#politicslive

[RingoMcCartney]

DAILY EXPRESS VOTING INTENTION AND BREXIT POLL JANUARY 2019. 2000 people questioned.

Political findings:

On the issue of a second referendum, most people want the 2016 Referendum to be RESPECTED (53%),

compared with three in ten (29%) who disagree and one in five (18%) who don’t know.

Conservative and Labour 2017 voters (and Remain and Leave voters) are in equal agreement that Parliament is not emerging from the Brexit process in a good light (83% Con, 84% Lab)


.2016 Remain and Leave voters are also in agreement that the Brexit process has shown the current generation of politicians are not up to the job (80% Remain voters, 83% Leave voters)

.More than seven in ten adults agree the Brexit process has shown that the British political system needs a complete overhaul (72%), with one in ten disagreeing (10%) and two in ten saying they don’t know (18%)

.Nearly three quarters support having a written Constitution to provide clear legal rules for how Government Ministers, Parliament and civil servants are required to act (72%) with less than one in ten opposing (7%).More than six in ten (62%) support enabling more decisions to be made at local level rather than by Parliament.

[quoonbeatz]

Do you actually know Leave voters who have changed their mind?

yep, quite a few actually.
i also know some remain voters, but less, who would vote the other way or not vote.
most people have just got further entrenched behind their original vote but i'd say there's still a significant number that could be persuaded either way.

[CombatClaret]

One thing I think worth noting is while it's seen that people become more conservative with age there's probably a liberalising trend over time with society.
So todays old conservative is different from a 1920s old conservative.

The remain vote was tinged with nostalgia l, maybe the in the future the old will look back on their best years which ironically we're while we were in the EU.

[JohnMcGreal]

It’s like asking people “are you intellectually challenged?” I can’t see that many people openly admitting to changing their minds from Leave to Remain. I do know of some of my family members admitting it in private - they believed the lies of the Leave campaign and have regretted voting leave since the result and resulting political carnage.

I've said it before on here, but the 'shy' vote in the next referendum will be crucial. It takes courage to admit that you might be wrong about something and to change your mind publicly, which is why I don't think you'll see too many people broadcasting it. But in the privacy of the voting booth, I can't help but feel that a good number of people who voted to leave last time, would vote to remain now given the current climate.

[martin_p]

DAILY EXPRESS VOTING INTENTION AND BREXIT POLL JANUARY 2019. 2000 people questioned.

Political findings:

On the issue of a second referendum, most people want the 2016 Referendum to be RESPECTED (53%),

compared with three in ten (29%) who disagree and one in five (18%) who don’t know.

Conservative and Labour 2017 voters (and Remain and Leave voters) are in equal agreement that Parliament is not emerging from the Brexit process in a good light (83% Con, 84% Lab)


.2016 Remain and Leave voters are also in agreement that the Brexit process has shown the current generation of politicians are not up to the job (80% Remain voters, 83% Leave voters)

.More than seven in ten adults agree the Brexit process has shown that the British political system needs a complete overhaul (72%), with one in ten disagreeing (10%) and two in ten saying they don’t know (18%)

.Nearly three quarters support having a written Constitution to provide clear legal rules for how Government Ministers, Parliament and civil servants are required to act (72%) with less than one in ten opposing (7%).More than six in ten (62%) support enabling more decisions to be made at local level rather than by Parliament.

Interesting poll that. Interesting the questions the Express has chosen to leave out of its report that is. Such as the majority for remain if a referendum were held tomorrow and the two point Labour lead over the Conservatives.

[Mala591]

The only referendum now with any democratic legitimacy would be for the public to decide between the two current options:

1. May's Brexit deal
2. A no deal Brexit

I am sure that May's Brexit deal would win but with a surprising narrow majority.

[Hipper]

I wonder how many of those 2,000 were qualified to answer the questions. Do they know how Parliament works? How our constitution works etc.?

And whilst I'm disappointed that so far our political system has not found a solution to Brexit do people really have an understanding of how complicated it is.

The issue might be that partisan views in those active in seeking a solution don't allow for one, which I agree does justify us questioning our systems.

[Chobulous]

Alexa sort this out for us.

[Rick_Muller]

Alexa sort this out for us.

https://youtu.be/lGejxHjtA7I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[summitclaret]

Think we just have to get a deal.

Only questions I can see on a 2nd ref would be "leave with no deal" or "remain" and no one could honestly say that would help heal the country.

