FT General Election Poll 2019

[WigstonWanderer]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's gets leaving the European Union done, that's pretty significant.

That’s a bit like demolishing the old house. Still got to build a new one.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

That’s a bit like demolishing the old house. Still got to build a new one.

Depends how you see it, for some it's like getting rid of the mother in law

[Tuna]

Farage not standing:

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Farage not standing:

 

 

 

 

He claimed that it was because he wanted to be able to campaign the length and breadth of the country.

 

Seems a strange argument as Johnson, Corbyn & all other party leaders will be doing that - but still standing as constituency candidates.

What they lose in local campaign exposure, they more than gain in national campaign exposure - media interviews, TV/Internet footage of speeches at rallies etc.

 

Unlikely, I know, but in theory it could produce a weird situation......

Imagine that the Tories are a few short of a working majority and reliant on negotiating the support of, say, half a dozen Brexit Party MPs, but Farage isn't in Westminster.

Unlikely to happen, but not impossible. If that happened, maybe he'd accept the next Tory offer to be made Lord Farage of Dogbreath or whatever?  

[jammie82uk]

A Genuine question: i have seen that people are voting Labour based solely on their position on Brexit, Why is that? 

 

 

[RobHawk]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

A Genuine question: i have seen that people are voting Labour based solely on their position on Brexit, Why is that? 

 

 

I'm not in this situation but could image why some people would.

 

If you are a remainer, who doesn't believe we should just ignore the referendum result, who else do you vote for?

[bovril]

8 hours ago, Tuna said:

Farage not standing:

After ten pints down his local.

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

I'm not in this situation but could image why some people would.

 

If you are a remainer, who doesn't believe we should just ignore the referendum result, who else do you vote for?

 

Ok in that case If someone is a remainer but doesn’t want to ignore the result of the first referendum then they should be supporting leave then in some capacity, shouldn’t they?

 

And surely having a second referendum does ignore the first one doesn’t it? 

[RobHawk]

12 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

 

Ok in that case If someone is a remainer but doesn’t want to ignore the result of the first referendum then they should be supporting leave then in some capacity, shouldn’t they?

 

And surely having a second referendum does ignore the first one doesn’t it? 

Labour are still the best chance of getting a soft brexit and at least a second ref is giving the people the final choice. 

 

As a remainer, I'd rather a 2nd ref than a hard brexit. As a remainer, a hard brexit has always been unacceptable to me personally. From day one, I've said I could accept a soft brexit of some sort. 

 

I'm not a supporter of corbyns labour but they seem to be the nearest to centre ground on Brexit. 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

 

Ok in that case If someone is a remainer but doesn’t want to ignore the result of the first referendum then they should be supporting leave then in some capacity, shouldn’t they?

 

And surely having a second referendum does ignore the first one doesn’t it? 

 

Labour's policy is to negotiate a different Brexit deal, one that involves leaving the EU but keeping a closer relationship: e.g. by staying in the Customs Union, retaining EU employment rights & environmental protections etc.

 

They would then put that policy to a 2nd referendum. So, if you didn't want to ignore the 1st referendum result (unspecific Leave), but thought Boris' Deal was an extreme form of Brexit, that would give you a Soft Brexit to vote for.

 

Alternatively, you might not want to ignore the referendum result by simply cancelling it but might see the current deal as very different from what was promised by the Leave campaign in 2016.

So, there's a logical argument there for having a second referendum based on the negotiated terms of a Deal.....as opposed to zero knowledge of the terms & all sorts of fantastical claims in 2016.

 

There's also a moral case for not having one half of the nation ride roughshod over the half, causing all sorts of bitterness. Divisions are bound to persist, but avoiding the two extreme outcomes could reduce them.

The Boris/Nigel stances say: "We're going to manoeuvre our way to the hardest possible Brexit & the 48% who didn't want any Brexit can fvck right off, along with those of the 52% who wanted to keep a close relationship with the EU".

The Lib Dem stance says: "If we win the election, even with 35% of the vote, we're just going to cancel Brexit with no second consultation & the 52% who voted for Brexit can fvck right off". 

[ousefox]

20 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

 

Ok in that case If someone is a remainer but doesn’t want to ignore the result of the first referendum then they should be supporting leave then in some capacity, shouldn’t they?

 

And surely having a second referendum does ignore the first one doesn’t it? 

JRM thought it may be a good idea until it didn't suit him.

[RobHawk]

10 hours ago, ousefox said:

JRM thought it may be a good idea until it didn't suit him.

