Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Remainers of the Day. Why are pollsters consistently findi

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Remainers of the Day. Why are pollsters consistently finding more Remainers than you would expect?

I don’t take opinion polls very seriously and nor should you. For all that, they tell us something and some of the time we have no better clue as to what is going on than what they tell us. Right now, they seem to be telling us something rather interesting.

Read the full story here


«13456710

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,651
    First
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    I suspect all of the above are true.

    Which is the more significant, I have no idea.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 9,502
    edited September 6
    Slouching slumping second... Or not. Too entitled to even achieve that.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489
    edited September 6
    Good header Alastair. I hope you’re right but I’m not confident.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 457
    edited September 6
    There might be a clue if we can establish they find “too much” of some other demographics as well. In their shoes I think that would be my way in to analyse.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489
    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,651
    We could do with another of those polls where they keep phoning back until they get a response. It seemed to explain what happened in 2015, it might help clear up this conundrum.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,650
    Some leavers have changed their minds, and reluctantly changed their minds, after watching and listening to the incoherent attempts to take back control from 2016.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,180
    Who would ever have thought that the US Secretary of Defense (sic) would ever be in agreement with Jeremy Corbyn? But there again Javid's striping of citizenship from alleged terrorists was only ever to pander to the Daily Mail tendency rather than any sound or correct policy.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,514
    Wasn't there a bit recently on YouGov finding way more people claiming to have voted Labour at the last election?

    Is that the same, significant or bull****?
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    If one looks at the Euro election results (I know) is that so certain? How much of a threat might the Lib Dem’s actually represent there? They’ll certainly have the bar charts to push hard.
  • Apologies if this has been flagged before but an interesting piece

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

    The short of it is that the author states that the Benn-Burt bill is subject to "Queen's Consent" as it impacts the royal prerogative. It is different from Royal Assent and does not impact every bill. Crucially (a) the Government has to give consent (b) it is up to the Government and does not drag the Crown into play and (c) court rulings lend support to the Benn-Burt bill falling under the Queen's Consent remit.

    I'm not a lawyer but, if the author is right, it might explain why the Govt dropped the Lords filibuster and I wonder if the Government's tactics are as follows,

    1. Let the Bill come back to the Commons for its third reading, in which it is approved;
    2. Govt introduces its early election proposal on Monday and states to Corbyn we have given you what you want, now give us an October election;
    3. Corbyn backs away from her previous commitment, knowing an October election is sub-optimal;
    4. Johnson then states that, because Corbyn has reneged on his commitment, the Government will not give Queen's Consent to Burt-Benn as it impacts the prerogative. Bill fails and Parliament is prorogued.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,395
    FPT
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg’s exposure as a privileged, entitled, lightweight, thin-skinned coward who is totally out of his depth is perhaps the greatest political pleasure this week has delivered.

    Weirdly I think that has cut through more than Johnson's woes. The picture of him lounging on the Treasury bench will I think haunt the Tories for a long time. Many of us have been screaming for some time that Brexit is a project of a privileged elite, and this picture is physical evidence of that proposition. A picture tells a thousand words, indeed.
    Quite

    vgjkLk.jpg
    Nah. Cheers up the activists and the already prejudiced but no one normal cares
    I am normal, and normally tory, and I care.

    He fails to hit even the very low target (epater les bourgeois toffdom) at which he aims. He opened champagne to celebrate the defeat of the WA. Proper tory toffs drink champagne because it is there, not to bloody celebrate stuff. Churchill drank 42000 bottles of pol roger, not because he won the football pools 42000 times. What is JRM doing on brexit day? Stretch limo and hookers and those squeaky things you blow into?

    And I can't picture Churchill sitting like that in the House, either.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    False recall from 2017 election is probably a reflection of the significant tactical voting that went on. Complicated further by the close proximity of the previous election.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489
    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    If one looks at the Euro election results (I know) is that so certain? How much of a threat might the Lib Dem’s actually represent there? They’ll certainly have the bar charts to push hard.
    I know what you mean but almost all of the current Labour “big beasts” (I know) have seats in London. Do you really expect the London electorate to boot out Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott, etc?

    I think the wealthier outer London seats will go Tory -> Lib Dem and the inner London seats will stay Labour.

    Although I am not from London so I could be very wrong.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    I wonder if YouGov have considered experimenting with prompting people with previous statements on how they voted?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952
    Too many uses of the phrase “a bit” in the last paragraph.
  • alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    Which party won London in June? I know that won't be replicated exactly, but there's a real weakness there.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,091


    Deliver? No

    Unite? ROFL

    Defeat? Himself. Every time so far

    Energise? The opposition
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,409

    Apologies if this has been flagged before but an interesting piece

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

    The short of it is that the author states that the Benn-Burt bill is subject to "Queen's Consent" as it impacts the royal prerogative. It is different from Royal Assent and does not impact every bill. Crucially (a) the Government has to give consent (b) it is up to the Government and does not drag the Crown into play and (c) court rulings lend support to the Benn-Burt bill falling under the Queen's Consent remit.

