position on the question means that if the Lib Dems stuck with a referendum as the primary option, they’d need to both set out their own answer and have it be more Remain than Labour’s, which can’t really be done. So the move to revocation probably does succeed in avoiding that bit of it, yes.

  31. Jim Jam,
    ” I think Swinson may have over played her hand with the revoke move and a number of her MPs are on record as backing ref 2.”

    I dont. I think its clear there are a big chunk of hard remainers, and she needs to emphasise they are the most remain party. If labour ends up supporting some sort of brexit, then being the true remain party just could get the libs serious numbers of MPs.

  32. Could some anti No deal Tories, who either want a second ref or a Brexit deal (either May’s or something softer equivocate before voting for a full revoke LD candidate.

  33. It looks to me that Swinson is targetting former Conservative voters, so is desperate to differentiate LD policy from Labour.

    Any “I agree with Jeremy” moment would be lethal to her ambitions.

  34. Northern Ireland’s courts say……………..no!

    Lord Justice Bernard McCloskey said:

    “I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.”

    “Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national.”

    In his written judgement, he added: “Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society.”

  35. @JamesB

    “I have now skimmed through (sigh) and I’m feel I must be missing the point as I can’t see any obvious one, other than the EU is protectionist (yes, it is in a number of respects, not quite sure why this keeps being pointed out at some kind of shocking fact), the usual grumbles about the EUs setup (that seem to miss that, in pretty much every democracy, the positions of state in the executive never are directly elected – even here in the UK there is no requirement that even the PM must be an MP, it’s just someone who can obtain confidence of the house, and they can then appoint and fire who they want to and from ministerial positions, who again, don’t have to be MPs – and even when they are, they’re only ever elected by their ~80,000 constituents who are then denied an effective representative because of the time requirements and cabinet collective responsibility, I’ve never been convinced our system is very good in that respect).”

    ——–

    To note that most democracies lack perfection to is to sidestep the concerns in the article rather.

    And also, while technically it may be possible for people to be unelected in Parliament, that isn’t what tends to happen is it.

    (Mind you, compared to Verhofstadt’s tweet…)

  36. Tweets today from Jennifer Rankin, Brussels correspondent of Guardian

    “EU 27 diplomats were briefed on Brexit talks this morning and were told the British had presented no proper, written proposals, on replacing the Irish backstop.

    In Wed’s meeting David Frost and team outlined ideas on customs and manufactured goods in the context of alternative arrangements to backstop.
    But the EU side do not think the ideas are adequate and continue to press for details.

    UK also asked for changes to the political declaration – a reference to a “best-in class” free trade agreement as goal.

    EU side repeat any trade deal must ensure a level playing field to avoid “Singapore-on-Thames” race to the bottom.
    Refer to March 2018 guidelines.

    Officials in Brussels don’t think a breakthrough is imminent. A return to the NI-only backstop is seen by some as the only landing zone, but UK continues to say no backstop.

    I asked one politician closely following Brexit if they were optimistic about a deal by 31 Oct.

    “No. I just don’t see the political majority, the political will, the leadership. The Labour leadership is extremely weak. They have got no clue what they want.”

    EU diplomat on latest Brexit talks: “another longish meeting on Wednesday without tangible progress” although UK gov “seems to better recognise the unique situation” on Ireland.

    Number 10 needs to understand that the time for wish-wash is over if it wants to find a solution.”

  37. Yellow hammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem.

  38. JIM JAM

    Could some anti No deal Tories, who either want a second ref or a Brexit deal (either May’s or something softer equivocate before voting for a full revoke LD candidate.

    I’d reckon the number of anti no-deal but still pro-Brexit (kind of) Tories that the Lib Dems might repel by shifting position will be outweighed at least tenfold by the number of hardline remainers they stand to attract from Labour by taking an unambiguous position in favour of revoking A50.

  39. @ GARJ – “much is being made of the idea that Johnson misled the queen, but is there any evidence of that?”

    According to Scotland – YES

    UK?? Find out next week

    @ JJ – “Could some anti No deal Tories, who either want a second ref or a Brexit deal (either May’s or something softer equivocate before voting for a full revoke LD candidate.”

