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 65 66 67 68
  1. Culmination and Tipping Points – Revisited for Remain side

    A while back I showed these two “points” for Leave side, using Electoral Calculus since its the best online easy to use model.

    As a rough guide then at 10-15%ish then Farage could stop CON having any chance of winning an outright majority in a GE (that’s the “culmination point” at which CON cease to exist as a party capable of forming HMG since only DUP would “help” them)

    However, BXP would need to get to 20%+ before they started winning many seats and anywhere in the 15-25% range would would help LAB a lot more (via winning CON-LAB marginals) than it would help BXP.

    Beyond 25%+ ish then the “tipping point” starts to push CON down to very few seats and allow BXP to emerge as a contender as THE Leave party, initially just stopping anyone else forming a majority as they’d need to be 35%+ to become largest party etc..

    The same clearly applies on the other side. Hence LDEM in the 15-25% zone is great for CON in the same way that BXP in the 15-25% zone is great for LAB (or LDEM if they emerge as “THE” Remain party)

    NB It should be clear that its not just uniting ones own side but it is also about dividing the other side. Ideally you need to achieve both (ie unite your side and divide the other)

    NB1 There are some subtle differences as LAB have likes of “Red Leicester” (cheesy joke) and very deep tribal votes that LDEM will never turn “Orange”. As we saw in EPs then CON’s tribal vote gives them precious little base support once their VI starts to collapse.

    NB2 Yes, I’m aware SNP are already THE Remain party in Scotland.

  2. @Alec

    “regarding ‘evil genius’ Cummings: many people forget he was Ian Duncan Smith’s political adviser, way back when”

    By comparison with IDS, pretty much anyone with half a brain would look like a genius.

  3. @Crossbat11 – that is an interesting post.

    I live in an ultra Lab/Con marginal, where the Lib Dem vote in 2017 was just over twice the Lab winning margin, and a couple of hundred votes bigger than a BNP candidate. No one else stood.

    I am already aware of two Lib Dem voters who will now back Lab, and if the Brexit Party is to stand here, then I think Lab have a reasonable chance of holding on. I can’t see many Lib Dem voters staying orange when they know that they will in effect be voting for Johnson.

  4. @ NORBOLD – The poll is still live but at 11:35am then

    Revoke as GE manifesto policy:

    Legitimate: 47%
    Not Legitimate: 41%
    DK 12%

    I’m pretty sure we’ll get a huge split the x-breaks on that one and keen to see the LAB x-break for sure ;)

    Come on Swinson, you can “bounce” Corbyn and if he’s not for “bouncing” then together we can share out some LAB seats (on a 3:1 CON:LDEM ratio with LDEM taking the Uni seats) :-) :-)

  5. I think some are over complicating the issue, at the next election I will vote Libd-em as it is the only party in my area that has a hope of beating the Conservatives. If Labour was in the best position I would vote for them

    For me it is anyone but Conservative/Brexit Party

  6. @ Alec

    “We’re at an interesting point with Brexit now.”

    I beg to differ. Any fascination with endless discussions of Brexit disappeared even before the referendum. Ask almost anyone in the general population.

    @ CB

    “In my view, this is the meat and drink of what we should be discussing on UKPR”

    Yes, exactly, the polling implications are both far more interesting and the apparent reason for this site. I’ve been wondering about Farage’s tactics for the next GE, if it actually happens sometime soon. Say what you like about Farage and his views, but he’s certainly proved to be a great at strategy and usually one step ahead of the game. But I can’t quite see how he’s going to play the next GE yet.

    Clearly Plan A would be a pact with the Tories, but it’s unlikely to happen. Standing candidates in all constituencies appears to be counterproductive to his cause, though maybe he knows better. The best I can think of is that he only stands in Labour seats (which are Lab/Con fights) and very safe Tory seats, hoping to steal a few from both, but without any risk of letting a more EU friendly party come through the middle.

    Sedgefield would be an interesting example. With 22k for LAB, 16k for CON and and very low LibDem/Green showing, then BXP could hope to convert some of the both the LAB and CON voters (along with picking up the previous UKIP voters). They’d have to do well to overturn both LAB and CON, but there’s no risk in standing there. At worst (from the Farage point of view) LAB would hold, and there’s a chance of either a CON or BXP gain depending on where BXP’s votes come from.

