Matt Singh of Number Cruncher Politics and a regular guest on the PB/PollingMatters podcast has just produced the above survey for Bloomberg which finds that of the main options facing the UK leaving with the deal has the highest level of net acceptability.
Comments
To be fair, acceptability is not quite the same as approval, but the Deal looks like the only option for moving on.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1088097071863947264
MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.
Nowadays revenge is required. So you have to make sure the right people take the blame.
1. The perception has grown up that it is not leaving; and
2. The muddle between the WA and the PD is as strong as ever.
That said, the deal will pass. Obvs.
Looks like the only way to settle it is a 3 way AV #peoplesvote
Then the fun begins on the post WA FTA...
There's an untold story about why Stuart Broad might not be playing.
He has got some terrible bed bug bits - and on quite a sensitive area, which I inspected yesterday on the outfield.
There are a few issues at the hotel they're staying at. It involves some of the players sleeping out on mattress in the corridors of the hotel. He went to bed with his whites on, but it sounds as if a few got into his jockstrap...
There's a very curious shape (broadly U shaped) to the acceptability of the deal by age, with it being most unacceptable (but still, just, acceptable, by 39-37) to those aged 45-54.
I think we're getting closer towards a deal this week.
Is this the same interview where he said he didn’t think the backstop was a particular stumbling block for us?
Facepalm time.
"A considered compromise"
"When do we want it"
"After relevant legislation is passed, which might neccesitate an extension to Article 50 - but on the understanding such an extension is only to facilitate MAy's deal and not indefinitely delay Brexit"
It’s a useful tool in the trade talks, too. Which is clearly why they don’t want to do it!
From my POV the deal is still a very hard Brexit as it's out of the SM/CU, no services deal, no freedom of movement, but it does seem to be being massaged into being the compromise option somehow. That's quite good PR.
Have to say my eyes are rolling at the Brexiteers talking of proroguing parliament if they can't get their way. Maybe I'm just not fanatical enough, but it's the Remain / Leave at all costs argument that's leaving me cold on both sides now. Surely there comes a point at which Brexit / stopping Brexit just ain't worth it and there's more to life? Maybe I'm on the wrong blog for that...
Ironically at the time, I remember that Montgomery was NOT one of the seats that would be LD on that poll - despite Lembit Opik being the sitting MP!
Agree. They will, but tradition demands that we get closer to the cliff edge first. There is no particular thing about the WA which is inconsistent with Labour manifesto aims and the Political Declaration isn't binding, so once the game playing ends it will get through on Labour abstentions, maybe even doing a bit better than that.
But perhaps just to add - and IMO they will. They will be ratifing it.
It's a when and a how and an exactly who, not an if.
The Winner Takes It All according to a popular Swedish beat combo.
I wanted mainly to argue against the fetishization of the nation state - a topic I feel strongly about - but as can sometimes happen with me, I got into a fugue and went over the hills and far away.
Still, no harm done.
The baddies were the villagers with pitchforks.
If May's Bill is Frankenstein, it is the shrieking Foremains who are playing the role of the baddy villagers.
This is really quite concerning. We can all have opinions about the quality of the mail and how one sided their articles can be, but ratings them as fake news with the likes of infowars is not making the problem better and dare I say it fake news..
Has she explained at all why MPs cannot sort it out by the deadline (not pass subsequent legislation, that is a separate issue)? And if it is about 'a bit of extra time' why are there arguments about how much time that is, with the initial suggestion until December?
It's almost as though it is not about getting a bit more time, but just delaying things as long as possible, and eventually remaining. Nice try, Yvette.
The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.
That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...
Arguably, the best reason to get rid of tuition fees is they are a humongous Ponzi scheme which are piling up huge amounts of unrepayable debt that at some point the taxpayer will have to cough up for. They're like public sector pensions in some ways, except that when people die you lose money not gain it.
The second best reason to get rid of them is because it would actually be hilarious to watch all those muppets at the SLC, starting with the egregious Kevin O'Cockup, get the sack.
I would agree that saving graduates money isn't a good reason as I don't think it would.
If you see my point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-46980913
But that will be happening within about a decade anyway as the current scheme, the Browne scheme, unravels.
I was about to add a stinging comment about a certain judge and his lack of mental capacity and integrity, but out of respect to OGH I won't.
The polling suggests that "remain" would lose another referendum
Yet 65% of Remainers find leaving with No Deal unacceptable and 78% of Leavers find Remaining in the EU unacceptable.
The Deal is not perfect but it is still the best way to avoid a near Civil War between People's Vote Remainers pushing EUref2 and Leave means Leavers pushing No Deal