YouGov polling on the veto
Last night’s YouGov poll for the Sun showed the Conservatives at 39%, Labour at 40% and the Liberal Democrats on 10%. Two polls in a row with the lowest Labour lead from YouGov since early September suggest there has indeed been an impact on voting intention from the veto, though how long this lasts for is a different question. At minus 19, government approval is also at its most positive since May.
The rest of the poll with YouGov’s questions on the European summit are now up here. 58% of people think Cameron was right to use the veto, compared to 21% who think he was wrong. Tory voters overwhelmingly back him (87% to 3%), Lib Dem voters by 47% to 36%, Labour voters are evenly split (38% to 39%).
53% think the veto was a sign of strength, 17% think it was a sign of weakness – this is probably the most important area. Europe itself is an issue of relatively low salience, although taking a tougher stand will no doubt firm up traditional Tory votes and act against Tory votes drifting to UKIP (who are down to 4% in this latest poll), what would have a wider impact is any longer term difference it makes to perceptions of Cameron’s leadership. Does it result in him being perceived as stronger, more likely to stick to what he believes in, more trusted (or indeed, less competent or efficent or whatever)?
While the public back the veto, people are more pessimistic on whether the outcome of the summit is good or bad for Britain. 31% think it is bad for Britain, 24% good for Britain, 45% neither or don’t know. The apparent contradiction between supporting the veto but thinking it is bad for Britain is because while 38% think that the veto was a good outcome, 20% think it is bad but that Cameron had no choice given other countries wouldn’t compromise. 24% think Cameron should have signed the deal or been able to negotiate a better one.
51% of people think that using the veto has decreased British influence in Europe. 63% of people think that the outcome of the summit leaves Britain isolated from other EU countries… however, most of those saying this (35% to 28%) think that this is a *good* thing.
51% of people say they trust David Cameron to look after Britain’s interests in Europe, compared to 40% who do not. In comparison, 32% would trust Ed Miliband, 52% would not. 22% trust Nick Clegg, 67% would not. The perception is that Tory backbenchers have far more influence over the government’s European policy than Clegg does – 61% think that Eurosceptic backbench Tory MPs have influence over the government’s European policy, only 31% think that Nick Clegg has influence over it.
Looking forwards, 44% of people think the veto makes it more likely that Britain will leave the European Union (5% less likely, 33% no difference), however this is still not seen as likely. 61% think Britain will probably still be a member of the EU in 10 years time, 23% think Britain probably won’t. Asked how they would vote in a referendum on EU membership, 43% would vote to leave, 36% would vote to remain a member.
FRANKG@NickP
Based on experience here, I’d suggest that it’s a bit unwise to apply overall GB data to constituencies with a significant rural component.
IMO, rural areas often have a greater loyalty to an existing MP (regardless of party) than is the case with urban populations.
frankg
I see no prospect of Con getting a higher vote percentage than 2010. But I have been wrong before…
@Allan Christie
” I can’t see how pro EU Lib’s can sit it out whilst Tory bulldogs
shout from the rafters hailing the veto!!”
Mathematically Con have 307 seats. With SF not taking their seats then the OM becomes 326 – 5 = 319. Con would seem on the HoC MPs comments to have probably the 8 DUP votes making them 307 + 8 = 315. It would only take 7 abstentions from all the rest for Con to survive. (Speaker always supports status quo in the event of a tie). The chances of every single LD voting against their own coalition on this matter is IMHO unlikely. Of course it is by no means certain that all of Lab would vote for the EU on this matter, given the perceived opinion of the UK and the need of SLab to have time to recover in Scotland.
SoCalLiberal
You may like to read this article on the proposal for equalising marriage law here.
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts-blog/joan_mcalpine_equal_rites_bring_all_our_friends_into_the_fold_1_2005530
@NickP
‘I see no prospect of Con getting a higher vote percentage than 2010. But I have been wrong before…’
Not necessarily disagreeing, but it was your choice of 40% of LD going to Lab, presumably because of the usual VI of former 2010 LD voters as given in the usual YouGov polls. Those polls also show a ratio of between 3:1 and 4: 1 split in former LD voters between Lab:Con. I don’t think it is ethical to use only that part of poll which favours one party and ignore that part of the same poll that favours another, (even if it is the Cons).
@oldnat
‘Based on experience here, I’d suggest that it’s a bit unwise to apply overall GB data to constituencies with a significant rural component.
IMO, rural areas often have a greater loyalty to an existing MP (regardless of party) than is the case with urban populations.’
