politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos Mori finds support at a 24 year high for remaining in the EU
One of the reasons I like the Ipsos Mori polling on the EU, is that they’ve been polling on the topic for nearly forty years, they have another poll out today for the the Evening Standard.
Makes perfect sense - Nov = not much confidence in him winning the GE let alone renegotiating the EU treaty; Now = election won, full force of potential Out vote in his back pocket.
I am so disappointed in this government. The EU referendum was a fantastic opportunity to have a spectacularly complicated multi-part referendum with multiple levels of possible transfer.
The betting opportunities would have been staggeringly good.
I am so disappointed in this government. The EU referendum was a fantastic opportunity to have a spectacularly complicated multi-part referendum with multiple levels of possible transfer.
The betting opportunities would have been staggeringly good.
Instead we get a simply "Yes/No" question.
Shame on you Mr Cameron.
I'm hopeful that the next Scottish Indyref will be a multi option referendum.
So the next Indyref would have to be conducted under AV.
Just think, we could have numerous threads that combines the joy of Scottish Independence and AV.
Would a honeymoon period really account for such a large IN vote, I certainly have my doubts – Look more like the OUT campaign is buggered before it even starts?
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Touch depressing that as the AV referendum turned into a de facto Nick Clegg referendum so the In/Out could well turn into one on Nige.
This poll is based on the premise Cameron will achieve at least some renegotiation which is likely to go on the backburner with potential Grexit if it was ever there. The poll only shows 14% want more integration, 31% the same position, 33% a return to an economic community with no political links
Even those of us who believe membership is to our long-term advantage wanted a closer race than this. Impossible to secure concessions when the referendum is - at this time - clearly going to favour the status quo.
Amateur hour (amateur month) at UKIP is not helping.
The problem with UKIP is their very vocal supporters seem to think that their causes (Anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-AIDS tourists etc) are universally popular and only a minority "metropolitan elite" disagree. The reality I think and hope is that Britain is quite civilised and such anti-everything attitude may suit some people but even those worried about one are put off by this whole package of negative hostility and aggression.
Farage's unresignation was probably the final straw. He's appealed to those he could appeal to, but Farage was never going to win the backing of 51% of the public. Over time any leader picks up baggage but a new leader could have built on the groundwork Farage built while shedding his baggage. Farage has chosen himself over his cause.
A Tom Watson Freudian slip - surely he means "behind"?!
"When asked if he would support the leader even if they proposed a policy he did not agree with, the West Bromwich MP said: “Oh yes, oh yes. Let me tell you this: whoever is elected leader of the Labour Party will have my 100 per cent support and we’re all going to have to swing in against that leader. "
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
I'm not sure whether that is serious or deliciously sarcastic. Very funny either way.
This poll is based on the premise Cameron will achieve at least some renegotiation which is likely to go on the backburner with potential Grexit if it was ever there. The poll only shows 14% want more integration, 31% the same position, 33% a return to an economic community with no political links
More integration isn't on the table so that's irrelevant. As for if there was a Grexit then the last thing the EU leaders would risk is seeing the UK chose to leave the EU after Greece had been forced to leave - it is the distraction of Grexit that makes a renegotiation slightly harder, remove that and the EU will be desperate to give Cameron what he needs to keep us in.
The poll shows 50% more Tory voters will vote In than Out, and that is before Cameron starts campaigning for In. If there is a Tory In campaign, expect uncertain Tory voters to swing towards In.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
OUTs best hope is for a combination of disastrously managed Grexit and prolonged, insufferable arrogance from Junckers et al. Oh, and Nigel to retire with immediate effect.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
I think it's unlikely that if only UKIP supported gay marriage and treating free of charge foreigners with HIV, the numbers would be turned around.
The reasons why support for staying in has increased are (a) increased support for the government (b) the apparent end to the Eurozone crisis.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
I think it's unlikely that if only UKIP supported gay marriage and treating free of charge foreigners with HIV, the numbers would be turned around.
The reasons why support for staying in has increased are (a) increased support for the government (b) the apparent end to the Eurozone crisis.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
I think it's unlikely that if only UKIP supported gay marriage and treating free of charge foreigners with HIV, the numbers would be turned around.
The reasons why support for staying in has increased are (a) increased support for the government (b) the apparent end to the Eurozone crisis.
I think it's even simpler than that. The idea of an EU vote has sharpened the minds.
Its easy to claim you want "change" when it isn't on the table but most voters are risk-averse. Leaving the EU is a leap away from our status quo and unless people are confident they'll shy away from that.
UKIP becoming toxic hasn't helped, but its probably not the major cause. I think Out would have struggled without a convincing narrative but nobody is making that narrative clearly.
If eurosceptics don't like the idea of UKIP being involved in the Out campaign, isn't it about time they stepped up to the mark and began campaigning for Out, rather than moaning about UKIP ruining their chances?
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
Whoosh...
Sorry if that was sarcasm, some have said it seriously here ...
The problem with UKIP is their very vocal supporters seem to think that their causes (Anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-AIDS tourists etc) are universally popular and only a minority "metropolitan elite" disagree. The reality I think and hope is that Britain is quite civilised and such anti-everything attitude may suit some people but even those worried about one are put off by this whole package of negative hostility and aggression.