  7. @ Garj (and Alec but later to the bar… )

    Thanks- sounds a bit complex but what you say explains it at least.

  8. GARJ


  9. TW,
    The lending of votes to Labour in 2017 was more regional/national than seat level imo.

    If you compare Colne Valley with Huddersfield the % increase im Lab and decreases in LD and G were quite similar, despite a much more extensive ground campaign by both Lab and Con in Colne Valley (the Labour campaign in Huddesrfield was confined to the freepost and some letters to young voters)

    This suggests that most voters switched to Labour on the basis of the national “2 horse race”, which I would call “national tactical voting”. There is usually a strong correlation between the national vote and constituency votes for all Parties and it takes a very intense ground campaign sustsined over years (as in Lib Dem targets) to really switch things much on a locsl basis.

    On your Scottish point, of course the SNP are the largest Remain Party in Scotland, but not “the” Remain Party. I wonder if the “hyper-Remain” revoke stance of the Lib Dems may peel off a few Indy voters who care more about Europe than Independence, or even feel solidarity towards English friends faced with no deal Brexit and no possible Indy get out clause.
    On the other hand some Tory tactical voters may desert the Lib Dems if they care more about Brexit than defeating the SNP.

  10. @ Crossbat

    Agreed. Unfortunately one of the unknown questions is if tactical voting works out or not. I’d really love to see some polling on this- ie if the Lib Dem/Labour candidate is best placed to beat the Tory how would you vote?

    Obviously the problem is equating to specific seats but even so they should be able to work something from the demographics for an MRP sort of calculation.

    Also scratching my head on why the BXP vote is holding up so well- what exactly is it they want from Johnson- do they still not trust him to crash out? In the tables this is mostly coming from ex Tory voters so it isn’t a case of Labour leave going to BXP in huge numbers, although it is clearly true that in many of those towns there is a large demographic of voters who would never vote Tory.

  11. Graun oversteps the mark by several km

  12. Shevii,
    The current BXP vote expresses resentment far beyond Brexit and much of it has come from Labour not the Tories. I think most of the leak back since the Euros has already occured and what is left may be quite hard to shift.

    Johnson may have made a tactical error in slagging off Farage so comprehensively in response to Farage’s rather ridiculous seat swapping plan

  13. @Shevii – “Also scratching my head on why the BXP vote is holding up so well- what exactly is it they want from Johnson- do they still not trust him to crash out? ”

    Nail on head.

    Johnson’s problem is now satisfying the hard core. He’s promised them everything, which a deal cannot deliver. Farage now doesn’t want a deal, which completes his migration from Norway to no deal in less than four years.

    He is like a dog chasing a car. If he ever catches up with the car, it’s a disaster as he only exists to do the chasing. So he can’t get involved in the grubby business of cutting a deal, as he exists only to campaign against the EU.

    I suspect that we might find a situation where Johnson gets a deal and then has to face defending it in a GE against Farage on one side and the remain/referendum on the other.


  14. @Crossbat11

    Although it is only anecdotal, the six people in that Guardian article (all ex-Lab) split: BXP 3, Tory 1, Lab 1, Abstain 1.

    It does rather support Paula Surridge’s analysis that ex-Labour voters are likely to go to the Brexit Party not the Tories. We may well find that in a GE the voters break along similar lines to the EP elections.

  15. @Andrew 111

    “Graun oversteps the mark by several km

    Poor form by the G. That’s inexcusable.

    Re: Sajid Javid’s tweet in response. He clearly has never seen a copy of the Daily Mail.

  16. Of note:

    Threads extending to over 3,000 posts are rare on UKPR. At 3,314, there is a strong possibility that this is the longest ever thread.

    It certainly feels like it.

  17. 3,315 – Alec
    3,316 – Me

  18. @ ANDREW111 – ?!?

    I’m not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing. There were a lot of ABC “tactical voting” (TV) websites for GE’17, and a bit of grassroots “paper/pulled candidate type issues” as well, but it’s impossible to say for sure how many seats it cost/denied CON and what % of TV occurred in each seat, region or at national level but FPTP is a seat level system.