You seem a fair-minded person normally, but that is so unfair as it is biased in favour of remain. Plenty of remainers are saying the same as you. No deal would be mad without plenty of warning. If you get a second vote you will lucky. But you can't have a rigged one.

Any second vote has to be two parted.

Part 1 leave or remain.

Part 2 if we leave should we do so:-

on the deal the gov has negotiated with the EU

( obviously this would not be the current 1 but a better 1 nearer the time)

Or

Without a deal if it is not possible to agree one with the EU that Parliament can support.

[martin_p]

https://youtu.be/lGejxHjtA7I

Ha! Played that clip and Alexa in the video answered the question in perfect unison with Alexa in my living room.

[martin_p]

You seem a fair-minded person normally, but that is so unfair as it is biased in favour of remain. Plenty of remainers are saying the same as you. No deal would be mad without plenty of warning. If you get a second vote you will lucky. But you can't have a rigged one.

Any second vote has to be two parted.

Part 1 leave or remain.

Part 2 if we leave should we do so:-

on the deal the gov has negotiated with the EU

( obviously this would not be the current 1 but a better 1 nearer the time)

Or

Without a deal if it is not possible to agree one with the EU that Parliament can support.

But the May deal has been voted down in parliament by our democratically elected representatives. Putting that to a second vote would be anti-democratic!

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't think I could have been fairer summit.

My first line says we need to get a deal and I end with saying that it won't unite the country.

Hipper

On QT last night, Isobel Oakshott was getting cheered to the rafters as she went on about a "No Deal" Brexit to a an area with a massive Toyota car plant in it. I'm fairly confident that a lot of those cheering don't actually understand the ramifications of what that actually means.

Yes, it is complicated, yes, it is hard work to get the info from multiple sources and yes, the continuing desire by certain media outlets to try to minimise the impact of a no deal make it hard but its something that we have to do.

And the trade expert who followed her with reality and very well researched information on the reality was ignored by those very same people.

Its not a very good state of affairs at all.

[summitclaret]

But the May deal has been voted down in parliament by our democratically elected representatives. Putting that to a second vote would be anti-democratic!

I am talking about whatever deal there is at the time of any vote not the current 1. I agree it cant be the current deal.

[RingoMcCartney]

Interesting poll that. Interesting the questions the Express has chosen to leave out of its report that is. Such as the majority for remain if a referendum were held tomorrow and the two point Labour lead over the Conservatives.

Ringo McCartney-

"Bercow is being kept on place to "Stop Brexit". His role will be pivotal"

Martin p -

"You do know it's not Bercow that will define what the vote is don't you? He's just the the facilitator Ringo"

You going to admit you were wrong and my prediction was prohpehetic.?

[Rick_Muller]

You seem a fair-minded person normally, but that is so unfair as it is biased in favour of remain. Plenty of remainers are saying the same as you. No deal would be mad without plenty of warning. If you get a second vote you will lucky. But you can't have a rigged one.

Any second vote has to be two parted.

Part 1 leave or remain.

Part 2 if we leave should we do so:-

on the deal the gov has negotiated with the EU

( obviously this would not be the current 1 but a better 1 nearer the time)

Or

Without a deal if it is not possible to agree one with the EU that Parliament can support.

I like that proposal, however would the 2nd question be open to all who vote, or just those who vote Leave? I'm not sure where I am going with this, but perhaps if you're asking a Remainer what type of leave they would prefer, I am guessing of the 2 options it would be "wibble"... I guess I would opt for whatever deal is on the table as opposed to no deal.

[hampsteadclaret]

If there was a second referendum [People's Vote.. ] because some people did not like the result of the first one, what would happen next do you think, if one of these turned out to be the result..?

[percentages]

Remain 50
Leave 50

Remain 51
Leave 49

Remain 52
Leave 48

All of these on a 5% smaller turnout than last time.

What about this one..?

Remain 53
Leave 47

- but on a pretty low turnout..say 48%

These are not impossible results, where would we go from here?

[Lancasterclaret]

But its the final democratic thing to do if we can't get a deal through Parliament Hamps

It shouldn't come to that if we can get the politicians to agree to a sensible deal.

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm fairly confident that a lot of those cheering don't actually understand the ramifications of what that actually means.

These pitchfork wielding, uneducated, less sophisticated, provincial bumpkins need to be saved from themselves.