Farage's unresignation was probably the final straw. He's appealed to those he could appeal to, but Farage was never going to win the backing of 51% of the public. Over time any leader picks up baggage but a new leader could have built on the groundwork Farage built while shedding his baggage. Farage has chosen himself over his cause.
I think your first paragraph hits on a key issue really - there is certainly an audience for all of those things, and people left behind by the other political parties in some way who like the anti-stance, and nothing in principle wrong with being passionate, or anything unique about thinking ones policy positions are more popular than in fact they are...but UKIP's tone and tactics do push the idea that they are saying what everyone is thinking about the elites, and sometimes that's true (their dislike of the EU was ahead of the other parties in being in tune with the public), but more often than the others they react as though everything the others do is some metro-elite nonsense that nobody is ok with but which the elites ignore, and that isn't the case. On many issues the big two are still in sync with the public, and on those issues UKIP can be seen as aggressive and patronising (the latter something they have beenon the receving end of enough to notice)
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
I suspect that William was being (rightly) ironic.
Farage is a liability to the OUT movement. Had UKIP been able to show they were a serious threat to the Tories at the last election by taking half a dozen or more seats then he would have served his purpose by increasing the pressure on Cameron to get some real concessions. As it is he comprehensively failed and UKIP under the current leadership can only harm the OUT movement.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
I think it's unlikely that if only UKIP supported gay marriage and treating free of charge foreigners with HIV, the numbers would be turned around.
The reasons why support for staying in has increased are (a) increased support for the government (b) the apparent end to the Eurozone crisis.
I think it's a little bit more complicated than that. I doubt even half the population have a strong opinion about the EU and Europe.
And those that do know something probably do have a genuine thought out view. (One, I suspect that tends to support "Out".)
But the half the population who don't really think about the EU think about it as being a question about whether to vote for "what Farage wants, or what Cameron and the Labour want".
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
I think it's unlikely that if only UKIP supported gay marriage and treating free of charge foreigners with HIV, the numbers would be turned around.
The reasons why support for staying in has increased are (a) increased support for the government (b) the apparent end to the Eurozone crisis.
(a) Yes (b) Really?
(b) The news in 2011/12 was dire. Obviously, permanent economic stagnation is a form of crisis, but it's the kind of crisis that people think they can live with. 3 or 4 years ago, people feared much worse than that.
(a) The corollary is that as support for the government declines (as it always does) so will unhappiness with the stance on the EU.
Presumably if the leaked Evans sacking email was sent without proper authorisation and she has not been sacked (or has been unsacked), we need to know who sent that email and if they have been sacked as a result?
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
PT While Grexit is the main topic of conversation, renegotiation goes further into the distance, in some ways it could pull the remaining eurozone nations closer and they may want the further turbulence of renegotation breaking the ties that bind. ICM and yougov a few weeks ago had No on over 40% and more Tories voting Out than In, this poll is simply expectation of at least some powers being renegotiated, the longer that takes to achieve the more Out will start to rise again.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
I suspect that William was being (rightly) ironic.
Farage is a liability to the OUT movement. Had UKIP been able to show they were a serious threat to the Tories at the last election by taking half a dozen or more seats then he would have served his purpose by increasing the pressure on Cameron to get some real concessions. As it is he comprehensively failed and UKIP under the current leadership can only harm the OUT movement.
I think it's easy to underestimate, under First Past the Post, how hard it is to go from being nowhere to being a major challenger.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
The vote share for the big two rose by 2%, despite the implosion of the Lib Dems. I think it will resume its long-term downward course in 2020.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
I think it's easy to underestimate, under First Past the Post, how hard it is to go from being nowhere to being a major challenger.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
UKIP have a problem with expectations management. I can't recall an active UKIP supporter (besides maybe yourself) here or elsewhere suggesting before the election only one seat won would be a success. We had projections from 5+ on the low end, to some suggesting dozens, one here suggesting 60 and then Twitter Kippers suggesting a hundred plus.
Only after the election has the notion of one seat won been deemed to be a huge success. That to me is 1984-style Newspeak, a rewriting of history. Again excepting yourself, I don't recall you ever suggesting a high seat haul but I'm sure you remember seat projections by Kippers before the election were almost universally above one.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
The Congress Party still exists in India, 68 years after Independence - though they did receive a pounding in 2014!
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
They might be more popular than ever as a choice for the Euros if they lose,counterintuitively - sure the public won't have wanted to leave, but electing MEPs who will fight the most for Britain over the EU, as they hate it so much, might lead to stemming the worst aspects othe EU even if peope didn't want to leave.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
They might be more popular than ever as a choice for the Euros if they lose,counterintuitively - sure the public won't have wanted to leave, but electing MEPs who will fight the most for Britain over the EU, as they hate it so much, might lead to stemming the worst aspects othe EU even if peope didn't want to leave.
I thought Farage and co were better at making (admittedly very amusing) speeches attacking the legitimacy of the EU Parliament than they were at standing up for British interests.
I think many Conservatives would be very pleased if Cameron could untangle us from 'ever closer union'.