    I'm not a lawyer but, if the author is right, it might explain why the Govt dropped the Lords filibuster and I wonder if the Government's tactics are as follows,

    1. Let the Bill come back to the Commons for its third reading, in which it is approved;
    2. Govt introduces its early election proposal on Monday and states to Corbyn we have given you what you want, now give us an October election;
    3. Corbyn backs away from her previous commitment, knowing an October election is sub-optimal;
    4. Johnson then states that, because Corbyn has reneged on his commitment, the Government will not give Queen's Consent to Burt-Benn as it impacts the prerogative. Bill fails and Parliament is prorogued.

    I think Bercow has ruled that Queen’s Consent is not required.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696

    Apologies if this has been flagged before but an interesting piece

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

    The short of it is that the author states that the Benn-Burt bill is subject to "Queen's Consent" as it impacts the royal prerogative. It is different from Royal Assent and does not impact every bill. Crucially (a) the Government has to give consent (b) it is up to the Government and does not drag the Crown into play and (c) court rulings lend support to the Benn-Burt bill falling under the Queen's Consent remit.

    I'm not a lawyer but, if the author is right, it might explain why the Govt dropped the Lords filibuster and I wonder if the Government's tactics are as follows,

    1. Let the Bill come back to the Commons for its third reading, in which it is approved;
    2. Govt introduces its early election proposal on Monday and states to Corbyn we have given you what you want, now give us an October election;
    3. Corbyn backs away from her previous commitment, knowing an October election is sub-optimal;
    4. Johnson then states that, because Corbyn has reneged on his commitment, the Government will not give Queen's Consent to Burt-Benn as it impacts the prerogative. Bill fails and Parliament is prorogued.

    That will be a fun week.....

    And once prorogued, Boris says do your worst. I ain't budging from Number 10 until after 31st October, even if you VONC me. But I will go and meet EU leaders, to talk about a deal.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,520

    Apologies if this has been flagged before but an interesting piece

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

    The short of it is that the author states that the Benn-Burt bill is subject to "Queen's Consent" as it impacts the royal prerogative. It is different from Royal Assent and does not impact every bill. Crucially (a) the Government has to give consent (b) it is up to the Government and does not drag the Crown into play and (c) court rulings lend support to the Benn-Burt bill falling under the Queen's Consent remit.

    I'm not a lawyer but, if the author is right, it might explain why the Govt dropped the Lords filibuster and I wonder if the Government's tactics are as follows,

    1. Let the Bill come back to the Commons for its third reading, in which it is approved;
    2. Govt introduces its early election proposal on Monday and states to Corbyn we have given you what you want, now give us an October election;
    3. Corbyn backs away from her previous commitment, knowing an October election is sub-optimal;
    4. Johnson then states that, because Corbyn has reneged on his commitment, the Government will not give Queen's Consent to Burt-Benn as it impacts the prerogative. Bill fails and Parliament is prorogued.

    That will be a fun week.....

    And once prorogued, Boris says do your worst. I ain't budging from Number 10 until after 31st October, even if you VONC me. But I will go and meet EU leaders, to talk about a deal.
    It doesn't need consent - the Speaker ruled as much on Wednesday (September 4th) 2 days after that Blog was written.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,409
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    alex. said:

    Is there not a potential flip side on a post nov election, though(assuming extension is enacted)? Which is that anti-no deal Tories may be more inclined to vote Tory in this scenario?

    How? Boris is going to have to go for No Deal just to avoid Farage kicking him daily.
    Boris will refuse to extend, as Peston reported yesterday he will either stay in post and challenge the Commons to impeach him rather than ask Brussels for an extension or resign and let Corbyn do the extension and thus destroy Labour in Labour Leave seats for betraying the Brexit vote as Swinson immediately VONCs Corbyn straight after extension to force a general election
    You expect Swinson to be LotO?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,095
    Even more perplexing now Jeremy Kyle is off air. What else have Leavers got to do but respond to opinion polls?
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,635
    edited September 6
    Is Corbyn now de facto PM? Discuss.

    Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required in the national interest.

    Corbyn does not have to lead it....merely by acting sensibly in a coalition he can detoxify himself from the worst excesses of Tory scaremongering.....

    It is a set of circumstances that he cannot afford to waste...go Jezza
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    Thinking around it further, my best guess is these are the more significant:

    Some people who said they voted Remain have forgotten that they voted Leave

    Some people who voted Leave are harder for pollsters to find

    The electorate has changed since 2016


    The first two would tend to cancel each other out, I think.
    The last is an undeniable fact - do pollsters make no effort to incorporate it in their models, or is it simply too difficult ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    Byronic said:

    Too many uses of the phrase “a bit” in the last paragraph.


    Bit harsh.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    Which party won London in June? I know that won't be replicated exactly, but there's a real weakness there.
    The polls (of which we need more!) are going in the wrong direction for the LDs, but they could easily change that in a campaign. Imagine, say, Swinson puts in a storming performance in a debate. It’s quite plausible. She’s clever and refreshing, in many ways.

    Millions of people might experience a repeat of the Cleggasm. Voters across the country might think, hold on, we don’t have to vote for the nasty, anti-Semitic old commie, nor do we have to vote for this bumbling Tory shit. There’s a middle path! And she’s economically sensible, and a unionist.

