There are five polls with fieldwork conducted at least partially since the weekend – I don’t know if there are more to come overnight (I think there may be at least one more. ComRes and Survation have both polled during the campaign, but I don’t know if either are doing a final call):

Panelbase (14th-21st May) – BREX 30%, LAB 25%, LDEM 15%, CON 12%, GRN 7%, ChUK 3%, UKIP 3% (tabs
Kantar (14th-21st May) – BREX 27%, LAB 24%, LDEM 15%, CON 13%, GRN 8%, ChUK 5%, UKIP 4% (tabs)
Opinium (17th-20th May) – BREX 38%, LAB 17%, LDEM 15%, CON 12%, GRN 7%, ChUK 3%, UKIP 2%
YouGov (19th-21st May) – BREX 37%, LAB 13%, LDEM 19%, CON 7%, GRN 12%, ChUK 4%, UKIP 3% (tabs)
BMG (20th-22nd May) – BREX 35%, LAB 18%, LDEM 17%, CON 12%, GRN 8%, ChUK 4%, UKIP 2% (tabs

The broad story across the polls is the same – the Brexit party are ahead, Conservative support has utterly collapsed, the Lib Dems are doing well in the mid-to-high teens, and both Change UK and UKIP have failed to shine. There is more variation in the detail, and particularly in how well or badly Labour are doing. Kantar and Panelbase have them not far behind the Brexit party; Opinium and BMG have them down in the teens, YouGov have them below the Liberal Democrats in third place.

This isn’t an election like 2017 when pollsters took very different approaches and the differences are easy to explain. The polling companies aren’t taking radically different approaches – there are some differences in turnout modelling (BMG and Opinium, for example, are taking only those most certain to vote, which will be boosting the Brexit party and Lib Dems), Kantar are estimating the likely vote who say don’t know based on their demographics and answers to other questions, which explains their comparative low figure for the Brexit party (they’d be on 31% otherwise). And don’t overlook simple things like when the fieldwork was conducted – all the polls have been showing a downwards trend in Labour support, so it may not be co-incidence that the polls from Panelbase & Kantar whose earliest fieldwork is over a week old have higher support for Labour.

The bottom line however is that this is a tricky election. Firstly, turnout for European elections is normally low (and one of the problems with polls in recent years is getting too many of the sort of people who vote, and not enough of those who don’t bother). Secondly, most polling companies rely on some degree to weighting by past general election vote to make sure their samples are representative, as how people voted at previous elections normally correlates pretty well with their current vote. An election like this, when an awful lot of people are not voting for the party that they voted for at the last election, will make those techniques less effective. We shall see on Sunday.

In the meantime, several people have asked me about exit polls tomorrow. There won’t be any. The big, offical BBC/ITV/Sky exit poll is only conducted at general elections anyway, but even if they wanted to, they couldn’t do one tomorrow. For the European elections the rules that ban the publication of exit polls until after polls close apply across Europe, so it wouldn’t be legal to public any exit poll until the polls have closed everywhere in the European Union… and some countries won’t finish voting until Sunday night.


1,788 Responses to “European Election polls”

1 28 29 30 31 32 36
  1. An interesting summer ahead.

    New Tory Leader means Corbyn will be under more scrutiny than ever before.

    The apparently revived Lib Dems are going to be under new management as well. Was listening to Jo Swinson on Newsnight this evening – impressed with her. If she takes over they may be motoring again.

  2. @CIM, TRIGGUY

    On the question of the questions that are asked… it’s something I’ve been curious about for a while.

    For me, “what should happen now” should always have been the key question pollsters were asking about Brexit, because the ones they generally do ask are too messy.

    Were we right or wrong to vote for x? Wrong will include many people who voted against it in the first place and as yet see no reason to change their view that it is on balance a bad idea, plus those who are still in favour of it but think achieving it isn’t worth the grief caused, plus those who have changed their mind about the original proposition. But at the same time there’ll be people in all three groups who think we should go ahead, either because the other lot won and that’s democracy etc, or because trying to reverse will be even more grief and not worth it, and unless you weigh those groups specifically then “Right to/Wrong to” is not a helpful question.

    The hypothetical “how would you vote [again]” question seems even more flawed, because it’s asking how people would vote in a situation that many don’t think will happen and many (sometimes most) don’t think *should* happen.

    To be clear I’m not placing any great store by Ashcroft’s answers – it’s one poll and his track record on getting good samples is pretty mixed. But I do think he’s asking the right questions, and I wish more pollsters would ask them.

  3. Al Urqa
    “Even if your business has never dealt with the EU, it would likely be affected. A bakery would suddenly not be able to receive supplies of flour, for example, because their supplier imported it. A florist would have no flowers (the Netherlands is a big supplier). Medical supplies would be disrupted; service contracts would come to a sudden termination because there would be no common legal system that both sides could adhere to.”

    Thank you for being the person to finally make some specific forecasts of what might happen under so-called No Deal Brexit. It makes a pleasant change from the vague prognostications of unmitigated disaster with no detail.

    Businesses have had 3 years to prepare for a possible No Deal scenario. None of the things you describe would happen suddenly or be unprepared for. Any business that hasn’t prepared deserves to fail because the management is incompetent. Do you seriously think that alternative supply chains have not been researched? Do you seriously think that service contracts have not already been renegotiated or a revised version been prepared just in case?

