OK. The Libs have commissioned an opinion poll in one target seat in which they claim an apparently extraordinary swing towards them. However, in that seat, the Remain vote percentage (69%) is within the top decile in the country and Labour is probably harder hit by the consequences of its anti-semitism than anywhere else in the country. It's also in the part of the country where the Libs are anyway polling most strongly judging from cross breaks (eg. 29% today with YouGov in London compared to 14% in the North and Midlands/Wales.) They persuaded Survation to use a poll format that tends to help them (i.e. named candidate prompt which turned out to distort results in 2015) and one which was clearly not even handed given that Labour are without a named candidate after the resignation of the previous one. There may have been other designed push features they are not disclosing (eg. ordering the VI question to follow others say about Brexit in a Remain heavy seat, or about anti-semitism to prompt concerns with Labour). There may also have been polls in constituencies with results that don't suit the Libs and which they are thus keeping to themselves, and so we may only be seeing the outlier.
In summary, I don't think the Lib Dems can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls and regardless the results shouldn't be treated as being of relevance beyond that one constituency, other than reinforcing other evidence of a lot of voter churn.
What is of national relevance today in terms of the Lib Dems is the YouGov poll showing that them falling back again on the back of the Conservatives achieving another new polling high under Johnson. i.e. 18% today for the Libs compared to 22% in the last but one poll.
I have just spotted a Comres survey carried out for ITN 2nd - 14th October - sample size 22,956.
Con 29% Lab 27% LD 14% Brx 12% SNP 3% Others 5% Maybe Dont Knows account for remainder.
I'm not 100% but looking at the fieldwork those are just the unweighted VI figures, the released survey is about Brexit and has no headline figures for VI
Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates
The referendum instruction was to leave
The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave
They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead
...is certainly one way of looking at it. Another way is that the advisory referendum was a request with no statutory force, not formally an instruction.
Not for me to pronounce on which is correct (if there is such a thing), but I don't think you can really accuse Parliament of "trying to ignore the referendum mandate", given that they've spent the last three years talking about little else.
"Advisory" referendum. In other words one you think you can ignore. Weasely.
Fortunately you seem to be well out of tune with the public.
Nope. Many who use advisory may indeed wish to ignore the referendum but that's not a given. Advisory is legal fact but it absolute needed to be considered and scred upon. People should not throw tantrums about the legal status point, since mps triggering A50 knowing what it could mean means the legal status does not matter.
Seems a point less trip, the EU will offer an extension if asked so theres no worries, it's in parliaments hands whether theres a deal to vote down or not.
You just haven't got this whole pointless gesture thing, have you?
Grieve and co have played a much more astute game than Cummings.
Grieve has had it easy, with 400 MPs quietly (or otherwise) urging him on - and determinedly blocking off any route to the voters.
....
Antoinette Sandbach has been overwhelmingly deselected by her consituency in her safe seat of Eddisbury
NB Antoinette Sandbach voted for Theresa May's deal at every opportunity.
Indeed but not anymore hence her de-selection
It does seem a big price to pay but she is one of several who will see their seats won by anti EU conservatives, unfortunately
Very true, and very crazy
It's interesting that, since the referendum, the years of progress at not seeing people who share one characteristic as a homogenous mass has been thrown away, seemingly by the people who argued for less broad brush thinking themselves.
It's got nothing to do with seeing people as a a homogenous mass, it's about some individuals posturing that only they are the true leavers even as they condemn others who vote to leave when they themselves did not. I dont know what you are even on about.
What I am on about is that the term "Leavers" puts MPs in the house of Commons who vote down a deal in the same category as members of the public who voted to Leave with a deal, and tars everybody with the same brush as those behaving badly every time.
To use an old lefty trope, replace "Leavers" with "BAME/LGBT" etc and see how it sounds... 'all muslims are bad because of islamic extremists', 'all gay people are promiscuous because of Freddie Mercury' etc etc
Used to be the place where progressives feared to tread, no more.