I believe that the EU will deliver a lot of other desirable things as by-blows by virtue of powerful global trends (e.g. migration), demographics and EU economic tensions.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
The vote share for the big two rose by 2%, despite the implosion of the Lib Dems. I think it will resume its long-term downward course in 2020.
It rose by 2% despite the SNP sweeping the board north of the border. It rose by 5.0% in England. I suspect the two-party share will rise again next time as people make a forced choice on who they want to rule the country with no third party clearly snipping at their heels (as the Lib-Dems had in the past, and as UKIP were wrongly perceived to be doing so this time).
Presumably if the leaked Evans sacking email was sent without proper authorisation and she has not been sacked (or has been unsacked), we need to know who sent that email and if they have been sacked as a result?
Pythonesque. "Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked...."
This poll is based on the premise Cameron will achieve at least some renegotiation which is likely to go on the backburner with potential Grexit if it was ever there. The poll only shows 14% want more integration, 31% the same position, 33% a return to an economic community with no political links
Surely the opposite is true. If there is a Grexit, the pressures on our EU partners to keep the UK in will be massively increased, strengthening Cameron's hand in any negotiations. Otherwise, if Greece leaves because of its incompetency, and the UK leaves because of its perception of EU incompetency, the entire EU project becomes much more at risk.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
They might be more popular than ever as a choice for the Euros if they lose,counterintuitively - sure the public won't have wanted to leave, but electing MEPs who will fight the most for Britain over the EU, as they hate it so much, might lead to stemming the worst aspects othe EU even if peope didn't want to leave.
I thought Farage and co were better at making (admittedly very amusing) speeches attacking the legitimacy of the EU Parliament than they were at standing up for British interests.
So it is said, I am not sure either way, but I don't know that the wider public have a position on that either, as far as most go they don't think MEPs do anything anyway, so 'standing up for british interests' is more a theoretical thing which might not damage them to much.
For the record my prediction of 1 UKIP MP single handedly kept me in the black at the GE. 18 months before I didn't think they'd win any, but might build on 2015 for winning seats in 2020. They could still try that, it was still a success in many ways, but as others have pointed out, many were so optimistic it doesn't look like one now.
I think it's easy to underestimate, under First Past the Post, how hard it is to go from being nowhere to being a major challenger.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
UKIP have a problem with expectations management. I can't recall an active UKIP supporter (besides maybe yourself) here or elsewhere suggesting before the election only one seat won would be a success. We had projections from 5+ on the low end, to some suggesting dozens, one here suggesting 60 and then Twitter Kippers suggesting a hundred plus.
Only after the election has the notion of one seat won been deemed to be a huge success. That to me is 1984-style Newspeak, a rewriting of history. Again excepting yourself, I don't recall you ever suggesting a high seat haul but I'm sure you remember seat projections by Kippers before the election were almost universally above one.
My own prediction was that UKIP would win 11-13% of the vote, and this would result in 4-6 seats. The first prediction was correct, the second wasn't. Predictions of dozens of wins were of course silly.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
They might be more popular than ever as a choice for the Euros if they lose,counterintuitively - sure the public won't have wanted to leave, but electing MEPs who will fight the most for Britain over the EU, as they hate it so much, might lead to stemming the worst aspects othe EU even if peope didn't want to leave.
logicalsong If you are opposed to the EU, opposed gay marriage, want less immigration and more grammar schools UKIP is the only party which represents your views
...electing MEPs who will fight the most for Britain over the EU, as they hate it so much, might lead to stemming the worst aspects othe EU even if peope didn't want to leave.
Except that UKIP MEPs do nothing of the sort. They take little or no constructive part in debates or behind-the-scenes negotiations.
I think we're past peak Kipper now. They very badly screwed up their strategy (if they ever had one) and are now in the process of throwing away the only chance in a generation to leave the EU. Admittedly that was always going to be a very hard chance to grasp, but running off in the opposite direction, trying to sabotage the referendum, doing nothing to prepare the Brexit case, and morphing into a protectionist anti-immigration party were all extremely counter-productive (assuming that they do actually want us to leave the EU).
They'll survive in some form, but no doubt there will be multiple crises, resignations and unresignations as support slowly ebbs away.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
They might be more popular than ever as a choice for the Euros if they lose,counterintuitively - sure the public won't have wanted to leave, but electing MEPs who will fight the most for Britain over the EU, as they hate it so much, might lead to stemming the worst aspects othe EU even if peope didn't want to leave.
This poll is based on the premise Cameron will achieve at least some renegotiation which is likely to go on the backburner with potential Grexit if it was ever there. The poll only shows 14% want more integration, 31% the same position, 33% a return to an economic community with no political links
More integration isn't on the table so that's irrelevant. As for if there was a Grexit then the last thing the EU leaders would risk is seeing the UK chose to leave the EU after Greece had been forced to leave - it is the distraction of Grexit that makes a renegotiation slightly harder, remove that and the EU will be desperate to give Cameron what he needs to keep us in.
The poll shows 50% more Tory voters will vote In than Out, and that is before Cameron starts campaigning for In. If there is a Tory In campaign, expect uncertain Tory voters to swing towards In.
Did not see this before commenting to the same effect.