    I have noticed over the years that left-wingers (and I hope I’m not insulting you by including you in that category) seem to assume that nothing will change, that the economy is fixed in some way. Businesses adapt to changing circumstances and seek new opportunities all the time. How many drone suppliers were there 5 years ago?

    They also seem to assume that no-one will change their behaviour in response to government action. For instance – some people are richer than others so let’s tax them more and hand out the money to the poor. It sounds great – Robin Hood and all that – but if the rise is too high the rich will then either emigrate or move more of their money to lower-taxed regimes as happened in the 1970s.

    Sorry for the rant. G’night all.

  4. @DAVID COLBY

    Bank passporting (That’s about only real reason)
    arrest warrants (I will elaborate on this below)
    cern (What has being in the EU got to do with CERN?)
    the space programme (What space programme?)
    Europe-wide university access (doesn’t require EU)
    intelligence sharing (doesn’t require EU and EU has little to share)
    cheaper data roaming (doesn’t require EU)
    open skies for airlines (is this a joke?)
    Eurimages (and they say stereotypes don’t exist)

    So you’d like to allow Freedom of Movement, which has allowed god knows how many murders and rapists to enter the UK (particularly since 2004) just so we can ask EU countries to deport-back criminals? See the daftness of this argument?

    You are aware non-EU students attend EU universities, yes?

    You are aware UK universities are better than EU universities, yes?

    Besides passporting (which i’m not really much of an expert) I don’t really see any solid reasons.

  5. @DANNY

    ”Did you miss the lib-con coalition?”

    That wasn’t caused by the middle class areas I was referring to voting LD. Lib Dems had a fair few Scottish and South-West seats.

  6. “the EU is not just a free trade organisation. It used to be, but not anymore. It is effectively a nation-in-waiting.

    There is only one advantage to being in the EU, not several which Remainers try to tell us. And this single advantage of free trade is why the EU cannot offer it, because otherwise all countries would wish to leave the EU and have just free trade.

    Not a very nice club!”
    @brxt May 28th, 2019 at 4:14 pm

    Ok I’ll bite one last time tonight. The EU is not a free trade organisation. It is a political club. It was set up by its (original six) members for their own benefit. Everyone who is a member has their own interest in being in there. Of course there are problems in the EU; if there were no problems it would not need to exist.

    Trade is free within it, but it is a customs union so only if the EU says so is there free trade outside (and a quick google shows it has lots of agreements across the globe). However, as its clout has grown, it has tried to be a fair player around the world, using its soft power to substantial effect (the eastern members are a good example). GDPR frightens the bejesus out of the US’ multinationals (I should know, I work for one).

    Nation-in-waiting makes me laugh. Its budget is tiny. The number of people that it employs is small, too. Most of the EU’s work is actually done by the member states. They are, after all, the ones that have decided what this should be. It has no military force, and there is no real plan to try to put such a thing in place. Indeed, militarily, the UK and France have the largest forces. And Finland, Sweden and Austria are not even in NATO.

    There are lots of good reasons to be in the EU. Culturally it is very diverse. And the EU puts great store in supporting the smaller members — just look at Ireland. Then there is that single market (the aim of which is to get rid of non-tariff barriers).

    And finally, what I personally consider its supreme achievement, freedom of movement. It is easy to think up reasons why there should be barriers between us and them. They have gone one better — they have worked out how not to have a barrier.

    Au contraire, if you are a member it is a very nice club!

  7. Someone on Twitter claimed:

    “The SNP won the highest vote share of any party in Western Europe.”

    That sounded odd, so being a Geek, I had to go and check, Czech and cheque again.

    It’s based on the point of view that the SNP got 37.7% of vote share in its polity, and that its vote share in the UK is discounted (or its vote share is based on the seats where it stood). Anyway, this is what I came up with:

    PL (Malta) – 54.3%
    Fidesz&KDNP (Hungary) – 52.3%
    PiS (Poland) – 45.4%
    KE (Poland) – 38.5%
    PN (Malta) – 37.9%

    SNP 37.7%

    So basically a false statement. The use of that term had me wondering. It’s one of those difficult to check statements, unless you have the stats to hand. Malta only has two serious parties, with three others getting 8% between them.

    It’s all academic anyway. In an Indy Scotland, the Bxp and SNP parties would be history, and replaced or absorbed by other parties. A nice exercise in statement checking though.

  8. Well, the statement did say Western Europe, which would rule out 3 of the counter examples. I imagine it’s easy to forget Malta.

  9. Rosieand Daisie,
    “Anybody got any vaguely knowledgeable views about Peterborough bye election?”

    Probably someone will win. Labour not looking like they have their act together, con sinking without trace?

    Pete B,
    “Businesses have had 3 years to prepare for a possible No Deal scenario. None of the things you describe would happen suddenly or be unprepared for.”

    Al Urqa’s post alluded to this and I have seen it in other media. The best advice available now may well say there is nothing you can do to prepare fro a change in the legal framework when you have no idea what that change would be, and couldnt anyway place something in place for a framework which does not currently exist. And then, it might simply be that under the new regime your existing business is unviable. I seem to recall a number of haulage firms saying they would be bust.

    There is a potential situation her like the banks going bust. they have been acknowledged as too vital to be allowed to fail, but suppose the transport companies go bust? No imports or exports. If they take with them the lorries doing internal deliveries..no one has stock anywhere these days to buffer even short delays.

