Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New polling finds that leaving the EU with the deal is the lea

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 23 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New polling finds that leaving the EU with the deal is the least unpopular of the options facing the UK

Matt Singh of Number Cruncher Politics and a regular guest on the PB/PollingMatters podcast has just produced the above survey for Bloomberg which finds that of the main options facing the UK leaving with the deal has the highest level of net acceptability.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,235
    First again!
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,428
    Also (FPT): Here's the data split by 2016 vote. The deal is acceptable to an absolute majority of Leavers, and also a majority of Remainers (once you remove DKs). The No Deal / No Brexit options are predictably polarising.

    To be fair, acceptability is not quite the same as approval, but the Deal looks like the only option for moving on.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 6,549
    Everyone wants someone else to take responsibility for passing the deal so that they can criticise it afterwards.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,646
    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,235
    It hangs on how the DKs break once it is done
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 6,549

    ...the Deal looks like the only option for moving on.

    "Moving on," is such a late 90s concept.

    Nowadays revenge is required. So you have to make sure the right people take the blame.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    Two problems:

    1. The perception has grown up that it is not leaving; and
    2. The muddle between the WA and the PD is as strong as ever.

    That said, the deal will pass. Obvs.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,209

    Also (FPT): Here's the data split by 2016 vote. The deal is acceptable to an absolute majority of Leavers, and also a majority of Remainers (once you remove DKs). The No Deal / No Brexit options are predictably polarising.

    To be fair, acceptability is not quite the same as approval, but the Deal looks like the only option for moving on.

    Interesting that No Deal is acceptable to 21% of Remainers, and Remaining is acceptable to 14% of Leavers.

    Looks like the only way to settle it is a 3 way AV #peoplesvote :)

    Then the fun begins on the post WA FTA...

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,624
    The bowling selection explained by Aggers...

    There's an untold story about why Stuart Broad might not be playing.

    He has got some terrible bed bug bits - and on quite a sensitive area, which I inspected yesterday on the outfield.

    There are a few issues at the hotel they're staying at. It involves some of the players sleeping out on mattress in the corridors of the hotel. He went to bed with his whites on, but it sounds as if a few got into his jockstrap...
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,428
    The raw data is here: https://www.ncpolitics.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/bloomberg-brexit-poll.pdf

    There's a very curious shape (broadly U shaped) to the acceptability of the deal by age, with it being most unacceptable (but still, just, acceptable, by 39-37) to those aged 45-54.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,854

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    +1
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,209
    TOPPING said:

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    Two problems:

    1. The perception has grown up that it is not leaving; and
    2. The muddle between the WA and the PD is as strong as ever.

    That said, the deal will pass. Obvs.
    Except it didn't come close to passing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,854
    "Least unpopular" is not bad for a deal we have been told for a fortnight is dead as a dodo....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,323

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.


    I think we're getting closer towards a deal this week.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,854
    GIN1138 said:

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.


    I think we're getting closer towards a deal this week.
    It just needs the back-stop to be time limited and we are there, I'd say. 5 would be nice, but 6-7 years should do the job. Just something to kill the idea of Hotel California Brexit.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,069
    Anyone up for a Pro-Deal march, to match the Second Vote-rs and the Hard Brexiteers?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,253
    FPT:
    sarissa said:

    Barnier comment, from his interview in the Luxembourg Times:

    "We are ready to be more ambitious if the British decide to shift their red lines, for example by remaining in a customs union, or participating in the single market. I believe there is a readiness in London for that."

    I expected that to cause more of a furore than it has - maybe few have read it yet?



    Is this the same interview where he said he didn’t think the backstop was a particular stumbling block for us?

    Facepalm time.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    Two problems:

    1. The perception has grown up that it is not leaving; and
    2. The muddle between the WA and the PD is as strong as ever.

    That said, the deal will pass. Obvs.
    Except it didn't come close to passing.
    Details, details....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,216
    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    sarissa said:

    Barnier comment, from his interview in the Luxembourg Times:

    "We are ready to be more ambitious if the British decide to shift their red lines, for example by remaining in a customs union, or participating in the single market. I believe there is a readiness in London for that."

    I expected that to cause more of a furore than it has - maybe few have read it yet?



    Is this the same interview where he said he didn’t think the backstop was a particular stumbling block for us?