    In that case all bets are off. The Lib Dems could do spectacularly well in London. At the expense of Labour as much as the Tories.

    This coming election is hugely risky for both big parties.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    tyson said:

    Is Corbyn now de facto PM? Discuss.

    Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required.

    Were it almost anyone but Corbyn, that would make sense.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,095
    Scott_P said:



    Deliver? No

    Unite? ROFL

    Defeat? Himself. Every time so far

    Energise? The opposition

    Interesting set of background props. I wonder who organised them?
  • eekeek Posts: 5,520
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg’s exposure as a privileged, entitled, lightweight, thin-skinned coward who is totally out of his depth is perhaps the greatest political pleasure this week has delivered.

    Weirdly I think that has cut through more than Johnson's woes. The picture of him lounging on the Treasury bench will I think haunt the Tories for a long time. Many of us have been screaming for some time that Brexit is a project of a privileged elite, and this picture is physical evidence of that proposition. A picture tells a thousand words, indeed.
    Quite

    vgjkLk.jpg
    Nah. Cheers up the activists and the already prejudiced but no one normal cares
    I am normal, and normally tory, and I care.

    He fails to hit even the very low target (epater les bourgeois toffdom) at which he aims. He opened champagne to celebrate the defeat of the WA. Proper tory toffs drink champagne because it is there, not to bloody celebrate stuff. Churchill drank 42000 bottles of pol roger, not because he won the football pools 42000 times. What is JRM doing on brexit day? Stretch limo and hookers and those squeaky things you blow into?

    And I can't picture Churchill sitting like that in the House, either.
    It's interesting to note who doesn't like the picture - I make no apologise for the 30 seconds it took to create.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,395
    Polling used to work in the pre-post-truth era when receiving a telephone call - especially a TRUNK CALL from LONDON - was a truly big deal and if the caller had a reasonable BBC accent you stood to attention and told them the truth. None of that applies now and answering pollsters is like filling in webpages - you don't click what is true, you click whatever is most likely to get you to the next screen.

    After every vote we get analyses of why the polls were wrong *this time*. I am told that anaesthetists spent decades agonising over why almost all anaesthetees awoke with a headache no matter how you tweaked the drugs, and eventually realised that almost everyone is addicted to caffeine, that being operated on creates a 24 hour cold turkey experience, and caffeine withdrawal gives you headaches. It's not just by letter count that psephology and phrenology resemble each other.

    And if you are capable of tactically voting why would you not also tactically answer polls? So which answer furthers the Leave cause better - to say I voted leave last time and haven't changed my mind, or I was a remainer until I saw the light and converted to Leaverdom? Yet we assume tactical votes are a thing but not that tactical responses are.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    eek said:

    Apologies if this has been flagged before but an interesting piece

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

    The short of it is that the author states that the Benn-Burt bill is subject to "Queen's Consent" as it impacts the royal prerogative. It is different from Royal Assent and does not impact every bill. Crucially (a) the Government has to give consent (b) it is up to the Government and does not drag the Crown into play and (c) court rulings lend support to the Benn-Burt bill falling under the Queen's Consent remit.

    I'm not a lawyer but, if the author is right, it might explain why the Govt dropped the Lords filibuster and I wonder if the Government's tactics are as follows,

    1. Let the Bill come back to the Commons for its third reading, in which it is approved;
    2. Govt introduces its early election proposal on Monday and states to Corbyn we have given you what you want, now give us an October election;
    3. Corbyn backs away from her previous commitment, knowing an October election is sub-optimal;
    4. Johnson then states that, because Corbyn has reneged on his commitment, the Government will not give Queen's Consent to Burt-Benn as it impacts the prerogative. Bill fails and Parliament is prorogued.

    That will be a fun week.....

    And once prorogued, Boris says do your worst. I ain't budging from Number 10 until after 31st October, even if you VONC me. But I will go and meet EU leaders, to talk about a deal.
    It doesn't need consent - the Speaker ruled as much on Wednesday (September 4th) 2 days after that Blog was written.
    Bercow ruled, or the clerk’s advised (and so Bercow ruled)? Vaguely surprised that Bercow can make a ruling in relation to the Royal Prerogative.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,091
    tyson said:

    Is Corbyn now de facto PM? Discuss.

    Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required.

    Yes, there is an argument for leaving BoZo in No 10 for months, unable to do anything, but not a very good one
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,157
    They describe themselves as bad people?
  • eekeek Posts: 5,520
    edited September 6
    alex. said:

    eek said:

    Apologies if this has been flagged before but an interesting piece

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

    The short of it is that the author states that the Benn-Burt bill is subject to "Queen's Consent" as it impacts the royal prerogative. It is different from Royal Assent and does not impact every bill. Crucially (a) the Government has to give consent (b) it is up to the Government and does not drag the Crown into play and (c) court rulings lend support to the Benn-Burt bill falling under the Queen's Consent remit.