    My point was that GE’17 is not a “clean” set of data at a seat level as it already includes some ABC TV. In next GE the level of ABC TV might go up, or down OR we might even see some ABL concerns (and obviously NATs important in Scotland and parts of Wales).

    Anyway, taking your two examples, GE’17 (change on GE’15)


    A safe LAB seat that became very safe – ABC vote breakdown

    LAB 60.4 (+15.5)
    Green 3.2 (-3.7)
    LDEM 2.6 (-3.2)

    IMO the increased turnout was also a boost for LAB (and same in many seats)

    Colne Valley

    A CON-LAB marginal that CON should have kept. If you go back to 2010 then LDEM were 2nd place (so bled VI to ABC in both 2015 and 2017)

    LAB 47.8 (+12.8)
    LDEM 4.1 (-1.9)
    Green 1.5 (-1.9)

    So Huddersfield was what I’d call “vote stacking” (ie there was no need for LDEM or Green to vote LAB as LAB were going to win anyway) where as Colne Valley had a little bit of TV and LAB only just won it.

    So Remain’s issue is IMO that LDEM go back to “the old days” of running a PR campaign (higher % of national vote) in a FPTP system.

    LDEM and Green have always been screw3d by FPTP (as were UKIP in GE’15). Hence LDEM do more to harm one of the larger parties than they do to help themselves (in Thatcher era they hurt LAB, Blair years they hurt CON and in next GE they MIGHT flip back to hurting LAB)

    There are lots of seats where LDEM were once a contender (eg Colne Valley) and if they ever want to be considered as a serious threat at a national level they have to break away from “lending votes” and strive to reach the “tipping point” where Swinson has a realistic chance of gaining 50+ seats (at which point they might be kingmakers and might get the system changed to PR)

    However, there is a timing and sequencing issue involved in breaking the “Anti No Deal” alliance and trying to become THE Remain party.
    (see my post on culmination and tipping points)

    Of course if LDEM say LAB are pretty much the same on Remain and folks should just vote for whichever ABC party has most chance in each seat then Swinson won’t win as many seats (and quite possibly never have a shot at being “kingmaker” as LAB might only need SNP to form HMG).

    PS It’s much easier to see this in a model and, sadly, as good as Electoral Calculus is then it’s TV function doesn’t capture the ABC issue (not IMO anyway)

  19. Trying to reconcile com res (28% Con, 27% Lab) vs Opinion (37% cons , 25% lab)

    Difference 1 – turnout:
    Com Res weight to an equivalent of a whopping 85% turnout.
    Opinion implied 70% turnout looks more sensible.

    Difference 2 unregistered voters:
    Opinion screen for not being on the electoral register to represent the 10% of the electorate not registered = c. 4m people. Opinion does not seem to grant much probability of them registering between now and a GE. I think this slightly understates Lab as a GE attracts new registrants, largely Lab.

    Instead of analysing not registered. Com Res have 15% “did not vote” in 2017 who are heavily Lab/Lib Dem. These could include those too young to vote in 2017. They give this group a 50% turnout – strongly Lab/ Lib Dem concentrated.

    Difference 3 don’t knows
    Opinion have more don’t know than com res (15% vs 10%)

    Difference 4 – sample.
    And there is a raw data difference, even within the sample stratifications opinion had more conservative leaning respondents.
    Particularly this is noticeable at young ages, where Opinion are showing a result that is very different from 2017 GE, suggesting young people have switched massively from Lab to Con while Com Res stick to closer to 2017 result, I don’t think this is right.
    In my opinion opinion have an issue with the younger part of their sample.

    Overall I would accuse Com Res of attracting too many people interested in politics, while opinion are not attracting representative youngsters to their smaple.

    I would trim opinion figures slightly down conservative and up for Labour. Say 33% Con and 29% Lab.

    Com res is harder to adjust, I think their implied turnout is way off and the whole thing is not tractable.

  20. Has anybody run the numbers in Jo Swinson’s seat. She lost in 2015, what are the odds on the SNP with its current VI taking the seat back. Then what for the Lib Dems?