I hope they dont say a longer extension is for that purpose. It would be so, but better to be clear it is so uk can consider all its options, and thus not appear to direct us.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?
I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name. I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.
I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.
We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.
We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure on it.
How much more "respect" are you looking for?
Indeed. With much of that time spent in attempts to frustrate that vote by those who said they would, and then failed, to respect it.
The Labour Party manifesto was against a "Tory Deal"; the Tory Party manifesto was to leave with the best possible deal in an orderly manner; the LibDems? No idea.
So this is parliamentary democracy in action, don'tcha love it. We the people decided against giving anyone a clear mandate to do anything and this is the obvious result.
As you will know well because you worked this all out before you voted Leave.
In what way is saying “if you vote against the nWA (new WA) you will get a chance to reverse Brexit” going to encourage MPs to support the deal?
How should I know? I'm just relaying what Bruno Waterfield (who is well-informed) is reporting about thinking in Brussels. In particular, if he's right it's very relevant to some of the most active betting markets.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?
I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name. I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
I went to speak at a meeting of a charity at the Conservative Club when I was a Labour MP - got a couple of amused looks. You do have to put up with looking at framed pictures of Margaret Thatcher amd the like.
Thatcher I could just about stand, but locally they may could have a picture of Priti Patel. As well as.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?
I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name. I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.
I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.
Beer festivals usually have a fee of about £2 for entrance, programme and glass. Of course if you stay there all night and getting utterly rat arsed on 10 pints that's only 20p to add to your £3.
Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates
The referendum instruction was to leave
The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave
They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead
Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.
Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.
The referendum vote also didn’t put any restrictions on when.
Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates
The referendum instruction was to leave
The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave
They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead
Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.
Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.
The referendum vote didnt put any restrictions on a second referendum. As it is advisorary it doesnt even restrict remaining either. As long as the advice has been received parliament has adhered to it if we are taking it so technically.
Or interpret the referendum vote on the words of those campaigning for it. That would be far more sensible.
Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
Surprised it's not 93%, most of the leavers on here now seem to be in the "It's the worst thing to happen to the country since the bubonic plague, but you have to respect therwilloftherpeople before you disrespect it, innit?" camp.
In total seriousness I've seen people argue that the bubonic plague was really good for workers, because it lead to a sharp increase in wages. After all, if a quarter of the labourers have died, farms have to pay well to get your to help with their harvest rather the farm just up the way. Just goes to show that you can spin almost anything -- including a pandemic -- if you desperately care enough about showing it to be a good thing.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
In terms of different treatments, I'm actually wondering if Mr Johnson is quietly threatening the DUP with a referendum on leaving the UK if they don't play ball.
well its a good ploy. Ireland would be bankrupt as a consequence.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
If the public don't respect or offer consent to an 'advisory referendum' then it's a pretty small leap in the minds of most that they might not respect or offer respect to a general election. At that point we no longer have a democracy.
The points about the referendum may have been more valid had both sides not put their heart and soul into the campaign and the turnout not been at unprecedented levels.
It's rather worrying this guy was ever employed by the BBC. He appears to be a complete lunatic.
If you listen to the same people at the same dinner parties and follow the same people saying the same things on Twitter day in day out then yep, you will sadly go round the bend.
At least coming here you get informed and smart opinions from all sides, with pepperings from the odd village idiot, like me.
OK. The Libs have commissioned an opinion poll in one target seat in which they claim an apparently extraordinary swing towards them. However, in that seat, the Remain vote percentage (69%) is within the top decile in the country and Labour is probably harder hit by the consequences of its anti-semitism than anywhere else in the country. It's also in the part of the country where the Libs are anyway polling most strongly judging from cross breaks (eg. 29% today with YouGov in London compared to 14% in the North and Midlands/Wales.) They persuaded Survation to use a poll format that tends to help them (i.e. named candidate prompt which turned out to distort results in 2015) and one which was clearly not even handed given that Labour are without a named candidate after the resignation of the previous one. There may have been other designed push features they are not disclosing (eg. ordering the VI question to follow others say about Brexit in a Remain heavy seat, or about anti-semitism to prompt concerns with Labour). There may also have been polls in constituencies with results that don't suit the Libs and which they are thus keeping to themselves, and so we may only be seeing the outlier.
