politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM test finds that stay has an 18% lead when the proposed

Split sample Q2: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
1. Remain a member of the European Union
2. Leave the European Union
3. DK
0
Comments
All a bit academic though at the moment. If there's Grexit it might be interesting.
I'm not so bothered about the actual question, but we do need to be aware that if Scotland votes differently to the rest of the UK, then Scotland may well feel that they have no alternative but to call another referendum on independence (which I am pretty sure the YES-side will win this time)
Therefore, I think that Scotland should vote separately first, Then the rest of the UK can vote taking the Scotland vote into account.
*Tongue-in-cheek mode off*
In 2011 the AV referendum was 41%, I anticipate a similar figure for the EU referendum which means approx 10m wins. Assuming the 4m UKIP voters will enthusiastically vote they need to persuade another 6m.
Should the United Kingdom become an Independent country by leaving the European Union?
Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union before falling under the yoke of Franco-German domination?
Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union to avoid the threat of Eurocrats forcing honest hard-working English men from drinking half-litres instead of pints?
I do think that ICM could have been a bit more inventive with their alternative question formats.
Edit: I think there's a grammatical mistake in my second suggestion which makes it amusingly unclear.
The European Union Referendum Bill is a Bill providing for a referendum, and which declares that Part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 applies to it. Accordingly, the Electoral Commission are under a statutory duty to consider the intelligibility of the question, and to publish their views as soon as is reasonably practicable (see section 104(2) of the 2000 Act). The question certainly seems intelligible, but if the Commission recommend any change, the government will almost certainly accept their recommendation.
If the current proposed question produces a slight bias towards "In", it seems unlikely that there will be a majority in either House to amend it. Preferable questions would have been: "Should the Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have primacy over Acts of Parliament", or "Should the United Kingdom be a free, sovereign and independent state?"...
If I were a leader in the Out campaign I would want to make it very clear indeed that there's no Status Quo option here, it's the Superstate or out.
On the radio the other day a reporter had been sent off somewhere, I don't recall where, to gauge public opinion on membership of the EU. More than half the people he talked to weren't even sure if the UK was in the EU, or not...
My own assumption is that a low turnout favours OUT
However here goes.
I never liked Charles Kennedy when he was alive and I refuse too heap eulogies of saintly-hood on him now he's dead. Alive, he was a so, so, moderate leader, a lefty who would have done better in the Labour Party. He had an engaging smile? Well many people have and they are bastards underneath.
As they say in Braavos "valar morghulis - all men must die". That he died young for these days is a shame, but thats life.
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum" as they say in the civilised world.
The 1975 question: "Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?"
It will obviously be more measured, and after a lot of heat and not much light, we will vote to stay in ... unless the EU throws a massive wobbly.
I don't think we'll be seeing Indyref levels of turnout.
What needs to happen now is for Out campaigners from all parties to be talking to their own supporters, then select a couple of representatives to lead the Out campaign once the negotiations have happened (or otherwise!) and we know who will be on each side from the senior politicians of all parties.
The leaders need to be centrists politically to appeal to all sides and floating voters, and not be seen as 'Marmite' politicians by the general public - Think Mr Darling in the Scotland referendum, rather than say Mr Farage or Mr Gove.
1. No substantial powers gained in re-negotiation,
2. Some sort of stupid EU move (e.g. Migrant quotas),
3. Cammo recommending out,
4. The debate being framed as much more integration v freedom to stand up tall on the world stage.
Personally I'm pretty sure that I'll vote out as I don't want to be tied to more integration like we were after the EEC vote.
https://twitter.com/WinstonMcK/status/605473610610929666
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32980354
Misuse of apostrophes' make me so angry
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/06/lynton-crosby-vs-lord-ashcroft-round-two-hes-not-a-pollster/
"London CLP nominations state of play: @TessaJowell 34, @SadiqKhan 26, @DavidLammy 8 @DianeforLondon 4, @christianwolmar 2 @GarethThomasMP 1"
I'm missing one, never mind.
Just past the halfway stage and no more nominations for outsiders.
It will be a real plus for me if Abbott fails to make the ballot (there are only two candidates for the woman nomination of each CLP) but rather unlikely still.
Also as my first post after the sad death of Charles Kennedy I'd like to add a RIP too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11644904/A-vision-of-Britain-outside-the-EU-confident-successful-and-free.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alton-towers-crash-live-two-carriages-collide-into-each-other-10292176.html
I suppose Thomas will get Harrow West and possibly Harrow East. But he needs other 2 somewhere...where?
Where could Wolmar get 3 further noms?
If the Superstate idea is made clear by the INNERS then this forestalls some potential challenges in the future along the line of "we were not told about this" or "we thought that we were voting on something else".