  21. Said Dominic Raab: “What we are slightly reticent about doing given past experience is putting pieces of paper which will get leaked and rubbished by the other side”.

    Writing stuff down just ruins it – makes it seem stupid and unacceptable.

  22. Cameron confirms that Johnson sent him a text message before he announced support for leave that he thought Brexit would be ‘crushed’ in the referendum.

    The entirely transparent motives of Johnson are completely confirmed by this.

    Hard to think of a time when we had such an odious l!ar for a PM.


    “Following the “constructive” meeting, Downing Street spokesperson said: “The leaders agreed that the discussions needed to intensify and that meetings would soon take place on a daily basis.”

    However, the Commission was less upbeat. In its statement following the lunch, it noted that Juncker had reminded Johnson it was the UK’s “responsibility” to come up with legally operable alternatives to the backstop.

    “Such proposals have not yet been made,” it added.”

    Good old UK won’t be writing down anything for the EU to rubbish.

  24. £187,500 worth of LibDem lost deposits to overcome and 59.6% of candidates losing deposits.

  25. Southport : a rare GE’17 example of CON winning a seat due to Remain vote being split.

    However, who should Remain vote for in next GE?

    LAB were second so need the smallest swing and deserve a shot?
    LDEM were traditionally the ABC contender and surely want a crack at it?


    1992, 2017 CON
    1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 LDEM

    Until 2017 it was a LDEM-CON marginal. EURef 54% Leave
    Age demographic = above average

    GE’17 (change since GE’15)

    CON 38.7 (+10.7) – gain from LDEM
    UKIP 2.4 (-14.5)

    sub-total 41.1 (-3.8)

    LAB 32.6 (+13.4)
    LDEM 26.4 (-4.6) – lost to CON
    Green NC (-2.8)

    sub-total 59.0 (+6.0)

    NB 2015 Ind didn’t stand in 2017 but no idea whether they were Remain or Leave so excluded them from above numbers.

  26. YG Live poll is finished so we can see the overall and x-breaks on LDEM’s Revoke policy.

    Closer than I expected (obviously a lot of Remainers with free times on their hands that were toned down via weighting process)

    Obviously if you just Revoke with no 2nd ref then another party can simply Retrigger without a ref (and once we’ve left you have to reapply via A49) – pretty sure Farage knows that and is ready and waiting if Boris “bottles it”.

    PS Not a good poll for “Dave” although his priority for now is book sales so I guess no such thing as bad news?!?

  27. Continuing this morning’s discussion on tactical voting, what nobody has remarked on – presumably because it’s of no significance to the result – is the large number of totally safe seats. There are 107 seats with majorities in excess of 40%, and no less than 229 – over a third of total seats – where the majority exceeds 30% These are the seats where the candidate can issue his election address from a grave in the municipal cemetery, and still win.

    Contrary to immediate expectations, these are the seats where tactic voting is most likely to happen, but only between the no-hopers. My constituency (Con maj 40%) has seen three different runners-up in the last three general elections (LibDem, UKIP, and Labour respectively).

    Doncha just love FPTP!

  28. @Dave M

    EC has Lib at 66% to the SNP’s 33%, with 0% for all others.

    In contrast, Orkney & Shetland is 83% Lib and 17% SNP.

  29. ALEC
    “The way out of this would be pretty simple I would have thought, in that in passing a WA, MPs could simply pass an amendment overturning the relevant clauses in the 2018 bill.”

    That won’t work. You need to pass legislation to amend legislation. Unless legislation provides otherwise.

    The WA vote provided under the Benn Act isn’t legislation.

  30. SAM

    All of which just backs up what I posted. It’s impossible for the UK to come up with proposals which the EU’s negotiating team won’t immediately shoot down for failing to meet their (extreme) requirements for the Irish border. The problem is fundamentally political, in that Johnson et al need to persuade the leadership of the EU to show flexibility and widen the negotiating mandate of Barnier’s team to enable the expolration of alternative arrangements. Until then there’s no point, the answer will just be non. Whether this is at all achievable is another matter entirely.

  31. The yougov poll rerenced by TW above has this:

    If a party stood on a manifesto of staying in the EU and won a majority in a general election, do you think it would or would not be legitimate for them to keep Britain in the EU?