In summary, I don't think the Lib Dems can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls and regardless the results shouldn't be treated as being of relevance beyond that one constituency, other than reinforcing other evidence of a lot of voter churn.
What is of national relevance today in terms of the Lib Dems is the YouGov poll showing that them falling back again on the back of the Conservatives achieving another new polling high under Johnson. i.e. 18% today for the Libs compared to 22% in the last but one poll.
ANY political party commissioned poll should be treated as such. Do you think that the Tories, or any other party, "can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls". On the other hand it could give an indication that Fichley is a possibility for Berger.
OK. The Libs have commissioned an opinion poll in one target seat in which they claim an apparently extraordinary swing towards them. However, in that seat, the Remain vote percentage (69%) is within the top decile in the country and Labour is probably harder hit by the consequences of its anti-semitism than anywhere else in the country. It's also in the part of the country where the Libs are anyway polling most strongly judging from cross breaks (eg. 29% today with YouGov in London compared to 14% in the North and Midlands/Wales.) They persuaded Survation to use a poll format that tends to help them (i.e. named candidate prompt which turned out to distort results in 2015) and one which was clearly not even handed given that Labour are without a named candidate after the resignation of the previous one. There may have been other designed push features they are not disclosing (eg. ordering the VI question to follow others say about Brexit in a Remain heavy seat, or about anti-semitism to prompt concerns with Labour). There may also have been polls in constituencies with results that don't suit the Libs and which they are thus keeping to themselves, and so we may only be seeing the outlier.
In summary, I don't think the Lib Dems can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls and regardless the results shouldn't be treated as being of relevance beyond that one constituency, other than reinforcing other evidence of a lot of voter churn.
What is of national relevance today in terms of the Lib Dems is the YouGov poll showing that them falling back again on the back of the Conservatives achieving another new polling high under Johnson. i.e. 18% today for the Libs compared to 22% in the last but one poll.
You make a good point that context is key. Which is the point others have been making about the polls potentially changing during an actual election campaign. Plenty of people seem keen to dismiss the dramatic shifts in 2017 as an aberration who are also glad to predict that if Brexit were defeated things would be bound to go the same way as Scotland 2015. In short, nobody knows what's going to happen, everybody's blinkered in their focus, and cherry picking is alive and well.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?
I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name. I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.
I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.
Waitrose £1.50. Sainsburys £1.25. Nicer ambience than a Conservative Club, too.
Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
Surprised it's not 93%, most of the leavers on here now seem to be in the "It's the worst thing to happen to the country since the bubonic plague, but you have to respect therwilloftherpeople before you disrespect it, innit?" camp.
In total seriousness I've seen people argue that the bubonic plague was really good for workers, because it lead to a sharp increase in wages. After all, if a quarter of the labourers have died, farms have to pay well to get your to help with their harvest rather the farm just up the way. Just goes to show that you can spin almost anything -- including a pandemic -- if you desperately care enough about showing it to be a good thing.
As Lady Hale would say, the effect of the plague is clear, and there is no need to consider the intent
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
If the public don't respect or offer consent to an 'advisory referendum' then it's a pretty small leap in the minds of most that they might not respect or offer respect to a general election. At that point we no longer have a democracy.
The points about the referendum may have been more valid had both sides not put their heart and soul into the campaign and the turnout not been at unprecedented levels.
While formally advisory, the referendum was in practice politically binding.
Similarly, while Leavers might formally point to the question on the ballot paper, in practice the mandate needs to be understood in the context of the campaign fought.
Leavers are very ready to accept the first point but inexplicably strongly hostile to being brought back to the campaign fought.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
Plenty of people seem keen to dismiss the dramatic shifts in 2017 as an aberration who are also glad to predict that if Brexit were defeated things would be bound to go the same way as Scotland 2015.
