Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the EU referendum bill is published the proportion of U
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the EU referendum bill is published the proportion of UKIP voters saying Europe is an important issue moves to just 32pc
Today sees the publication of the EU referendum bill and, coincidentally the latest issues tracker from YouGov which unlike Ipsos-MORI does prompt when asking respondents to name the important areas of concern.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Preposterous! Banging on about Europe is quite clearly going to troll the kippers into submission. Cammie has it all under control. Just wait till Cammie finally decides on whether he wants to stay IN or OUT of Europe.
The kippers won't know what's hit them.
Interesting differences between voters on view of importance of benefits to the country vs themselves:
Welfare important to Country (self)
Con: 33 (7)
Lab: 24 (19)
LibDem: 20 (4)
UKIP: 27 (18)
The Englishman in June cares far more for the going at Royal Ascot and ripeness of English strawberries than the politics of the EU.
Only a cold and wet front emanating from the continent and flooding our rivers would cause the salience of Europe to rise as a poltical issue.
It's certainly vexing the lib dems and top tories.
As we saw in the AV referendum there is a very big difference between giving someone the right to vote on an issue and supporting their point of view. The vast bulk, but not all of the tory party will campaign to stay in the EU on revised terms. But at least the sceptics/UKIP are being given a chance to argue the reverse.
My suspicion is that quite a lot of sceptics would prefer to moan about the people not being given a choice than face the reality of a vote that they will probably lose. But that's politics I suppose.
As was pointed out by several on last night's thread these stand offs seem to suit both UKIP and the SNP quite well. The poison that is being bled into the union in this way is a concern.
Here's a YouGov survey from May 2010:
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-250510.pdf
Which of the following should be the new government's priorities?
The economy and immigration, then as now, get the 1-2 across all groups except immigration just short of second place among Lib Dems.
a) separate from asylum and/or
b) asked in conjunction with "Europe"
The small independent butcher on the other side of the road is also worth a shout out .... especially for LibDems ....
Our pedalling OGH can kill two birds with one stone here .....
Titters ....
I do what is right,
You work with situations
He cynically exploits opportunities
They shamelessly grandstand
"We can't control the border unless we come out of the EU."
and
"We can't deport radical preachers or foreign criminals unless we come out of the EU."
They'd work a treat because they'd take a chunk out of most of the issues on the list.
I am increasingly convinced that 1st May 1997 saw the end of the Conservative Party as a single governing force for the United Kingdom. Actually, I should correct that by saying that 16th September 1992 was the date from which, quite simply, they have never recovered ... and never will.
Thing is the trust issue. Both salient but no trust or not salient has the same effect i.e. not much. I can't see how Cameron could ever seriously try and front that policy and be believed genuine.
I'd be wary of saying 'never' so soon. Who would have imagined, before the Gothic Claudius and Aurelian, that Rome would've lasted so long after the Crisis of the Third Century? Even after Manzikert and the Fourth Crusade Byzantium staggeed on for centuries.
The EU is the question, not Europe.
Cam has taken his medicine already.
YG a mere 7 gap. Drifty.
Ricardohos says that europe is a non-issue but then claims that the events of september 1992 ruined the Tories.
What happened in september 1992 ?
" Black Wednesday refers to 16 September 1992 when the British Conservative government was forced to withdraw the pound sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). "
Non-issue , my arse.
The Conservative party have lost their raison d'etre. Their only hope is a socially liberal economically liberating agenda, which is fine, but it's not Conservative. Boris is probably the closest to it, and it's no accident he appeals across parties and as Mayor doesn't have to fly the true blue flag.
Theyjustdontgeddit.
"The conflict has become the "worst human tragedy of our times", Mr Hague said."
I'd have thought the Congo was easily the worst. I think that's still going - although not 100% sure as it was never in the news much?
Based on the YouGov poll the statement would have to be "fewer than 1 in three ... [see it] as a top 3 issue".
I'm not a UKIP supporter, and Europe isn't in my top 3 issues. But is it important? Hell, yes!
The reason 16/9/92 matters is not Europe but that it removed the last reason for voting Conservative: economic competence. In one fell swoop, or a bad day at Lamont's office, they showed they hadn't a bloody clue what they were doing.