I am coming to the view that Grexit is the best thing that can happen to the EU. It will show other countries that the Greek tactics will not work, and it will force the EU to slow ever-closer and instead concentrate on fixing what is not right/turning off national publics about the current system.
Personally, as a Eurosceptic. I am not totally averse to ever-closer if it is a good functioning system. But to get there, we have to fix what's wrong first. It is the vast amount of what is currently wrong, and my lack of belief in any will to overcome bureaucratic inertia to fix it, that makes me a sceptic.
...electing MEPs who will fight the most for Britain over the EU, as they hate it so much, might lead to stemming the worst aspects othe EU even if peope didn't want to leave.
Except that UKIP MEPs do nothing of the sort. They take little or no constructive part in debates.
I think we're past peak Kipper now. They very badly screwed up their strategy (if they ever had one) and are now in the process of throwing away the only chance in a generation to leave the EU. Admittedly that was always going to be a very hard chance to grasp, but running off in the opposite direction, trying to sabotage the referendum, doing nothing to prepare the Brexit case, and morphing into a protectionist anti-immigration party were all extremely counter-productive (assuming that they do actually want us to leave the EU).
They'll survive in some form, but no doubt there will be multiple crises, resignations and unresignations as support slowly ebbs away.
I was thinking of the perception of what they might do, not what they will actually do. Not even taking part in debates hinders the latter, and might with the former, but it is not a certainty.
A Debt/GDP ratio of 80% is not high in historical terms. When Macmillan told us in 1957 that 'we have never had it so good' the ratio was 120% - but he did not feel the need to follow a policy of austerity abandoned five years earlier when the same ratio was over 200%. Morever, throughout the Industrial Revolution period the ratio was far higher than what we are told is unbearable today.
You do write the most extraordinary nonsense. That would have been forgivable in the pre-internet days. Nowadays a few seconds searching on Google will find you this:
I suggest you study it. You will find that in 1957/8 the public sector borrowing requirement was zero. Zilch. The Conservative government of the time was indeed 'balancing the books', and national debt as a percentage of GDP was falling rapidly.
I will not adopt your own patronising tone. Suffice to say that I was already well aware that Budget Deficits were modest in the late 1950s - and indeed that the Attlee Govt had run four consecutive surpluses in the late 40s /early 50s with Wilson's Govt running consecutive surpluses at the end of the 1960s.Indeed from the evidence it would appear that Labour Governments have run a surplus rather more often than have Tory Govts. The PSBR as a % of GDP at 4.9% is no higher than that prevalent between 1973 and 1981 under the Chancellorships of Barber, Healey and Howe and is rather lower than that seen between 1992 and 1996 under Lamont and Clarke. Moreover Debt Interest as a % of GDP at 2.5% remains below what it was throughout the period 1975 - 2000. It was only lower on an ongoing basis during the years 2001 to 2009. From memory I do recall that when Neville Chamberlain was Chancellor during the National Govt Debt Interest as a % of GDP was much higher. I accept that economists have a range of views on these issues. I happen to lean strongly in the direction of Krugman and William Keegan as expounded in The Observer.
logicalsong If you are opposed to the EU, opposed gay marriage, want less immigration and more grammar schools UKIP is the only party which represents your views
I think that a lot of posters find it very hard to comprehend why someone would not support either the Conservatives or Labour. Some of us don't find either party very appealing. In my case, I prefer the Conservatives to Labour, but that's not saying much.
I think it's easy to underestimate, under First Past the Post, how hard it is to go from being nowhere to being a major challenger.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
UKIP have a problem with expectations management. I can't recall an active UKIP supporter (besides maybe yourself) here or elsewhere suggesting before the election only one seat won would be a success. We had projections from 5+ on the low end, to some suggesting dozens, one here suggesting 60 and then Twitter Kippers suggesting a hundred plus.
Only after the election has the notion of one seat won been deemed to be a huge success. That to me is 1984-style Newspeak, a rewriting of history. Again excepting yourself, I don't recall you ever suggesting a high seat haul but I'm sure you remember seat projections by Kippers before the election were almost universally above one.
My own prediction was that UKIP would win 11-13% of the vote, and this would result in 4-6 seats. The first prediction was correct, the second wasn't. Predictions of dozens of wins were of course silly.
So 12.5% was no great surge above your prediction and 1 seat was below it. I fail to see how that is a great success then? I certainly fail to see how you get from 1 seat to a majority in a referendum with Farage being the figurehead. There is a big difference between working to appeal to the disenchanted to get just over 10%, to working to appeal to over half the country.
logicalsong If you are opposed to the EU, opposed gay marriage, want less immigration and more grammar schools UKIP is the only party which represents your views
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Spot on. Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
If OUT wins then no. I certainly won't continue to support the current incarnation of UKIP if the aim of leaving the EU has been achieved although I might support a properly Libertarian party if that evolved from the remains (which I hasten to add I do not think is likely)
If IN wins then there will still need to be an anti-EU party. My hope would be that it would be UKIP sans Farage as I believe there are plenty of good people in the party. But I would not support the party simply for the sake of it and certainly not if Farage continued to lead it with his current attitude/policies.
logicalsong If you are opposed to the EU, opposed gay marriage, want less immigration and more grammar schools UKIP is the only party which represents your views
I think that a lot of posters find it very hard to comprehend why someone would not support either the Conservatives or Labour. Some of us don't find either party very appealing. In my case, I prefer the Conservatives to Labour, but that's not saying much.
