I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
A couple of weeks ago I pondered if he'd feel tempted to move to UKIP and take over control of that party. I doubt he's going to become Conservative leader, and I really doubt he'll become PM. Yet he is ambitious, easily bored, and a bit of an egomaniac. Being leader of a party he can somewhat mould might be very tempting.
It probably won't happen, but I found it an intriguing thought.
I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
I wonder what will become of Boris now. My fear is that he'll go through a bit of a mad patch and attempt to reinvent himself as the British Trump and ride the populist storm clouds. He has the charisma and articulation to do it and many will follow, but it could prove dynamite in his hands.
This focus on kicking him out of his home seems a bit petty to be honest - is it really news?
Don't think a three-way referendum blatantly designed to split the leave vote is likely to happen. I certainly hope not, for the future of the country!
I think the polls are starting to settle after the change of government. Most show PSOE slightly ahead but generally they are quite close again with a small lead for centre right parties against the centre left.
Don't think a three-way referendum blatantly designed to split the leave vote is likely to happen. I certainly hope not, for the future of the country!
I don't think anyone's suggesting a straight FPTP three-way referendum, so fortunately the concern is null.
If we got a 3-way referendum, it'd be by AV. Or by a two-stage question process. That would ensure no splitting of the vote.
Don't think a three-way referendum blatantly designed to split the leave vote is likely to happen. I certainly hope not, for the future of the country!
Agreed. That would be untenable. If May can get her deal through both the EU and her own party, that's what we will have. I don't think she can though - so that leaves two options: No Deal or Remain.
That's the question the next referendum will ask. Could go either way imo; hopefully we will end up with a clear-cut majority one way or the other.
Don't think a three-way referendum blatantly designed to split the leave vote is likely to happen. I certainly hope not, for the future of the country!
I don't think anyone's suggesting a straight FPTP three-way referendum, so fortunately the concern is null.
If we got a 3-way referendum, it'd be by AV. Or by a two-stage question process. That would ensure no splitting of the vote.
That said, as soon as three or more options are introduced Arrow's theorem kicks in ^_~
And then there will be the medicine shortages. We will run out of drugs and people will die. They’re literally saying this. The head of output at Channel 4 News says a No Deal Brexit threatens the supply of insulin from the EU to the UK. ‘What are the government going to do to prevent type-1 diabetics dying?’, he asks. Erm, make a deal with an insulin-producing European country? Or import insulin from the US or India? This is a minor practical matter transformed by vested-interest Remoaners into a terrifying tale of diabetic death. They are happy to panic diabetes sufferers, to lower the quality of life of people with diabetes right now by telling them they might die soon, in the name of wounding Brexit. Such reckless cynicism.
(Although I thought that the demands about insulin supply were made by Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, not 'The head of output at Channel 4 News'.)
Don't think a three-way referendum blatantly designed to split the leave vote is likely to happen. I certainly hope not, for the future of the country!
I don't think anyone's suggesting a straight FPTP three-way referendum, so fortunately the concern is null.
If we got a 3-way referendum, it'd be by AV. Or by a two-stage question process. That would ensure no splitting of the vote.
That said, as soon as three or more options are introduced Arrow's theorem kicks in ^_~
Let's do loads of options (including EEA/EFTA, Remain with Schengen, Remain with Euro, Remain with Euro and Schengen) and have Eurovision-style voting on all of them.
I think the polls are starting to settle after the change of government. Most show PSOE slightly ahead but generally they are quite close again with a small lead for centre right parties against the centre left.
The most interesting thing about the recent polls in Spain is how much both Cs and Podemos have gone down since PSOE took over the government. PP does not really seem to have been affected.
The poll above looks to be giving changes based on the last general election.
Not a stellar start for Casado the new PP leader. He's young, telegenic and of the Right, the Spanish version of Sebastian Kurz I suppose but clearly his desire to "reconquer the Catalan people" has gone down well.
He calls himself a "liberal conservative" (someone else did that once ?) but he sounds socially very conservative compared to Rajoy for example. Big gain for Citizens and I wonder if Cs may feel happier dealing with PSOE down the line rather than PP or rather PP's drift to the Right will exacerbate tensions within Cs.
The default mode for Brexiters is unhinged paranoia. I'm not sure what "begin to worry" would look like for them.