    Facepalm time.
    If the EU offered the 5 year max "backstop", deal would be done and dusted faster than SeanT in a Thai brothel. But it doesn't sound like the EU think the backstop in any form is any issue at all.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,854
    Can I have first dibs on "Lazarus Brexit" - May's Deal rising from the dead?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    Least unpopular seems a good way forward for something so divisive. It is, of course, how most governments are, in reality, chosen.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,142
    edited January 23

    Anyone up for a Pro-Deal march, to match the Second Vote-rs and the Hard Brexiteers?

    "What do we want"

    "A considered compromise"

    "When do we want it"

    "After relevant legislation is passed, which might neccesitate an extension to Article 50 - but on the understanding such an extension is only to facilitate MAy's deal and not indefinitely delay Brexit"
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,906
    Scott_P said:
    I don't think I've ever heard of a branch meeting resolution getting any attention at all, even inside the party, sadly. Holborn branch must be chuffed beyond measure to make an EXCLUSIVE Politicshome headline.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,785

    Least unpopular seems a good way forward for something so divisive. It is, of course, how most governments are, in reality, chosen.

    So why don't the Lib Dems win? ;)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989

    Can I have first dibs on "Lazarus Brexit" - May's Deal rising from the dead?

    No. O ye of little faith.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 6,354
    Will JRM's comments re-Prorogation adversely affect his prospects of becoming Speaker?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 692
    Skybet are 7/2 we leave Apr-Jun 2019. If the/a deal looks close to passing that's what I'm looking to get on. We can't pass the laws in time to get out before end march. and unless we're remaining they dont want us still in for the Euro elections.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,253

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    sarissa said:

    Barnier comment, from his interview in the Luxembourg Times:

    "We are ready to be more ambitious if the British decide to shift their red lines, for example by remaining in a customs union, or participating in the single market. I believe there is a readiness in London for that."

    I expected that to cause more of a furore than it has - maybe few have read it yet?



    Is this the same interview where he said he didn’t think the backstop was a particular stumbling block for us?

    Facepalm time.
    If the EU offered the 5 year max "backstop", deal would be done and dusted faster than SeanT in a Thai brothel. But it doesn't sound like the EU think the backstop in any form is any issue at all.
    Yup.

    It’s a useful tool in the trade talks, too. Which is clearly why they don’t want to do it!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,890
    I wish this was encouraging, but then I remember MPs are driving the show, utterly convinced of the need to remain/unicorn/no deal/no ideal respectively.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,323
    edited January 23
    justin124 said:

    Will JRM's comments re-Prorogation adversely affect his prospects of becoming Speaker?

    I don't think he's ever been interested in becoming Speaker.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    dixiedean said:

    Least unpopular seems a good way forward for something so divisive. It is, of course, how most governments are, in reality, chosen.

    So why don't the Lib Dems win? ;)
    haha. A good question! Perhaps because they aren't as "least unpopular" as they like to think. More likely though, is that most people see a GE as largely a binary choice.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,287
    edited January 23
    One bright spot for T May is that all the polling and debate as remain - deal - crash out exit puts deal firmly in the middle.

    From my POV the deal is still a very hard Brexit as it's out of the SM/CU, no services deal, no freedom of movement, but it does seem to be being massaged into being the compromise option somehow. That's quite good PR.

    Have to say my eyes are rolling at the Brexiteers talking of proroguing parliament if they can't get their way. Maybe I'm just not fanatical enough, but it's the Remain / Leave at all costs argument that's leaving me cold on both sides now. Surely there comes a point at which Brexit / stopping Brexit just ain't worth it and there's more to life? Maybe I'm on the wrong blog for that...
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    justin124 said:

    Will JRM's comments re-Prorogation adversely affect his prospects of becoming Speaker?

    I do hope so. Silly tw*t
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,323

    GIN1138 said:

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.


    I think we're getting closer towards a deal this week.
    It just needs the back-stop to be time limited and we are there, I'd say. 5 would be nice, but 6-7 years should do the job. Just something to kill the idea of Hotel California Brexit.
    Yep any limit between 5-10 years would get the job done.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 542

    dixiedean said:

    Least unpopular seems a good way forward for something so divisive. It is, of course, how most governments are, in reality, chosen.

