Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI finds support for staying in the EU at its highe
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI finds support for staying in the EU at its highest level since before the 1992 ERM crisis
One of the great things about Ipsos-MORI is that it has been carrying out political polling in the UK for longer than anyone and has extraordinary records. This means that it can put things into context.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
India live vote counting
http://www.ndtv.com/video/live/channel/ndtv24x7
http://ibnlive.in.com/livetv/
NDTV calling seat leads in 53/543 seats with only 20 mins of counting!
BJP 31 up 7 Congress 13 down 7
Thanks
DC
Isn't it more likely that:
(1) A good proportion of UKIP voters see their support for the party as a general cry of dissatisfaction rather than as being about support for pulling out of the EU?
(2) UKIP is a polarising party. It attracts support, but polls show it is also actively disliked by a large number of voters. Perhaps there is an "If UKIP is for it I am against it" effect.
It's also worth remembering that despite the UKIP surge parties that support staying in the EU will win more votes than those supporting pulling out on 22nd May.
Funny you should use that term status quo Mike, because that is exactly the term used by David Cameron in Glasgow yesterday. He even went so far as to say that all of the Unionist parties "are also passionate about further devolution". Quite how he squares that with Ruth Davidson's infamous "line in the sand" or with UKIP's implacable opposition to devolution remains unexplained.
So, a vote for YES is a vote to change from the status quo.
And a vote for NO is a vote to change from the status quo.
So, what do people in favour of the status quo do? Abstain?
Scottish independence: Cameron says No vote 'not for status quo' http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27414810
For example. 'Do you wish to stay in, or leave the United Kingdom?' STAY? LEAVE? would I suggest produce a higher % for the Union, than 'should Scotland become an Independent country?
what's an objective question is highly subjective though
That is what the bright Wendy Alexander realised, but her dim boss Gordon Brown sabotaged her initiative. Pretty much the only occasion when SLab have seriously wrongfooted the SNP in recent history.
If Unionists had called the Scottish independence referendum (as Wendy was attempting to do), then they could have designed the entire poll: the timing, the legislative format, and cucially, the actual wording of the question.
The wording on the ballot paper is one of the aces held by the YES campaign. It is a beautiful question. A clear question. And it appeals to Scots who actually like and respect their fellow Scots. Which is most of them.
(But just to be clear, I do not agree that your wording would be any more "objective" than the actual wording. In fact, in terms of constitutional law, your wording tries to pretend that the Union with England Act never received royal assent.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629829/How-LibDems-tried-Gove-ally-arrested-Deputy-PM-accused-losing-plot-school-lunches-row.html
Clegg, meanwhile, has made it clear that he won’t go without a fight. His confidants have let it be known that if he were deposed, his loyal lieutenant Danny Alexander would be a candidate in the election that followed."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9207761/nick-cleggs-war/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#2014_2
A referendum is winnable either way. There's nothing foolish about believing in the strength of your case. Mr Farage was after all judged the winner in two national debates on the merits of the EU.
The LAB price is drifting in Ladbrokes' Euro election market: "Labour to win more votes than SNP". New prices:
SNP to win more votes than Labour 2/7 (from 1/3)
Labour to win more votes than SNP 5/2 (from 9/4)
However, LAB-backers are still better nipping over to Hills where you can get 11/4 on LAB:
William Hill - Scotland - Party With The Most Votes - European Parliament Elections
SNP 1/4
Lab 11/4
UKIP 100/1
Con 100/1
LD 200/1
I assume that this tightening of the SNP price is due to that ComRes poll yesterday showing Scottish Labour on just 16%, in 3rd place behind the Scottish Tories (22%) in terms of European Parliament voting intention.
Lurking on the Greens website is I believe an argument for reforming the EU. As I recall the reforms were so drastic they were unlikely to be achieved.
I directly attribute this shift to the rise of UKIP. It is popular with some voters, but disliked by more. More UKIP means those who dislike it think about it more, and turn away from the whole job lot of what it advocates.
UKIP doesn't need to make the true believers still more passionate. It needs to persuade the undecided. Right now it's repelling them.
I'm still chuckling over that poll suggesting Salmond is a bigger threat to Independence than Cameron is to the Union.....
Euro election - Ladbrokes' line prices: GB vote share (note: GB vote share not UK vote share)
UKIP 28%
Lab 26%
Con 24%
Grn 8%
LD 8%
An Independence From Europe 1.5%
You are offered a price of 5/6 on results either above or below those levels.
(We'll have to ask Shadsy if Gibraltar is included in his definition of GB vote share. I assume it would only alter results by tiny fractions of a percent, but punters might like to know anyway.)
The words Johann and Lamont will no doubt feature prominently when the obituary of the Union is penned.
People have firm views on the EU, stronger than their views on UKIP, and it's not popular.
