United Kingdom Polling

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

If these polls are to believed and Farage does as well as forecast, where does he go next? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

To Strausbourg-where the European parliament should respect his convictions and not seat or pay his MEP's.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I find it odd that UK voters would elect MEP's from a Brexit party, for a five year term, when they will have little effect on the outcome any talks. The UK elects only about 10% of the MEP's so even if Brexit swept the table they would still need a lot of allies in other countries to have any effect on the UK's future.

ETA: Does the EU have by-elections if a seat is left vacant?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Then again, no MEP has any actual effect on anything.  Whatever you can say about the EU, the European Parliament is nothing but a pathetic joke-it's a parliament without a government and it votes on nothing of any importance.

NDPP

Just one of the many eminently sensible reasons the majority of Britons voted to leave the supranational monstrosity.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
Then again, no MEP has any actual effect on anything.  Whatever you can say about the EU, the European Parliament is nothing but a pathetic joke-it's a parliament without a government and it votes on nothing of any importance.

Ask your average Remainer to explain in detail the relationship between the EU Parliament and the EU Commission. How does that work? Yeah, I'll tell you how that works: badly and undemocratically

NorthReport

 

Brexit Party leads Labour by 4% as Labour drops 7% in latest polling

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Which means the Remain obsessives need to stop vilifying Corbyn., since it's the only party that can defeat the Brexit Party at a general elections.  

There simply isn't a valid Left case for putting the EU question before everything else in the universe, and those leading the fight for that are acting out of reactionary intent.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Now that UKers actually have had a chance to familiarize themselves with the Brexit details, increasingly, a 20 per cent change actually, don't want any part of it. No kidding, as why would you jeopardize things like your public health care system! 

If there was a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote?

Choice / Feb 21 '12 / May 13 '19 / Difference

Remain / 30% / 44% / Up 14%

Leave / 48% / 42% / Down 6%

 

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-how-would-you-vote-2/

NorthReport

So much for that large Labour lead, eh!

BMG/The Independent

Party / Apr 2-5 / May 7-10 / Jun 4-7

Lab / 31% / 30% / 27% / Down 4%

Con / 29% / 27% / 26% / Down 3% (but presently Leaderless)

LD / 8% / 18% / 17% / Up 9%

Br / 6% / 10% / 18% / Up 12%

josh
NorthReport

Is the party over for Labour as they are now running in 3rd place in latest UK polling

Brexit 26%

Lib Dem 22%

Lab 19%

Cons 17%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Give it a rest.  Labour would gain nothing in the polls from centering the fight for a second referendum-and if anything, it's the relentless Blairite crusade for Corbyn to disregard party policy on the matter that has given Nigel Farage a comeback.  If the UK had moved on and focused on soft Brexit, Farage would be in the political boneyard.

nicky

No Ken, you are utterly wrong.

Labour would soar in the polls IF it wholehearted opposed Brexit AND IF it had a competent and respected leader instead of the current albatross.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Is the party over for Labour as they are now running in 3rd place in latest UK polling

Brexit 26%

Lib Dem 22%

Lab 19%

Cons 17%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

No they are running third in the poll that’s been most unfriendly to Labour. 

josh

nicky wrote:

No Ken, you are utterly wrong.

Labour would soar in the polls IF it wholehearted opposed Brexit AND IF it had a competent and respected leader instead of the current albatross.

You mean like in 2015?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

No Ken, you are utterly wrong.

Labour would soar in the polls IF it wholehearted opposed Brexit AND IF it had a competent and respected leader instead of the current albatross.

1) Again, AS YOU KNOW, no Labour leader can ever say "screw party policy as decided at conference-I'm just going to change our position unilaterally".  Corbyn CAN'T do what you so obsessively demand, and neither could anybody who might replace him.