    “. It sounds great – Robin Hood and all that – but if the rise is too high the rich will then either emigrate or move more of their money to lower-taxed regimes as happened in the 1970s.”

    Firstly the rich dont want to emigrate. What good is money if you cannot even live in your own country?

    Second, you argue we shouldnt have 1970’s tax rates, but didnt some of them near reach or even exceed 100%? capital taxes these days are only 20%. Lots of scope for increases.

    Third, if that money is being made in the Uk, why should we let it leave untaxed? Or leave at all? The Uk too small to prevent it?…lets join an international trade group and act together!

  10. Re Peterborough, with a 61% leave vote in the referendum and the collapse of the Conservative and Labour vote I would be astounded if the Brexit Party don’t win. If they can’t win here I would not expect them to win anywhere

    Also think the lib-dems and Greens will see a big increase in their vote but as it will be split between them I suspect the lions share going to the lid-dems, I cannot see how one of them can win it outright

  11. There’s one element of ashcroft I just noticed: only 14% of those who stuck with the conservative party wanted a no deal outcome. Most are current deal or a revised one, but the voters who remained loyal do not seem to want no deal. Which a number of leadership candidates are pushing.

    This raises the question how they will break if deal continues to be voted down by tory MPs and no renegotiation is possible. How many are presenting as leavers but reluctantly moving towards remain?

    Another question is how we should view the low turnout. What motivated this lot to vote, when most people did not bother, and a big chunk who would vote in a general election did not either. Surely one must assume the ones staying at home were not motivated by brexit enough to turn out. So presumably will not vote in a general in a way determined by brexit?

    And then a proportion of these must be the people who vote under any condition at all because they believe in voting. Or maybe there arent many of those left? Ashcroft had top reason for voting lab or con as ‘because I always vote for this party’. So do we have a group who did turn out who are tribal loyalists, and so the rather brexit sceptical response by conservative voters is the response of its core voters?

    The same logic must apply to labour – it is their core voters sticking with them. in this case 12% wanted to accept the May deal, while 18% wanted a better one. There is a problem about what might be better, and to what extent con better might be the same or opposite to lab better, but there must be some mileage for labour in a group of voters who still think the possibility of further negotiation and a better deal has not been exhausted.

    An argument for the labour position then might be:

    Remainers can easily be brought back on side.
    There is still scope to persuade people who are leavers that really everything has been tried to get a better and acceptable deal, so they have to switch to remain, what with no deal being unacceptable. The way to do this is to negotiate, or try to negotiate, and prove there is nothing left to do.

    There must be an argument that trying to reach these people is another way to attack con. If its dealers or revised dealers are made to understand neither course is viable, they have to decide between remain and no deal. Some will go each way, but whatever proportion flips remain is taken from the leave camp and added to the remain camp.

    The peterborough election has more westminster edge than the euros. Just one parliamentary vote might in the end matter, there have been a couple of one vote majorities recently. Voters might therefore take it more seriously.

    So I’d predict a conservative recovery compared to the euros. More normal tory voters turning out. More normal labour turning out. Plus the remain/leave fanatics who will vote Bxp and lib. About half those who have moved to Bxp/lib over brexit say they will not come back. Ok, suppose those are the ones driven by brexit. The others are uncertain. The campaign could move them.

    Four way race.

  12. neil J,
    ” If they can’t win here I would not expect them to win anywhere”

    I think that is true. This is very likely BxP’s peak opportunity.

  13. @Mike Pearce

    “As for the Labour Party I am in despair. As a former member I was encouraged by the GE campaign in 2017 and made small donations to the party. Corbyn’s painful leadership over Brexit and the expelling of Alistair Campbell today graphically illustrate a party going backwards at a time when they should be preparing for power.”

    First the football, of course. Thanks for the kind thoughts about the Villa and, yes, that was a poor challenge by Mings in the Reading game. Crude but unintentional, I think, and totally uncharacteristic of him in terms of how’s he played since. He’s become a fine centre half for us, and something of an inspirational figure too. Along with Grealish’s recovery from injury, his loan capture from Bournemouth in January was key to our dramatic improvement. Seems a genuinely nice guy too which is why I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that challenge. Good luck to Reading next season and I hope you get 6 points against both the Baggies and Birmingham!

    As for the politics, and Labour’s predicament, all my worst fears about a Corbyn leadership, which I’d parked for some time, have now started to come true. It’s why I voted against him becoming leader on both occasions when I had the opportunity to do so. My main fear was his lack of any discernible leadership qualities, followed by suspicions he would, through weakness really, invite in a tight coterie of faux admirers with their own agendas. My sense is that he’s become hostage to this faction and follows their lead rather than steers his own course. Hence you see the stubborn ignoring of his membership, voters and MPs on Brexit, his failure to get on top of the anti-semitism disgrace and the slow drift to vindictive factionalism where awkward members of the party are attacked and purged. Whether you call it cultism, I’m not sure, but it’s not the gentler, kinder and more inclusive politics we were promised.

    Accordingly, in this time of rampant right wing populism and Tory Party/Government meltdown, you see the Labour Party getting 14% vote share in a national election and 28% in most Westminster GE opinion polls. Hence I share your despair

    As I said earlier, Tom Watson isn’t to blame for that catastrophic lack of electoral appeal and voter disdain. Look instead to the way the party is being led. Corbyn is steering Labour to unelectability.