The thing about 2017 was that there were conflicting polls. the YouGov polls were supporting the labour movement while the others were not doing so as much.
Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
In terms of different treatments, I'm actually wondering if Mr Johnson is quietly threatening the DUP with a referendum on leaving the UK if they don't play ball.
well its a good ploy. Ireland would be bankrupt as a consequence.
That would appeal to the DUP.
maybe yes maybe no lots of their voters earn their livelihood from intra Ireland trade.
On the other hand Varadkars positioning on no DUP veto is bizarre for a man who wants them to be 15% of his country's electorate. That would be like wishing for a permanent veto in place given the closeness of Irish elections.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, MOE of 4.9%
These "margin of error" values are based on the assumption a representative sample. I am, let say, sceptical that a sample size of 400 in a poll comissioned from a political party is very representative of the whole constiteuncy.
The statistical assumption is that the sample is random, which is even harder to achieve than representativeness.
I've not seen a calculation of the margin of error for a representative sample. My instinct is that it would be larger, as essentially a combination of many smaller not-quite-random samples.
It's a wonder that opinion polls aren't completely useless. Only almost completely useless.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?
I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name. I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.
I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.
Waitrose £1.50. Sainsburys £1.25. Nicer ambience than a Conservative Club, too.
I do like drinking in a social situation, and, at a festival, comparing notes, though. And I don't like bottled or canned beers. Lager's OK-ish, but only on a hot day!
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
If the public don't respect or offer consent to an 'advisory referendum' then it's a pretty small leap in the minds of most that they might not respect or offer respect to a general election. At that point we no longer have a democracy.
The points about the referendum may have been more valid had both sides not put their heart and soul into the campaign and the turnout not been at unprecedented levels.
While formally advisory, the referendum was in practice politically binding.
Similarly, while Leavers might formally point to the question on the ballot paper, in practice the mandate needs to be understood in the context of the campaign fought.
Leavers are very ready to accept the first point but inexplicably strongly hostile to being brought back to the campaign fought.
That's because the first point is correct, and the second is nonsense
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, MOE of 4.9%
These "margin of error" values are based on the assumption a representative sample. I am, let say, sceptical that a sample size of 400 in a poll comissioned from a political party is very representative of the whole constiteuncy.
The statistical assumption is that the sample is random, which is even harder to achieve than representativeness.
I've not seen a calculation of the margin of error for a representative sample. My instinct is that it would be larger, as essentially a combination of many smaller not-quite-random samples.
It's a wonder that opinion polls aren't completely useless. Only almost completely useless.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
Fine, but that only binds the government. Backbench and opposition MPs are entitled (and indeed supposed) to take their own view.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?
I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name. I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.
I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.
Waitrose £1.50. Sainsburys £1.25. Nicer ambience than a Conservative Club, too.
A boiling lake of sulphur probably has a nicer ambience that a Conservative Club.
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?
I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name. I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.
I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.
Beer festivals usually have a fee of about £2 for entrance, programme and glass. Of course if you stay there all night and getting utterly rat arsed on 10 pints that's only 20p to add to your £3.
Yes; our summer one is something like that. This one appears to be free entry, though.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Bring in PR. Then no more need to worry ever again about a Labour (or Tory) majority. No more rotten boroughs aka 'safe seats'. My vote would also count again for the 1st. time since 1974. Instead we have a protection racket maintained by the two main parties to instil in voters tribal hostility to (and fear of) the other main party.
Had Clegg possessed the negotiating skills of Arlene Foster, we'd have had a referendum on PR not AV and we'd probably have had C&S not coalition so they wouldn't have supported the battier right-wing policies of Osborne & Cameron.
As Mike says the vote was advisory. According to The Briefing Room (1 hr expert panel discussion on R4) it was so constitutionally flawed that it needs to be annulled. The only question is how.
It was flawed because of our stupid, archaic, unclear, unwritten constitution.