    I'm not a lawyer but, if the author is right, it might explain why the Govt dropped the Lords filibuster and I wonder if the Government's tactics are as follows,

    1. Let the Bill come back to the Commons for its third reading, in which it is approved;
    2. Govt introduces its early election proposal on Monday and states to Corbyn we have given you what you want, now give us an October election;
    3. Corbyn backs away from her previous commitment, knowing an October election is sub-optimal;
    4. Johnson then states that, because Corbyn has reneged on his commitment, the Government will not give Queen's Consent to Burt-Benn as it impacts the prerogative. Bill fails and Parliament is prorogued.

    That will be a fun week.....

    And once prorogued, Boris says do your worst. I ain't budging from Number 10 until after 31st October, even if you VONC me. But I will go and meet EU leaders, to talk about a deal.
    It doesn't need consent - the Speaker ruled as much on Wednesday (September 4th) 2 days after that Blog was written.
    Bercow ruled, or the clerk’s advised (and so Bercow ruled)? Vaguely surprised that Bercow can make a ruling in relation to the Royal Prerogative.
    He didn't he referenced the (previously uncontested) position on why it wasn't required

    Now the way around it would be to ask the courts but they've already stated the fact Parliament is the primary decision maker on Brexit through the Miller case.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,157
    Roger said:

    Even more perplexing now Jeremy Kyle is off air. What else have Leavers got to do but respond to opinion polls?

    Classy as ever Roger

    oooh look at the thick leavers who watch Jeremy Kyle.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,409
    Floater said:

    They describe themselves as bad people?
    That’s the illusion Johnson is trying to create - worth watching the interview.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952
    Scott_P said:

    tyson said:

    Is Corbyn now de facto PM? Discuss.

    Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required.

    Yes, there is an argument for leaving BoZo in No 10 for months, unable to do anything, but not a very good one
    Corbyn will never tolerate that. He’s like a man with prostate issues busting for a pee. Labour are finding it very difficult to make him wait ten extra days for the election. Ten months?
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,635
    Is Corbyn now de facto PM? Discuss.

    Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required in the national interest.

    Corbyn does not have to lead it....merely by acting sensibly in a coalition he can detoxify himself from the worst excesses of Tory scaremongering.....

    It is a set of circumstances that he cannot afford to waste...go Jezza
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074
    People forgetting they voted leave? As a lifelong remain voter it irritates me immensely someone could forget such a thing. Ahem.
  • NooNoo Posts: 788
    Excellent header, best one I've read in a while.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 457
    tyson said:

    Is Corbyn now de facto PM? Discuss.

    Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required in the national interest.

    Corbyn does not have to lead it....merely by acting sensibly in a coalition he can detoxify himself from the worst excesses of Tory scaremongering.....

    It is a set of circumstances that he cannot afford to waste...go Jezza

    Three years? With the SNP triumphantly front and centre I think that coalition will have issues in three months. At some point there must be an election, and when you think about it, it might not be the worst thing for leave if it’s the insurgent case coming off the back of an SNP backed government struck by the recession early next year.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    Genuine question: does the proposed act of Parliament set out the terms of the extension?

    I could quite see Johnson saying “this government will not sign a deal with the backstop. We request an extension until X to finalise Agreement on alternative arrangements. This is conditional on the backstop being dropped”

    I know there are restrictions on the length of the extension but anything else?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952
    Floater said:
    Whoah. That’s brutal. And she’s smart.

    Labour need a better, clearer Brexit position, very fast. It will be hideously exposed in a campaign. Again this is a way the Libs might come through.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 4,713
    Scott_P said:
    Don’t tell me he’s lost Mad Nad?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,095

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    Three interesting factoids I picked up while flicking through yesterday's threads that could be game changers. 1. Sinn Fein may take up their seats. 2. 100,000 new voters have signed up in the last 24 hours 3. The CBI said they were more frightened of Brexit than Corbyn.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,091

    Don’t tell me he’s lost Mad Nad?

    She's a minister now!
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952
    Scott_P said:
    Lol. Also, it’s far from clear that Corbyn will “campaign to Remain”
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074
    edited September 6
    Byronic said:

    Floater said:
    Whoah. That’s brutal. And she’s smart.

    Labour need a better, clearer Brexit position, very fast. It will be hideously exposed in a campaign. Again this is a way the Libs might come through.
    Maybe. But the position could also reassure remainers that labour wint accidentally get a deal that is good enough to be approved, and provide a fig leaf excuse for labour leavers not to vote for anyone else because technically labour might still lead to leave.

    Mps already declaring they wont even consider the new deal, even those negotiating it, that makes clear it's a cynical and silly policy, and there is a risk. But it could still work.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    Scott_P said:
    That isn't, however, Labour's current Brexit policy. Labour's current Brexit policy is: "we'll negotiate a good deal. And then we'll campaign against it."
  • eekeek Posts: 5,520
    Roger said:

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    Three interesting factoids I picked up while flicking through yesterday's threads that could be game changers. 1. Sinn Fein may take up their seats. 2. 100,000 new voters have signed up in the last 24 hours 3. The CBI said they were more frightened of Brexit than Corbyn.

