167 Responses to “New YouGov and Opinium polls”

1. Amber Star

   @ Colin

   Adonis chairs Progress, and describes union efforts to have it expelled as ” total irrelevance”.
   ————————-
   Unions wanted non-democratic, opaque organisations expelled. And rightly so.

   Progress changed their constitution so that appointed officials will be elected in future. They also undertook to file full, not abbreviated, accounts & to publish clearer lists of donors/ donations.

   The Unions achieved exactly what they wanted to with regard to Progress, which is why the subject is no longer relevant.
   8-)

   July 14th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
2. Martyn

   @Billy Bob

   Thank you for that. I’d guess that Schultz and Wallstrom are too much the EU insiders to be up for the EUCouncil job: they don’t have the weight to push Prime Ministers around. They might get the Commission gig but (if memory serves) Wallstrom was a bit nondescript in the communication job. Zapatero is a former head of Government but wouldn’t Rajoy veto him? I similarly assume that Cameron would veto Miliband. If they do settle for Zapatero (Spanish, Socialist) as Council President, that would open the way for Schultz (German, Socialist) for Commission President, but then who would be High Rep – it’d have to be a woman and Eastern European, and we’re back to Radicova again…

   @Colin

   If you don’t think becoming head of government of Spain, Germany or Slovakia counts as an achievement, then I can only assume you are Pope Colin I.

   I think Clegg would be appropriate for the SecGenCounEU post because it’d tick a lot of boxes. Firstly, it’d satisfy the UK Liberals and Conservatives (for diametrically opposite reasons). But more importantly, the UK will need a consolation prize – it’s a major contributor but because the two coalition parties represent political strands (liberalism and conservatism) that are minorities in the EU (as Virgilio was at pains to point out in a previous post and I keep reiterating, the two EU big guns are Socialism and Christian Democracy: we do the former imperfectly and the latter not at all), we would otherwise get nothing in the next EU reshuffle. The only other candidate that Cameron would put forward that could be accepted would be John Major, and he wouldn’t do it. So we’re back to Clegg again…

   Consider the precedent. In 1978, a Europhile UK politician (Roy Jenkins), abandoned by the Eurosceptic swing of the incumbent UK government[5], left UK politics to become to take up a Brussels post…

   @SoCalLib

   The UK stance towards the EU at the moment is “deride it and hope it goes away”[1]. Whilst this satisfies emotional buttons[2], it leads to counter-intuitive behavior – specifically, the UK may be more emotionally satisfied by a Brit-free EU management team (“Look! Told you!”) than by one with a Brit in it. That’s one reason why Cameron would reject Blair.

   Another (simpler) reason is Blair is a Socialist (stop laughing, Amber… :-) ) and Cameron believes Socialists shouldn’t be in power.

   We know that the winners will be selected by the 2014 European Council[3]. Given current trends, we can say that the Socialists will be a majority in 2015. So one or both of the Council and Commission Presidents will be a) a Socialist and b) a former head of government and c) from a country whose present head of government is also a Socialist.[4] There’s only a limited number of candidates that fit that description. So I went for Gerhard Schroeder.

   From this, we can predict that High Rep will be Christian Democrat (they have to get something), so I went for Radicova.

   But this is just me guessing lots. If Billy Bob can supply me with facts, even if it’s just goss, then I am blessed and can make more accurate predictions. And if Virgilio steps in as well, then I am twice blessed and can start making even better predictions.