    So why don't the Lib Dems win? ;)
    haha. A good question! Perhaps because they aren't as "least unpopular" as they like to think. More likely though, is that most people see a GE as largely a binary choice.
    More accurately they've learnt that FPTP only gives them a binary choice.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,287
    dixiedean said:

    Least unpopular seems a good way forward for something so divisive. It is, of course, how most governments are, in reality, chosen.

    So why don't the Lib Dems win? ;)
    Once upon a time before coalition, credible polling was done showing that the Lib Dems would win over 150 seats if people believed they could win in your constituency. Success leads to success.

    Ironically at the time, I remember that Montgomery was NOT one of the seats that would be LD on that poll - despite Lembit Opik being the sitting MP!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    TOPPING said:

    Can I have first dibs on "Lazarus Brexit" - May's Deal rising from the dead?

    No. O ye of little faith.
    Lazarus of Bethany was meant to be a good and pure man, so not sure it is a very good analogy. Frankenstein's Monster would be more apposite. "Pull the switch ERG"
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 635
    FPT
    kinabalu said:

    Endillion said:

    I can't believe this argument is even happening. Forget about the age of consent: what about if a "properly constituted and democratic World Parliament" passed a law legalising FGM? Or insisting on death by stoning for adultery?

    A valid concern but I would turn that around.

    If the WP outlawed such practices - as surely it would - the nation states which currently engage in them would no longer be able to.

    It is the LACK of a WP that allows this stuff to go on.
    Turning that right back around, by pointing out that if the EU can't get Spain and Portugal to ban bullfighting, I rate a theoretical WP's chance of outlawing some much more problematic (to Western eyes) practices as extremely low.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    Fenman said:

    dixiedean said:

    Least unpopular seems a good way forward for something so divisive. It is, of course, how most governments are, in reality, chosen.

    So why don't the Lib Dems win? ;)
    haha. A good question! Perhaps because they aren't as "least unpopular" as they like to think. More likely though, is that most people see a GE as largely a binary choice.
    More accurately they've learnt that FPTP only gives them a binary choice.
    Indeed. It is one of the many democratic deficits in our system that must make continentals wince when we try and lecture them about democracy.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,646

    TOPPING said:

    Can I have first dibs on "Lazarus Brexit" - May's Deal rising from the dead?

    No. O ye of little faith.
    Lazarus of Bethany was meant to be a good and pure man, so not sure it is a very good analogy. Frankenstein's Monster would be more apposite. "Pull the switch ERG"
    Frankenstein's Monster - cobbled together from various bits and pieces, desperately wanting to be loved, but arousing fear and repugnance.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,890
    Scott_P said:
    The House of Remain doing all it can to help.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 240

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    +1

    Agree. They will, but tradition demands that we get closer to the cliff edge first. There is no particular thing about the WA which is inconsistent with Labour manifesto aims and the Political Declaration isn't binding, so once the game playing ends it will get through on Labour abstentions, maybe even doing a bit better than that.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 7,664

    Scott_P said:
    I don't think I've ever heard of a branch meeting resolution getting any attention at all, even inside the party, sadly. Holborn branch must be chuffed beyond measure to make an EXCLUSIVE Politicshome headline.
    There were probably about a dozen at the meeting, and they'll have spent more time talking about the next jumble sale than Brexit.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,747
    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,854
    TOPPING said:

    Can I have first dibs on "Lazarus Brexit" - May's Deal rising from the dead?

    No. O ye of little faith.
    But I have faith!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903

    TOPPING said:

    Can I have first dibs on "Lazarus Brexit" - May's Deal rising from the dead?

    No. O ye of little faith.
    Lazarus of Bethany was meant to be a good and pure man, so not sure it is a very good analogy. Frankenstein's Monster would be more apposite. "Pull the switch ERG"
    Frankenstein's Monster - cobbled together from various bits and pieces, desperately wanting to be loved, but arousing fear and repugnance.
    and goes on a lonely and futile mission to find a (trading) partner only to be rejected and thwarted and the hands of the incompetent and disgraced Dr Fox-instein...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,235

    Scott_P said:
    I don't think I've ever heard of a branch meeting resolution getting any attention at all, even inside the party, sadly. Holborn branch must be chuffed beyond measure to make an EXCLUSIVE Politicshome headline.
    There were probably about a dozen at the meeting, and they'll have spent more time talking about the next jumble sale than Brexit.
    I don't think political parties have jumble sales any more?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 43,807
    IanB2 said:

    I don't think political parties have jumble sales any more?