Totally agree, which is why I am suggesting on the proposed boundaries that for Con to lose Hexham is unlikely and if LD are to lose Berwick at all, it is more likely to be to Con and not to Lab from 3rd place.
FRANKG
I had exactly the same thinking earlier – the Tories only need the loyalty of just under a third of LibDem MPs – excluding DUP support, they only really need the level of support as there are LibDem ministers (funny how they came to that figure).
And if there are any ministers (Cable) who’re unhappy and do rebel, there are enough loyalists (Laws, Hemming) to take their place.
So even a majority of LibDem MPs switching to Labour/Green/Independent/New Social Democracy would still leave the coalition with a majority of MPs.
The Conservatives have really played a blinder in domestic politics – even if they don’t win 2015, they’ve set up a framework (Lib-Con partnership, acceptance of austerity and no deficit spending, etc) that they still control the overall political landscape of the UK.
I don’t understand.
All the polls say that
The tories are on the same as 2010
Lab has nicked 40% of the LD vote on top of their 2010 vote.
Yeah Con has gained some LD vote but they’ve lost as much elsewhere. Tory no change, Lab plus 10/12.
TINGEDFRINGE
” they still control the overall political landscape of the UK”
By which you mean they control Westminster – ie England and the UK reserved powers. There are 4 Governments in the UK. The Tories control one.
@Tinged Fringe
Not only All Lab, but all 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance and 1 Ind (prob Con vote or abstention anyway.), all 3 PC, all 6 SNP, 1 Green and 50 of the 57 LD must all vote against Con + DUP. Those are the odds of defeating Con on a vote of confidence or on any significant legislation.
Politics Home :-
“Ed Miliband’s popularity among Labour party supporters has slumped this month. A readers poll by the LabourList website shows the percentage rating him as a good or excellent leader falling from 40% to just 26%.
The decline in popularity appears to be linked to November’s public sector strikes: although 83% of readers backed the industrial action, but only 25% though the Labour leader handled his party’s response well.”
@NickP
“I don’t understand.
The tories are on the same as 2010
Lab has nicked 40% of the LD vote on top of their 2010 vote.
Yeah Con has gained some LD vote but they’ve lost as much elsewhere. Tory no change, Lab plus 10/12.”
You are mixing up stats and selecting this advantageous to your argument (honestly – no nastiness intended by that comment). You are taking an overall VI lead and adding to it a sub element that made up that overall VI in the first place. In other words effectively adding that sub element twice.
Take the polls 7/8th Dec (to avoid recent changes period)
Overall % Lab 41, Con 36. Lead 5 giving a swing from GE2010 of (7+5) x1/2 = 6 %.swing. Berwick Con lead over Lab (18.8 – 5.7) = 13.1 Which means a 6.55% swing for Lab to overtake Con. Lab would just fail. Yes LD would lose that seat, but to Con not Lab.
An interesting analysis of what DC actually asked for :-
“Cameron’s first set of demands were to ensure that unanimity applies on decisions relating to: transfer of powers to EU supervisory agencies, the use of ‘maximum harmonisation’, issues impacting on fiscal interests of member states (taxes & levies) and the location of EU Supervisory Authorities (ESAs). In actual fact, Cameron’s demands did not relate to the level of financial supervision but the rules governing the transfer of powers from member states to those EU supervisors. This is quite different to the functioning of the single market.
As is also instantly clear, there were no UK-specific demands, especially not for some form of opt-out as Barroso seems to imply. So, whether you agree with Cameron’s demands or not, it is clear that he was not seeking special treatment for the UK, these rules would allow unanimity for all EU members.
The case can, and should, also be made that, in terms of content, Cameron was defending the single market, particularly on the location of ESAs (i.e. they can’t all be in the eurozone) and in defending the UK against the ECB’s insistence that sizeable euro-denominated transactions only be cleared within the eurozone.
The source of the confusion seems to be that many people are conflating trying to protect a vital UK industry with seeking special treatment for the UK – these are clearly not the same thing legally or practically when it comes to the EU. All governments in EU negotiations try to protect their vital industries, for example: France with agriculture, Spain with fishing and Germany with manufacturing exports, and in some cases these countries have more protection than the UK does on financial services despite it representing a bigger share of the UK economy (see our recent report for a full discussion of this issue).
The other major misconception is that the UK’s demands were to shield the City from all regulation – one major demand would have allowed the UK to impose tougher capital requirements on banks than permitted by the EU’s desire for ‘maximum harmonisation’, for example. This was protection for taxpayers, not bankers. The Commission’s logic that maximum harmonisation is necessary for the functioning of the single market is flawed and not one that it applies in other areas of EU policy. For example, on cutting carbon emissions, member states are free to go beyond the EU-agreed minimum.