And let's not forget farage himself said it wouldn't be over if it was a 52/48 result. Obviously he expected it to be a remain win but he wasn't prepared to accept the result of the referendum on such a small margin either, until his side won anyway. Then it's a democratic outrage that we haven't left with the hardest possible form of Brexit.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

And let's not forget farage himself said it wouldn't be over if it was a 52/48 result. Obviously he expected it to be a remain win but he wasn't prepared to accept the result of the referendum on such a small margin either, until his side won anyway. Then it's a democratic outrage that we haven't left with the hardest possible form of Brexit.

At least if Remain won, the result would have been enacted immediately. So his flippant comment is still not the same thing.

[RobHawk]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

At least if Remain won, the result would have been enacted immediately. So his flippant comment is still not the same thing.

The result would have been enacted immediately because it was the status quo.

 

Had that happened, farage would have been pushing for a second referendum because of how close it was. 

 

Brexit has not been enacted because we STILL can't decide what brexit actually looks like. Although Boris' deal did pass, then he took it off the table 🤔

 

Even now farage is saying Boris' deal isn't Brexit. Even a year ago boris was saying that his deal (the backstop solution at least) would never be brought forward by a Tory PM. 

 

I get what you are saying and it is like comparing apples with oranges, but the fact is had it been a slight remain win, garage would have been banging on the last 3 years looking for another referendum on the basis that people will have changed their minds about staying in the EU.

Edited 4 November 2019 by RobHawk
Typos

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, RobHawk said:

The result would have been enacted immediately because it was the status quo.

 

Had that happened, farage would have been pushing for a second referendum because of how close it was. 

 

Brexit has not been enacted because we STILL can't decide what brexit actually looks like. Although Boris' deal did pass, then he took it off the table 🤔

 

Even now farage is saying Boris' deal isn't Brexit. Even a year ago boris.eas saying that his deal (the backstop.sloution at least) would never be brought forward by a Tory PM. 

 

I get what you are saying and it is like comparing apples with oranges, but the fact is had it been a slight remain win, garage would have been banging on the last 3 years looking for another referendum on the basis that people will have changed their minds about staying in the EU.

He would but that doesn’t make it right....

[RobHawk]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

He would but that doesn’t make it right....

No, but it highlights the bullshit spouted by many leavers that they would have accepted the result had it been the other way round. 

 

Many of them would have followed Farage and let's be honest, he would be everywhere as he's still be relevant. 

 

Farage has been the Brexit poster boy and it's only now that leavers are starting to really see him for what he is because in their eyes he threatens Brexit for standing up for his Brexit and not Boris'. 

 

Either way, the point of it all is a second ref wouldn't be so bad. Sure it's not ideal, but the Brexit impasse we have found ourselves in for the last year was created by leavers like the ERG not being happy with the version of Brexit that was put on the table.

[The Guvnor]

16 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Labour's policy is to negotiate a different Brexit deal, one that involves leaving the EU but keeping a closer relationship: e.g. by staying in the Customs Union, retaining EU employment rights & environmental protections etc.

 

They would then put that policy to a 2nd referendum. So, if you didn't want to ignore the 1st referendum result (unspecific Leave), but thought Boris' Deal was an extreme form of Brexit, that would give you a Soft Brexit to vote for.

 

Alternatively, you might not want to ignore the referendum result by simply cancelling it but might see the current deal as very different from what was promised by the Leave campaign in 2016.

So, there's a logical argument there for having a second referendum based on the negotiated terms of a Deal.....as opposed to zero knowledge of the terms & all sorts of fantastical claims in 2016.

 

There's also a moral case for not having one half of the nation ride roughshod over the half, causing all sorts of bitterness. Divisions are bound to persist, but avoiding the two extreme outcomes could reduce them.

The Boris/Nigel stances say: "We're going to manoeuvre our way to the hardest possible Brexit & the 48% who didn't want any Brexit can fvck right off, along with those of the 52% who wanted to keep a close relationship with the EU".

The Lib Dem stance says: "If we win the election, even with 35% of the vote, we're just going to cancel Brexit with no second consultation & the 52% who voted for Brexit can fvck right off". 

Have I missed something as I thought this was Labours brexit position. 

Labour plans to secure a softer agreement that keeps the UK inside a customs union and single market regulations.

Staying in the single market and Customs union ? I wonder how many of the 17.4 million leave voters considered that to be 'leaving' but unfortunately, and as i'm sure you're aware, should that ever be a binary choice with remain we would never know as I couldn't see many leavers bothering to vote  as what is the point? remain v virtually remain. And that sets up an easy win win for a remain Party.

It is neither fair or democratic, but I suppose that is irrelevant to a remainer.