2) Corbyn IS capable and competent.  It's just that he's a socialist who thinks that party should be run by rank-and-file activists.  It's been proved that all the attacks on him were lies:

a)he was never a supporter of or apologist for the IRA, he just supported a unified Ireland in the Eighties-and at that time, supporting Irish unification was the only position you could take if you wanted to end the persecution of the minority community in Ulster; nobody was proposing anything remotely similar to the GFA yet, or anything else short of unification which would end the injustices involved.  And as a back-channel negotiator for Tony Blair later, Corbyn was able to get Sinn Fein to give up the armed struggle and work for Irish unification by electoral means instead.  What the hell was he supposed to to on that front: endorse the Tory/Unionist-Loyalist delusion that the whole conflict was the IRA's fault and that it was somehow possible to end the fighting WITHOUT power-sharing?

b) It's been proved that Corbyn was never indifferent to the need to fight antisemitism and that he did all he could TO fight it.  What would you have him do-endorse the IHRA "guidelines" which, for all practical purposes, make it impossible to say anything at all critical of the Israeli government or show any sympathy for the Palestinians?  Is he supposed to instantly expel anyone who is ACCUSED of antisemitism, when we know, for example, that Margaret Hodge, the arch-Blairite who has been obsessed with dumping Corbyn due to his empathy with the Palestinians and his commitment to internal party democracy, has made 200 accusations of that particular prejudice against people on the Labour Left(she's never made a single accusation against any Blairites, and said nothing when Alistair Campbell proposed series of campaign posters which would have depicted Michael Howard, the then-Conservative leader, and who arrived in Britain as a Jewish war orphan in the Forties before being involuntarily converted to Christianity by his adoptive parents, as an antisemitic caricature), virtually of which turned out to be unwarrented?  And why should Corbyn accept the Blairite canard that antisemitism has suddenly become the most prevalent form of bigotry in the UK, that Jewish people in the UK are somehow facing more bigotry than Muslims, BAME people, LGBTQ people and Roma/Travellers?  Or that this form of bigotry never occurred in the Labour Party before Corbyn became leader and   happens almost entirely in the ranks of Labour activists?  Also, wouldn't pretty much go without saying that a lifetime antiracist activist, as Corbyn is, can simply be assumed to be passionate opponent of antisemitism as well?

BTW, you do, personally, accept the fact that criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians is almost NEVER antisemitic in character, right?
 

c) Corbyn has handled the Brexit question in a very similar way to the strategy Harold Wilson used on the EEC question in the Seventies:  Labour was deeply split, then and now, on Europe, and Wilson largely took a middle ground on the matter as opposition leader.  Once Labour was elected, a referendum was called almost immediately.

Why can't you accept that approach this time, especially since it's not possible for Corbyn to force enough Labour MPs to vote for a second referendum as long as the Tory minority government remains in power.  If Wilson had done what you want Corbyn to do now and put the Europe issue ahead of all other things, he clearly would have been doomed to lose the election that had be held by 1975 and what you wanted would never have happened.

That's what would happen if Corbyn did what you wanted; every Labour Leave voter from '15 would vote Brexit Party for as long as it took to make sure Brexit happened.  Nothing but Tory landslides could come of that.

Or...is that what you secretly want, here? To see Labour lose badly under Corbyn or anyone else to the left of Blair-as it would have to do if it centered the pointless demand for a referendum-and they to impose a Blairite restoration, a restoration that the majority of the party will never be made to want and can never lead to another Labour victory?

Corbyn has been leader in a tough time.  None of those who stood against him in 2015 or in the pointless 2016 revote would be doing any better.  I mean seriously-how could Owen Smith, a man who never had anyone at all show up at his 2016 leadership rallies and who proved himself a Tory by taking a job as a lobbyist for Pfizer, possibly have a better handle on the situation?  Or Yvette Cooper, who still thinks the Iraq War was right?  Or Andy Burnham, who never had any enthusiastic, passionate support from anyone and who offered no worthwhile ideas as a leadership candidate?  Or Liz Kendall, who wanted Labour to move to the right of Blair?

You can't seriously argue that anybody who was in any way connected to the Labour establishment would be offering anything the voters would connect with, anything that would make any real difference in anyone's life.  Or anything that would bring anyone under 40 to the polls.

 

b) He never supported Hezbollah or Hamas.  All he was guilty of was using diplomatic language to try to get those groups into talks with the Israelis-just as he had done to get Sinn Fein into the talks that had to happen to end The Troubles and to establish power-sharing.  Since it isn't possible to end any part of the Israel/Palestine conflict by military means-since there's not ever going to be a moment where a Palestinian delegation signs a "VJ Day"-style unconditional surrender treater on the deck of the USS Missouri, what alternative is there to trying to reach out and move Hamas and Hezbollah from the armed struggle to negotiations?

NorthReport

Latest poll

Brexit 24%

Lab 21%

Cons 21%

Lib Dem 19%

 

 

Pages