    Would be legitimate 41%
    Would not be legitimate 38%
    Don’t know 21%

    Which strongly suggests that a lot of people don’t accept that a specific manifesto commitment and GE win are enough to legitimise a major constitutional change, so presumably it has to be a referendum.

    That not only undermines the LD stance, but also all the brexiteers who have championed a GE as sufficient to legitimise a no deal brexit.

    Actually, in the highly hypothetical event of an LD overall majority, I’m pretty sure they would go for a confirmatory ref in what would clearly be the golden glow of a stunning remain victory.

  32. There are only 22 constituencies in which the Lib Dems are in second place and within 25 points of the winning candidate in 2017

  33. “A deal between EU and UK is more likely than I had thought – my conclusion after 2 days of meetings with EU, member-state and UK officials. Senior figures on EU side say they can scrap backstop as long as alternatives deliver on protecting a) single mkt; b) GFA. /1”

    See the tweets from Charles Grant that follow on this link

  34. @ Andrew

    I agree that those BXP are mainly likely to be older ex ex Labour perhaps either having gone Lab to UKIP to Tory or straight Lab to Tory.

    However the Yougov crossbreaks clearly have a margin of about 2-1 coming from Tories in 2017 vs Labour and in actual fact roughly 4-2-1 if you include Lib Dems as the 1 which of course doesn’t make any sense to me why 3-5% of Lib Dem voters in 2017 are now suggesting they will vote BXP.

    The problem for remain will be if the Labour element stick to BXP while the Tory element drifts back to Tory.

  35. @ JIMR

    Great post and thanks- I wish there were more posts like yours.

    I don’t mind the chat which is way better than CIF but it is good to have more posts on what this site is meant to be about.

  36. We got a 2-page leaflet from the SNP this morning, obviously targeted at our W. Aberdeenshire & Kincardine constituency.

    It has a pic of our Tory MP, Andrew Bowie, and when my wife brought it in from the letterbox, she commented it looks like Bowie has joined the SNP.

    The whole leaflet is spent on attacking the Conservatives. Here are snippets:

    Johnson, a leader with no principles or conviction.

    Ruth Davidson embarrassingly ignored; other SCONs in open revolt.

    Alister Jack, the SoS, is given a nice pic; he openly advocated the Cons in Scotland being a real, separate party.

    Your “”local MP”, Andrew Bowie, is no friend of devolution, and is “saddened” that there are two governments in Scotland. He backed Johnson for PM.

    As discussed earlier in this too-long thread, the LibDems are the main rivals to the SNP in shifting Bowie here, but get not a mention in the leaflet. WAbd&K is certainly not a seat the SNP can count on, but in the absence of Scotland polls with good regional breakdown, we can only speculate.

  37. Sam,

    ““Following the “constructive” meeting,”

    The view from Luxembourg seems different and I’d say a lot clearer.


  38. @SAM

    Your comment about Dominic Raab has to be the witticism of the day: ‘Writing stuff down just ruins it – makes it seem stupid and unacceptable.’


    On your ABC post, I fully agree. I expect the LibDems to regain (or nearly regain) North Devon despite the area being Leavey; I think the traditional LibDem voters have forgiven the ‘betrayal’ of the coalition years, and the other left parties are Remainy anyway.

  39. @Sam
    Well yes, because the LDems only got 7%, whereas Labour and Tories were around 40%, so necessarily there are few direct LDem marginals.

    In 1983 the Alliance got 26% with pretty even distribution, resulting in just 13 seats IIRC; in 2005 they got 22% of the vote but 62 seats, as their vote was more concentrated in Scotland, the SW and in individual seats like Yardley.

    The important question, if the LDems are on 18-20%, is whether the resurgence in their vote reflects in their previous areas of concentration – SW particularly – new areas of concentration – London perhaps? – or is spread evenly.

    For example, if we end up somewhere like Tory 33, Labour 27, LDems 18, Brexit 11 then the distribution of the LDem recovery could deliver anything between 12 and 40 gains from the Tories, depending on how concentrated it is.

    In the context of an expected ~20 Tory gains from Labour at those vote levels, that is the difference between Tories roughly where they are and the only viable minority government versus 30 seats down and out of office.