    They have "charity" shops instead
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,577
    edited January 23

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    Was going to comment but this will do just fine.

    But perhaps just to add - and IMO they will. They will be ratifing it.

    It's a when and a how and an exactly who, not an if.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The House of Remain doing all it can to help.
    I thought most people in favour of Leave loved our system of "democracy" and considered it far superior to those pesky foreigners. The one thing we can say for the HoLs is that now most of the hereditaries have been removed, it is probably the largest collection of very clever people outside a gathering of Nobel prize winners. Not exactly likely to support Brexit really.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 43,807

    I thought most people in favour of Leave loved our system of "democracy" and considered it far superior to those pesky foreigners. The one thing we can say for the HoLs is that now most of the hereditaries have been removed, it is probably the largest collection of very clever people outside a gathering of Nobel prize winners. Not exactly likely to support Brexit really.

    We have had enough of experts...
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't think I've ever heard of a branch meeting resolution getting any attention at all, even inside the party, sadly. Holborn branch must be chuffed beyond measure to make an EXCLUSIVE Politicshome headline.
    There were probably about a dozen at the meeting, and they'll have spent more time talking about the next jumble sale than Brexit.
    I don't think political parties have jumble sales any more?
    Only so they can get a new suit for Corbyn
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,586
    A higher proportion find remaining in the EU unacceptable than leaving without a deal!
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Surely the Leave voters should be the ones to decide which type of Brexit we have?

    The Winner Takes It All according to a popular Swedish beat combo.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,333
    AndyJS said:

    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.

    Some people apparently think that it means we reach no deal and we stay in the EU.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 240
    By the middle of March will the EU be wondering whether 100% chance of a hard border (their call) when we crash out is really really to be preferred to (say) a 20% or something - certainly much less than 100% - chance in several year's time by moderating the demand in the WA?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,890
    edited January 23

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The House of Remain doing all it can to help.
    I thought most people in favour of Leave loved our system of "democracy" and considered it far superior to those pesky foreigners. The one thing we can say for the HoLs is that now most of the hereditaries have been removed, it is probably the largest collection of very clever people outside a gathering of Nobel prize winners. Not exactly likely to support Brexit really.
    I do support the House of Lords, that doesn't prohibit making sarky asides. If the bills really were not good enough it is doing its job.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,067
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited January 23
    AndyJS said:

    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.

    Acceptable is not the same as favourite or best.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,890
    Scott_P said:
    How fortunate no one could possibly refuse to help sort things out to ensure we need the delay.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    Scott_P said:

    I thought most people in favour of Leave loved our system of "democracy" and considered it far superior to those pesky foreigners. The one thing we can say for the HoLs is that now most of the hereditaries have been removed, it is probably the largest collection of very clever people outside a gathering of Nobel prize winners. Not exactly likely to support Brexit really.

    We have had enough of experts...
    Oh yes, I had forgotten we are in the early years of the New Dark Ages, when stupidity is highly prized. Let us abolish the House of Lords and replace it with B list celebrities from TOWIE and Love Island.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,375
    edited January 23

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    Is it though? Doesn't Labour's CU/SM-ish proposal fit the bill even better? More-or-less what Barnier was talking about from the EU side; satisfies the DUP as there's no Irish Sea border and keeps Ireland and the GFA onside as there is no hard border. BINO but still technically Brexit.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,577
    Endillion said:

    Turning that right back around, by pointing out that if the EU can't get Spain and Portugal to ban bullfighting, I rate a theoretical WP's chance of outlawing some much more problematic (to Western eyes) practices as extremely low.

    A strong point. As was your last one. Let's come back to the World Parliament at a later date. Give me time to flesh it out a little.

    I wanted mainly to argue against the fetishization of the nation state - a topic I feel strongly about - but as can sometimes happen with me, I got into a fugue and went over the hills and far away.

    Still, no harm done.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,198
    algarkirk said:

    By the middle of March will the EU be wondering whether 100% chance of a hard border (their call) when we crash out is really really to be preferred to (say) a 20% or something - certainly much less than 100% - chance in several year's time by moderating the demand in the WA?

    Leo Varadkar is like the bloke in Day of the Daleks who went back in time to try to prevent the daleks from taking over the world, but inadvertently caused the very thing he'd been trying to avoid.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,436
    kinabalu said:

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    Was going to comment but this will do just fine.