    If I’m decyphering your post correctly (highlighted the key bit) then I’d suggest go back to all the previous votes (easy to obtain), comments (bit harder) and any “inside intel” (spies, etc)

    It’s more challenging due to the “payroll vote” under May (and the abstain in IV1 and IV2) and the various purges (starting with self-purge of Soubs, Wollaston and Allen)

    However taking each group in time order:

    1/ The original trio (Soubs solo and 2 in LDEM): YES, p=v.high
    2/ Boles: NO
    3/ Grieve + co (ie always backbench, n=3-10): YES, p=high
    4/ Purge (ie Hammond, Gaukward squad that not in #3, n=7-12): MAYBE, p= middle
    5/ Rudd: YES, p=high
    6/ Bucket 3 on Dom’s “purge list” (ie still in CON, eg Lidington, Ellwood, etc). UNLIKELY. p=low to v.low

    Just IMHO of course but I very much doubt the above sums to the amount of LAB or xLAB MPs that would be needed to offset it.
    (I’m assuming of course that SNP, PC, Green, LDEM would all back a ‘Revoke’ vote directly with a non-Corbyn temp PM)

    There is obviously also a timing and sequencing issue to consider. As the clock nears 31Oct then probabiite and numbers for above xCON(+some bcket “3” CON) will rise (and possibly pressure on LAB numbers to drop).

    However, unless Corbyn breaks and/or Boris “bottles it” then I don’t see above playing out as Corbyn will have HUGE power in the 20-mid20s Oct window and I expect him to use it (think we agree on that)

    However, it’s worth checking the reasonable range of numbers in a

    “Revoke with non-Corbyn temp PM” v “No Deal with Boris”

    NB see comments about LDEM needing to “bounce” Corbyn and create the chaos under which EC-EU27 force a “no 3rd extension – pick something”

    PS I assume Corbyn wouldn’t move to straight Revoke as although the current internal LAB unity is rippling it is not breaking and as daft as the current LAB Brexit policy is then it is just about keeping the PLP united (maybe not the members though and seems to be some tension intra-unions and union v members if I’m reading between the lines correctly?)

    However, if Corbyn won’t then that does set up the possibility that someone else has to (that will take you back around a full circle and IMHO burn a few days in late Oct but Bercow might well allow multiple trip around circle same day and certainly weekends)

    Probably guessing too far ahead now but given Bercow’s track record then maybe we see crazy stuff like IVs for “temp PM” and sequential same day use of S024 (yes, I’m a bit paranoid!!)

  40. @CIM

    “In the event that the Supreme Court upholds both lower court decisions, then Parliament would need to be recalled to comply with Scottish law (as the judgement under English law doesn’t *require* that Parliament is prorogued right now, just allows that it could be)”

    Is it as simple as that? Upholding the Engish Court ruling means that in English Law the Order in Council is valid, and the Order in Council does *require* that Parliament is prorogued.

    At root, this is a problem beacuse the Acts of Union expressly do not create a single jurisdiction but expressly do create a single Parliamentary institution.

    Multijurisdictional institutions are much more common now that they were in 1707. The EU is a notable example of course. Courts usually resolve such problems by coming to the conclusion, somehow, that the same rules apply to each jurisdiction. I suspect the UKSC will manage to do that here.

  41. @ JJ – In above 4/ includes Dr.Lee who same day self-purged to LDEM (hence why MAX(#3 + #4) = 22

  42. Ironic that the Lib Dems propose to deny democracy to Brexiters while JC’s bunch of anti-democratic tr0ts will be offering a chance for both leavers and remainers to have their say for a second time.

    I can’t work out what Swinson thinks is going to be gained electorally here, the remainer Tories she’s attracted will be repelled by what will be painted by both Tories and their media mates as a high-handed power grab against the will of the great unwashed and Lab once the broadcasting rules for elections kick in as denying democracy.

    I’ve yet to see her make the right call on anything so far, she seems to still be enjoying something of a honeymoon period due probably to not being Johnson or Corbyn, but strikes me as either useless or ill-advised, probably both.

    It seems a risky strategy to hope to split the remain vote with Lab in the same way Farage PLC will split the Brexit vote with the Tories and simply hope to universally end up with a higher split universally across the board than any of the others.

    We have certainly ended up paying a very high price for Clegg signing up to coalition without having PR written in blood beforehand, and I lay the current Brexit and constitutional shambles very firmly at his door, for without needing something to give away in 2015 when he wasn’t expecting to win the election Cameron surely wouldn’t have promised the referendum.

    My late Tory father detested Wilson with unrestrained passion for the rest of his life but reserved even more venom for Heath, whom he saw as the ultimate betrayer. I choose not to go through life with that particular outlook, but do not expect history to be kind to Clegg once this is all resolved in ten or twenty years from now.

  43. WB 61

    Thanks for the clarification re the case in E&W.

  44. Garj,

    The question is in key LD/Con marginals if full revoke nets more than ref 2 with remain, don’t see getting any extra myself and may lose a few wavering Tories as above.