    As I always thought he would. Sadly.

  14. “Open skies for airlines (is this a joke?)”

    No, it was something promoted by the UK as part of the liberalisation of transport services in the EU:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Common_Aviation_Area

    The depth of ignorance of Brexiters about the EU is remarkable.

  15. LEWBLEW
    “Lost the 2016 ref yes, but not the war. 3 years on and the ‘winners’ haven’t claimed their prize Brexit yet. Might be time to give up cos we’re still fighting”

    Quite, and I would say, by any objective measure, winning.

    And this is where, perhaps (if you’ll allow the personal disclosure) with the false enthusiasm of the recent convert from the compromise leave camp, I don’t understand the second referendum obsession.

    In 2016, as a straw to clutch at with the other side rampant, it looked the best that could be achieved for an unreconciled remainer. It looked a reasonable last throw of the dice. Perhaps even a hopelessly optimistic one. Like seeking an armistice at the time of the Norway debate.

    But it’s not 1940 any more. What then looked unstoppable has failed to deliver, and now looks incapable of doing so. If you believe this non-delivery to be a good thing, as what it is seeking to deliver is a bad thing, it shouldn’t be offered a deal by means of which it might be helped to deliver. It should just be stopped.

    A second referendum with a remain option used to be the last possible option for remain.

    A second referendum with a leave option now looks the last possible option for leave. Remainers shouldn’t collude to offer it.

    At the very least, the six million who signed the petition and the near 200 who supported remaining in the last indicative vote deserve one of the misnamed “remain” parties to get off the fence and move their way.

  16. Hireton: The depth of ignorance of Brexiters about the EU is remarkable.

    I was recently at a village hall quiz in deepest Devon. A very popular and jolly occasion, helped along by the bring your own booze n’nibbles arrangement.

    Towards the end, one of the questions was, “name four EU member states with a K in their name.”

    Ah, easy. UK, Denmark, umm, Slovakia, ummm….

    In desperation, I wrote down all 28. No more Ks. Could Czechia be spelt Czekia, perhaps? So we plumped for that.

    Then the answer came: Ukraine.

    That’s not in the EU, I and several others shouted. Oh yes it is, shouted more. “Turkey, Turkey” yelled others. The quizzmaster allegedly googled it. “Yes it’s Ukraine,” he said. “And my ruling is final.”

  17. HIRETON @ LEWBLEW

    Strictly speaking, the official moniker is THE BREXIT PARTY LIMITED, as I posted with a link to Companies House which has no ‘trading as’ alternative.

    That in turn raises the question of why the electoral commission misses off the LIMITED in their entry and does not even mention that they are a limited company.

    I’m well aware of Companies House rules but much less so re the Electoral Commission. Is anyone aware of any other limited companies pretending to be parties?

  18. @Brxt – Unfortunately you seem to be in the same bracket as one or two other posters we’ve had periodically who pop up with aggressively anti EU posts, while at the same time lacking the understanding or self awareness to understand just how stupid some of your pronouncements are.

    As ever, it’s the fundamental lack of understanding regarding what the EU is and does, and how responsibilities are balanced between the EU and member states that leads you to embarrass yourself. [I know you won’t feel embarrassed, but believe me – you really have made a bit of an @rse of yourself].

    Space – ESA is a pretty big player in space developments. Apart from the link to the Galileo global positioning work (which UK really wanted to be in but can’t now be) ESA helped put up the world’s first high orbit telescope, collaborated on Hubble, sent deep space missions to the Halley comet and was the world leader in commercial space launches in the 1990s. Lots of stuff has been done.

    University access – doesn’t ‘require’ EU, but an alternative open agreement would need to be made, the like of which the UK doesn’t have with any other country. The UK also gets more than it’s fair share of EU research funds, because (as you say) we have some very good universities, but you might have noted that since Brexit, UK universities have collectively fallen in the assessment rankings, being overtaken by many EU ones. This is because we are losing talent and money because of Brexit.

    Intelligence sharing – again, alternative arrangements can be made, but these would need to fit with ECJ overseen regulation. You are quite dismissive of EU’s capabilities here, which is not (I suspect) based on any critical analysis.

    Data roaming – again doesn’t require the EU, but it’s funny how the EU did it? Put it this way – the UK can’t dictate this ourselves, but the EU can.

    Open skies – this is probably your second most embarrassing mistake. The EU open skies policy is the foremost open market for flight and air travel in the world. No where else have anything remotely as good as this.
    Does British Airways have the right to run flights between New York and San Diego?

    Your most embarrassing element is the old trope about the EU allowing murderers and rapist etc.

    You clearly aren’t aware that the EU Citizenship Directive (Directive 2004/58/EC) does not give an unqualified right to free movement and allows national governments to bar entry to individuals on grounds o “public policy, public security or public health”.

    It is worth noting that simply barring people because of previous convictions would not be allowed, (“previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures”, but allows for convicted criminals to be barred where there is “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”.

    In the case of murderers, this is very similar to the UK legal system, where an automatic life sentence with a minimum term means prisoners are allowed out on license, so can be controlled through that mechanism.

    In the case of rapists, under UK law these usually attract a straightforward sentence, which once discharged, means the ex convict is free to go wherever he or she likes once the sentence is complete.