Sean F. Feel for me, then, having to chose between Democrats and Republicans!
logicalsong If you are opposed to the EU, opposed gay marriage, want less immigration and more grammar schools UKIP is the only party which represents your views
Personally that's why I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot barge pole as I'm in favour of all you just listed as UKIP being against. But I suspect there are many people who may be OK with one, while against another - UKIP setting a hard face against all leaves a narrow pool behind to fish in.
Gay rights especially are not something most people are opposed to - and it has only been further normalised since legalisation. I've got gay friends who're happily engaged and I'm happy for them - a party opposed to their happiness won't win many votes from not just gay people but their friends and acquaintances too.
logicalsong If you are opposed to the EU, opposed gay marriage, want less immigration and more grammar schools UKIP is the only party which represents your views
I think that a lot of posters find it very hard to comprehend why someone would not support either the Conservatives or Labour. Some of us don't find either party very appealing. In my case, I prefer the Conservatives to Labour, but that's not saying much.
Sean F. Feel for me, then, having to chose between Democrats and Republicans!
Probably because all those immigrants from the EU are at a 24 year high?
Just sayin'...
I suspect the reason is because Nigel Farage has managed to toxify "Out". He's managed to associate it with opposition to gay marriage. He's managed to associate it with comments about AIDS sufferers. He's managed to associate it with red faced pub bores.
Isn't it much more likely to be caused by the disloyalty of people like Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell, Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, etc? Farage has been so unlucky that everyone he's ever worked with has been insufficiently devoted to the cause.
He had total loyalty in the run up to his complete election failure. Only after he failed to win his seat or any other seat besides Carswell's (thus triggering his resignation) and only after he farcically unresigned did objections arise. Given that besides Carswell the GE15 was an unmitigated failure for UKIP I find it bemusing to blame Carswell and others for that.
I suspect that William was being (rightly) ironic.
Farage is a liability to the OUT movement. Had UKIP been able to show they were a serious threat to the Tories at the last election by taking half a dozen or more seats then he would have served his purpose by increasing the pressure on Cameron to get some real concessions. As it is he comprehensively failed and UKIP under the current leadership can only harm the OUT movement.
I think it's easy to underestimate, under First Past the Post, how hard it is to go from being nowhere to being a major challenger.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
The problem being that for me UKIP was only ever a vehicle to try and achieve the aim of leaving the EU. So I really have no interest in whether the party survives past the next few years - at least in its current form. For me the failure to get more MPs elected and so put real pressure on Tory and Labour backbenchers over the issue of Brexit is a comprehensively failure on Farage's part. Whether they survive or gain lots more votes at future elections means pretty much nothing to me.
I think it's easy to underestimate, under First Past the Post, how hard it is to go from being nowhere to being a major challenger.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
UKIP have a problem with expectations management. I can't recall an active UKIP supporter (besides maybe yourself) here or elsewhere suggesting before the election only one seat won would be a success. We had projections from 5+ on the low end, to some suggesting dozens, one here suggesting 60 and then Twitter Kippers suggesting a hundred plus.
Only after the election has the notion of one seat won been deemed to be a huge success. That to me is 1984-style Newspeak, a rewriting of history. Again excepting yourself, I don't recall you ever suggesting a high seat haul but I'm sure you remember seat projections by Kippers before the election were almost universally above one.
My own prediction was that UKIP would win 11-13% of the vote, and this would result in 4-6 seats. The first prediction was correct, the second wasn't. Predictions of dozens of wins were of course silly.
So 12.5% was no great surge above your prediction and 1 seat was below it. I fail to see how that is a great success then? I certainly fail to see how you get from 1 seat to a majority in a referendum with Farage being the figurehead. There is a big difference between working to appeal to the disenchanted to get just over 10%, to working to appeal to over half the country.
I always thought that to go from 2.9% in 2010 to the vote share I was predicting would be a considerable success.
But, I thought that it would result in handful of seats, rather than one seat.
logicalsong If you are opposed to the EU, opposed gay marriage, want less immigration and more grammar schools UKIP is the only party which represents your views
I think that a lot of posters find it very hard to comprehend why someone would not support either the Conservatives or Labour. Some of us don't find either party very appealing. In my case, I prefer the Conservatives to Labour, but that's not saying much.
Sean F. Feel for me, then, having to chose between Democrats and Republicans!
More integration isn't on the table so that's irrelevant. As for if there was a Grexit then the last thing the EU leaders would risk is seeing the UK chose to leave the EU after Greece had been forced to leave - it is the distraction of Grexit that makes a renegotiation slightly harder, remove that and the EU will be desperate to give Cameron what he needs to keep us in.
The poll shows 50% more Tory voters will vote In than Out, and that is before Cameron starts campaigning for In. If there is a Tory In campaign, expect uncertain Tory voters to swing towards In.