    Not quite on 1 - Sinn Fein may help others instead of standing themselves.
    Which I suspect will be a big boost to the Alliance party and may cost the DUP a seat or 4.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,520

    Scott_P said:
    That isn't, however, Labour's current Brexit policy. Labour's current Brexit policy is: "we'll negotiate a good deal. And then we'll campaign against it."
    An advertising agency does need to change the wording somewhat,.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952
    kle4 said:

    Byronic said:

    Floater said:
    Whoah. That’s brutal. And she’s smart.

    Labour need a better, clearer Brexit position, very fast. It will be hideously exposed in a campaign. Again this is a way the Libs might come through.
    Maybe. But the position could also reassure remainers that labour wint accidentally get a deal that is good enough to be approved, and provide a fig leaf excuse for labour leavers not to vote for anyone else because technically labour might still lead to leave.
    No. Of ALL the main parties, down as far as Plaid, Labour now have the most incoherent position on Brexit. This is going to hurt them. They’ll try to move the conversation on, as they did before, but I doubt it will work, again.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    edited September 6
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg’s exposure as a privileged, entitled, lightweight, thin-skinned coward who is totally out of his depth is perhaps the greatest political pleasure this week has delivered.

    Weirdly I think that has cut through more than Johnson's woes. The picture of him lounging on the Treasury bench will I think haunt the Tories for a long time. Many of us have been screaming for some time that Brexit is a project of a privileged elite, and this picture is physical evidence of that proposition. A picture tells a thousand words, indeed.
    Quite

    vgjkLk.jpg
    Nah. Cheers up the activists and the already prejudiced but no one normal cares
    I am normal, and normally tory, and I care.

    He fails to hit even the very low target (epater les bourgeois toffdom) at which he aims. He opened champagne to celebrate the defeat of the WA. Proper tory toffs drink champagne because it is there, not to bloody celebrate stuff. Churchill drank 42000 bottles of pol roger, not because he won the football pools 42000 times. What is JRM doing on brexit day? Stretch limo and hookers and those squeaky things you blow into?

    And I can't picture Churchill sitting like that in the House, either.
    I have a very low opinion of Rees Mogg. He’s a prat, a fake and not nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

    WTF he was doing sitting like that I don’t know. Ignoring the politics of it, it’s simply discourteous to the colleague who was speaking

    But I suspect it will have as much impact as Cameron riding a horse with that lady from the Sun

    Edit: and, no offence intended @Ishmael_X , but you post on here way to often to be “normal” in the sense I meant
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074
    edited September 6
    Scott_P said:
    They knew what Boris is like and most of them backed him. No sympathy. They took the gamble that he could save them, they dont get to whine anonymously so they can sing his praises later if the gamble pays off.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,635
    ab195 said:

    tyson said:

    Is Corbyn now de facto PM? Discuss.

    Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required in the national interest.

    Corbyn does not have to lead it....merely by acting sensibly in a coalition he can detoxify himself from the worst excesses of Tory scaremongering.....

    It is a set of circumstances that he cannot afford to waste...go Jezza

    Three years? With the SNP triumphantly front and centre I think that coalition will have issues in three months. At some point there must be an election, and when you think about it, it might not be the worst thing for leave if it’s the insurgent case coming off the back of an SNP backed government struck by the recession early next year.
    There have been stranger coalitions in Europe....a national unity Govt led by Ken Clarke with the likes of Jo Swinson, Rory Stewart, John McDonnell and Ian Blandford sitting in the cabinet to get us through the Brexit impasse is now within the gift of Jeremy Corbyn.

    It would have the added benefit of detoxifying him.....
  • Your conclusions are spot on Alastair.

    Maybe HYUFD should take your advice

    The last two days has exposed Boris and I have no sympathy for him after he treated the 21 good conservative mps.

    However, overnight we witnessed dreadful local election results for labour and Thornberry's car crash on QuestionTime. Indeed labour's brexit policy is so incoherrent it is going to be dreadfully exposed in a GE

    The media, this forum, and elsewhere have sustained a 24/7 attack on Boris, including myself, but are we all misjudging the public mood who just see Parliament frustrating brexit and who have no other settled view on how to resolve it

    HYUFD has certainly become extreme and sycophantic but if you strip out his more ridiculous language have we even considered that threre is an element of truth in what he says and that in the electorate Boris could be quite popular.

    I do believe labour are running scared of an election and could be misjudging the political benefit of delaying a GE until after the 31st October. Around the 19th October and post the EU council meeting Boris will have to report on the meeting to the HOC and if he then declares he will not seek an extension, the explosive row will blow the lid of Westminster and I fear the result will see labour lose a GE by a wide margin

    I would just caveat this by IMHO

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    alex. said:

    Is there not a potential flip side on a post nov election, though(assuming extension is enacted)? Which is that anti-no deal Tories may be more inclined to vote Tory in this scenario?

    How? Boris is going to have to go for No Deal just to avoid Farage kicking him daily.
    Boris will refuse to extend, as Peston reported yesterday he will either stay in post and challenge the Commons to impeach him rather than ask Brussels for an extension or resign and let Corbyn do the extension and thus destroy Labour in Labour Leave seats for betraying the Brexit vote as Swinson immediately VONCs Corbyn straight after extension to force a general election
    You expect Swinson to be LotO?
    Without Swinson Corbyn cannot become PM and she can stop him staying PM too post extension, Swinson not Corbyn holds the real power in the opposition now a long with Blackford and Hammond on the Government side
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    The LDs beat Labour in London in the European Parliament elections
  • Scott_P said:
    Tory backbenchers will be primarily made up of those who lost the leadership election. Those on the side of the winner are primarily on the front benches.