It's amusing, but slightly sad, there are Tories still bleating on about Europe as if that was the issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10128209/We-need-a-much-smaller-state-not-an-even-bigger-one-bring-on-the-cuts.html
For someone who has lost trust making ever more promises doesn't win back support it simply makes those lost supporters even angrier.
Cameron needs to DO things not promise to do things.
But Cameron is so in love with his own self-perceived cleverness he cannot see this.
Whereas he's seen as a "at the correct juncture, in the fullness of time, no you failed to understand the exactititude of my commitment" phony.
Just as Clegg's broken promises on tuition fees permanently damaged his credibility even though few people were directly affected Cameron's broken promises on the EU permanently damaged his credibility even though few people few people were interested in the issue itself.
They will recover, they always do. They may have different policies, different people and a different name, but the party will recover ;-)
You do make a reasonable point, though, that in controlling the language the left has created an in-built political advantage. The simplest examples: would you rather be progressive or not? liberal or not? fair or not?
Clegg just broke his word. And, as we see with pensioner benefits, Cameron wants to keep explicit promises. [cue tim posting endlessly about "no more pointless NHS reorganisations" without realising that Cameron clearly doesn't think this reorganisation is pointless]. Similarly, on Europe - as RichardN has posted - there is no way he can back track on the referendum pledge in 2017 without being defenestrated, while his other pledge on Europe was the formation of a new group in the EU parliament. This he has delivered. [can we have some Latvian homophobe posts for old times sake, tim]
Who other than the most fuddy duddy wants to be thought of as 'CONSERVATIVE'. Even worse 'A CONSERVATIVE'! My guess is that the name alone was losing them three or four points. Add in the connotations the name had acquired under Maggie and what chance did they have?
Socially of course she wasn't radical, and that's where TB stepped in to make the link. As Thatcher gave people economic freedom, Blair matched that with social freedom: a heady and potent mix.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/flash-gordon-to-investigate-unusual-weather-2013061972661
Thinking members of UKIP do not believe that Cameron is the man to take Britain out of the EU. And nor do members of the tory party, inside or outside Westminster.
(Sorry Tim, couldn't resist)
I have been struck recently, that apart from a few appearances on the Beeb news, there is a general ignoring of him in the rest of the media.
It feels like every single one of his major "triumphs" and/or announcements has been met with a quick pat on the head and told to go away and do better.
The recent G8 summit is a case in point. The last one in Scotland had a couple of hundred thousand out protesting. In Belfast, the police outnumbered the protestors. While the wrap up announcements showed a failure of agreement between the attendees.
Gleneagles had a seemingly successful result, Belfast er!!!!!
It looks like the work required before the summit was not just done, it wasn't even started. The faces of Obama and Putin showed that they both thought the summit a complete waste of time.
Even Cameron's Syrian Iniative to arm the rebels has come of the rails in parliament let alone in public opinion as a high speed crash. Hague, who had thought he had got away with "obfuscation" in the Commons found that Members from all sides, were not prepared to be fobbed off and managed to nail him down.
I hate to say this, but I am starting to wish we could get Blair back as PM. What ever his faults, he did seem to know where he wanted to go and do.
Morris, it's not Labour's performance so much as the level of Conservative support which is the key. Particularly given the electoral advantages of Labour's vote I maintain the Conservatives will 'never' win again outright.
He could've refused to back a referendum in the manifesto. Given Labour and the Lib Dems apparently were backing one this was entirely out of the question.
He could've refused to vote for a referendum in the Commons. Alone of the major parties the Conservatives actually voted they way they promised they would. That they're attacked for that is insane.
He could've held a referendum when he became Prime Minister. Assuming this got past the Lib Dems (unlikely), it would've been an exercise in showcasing the impotence of such a position, as no other country would've agreed to revisit an agreed treaty at the height of the eurozone sovereign debt crisis.
It's worth also mentioning that the media tried to drum up a 'Tory splits' story before the vote by attempting to get backbenchers to attack Cameron for refusing to promise a post-ratification referendum!
Once trust has been lost you can never get it back either with promises or with 2017 what-ifs.
Cameron lost my trust on the EU in 2009 when he tried to replace his 'cast-iron' promise with a meaningless drivel of new promises consisting only of weasel words and legalese.