Overall then, the UK did not seek any special treatment or specific opt-outs. Cameron asked for safeguards relating partly to an industry which is of importance to the UK (and other countries), but safeguards which could be accessed by all EU members. Neither the structure nor content of his demands were in anyway designed to hamper the single market, but in fact to bolster it. It can only be damaging to the integrity of the EU that the Commission President should openly encourage such a misconception.”
Open Europe
How is a move from 29% to 40% of the vote a 6% swing?
@NickP (2.24)
“ray_north
It’s just possible the North East will go entirely red next time we go to the polls.”
Nick, as a Geordie I can only hope you are wrong. Labour domination of the NE has been disastrous for the area under both Lab and Tory governments. Lab because they know that they have the seats in the bag and therefore give little support to the area and the tories do not care about the area as they know they have no chance of winning except for Hexham.
IMO the NE is an excellent example of the unjust nature of FPTP.
Labour were 6% behind in 2010% and are somwhere between 1% and 6% in the lead now. That’s a swing of betwen 7% and 12%, isn’t it?
I expect you’ll be campaigning for PR then, Pete. I’d be there alongside you. At least we’d never have another Tory Government.
Isn’t the relative swing half of the change in the difference between the parties?
ie Tories haven’t moved, Labour have gone up 10%. Ergo “swing from Tory to Labour” is 5%?
Or have I misunderstood?
I am a PR Tory, and I think you’d certainly see Tories in government (part of the time of course) under PR.
Just not on their own.
@ NickP (7.30 pm)
As a Lib Dem as well as a Geordie I was campaigning for PR (or at least one of the worst forms of it!!) in 2010.
You may be right. It sounds a bit technical to me.
But in simple terms, if they are lucky will get the same % of the vote they got in 2010. Labour across the board will get more, how much more depends upon the size of the local LD vote.
Unless there is tactical voting…
NICKP
If you move from Con36%. Lab 29%
to Con 35%. Lab 41%
as I understand it, the calculation of swing is :-
1 +12 divided by 2 = 6.5 %
@Oldnat
” they still control the overall political landscape of the UK”
By which you mean they control Westminster – ie England and the UK reserved powers. There are 4 Governments in the UK. The Tories control one.”
No Oldnat, the Coalition controls the UK Parliament ! As you well know, there is no such thing as the English Parliament !
There are elements of the UK’s constitutional powers that are devolved in differing amounts to other areas of the UK including Scotland. Scotland is NOT independent – yet ! Should Scotland become totally independent, then you will have full sovereign rights including your own currency/Euro, seat in the UN, customs, borders, passports etc etc.. Until then Scotland is part of the UK, NOT an independent part of the UK !
Whether a majority in Scotland want to move towards total independence or possibly greater devolved powers is the matter for the referendum. Until that is settled you are part of the UK as far as international recognition is concerned.
@FrankG,
You’re wasting your breath mate.
(Figuratively speaking of course).
PETER BELL
” Labour domination of the NE has been disastrous for the area under both Lab and Tory governments. Lab because they know that they have the seats in the bag and therefore give little support to the area and the tories do not care about the area as they know they have no chance of winning”.
Sounds rather like how Scotland used to be. Realising that you don’t need to vote for London-centric parties, and voting for your own interests instead of theirs actually works. You guys should try it sometime!
On the question of what currency an independent Scotland would use, it seems to me that it would have to be a new currency.
Unless the eurozone gets very much more stable in the next half dozen years.
neil
“You’re wasting your breath mate.”
Why is he?
@NickP
How is a move from 29% to 40% of the vote a 6% swing?
(Swing is 1/2 the vote difference. 40 -29 = 11 x1/2 = 5.5 swing.)
If you want to do it by vote change, Con lead Lab by 13.1% in Berwick on the proposed boundaries. If Con stays at GE2010 then Lab will fall just short of overtaking Con.
FRANKG
We are talking in different terms. Actually, Westminster is the English Parliament (though strangely you allow MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to vote on purely English domestic issues – seems weird to me, but an inability to adjust to change will result in silliness).
That Westminster has two hats – English and UK – doesn’t alter the fact that it is the English Parliament.
The division of powers, however, means that domination of Westminster doesn’t equate to “control the overall political landscape of the UK” – just over those issues that are under Westminster’s jurisdiction.
frank g
But these are unusual times, no? Normally a party gains votes and the other loses. Here we have a static and the other gaining from the third party.