If Deal gets 7 out of 10 DUP, loses a few Spartans (up to 10), up to 10 Europhiles (Grieve, Rudd, Liddington, Boles) but gains at least 10 Lab/Indies (Hoey, Mann, Onn, Flint, Snell etc) then it should sneak through.
If it does look like getting passed it will be interesting to see if Rudd & Grieve's lot reluctantly support it or they end their Tory careers there and then as anti Brexit martyrs.
Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
That Lib Dem polling is about herding cats. This election will see a huge out break of candidatitis as well as inexperienced #FBPE activists go8ng off in tangents as well as wasting their time in Uxbridge. Polling showing a possible gain against the Tories will help herd cats. It manufactures activist consent to a targeting strategy.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
I wasn't actually thinking about the referendum. But more generally. "Respect" is used a lot by lots of people. People demanding respect for whatever they say and do. Others saying that they respect stuff when they clearly don't.
And I don't buy it. It's just humbug. Respect needs to be earned not demanded. I'm not going to respect something which I don't think worthy of respect. And if that annoys the person demanding it, well, tough.
Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
The Barnett formula - designed to equalise spending per head between the nations of the UK - is the most misunderstood thing in British politics.
Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
Looking at that, you'd think she (Berger) would be a shoo-in, but I always think in a GE campaign, on the day a lot of people wobble in the voting booth (I know I have).
She certainly can win. I think she will struggle.
For the record, I can't stand the woman. She comes in here (Merseyside) and gets dumped in a nice safe Labour seat. When her politics change, she neither holds a by-election in her own seat, but then scuttles off to a more winnable seat just because she knows she'll get an absolute kicking.
I do hope she fails in her bid, despite probably going to vote LD myself at the next GE.
I get your sentiments. I think the Lib Dems might have done better to refuse to accept retreads from the other parties.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
That was, FWIW, a previous government. The current one just spent £100m on an advertising campaign telling us to get ready to leave without a deal in two weeks' time...
Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates
The referendum instruction was to leave
The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave
They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead
Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.
Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.
So it would be OK if the other parties ganged up and delivered a Norway-style deal? (Which is also leaving)
Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
The Barnett formula - designed to equalise spending per head between the nations of the UK - is the most misunderstood thing in British politics.
That's probably because it 'equalises' spending per head in much the same sense as the whinging WASPIs advocate 'equality' in the state pension age.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
Take it up with the Conservative PM at the time, who buggered off the second the results were in. He and his Conservative Government are the people who must answer to that. The legislation that PARLIAMENT passed said no such thing.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
That was, FWIW, a previous government. The current one just spent £100m on an advertising campaign telling us to get ready to leave without a deal in two weeks' time...
Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates
The referendum instruction was to leave
The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave
They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead
Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.
Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.
So it would be OK if the other parties ganged up and delivered a Norway-style deal? (Which is also leaving)
why not ? But since they havent done it in the last 6 months wht are the chances that will happen?
That Lib Dem polling is about herding cats. This election will see a huge out break of candidatitis as well as inexperienced #FBPE activists go8ng off in tangents as well as wasting their time in Uxbridge. Polling showing a possible gain against the Tories will help herd cats. It manufactures activist consent to a targeting strategy.
It’s about making clear Labour can’t win the seat - which they most probably can’t, given the nature of the seat and the unlikelihood of improving on the result last time with everything that has happened since. Labour being seen as out of the race is a precondition to setting up a head to head with the Tories.
Take it up with the Conservative PM at the time, who buggered off the second the results were in. He and his Conservative Government are the people who must answer to that. The legislation that PARLIAMENT passed said no such thing.
@MarqueeMark is making the very reasonable point that what David Cameron said could be relied upon, but what Boris, Gove, Raab, Farage etc said was obvious froth which no-one should have taken seriously.
Take it up with the Conservative PM at the time, who buggered off the second the results were in. He and his Conservative Government are the people who must answer to that. The legislation that PARLIAMENT passed said no such thing.