Anthony Wells regularly makes exactly that point over at UKPR. Not that anybody ever listens to him. The less gifted regularly get excited over "less/more likely" questions.
2. Concern about the economy has been the top concern, I would guess that fear of change, fear that the economic catastrophe predicted by pro-EU voices is not wholly without merit. At the same time the TV news hasn't had the Eurozone-on-the-brink headlines.
3. It doesn't matter who is in the lead. The two sides are close enough for either one to win. I think the arguments favour the 'out' side, others will disagree.
I think the findings make good sense. Someone (the Lib Dems) have started arguing strongly for continued membership, whereas previously only stories or arguments critical of membership had been advanced. That should have some effect. In addition, Cameron's repeated pledge of an In/Out referendum after renegotiations may well have persuaded some to drift from 'this is a waste of effort and money' to 'this might be worth it in a few years so I'll defer judgement for now'.
The stark 'In' or 'Out' options in the question hide a multitude of grey areas of opinion and I suspect that the number who could be persuaded either way is larger than either group who are firmly in one camp or the other. As other referendums have shown, big swings can occur across the campaign. A 17% lead is not to be ignored, but nor is it anything like a settled judgement.
Amusing though it was for me to see the Conservatives ahead of Labour in Scotland, I wouldn't set too much store by the result. Give me two or three more like that and I'll start to believe it.
Scots likely to vote Yes if they think Tories will win UK election
People in Scotland are more likely to vote for independence if they think the Conservatives will win the next UK general election, a poll suggests.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/polls/272322-scots-likely-to-vote-yes-if-they-think-tories-will-win-uk-election/
Glad we've cleared that up......
That's why I don't trust these figures.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/deciding-election-3-north-west-in-2015.html
Scottish independence used to regularly rank miles down in the list of voters' concerns, and yet here we are on the brink of it actually happening. Like Scottish independence, the Brexit question underlies every other political issue.
You might like the Daniel Hannan piece linked to below. He largely agrees with your UKIP/in argument. The difference being that he thinks its the arguments UKIP is using.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100270107/if-it-comes-down-to-immigration-versus-investment-eurosceptics-will-lose/
pedant mode off.
Engineered measles virus to kill cancer!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10834778/Massive-dose-of-measles-virus-kills-cancer-cells.html
This is a great period to be alive in. There's astounding progress being made in so many scientific areas it's difficult to keep up.
I mean, 12% of Holyrood 2011 SNP voters say it's more likely to make them vote "No"!
Meanwhile, India is experiencing a real political earthquake - Congress flattened, left-wing parties swept aside, BJP triumphant. Hmm.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/7-reasons-vote-ukip-jobs-jobs-jobs/
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/50wecmqbl6/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Europe-Voting Intention-140514.pdf
The only real movement since January appears to be Labour (-4) to Greens (+5)
UK's oil, coal and gas 'gone in five years' [BBC]
What impact would fracking have on this? Will this report dampen enthusiasm for Scottish independence?
A report by the Global Sustainability Institute said shortages would increase dependency on Norway, Qatar and Russia.
There should be a "Europe-wide drive" towards wind, tidal, solar and other sources of renewable power, the institute's Prof Victor Anderson said.
The report says Russia has more than 50 years of oil, more than 100 years of gas and more than 500 years of coal left, on current consumption.
By contrast, Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining.
France fares even worse, according to the report, with less than year to go before it runs out of all three fossil fuels.
Continue reading the main story
Dr Aled Jones, director of the institute, which is based at Anglia Ruskin University, said "heavily indebted" countries were becoming increasingly vulnerable to rising energy prices.
"The EU is becoming ever more reliant on our resource-rich neighbours such as Russia and Norway, and this trend will only continue unless decisive action is taken," he added.
The report painted a varied picture across Europe, with Bulgaria having 34 years of coal left.
Germany, it was claimed, has 250 years of coal remaining but less than a year of oil.
Professor Anderson said: "Coal, oil and gas resources in Europe are running down and we need alternatives. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27435624
I will try and find out more about this report and the sources it uses. The volume of investment still going into the N Sea would not suggest these timelines for oil for the UK. Also what %age of oil recovery is this report using? Perhaps this report has an agenda?
The real issue is 'does the government, or indeed successive governments, have the political will to develop, produce and sustain our energy exploration and production sector?'. The fracking debate highlights how relatively powerful the watermelons and the ignorant are over those who would plan for our country's economic wellbeing and future energy availbility. The figure of 5 years, or 10, or 20 or indefinite is really a political choice.
Just another global warming pressure group the Beeb likes to quote when needs be.
Personally, and this may be my contrary nature, I have been heading in the opposite direction being intensely annoyed about the threat the EU seems determined to create to one of our most important industries through the FTT.