So any remotely three way race becomes winnable for Lab.
Might be wishful thinking, we won’t know till it happens or we see another three way marginal-ish. Oldham & Saddleworth seemed to confirm it though.
Oh noooooooooo !
@ Richard in Norway
“I don’t know the ins and outs of norweigen agriculture policy, but most of it is based on the simple fact that farming in Norway is uneconomic compared to the rest of the world, the growing season is about 150 days or just over a third of the year and the soil in most areas is very poor, I tell you its no place for a gardener. Without import duties etc there would be almost no framing in Norway. But we pay a high price for our food security as the till.”
Food security is very important. But I think that the import duties and regulations are designed to protect Norwegian agriculture, rather than for food safety (even though that may be the claimed goal). What do you do for food that is out of season in Norway? Do you just go without it or do the strict import rules relax?
@ Colin (7.19 pm)
Colin,
These may well be the facts but imo it was not so much what DC wanted or was prepared to accept but the whole way he approached the meeting. He only played his cards in the early hours of the morning giving the other European leaders little or no time to get into serious negotiation. It has been reported that even the Foreign Office where not certain of DC’s position.
Then of course we need to remember how the European leaders were villified by DC and the Tory press in the months leading up to this situation. The term “how to win friends and influence people ” comes readily to mind.
IMO., DC’s sole intention was to ensure his position within the Tory party irrespective of how it affected the future of the UK.
@Oldnat
“Actually, Westminster is the English Parliament”
That may be how you wish to regard it, feel frre to think what you like. But in international law and in terms of international recognition Scotland is part of the UK. That is why there is not a single country with an ‘ambassador for Scotland’, not a single “Scottish Embassy or consulate”. There is not a Scottish passport and you are not entitled (yet!) to a seat at the UN or even in the EU.
You may have devolved powers in certain matters but that is NOT sovereignty. Local councils may have powers devolved to them for certain matters, but that does not make them independent neither does it give them sovereign powers.
@ Peter Bell
“Labour domination of the NE has been disastrous for the area under both Lab and Tory governments. Lab because they know that they have the seats in the bag and therefore give little support to the area and the tories do not care about the area as they know they have no chance of winning except for Hexham.”
I am familiar with this kind of problem. You know what would help? Party primaries. When politicians still have to win competitive elections and face the voters in order to win office. It makes them responsive to their constituents and the needs of their constituencies. They can’t take voters for granted because they know they can be thrown out of office. It would also remove the odd thing you guys have of people being airlifted into constituencies.
It obviously wouldn’t solve all the problems (as you point out the problem of the government being London-centric) but it would help things.
@Peter Bell
Are you referring to AV when you say you were campaigning for the worst form of PR? Because, it’s not even PR.
@Frank G
2010 notionals for Hexham according to AllThat’sLeft:
Con 34.8%
Lib 33.2%
Lab 25.6%
That 8 Dec YG poll figures changes from 2010
Con -1%
Lab +11%
Lib -13%
With those in mind:
Lab 36.6%
Con 33.8%
Lib 20.2%
The tory mayor of North Tyneside was on the radio recently complaining about Scottish devolution. Bit of a nerve considering the tories opposed the NE of England assembly!
@NickP
No. Your logic is flawed. If party A is behind Party B by say 13.1% and Party B is behind Party C by say 5.7%. Then if Party B gets the same % then Party A must get its original % plus 13.1% just to overtake Party B. In respect to the relative position of Parties A and B, as to which is ahead of the other, that 13.1% is the key factor.
@ OldNat
Sounds rather like how Scotland used to be. Realising that you don’t need to vote for London-centric parties, and voting for your own interests instead of theirs actually works. You guys should try it sometime!
We might if we were gifted a proportional voting system which enables it like Scotland were!
So cal
When I say food security I mean that we produce enough to feed ourselves almost. We can survive a blockade or a sudden collapse of national income for at least a year, well probably not but you get the idea
@ Old Nat
“You may like to read this article on the proposal for equalising marriage law here.
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts-blog/joan_mcalpine_equal_rites_bring_all_our_friends_into_the_fold_1_2005530”
Thank you for sharing this lovely and informative article with me. I greatly appreciate it.
But the end of the article does actually raise an interesting question for me that I’m wondering if you could answer for me. In disputes between Westminster and Holyrood over the power of legislation, who resolves those disputes and makes the final call? And what I mean by that is legislation enacted by Westminster that might extend into an area of legislation reserved to Holyrood and legislation enacted by Holyrood that might legislate in an area reserved to Westminster.