I mean Brexit is terribly hilarious and hilariously terrible but it's events like it that bring great nations low. It's degrading the political, economic and social fabric of the UK. Our status as a stable, wealthy, free and just county isn't something that just endures automatically. By pissing around with Brexit we are tugging at its warp and weft.
Don't think a three-way referendum blatantly designed to split the leave vote is likely to happen. I certainly hope not, for the future of the country!
I don't think anyone's suggesting a straight FPTP three-way referendum, so fortunately the concern is null.
If we got a 3-way referendum, it'd be by AV. Or by a two-stage question process. That would ensure no splitting of the vote.
That said, as soon as three or more options are introduced Arrow's theorem kicks in ^_~
Let's do loads of options (including EEA/EFTA, Remain with Schengen, Remain with Euro, Remain with Euro and Schengen) and have Eurovision-style voting on all of them.
Of course we can't vote for our own entry, so we'd be watching the results come in from all over Europe with no say ourselves. Pretty much like May's plan! (I can't say "deal" it's not a deal it's our negotiating position, that the referendum should be on. A deal is what you agree with the other side.)
I actually didn't notice the "tram" tracks west of Weymouth station until my third visit to Weymouth in May (having first visited in 2016).
I believe it's still technically an operational railway line - it's a real pain in the backside to close a line nowadays. Some people want to preserve it, but I doubt that'l ever happen. I also have a vague memory that the harbour wall where the line ends is in rather rougth state (though that might have been fixed).
I have happy memories of Weymouth and Portland. The latter in particular makes a lovely day's walk.
Generally that kind of setup would favour the thing with two responses that you could add together.
Also it would generally favour the middle option between the two extremes, which goes to show how much the voters hate TMay's proposal.
Yes. Although the last time this question was put, there was a fractional majority for the two combined Leave options, which was then overturned when the Deal votes were redistributed.
The idea that a Remain win, won off the back off transferred Deal votes, would close down the Brexit question seems optimistic in the extreme.
It should be said, as this question seems to have gone quiet, that the UK really ought to seek assurance that Remain is even a legal option - never mind one that has agreement among the EU27, before it can be an answer in a new referendum.
Generally that kind of setup would favour the thing with two responses that you could add together.
Also it would generally favour the middle option between the two extremes, which goes to show how much the voters hate TMay's proposal.
Right, this is statistics, polling and questionnaire bias 101.
It's why in electoral systems like STV, or AV, it can be advantageous to have a party to your extreme standing to encourage turnout so that you can pick up their second preferences. Supporters of either Leave option are presumably likely to back the other in preference to Remain.
Everything is a stitch-up against him and his like for people like Toby Young.
I’ll have my Brexit. Speak not against my Brexit. I have sworn an oath that I will have my Brexit.
I've never been much of a pundit, but I have no idea what's going to happen. I don't think there's much of a short-term happy ending for the UK whatever transpires.
The first poll is perhaps the most interesting, given the amount of pushback and ridicule Greening's idea was met with originally. Were the figures to shift a bit further - say 60/30 - then it would be considerably tougher to make any kind of principled (or indeed partisan, self-interested) case against a second referendum.
Generally that kind of setup would favour the thing with two responses that you could add together.
Also it would generally favour the middle option between the two extremes, which goes to show how much the voters hate TMay's proposal.
Yes. Although the last time this question was put, there was a fractional majority for the two combined Leave options, which was then overturned when the Deal votes were redistributed.
The idea that a Remain win, won off the back off transferred Deal votes, would close down the Brexit question seems optimistic in the extreme.
It should be said, as this question seems to have gone quiet, that the UK really ought to seek assurance that Remain is even a legal option - never mind one that has agreement among the EU27, before it can be an answer in a new referendum.
I am sure no government would so incompetent as to launch into a referendum with Remain as an option without having checked its legality. Oh er...
Don't think a three-way referendum blatantly designed to split the leave vote is likely to happen. I certainly hope not, for the future of the country!
I don't think anyone's suggesting a straight FPTP three-way referendum, so fortunately the concern is null.
If we got a 3-way referendum, it'd be by AV. Or by a two-stage question process. That would ensure no splitting of the vote.
That said, as soon as three or more options are introduced Arrow's theorem kicks in ^_~
Let's do loads of options (including EEA/EFTA, Remain with Schengen, Remain with Euro, Remain with Euro and Schengen) and have Eurovision-style voting on all of them.