    But perhaps just to add - and IMO they will. They will be ratifing it.

    It's a when and a how and an exactly who, not an if.
    May must agree with you. In normal circumstances, I'd agree too. But she needs all the Tory rebels to change their minds, or Labour to abstain. Unfortunately quite a few of her MPs want No Deal, and Labour wants a General Election, so the brinkmanship will continue, over the brink.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,422

    TOPPING said:

    Can I have first dibs on "Lazarus Brexit" - May's Deal rising from the dead?

    No. O ye of little faith.
    Lazarus of Bethany was meant to be a good and pure man, so not sure it is a very good analogy. Frankenstein's Monster would be more apposite. "Pull the switch ERG"
    But of course, Frankenstein was gentle (but just looked grotesque). That's the point!

    The baddies were the villagers with pitchforks.

    If May's Bill is Frankenstein, it is the shrieking Foremains who are playing the role of the baddy villagers.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,631
    Scott_P said:
    At least it gives him another resigning opportunity
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,216
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/23/dont-trust-daily-mail-website-microsoft-browser-warns-users

    This is really quite concerning. We can all have opinions about the quality of the mail and how one sided their articles can be, but ratings them as fake news with the likes of infowars is not making the problem better and dare I say it fake news..
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    AndyJS said:

    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.

    Remember br that includes 25% who think no deal means everything stays the same.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,854

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/23/dont-trust-daily-mail-website-microsoft-browser-warns-users

    This is really quite concerning. We can all have opinions about the quality of the mail and how one sided their articles can be, but ratings them as fake news with the likes of infowars is not making the problem better and dare I say it fake news..

    I'd be interested to see how they compile their findings. I don't think you can argue that it shouldn't be given 1 star on the basis that it is popular.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,890
    edited January 23
    Nope. What a load of twaddle. Just because May did the wrong thing doesn't make a similar wrong thing by MPs ok. In fact, she seems to be saying May was right to delay the vote because we are not ready, in which case i hope she is not on record criticising the delay.

    Has she explained at all why MPs cannot sort it out by the deadline (not pass subsequent legislation, that is a separate issue)? And if it is about 'a bit of extra time' why are there arguments about how much time that is, with the initial suggestion until December?

    It's almost as though it is not about getting a bit more time, but just delaying things as long as possible, and eventually remaining. Nice try, Yvette.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,625
    Unicorn hunting remains as popular an activity as ever on pb. If only the EU will drop one of its constant demands since the outset on the offchance that a deal might just about be sellable to a bunch of wingnuts who are only lightly tethered to reality, it'll all be done and dusted.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,216
    Bbc reporting Greening claimed she wanted to get rid of uni fees before being sacked...then you read the proposal...

    The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
    Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.

    That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 240
    Dadge said:

    kinabalu said:

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    Was going to comment but this will do just fine.

    But perhaps just to add - and IMO they will. They will be ratifing it.

    It's a when and a how and an exactly who, not an if.
    May must agree with you. In normal circumstances, I'd agree too. But she needs all the Tory rebels to change their minds, or Labour to abstain. Unfortunately quite a few of her MPs want No Deal, and Labour wants a General Election, so the brinkmanship will continue, over the brink.
    Not over the brink. Labour want an election after leaving, not before, so they will ensure that leaving happens under the Tory watch.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,890

    Unicorn hunting remains as popular an activity as ever on pb. If only the EU will drop one of its constant demands since the outset on the offchance that a deal might just about be sellable to a bunch of wingnuts who are only lightly tethered to reality, it'll all be done and dusted.

    Indeed. But sadly that's also May's strategy, even though she's already tried it many times. It's a nice dream, insofar as it is a simple way of switching dozens of votes go, but how many times do they need to be told no before they realise it is not happening?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,646

    Bbc reporting Greening claimed she wanted to get rid of uni fees before being sacked...then you read the proposal...

    The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
    Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.

    That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...

    It is, but it's perhaps true that packaging it like that instead of calling it a 'loan' might have been more palatable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641

    Unicorn hunting remains as popular an activity as ever on pb. If only the EU will drop one of its constant demands since the outset on the offchance that a deal might just about be sellable to a bunch of wingnuts who are only lightly tethered to reality, it'll all be done and dusted.