 

[FerrisBueller]

32 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Have I missed something as I thought this was Labours brexit position. 

Labour plans to secure a softer agreement that keeps the UK inside a customs union and single market regulations.

Staying in the single market and Customs union ? I wonder how many of the 17.4 million leave voters considered that to be 'leaving' but unfortunately, and as i'm sure you're aware, should that ever be a binary choice with remain we would never know as I couldn't see many leavers bothering to vote  as what is the point? remain v virtually remain. And that sets up an easy win win for a remain Party.

It is neither fair or democratic, but I suppose that is irrelevant to a remainer.

 

Implementing the result of an unlawful (advisory) referendum is neither fair or democratic, but I suppose that is irrelevant to a brexiteer... 

[David Guiza]

Jo Swinson seemingly sent some sort of suspicious powder in the post (no Keith Vaz jokes).

 

Also, Tory candidate forced to apologise for saying that people on a benefits tv show should be 'put down'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-50283520 

 

What a state. 

Edited 4 November 2019 by David Guiza

[Guest MattP]

17 hours ago, ousefox said:

JRM thought it may be a good idea until it didn't suit him.

Don't be fooled by a YouTube clip.

 

Watch the full speech and the JRM idea was to have a referendum before the original renegotiation - then to take that to Europe and say we'll be having a second one now after we've changed the relationship. 

 

Which in hindsight was probably a good idea.

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Have I missed something as I thought this was Labours brexit position. 

Labour plans to secure a softer agreement that keeps the UK inside a customs union and single market regulations.

Staying in the single market and Customs union ? I wonder how many of the 17.4 million leave voters considered that to be 'leaving' but unfortunately, and as i'm sure you're aware, should that ever be a binary choice with remain we would never know as I couldn't see many leavers bothering to vote  as what is the point? remain v virtually remain. And that sets up an easy win win for a remain Party.

 

Who knows precisely what the 17.4m Leave voters or 16.1m Remain voters expected.

 

Quite a lot probably didn't have any detailed expectations whatsoever. Some Brexiteers will have expected it to mean more money available for public services and great new global trade deals instantly available. Some will have mainly wanted to slow or halt immigration flows and social change - or even to stop the risk of 70m Turks arriving in the UK. Some will have just seen it as an opportunity to give "the elite" a kicking as they felt they had little control over lives that were a struggle - and the "take back control" slogan will have sounded good. And yes, some will have thought it possible to have some of this extra control, extra money for public services and lower immigration while also keeping close, beneficial relationships with the EU over trade, joint projects, international arrest warrants etc......and they will have actively wanted a form of Brexit with that close relationship.

 

What the precise breakdown of views was between different groups of Brexiteers, I don't know. That would require proper detailed research....which I'm sure someone has done, but I've not seen it.

Meanwhile, you seem to just assume that everyone shared your own expectations of Brexit - and presumably those of people you happen to have spoken to.

 

30 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

It is neither fair or democratic, but I suppose that is irrelevant to a remainer.

 

 

Personally I can see an argument for any 2nd referendum including a No Deal option...... But is there any need for untrue and gratuitous insults?

 

I don't assume that fairness and democracy are irrelevant to all Leave voters. Why do you assume that to be the case for all Remainers?

[The Guvnor]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Who knows precisely what the 17.4m Leave voters or 16.1m Remain voters expected.

 

Quite a lot probably didn't have any detailed expectations whatsoever. Some Brexiteers will have expected it to mean more money available for public services and great new global trade deals instantly available. Some will have mainly wanted to slow or halt immigration flows and social change - or even to stop the risk of 70m Turks arriving in the UK. Some will have just seen it as an opportunity to give "the elite" a kicking as they felt they had little control over lives that were a struggle - and the "take back control" slogan will have sounded good. And yes, some will have thought it possible to have some of this extra control, extra money for public services and lower immigration while also keeping close, beneficial relationships with the EU over trade, joint projects, international arrest warrants etc......and they will have actively wanted a form of Brexit with that close relationship.

 

What the precise breakdown of views was between different groups of Brexiteers, I don't know. That would require proper detailed research....which I'm sure someone has done, but I've not seen it.

Meanwhile, you seem to just assume that everyone shared your own expectations of Brexit - and presumably those of people you happen to have spoken to.

 

 

Personally I can see an argument for any 2nd referendum including a No Deal option...... But is there any need for untrue and gratuitous insults?

 

I don't assume that fairness and democracy are irrelevant to all Leave voters. Why do you assume that to be the case for all Remainers?

Firstly apologies Alf if I offended you, not my style.