What the third of the three polls does do is place leavers in a position where they have little option but to argue against the wishes of the majority of the electorate....
(edit) Unless, of course, they can persuade everyone that leaving is going to be an unbridled economic success. Good luck with that.
Should say Support a Remainers Vote - "People's Vote" my arse!!
So we should have a vote using an electoral system we rejected in a national referendum in 2011 to overturn the results of a national referendum we held in 2016. So why should this third referendum have any legitimacy when we have ignored the previous two? A case of neverendums.
If your votes - in supposed once in a generation event - just get ignored why participate at all? Weren't the previous two referendums people's votes?
Of course we could just ignore actual votes and let opinion polls decide - if 75 per cent of the the polls had been right in the last week remain would have won and Mrs May would have had a majority of over 100!
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
Generally that kind of setup would favour the thing with two responses that you could add together.
Also it would generally favour the middle option between the two extremes, which goes to show how much the voters hate TMay's proposal.
Right, this is statistics, polling and questionnaire bias 101.
It's why in electoral systems like STV, or AV, it can be advantageous to have a party to your extreme standing to encourage turnout so that you can pick up their second preferences. Supporters of either Leave option are presumably likely to back the other in preference to Remain.
Everything is a stitch-up against him and his like for people like Toby Young.
Study of voting suggests that having closely placed options will maximise their combined support, but this advantage is lost (or even turned into a disadvantage) because you don't get perfect transfers - there are always voters that will only express a first choice or cast their later choices apparently randomly.
The more important point here is that people like Young are being drawn into debating the detail of the coming referendum, rather than simply dismissing or ignoring the idea.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
People having voted to throw ourselves up into the air it is not unreasonable to vote again to decide where we might land, regardless of whether the first vote was wise or not.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
Not me. I only blamed Cameron for holding the referendum - just cocking up both the timing and the campaign.
Generally that kind of setup would favour the thing with two responses that you could add together.
Also it would generally favour the middle option between the two extremes, which goes to show how much the voters hate TMay's proposal.
Right, this is statistics, polling and questionnaire bias 101.
It's why in electoral systems like STV, or AV, it can be advantageous to have a party to your extreme standing to encourage turnout so that you can pick up their second preferences. Supporters of either Leave option are presumably likely to back the other in preference to Remain.
Everything is a stitch-up against him and his like for people like Toby Young.
Study of voting suggests that having closely placed options will maximise their combined support, but this advantage is lost (or even turned into a disadvantage) because you don't get perfect transfers - there are always voters that will only express a first choice or cast their later choices apparently randomly.
The more important point here is that people like Young are being drawn into debating the detail of the coming referendum, rather than simply dismissing or ignoring the idea.
Your last comment is very telling. At what point does the momentum become unstoppable?
I’ll have my Brexit. Speak not against my Brexit. I have sworn an oath that I will have my Brexit.
I've never been much of a pundit, but I have no idea what's going to happen. I don't think there's much of a short-term happy ending for the UK whatever transpires.
I'm reviewing the situation. Can Boris be a villain all his life ?
Just when you think politics is as bonkers as it can possibly be, something like this comes along to show you're merely standing on a ledge over a bottomless abyss.
I’ll have my Brexit. Speak not against my Brexit. I have sworn an oath that I will have my Brexit.
I've never been much of a pundit, but I have no idea what's going to happen. I don't think there's much of a short-term happy ending for the UK whatever transpires.
Leavers aren’yt inbterested in the short-term. It’s the long-term which excites them. Oddly, given the composition of the Leave vote!
And, what are numbers.... number polled etc etc for the Sky poll?
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
In their defence, the country is heading to do something that MPs, civil servants, business leaders and the Prime Minister all think is idiotic, and it's only being done because the voters said they want to do it. So aside from whether you should have asked them in the first place, if the voters no longer want to do it, it would be weird not to give them the chance to say so and turn their preference into policy.
To oppose this if the voters appear to have changed their minds you have to have a constitutional theory where you support direct democracy, but think of it like a coin toss or a sporting event or something, rather than a way of running things the way the voters want.
What's the breakdown for supporters of the Conservatives? Only if that reaches a consistent majority will it happen, I reckon.
That’s broadly correct.