More integration is an inevitable part of continued membership of the European Union. It is always on the table, see the preamble to, and article 1(1) of the Treaty on European Union. There is no chance of that being modified by this "renegotiation". It is clear that Cameron will not secure treaty change under article 48(1) or (6) TEU by the date of the referendum. Indeed, as things currently stand, it looks as if he is not going to be able even to restrict in-work benefits to EU migrants unless he does the same for British nationals. Even if that can be achieved without altering TFEU arts 18, 20 and 21, he needs a qualified majority in the council and the consent of the European Parliament to do so (see article 7(2) of Parliament and Council Regulation 492/2011/EU). It looks like he will get neither. So let us be clear that this "renegotiation" is pure Wilsonism.
I am still expecting a "Yes" vote, if only because the public debate will be as dishonest on the European question as it always is. The forces of conservatism, whether among the big political parties, big business and the trades unions, will be fully behind a "Yes" vote. Nevertheless, it is unsafe to place too much weight on opinion polling at this stage (c.f. the AV and Scots referendums). Most people will not have given that much thought to the question until the campaign, when any honest, informed and reasonable person will have appreciated the "renegotiation" for what it is.
I think it's easy to underestimate, under First Past the Post, how hard it is to go from being nowhere to being a major challenger.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
UKIP have a problem with expectations management. I can't recall an active UKIP supporter (besides maybe yourself) here or elsewhere suggesting before the election only one seat won would be a success. We had projections from 5+ on the low end, to some suggesting dozens, one here suggesting 60 and then Twitter Kippers suggesting a hundred plus.
Only after the election has the notion of one seat won been deemed to be a huge success. That to me is 1984-style Newspeak, a rewriting of history. Again excepting yourself, I don't recall you ever suggesting a high seat haul but I'm sure you remember seat projections by Kippers before the election were almost universally above one.
My own prediction was that UKIP would win 11-13% of the vote, and this would result in 4-6 seats. The first prediction was correct, the second wasn't. Predictions of dozens of wins were of course silly.
So 12.5% was no great surge above your prediction and 1 seat was below it. I fail to see how that is a great success then? I certainly fail to see how you get from 1 seat to a majority in a referendum with Farage being the figurehead. There is a big difference between working to appeal to the disenchanted to get just over 10%, to working to appeal to over half the country.
I always thought that to go from 2.9% in 2010 to the vote share I was predicting would be a considerable success.
But, I thought that it would result in handful of seats, rather than one seat.
Had the votes come (net) from Tory and/or Labour rather than just the Lib Dem and BNP I'd agree with you. A real swing to UKIP from major parties that could affect seat numbers is relevant but that didn't happen, churn between protest parties isn't significant though in my eyes unless we had PR (which we don't).
SeanF Indeed, just as if you want to renationalise the railways and have a 70% top tax rate and no private involvement in public services at all and fossil fuel and nuclear free energy and a pacifist foreign policy the Greens are your only choice
Sunil There are some socially conservative Labour voters
PT Indeed, but the Tories, LDs, Labour and Greens and SNP all backed gay marriage, around 20-30% of voters opposed it and UKIP was their only option. UKIP is also the only party opposed to the EU regardless and the only party committed to opening more grammar schools, something many Tory voters too would sympathise with
it looks as if he is not going to be able even to restrict in-work benefits to EU migrants unless he does the same for British nationals.
Ooh that would be even better in my eyes, sign me up to vote for that. I have more problem with people choosing to leave school at 16 and signing up for a lifetime of voluntary benefits than a migrant coming here and working and claiming benefits, while paying taxes.
SeanF Indeed, just as if you want to renationalise the railways and have a 70% top tax rate and no private involvement in public services at all and ossill fuel and nuclear free energy and a pacifist foreign policy the SNP are your only choice
Sunil There are some socially conservative Labour voters
If you're someone who would like to see immigration reduced, is Eurosceptic, think that the UK should have adequate armed forces, dislikes political correctness, (and I'd suggest that's a substantial proportion of the electorate) what reason do you have to vote either Conservative or Labour, other than historic loyalty, or fear of letting the other side in?
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
The UKIP vote went from 3.1% to 12.6%. The 9.5% increase was greater than any other party. The next best was the SNP (+3.1%) and the Greens (+2.8%)
I don't think that this could be considered by any means an "unmitigated failure" for UKIP.
We don't have PR, it is seats that matter. Even still, just looking at votes they took a fraction of the lost Lib Dem votes and the lost BNP votes. That was a total failure in my eyes for UKIP. It confirms that UKIP are nothing more than a minor protest party capable of swinging protest votes from the other protest parties - they failed to get any form of major breakthrough that had been proclaimed in either votes or seats.
The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest.
SeanF Indeed, just as if you want to renationalise the railways and have a 70% top tax rate and no private involvement in public services at all and ossill fuel and nuclear free energy and a pacifist foreign policy the SNP are your only choice
Sunil There are some socially conservative Labour voters
If you're someone who would like to see immigration reduced, is Eurosceptic, think that the UK should have adequate armed forces, dislikes political correctness, (and I'd suggest that's a substantial proportion of the electorate) what reason do you have to vote either Conservative or Labour, other than historic loyalty, or fear of letting the other side in?
Do you care about taxes? Spending? Any of the other major differences that affect our lives?