    Where your ignorance shines through is in your failure to grasp that the EU freedom of movement rules actually give HMG more power to control EU rapists than we have over our own rapists, once they are released and the sentence discharged.

    If we have been allowing too many dangerous criminals
    into the UK, it’s the fault of the Home Office – one T. May.

    Like I say, it’s painfully embarrassing to watch, but I appreciate you won’t have the self awareness to understand what a t!t you’ve made of yourself.

  19. @edgeofreason

    I think all types of questions are important. Whatever happens there’s going to be widespread discontent with it – there’s no compromise that would keep both the 25% who are strongly leave and the 25% who are strongly remain on board. But the differences between the various ways of asking opinions on Brexit give useful information as well.

    There are quite a few ways to ask people about their preferences for what happens next, too, all of which are potentially valid and all of which are extremely open to interpretation. For example…

    @Danny
    “only 14% of those who stuck with the conservative party wanted a no deal outcome.”

    This is not quite accurate, with the way the question was worded. Only 14% of them have it as their most preferred option. But with three leave options and only one remain option presented, that sort of fragmentation is inevitable.

    There have been other polls which ask either for a preference ordering, or “tick all outcomes you consider acceptable” which give a bit more nuance in that respect.

  20. Another interesting way to view the EU elections.

    Turnout 37% An important election would get 60% or more.

    So who turned out?
    1) Brexit obsessives. leave or remain.
    2) voting obsessives, who always vote.

    In the past this has allowed UKIp to dominate these elections, because the obsessives were all leave obsessives. This time, a lot of remain obsessives turned out, and the overall result was more pro remain MEPs elected.

    In a general election another bunch of people would turn out, maybe 2/3 on top of those who did this time. These people are not Brexit obsessives. They will vote on traditional lines mostly lab/con. Probably the con vote will be down for traditional reasons, the lab vote up for traditional reasons, and the lib and green vote up a bit from people dismayed by lab and con.

    Net result, most votes lab, second con. Libs quite respectable again, benefitting both from brexit protest and traditional protest. SNP near clean sweep of Scotland. BxP big but more acting to split the leave vote and keeping con out.

    In this light, lab policy is aimed at the tradional voters, not the brexit ones. Its just shuffle along not committing either way.

    whether that is right or wrong depends on the brexit impact. These elections say the heated brexit debate has not persuaded more people to turn out in these elections than would have anyway, though it has persuaded more to vote for a remain party. leave has lost ground.

    Peterborough? More protest vote than a general, less than in the EUs. Protest vote might have more ‘traditional’ protest than the EUs did where it was about Brexit. Traditional policies not doing very well for con.

  21. ROSIEANDDAISIE

    My paternal grandfather was based in Woolwich from the mid-1890s until the outbreak of WW1. Like many others on the South bank, he was an Arsenal supporter until they moved from Plumstead to the far North, after which the name of that club was forbidden in his presence.

  22. “I’m well aware of Companies House rules but much less so re the Electoral Commission. Is anyone aware of any other limited companies pretending to be parties?”

    All of the main parties – CON, LAB, LD, GRN, SNP, PC – are registered at Companies House as Non-Limited Companies.

    I can’t see that the fact that BXP has chosen to register as a Limited Company makes any difference to anything.

  23. @Barbazenzero

    “Strictly speaking, the official moniker is THE BREXIT PARTY LIMITED, as I posted with a link to Companies House which has no ‘trading as’ alternative.

    That in turn raises the question of why the electoral commission misses off the LIMITED in their entry and does not even mention that they are a limited company.

    I’m well aware of Companies House rules but much less so re the Electoral Commission. Is anyone aware of any other limited companies pretending to be parties?”

    So what? It is a Political Party whether you like or not. Not I’d guess, and damned annoying for you too.

    Farage, whether or not he is more than a single issue politician, has pulled Brexit back from May-ist destruction by technocratic blathering and a Parliament set out from day one to ignore the will of the people that they themselves sought.

  24. I am waiting for my expulsion notice from the Labour party, I am a member (for now) and have previously stated on here I voted Green.

    Quite excited as I have never been expelled from anything.

    “I am Spartacus”

  25. Jones in Bangor

    @”So what?”

    So its not a real political party-not genuine. Its a bit of the corporate capitalist hegemony masquerading as a proper political party.

    This explains why 5 million people voted for it. They were duped.

    ergo-their votes are invalid-meaningless , and can be ignored.

  26. I have been thinking about the poor turn-out of the 18-24 year-olds that TrigGuy dug out from the Ashcroft after-voting survey.

    Using the 25-34 year-olds as a yardstick, the number voting and surveyed in the 18-24 year-old group should have been 840, but was just 326.

    This is a big discrepancy, and TrgGuy`s calculation of its effects (BrxP% would be 3% lower with fuller in-line 18-24 turnout, Lab% would be up 2%, Green up 1%) goes a long way to explaining Leave`s apparent lead in the Ashcroft-adjusted EU voting.

    For university students, end-of-May polls often conflict with exams, and we had a one-lass sample of this, 10 pm Thursday night. Granddaughter sent a message that she had been shocked at 9 pm to find none of her friends at Glasgow Uni had voted.

    So she had been on a messaging/phoning crusade, and thought she had had 2/3 successes.

    The same might well happen in a GE, but the greater likely turnout then, and the likely avoidance of the clash this poll had with the time of year when students put in the longest hours studying, should up any Green/Labour future GE vote.