@MarqueeMark is making the very reasonable point that what David Cameron said could be relied upon, but what Boris, Gove, Raab, Farage etc said was obvious froth which no-one should have taken seriously.
It's traditional in any kind of vote that only the losing side's promises are to be honoured.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
" The Government " - but that Government ceased to exist when Cameron resigned. The party that made that promise no longer exists so the promise is void. It was also an ultra vires promise as the Supreme Court found invoking A50 was not a prerogative power. So " Government " can't keep that promise only Parliament can. Then no Parliament can bind it's sucessor and this is a sucessor parliament. The promise in that leaflet is constitutionally and legally worthless.
God that fella yelling "Stop Brexit" outside Parliament all day every day is a bloody nuisance
I agree with him but he is annoying! I was having a sleep earlier with the TV on and he woke me up! I find shouting men instigates a feeling of fear as well....
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
If EUCO is only giving a political " Yes " then the vote on Super Saturday can't be a MV. Clearly the Commons giving a political " Yes " to EUCO's political " Yes " would be a huge moment but the legal timetable has slipped.
This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.
If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.
We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
That’s a very dangerous philosophy
Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament
No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
" The Government " - but that Government ceased to exist when Cameron resigned. The party that made that promise no longer exists so the promise is void. It was also an ultra vires promise as the Supreme Court found invoking A50 was a prerogative power. So " Government " can't keep that promise only Parliament can. Then no Parliament can bind it's sucessor and this is a sucessor parliament. The promise in that leaflet is constitutionally and legally worthless.
There would certainly be a stronger argument for that school of thought if an anti Brexit party had won the 2017 GE or the 2019 Euro elections. It's certainly a stretch to determine from these results that the public have reversed their views on the 2016 referendum. I presume though if parliament does vote for a Boris deal then you would respect us leaving.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Iain Paisley was an evil man. Revolting that he should be given credit for helping to bring to an end the violence and harm that he was so instrumental in creating. The same applies to Martin McGuinness too.
If EUCO is only giving a political " Yes " then the vote on Super Saturday can't be a MV. Clearly the Commons giving a political " Yes " to EUCO's political " Yes " would be a huge moment but the legal timetable has slipped.
I think you’re right, but the Commons political “yes” might come with a Benn amendment I suppose.
As this deal goes to and fro I believe that many EU members are heartily sick of the whole thing not least of all France and the rumour that the EU will only allow a short extension for technical detail or a GE seems to me very likely and that the EU do not want to provide time for a referendum as no doubt many EU countries would nor want a reluctant UK at their table causing mayhem
In this scenario the choice must be deal or revoke
Furthermore if the discussions go into next week and Boris writes the letter, the latest on Sky is that the EU will not respond on an extension until after a vote in the HOC. If you add in the time scale then the deal would before the HOC on Saturday 23rd and the very real choice by then could well be between deal or no deal on the 31st October
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
BJ said before June 2016, if a deal was worse than staying in the EU, then we should stay in the EU...
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
The next purpose of that Lib Dem polling is to target SW1 journos laziness. They are already compiling a list of " seats to watch " for campaign coverage and that poll vaults it onto the list. The fact it's a good story and in London so cutting travel time adds to appeal for lazy journos. Whatever that poll cost has just bought the Lib Dem campaign vast quantities of free media. A value investment.
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
BJ said before June 2016, if a deal was worse than staying in the EU, then we should stay in the EU...
BJ has said a lot of things that could now be thrown back in his face. But people seem to want him. So the rest of us will just have to put up with him. And wait.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
The next purpose of that Lib Dem polling is to target SW1 journos laziness. They are already compiling a list of " seats to watch " for campaign coverage and that poll vaults it onto the list. The fact it's a good story and in London so cutting travel time adds to appeal for lazy journos. Whatever that poll cost has just bought the Lib Dem campaign vast quantities of free media. A value investment.
I don’t mind sounding a bit thick by saying I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re exactly right. You can picture all the news clips.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Ive watched the series too, primarily since I lived through a lot of it. Pointng put that PIRA killed most people isnt the same as condoing loyalist paramilitaries, its simply statistics.