Nothing I've seen since, in particular his midnight flounce followed by craven surrender, has encouraged me to change my mind.
In fact I now KNOW that Cameron is a blatant liar - his "we're paying down Britain's debts" lie proved that.
I do suspect that voters are particularly disgusted with politicians who lie to their own supporters. That politicians are widely regarded as a bunch of liars is one thing but a politician who lies to his own supporters is also a betrayer and who ever wants to trust a betrayer.
This is why Clegg's betrayal on tuition fees and Cameron's betrayal on the EU are so damaging. not because of the salience of the issues but because of what they reveal of the man involved.
....
What? The level of Labour support is irrelevant but the level of Conservative is critical? When Labour does badly it's because of the temporary effects of a leader, but when the Conservatives do badly it's because their whole party and ethos is rotten or, at least, outdated?
You do appear to be judging the two parties in a rather partial way.
You're entirely right about the current system being stacked in Labour's favour, but I suspect it will not always be so.
Cammie keeps promising jam tomorrow to gullible tory eurosceptics because it works.
Mr. Richard, that sort of language is what Cameron (and the whole political class) should be lambasted for. Indeed, journalists need to be thrashed around the head and neck with some sort of genetically engineered superfish until they can concisely summarise the difference between debt and deficit.
1. he used the referendum as a gimmick and it back fired. If he didn't mean to hold it, he shouldn't have offered it, your average white van man expects you to say what you'll do and do what you say. Oxbridge casuistry just doesn't wash. Cameron was at that time seen as someone who might just be a diiferent type of politico, one who had some principles; backing out of the Ref. dented that image and cost him votes - probably his majority. He only needed to swing another dozen seats or so, hence your LD issue wouldn't exist.
2. when negotiating with Europe you need some ammo. He could have held a consultative Ref. giving him a mandate to re-negotiate terms. That's not much different to where we are today but he would have had a mandate to negotiate which the EU couldn't ignore and he'd be in a stronger position with his party and with the Eurocrats. His current stance of I'm pretending to negotiate isn't that convincing.
But for most other people it's no surprise that (in the YouGov survey) the economy, welfare and immigration come in at the top instead. They're in the top 4 issues for every group apart from current Lib Dems (welfare equal fifth).
'Particularly given the electoral advantages of Labour's vote I maintain the Conservatives will 'never' win again outright.'
We used to hear exactly the same comment about Labour in the 80's.
I was traveling yesterday by car and listening to a program on welfare benefits. Camden Council offered someone in their borough alternative accommodation in Dover or Birmingham which is illegal...
On the program was the girl who had been offered it-'I've got bad legs so need somewhere on the ground floor and I've a three year old child so need two bedrooms' a housing officer from the council 'We just haven't got any houses that meet her requirements in Camden now that there is a £24,000 cap on benefits' and a lawyer who was representing the girl 'It's the council's obligation to supply accommodation in the same borough and if they can't we'll just take them to court.'
The girl unfortunately wasn't a good advocate for benefits which led to those phoning in suggesting she might try taking responsibility for herself and not blaming everyone else (this seemed pretty unanimous)
I'm afraid unless Labour can come up with a cunning plan this is going to be damaging. The Tories have set a mighty elephant trap (with their £24,000 benefit cap) and I can't see many easy ways out
If the EU does make a good recovery by 2017 and there is a EU/US trade deal which is benefiting the UK, why would any Conservative government want to hold an in/out referendum ? Cameron wants to hold a renegotiation of UK membership conditions, but this would no doubt mean another treaty negotiation, as other countries would also want to see changes. There is already a requirement for a referendum to be held if there is a new EU treaty, to accept or reject. If people accept then the UK will have voted to stay in the EU. If they reject, then it is open to government to offer an in/out vote. Personally I don't see the benefit of deciding in 2012 to hold a in/out referendum in 2017, when a lot can happen in 5 years. Cameron has just made the case for UKIP, as the party to represent the NO campaign and evey issue that people are worried about.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ukiptrend.jpg
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
Nigel Farage's Scotland trip ends in chaos amid protests
Nigel Farage was forced to cancel half his itinerary on a trip to Scotland yesterday due to threats of 'violent' protests less than a month after a visit to Edinburgh was hijacked by hard-Left independence supporters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10128953/Nigel-Farages-Scotland-trip-ends-in-chaos-amid-protests.html
Though the Guardian's report was a lot less sympathetic:
"Nigel Farage forced to cancel Aberdeen lunch due to protest fears, Ukip claims
Party's claim that itinerary was changed due to fears that demonstrations would turn ugly are denied by hotel and police"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/18/nigel-farage-aberdeen-protest-fears
Does it carry on like this for another 2 series? I can't see what anyone was raving about so far - I'd give it a solid 6.5/10.