    That's a bit harsh, Alistair. I would have said Grieve was fairly solidly anchored in reality. Corbyn, of course, is a different matter but we all know he'll vote for No Deal anyway.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 1,155
    Still doesn't adequately explain the rhetorical holes they dig themselves into.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    edited January 23

    Bbc reporting Greening claimed she wanted to get rid of uni fees before being sacked...then you read the proposal...

    The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
    Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.

    That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...

    Not quite. The key difference is that at the moment universities get 100% of the upfront fees income. This would give them 100% of the recovered graduate premium. Which would be considerably less.

    Arguably, the best reason to get rid of tuition fees is they are a humongous Ponzi scheme which are piling up huge amounts of unrepayable debt that at some point the taxpayer will have to cough up for. They're like public sector pensions in some ways, except that when people die you lose money not gain it.

    The second best reason to get rid of them is because it would actually be hilarious to watch all those muppets at the SLC, starting with the egregious Kevin O'Cockup, get the sack.

    I would agree that saving graduates money isn't a good reason as I don't think it would.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,198
    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:

    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.

    Remember br that includes 25% who think no deal means everything stays the same.
    Do the pollsters really just put down "No Deal" as an option, rather than explaining what it means?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,216
    edited January 23
    ydoethur said:

    Bbc reporting Greening claimed she wanted to get rid of uni fees before being sacked...then you read the proposal...

    The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
    Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.

    That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...

    Not quite. The key difference is that at the moment universities get 100% of the upfront fees income. This would give them 100% of the recovered graduate premium. Which would be considerably less.

    Arguably, the best reason to get rid of tuition fees is they are a humongous Ponzi scheme which are piling up huge amounts of unrepayable debt that at some point the taxpayer will have to cough up for. They're like public sector pensions in some ways, except that when people die you lose money not gain it.

    The second best reason to get rid of them is because it would actually be hilarious to watch all those muppets at the SLC, starting with the egregious Kevin O'Cockup, get the sack.

    I would agree that saving graduates money isn't a good reason as I don't think it would.
    I highly doubt they would eliminate student loans for living costs, I think it was just for tuition costs...otherwise we are talking £50-60k per student...the graduate NI rate would have to be huge.
  • sladeslade Posts: 713
    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    At least it gives him another resigning opportunity
    Would you resign from a job that paid £3000 per hour!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641

    ydoethur said:

    Bbc reporting Greening claimed she wanted to get rid of uni fees before being sacked...then you read the proposal...

    The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
    Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.

    That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...

    Not quite. The key difference is that at the moment universities get 100% of the upfront fees income. This would give them 100% of the recovered graduate premium. Which would be considerably less.

    Arguably, the best reason to get rid of tuition fees is they are a humongous Ponzi scheme which are piling up huge amounts of unrepayable debt that at some point the taxpayer will have to cough up for. They're like public sector pensions in some ways, except that when people die you lose money not gain it.

    The second best reason to get rid of them is because it would actually be hilarious to watch all those muppets at the SLC, starting with the egregious Kevin O'Cockup, get the sack.

    I would agree that saving graduates money isn't a good reason as I don't think it would.
    I highly doubt they would eliminate student loans for living costs, I think it was just for tuition costs...otherwise we are talking £50-60k per student...the graduate NI rate would have to be huge.
    But those are the monies universities get upfront.

    If you see my point.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,747
    "US backs opposition as Venezuela president"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-46980913
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    slade said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    At least it gives him another resigning opportunity
    Would you resign from a job that paid £3000 per hour!
    Yes, but only after I'd worked for a year. If I worked the same number of hours I do now, I could then retire.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,216
    edited January 23
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Bbc reporting Greening claimed she wanted to get rid of uni fees before being sacked...then you read the proposal...

    The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
    Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.

    That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...

    Not quite. The key difference is that at the moment universities get 100% of the upfront fees income. This would give them 100% of the recovered graduate premium. Which would be considerably less.

    Arguably, the best reason to get rid of tuition fees is they are a humongous Ponzi scheme which are piling up huge amounts of unrepayable debt that at some point the taxpayer will have to cough up for. They're like public sector pensions in some ways, except that when people die you lose money not gain it.

    The second best reason to get rid of them is because it would actually be hilarious to watch all those muppets at the SLC, starting with the egregious Kevin O'Cockup, get the sack.

    I would agree that saving graduates money isn't a good reason as I don't think it would.
    I highly doubt they would eliminate student loans for living costs, I think it was just for tuition costs...otherwise we are talking £50-60k per student...the graduate NI rate would have to be huge.
    But those are the monies universities get upfront.