He was sitting between Karen Buck and Susan Jones from Clwyd South, on the 4th bench
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106060/Look-s-Miliband-returns-Commons-lowly-MP.html
If I had a vote in London, and he was standing, I'd vote for him.
Having said that it doesn't seem to be an area thing. Abbott and Wolmar (maybe Thomas) are more like the "let's have more diversity on the ballot" option from those selecting them so far.
(Technically there's a shortlisting panel after, but I doubt it will do anything.)
Edit: I should add that Wolmar does not strike me as the sort of guy who could shoot to the front overnight from the back. Abbott more so, but she seems to be half-wheeling this, which I don't understand; unlike Khan or Jowell she has no real other way of getting back to frontline politics.
As a London ratepayer, it would be nice to get someone whose spending plans were a happy medium between Boris (too little) and Ken (too much).
Harrow CLPs for Thomas on the "we know him, he's nice (is he? I don't have a clue). Let's nominate him even if I won't vote for him in the end" ground.
Sol Campbell as Tory London Mayor candidate
Wolmar's main pitch is indeed transport - lots more cycling support, and IIRC Crossrail 2 instead of HS2 (lost the Josias vote there, didn't he?).
Does anyone have a count on nominations for deputy leader, by the way? I'm a signed-up member of the Creasey team but haven't got an overview.
Mayor: Boris is a very hard act to follow. He's been a good mayor really, and his persona has gone far beyond that. Labour should wait until the Tories declare their candidate. They won't of course, 'cos they're daft - but they should. For Labour, Khan, Jowell, and Lammy all seem unlilkely to me. I really don't know who that leaves.
This sort of thing takes work. As it is we seem to just be getting a quick, possibly botched job, in order that they can get back into the marketplace as soon as they can.
Judge for yourself. His website is at: http://www.wolmarforlondon.co.uk/
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/list-mps-endorsements-labour-deputy-leadership-candidates-0
According to another NS article you can add to the Eagle column:
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wqAONXOxSk
Of course the exciting thing (for me) would be for him to fashion a sensible, centre-right, anti-EU (or EU-sceptical) party with policies to match on that side of the political spectrum.
Carswell is a sensible enough bloke and could put something sensible together (he could call it the, er, Sensible Party [oh yes, UKIP as a name has to go]).
But there is Nige so the Kippers will remain a single issue pressure group with 4m voters in support.
What a waste.
One reason I have tried to keep out of it is that I have been very upset by some of what has been said today, partly here - though some of that has been nasty enough a way to describe someone trying to assess a fellow pol's life achievement in the context of major current issues, which indyref and Europe certainly are.
But also what has been said elsewhere. What do you think of the people blaming the SNP for his death? What do you think of the London newspaper (which I won't link to as it was so vile) which paints such a miserable picture? If you are upset for Mr Kennedy then you ought to be a hundred times more upset about that newspaper. Or is it just because Mr Salmond dared to express an opinion? In which case what about the rest of Mr Salmond's comments praising Mr Kennedy? Are they wrong too or are you merely tryng to troll the rest of us today?
While on the subject of Mr Kennedy, I didn't see any comments on PB about what actually happened in the infamous QT affair, and this is perhaps worth mentioning in justice to him. As I recall, it was firmly denied by at least one journo at the time that drink had anything to do with it - strikingly so, because they wouldn't give a reason. It now emerges that it was because Mr Kennedy's father had broken his hip and gone into hospital for surgery that day and Mr K had nonetheless insisted on proceeding with the event despite being deeply upset, but then refused to use this as an excuse for his performance.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/02/charles-kennedy-celia-munro-confidante-tragedies-alcoholism
I'm sure that boardrooms around the world have had this statement mentioned. Not in mockery, but because it's completely true.
meanwhile
@paulwaugh: Asked re Salmond's remarks on Charles Kennedy, No.10: the PM believes 'our focus' tday shd be on his family + contribution to political life
Salmond made enough of an arse of himself that political journalists are asking the Prime Minister to comment, which to his credit he declined to do
Edited extra bit: on a very light note, XCOM 2 has been announced. At the moment, it's PC (and Mac/Linux) only, though many think it will come to PS4/Xbone sooner or later. I hope it does.
If the UK votes to leave, Scotland's out of the EU.
If Scotland then votes to stay in the UK, Scotland's out of the EU.
If Scotland then votes to leave the UK, Scotland's out of the EU.
All courses conjecturally open to Scotland lead to EU exit, apart from a victory for In and another No vote.
You may, or may not, have support on PB for your comments-you won't have much in Scotland
Just about to catch up with Wayward Pines and Mr Robot.