   And now you know why I spend so much time here… :-)

   Regards, Martyn

   [1] one note that recurs in UK politics is the preference for finding somebody to blame for failure, over finding somebody to create a success
   [2] I know, mixed metaphor
   [3] Yes, I know about the European Parliament. Bear with me, OK…
   [4] Van Rompuy fits this pattern. At the time, CDs were in a majority on the European Council, and Rompuy was a CD former head of government whose extant head of Government (Leterme) was also CD
   [5] The Labour party boycotted the 1979 European Parliament election

   July 14th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
3. Amber Star

   @ Martyn

   Another (simpler) reason is Blair is a Socialist (stop laughing, Amber… )
   ———————
   You know me all too well. :-)

   July 14th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
4. Raf

   @Martyn
   @SoCalLib
   “The UK stance towards the EU at the moment is “deride it and hope it goes away”[1]. Whilst this satisfies emotional buttons[2], it leads to counter-intuitive behavior – specifically, the UK may be more emotionally satisfied by a Brit-free EU management team (“Look! Told you!”) than by one with a Brit in it. That’s one reason why Cameron would reject Blair.”

   Not quite. The UK’s stance to Europe/EC/EU has tended to be much the same since 1957 (and arguably since the Middle Ages), that is not to get directly involved but to cripple any prospect of unity, without wanting it to completely fail. The UK wants an enmasculated Europe over which to divide and rule.

   Blair shares this mentality. He’ s no fan of a united Europe, but he has the foresight to understand that the best way of,achieving the UK’s objective is,to be,at the seat of European power, rather than from the sidelines.

   Finally, most UK socialist are.Eurosceptics.

   July 14th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
5. Colin

   AMBER

   Thanks

   MARTYN

   Thanks-but you continue, predictably, to miss the point of my question.

   I asked you about the record of achievement in office of the incumbents you mentioned of the top EU posts, which you said were up in 2014.

   My question was about their record in their EU posts. You keep telling me about their positions prior to taking them up.

   I am perfectly capable of finding out the record of an elected politician. For example , your first post on this topic was in connection with Zapatero’s candidature for one of these posts. I am of course familiar with his record in office in Spain, because I know that the Spanish voters got rid of him.

   So it isn’t a question of whether I ” think becoming head of government of Spain, Germany or Slovakia counts as an achievement,”-that is the prerogative of the voters of those countries.

   I wanted to know what Barosso, Van Rompuy & Ashton had done for the citizens of the EU.

   No matter-it seems clear from your posts that what is important is the divvying up of these posts in a game of political musical chairs to former European heads of government, which is totally remote from the views & interests of the citizens of EU.

   It speaks to everything which I dislike about the governance of the European Union.

   July 14th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
6. Martyn

   @Amber

   Thank you

   @Raf

   I agree with you about Blair’s stance. But since Cameron can veto him, and Cameron will veto him, he has no chance.

   As for the UK’s historical mission regarding Europe (divide and conquer), I agree with you. But it does rather beg the question of why the UK government’s current stance is to *encourage* fiscal union, when the more divisive course would be to *discourage* it. Incredulity on this stance is expressed by Boris Johnson and Open Europe.

   Regards

   July 14th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
7. Martyn

   @Amber

   Thank you

   @Raf

   I agree with you about Blair’s stance. But since Cameron can veto him, and Cameron will veto him, he has no chance.

   As for the UK’s historical mission regarding Europe (divide and conquer), I agree with you. But it does rather beg the question of why the UK government’s current stance is to *encourage* fiscal union, when the more divisive course would be to *discourage* it. Incredulity on this stance is also expressed by Boris Johnson and Open Europe (see above for links), incidentally.

   Regards, Martyn

   July 14th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
8. Billy Bob

   @Martyn – “…but wouldn’t Rajoy veto him?”

   “Under the Treaty of Lisbon the European Council has to take into account the results of the latest European elections and, furthermore, the Parliament “elects”, rather than simply approves, the Council’s proposed candidate.

   In 2009 the European People’s Party did select Barroso as their candidate and, as the largest party, Barroso’s turn was renewed.

   The PES will designate its candidate for Commission president through primaries taking place in January 2014 in each of its member parties and organisations before a ratification at a Congress in February 2014.”