[RingoMcCartney]

PEOPLES VOTE-

The 1st Peoples Vote was won by Leave in June 2016.. The mandate it gave to the government has not been implemented. 

If there was a second referendum, it would mean in order to have their view enacted , Leave voters would have to win TWO referenda. Remain would only have had to have won ONE.

fair? democratic? - No.

[Rick_Muller]

These pitchfork wielding, uneducated, less sophisticated, provincial bumpkins need to be saved from themselves.

FINALLY he understands...!!!

[Bordeauxclaret]

Like he’s never been away.

[Rick_Muller]

PEOPLES VOTE-

The 1st Peoples Vote was won by Leave in June 2016.. The mandate it gave to the government has not been implemented. 

If there was a second referendum, it would mean in order to have their view enacted , Leave voters would have to win TWO referenda. Remain would only have had to have won ONE.

fair? democratic? - No.

Has it or has it not been demonstrated that electoral rules were broken on both sides of the first referendum? How many of the promises from (now disappeared - though some are rearing up again) Leave politicians have been demonstrated to be unworkable and effectively lies to gain votes?

Is that fair? democratic?

[Imploding Turtle]

You seem a fair-minded person normally, but that is so unfair as it is biased in favour of remain. Plenty of remainers are saying the same as you. No deal would be mad without plenty of warning. If you get a second vote you will lucky. But you can't have a rigged one.

Any second vote has to be two parted.

Part 1 leave or remain.

Part 2 if we leave should we do so:-

on the deal the gov has negotiated with the EU

( obviously this would not be the current 1 but a better 1 nearer the time)

Or

Without a deal if it is not possible to agree one with the EU that Parliament can support.

Why can't we also have Remain vrs No Deal if No Deal beats Deal? Have you gamed it out in your head to see what can happen? Your way doesn't allow for people whose preferred choice is Leaving with a deal rejecting No Deal in favour of Remaining.

Your way is awful because soft leave voters will choose Remain for fear of a No Deal brexit winning which is pretty stupid if you mant Leave to win, but most importantly it doesn't give a clear answer because when Remain wins we'll still not be sure that Remain is what is wanted because your question discouraged soft Leave voters from voting Leave.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ringo,

It took me a lot of time and its something I'm interested in but it was still a struggle getting my head around WTO rules

The vast majority are relying on politicians and media outlets telling them the truth about what WTO actually means.

You can disagree with that if you wish, but I don't think its unfair of me to point out that people don't know what the WTO reality is.

And glad to see you back btw

[dsr]

The easiest way to get WTO across is to tell them it's the same rules as we trade with the USA.

Then you can go into speculation and opinion and discussion of the specifics.

[hampsteadclaret]

Rick Muller - how many times do you need to be told that BOTH SIDES were guilty of dodgy practice before the referendum.

1] That useless swift sprinting tw@t Gideon Osborne promised a draconian Emergency Budget if we dared to vote LEAVE, having been given a free vote in the matter by his incompetent chum David Cameron.
- that budget plan disappeared as fast as he did.

2] The biased leaflet sent out by the Government to every UK home, recommending that we vote REMAIN...impartial ?

How many times..?

[RingoMcCartney]

Has it or has it not been demonstrated that electoral rules were broken on both sides of the first referendum? How many of the promises from (now disappeared - though some are rearing up again) Leave politicians have been demonstrated to be unworkable and effectively lies to gain votes?

Is that fair? democratic?

Electoral rules broken - it's happened many many times. Don't remember elections being rerun.

Politicians lying to get votes. - see above.

The result of an expression of democracy not being implemented- never.

One proposal having to win TWO votes to get its mandate implemented. Whereas the opposing proposal only has to win ONE vote to get its view enacted - usually only in banana republics lead by AK 47 touting despots.......

[Lancasterclaret]

As long as you mention that there are tariffs (average about 3%) then that is fine dsr.

[Rick_Muller]

Rick Muller - how many times do you need to be told that BOTH SIDES were guilty of dodgy practice before the referendum.

1] That useless swift sprinting tw@t Gideon Osborne promised a draconian Emergency Budget if we dared to vote LEAVE, having been given a free vote in the matter by his incompetent chum David Cameron.
- that budget plan disappeared as fast as he did.

2] The biased leaflet sent out by the Government to every UK home, recommending that we vote REMAIN...impartial ?