    Taking Labour votes in Lab/Tory seats doesn’t help the LDs achieve their aim of reversing Brexit and in fact undermines it if the Tories take seats Lab could have won/retained..

    Not arguing the merits or otherwise of the LD shift just considering the impact which might be a few % more for LDs but more Tory MPs.

  45. @Bantams

    So if Boris Johnson decided to prorogue parliament for a year, or until the next general election (if longer) he could do so; and the details mentioned by the judge in your extract simply would not take place.

    If the Supreme Court ultimately finds that the power to prorogue is not justiceable, Parliament will swiftly move to restrict this power. Ultimately, I do not think we will ever see again a parliament suspended for 5 weeks.

  46. @ DANNY – Who are “we” (as in me)

    Time line (DK, WNVs removed):

    23Jun’16 (EU Ref): 17,410,742 (52%)

    1Feb’17 (Gina Miller conf.ref, MPs): 498 (81%)

    Mayb0tch GE: nightmare, 4million ish voted LAB, lots of K!ppers were no show and some oldies in rich parts of UK even voted LDEM. It’s still too upsetting to reflect on the numbers

    However, WE (on UKPR) are now just the Royal We = 1

    I amalgamated all the tr0lls views into one a few days back, quick summary.

    – Trump-Putin joint venture that has created a meerkat-b0t with SRBM nuclear weapons (model 13.7 and my serial number is 1234567)
    – Made in N.Korea for “plausible deniability” if we get caught
    – On assignment to Tufton St.
    – Currently “gone dark” (ie “off-coms”) as mission is back on (VoteLeave1b) so we can’t talk to the other 17.4million (or MPs)

    I’ll bring back some old stuff:

    Special Agent Soubry (SAS) went “dark” ages ago and we’ve lost contact. We’re worried she’s been turned.

    Her mission (and she chose to accept it) was to the split the Remain vote.

    However, like most MPs she seems to have f*kd it up and her “party” imploded.

    It’s possible she’s smarter than she looks and waiting for the right time to move in late Oct.

    If she delivers then she’ll be Dame Soubry and get a seat in the Lords. If she fails then it will a case of Anna Who??

    PS Do you remember.. the 21st night of September (2018)[1]

    Brexit = Kobayashi Maru (impossible Star Trek mission that Capt Kirk somehow managed to beat)

    Well deja vue all over again n’est pas?!?

    So did Capt Kirk cheat (if so he didn’t get caught or banged up did he)

    or…

    Was he just that f*king good that he rescued Brexit AND beat the Corbyn

    TBC – so stay tuned to fine out in the next episode…

    ;)

    PPS Sticking with Star Trek you could consider “we” as the “borg” or perhaps Remain should consider “us” as the minions (Despicable Me franchise) who like a good laugh and will work for whichever criminal genius is ruling the planet ;)

    Confused? I hope so..

    Your doing the Brexit = boring bit (BOB) with the scratched record stuff (ie playing the role of HoC = parliament / elite)

    I’m doing the “WTF let’s just this done and never have a ref again role” (ie the people)

    IE “People” v “Parliament/Elite”

    “all to play for”

    2 for 1 with meerkat movies at EITHER

    DeliverBrexit+DefeatCorbyn.DOM or

    RevokeA50+PMCorbyn.EU

    [1] No idea what the date was but Earth, Wind and Fire song slipped into my head.

  47. TED – you make the point I have being trying to make with interest with differentiation seemingly more important than potential delivery for Swinson. Would have though Uni Fees was a salutary lesson?
    I think ole Vince would have taken a different approach as would Ed Davey but maybe we not the best persons to judge?

  48. Sam

    “Hireton – what is happening to the Hootsmon?”

    I think it’s just continuing its normal 21st century practice of backing whatever party seems to have the best chance of stopping indy.

    Once, that was SLab. After their collapse, it became SCon. Now (as with much of the Scots media) Swinson is the favoured one to save Scotland from the insurgent hordes (while allowing the evil to increase their hoards).

  49. Daily Mail has an exposé of the villains sitting on the bench in the Court of Session

    https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/1172015270589870081

    One has a “passion for France.”

    Another, who predicted Brexit would be “an onerous task”, is the lead singer and bassist in the Faculty of Advocates jazzband “The Reclaimers”.

    Surely the similarity of “Reclaimer” to “Remainer” is more than enough to prove their bias and thus for the UK Supreme Court to sneeringly overturn their so-called “judgment”?

1 54 55 56 57 58 68

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)