Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor is out in today’s Evening Standard. Topline voting intention figures with changes from last month are CON 40%(-2), LAB 29%(-4), LDEM 14%(+4), UKIP 9%(+2), GRN 3%(nc). The 14 point score for the Liberal Democrats is the highest MORI have recorded for five years.

So far we have had three polls since the Richmond Park by-election and while ICM and YouGov did not have the Lib Dems doing as quite well as MORI, all three have shown them improving, suggesting they have received a boost from their by-election victory and the publicity it gave them. Whether that leads to any lasting recovery, or fades away again once the by-election is forgotten, is a different question.


355 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 40, LAB 29, LDEM 14, UKIP 9, GRN 3”

1 6 7 8
  1. DAVE @ R HUCKLE
    Q. was “Why would it be undemocratic for a majority to grant their government powers to act swiftly in certain circumstances? ”

    It wouldn’t be, had the act which authorised the referendum defined any consequences. Westminster could indeed have created a binding referendum had they wanted to, but they did not.

    Government publication: first words

    Had the publication you link to been annexed to the referandum act, it would at least have given the SC something to think about. However, the lack of clarity in what “leave the EU” means would not have helped, as the EFTA case will eventually help to clarify.

    I suggest that our [A50] constitutional requirements have been met.

    Feel free to suggest that, but it will be the EC or more likely the ECJ who determine that when or if A50 is served.

    If it wasn’t clear before, it certainly is now,that the previous PM either failed to consider the possibility that remain might lose or deliberately made the referendum advisory to pass the problem to the Westminster parliament should remain fail to win.

    R HUCKLE @ DAVE

    Good post and very true.

  2. DAVE @ R HUCKLE

    PS to my previous post….

    Had the European Union Referendum Act 2015 intended to be binding, not only would it have had to specify in some detail which institutions would be exited but what, if any, replacement there would be for the Belfast Agreement which includes the right of the NI people to a referendum to consent to any change in their status, which will almost certainly be needed if the UK proposes to leave the EEA.

  3. @BARBAZENZERO @OLDNAT Thanks for the links

  4. Dave’
    “there is no doubt that those voting (on both sides) were led to believe that they were making the decision”

    Hmm. No one posting here is your average voter, but personally I never expect politicians to do what they claim they intend to before an election. Maybe that should not be the case, but it almost invariably is. There is a flaw in the system that politicians are able to make all sorts of unlikely claims when trying to win, without any punishment if these claims later prove to be false.

    I think the reality here is that a clear majority to leave, and a more clearly defined outcome from the referendum, would have led to a much quicker process than has happened. As things stand, the politicians do seem to have tried to honour the result. But the result was not clear either in expressing a firm will to leave, or a firm plan in what to do instead. The blunt truth is that we still do not even have a plan of how to proceed.

    I’m not a constitutional expert, but what I have read says the principle is pretty simple that the crown can never, by any devious means, overrule a statute passd by crown and parliament together. If the supreme court rules the reverse, then it will be the opposite of the course of national history for centuries, which has always ruled that the monarch can never act against adopted law.

    Conversely, this does also have the implication that parliament can not act unilaterally to overturn statute either. A united motion of both the commons and Lords is not sufficient to overturn law without royal assent as well. It is often overlooked that we are a monarchy, not a democratic republic.

    There is a pretty straightforward route for May to proceed with giving notice to the EU through an act of parliament, but for her own political reasons she has chosen not to do so. Something to do with the lack of consensus within parliament for this to happen. As far as I am aware, the Queen has not indicated she would refuse to sign an act authorising article 50.

    But it would be rather amusing if the PM had been so advised, and this was the reason for the current shenanigans.

  5. A large lorry has ‘crashed’ into a Xmas market in Berlin, many dead and injured, and Brussels is in lock down after some kind of unspecified incident. All just before Xmas too, very sad.

1 6 7 8