The subsample for 2017 Tory voters in that poll was:
Remain: 24% Deal: 21% No Deal: 44%
No Deal is going to get a hammering over the next two months, so the question is which way current No Deal supporting Tories will break. You'll need to have a lot of conversations if you want to talk them into backing Chequers.
Not a stellar start for Casado the new PP leader. He's young, telegenic and of the Right, the Spanish version of Sebastian Kurz I suppose but clearly his desire to "reconquer the Catalan people" has gone down well.
He calls himself a "liberal conservative" (someone else did that once ?) but he sounds socially very conservative compared to Rajoy for example. Big gain for Citizens and I wonder if Cs may feel happier dealing with PSOE down the line rather than PP or rather PP's drift to the Right will exacerbate tensions within Cs.
The comparison there is with the last GE. Compared to recent polls, Cs are well down - they were leading in most before PSOE took over running the government.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
In their defence, the country is heading to do something that MPs, civil servants, business leaders and the Prime Minister all think is idiotic, and it's only being done because the voters said they want to do it. So aside from whether you should have asked them in the first place, if the voters no longer want to do it, it would be weird not to give them the chance to say so.
To oppose this if the voters appear to have changed their minds you have to have a constitutional theory where you support direct democracy, but think of it like a coin toss or a sporting event or something, rather than a way of running things the way the voters want.
So when a Government is suffering mid term blues and are 15% behind in the polls, are you suggesting that we should instantly have an election as public opinion has changed since the Election?
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
I criticise Cameron for calling the referendum because from a political and constitutional point of view it made no sense for a vote against the PM of the day to result in such a sweeping change to the country's governance.
We would be in much better political shape had the Brexit referendum been called by a PM who advocated Leave. Had Leave still won then it could have been implemented by that PM, ensuring continuity and that some preparation for Leave would have been made. Had Remain won, and the PM resigned, then the political ructions would have had only minor import, as the voters would have opted for the status quo.
A referendum should be held to ratify a major constitutional change that the PM wishes to implement, not to set off a major constitutional change that the PM wants to avoid.
Can one of the PB experts tell me why it is that the idea of a People's Vote seems to be so attractive whilst the idea of another Referendum seems to be so unpopular?
How about we just have a people's vote in which only Sky customers who self respond can participate?
Ah - that's not what this poll is, though.
" Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,466 Sky customers online 20-23 July 2018. Data are weighted to the profile of the population. Sky Data is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."
How about we just have a people's vote in which only Sky customers who self respond can participate?
Ah - that's not what this poll is, though.
" Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,466 Sky customers online 20-23 July 2018. Data are weighted to the profile of the population. Sky Data is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."
Update - Oh, I see what you mean! It was just a veiled attack on online polling. Sorry, never mind my comment above.
I have to say that I am stunned that 50% of voters want to take part in a referendum conducted under AV.
"No deal is better than a May deal" is my suggestion for a campaign slogan.
... suitable for two of the three campaigns!
But aren't we forgetting that May's deal is not going to survive long enough to take part in EURef2?
Bizarrely, if the true path of Brexit feels threatened (as polls like these suggest) then I wonder if the ERG may be more likely to have to suck up the final deal and vote for it - as their only path to get Brexit at all. Very much the arguments that Michael Gove has been making.
I’ll have my Brexit. Speak not against my Brexit. I have sworn an oath that I will have my Brexit.
I've never been much of a pundit, but I have no idea what's going to happen. I don't think there's much of a short-term happy ending for the UK whatever transpires.
Thank goodness there is the long run to look forward to.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
I criticise Cameron for calling the referendum because from a political and constitutional point of view it made no sense for a vote against the PM of the day to result in such a sweeping change to the country's governance.
We would be in much better political shape had the Brexit referendum been called by a PM who advocated Leave. Had Leave still won then it could have been implemented by that PM, ensuring continuity and that some preparation for Leave would have been made. Had Remain won, and the PM resigned, then the political ructions would have had only minor import, as the voters would have opted for the status quo.
A referendum should be held to ratify a major constitutional change that the PM wishes to implement, not to set off a major constitutional change that the PM wants to avoid.
If - as was expected by pretty much everyone at the time Cameron committed to a referendum - Remain had won by a good margin, then he would have succeeded in closing down this issue which has poisoned UK politics for many years. He would also through his deal with the EU have seen off ever-closer union and protected the City from Eurozone hegemony. That combination would have been a fantastic prize, well worth going for.
Unfortunately voters decided otherwise. Up to them, of course.