    Asking election losers if they're happy with the election winner doing what the election winner said he would do during the election - and the losers say no because they oppose it as the opposed it during the election they lost - is rather pointless.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,795
    edited September 6

    Scott_P said:
    That isn't, however, Labour's current Brexit policy. Labour's current Brexit policy is: "we'll negotiate a good deal. And then we'll campaign against it."
    Positively @HYUFDian in its bonkersness.

    If they want to remain then how could anyone have confidence that they would be negotiating in good faith for a deal to do precisely the opposite of what they want.

    Their best bet is to wait until post-Oct 31st, vote for the Kinnock amendment (ie the WA) and let TBP and the Cons out-traitor each other in the ensuing election. The WA sure is leaving but as the window has shifted it can be painted as close to remaining plus they can say they will negotiate a very remain-y future trade agreement.

    That is their best play.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,387
    edited September 6
    I think you are little harsh on opinion polls. They provide partial information in an absence of other empirical data. You need to interpret the polls to get the value of of them.

    Sampling is a perennial battle, however, that becomes acute when the paradigm changes. Sampling methods depend on comparing now with before. If now isn't the slightest like before, there's a problem.

    These are the things I think the polls are telling us with some confidence:

    1. There has been essentially no shift since 2017 of voters between Labour and Conservative. This is different from elections prior to 2017 which were won on voters moving between Con and Labour.
    2. The SNP will clean up in Scotland meaning the loss of about 10 Conservative seats.
    3. Lib Dems are having enough of a resurgence that they will gain seats, which will be at the expense of the Conservatives.
    4. Labour vote share is down very significantly since 2017 with voters switching to the Lib Dems. The same is true to a lesser extent with Conservative votes switching to the Brexit Party.

    Putting all this together, it means that the battleground will be Labour marginals. Will the Conservatives win enough of them through Labour to Lib Dem switchers to more than make up their losses elsewhere?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,091
    kle4 said:

    They knew what Boris is like and most of them backed him. No sympathy. They took the gamble that he could save them, they dont get to whine anonymously so they can sing his praises later if the gamble pays off.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,633
    I note that certain commentators and some arch members of PB BALLS - Boris Arse Lickers & Louche Sycophants are contending that the Prime Minister should break the law and refuse an approach to the EU for an extension.

    The Queen might not be overly enamoured that her PM has overtly and most publicly committed a criminal offence and broken a law she has just signed into law. It would then be for the Queen to determine whether to use her personal prerogative under reserve powers to dismiss the Prime Minister - last used by William IV in 1834.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489
    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    The LDs beat Labour in London in the European Parliament elections
    And?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952
    Scott_P said:
    Brexit is one of those issues where you just can’t afford nuance, let alone fudge. It’s polarising. It’s like being in favour of committing suicide, or against it. “Well we might ask the nation to kill itself, we’re not sure. Depends whether we have a noose.”

    This works both ways. Remainers think Brexit is economic suicide. Leavers think No Brexit is cultural/political suicide.

    Labour have about a week to sort this out, or they could be facing electoral suicide.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 648

    Apologies if this has been flagged before but an interesting piece

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

    The short of it is that the author states that the Benn-Burt bill is subject to "Queen's Consent" as it impacts the royal prerogative. It is different from Royal Assent and does not impact every bill. Crucially (a) the Government has to give consent (b) it is up to the Government and does not drag the Crown into play and (c) court rulings lend support to the Benn-Burt bill falling under the Queen's Consent remit.

    I'm not a lawyer but, if the author is right, it might explain why the Govt dropped the Lords filibuster and I wonder if the Government's tactics are as follows,

    1. Let the Bill come back to the Commons for its third reading, in which it is approved;
    2. Govt introduces its early election proposal on Monday and states to Corbyn we have given you what you want, now give us an October election;
    3. Corbyn backs away from her previous commitment, knowing an October election is sub-optimal;
    4. Johnson then states that, because Corbyn has reneged on his commitment, the Government will not give Queen's Consent to Burt-Benn as it impacts the prerogative. Bill fails and Parliament is prorogued.

    The person who decides whether it needs Queen's Consent is a certain J Bercow. You won't be surprised to learn what his soft signal has been.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,470
    Interesting Article from AM.

    If you keep finding too many Remainers in samples and this continues between pollsters then you have a real issue .

    Demographic changes are likely anyway to have removed the 2016 mandate if you remove other variables .

    Putting that aside it’s impossible to ignore that Remain has led every single poll for over 18 months .

    And because that’s been the case across all pollsters then it can’t be attributed to house effects .

    The country is now majority for Remain according to the polls. Of course that doesn’t mean it wins another vote .