    We can only speculate, I realise, but as an ecologist I try to do that in a way informed by any data available.

  27. @PETERW

    Very good points about a second referendum and I’m inclined to agree – I only support it because it’s a possible way to ‘democratically’ swing back to remain.

    However from now on I take your point and will advocate revoke, and look forward to all the flak this policy will get.

    I note the Brexit Party Ltd. received fewer than the 6m votes the revoke petition did…

  28. @Colin

    I fear your irony will be lost on many of our brexiteer friends, whose chosen rhetorical weapon appears to be the bludgeon rather than the scalpel.

    However, I do think the question of why Farage chose the limited company route is an interesting and relevant one. If one of the considerations in his mind was that this structure gives him total effective control, unhindered by troublesome democratic procedures, then that would, IMO, be concerning.

  29. James Cleverly (apparently he’s a Brexit minister) advocating leaving with a deal, but that no deal is better than no Brexit. This has been the unsuccessful policy of the outgoing PM and her administration for 3 years, and a l1e, so what’s new?

    Sajid Javid promising 20,000 new police officers. To replace the ones the outgoing PM cut while at the Home Office, I presume?

    Some leadership candidates are promising a “clean campaign” – how boring. What will they talk about?

  30. @ Hireton

    “The depth of ignorance of Brexiters about the EU is remarkable.”

    Resorting to insults doesn’t solve anything. I’d tell you how I really feel, but I wasn’t born with enough middle fingers to express myself in this case:)

  31. Jonesinbangor,
    “Farage, whether or not he is more than a single issue politician, has pulled Brexit back from May-ist destruction ”
    i dont think he has really. there was no presence for leave parties in the local elections, and in the euros they did worse than last time. He has collected them together for a last stand…

    Colin,
    “This explains why 5 million people voted for it. They were duped. ergo-their votes are invalid-meaningless , and can be ignored.”

    Lewblew,
    “Some leadership candidates are promising a “clean campaign” – how boring. What will they talk about?”

    This was also a mistake in the referendum, where they also avoided attacking each other’s policy and its bearing on the issue.

    Votes arent usually ignored because they were obtained by being less than honest with voters. They are usually ignored because it doesnt suit someone in power.

  32. Alec

    Your 9:14 a.m. post.

    It’s a shame there are no emojis on here. It’s an excellent post, so lots of smilies, thumbs ups etc.

    Sadly Brxt is not alone in his/her complete ignorance of what leaving without a deal really means. Although I am no Tory, I feel really sorry for people like Philip Hammond and Jeremy Hunt, who know what a disaster it would be and have to put up with their colleagues blithely saying we should just leave.

    By the way, Brxt did let his/her mask slip with the rabid “EU allowing murderers and rapist etc.” nonsense. Ooops.

  33. @ Lewblew

    “I note the Brexit Party Ltd. received fewer than the 6m votes the revoke petition did…”

    The only tiny problem with this comparison is you could sign the revoke petition as many times as you wanted as an individual but you could only vote once last week. Maybe remainers should be allocated double votes as your viewpoint and intelligence is obviously far superior to us simpleton Leavers. :)

  34. @ EoR and CIM

    Agreed, the Ashcroft question is an interesting question. As I’m sure you understand, my problem with it is not the question, but the way it was reported in the write-up as “now, 50% said they wanted to leave, 46% said they wanted to remain”. “Want” is very different to “What do you think is the best outcome”, which depends a little on how the participant interprets the question. Admittedly the “best” gives some justification for the “want” interpretation, but I think I’d still interpret the question as “What is the best outcome for the country” rather than “What is the best outcome for you”.

    To put it another way, I’ve never “wanted” there to be a Conservative government in power. But ask me after an election in which the Torys won a majority “Which is the best party to rule the country at this time” it would have to be the party with the majority. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean I’ll vote Tory next time just because they won last time.

  35. Danny,

    “There’s one element of ashcroft I just noticed: only 14% of those who stuck with the conservative party wanted a no deal outcome. Most are current deal or a revised one, but the voters who remained loyal do not seem to want no deal. Which a number of leadership candidates are pushing.”

    Remember again that this is quite a small part of the Tory vote from previous elections (less than a quarter of Tory voters from 2017 voted Tory in this Euro election – much less once turnout is considered) with the majority switching to BXP.

    Any Tory leader who doesn’t want to preside over the biggest electoral wipeout in their history cannot just chase the 9% who’ve remained loyal, they need to find a way to win a big, biiiig chunk of other voters back.

    ======

    Alec,

    Not wishing to defend the other poster who’s out to pick fights, but some of your points are not accurate and that should be addressed.

    “Space – Worth pointing out that, contrary to common assumptions, ESA is not in fact an EU organisation. It does receive some EU funding but is primarily a multilateral organisation that receives funding direct from supporter countries. I attended a talk given by them recently and they took great pains to emphasise this fact.

    University rankings – the claim that UK universities are being overtaken by many EU universities due to Brexit is demonstrably false. Yes, UK universities have slipped in the rankings, but this is part of a long-term trend of non-European universities (particularly in China and Australia) gradually catching up to the Western world. Most European countries (with the sole exceptions of the Dutch and Portuguese) are also slipping – source here: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2017082915474677

    Intelligence, roaming – fair enough.