And also, who has the right to challenge legislation in either cases? Can individual citizens challenge the law or is that left up to the respective Parliaments?
Blimey. Nelatedly the IMF has realised what Ed Balls said all along. Austerity doesn’t work.
“The International Monetary Fund slashed its growth forecasts for Greece and warned that ever-deepening recession was making it harder for the debt-ridden country to meet the tough deficit reduction targets under its austerity programme.”
I see you were talking about Berwick & Morpeth, rather than Hexham; so you’re right that the Liberals would lose it to the Tories on current national swing (or rather that which was in the 8 Dec YG poll). I have it:
Con 32.5%
Lab 31.1%
Lib 25.7%
@Craig (7.59)
“@Peter Bell
Are you referring to AV when you say you were campaigning for the worst form of PR? Because, it’s not even PR.”
Craig, It gives results which are more proportional to the % vote than FPTP but I did say it was the worst form.
@Craig
2010 notionals for Hexham according to AllThat’sLeft:
Con 34.8%
Lib 33.2%
Lab 25.6%
We went through all this when the provisional boundaries were announced. AW did a super revision of the projected votes based on his more detailed analysis of individual ward votes from GE2010 rather than assuming that say 45% of the constituency moving to another constituency meant 45% of Lab vote, 45% of Con vote, 45% of LD, 45% of UKIP etc. Some wards are more heavily for one party than another. From his figures the GE2010 for Hexham would have resulted in: Con 19181, Lab 13654, LD 18072, BNP 1772, UKIP 102, Others 1831. Con maj of 1109 (2.0%) over LD, Con lead over Lab of 10.1% A swing of 5% Con/Lab would not be enough, just!
My original discussion with NickP concerned a 40% of LD GE2010 going to Lab. My examples for the 7/8 was used to show NickP how he cannot take that assumption that 40% of LD GE2010 has gone to Lab in isolation without also taking into account that % of LD 2010 that has also gone to Con.
SoCalLiberal
As you will realise, the UK doesn’t have a constitution and many issues are governed by conventions or protocols. Of course, Westminster only follows these when it suits them!
Hence the conflict I referred to earlier that there is a protocol governing Westminster’s policies on Europe, which are supposed to involve discussions with the devolved administrations. On the “veto”, 10 downing St simply said “It’s a reserved matter” (so sod off).
Legislation can be challenged in the courts. For example, the tobacco companies have been challenging Scottish legislation that they can’t display tobacco products in stores. They lose every time, but continue to appeal so that they can continue to profit by killing people and making others ill and a charge on the public purse.
“UK doesn’t have a constitution” = “UK doesn’t have a codified constitution”
@ Peter Bell
No, it is literally not PR – by it’s intrinsic indifference to proportionality of seats. Whether it would make seats more proportional by accident is up for debate*, but it is a preferential system designed to get the most satisfying result at a constituency level, with no mind to the over-all seat shares in parliament.
*For example – unlikely, but represents my point – say, Con 40% UKIP 20% Lab 40%, and Lab would only win safe seats which they won automatically by surpassing 50% on first preferences – which could amount to something like a minuscule amount, which wouldn’t represent their 40% share whatsoever. Meanwhile the Tories would win clear the board, with little in the way for UKIP, whose vote is just used as ammunition to see the Tories over the line.
@ Richard in Norway
“When I say food security I mean that we produce enough to feed ourselves almost. We can survive a blockade or a sudden collapse of national income for at least a year, well probably not but you get the idea”
At the risk of sounding like Joy Behar, who’s going to be blockading you guys and with your highest living standards in the world (minus the frequent availability of butter), what are the chances of your national income actually collapsing?
@ Old Nat
“The actual breakdown is -
6% want full independence only, and would vote against increasing Holyrood’s powers if there is to be a continuing UK link
31% also want full independence but would prefer significantly greater powers rather than the status quo
38% want “Devo-Max/Indy-Lite”, but not independence
22% want the status quo, and no further powers for Scotland
4% are undecided”
By my count, that means 37% of Scots currently favor independence while 60% oppose independence.
But if you had a ballot question on Devo-Max (which seems to be this great, undefined, mystical entity….like the government entity equivalent of Bigfoot), 69% are in favor while only 28% would oppose.
Wild times for sure.
“I’d much prefer dual taxation, as that would clearly identify the cost of the UK.”
I’m thinking that the taxes could be different depending on the government.