Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay is the odds-on favourite to win a TV Brexit debate with C
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay is the odds-on favourite to win a TV Brexit debate with Corbyn
TMay is the betting favourite to overcome Labour leader Corbyn if the two clash in an TV debate on the proposed Brexit deal.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.
The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
How is "winner" defined?
Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
- Remain 44%
- Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
- Leaving EU with no deal 29%
("Britons Back May's Deal")
How would you explain the discrepancy?
Time was when OGH would have called the Mail out on its behaviour.
The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.
That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'
And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:
But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html
Ladbrokes has 6.5 (7 with boost) on a Brexit deal, 11 December, passing. Betfair as 1.25 on Brexit not being approved, but it looks like the terms are looser, covering all December.
Check for yourself, as a second vote in December passing would, seemingly, make both red.
Survation did not ask people if they thought staying in the EU would be a "humiliation".
No such question was asked. The Mail is lying through its teeth here.
Strictly speaking, they should have said "a plurality support May's deal." (37/35%)
Is anybody going to be shocked if Jezza just does it usual schtick, but at the end says he backs a second referendum.
The media will go wild and it won't matter what careful arguments RoboMay might have put out.
The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular
https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/
But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.
One thing is certain though, the Mail's behaviour will almost certainly anger Tories and harden opposition to May.
I’d expect to see the YouGov in either tomorrow’s edition or Friday’s edition.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1067801515887349762
I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).
But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
This is quite a fun euphemism.
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
"voters insist staying in the EU would be a humiliation"
and claims the question is
"Would staying in EU be humiliating?"
Surely rather dodgy if Survation never used the words humiliation or humiliating?
We’d all like a job that pays £10 million a year but we’d be happy with a job that pays ‘only’ £250k per year.
What is clear is that support for the deal is increasing, even if it's still 3rd behind Remain and No Deal.
The point is there is at least some momentum towards support for the deal - and if that momentum continues then support for the deal could move into 2nd or even 1st place.
Momentum is important in politics - as we've seen over the last few years.
Gerrymandered ballot paper if ever I saw one.
It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
“We choose as our government men who will do things that we don’t like and don’t approve of, but know that we must do”
Basically the public is virtue signalling. But that’s ok. They didn’t ask for the responsibility of being MPs.
UPDATE II: The same article has been corrected for a third time, clarifying that the Centre for Policy Studies was not implicated in the Sanni case, and yet again that none of these parties coordinated to vilify Sanni. Two corrections are careless, but three seem deliberately disingenuous…
https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/carole-correction-cadwalladr/
Trying to understand how the concept of truth works in the world of Maypologism.
The reality is that it will take *at least* 3 months from initial proposal to vote to hold a referendum because the government has no power to compel local authorities to participate in a referendum; there needs to be an Act of Parliament to do so. There also needs to be time for the campaigning groups to organise and register with the Electoral Commission. You can't simply have a free-for-all without spending limits or accountable individuals. And then after that, you need at least 3 weeks for the campaign itself. A month is not remotely ample time.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Do you think Labour might support the PV amendment?
However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
What other precis of the question would have satisfied you? (None I'm guessing...)
MP's set everything in motion when they voted to trigger A50.
*wonders what No.10's hinges are like*
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-11-27/u-k-bid-to-join-1-7-trillion-wto-deal-gets-provisional-support
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-11-27/u-k-bid-to-join-1-7-trillion-wto-deal-gets-provisional-support
To me it is just like it was clear they would offer free uni, in the lead up they kept hinting they would and I am fairly sure for a new GE campaign they will promise to legalize weed in some form or other (probably "medical" licensing that they had in places like California for ages).
A referendum requires that
Not that it's very hard to outsmart the Tories right now.
He could - and probably will - allow relevant amendments to the motion to be tabled. These will be voted on before the motion itself (whether amended or as originally tabled). Only if that passes will there be a subsequent Bill. Obviously, if there is such a Bill, then MPs are free to table amendments as normal.
1.The Speaker cannot allow a binding amendment to a non binding motion.
2. There are minimum times set down by the Electoral Commission for the various stages of referendum planning. Do you really want to have the EC saying that your Referendum Rerun does not meet basic electoral standards and should not be considered safe?
You can be pretty sure if there is any meaningful cut into the time for developing the balanced question (12 weeks) or for picking the sides and allowing them to prepare for the referendum (10 weeks) then the EC will be making some pretty loud noises about rigging the vote.
3. Even if you get to the vote you then have to deal with the legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Which will be all the more powerful if they can point to the referendum being rushed.