Can one of the PB experts tell me why it is that the idea of a People's Vote seems to be so attractive whilst the idea of another Referendum seems to be so unpopular?
Good afternoon, everyone.
It’s purely the language of the question. Talk of another referendum is unpopular because of the negative suggestion that it’s asking the same question again, whereas people’s vote or final say are more positive words that suggest the question is about something different to what we already voted on two years ago.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
I criticise Cameron for calling the referendum because from a political and constitutional point of view it made no sense for a vote against the PM of the day to result in such a sweeping change to the country's governance.
We would be in much better political shape had the Brexit referendum been called by a PM who advocated Leave. Had Leave still won then it could have been implemented by that PM, ensuring continuity and that some preparation for Leave would have been made. Had Remain won, and the PM resigned, then the political ructions would have had only minor import, as the voters would have opted for the status quo.
A referendum should be held to ratify a major constitutional change that the PM wishes to implement, not to set off a major constitutional change that the PM wants to avoid.
If - as was expected by pretty much everyone at the time Cameron committed to a referendum - Remain had won by a good margin, then he would have succeeded in closing down this issue which has poisoned UK politics for many years. He would also through his deal with the EU have seen off ever-closer union and protected the City from Eurozone hegemony. That combination would have been a fantastic prize, well worth going for.
Unfortunately voters decided otherwise. Up to them, of course.
It may have been expected, but anyone thinking there was a high degree of certainty was kidding themselves
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
In their defence, the country is heading to do something that MPs, civil servants, business leaders and the Prime Minister all think is idiotic, and it's only being done because the voters said they want to do it. So aside from whether you should have asked them in the first place, if the voters no longer want to do it, it would be weird not to give them the chance to say so.
To oppose this if the voters appear to have changed their minds you have to have a constitutional theory where you support direct democracy, but think of it like a coin toss or a sporting event or something, rather than a way of running things the way the voters want.
So when a Government is suffering mid term blues and are 15% behind in the polls, are you suggesting that we should instantly have an election as public opinion has changed since the Election?
I'd prefer Liquid Democracy where the voters could change their minds any time and redistribute their votes to different representatives (or cast them themselves), or failing that rotating elections so that a different constituency votes every couple of weeks.
But yes, it would certainly be more *democratic* if the voters could remove a government whenever they wanted. The argument for the voting-free terms is that the voters don't know what's good for them and lack the perseverance necessary for governments to do difficult things on their behalf.
I guess here the argument would have to be that the voters know what's good for them, but they lack stamina and their brains are easily overloaded by too much information, so having expressed a preference, they should be obliged to see it through.
What's the breakdown for supporters of the Conservatives? Only if that reaches a consistent majority will it happen, I reckon.
That’s broadly correct.
The subsample for 2017 Tory voters in that poll was:
Remain: 24% Deal: 21% No Deal: 44%
No Deal is going to get a hammering over the next two months, so the question is which way current No Deal supporting Tories will break. You'll need to have a lot of conversations if you want to talk them into backing Chequers.
It’s ok. I’m an energetic and tenacious kind of guy.
As always, you start from the conclusion you want (ultra-Remain) and either fabricate or selectively choose the evidence you want to tell the story that builds to it, so I’m quite relaxed about it.
The idea that solid Leave Tories will move from no deal (or even deal) into Remain is laughable.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
I criticise Cameron for calling the referendum because from a political and constitutional point of view it made no sense for a vote against the PM of the day to result in such a sweeping change to the country's governance.
We would be in much better political shape had the Brexit referendum been called by a PM who advocated Leave. Had Leave still won then it could have been implemented by that PM, ensuring continuity and that some preparation for Leave would have been made. Had Remain won, and the PM resigned, then the political ructions would have had only minor import, as the voters would have opted for the status quo.
A referendum should be held to ratify a major constitutional change that the PM wishes to implement, not to set off a major constitutional change that the PM wants to avoid.
If - as was expected by pretty much everyone at the time Cameron committed to a referendum - Remain had won by a good margin, then he would have succeeded in closing down this issue which has poisoned UK politics for many years. He would also through his deal with the EU have seen off ever-closer union and protected the City from Eurozone hegemony. That combination would have been a fantastic prize, well worth going for.
Unfortunately voters decided otherwise. Up to them, of course.