How many times..?

Has it or has it not been demonstrated that electoral rules were broken on both sides of the first referendum?

Hamsptead - made it easy for you to see that I get that...

[Imploding Turtle]

Rick Muller - how many times do you need to be told that BOTH SIDES were guilty of dodgy practice before the referendum.

1] That useless swift sprinting tw@t Gideon Osborne promised a draconian Emergency Budget if we dared to vote LEAVE, having been given a free vote in the matter by his incompetent chum David Cameron.
- that budget plan disappeared as fast as he did.

2] The biased leaflet sent out by the Government to every UK home, recommending that we vote REMAIN...impartial ?

How many times..?

1) He didn't promise a draconian emergency budget.

2) In what way was it biased? Was anything on the leaflet incorrect or out of context?

[summitclaret]

I like that proposal, however would the 2nd question be open to all who vote, or just those who vote Leave? I'm not sure where I am going with this, but perhaps if you're asking a Remainer what type of leave they would prefer, I am guessing of the 2 options it would be "wibble"... I guess I would opt for whatever deal is on the table as opposed to no deal.

Of course every voter should hace to opportunity to answer part 2.

I know its making it a bit complex but i would be tempted to add a part 3 along the lines of

If we remain should it be on the current terms

Or

Should we oppose ever closer union within the EU accepts where our Parliament agrees that it is this country's best interests.

[Imploding Turtle]

Of course every voter should hace to opportunity to answer part 2.

I know its making it a bit complex but i would be tempted to add a part 3 along the lines of

If we remain should it be on the current terms

Or

Should we ever closer union within the EU accepts where our Parliament agrees that it is thus country's best interests.

Your making less and less sense.

[dsr]

As long as you mention that there are tariffs (average about 3%) then that is fine dsr.

Of course. That's part of the detail. We will need to mention as well that all our exports and imports will continue to be affected by exchange rate movements, which can easily move by 10% in a year and it's far from unknown for them to move much more. Possibly even comparing and contrasting the two to suggest that 3% tariffs isn't going to make a vast difference - or that it is going to make a vast difference. Like you say, there's a lot of detail - but "the same as the USA rules" is a good starting point.

[dsr]

1) He didn't promise a draconian emergency budget.

2) In what way was it biased? Was anything on the leaflet incorrect or out of context?

1, Yes he did.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36534192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In the latest of a series of government warnings about the consequences of a vote to leave, Mr Osborne shared a stage with his Labour predecessor, Lord Darling, setting out £30bn of "illustrative" tax rises and spending cuts, including a 2p rise in the basic rate of income tax and a 3p rise in the higher rate.

They also said spending on the police, transport and local government could take a 5% cut and ring-fenced NHS budget could be "slashed", along with education, defence and policing."

2. In what way was it biased? Well the big headline that opened the leaflet was "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... the-uk.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't think that counts as bias?

[hampsteadclaret]

IT..581

1] he did promise an emergency budget which financiers/economists/commentators/me knew would be draconian.

2] I've just read the full leaflet , have you? It was full of partial biased information in what was intended to be a free vote.

Wake up.

[Imploding Turtle]

1, Yes he did.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36534192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In the latest of a series of government warnings about the consequences of a vote to leave, Mr Osborne shared a stage with his Labour predecessor, Lord Darling, setting out £30bn of "illustrative" tax rises and spending cuts, including a 2p rise in the basic rate of income tax and a 3p rise in the higher rate.

They also said spending on the police, transport and local government could take a 5% cut and ring-fenced NHS budget could be "slashed", along with education, defence and policing."

2. In what way was it biased? Well the big headline that opened the leaflet was "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... the-uk.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't think that counts as bias?

No. I don't think explaining why you believe something is biased. It's the ******* opposite of biased. It's literally explaining how your opinion isn't biased.

[hampsteadclaret]

580..Rick Muller..thanks for that I can read.

I know exactly what you typed.
It started off as a balanced post, but then it wasn't balanced...it was one-sided, especially where you said this..

'Leave politicians have been demonstrated to be unworkable and effectively lies to gain votes?'

[Rick_Muller]

1] he did promise an emergency budget which financiers/economists/commentators/me knew would be draconian.

2] I've just read the full leaflet , have you? It was full of partial biased information in what was intended to be a free vote.