This poll is based on the premise Cameron will achieve at least some renegotiation which is likely to go on the backburner with potential Grexit if it was ever there. The poll only shows 14% want more integration, 31% the same position, 33% a return to an economic community with no political links
More integration isn't on the table so that's irrelevant. As for if there was a Grexit then the last thing the EU leaders would risk is seeing the UK chose to leave the EU after Greece had been forced to leave - it is the distraction of Grexit that makes a renegotiation slightly harder, remove that and the EU will be desperate to give Cameron what he needs to keep us in.
The poll shows 50% more Tory voters will vote In than Out, and that is before Cameron starts campaigning for In. If there is a Tory In campaign, expect uncertain Tory voters to swing towards In.
Of course more integration is on the table. It is always on the table either overtly through new agreements or more indirectly via extensions of the powers of the EU via rulings from the ECJ. Should we vote to stay in the EU this will accelerate massively as the threat of withdrawal will no longer be taken seriously. We will have even less influence in the EU than we have now.
SeanF Indeed, just as if you want to renationalise the railways and have a 70% top tax rate and no private involvement in public services at all and ossill fuel and nuclear free energy and a pacifist foreign policy the SNP are your only choice
Sunil There are some socially conservative Labour voters
If you're someone who would like to see immigration reduced, is Eurosceptic, think that the UK should have adequate armed forces, dislikes political correctness, (and I'd suggest that's a substantial proportion of the electorate) what reason do you have to vote either Conservative or Labour, other than historic loyalty, or fear of letting the other side in?
Do you care about taxes? Spending? Any of the other major differences that affect our lives?
Yes. but I think there's more to politics than arguing over tax rates, and I think that economic reality would force any government to run a tight ship financially if they were in office (neither the Conservatives nor Labour intend to behave like Syriza).
Ooh that would be even better in my eyes, sign me up to vote for that. I have more problem with people choosing to leave school at 16 and signing up for a lifetime of voluntary benefits than a migrant coming here and working and claiming benefits, while paying taxes.
It may well be a very sensible suggestion. It can be done, however, by Parliament without altering either the EU Treaties or any secondary legislation. What Cameron appears to want to do is to be able to discriminate on the grounds of nationality on this subject, which is going to be all but impossible to achieve.
The fact that more integration is on the table, nay, inevitable, is the primary reason I've switched to intending to vote to leave. We may gain some small concessions here and there, and maybe we would suffer if we left, but I don't like the direction of travel - I can just about stomach where we are now, even though I would prefer to claw back more powers - and that is not changed and will not changed. I think most people agree with me on not wanting more integration, but maybe I'm wrong, but if I am right about that, it is not good for us or the EU, as we will just grow more bitter and they more irritated with us, causing a festering sore at the heart of the project which is not good for either side.
Comments
Indeed, one could even say, minute traces, – happy with that
TSE - you have added together the wrong segments on the graph.
Very or fairly confident has risen from 26% to 38%.
The betting opportunities would have been staggeringly good.
Instead we get a simply "Yes/No" question.
Shame on you Mr Cameron.
What a stupendously idiotic move he made.
So the next Indyref would have to be conducted under AV.
Just think, we could have numerous threads that combines the joy of Scottish Independence and AV.
Just sayin'...
"Suzanne Evans has not been sacked as a UKIP spokesman. The email seen by the BBC was issued without proper authority" -UKIP REVERSE FERRET
This is getting very funny from the outside. Can't be much fun inside.
Even those of us who believe membership is to our long-term advantage wanted a closer race than this. Impossible to secure concessions when the referendum is - at this time - clearly going to favour the status quo.
Amateur hour (amateur month) at UKIP is not helping.
Article by Jeremy Corbyn: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/our-eu-referendum-debate-has-been-hijacked-by-xenophobes-and-money-men--heres-what-we-should-really-be-talking-about-10310078.html
Farage's unresignation was probably the final straw. He's appealed to those he could appeal to, but Farage was never going to win the backing of 51% of the public. Over time any leader picks up baggage but a new leader could have built on the groundwork Farage built while shedding his baggage. Farage has chosen himself over his cause.
"When asked if he would support the leader even if they proposed a policy he did not agree with, the West Bromwich MP said: “Oh yes, oh yes. Let me tell you this: whoever is elected leader of the Labour Party will have my 100 per cent support and we’re all going to have to swing in against that leader. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/19/tom-watson-labour-ukip-deputy_n_7620582.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
The poll shows 50% more Tory voters will vote In than Out, and that is before Cameron starts campaigning for In. If there is a Tory In campaign, expect uncertain Tory voters to swing towards In.
The reasons why support for staying in has increased are (a) increased support for the government (b) the apparent end to the Eurozone crisis.
Its easy to claim you want "change" when it isn't on the table but most voters are risk-averse. Leaving the EU is a leap away from our status quo and unless people are confident they'll shy away from that.
UKIP becoming toxic hasn't helped, but its probably not the major cause. I think Out would have struggled without a convincing narrative but nobody is making that narrative clearly.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
Farage is a liability to the OUT movement. Had UKIP been able to show they were a serious threat to the Tories at the last election by taking half a dozen or more seats then he would have served his purpose by increasing the pressure on Cameron to get some real concessions. As it is he comprehensively failed and UKIP under the current leadership can only harm the OUT movement.