To clarify, I was responding to Labours Brexit policy not your personal idea of a fair and democratic second referendum.

I do however stand by my point about Labours pathetic attempt to thinking their 'better deal' as a binary choice v remain is democratic best of luck with that one Jezzer in your leave majority seats.

 

With regard to remainers not being too concerned about fairness and democracy. I see the incredible rise of support for the LD who are prepared to revoke article 50 as a somewhat justification in making this generalisation.

In response to your point about what leavers were voting for, I suppose someone could put a poll on FT asking if staying in the CU and SM and unfettered immigration was something they voted for when voting to leave, might give some indication.

It is also intetesting that the Brexit Party and the Tories who are promising a hard brexit are collectively doing so well in the polls, this could be argued that a hard brexit might well  be what was expected when they ticked that box.

 

 

Edited 4 November 2019 by The Guvnor

[HappyHamza]

1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

Have I missed something as I thought this was Labours brexit position. 

Labour plans to secure a softer agreement that keeps the UK inside a customs union and single market regulations.

Staying in the single market and Customs union ? I wonder how many of the 17.4 million leave voters considered that to be 'leaving' but unfortunately, and as i'm sure you're aware, should that ever be a binary choice with remain we would never know as I couldn't see many leavers bothering to vote  as what is the point? remain v virtually remain. And that sets up an easy win win for a remain Party.

It is neither fair or democratic, but I suppose that is irrelevant to a remainer.

 

Well then they should have said that before the vote, instead of calling the idea we'd leave the single market project fear

 

 

[The Guvnor]

4 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

Well then they should have said that before the vote, instead of calling the idea we'd leave the single market project fear

 

 

Apologies didn't see the link.

Plenty of video clips out there on Social Media saying the exact opposite. I can post a couple if you like.

Edited 4 November 2019 by The Guvnor

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Firstly apologies Alf if I offended you, not my style.

To clarify, I was responding to Labours Brexit policy not your personal idea of a fair and democratic second referendum.

I do however stand by my point about Labours pathetic attempt to thinking their 'better deal' as a binary choice v remain is democratic best of luck with that one Jezzer in your leave majority seats.

 

With regard to remainers not being too concerned about fairness and democracy. I see the incredible rise of support for the LD who are prepared to revoke article 50 as a somewhat justification in making this generalisation.

In response to your point about what leavers were voting for, I suppose someone could put a poll on FT asking if staying in the CU and SM and unfettered immigration was something they voted for when voting to leave, might give some indication.

 

 

Thanks - and no offence taken. I'm not easily offended - particularly not by comments on the Internet. I was just surprised as it's not usually your style, as you say.

 

I take your point about Labour's proposed Labour Deal v. Remain referendum, but suppose they'd say that if they were elected as the govt, they'd have a mandate to negotiate their deal and put it to a public vote.

Alternatively, perhaps they could stage a 3-way referendum between Remain, any such Labour Deal and Boris' Deal? But even then, people like Farage would be saying that neither deal was "really Brexit" - as he's saying now about Boris.

That takes us back to the central problem: Brexit was never properly defined in the referendum, except that it involved leaving the EU......which there are multiple ways of doing.

 

You might be right that Corbyn will lose a lot of Leave majority seats, facilitating a Tory majority govt that would presumably proceed with Boris' deal.

IF ("when", in my opinion) that Brexit deal does not improve life or leave people better off, with better public services, a great country, fewer immigrants, more money and more control, hopefully the Tory Party that persuaded people to support the project will face universal condemnation and will be out of power forever more. Shame if it has to risk damaging or ruining the lives of millions for decades to come, though.

 

I'm surprised to see you bring the Lib Dems into this as your previous post seemed to be attacking Labour policy. I agree with your rejection of the LD policy to revoke - it's undemocratic & likely to increase alienation & division.

But most of the rise in LD poll ratings took place before they even adopted the Revoke policy - they were still arguing for a referendum, not revocation, when they won loads of MEPs a few months ago.

Their ratings seemed to increase a bit more after adopting the Revoke policy, but seem to have slipped again in the most recent polls.....anyway, they're only polling about 20% max, so a lot of the 48% Remainers don't plan to vote for them.

 

Your proposed FT poll might be fun & interesting, but very unscientific - and open to abuse by Remain supporters claiming to have voted Leave due to their hatred of foreigners or their desire to stay in the Single Market.... 

Would be interesting to see some proper analysis done by proper researchers. I'm sure it exists. Someone will have gone around, soon after the vote, asking a balanced sample of thousands of Leave voters what they wanted and expected.