    Open skies – the UK has already concluded an agreement with the US that would replace the existing EU-US treaty. Similarly, the UK and EU agree that they will make similar arrangements to maintain reciprocal aviation access post-Brexit.

    “Where your ignorance shines through is in your failure to grasp that the EU freedom of movement rules actually give HMG more power to control EU rapists than we have over our own rapists, once they are released and the sentence discharged.”

    Faulty logic here, HMG has the power to deport or bar any foreign citizens for crimes committed, whether EU or not. EU freedom-of-movement did not create this power.

  36. @Hireton & Bantams

    I recall pan-EU polling a while ago that demonstrated a strong positive correlation in the electorates of EU members between basic knowledge of the EU and how it works, and support for membership.

    In other words, the less a country’s population knows about the EU, the more it dislikes it.

    And, of course, no prizes for guessing whose population knows least about the EU and is most hostile to it.

    (Not knowing much about the EU isn’t an indicator of stupidity, but surely more a reflection of each country’s engagement with the EU. Many Brits, as far as I can see, tend to ignore it and have no interest in how it works, so it’s unsurprising if many are easily persuadable that it’s some sort of mysterious, monolithic bureaucracy dictating to us).

  37. DAVID CARROD

    Thanks for the info on non-limited companies. It’s an area I have never been involved with, but is clearly why other parties don’t need to add LIMITED to their names.

    JONESINBANGOR

    As DAVID CARROD informs us, the other parties aren’t limited companies, it does seem surprising that THE BREXIT PARTY LIMITED has been allowed to drop the LIMITED by the Electoral Commission.

    COLIN

    Astonished that you seem to be in agreement with me. Like SOMERJOHN, I suspect you were attempting irony. I had hoped that someone on here like PETERW might know more than most about Electoral Commission rules.

    Do you believe that they should be allowed to pretend that they are a real political party rather than a limited company?

  38. @JiB – “Farage, whether or not he is more than a single issue politician, has pulled Brexit back from May-ist destruction by technocratic blathering and a Parliament set out from day one to ignore the will of the people that they themselves sought.”

    I think what you meant to say was something like ‘Farage has moved Brexit on from the Norway style option he previously said would work fine to a newly defined no deal Brexit which he specifically promised would not happen and would not be possible in the 2016 referendum’

    ?

  39. 11 Candidates now declared for Tory leadership contest, and nominations are open for another couple of weeks.

    Johnson was the early favourite at around even money, but has now drifted out to 5/2 or thereabouts. Gove is second favourite at around 4/1, with Leadsom and Raab both at 6/1. All others are 20/1 or higher.

    I had a bet on Steve Baker a year ago at 180/1 on Betfair, he has now come in to 40/1, and will get much shorter when he officially declares his candidacy.

    That will net me a nice £2,000 if he wins, which apparently I’m going to need if I believe all the remainers on here.

  40. Follow up to my riposte to @Brxt this morning;

    one of the great shames about the Brexit debate is the way it has driven each side into rigid mindsets that cannot tolerate any agreement across the divide.

    @Brxt’s line that there is nothing good about the EU outside the free trade issue is quite plainly completely stupid, but no more stupid than a hard core remainer being unable to accept that there are major flaws within the EU that deserve to be critiqued.

    Sadly, we end up with the spectacle of the same old ding dong, with each side defending every last point to the death, instead of sometimes accepting a shared concern from the other side.

    Partly this is down to the nature of binary choices, but I also feel it is a reaction to the transforming of Brexit into a hard, no deal Brexit.

    This was always denied as an option by leavers pre 2016, but since then, possibly by design, but more likely in response to the realisation of the complexities of leaving, along with the desire to retain a simplistic leave message. Nuance is difficult when you need people to back one side in a binary choice.

    As a result, we’ve lost the willingness of many remainers to accept the result, and in doing so, to accept that the EU has failings and drawbacks. We are now being asked to accept something that was specifically taken off the table in 2016.

    We needed a conversation about which good bits of the EU we wanted to retain, and which of the drawbacks we would be prepared to accept to keep these, but instead we’ve boiled the debate down to a Life of Brian level ‘what did the EU ever do for us?’. Don’t be surprised if you get a Life of Brian level response.

    Ultimately, my suspicion is that the hard Brexiters will end up keeping us in the EU. A well organised and moderate approach to leaving the EU was acceptable to the majority in 2016. Many remainers moved across to supporting, or at least accepting, Brexit on this basis post June 23rd.

    However, attitudes have undoubtedly hardened as the hard core have ramped up the no deal rhetoric. The point about no deal is that is has to be based on the fact that there is nothing good in the EU, which simply gets up the noses of remainers, as well as damaging the UK.

    My advice to Brexiters is to go back to where Farage once was, with a Norway style deal working well enough, and get your Brexit. Stick with the no deal nonsense, and you’ll find you lose, and the EU stays as 28 members.

  41. We should have a special season of “get me out of here” and dump all the candidates in a jungle somewhere and whittle them down by asking them to do unspeakable acts.

    Public can vote off one each week.

    Would make great TV.

  42. Problems for Johnson –

    District Judge Margot Coleman

    “The allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any findings of fact. Having considered all the relevant factors I am satisfied that this is a proper case to issue the summons as requested for the three offences as drafted. The charges are indictable only.

    “This means the proposed defendant [Boris Johnson] will be required to attend this court for a preliminary hearing, and the case will then be sent to the Crown Court for trial.