One of the best examples I've seen in a long while.
And those that do know something probably do have a genuine thought out view. (One, I suspect that tends to support "Out".)
But the half the population who don't really think about the EU think about it as being a question about whether to vote for "what Farage wants, or what Cameron and the Labour want".
The "Out" cause is tainted by Farage.
(a) The corollary is that as support for the government declines (as it always does) so will unhappiness with the stance on the EU.
I think that winning 4m votes was a big achievement, from having been a fringe party. I've no particular interest in the leadership issue, but UKIP has gone from having 30 council seats to having 500 over the past three years. The party has come first in an EU election, and will likely get into the London and Welsh assemblies next year. Success under FPTP is always incremental.
Once the referendum is out of the way, is there any more need for UKIP?
Only after the election has the notion of one seat won been deemed to be a huge success. That to me is 1984-style Newspeak, a rewriting of history. Again excepting yourself, I don't recall you ever suggesting a high seat haul but I'm sure you remember seat projections by Kippers before the election were almost universally above one.
I believe that the EU will deliver a lot of other desirable things as by-blows by virtue of powerful global trends (e.g. migration), demographics and EU economic tensions.
For the record my prediction of 1 UKIP MP single handedly kept me in the black at the GE. 18 months before I didn't think they'd win any, but might build on 2015 for winning seats in 2020. They could still try that, it was still a success in many ways, but as others have pointed out, many were so optimistic it doesn't look like one now.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85563e82-8f44-11e3-be85-00144feab7de.html#axzz3dUm675KL
A large minority of them don't even serve out their full term as MEPs for various reasons.
http://www.cityam.com/212096/nigel-farage-hits-out-janice-atkinson-expenses-scandal-heres-how-many-ukip-meps-have-served
http://www.libdemvoice.org/how-ukip-managed-to-lose-45-of-their-meps-36404.html
I think we're past peak Kipper now. They very badly screwed up their strategy (if they ever had one) and are now in the process of throwing away the only chance in a generation to leave the EU. Admittedly that was always going to be a very hard chance to grasp, but running off in the opposite direction, trying to sabotage the referendum, doing nothing to prepare the Brexit case, and morphing into a protectionist anti-immigration party were all extremely counter-productive (assuming that they do actually want us to leave the EU).
They'll survive in some form, but no doubt there will be multiple crises, resignations and unresignations as support slowly ebbs away.
I am coming to the view that Grexit is the best thing that can happen to the EU. It will show other countries that the Greek tactics will not work, and it will force the EU to slow ever-closer and instead concentrate on fixing what is not right/turning off national publics about the current system.
Personally, as a Eurosceptic. I am not totally averse to ever-closer if it is a good functioning system. But to get there, we have to fix what's wrong first. It is the vast amount of what is currently wrong, and my lack of belief in any will to overcome bureaucratic inertia to fix it, that makes me a sceptic.
The PSBR as a % of GDP at 4.9% is no higher than that prevalent between 1973 and 1981 under the Chancellorships of Barber, Healey and Howe and is rather lower than that seen between 1992 and 1996 under Lamont and Clarke. Moreover Debt Interest as a % of GDP at 2.5% remains below what it was throughout the period 1975 - 2000. It was only lower on an ongoing basis during the years 2001 to 2009. From memory I do recall that when Neville Chamberlain was Chancellor during the National Govt Debt Interest as a % of GDP was much higher.
I accept that economists have a range of views on these issues. I happen to lean strongly in the direction of Krugman and William Keegan as expounded in The Observer.
If IN wins then there will still need to be an anti-EU party. My hope would be that it would be UKIP sans Farage as I believe there are plenty of good people in the party. But I would not support the party simply for the sake of it and certainly not if Farage continued to lead it with his current attitude/policies.
http://www.amazon.com/D-Day-Screaming-Eagles-George-Koskimaki-ebook/dp/B00CE34W8M?_bbid=1113919&tag=bookbubemailc-20
Gay rights especially are not something most people are opposed to - and it has only been further normalised since legalisation. I've got gay friends who're happily engaged and I'm happy for them - a party opposed to their happiness won't win many votes from not just gay people but their friends and acquaintances too.
But, I thought that it would result in handful of seats, rather than one seat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04yCea2HOhY
I am still expecting a "Yes" vote, if only because the public debate will be as dishonest on the European question as it always is. The forces of conservatism, whether among the big political parties, big business and the trades unions, will be fully behind a "Yes" vote. Nevertheless, it is unsafe to place too much weight on opinion polling at this stage (c.f. the AV and Scots referendums). Most people will not have given that much thought to the question until the campaign, when any honest, informed and reasonable person will have appreciated the "renegotiation" for what it is.
Sunil There are some socially conservative Labour voters
adjective
Absolute; unqualified:
the tour had been an unmitigated disaster
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unmitigated
The UKIP vote went from 3.1% to 12.6%.
The 9.5% increase was greater than any other party.
The next best was the SNP (+3.1%) and the Greens (+2.8%)
I don't think that this could be considered by any means an "unmitigated failure" for UKIP.
The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.