  40. GARJ

    You say, “It’s impossible for the UK to come up with proposals which the EU’s negotiating team won’t immediately shoot down for failing to meet their (extreme) requirements for the Irish border.”

    I don’t want to spend a lot of time on useless debate on this and nor do you. The three things necessary to manage the border must work together. What is crossing the border must be known. What is crossing must meet the criteria for doing so. Entry and exit to and from the border must be preventable.

    Nothing “extreme” about that? And signed up to by Johnson when he voted for the WA.

  41. I should have added that Johnson voted for the WA because he had reached the “sad conclusion” that a No Deal Brexit would not pass.

  42. With pictures of Johnson avoiding the joint EU press conference likely to lead the news this evening, we are likely to forget claims this morning that he will ignore the No-deal Brexit legislation.

    The rabid Brexiteer, Dominic Raab, said on Radio 4 Today that this legislation was “deeply, deeply flawed”, and in usual R4 behaviour, was not even challenged by Martha Kearney to say what was wrong with it.

    In contrast a few minutes later Jo Swinson was given a tough interview by Justin Webb.

    JW makes his right-wing Southern-England views very clear, and obviously JS has a much different background and outlook to his. A snippet showing Webb`s outlook is in an article he has written in this week`s Radio Times – “Brian Redhead never said a civil word to me (when I was a young reporter on the programme). He was hostile …”

    I am sure most of us here with long-enough memories feel that Brian Redhead was an admirable, balanced and knowledgeable performer on Today, and certainly not deserving Webb`s attack.

  43. @ SAM – Thanks for the link. IMO the LDEM “new” policy only makes longer-term sense as a stepping stone to becoming the “Rejoin” party (Umunna has said as much). Once we’ve left LAB will be “closer links” (but not Rejoin) IMO so makes sense for LDEM to claim the most EU friendly “turf”.

    In the short-term then it’s a negotiating position for the possibility of being in “kingmaker” position (in this HoC or the next one) as no way will LDEM ever win a majority (p=99.9999%)

    Only with hindsight will we know if it’s a “miscalculation” but CON-Leave are probably the most happy to see LDEM’s “evolved” policy ;)

    It would be nice if LDEM can push into the dizzy heights of low 20% VI – Go Swinson!!

    @ SJ – A while back I pointed out that LDEM should simply change the order of Conf.Ref then Revoke to Revoke then Conf.Ref but that is not the policy they chose.

    However, as I elude to in reply to SAM then as a start point then “Straight Revoke” with NO Conf.Ref does give the option to compromise to “Revoke” with follow-up Conf.Ref if LDEM achieve “kingmaker” status (and are smart enough to push PR in return for compromises elsewhere)

    Next up is LAB conf and TBC if they shift a little bit more Remainy again in their regular “evolution” of policy.

    Obviously from a CON-Leave perspective then a clear differentiation between LAB and LDEM is important (as it will dissuade TVers) and a split risk within LAB would be darn handy as well (although a bit of “self-purging” and “bottoms-up” purging might end up making LAB PLP a near “pure” Remain party at time of next GE)

    @ BFR – Good points. So best Swinson can realistically hope for is “kingmaker”, but if SNP get 50+ (as seems likely) then Corbyn might only need them. My guess is Corbyn will need both SNP and LDEM but TBC.

    Anyway, if Sturgeon is as smart as I think she is then she’ll be quite happy to see Swinson keep her seat if next GE is before next Holyrood (for two reasons):

    a/ You start with the idea of “no ref” policies then why bother with IndyRef2, just win majority in Holyrood and negotiate a ‘Tartan Divorce’ (similar to break-up of Czechoslovakia)

    b/ As SNP and LDEM both make demands on Corbyn (as PM TINA in late Oct or “kingmaker” in next GE) then LDEM’s credentials as a “Unionist” party will be tested.

    I’d get some popcorn in for late Oct, no need for fireworks tho – HoC will be providing those ;)

  44. ALEC
    “Johnson is actively trying to scupper any chance for an extension, which is currently illegal. He needs to be careful.”