  • One of the problems is actually quite straight forward but difficult to deal with. I remember David Herdson landing up at Copeland and not finding many Tories in the main town - hence positing the By Election would be a Labour hold.

    Here in W&L if you went around Kendal town centre or Windermere Town you would not find many Leavers. BUT if you go anywhere outside Kendal you will be hard pushed to find any Remainers at all. Hence a survey conducted on Oxenholme Station is unlikely to get a balanced response. Yes, you might get me going over to Besak because I often do, but most commuters are not me. ( Also, Leavers are probably more likely to use thier cars. )

    It is a gross over-simplification but the split is something like - answer the question "Does the amount of money that goes into your bank account this weekend depend upon how much work you do or have done in the past ?" Yes > Leave; No > Remain.

    And before the howls of outrage from public sector workers I am NOT saying they work less hard, actually sometimes the contrary. Their rules of employment as often so pernicious that they have to work all the harder often on pointless tasks.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489
    nico67 said:

    Interesting Article from AM.

    If you keep finding too many Remainers in samples and this continues between pollsters then you have a real issue .

    Demographic changes are likely anyway to have removed the 2016 mandate if you remove other variables .

    Putting that aside it’s impossible to ignore that Remain has led every single poll for over 18 months .

    And because that’s been the case across all pollsters then it can’t be attributed to house effects .

    The country is now majority for Remain according to the polls. Of course that doesn’t mean it wins another vote .



    I don’t disagree that the country now has a majority for remain BUT that doesn’t mean there is a majority for revoking article 50 and herein lies the issue.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786
    Pollsters' panels are disproportionately packed with activists and astroturfers. For evidence, just consider the number of times on pb we read that X has just completed a survey for ACME Pollsters.

    I've ranted often enough about why phone pollsters' last digit randomisation does not work, so let's take that as read.

    Polls are hard work for the respondent because instead of just asking who you will vote for, they ask hundreds of other questions, often with nebulous axioms and about abstruse subjects: if Boris were a carrot and Corbyn a banana, should the Shetlands join the Channel Islands? Most normal people would have given up halfway through.

    This is made worse by tacking the political stuff onto the end of a long inquisition on the best flavour for crisps.

    The Leave campaign in particular but also Labour voters last time attracted a lot of previous non-voters who were off the grid in wonk-speak but also suffered by having pollsters routinely ignore non-voters.

    But besides polling being rubbish, a better reason for a large pinch of salt is we do not know whether the election will be before or after Brexit, which will hugely change the background. There's a reason Boris and Cummings are desperate to have the election before Brexit and it is not because they expect to be rewarded for Brexit having improved the electorate's lives.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,337
    Roger said:

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    Three interesting factoids I picked up while flicking through yesterday's threads that could be game changers. 1. Sinn Fein may take up their seats. 2. 100,000 new voters have signed up in the last 24 hours 3. The CBI said they were more frightened of Brexit than Corbyn.

    Sinn fein will never take up their seats, they will not take an oath to what they see as a foreign and occupying monarch
    The 100,000, are they youthful remainers or the never voters who registered to vote leave reregistering for one more push? That's the question.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,635
    Roger said:

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    Three interesting factoids I picked up while flicking through yesterday's threads that could be game changers. 1. Sinn Fein may take up their seats. 2. 100,000 new voters have signed up in the last 24 hours 3. The CBI said they were more frightened of Brexit than Corbyn.

    The Tories have relapsed back into the nasty party too. Patel, Cummings, Raab, Mogg, Johnson......now populated front and centre by a coterie of unpleasant characters
  • @JackW

    "....Last used by William IV in 1834. "

    Do tell us more, Jack. I assume you were there?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    edited September 6

    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.

    Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
    The LDs beat Labour in London in the European Parliament elections
    And?
    The LDs could do so again in the general election as the party of revoke and Remain with the Tories and Brexit Party the parties of Leave with hard Brexit and Labour squeezed in the middle
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,851
    Scott_P said:



    Deliver? No

    Unite? ROFL

    Defeat? Himself. Every time so far

    Energise? The opposition

    A DUD that needs an E to make it work? I've been to club nights like that.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,470

    nico67 said:

    Interesting Article from AM.

    If you keep finding too many Remainers in samples and this continues between pollsters then you have a real issue .

    Demographic changes are likely anyway to have removed the 2016 mandate if you remove other variables .

    Putting that aside it’s impossible to ignore that Remain has led every single poll for over 18 months .

    And because that’s been the case across all pollsters then it can’t be attributed to house effects .

    The country is now majority for Remain according to the polls. Of course that doesn’t mean it wins another vote .



    I don’t disagree that the country now has a majority for remain BUT that doesn’t mean there is a majority for revoking article 50 and herein lies the issue.
    Yes revoke is unlikely unless supported by another EU referendum but that might be the choice facing MPs in October if Bozo ignores the law .

    It’s either revoke or put Corbyn in as PM for a temporary period .
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,663
    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Brexit is one of those issues where you just can’t afford nuance, let alone fudge. It’s polarising. It’s like being in favour of committing suicide, or against it. “Well we might ask the nation to kill itself, we’re not sure. Depends whether we have a noose.”