    “The charges can only be dealt with in the Crown Court.””

    So Johnson summonsed to appear in court of misconduct in a public office charge regarding alleged ly!ng in the Brexit campaign

  43. Regards Brexit Party being a Limited Company, it may not necessarily be a problem but raises two concerns:
    – the default rules of governance for a limited company are different from a non-limited company; unless Farage actively chooses to do otherwise, he and his fellow shareholder retain absolute control over the rules and regulations determining how the ‘part’ is governed.
    As I understand it Farage has not released any details of the constitution of the company, so no one can judge either way.
    In contrast, the non-limited companies that form other political parties have detailed constitutions that are available for public review; key decisions are reserved to the membership generally or specific appointees (e.g. branch chairmen). So there is some confidence that there is at least a form of internal democracy in each.

    – the second issue is about money; if you make a payment to a limited company it belongs to them as long as they have provided the service promised; if you make a payment for ‘support’ then it is a donation, an is still solely owned by the entity.
    Therefore , as it stands, all money collected by the Brexit Party Ltd belongs to the company and ultimately to the two shareholders, who are perfectly entitled to pay themselves a dividend, salaries, etc as they see fit.
    It is a bit like US tele-evangelists – they may be running a valid religious foundation, but it is hard to tell.

    So we can’t be sure who is pulling the strings and/or where the money is going.

    Whereas by going the unlimited company route it would have been crystal clear, so one wonders why that route wasn’t taken?

  44. And problems for Corbyn;

    From Jess Phillips MP –

    “Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, tweeted that Campbell was “expelled quicker than a man who threatened to kill me [and] quicker than a man in my [local party] who denied the Holocaust”, adding that the two had only been suspended.”

    I think the Labour Party, of which I am a member, has been utterly pathetic over this. I am considering my position, as they say, not that Corbyn will pay any attention to what I, as a member, think.

    The contrast with the pitifully slow processes in dealing with threats of violence and antisemitism is painful and embarrassing.

  45. @ Bantams

    “Maybe remainers should be allocated double votes as your viewpoint and intelligence is obviously far superior to us simpleton Leavers. :)”

    I have noticed that in the last few weeks on this forum that almost exclusively, the people that call Leavers stupid are people who are actually Leavers. Why is this?

  46. @ Alec

    “Problems for Johnson – ”

    Timing of this is highly suspicious. If I were someone who believed in conspiracy theories, I’d be having a field day.

  47. @Imperium3 – thanks for your comments. Some counter points;

    Space – the EU is the biggest contributor to the ESA and steps are underway to bring the ESA under the EU as a fully fledged EU agency. This was due to happen in 2014 but has been delayed. There are strong linkages between the EU and the ESA, and without EU funding, the ESA would have been a far smaller entity.

    Open skies – here, I think, you are confused. Reciprocal access to third countries is not the same as open skies.

    The open skies policy allows any company within the EU28 to compete for any routes in any of the EU28. It is not about access into the EU28 from non-members, so comparison to post Brexit UK/US flight arrangements is not relevant. Like I say, British Airways have no right to bid for routes from New York to San Diego, which they would have if the UK was party to a US open skies policy.

    FoM – “Faulty logic here, HMG has the power to deport or bar any foreign citizens for crimes committed, whether EU or not. EU freedom-of-movement did not create this power.”

    Again, here you are confused. I’m not talking about foreign convicted criminals. I’m talking about UK citizens convicted of rape, who having served their full sentences are free to do whatever they like.

    EU citizens in similar circumstances can still be barred from the UK under FoM rules, if they are deemed to be a specific threat. So, for example, a Worboys character from the EU27, who having served the maximum available sentence in his own country, is then released. The UK could bar him entry, citing safety concerns. This would be allowable.

    However, a UK national Worboys, if he has served his maximum lawful sentence, cannot be controlled in such a a way.

    On universities, yes I can accept I was too definitive on the data. There was something of a dip a year or two ago, but possibly more funding related, with a slightly better performance for the UK in the last set of figures.

    However, universities themselves are clear that a failure to retain access to EU staff, EU research programs and EU student exchange risks their high standing – see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47346798

  48. IMPERIUM3

    Two issues on Open Skies:
    1. The EU has agreed to keep many of the existing provisions regarding overflying etc on a temporary unilateral basis. These could be recinded at any time that it suits the EU (unlikely, but still a sword on a thread)
    2. UK based airlines currently have the right to set up any route anywhere in the EU, as opposed to the old system where airlines could only fly into and out of their home nation. So whereas now BA could set up a route from Riga to Ljubljana, in future they will be prevented from this. Becomes a big problem for low cost airlines trying to be based in the UK, and BA’s ownership of Air Iberia.

  49. @ Alec

    “I think what you meant to say was something like ‘Farage has moved Brexit on from the Norway style option he previously said would work fine to a newly defined no deal Brexit which he specifically promised would not happen and would not be possible in the 2016 referendum’”

    No Alec. Give the man some credit – Farage has saved Brexit from the cack handed May and her sycophants.

  50. @JiB and @Alec
    You realise that you can both be true?

    Farage may be both someone who is ‘rescuing’ Brexit from Tory incompetence AND someone who has completely reversed his stated position for political convenience.

    The two are not mutually exclusive…

1 28 29 30 31 32 36