   @Amber Star

   Fwiw, according to a one time GMB member and now Labour councillor/CLP rep NEC/Unite/Labour First/Progress member Luke Akenhurst: “The anti-Progress motion was moved by Andy Newman, ex-SWP, ex-Respect, stood against Labour as a “Socialist Unity” candidate for Parliament in 2005, only rejoined Labour in 2010.”

   Also Progress gets an A rating for transparency:

   h
   ttp://whofundsyou.org/

   July 14th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
9. Martyn

   @Billy Bob

   I’m coming up to two years out-of-date with EU stuff now, so thanks for the update. I’ll have to look up what EPP and ELDR are doing. You do raise several interesting possibilities…

   Regards, Martyn

   July 14th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
10. Amber Star

    Hi Billy Bob

    Here’s the statement from Progress:

    “Over recent months a number of serious allegations and charges have been levelled against the organisation, culminating in the declaration last month by Paul Kenny, the general secretary of one of Labour’s biggest affiliated trade unions, that he intends to support a rule change[1] which would ‘effectively outlaw Progress’.

    We want Progress’ members to be confident in their organisation’s work, its openness and transparency.

    We are, therefore, announcing a number of measures to underline our commitment to this aim:

    First, and by way of background, to ensure the proper internal management of Progress’ finances a company was created when the organisation was established. The names of the directors of that company are, as with all companies, easily obtainable from Companies House. They are published today on Progress’ website* and any changes to them will be updated both there and, as is required by law, at Companies House. Furthermore, from 2011-12, we will file unabbreviated accounts at Companies House and provide a link to them from the Progress website.

    Second, from 1 August we will publish annually Progress’ membership figure.

    Third, we already comply fully with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and declare to the Electoral Commission all sponsorship and donations we receive above £7,500 (this threshold was previously £5,000 but was raised by the Electoral Commission in 2010).

    On Progress’ website, we already detail: our annual income for the most recent financial year; the declarations we make to the Electoral Commission for the current financial year; and the names of all sponsors and partners we have worked with during that financial year.

    Last month, the Who Funds You? website awarded Progress an ‘A’ rating for our funding transparency.

    From 1 October, we will go beyond our legal obligations and detail on the Progress website all amounts of sponsorship or donations we receive over £5,000. We will make this information public within 28 days of receiving any such sponsorship or donations.

    Fourth, like other organisations, we wish to ensure our members understand and are able to compete in parliamentary and local government selection processes. We will continue to hold training events to shine a light on these processes. As they always have been, such events will be publicly advertised and open to all Progress members. For clarity, we will shortly publish a brief online statement outlining the limited training and mentoring role Progress plays in local government and parliamentary selection processes.

    Finally, we wish to ensure that the growing Progress membership feels a true sense of engagement with and understanding of the organisation’s work. From 1 October, a new elected[2] strategy board will be established. To ensure representation from all of our stakeholders, it will be elected by our membership and by parliamentarians and councillors who are members of Progress.

    The strategy board will:

    - Approve the appointment of Progress’ chair, vice-chair and honorary president for a full parliamentary term.
    - Approve any endorsements made by Progress in internal party elections.
    - Approve Progress’ overall political strategy.
    - Have a representative on any interview panel constituted to appoint a new director of Progress.

    Further details on the processes for electing the strategy board will be announced shortly.

    We hope that our announcement today will draw a line under the debate about Progress’ role in the party.”

    [1] Note that it was a rule change which would ‘effectively outlaw Progress’ – the rule change was related to democratic accountability.
    [2] The main changes at Progress were to introduce an element of democratic accountability but also financial transparency regarding accounts etc.

    Progress are making a lot of changes to the way in which they conduct their affairs. So there were definitely short-comings which they are now addressing.
    8-)

    July 14th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
11. R Huckle

    Prediction for tonights poll

    Labour 44%
    Tory 32%
    LD 9%
    UKIP 8%

    July 14th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
12. Billy Bob

    @Amber Star

    Yes I did read that… I think Progress has 5 full-time employees, a few extra duties for them then – The whofundsyou website suggests that the extra level of transparency was already being provided when asked for… is there a suggestion that Progress has something to hide, or has transgressed in any way?