I think there is a difference, though, between a standard manifesto promise and a Pledge. Sometimes politicians can drive that, other times the voters select the issue themselves.
Tom Newton Dunn tweets: YouGov/Sun spying poll: 'Bear in woods shock', 79% think it's normal for Govts to spy on each other at summits. 51% v 24% say ours should.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-22952950
Also:
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver
Farage has the guts to have a stand-up debate with a protestor. Protestor shows true colours by spraying coke. Moron. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4974836/Faragy-bargy-2-UKIP-pal-sprayed-with-coke.html …
It's harder to get any clearer than that, and you don't need a lawyer. If people only hear what they want to hear then it's difficult to communicate with them.
I agree it's given his opponents a stick. I just wish they would beat him up some something he did (and there's plenty to complain about) rather than something he didn't do
I suspect the answer is there is no policy.
"Former TV historian Tristram Hunt revealed he ‘teaches in schools’ including delivering a lesson on the Spanish Armada to primary-age pupils.
But he faced charges of hypocrisy because the Labour party policy is for only qualified teachers to be allowed into the classroom.
Mr Hunt, a respected academic who has presented history programmes for the BBC, used a newspaper interview to reveal he regularly takes charge of classes.
‘I teach in schools in Stoke when they allow me, to make sure I know what's going on,’ he told The Guardian.
‘I do a class at the FE college about Cape Town as a city of empire. And I do an industrial revolution class at the sixth form.
‘And I taught a class on the Spanish Armada to a primary school.’
But the comments from the MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central appear to be at odds with the official Labour party line.
Just yesterday his boss, shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg, condemned Michael Gove’s plans to allow more unqualified teachers into schools as the ‘wrong approach’. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343918/Labour-frontbencher-opposed-unqualified-teachers-boasts-taking-lessons-TV-historian.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/06/19/close-enough-for-comfort/
I'd encourage you to reread Mr Dancer's post at 9:07 though. It sums up the situation very well.
A post-ratifiction referendum on Lisbon would not only have been irrelevant, but it would have been actively damaging for the Eurosceptic cause. You are only going to get one shot at this and it's critical to get it right (witness the problems for electoral reform that the AV vote has caused).
That may take patience, it may mean holding your noise and voting for a politician you despise. But the reality is that if the Tories do not win the next election there will not be a referendum on Europe in the foreseeable future.
"And the party is also unveiling a clever trick tonight: members of the public will be allowed to become ‘co-sponsors’ of this Bill via the LetBritainDecide website. It will be on that site that Cameron and Hague will also pledge their support.
This has been an impressive campaign from the party leadership both to present a united front on the bill and to market the legislation aggressively to voters. The website and the sheer volume of Tory MPs prepared to sell it in the media and online is part of an impressive effort from the party to make the very most of the bill at every stage. It is a strategy the Conservatives should replicate at every opportunity from now on."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/exclusive-tories-go-public-with-eu-referendum-bill/
http://letbritaindecide.com
Fixing Tory unity (if it worked) would do more for their electoral prospects than any specific piece of legislation. As I say, if...
A lot of what ifs.
Surprised you are ever brace enough to leave the house - oh wait...
Isn't that the same as the Labour core vote...
Golf clubs and residential homes must have free wifi!
http://order-order.com/2013/06/19/cyber-wars-ukip-trumping-tories/
Amusing line of attack on GO though - economy shaping up so you are blaming him for future crimes that have only happened in your mind.
“...But we had to make a decision on Friday afternoon either to publish the report without the names or not to publish at all, as to publish it with the names would breach the Data Protection Act. We would have been open to being sued on that basis. We decided the overriding interest was to put this into the public domain, and that’s why we did that.”