    This works both ways. Remainers think Brexit is economic suicide. Leavers think No Brexit is cultural/political suicide.

    Labour have about a week to sort this out, or they could be facing electoral suicide.
    Disagree. At the moment they just need to be more reasonable than the other side. Which they are.

    Under May, there was a clear Brexit policy. Vote for the WA, that is Brexit. That was sensible, and the labour position was muddled.

    Now the labour position still has large issues, but its somewhat workable, but the tories isn't.

    So Labour are in a better position.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,095
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Polling used to work in the pre-post-truth era when receiving a telephone call - especially a TRUNK CALL from LONDON - was a truly big deal and if the caller had a reasonable BBC accent you stood to attention and told them the truth. None of that applies now and answering pollsters is like filling in webpages - you don't click what is true, you click whatever is most likely to get you to the next screen.

    After every vote we get analyses of why the polls were wrong *this time*. I am told that anaesthetists spent decades agonising over why almost all anaesthetees awoke with a headache no matter how you tweaked the drugs, and eventually realised that almost everyone is addicted to caffeine, that being operated on creates a 24 hour cold turkey experience, and caffeine withdrawal gives you headaches. It's not just by letter count that psephology and phrenology resemble each other.

    And if you are capable of tactically voting why would you not also tactically answer polls? So which answer furthers the Leave cause better - to say I voted leave last time and haven't changed my mind, or I was a remainer until I saw the light and converted to Leaverdom? Yet we assume tactical votes are a thing but not that tactical responses are.

    I noticed on yesterday's Question Time where the audience was split 48-52 to reflect the referendum result the first question from the audience came from a very angry man who said "I voted Remain but this is disgraceful. We voted Leave so we should have left by now".

    I wondered as I'm sure those poor souls who have shared pub space with him in the last three years must have whether the BBC counted him ias a Leaver or a Remainer?
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,635

    nico67 said:

    Interesting Article from AM.

    If you keep finding too many Remainers in samples and this continues between pollsters then you have a real issue .

    Demographic changes are likely anyway to have removed the 2016 mandate if you remove other variables .

    Putting that aside it’s impossible to ignore that Remain has led every single poll for over 18 months .

    And because that’s been the case across all pollsters then it can’t be attributed to house effects .

    The country is now majority for Remain according to the polls. Of course that doesn’t mean it wins another vote .



    I don’t disagree that the country now has a majority for remain BUT that doesn’t mean there is a majority for revoking article 50 and herein lies the issue.

    There is a sizeable majority for remain (or BINO) in the country and in the HoC sitting on the opposition benches- Johnson's hamfisted tactics have aligned the two
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    edited September 6

    Your conclusions are spot on Alastair.

    Maybe HYUFD should take your advice

    The last two days has exposed Boris and I have no sympathy for him after he treated the 21 good conservative mps.

    However, overnight we witnessed dreadful local election results for labour and Thornberry's car crash on QuestionTime. Indeed labour's brexit policy is so incoherrent it is going to be dreadfully exposed in a GE

    The media, this forum, and elsewhere have sustained a 24/7 attack on Boris, including myself, but are we all misjudging the public mood who just see Parliament frustrating brexit and who have no other settled view on how to resolve it

    HYUFD has certainly become extreme and sycophantic but if you strip out his more ridiculous language have we even considered that threre is an element of truth in what he says and that in the electorate Boris could be quite popular.

    I do believe labour are running scared of an election and could be misjudging the political benefit of delaying a GE until after the 31st October. Around the 19th October and post the EU council meeting Boris will have to report on the meeting to the HOC and if he then declares he will not seek an extension, the explosive row will blow the lid of Westminster and I fear the result will see labour lose a GE by a wide margin

    I would just caveat this by IMHO

    Setting aside the means of how he is delivering it for the moment, Boris represents a huge strand of opinion in the country: we voted to leave, we need to deliver that leave - and that politicians are acting like 3 year-olds who have overdosed on SunnyD, getting in the way of delivering Brexit for their own - selfish - reasons.

    They still might not vote for him, but they understand what he represents and have sympathy for being frustrated at every turn. After all, he inherited a mighty steaming pile of poo from the previous occupant of Number 10. And a minority government (it was always clear Lee was going to choose his moment to defect for maximum yah-boo-sucks).
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,337
    Would Boris play the incredibly risky card of advising HMQ to refuse royal assent and provoke a VONC on Monday, prorogue and get his election safe from having to ask for that extension?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 1,952
    Continuing the Lib Dems-might-do-very-well theme...

    Look what happened in Scotland after indyref. The SNP consolidated their hold on Yes votes and also benefited from a sympathetic, patriotic backlash.

    More interestingly, the No vote then polarized around the major party with the most coherent unionist case: the Tories, NOT mumbling Scots Labour. Thus the election of 2017.

    If that pattern repeats in our UK election (and the parallels are close, but not perfect) the Tories should see a modest uptick. But it’s the Lib Dems, with their crystal clear Remain position, who can expect to make big, surprising gains.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,489
    Scott_P said:
    I don’t really get this. Which university towns are *not* already fairly safe Labour seats?

    Canterbury and uh...
This discussion has been closed.