The irony is that we may end up with the 70/30 you predicted, but for full EU membership minus Dave's deal.
I’ll have my Brexit. Speak not against my Brexit. I have sworn an oath that I will have my Brexit.
I've never been much of a pundit, but I have no idea what's going to happen. I don't think there's much of a short-term happy ending for the UK whatever transpires.
Thank goodness there is the long run to look forward to.
My long term is that all the Brexiteers will have popped their clogs (including me) and the country can settle down to being a comfortable satrapy.
It's rather delightful that many of the same people who lay into Cameron for calling the first referendum - on the grounds that voters should not have been given the choice - now want a second one, on the grounds that voters should be given a choice.
I criticise Cameron for calling the referendum because from a political and constitutional point of view it made no sense for a vote against the PM of the day to result in such a sweeping change to the country's governance.
We would be in much better political shape had the Brexit referendum been called by a PM who advocated Leave. Had Leave still won then it could have been implemented by that PM, ensuring continuity and that some preparation for Leave would have been made. Had Remain won, and the PM resigned, then the political ructions would have had only minor import, as the voters would have opted for the status quo.
A referendum should be held to ratify a major constitutional change that the PM wishes to implement, not to set off a major constitutional change that the PM wants to avoid.
If - as was expected by pretty much everyone at the time Cameron committed to a referendum - Remain had won by a good margin, then he would have succeeded in closing down this issue which has poisoned UK politics for many years. He would also through his deal with the EU have seen off ever-closer union and protected the City from Eurozone hegemony. That combination would have been a fantastic prize, well worth going for.
Unfortunately voters decided otherwise. Up to them, of course.
The irony is that we may end up with the 70/30 you predicted, but for full EU membership minus Dave's deal.
It may have been expected, but anyone thinking there was a high degree of certainty was kidding themselves
True, but there were some black-swan (or at least greyish-swan) events which intervened, the most swan-like of which was the wholly unexpected, indeed almost inconceivable, victory of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, and the resultant lack of any significant Remain campaign from the left-of-centre.
This photo from the previous thread does not look like 1980. Hairstyles, clothes, cars and that video camera all say 1990s to me. ttps://twitter.com/N_Amberfield/status/1023242097611218949/photo/1
Ooh that’s well spotted, I guess that’s why we call you Mr Observer. Much more likely to be 1990 than 1980.
Comments
It probably won't happen, but I found it an intriguing thought.
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
6h6 hours ago
Spain, Demoscopia y Servicios poll:
PP-EPP: 27% (-6)
PSOE-S&D: 25% (+2)
Cs-ALDE: 21% (+8)
UP-LEFT: 17% (-4)"
Only if that reaches a consistent majority will it happen, I reckon.
https://twitter.com/gerardbattenmep/status/1023851645111816192?s=21
https://twitter.com/N_Amberfield/status/1023242097611218949
Quite sad, really. For the real geeks, the loco was withdrawn in 2001 and disposed of (i.e. cut up) the same year, after a 37 year life.
http://www.railuk.info/diesel/getloco.php?item= 37191
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
If we got a 3-way referendum, it'd be by AV. Or by a two-stage question process. That would ensure no splitting of the vote.
That's the question the next referendum will ask. Could go either way imo; hopefully we will end up with a clear-cut majority one way or the other.
Also it would generally favour the middle option between the two extremes, which goes to show how much the voters hate TMay's proposal.
Robert Stephenson's company and its successor made locos for nearly 150 years. Quite some going.
And then there will be the medicine shortages. We will run out of drugs and people will die. They’re literally saying this. The head of output at Channel 4 News says a No Deal Brexit threatens the supply of insulin from the EU to the UK. ‘What are the government going to do to prevent type-1 diabetics dying?’, he asks. Erm, make a deal with an insulin-producing European country? Or import insulin from the US or India? This is a minor practical matter transformed by vested-interest Remoaners into a terrifying tale of diabetic death. They are happy to panic diabetes sufferers, to lower the quality of life of people with diabetes right now by telling them they might die soon, in the name of wounding Brexit. Such reckless cynicism.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-remainer-politics-of-fear-has-become-unhinged/21634#.W18FSNVKiUk
(Although I thought that the demands about insulin supply were made by Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, not 'The head of output at Channel 4 News'.)
"Chequers Deal - douze points"
The poll above looks to be giving changes based on the last general election.