    That’s not true though is it. It would be unlawful for him not to request one if the conditions of the Benn Act still pertain when the time it applies arrived. No more, no less. He has some secondary obligations of a procedural nature in connection with that primary purpose that it would also be unlawful to ignore.

    Doing or failing to do anything else is not unlawful under the Benn Act either now or in the future. In particular there is nothing at all that he can currently do that would be unlawful under the Benn Act.

  45. @ SAM / GARJ – Re: not writing stuff down.

    That sounds a lot like UK constitution doesn’t it?!? Anyway…

    Boris and HoC must be driving EC crazy (which is obviously part of the Cummings plan). Do the EC-EU27 blink? Very unlikely

    Do they wink, either en masse or at an individual level[1] (ie increase the amount of “No WA” temporary agreements, etc JUST IN CASE we do Leave on 31Oct)

    I’d be fine with the tiniest wink myself. Develop that into an Association Agreement (low level trade agreement) at a later date and job done.

    It’s almost certain that Bercow will allow multiple SO24s once Skool reopens and be “creative” (he’s already said as much) so Yellowhammer2.0 will be very important in the HoC maths if/when we get to

    PM TINA Corbyn (Delay) v PM Boris No WA

    JJ and I have run the maths a few times and agree it will be close. JJ reckons LAB “loyalty” will be nearer 100% than me and abstentions will JUST carry the vote for Corbyn where as I reckon LAB “loyalty” will be a little lower and more smaller parties/Inds will be “Noe” to PM TINA Corbyn and JUST carry the vote for Boris.

    Get the popcorn in for mid-late Oct!!

    [1] Customs processes are a national competency (eg Le Touquet agreement) and I’ve always been a fan of copy+paste. However, we do ideally need EC for “mutual recognition” (similar to what they have with NZ and plenty of other countries that are not in EU, EEA or EFTA) ;)

  46. SAM

    The three things necessary to manage the border must work together. What is crossing the border must be known. What is crossing must meet the criteria for doing so. Entry and exit to and from the border must be preventable.

    Well yes, those are sort of a given and all sides agree on them, but all three would be entirely achievable with the hardest of borders which nobody wants. The extreme demand is that all friction caused by Brexit must be absorbed entirely by East/West trade and that no checks on North/South trade can be allowed to take place anywhere, or else the UK must be held inside the CU and SM.

  47. JIMR

    I just want to endorse SHEVH’s comment. Excellent analysis. I don’t think you are too far out either.

    The polls are consistently telling us that Con are ahead. A lead of 4/5 points seems more realistic than a lead of either 12 points or just one point.

    It suggests that everything is to play for especially as Johnson is well aware the polls will look far less rosy should we fail to Brexit come Halloween.

  48. @ SAM – Johnson+co voted “aye” in MV3 as May had indicated she would resign. He should have simply abstained IMO but that’s all past tense so whatever. Anyway…

    NEWSFLASH: Pinocch!o Johnson is a known l!ar

    However, he can try to lean on the fact (and it is a 3x fact) that HoC will not accept THE WA (as in the current one avec le backstop) and Brady amendment was the only ENABLE vote that HoC ever passed.

    IE Boris is representing HoC by saying the current WA will not pass (and representing the people via the Leave vote in EURef and manifesto promise(s) in GE’17)

    PS We’ve had plenty of votes on “No WA” and they’ve all failed but please don’t be one of these folks who still hasn’t read A50.

    You can’t STOP a “No WA” Brexit – you can only DELAY it

    “No WA” is the default unless MPs ENABLE something else (“THE” Deal, “A” Deal, or Revoke).

    MPs can not change EU law and although they can make new UK laws those laws need to be “tested” in order to see how water tight they really are…

  49. Davwel

    I would think the going’s on in Luxembourg will only re enforce the general public’s view of the EU and remainers in general .
    That is to say the EU have no interest in any deal other than the one they want and that remainers are rather a borish bunch who believe shouting someone down is a substitute for debate.
    I would think that the Johnson camp can only hope they continue with this course of action, making the likelihood of a Tory Government much more likely come the next GE.
    But as ever we will have to look for a continuing strong showing in the polls by the Tories to see if the remainers and media remain out of contact with the rest of the country. At the moment sneering at Johnson doesn’t seem to be working.

1 65 66 67 68