    Wasn’t it a small but influential thinktank/discussion/campaigning group exclusively confined to people who were already heavily involved with the workings of the Labour party at many levels?

    Other fringe and/or affiliated groups are not confined to Labour party members (some appear to be in turn affiliated to groups which are opposed to the Labour party) so their transparency and accountability could possibly be more of a cause for concern.

    Maybe membership of Progress is on the rise and this is a good wake-up call for them to become established on a more regular footing.

    July 14th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
13. Amber Star

    @ Billy Bob

    Wasn’t it a small but influential thinktank/ discussion/ campaigning group exclusively confined to people who were already heavily involved with the workings of the Labour party at many levels?
    ———————–
    Yes, that’s how it was perceived. It has now opened its membership to all members of the Labour Party & made itself more democratically accountable to its members.
    8-)

    July 14th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
14. Ewen Lightfoot

    Where’s tonight’s YG poll?
    Bet it’s good for the red corner.

    July 14th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
15. Billy Bob

    @Amber Star – “It has now opened its membership to all members of the Labour Party”

    A little trawl on the web shows up posts from fairly rank and file LP members who have been subscribing for some time… were they screened by Progress before being allowed to join?

    July 14th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
16. Martyn

    @Colin

    I wasn’t avoiding the question, I was answering the question I thought you asked. You said (something along the lines of) what had those politicians achieved in their jobs, but you did not specify *which* politicians you meant. I thought when you said “those politicians” you meant the ones I was talking about, namely Schroeder, Zapatero and Radicova. I then answered you correctly: they are the former Prime Ministers of Germany, Spain and Slovakia. As for their present jobs, none of them are currently politically engaged and so are free to take up new roles.

    If you had specified you were talking about Van Rompuy, Barroso and Ashton, I would have told you that as well (former Prime Ministers of Belgium and Portugal and a former member of the UK House of Lords). If you were referring to their current jobs (President of the European Council, President of the European Commission, High Rep) then I would have told you that as well: a) chair meetings of the European Council, b) generate proposals as per the requirements of some/all member states for consideration by the EU27 and EP, and c) advocate the commonly-agreed foreign policy stance of the member states where there is unanimity.

    The EU does not act for the European citizenry, it was created by and serves the heads of government of the EU member states – it does not serve the British, French, Germans et al, it serves Britain, France, Germany et al. From your tone, I understand that you find this distasteful and dislike the prospect of powerful people taking decisions that affect your life.

    I sympathise with your distaste, but as long as humans organise themselves into states and appoint a single person/small group to speak for that country, then those speakers will scheme, plot, and organise their states into groups and alliances. This has been true since before the Egyptians built pyramids. The only cures are a) create a world government or b) launch the UK into space. Neither will happen in our lifetime.

    Until then, we will both have to cope with the fact that the single speaker for the British state (the Prime Minister) is only one among many, and that he will have to deal with and reach accomodations with other speakers for other states that you may not like or approve of. Even if the UK left the EU tomorrow that would still be true and will be true long after you and I are dead.

    Until then you will forgive me if I indulge my taste for historical drama by reducing the actions of the states to the people they choose to speak for them and their stories. Hence my interest in the unprompted, anodyne article in the Times by Zapatero, former Prime Minister of Spain and (if Billy Bob is correct above), somebody trying to become the future PES candidate for the post of President of the European Commission in the 2014 European Parliament elections. Which is where we came in…

    Regards, Martyn

    July 15th, 2012 at 12:46 am
17. Colin

    MARTYN

    @”The EU does not act for the European citizenry,”

    Indeed so. I often wonder why it makes such a thing about being “European” at all-the compulsory flag flying & all that goes with it.

    Anyway-it is as it is.

    July 15th, 2012 at 7:50 am