To be fair I recall the promise of an emergency budget and I also thought that the government leaflet was much more likely to be beneficial to the Leave campaign purely because no one really likes being told what to do...

The majority of the campaigners on both sides lied about many things on something as important as the referendum with 2 options.

It isn't until the detail was being looked at since the result that the penny dropped for so many people, including me - I admit that. I'm not a politician, and I have led a life with little worry about politics in my life - until that referendum. With hindsight it was a poorly thought out referendum and it should not have gone ahead without the groundwork being done in advance. If it were possible to have covered all of the work done with the Brexit ministers and the EU, and then have a referendum based upon an agreed Brexit plan ratified by our government and the EU or remain in the EU then that would have been a much better approach, but obviously impossible to do because we had Cameron in charge at the time who was arrogant and complacent enough to think that Leave would have no chance so didn't bother.

[hampsteadclaret]

37..IT..

zzzzzzzzzzz..

Precisely why I usually stay off this type of thread, bye.





** any remainers got any replies to what I said in post 567?

[Rick_Muller]

580..Rick Muller..thanks for that I can read.

I know exactly what you typed.
It started off as a balanced post, but then it wasn't balanced...it was one-sided, especially where you said this..

'Leave politicians have been demonstrated to be unworkable and effectively lies to gain votes?'

If you're going to quote me, at least quote me in full...

"How many of the promises from (now disappeared - though some are rearing up again) Leave politicians have been demonstrated to be unworkable and effectively lies to gain votes?"

Its relevant because the result was to Leave and based upon those lies. I assure you that if the result was reversed and we were having this discussion I would focus on the lies of the remainers after stating both sides lied.

[dsr]

No. I don't think explaining why you believe something is biased. It's the ******* opposite of biased. It's literally explaining how your opinion isn't biased.

That's an argument that none of the election leaflets, for or against, were biased. A pretty daft argument, IMO.

Oxford Dictionary: "Bias: mass noun: Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair."

You must think that the government document was a balanced and fair document putting both sides of the case, I suppose. Because even you couldn't think it wasn't favouring one side or the other!

(Try and leave out the pointless swearing, even if it is bleeped out. I know that you don't like following the rules that everyone else has to follow, but it really doesn't add anything to the debate.)

[Lancasterclaret]

This is quite good (and simple!) on the EU-EU trade

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2 ... ariffs.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slightly more detailed but more importantly highlights how long these things take to sort and the complexity involved

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countr ... dex_en.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And of course, these are EU-US deals. Not US-UK deals.

[JohnMcGreal]

Like you say, there's a lot of detail - but "the same as the USA rules" is a good starting point.

There is only one country in the world that is a WTO member and trades solely on WTO terms. That country is Mauritania.

Leaving with no deal and trading solely on WTO with everybody would not be a good starting point, it would be a complete disaster.

[Lancasterclaret]

And this series of tweets from a trade expert (who I went to school with bizarrely enough!)

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status ... 6494433281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

And here is the guy who was on after Oakeshott attempt to pretend "No Deal" is going to be ace. The one who explained reality to a bunch of people who listened but won't be persuaded of reality

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ime-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Boy, do I know how he feels.

[Imploding Turtle]

And here is the guy who was on after Oakeshott attempt to pretend "No Deal" is going to be ace. The one who explained reality to a bunch of people who listened but won't be persuaded of reality

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ime-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Boy, do I know how he feels.

We need a new plague.

[aggi]

The easiest way to get WTO across is to tell them it's the same rules as we trade with the USA.

Then you can go into speculation and opinion and discussion of the specifics.

Do these specifics include all of the bilateral agreements between the US and the EU that the UK won't have? Or that the USA is approved to import meat into the EU and the UK wouldn't be?

[quoonbeatz]

And here is the guy who was on after Oakeshott attempt to pretend "No Deal" is going to be ace. The one who explained reality to a bunch of people who listened but won't be persuaded of reality

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ime-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Boy, do I know how he feels.

he was probably the best panellist question time has had on in years. spoke all the sense about where we're at now.

not difficult, i know, up against the likes of oakeshott, abbott and rory smith (who i actually think is half decent but has form for making things up) but he was calm, measured and clearly knew more about the situation we're in than anyone else in that room.

[dsr]

[quote="Imploding Turtle"][/quote]
I have put you onto ignore for the hopefully very short time you have left on this board. You add nothing to the debate and your only purpose for posting is to try and spoil it for everyone else.