He calls himself a "liberal conservative" (someone else did that once ?) but he sounds socially very conservative compared to Rajoy for example. Big gain for Citizens and I wonder if Cs may feel happier dealing with PSOE down the line rather than PP or rather PP's drift to the Right will exacerbate tensions within Cs.
"Greater Manchester: 65% of people victims of 'hateful behaviour'"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/30/greater-manchester-65-of-people-victims-of-hateful-behaviour
I have happy memories of Weymouth and Portland. The latter in particular makes a lovely day's walk.
http://www.britishwalks.org/walks/2010/858.php
The idea that a Remain win, won off the back off transferred Deal votes, would close down the Brexit question seems optimistic in the extreme.
It should be said, as this question seems to have gone quiet, that the UK really ought to seek assurance that Remain is even a legal option - never mind one that has agreement among the EU27, before it can be an answer in a new referendum.
It's why in electoral systems like STV, or AV, it can be advantageous to have a party to your extreme standing to encourage turnout so that you can pick up their second preferences. Supporters of either Leave option are presumably likely to back the other in preference to Remain.
Everything is a stitch-up against him and his like for people like Toby Young.
I’ll have my Brexit. Speak not against my Brexit.
I have sworn an oath that I will have my Brexit.
I've never been much of a pundit, but I have no idea what's going to happen. I don't think there's much of a short-term happy ending for the UK whatever transpires.
I managed to talk my father round to it yesterday, just by explaining it to him.
Were the figures to shift a bit further - say 60/30 - then it would be considerably tougher to make any kind of principled (or indeed partisan, self-interested) case against a second referendum.
Yes, my coat.
(edit) Unless, of course, they can persuade everyone that leaving is going to be an unbridled economic success.
Good luck with that.
If your votes - in supposed once in a generation event - just get ignored why participate at all? Weren't the previous two referendums people's votes?
Of course we could just ignore actual votes and let opinion polls decide - if 75 per cent of the the polls had been right in the last week remain would have won and Mrs May would have had a majority of over 100!
The more important point here is that people like Young are being drawn into debating the detail of the coming referendum, rather than simply dismissing or ignoring the idea.
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1023872369524387840
Can Boris be a villain all his life ?
And, what are numbers.... number polled etc etc for the Sky poll?
To oppose this if the voters appear to have changed their minds you have to have a constitutional theory where you support direct democracy, but think of it like a coin toss or a sporting event or something, rather than a way of running things the way the voters want.
"No deal is better than a May deal" is my suggestion for a campaign slogan.
Remain: 24%
Deal: 21%
No Deal: 44%
No Deal is going to get a hammering over the next two months, so the question is which way current No Deal supporting Tories will break. You'll need to have a lot of conversations if you want to talk them into backing Chequers.
We would be in much better political shape had the Brexit referendum been called by a PM who advocated Leave. Had Leave still won then it could have been implemented by that PM, ensuring continuity and that some preparation for Leave would have been made. Had Remain won, and the PM resigned, then the political ructions would have had only minor import, as the voters would have opted for the status quo.
A referendum should be held to ratify a major constitutional change that the PM wishes to implement, not to set off a major constitutional change that the PM wants to avoid.
But aren't we forgetting that May's deal is not going to survive long enough to take part in EURef2?
Good afternoon, everyone.
" Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,466 Sky customers online 20-23 July 2018. Data are weighted to the profile of the population. Sky Data is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."
Unfortunately voters decided otherwise. Up to them, of course.
https://twitter.com/N_Amberfield/status/1023242097611218949/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&ref_url=https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/6593/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-the-planned-new-boundaries-give-con-40-more-seats-than-lab-for/p1
But yes, it would certainly be more *democratic* if the voters could remove a government whenever they wanted. The argument for the voting-free terms is that the voters don't know what's good for them and lack the perseverance necessary for governments to do difficult things on their behalf.
I guess here the argument would have to be that the voters know what's good for them, but they lack stamina and their brains are easily overloaded by too much information, so having expressed a preference, they should be obliged to see it through.
As always, you start from the conclusion you want (ultra-Remain) and either fabricate or selectively choose the evidence you want to tell the story that builds to it, so I’m quite relaxed about it.
The idea that solid Leave Tories will move from no deal (or even deal) into Remain is laughable.
https://twitter.com/fav1F62/status/1023281832559824897
Much more likely to be 1990 than 1980.