Comments
In summary, I don't think the Lib Dems can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls and regardless the results shouldn't be treated as being of relevance beyond that one constituency, other than reinforcing other evidence of a lot of voter churn.
What is of national relevance today in terms of the Lib Dems is the YouGov poll showing that them falling back again on the back of the Conservatives achieving another new polling high under Johnson. i.e. 18% today for the Libs compared to 22% in the last but one poll.
To use an old lefty trope, replace "Leavers" with "BAME/LGBT" etc and see how it sounds... 'all muslims are bad because of islamic extremists', 'all gay people are promiscuous because of Freddie Mercury' etc etc
Used to be the place where progressives feared to tread, no more.
So this is parliamentary democracy in action, don'tcha love it. We the people decided against giving anyone a clear mandate to do anything and this is the obvious result.
As you will know well because you worked this all out before you voted Leave.
I'm bored by Brexit but this guy seems to know his onions.
Or interpret the referendum vote on the words of those campaigning for it. That would be far more sensible.
Just goes to show that you can spin almost anything -- including a pandemic -- if you desperately care enough about showing it to be a good thing.
The points about the referendum may have been more valid had both sides not put their heart and soul into the campaign and the turnout not been at unprecedented levels.
At least coming here you get informed and smart opinions from all sides, with pepperings from the odd village idiot, like me.
https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1184296997693640704
Do you think that the Tories, or any other party, "can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls".
On the other hand it could give an indication that Fichley is a possibility for Berger.
Plenty of people seem keen to dismiss the dramatic shifts in 2017 as an aberration who are also glad to predict that if Brexit were defeated things would be bound to go the same way as Scotland 2015.
In short, nobody knows what's going to happen, everybody's blinkered in their focus, and cherry picking is alive and well.
Similarly, while Leavers might formally point to the question on the ballot paper, in practice the mandate needs to be understood in the context of the campaign fought.
Leavers are very ready to accept the first point but inexplicably strongly hostile to being brought back to the campaign fought.
Gonna be a long afternoon...
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
Warren's answer is superb; Sanders' is good on the passion and moral angle but doesn't inspire much confidence that he's on top of the detail.
On the other hand Varadkars positioning on no DUP veto is bizarre for a man who wants them to be 15% of his country's electorate. That would be like wishing for a permanent veto in place given the closeness of Irish elections.
I've not seen a calculation of the margin of error for a representative sample. My instinct is that it would be larger, as essentially a combination of many smaller not-quite-random samples.
It's a wonder that opinion polls aren't completely useless. Only almost completely useless.
Had Clegg possessed the negotiating skills of Arlene Foster, we'd have had a referendum on PR not AV and we'd probably have had C&S not coalition so they wouldn't have supported the battier right-wing policies of Osborne & Cameron.
As Mike says the vote was advisory. According to The Briefing Room (1 hr expert panel discussion on R4) it was so constitutionally flawed that it needs to be annulled. The only question is how.
It was flawed because of our stupid, archaic, unclear, unwritten constitution.
If it does look like getting passed it will be interesting to see if Rudd & Grieve's lot reluctantly support it or they end their Tory careers there and then as anti Brexit martyrs.
https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1184447621106143234
No! No! No!
And I don't buy it. It's just humbug. Respect needs to be earned not demanded. I'm not going to respect something which I don't think worthy of respect. And if that annoys the person demanding it, well, tough.
The current one just spent £100m on an advertising campaign telling us to get ready to leave without a deal in two weeks' time...
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1184450769141014529
Take your pick.
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
Really?
In this scenario the choice must be deal or revoke
Furthermore if the discussions go into next week and Boris writes the letter, the latest on Sky is that the EU will not respond on an extension until after a vote in the HOC. If you add in the time scale then the deal would before the HOC on Saturday 23rd and the very real choice by then could well be between deal or no deal on the 31st October
That would concentrate minds
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html