Police are now investigating the deaths of at least eight mothers and babies at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust...One senior manager stated in discussions over what to do with the internal report: “Are you kidding me? This can never be in a public domain nor subject to FOI [a Freedom of Information request]. Read my lips.” The official who wrote the internal report told the independent review that he had been asked to do something that was “clearly wrong”...
Interviewed by BBC Radio 4 this morning, Mr Prior acknowledged that it was a senior CQC manager who ordered the destruction of the internal report into its own failings... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3794816.ece
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/junes-party-political-cyber-warriors.html?m=1
At UKIP's higher rate of growth of followers on Twitter (after a month of lots of publicity) it will take them over 3 years to match the Tories.....
Personally I think the "fault" lies with all the mainstream parties by pretending to agree with stuff that we don't. I support EU membership and think the idea of Britain successfully going it alone is seriously flawed; I think migration both ways is a natural and welcome trend in the modern world, with reasonable limits that are no stricter than now; I don't feel we have a uniquely wonderful yet fragile British culture which is really at risk; I try to be tactful about minorities in a way that could be called political correctness. Now here's the thing: in all these matters, if you talk to them privately, MPs in the mainstream parties largely agree. They feel it's the real world and Britain is best served by working with the grain. But the parties put on worried frowns, say we're concerned about the EU, worried about immigration, disturbed about cultural trends, etc. when actually we don't intend to do anything significant because we don't actually think we should.
UKIP-leaning voters, by and large, disagree on these points, and are totally fed up with us pretending that we think the same way. In my experience they prefer it, and will sometimes even vote for us despite everything, if we're frank and explain why we think the way we do.
He also admitted there would be hospital closures and financial cuts to fund social care.
In any case, I don't doubt for the moment that you are correct on the substance of the issue, but in these things the tone also matters. And to me at the time he sounded like someone who was relieved to have found a way out of an awkward promise he wasn't looking forward to implementing, not like someone who was outraged at the betrayal of the British people that Lisbon represented. I'm afraid to say that that was pretty much the point at which I decided I wasn't going to vote Conservative in the 2010 election, and IIRC the opinion polls certainly looks like I wasn't the only one.
Each CLP branch (both wards and affiliates branches) vote Yes or No to reselect the sitting MP or to trigger a full scale open selection. The MP needs 50.1% of the branches in his favour.
It's usually a formality because you are basically competing against yourself. And because affiliates (aka the unions branches) usually vote in favour of everybody.
However, there have been few cases of trigger ballot losses since they were introduced. I recall at least 6 (Wareing 2001, Griffiths 2005, Clark 2005, Cox 2005, Cook 2010, Wareing 2010) since 1997. In 2 cases (Wareing 2001 and Helen Clark), the MP won the open selection. In one case (Cox), he decided to stand down without fighting the selection. In the other 3 cases, the MP was deselected.
» show previous quotes
It was more the thrust of also jailing useless Chancellors.'
Brown got off very lightly for trashing our economy.
Some great names amongst that list of MPs facing trigger ballots! Our Jane and the venerable Helen. Good times.
BBC ticker
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7674
Assange should be left to rot in the Ecuadorian Embassy, (43) and if Brady wants to starve himself to death, let him (51:40)
You have to be a good name to face the trigger!
Local selections have started in Southwark Labour as I see a chap tweeting he has won the Peckham nomination yesterday....he's not one of the sitting Cllrs there..but I don't know who is standing down or got the fall...
"eg Why are the BBC missing the killer quote "Are you kidding me? This can never be in a public domain nor subject to FOI. Read my lips."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22949211
Assange was such a huge story in the silly season last year (when nothing else was happening) - I really hope we get through August without mentioning him this year.
Lisbon didn't represent a betrayal of the British people. Brown was our Prime Minister, freely chosen by a majority of the elected House of Commons. You may disagree with him - I disagree with him - but he had the right to do what he did.
One further peace of evidence that the referendum lock is worthless BTW - Ed Miliband, who has said he will never allow a referendum, sees no problem with keeping it -
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/miliband-promises-keep-camerons-eu-referendum-lock