I am happy to wait to see what protections from EZ dominance Cameron can negotiate as the EU evolves and changes in fundamental ways but I frankly think he has a real job on his hands. The idea of that job being given to someone as useless as Miliband is genuinely scary because these negotiations will have a long term effect on our economic prosperity and the decision when it ultimately comes (as I think it eventually will even if the tories do not win the next election and we do not get a referendum in 2017 as a result).
Interesting comments by Cameron yesterday. Very much in line with my own thinking and posting on here. The referendum has changed and is changing Scotland and the status quo is no longer an option.
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has signed a decree giving the government new powers to block foreign takeover bids for companies deemed "strategic".
The move comes as US firm General Electric (GE) and Germany's Siemens vie to take control of French engineering group Alstom's power business.
Any such takeover will now need approval from Economy Minister Arnaud Montebourg.
Mr Montebourg is known to favour the Siemens approach over the GE bid.
In a statement, he said the government's new powers of veto would be "applied in a selective and proportional manner, taking each situation into consideration".
Until now, the French government's power to intervene was confined to deals concerning defence and security matters. The decree extends this to the energy, water, transport, health and communications sectors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27420854
As French companies now own a lot of the UK's water and energy businesses, what would be its reaction if the UK retrospectively put in place similar laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#2014
That sentence I wrote above was of course tongue in cheek. It's a fact that the establishment, and I include all the MSM bar non, are wholly in favour of the EU and all propaganda is directed against anyone (principally UKIP) wanting an exit from that body, so it's no wonder that the mass of the public are confused or bored to distraction by the whole argument.
It's for UKIP to try and change perceptions that "out" will bring disaster. It's made a good start under direct attack by the whole body politic and their subservient henchmen, but it needs to do even better.
The EU poll ratings look pretty damned bouncy, to be honest. Except a diehard quarter who always want to leave or stay it looks like the electorate changes their mind quite a lot.
As OGH often says it's great trading the move without needing the result.
Or maybe most people don't share your obsession.
More seriously, I suspect that this is largely the consequence of UKIP being a deeply polarising party. We see it on here. Even though I hate the Green Party agenda in a way I do not hate UKIP's agenda, I find myself bashing heads with Kippers on here on a regular basis. Has it changed the way I would vote at a referendum? Probably not. But it might turn quite a few "don't knows" into tentative "ins".
The EU bureaucracy have played a brilliant game of extend and pretend - but the fundamental flaws remain. The long term viability of the Eurozone (and certainly the economic viability of the garlic zone) remains basically fu*&ed. And this will not get unf$#@ed until something major and structural is changed.
We see this week Germany growing and all the rest of the Eurozone still in recession, with some shockingly bad numbers across the board. France is particularly screwed. How long can this persist? At what point do the garlic zone voters give up and start giving Brussels the finger? Italy is perilously close to meltdown. The whole Eurozone is one shock away form collapse and/or rampant Japan style deflation. They're facing a lost decade or worse. And, horrible though it may seem, this recovery is well advanced and another recession will come along at some point, maybe soon. The markets are overvalued and bubbles from London property to Chinese credit to US equities will pop. And when the next pop arrives the Eurozone is structurally unable to respond. Their governments and banking systems do not have the resources to repeat 2008.
So....personally I'm not sure that some all-powerful, all consuming, Star Trek Borg collective-like Monster EU is still going to be there to absorb us. We may be voting to leave or remain in a pile of smoking wreckage.
Or not.
Is that since the gap between yes and no started widening again?
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/05/poll-of-polls-12-may/
Perhaps people have started to think about "Prime Minister Salmond"?
In the same way that Ukip are demonised, the Greens are portrayed as wanting to take us back to the stone age, living in caves, making fires with recycled furniture and dying of any random disease as we don't approve of vaccinations or nasty drugs that have been tested on animals. That's assuming we haven't already died of starvation as the organic food ran out years ago.
And while being against nuclear power and fracking, they would have approved of coal mining if Ug had just stumbled across it.
An accurate description?
I have said 100x on here (and I'll say it again), the future of the whole European 'project' depends on France. If it reforms - as Spain has done - then the Euro and the Eurozone will survive. If it clings to its labour market model, then it will not. A fixed currency regime is not compatible with an inflexible labour market. You can choose one or the other.
You and I know that it is rubbish, but unfortunately HMGs take more notice of an Academic based Institute. that you and I and they may get considerable funding to expand their ideas - especially with a LibDem in place at Energy.
Even though this Institute (part of Anglia Ruskin Univ) was set up about 3 years ago and has assumed a title of Global, it has over a dozen staff, awards PhDs, and already calls its people experts. Sustainability is a popular subject for many governments as well as the EU and they could get a lot of funding, notwithstanding their obvious agenda.
Of course in the long term they are right, but it would be interesting to reveal their source of funding.
I have not found this report on their web-site.
BOOer anecdote vs empirical research. The voters don't care about Europe. And when they are forced to think about it because Kippers bang on about it, they say: "better off in".
Good call by Ed Miliband?