    If you see my point.
    I bet unis will claim not enough money and need to return to central government providing significant extra funding.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Bbc reporting Greening claimed she wanted to get rid of uni fees before being sacked...then you read the proposal...

    The proposal was for a system without fees, loans, debts or interest rates.
    Instead, graduates would pay back a proportion of earnings over a fixed number of years, with this graduate contribution funding universities. She likens it to a time-limited form of National Insurance deductions, but only for graduates.

    That’s what they do at the moment...head, desk, thud...

    Not quite. The key difference is that at the moment universities get 100% of the upfront fees income. This would give them 100% of the recovered graduate premium. Which would be considerably less.

    Arguably, the best reason to get rid of tuition fees is they are a humongous Ponzi scheme which are piling up huge amounts of unrepayable debt that at some point the taxpayer will have to cough up for. They're like public sector pensions in some ways, except that when people die you lose money not gain it.

    The second best reason to get rid of them is because it would actually be hilarious to watch all those muppets at the SLC, starting with the egregious Kevin O'Cockup, get the sack.

    I would agree that saving graduates money isn't a good reason as I don't think it would.
    I highly doubt they would eliminate student loans for living costs, I think it was just for tuition costs...otherwise we are talking £50-60k per student...the graduate NI rate would have to be huge.
    But those are the monies universities get upfront.

    If you see my point.
    I bet unis will claim not enough money and need to return to central government extra funding.
    Almost certainly.

    But that will be happening within about a decade anyway as the current scheme, the Browne scheme, unravels.

    I was about to add a stinging comment about a certain judge and his lack of mental capacity and integrity, but out of respect to OGH I won't.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,586
    slade said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    At least it gives him another resigning opportunity
    Would you resign from a job that paid £3000 per hour!
    He only has the job for a week?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,086
    AndyJS said:

    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.

    Not really, the project doom stuff isn't really cutting through, the deal is dead and people are starting to see it as logical step. I'd expect this number to track upwards from here.

    The polling suggests that "remain" would lose another referendum
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,854
    algarkirk said:

    It's the least divisive, it doesn't trash the economy, it doesn't ignore the referendum result, and it's available.

    MPs should stop playing silly games, and ratify the damned thing.

    +1

    Agree. They will, but tradition demands that we get closer to the cliff edge first. There is no particular thing about the WA which is inconsistent with Labour manifesto aims and the Political Declaration isn't binding, so once the game playing ends it will get through on Labour abstentions, maybe even doing a bit better than that.


    It's permanent colonial status from which we have no right withdrawal. We always had the option of Article 50. With May's deal we wouldn't even have that. So we have the three options. No Deal? We aren't prepared (I'd love to know why?). The deal? It's rubbish. Remain? I think we all know the problems that would cause.

    So we're screwed. I'm tempted to think the best option would be to extend Article 50 to prepare for no deal. Can we even do that?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,586

    AndyJS said:

    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.

    Not really, the project doom stuff isn't really cutting through, the deal is dead and people are starting to see it as logical step. I'd expect this number to track upwards from here.

    The polling suggests that "remain" would lose another referendum
    Project apocalypse (fear just isn't a strong enough word) is the boy who cried wolf.
  • AndyJS said:

    45% finding No Deal acceptable is about 10 points higher than I would have expected.

    Not really, the project doom stuff isn't really cutting through, the deal is dead and people are starting to see it as logical step. I'd expect this number to track upwards from here.

    The polling suggests that "remain" would lose another referendum
    Many on here say the deal is dead but I would suggest it may surprise you by the end of March
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 51,020

    Also (FPT): Here's the data split by 2016 vote. The deal is acceptable to an absolute majority of Leavers, and also a majority of Remainers (once you remove DKs). The No Deal / No Brexit options are predictably polarising.

    To be fair, acceptability is not quite the same as approval, but the Deal looks like the only option for moving on.

    Interesting that a majority of Leavers and a plurality of Remainers find leaving with May's Deal acceptable.

    Yet 65% of Remainers find leaving with No Deal unacceptable and 78% of Leavers find Remaining in the EU unacceptable.

    The Deal is not perfect but it is still the best way to avoid a near Civil War between People's Vote Remainers pushing EUref2 and Leave means Leavers pushing No Deal
This discussion has been closed.