Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?Do political parties pay for opinion polls?What causes recent SPD gains in opinion polls?What can UK citizens do to replace first past the post with a proportional representation voting system?Are there any polls on how the Civil Service feels about Brexit?What are the main differences between UK and US (NEP) exit polls, methodologically?Are opinion polls always representative of the extreme opinions?Why do UK citizens feel “that only the British (and perhaps the Swiss) are properly democratic”?Do polls indicate support for post-Brexit freer trade?What reason(s) have UK politicians given for not wanting another referendum on whether the UK should exit the EU or not?What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?
Check if two datetimes are between two others
Pristine Bit Checking
Does the average primeness of natural numbers tend to zero?
"listening to me about as much as you're listening to this pole here"
Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
Are cabin dividers used to "hide" the flex of the airplane?
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?
Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a good pack animal for the ancient Mayans?
Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?
COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?
Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?
Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning
"My colleague's body is amazing"
Domain expired, GoDaddy holds it and is asking more money
What does it exactly mean if a random variable follows a distribution
Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?
How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it
Symmetry in quantum mechanics
Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?
Is it wise to focus on putting odd beats on left when playing double bass drums?
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
Do political parties pay for opinion polls?What causes recent SPD gains in opinion polls?What can UK citizens do to replace first past the post with a proportional representation voting system?Are there any polls on how the Civil Service feels about Brexit?What are the main differences between UK and US (NEP) exit polls, methodologically?Are opinion polls always representative of the extreme opinions?Why do UK citizens feel “that only the British (and perhaps the Swiss) are properly democratic”?Do polls indicate support for post-Brexit freer trade?What reason(s) have UK politicians given for not wanting another referendum on whether the UK should exit the EU or not?What is a “confirmatory” referendum in the context of Brexit?
Looking at the Brexit opinion polls it seems that the public is consistently in favor of staying in the EU ever since July 2017, with the gap between 'leave' and 'remain' slowly widening over time. So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum? Did any MPs mention the poll results in public discussions within the House of Commons?
united-kingdom brexit polling
|
show 8 more comments
Looking at the Brexit opinion polls it seems that the public is consistently in favor of staying in the EU ever since July 2017, with the gap between 'leave' and 'remain' slowly widening over time. So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum? Did any MPs mention the poll results in public discussions within the House of Commons?
united-kingdom brexit polling
10
Why was this downvoted? Please explain. It seems like a perfectly good question, even if the answer may be obvious to some people. It's certainly not obvious to me.
– phoog
22 hours ago
42
Not a downvoter, but opinion polls were also against brexit one day before the vote, also opinion polls said Trump had no chance to win the election, etc, etc... Such polls have no value.
– Bregalad
18 hours ago
3
Re. the downvotes: there is an inherent assumption in the question that opinion polls are being ignored. I think a more neutral question would have been: "Are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls on Brexit? If so, why?", instead of "Why are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls."
– Time4Tea
10 hours ago
6
@Bregalad Opinion polls did not say "Trump had no chance to win the election". They listed a chance. That chance was less than even odds -- so they said he /probably/ wasn't going to win, but they gave the chance as non-zero. If I remember rightly, on the day of the election FiveThirtyEight.com listed the odds of him winning as something like 1/5 -- that is very far from being "no chance".
– owjburnham
10 hours ago
3
No, presidential elections are not redone every 4 years. The term limit IS 4 years. That is similar to voting on a budget that must be renewed every year. There is a time limit specified which requires another election/vote when it ends. Did people vote to only be brexit for 3 years? As far as I know there is no time specified for brexit. Most policies with no time limit on them are indefinite until another policy is passed, and we haven't even implemented brexit yet. It is far too early to hold another vote.
– Matthew Liu
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
Looking at the Brexit opinion polls it seems that the public is consistently in favor of staying in the EU ever since July 2017, with the gap between 'leave' and 'remain' slowly widening over time. So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum? Did any MPs mention the poll results in public discussions within the House of Commons?
united-kingdom brexit polling
Looking at the Brexit opinion polls it seems that the public is consistently in favor of staying in the EU ever since July 2017, with the gap between 'leave' and 'remain' slowly widening over time. So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum? Did any MPs mention the poll results in public discussions within the House of Commons?
united-kingdom brexit polling
united-kingdom brexit polling
edited 10 hours ago
JonathanReez
asked 23 hours ago
JonathanReezJonathanReez
14.7k1784166
14.7k1784166
10
Why was this downvoted? Please explain. It seems like a perfectly good question, even if the answer may be obvious to some people. It's certainly not obvious to me.
– phoog
22 hours ago
42
Not a downvoter, but opinion polls were also against brexit one day before the vote, also opinion polls said Trump had no chance to win the election, etc, etc... Such polls have no value.
– Bregalad
18 hours ago
3
Re. the downvotes: there is an inherent assumption in the question that opinion polls are being ignored. I think a more neutral question would have been: "Are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls on Brexit? If so, why?", instead of "Why are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls."
– Time4Tea
10 hours ago
6
@Bregalad Opinion polls did not say "Trump had no chance to win the election". They listed a chance. That chance was less than even odds -- so they said he /probably/ wasn't going to win, but they gave the chance as non-zero. If I remember rightly, on the day of the election FiveThirtyEight.com listed the odds of him winning as something like 1/5 -- that is very far from being "no chance".
– owjburnham
10 hours ago
3
No, presidential elections are not redone every 4 years. The term limit IS 4 years. That is similar to voting on a budget that must be renewed every year. There is a time limit specified which requires another election/vote when it ends. Did people vote to only be brexit for 3 years? As far as I know there is no time specified for brexit. Most policies with no time limit on them are indefinite until another policy is passed, and we haven't even implemented brexit yet. It is far too early to hold another vote.
– Matthew Liu
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
10
Why was this downvoted? Please explain. It seems like a perfectly good question, even if the answer may be obvious to some people. It's certainly not obvious to me.
– phoog
22 hours ago
42
Not a downvoter, but opinion polls were also against brexit one day before the vote, also opinion polls said Trump had no chance to win the election, etc, etc... Such polls have no value.
– Bregalad
18 hours ago
3
Re. the downvotes: there is an inherent assumption in the question that opinion polls are being ignored. I think a more neutral question would have been: "Are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls on Brexit? If so, why?", instead of "Why are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls."
– Time4Tea
10 hours ago
6
@Bregalad Opinion polls did not say "Trump had no chance to win the election". They listed a chance. That chance was less than even odds -- so they said he /probably/ wasn't going to win, but they gave the chance as non-zero. If I remember rightly, on the day of the election FiveThirtyEight.com listed the odds of him winning as something like 1/5 -- that is very far from being "no chance".
– owjburnham
10 hours ago
3
No, presidential elections are not redone every 4 years. The term limit IS 4 years. That is similar to voting on a budget that must be renewed every year. There is a time limit specified which requires another election/vote when it ends. Did people vote to only be brexit for 3 years? As far as I know there is no time specified for brexit. Most policies with no time limit on them are indefinite until another policy is passed, and we haven't even implemented brexit yet. It is far too early to hold another vote.
– Matthew Liu
6 hours ago
10
10
Why was this downvoted? Please explain. It seems like a perfectly good question, even if the answer may be obvious to some people. It's certainly not obvious to me.
– phoog
22 hours ago
Why was this downvoted? Please explain. It seems like a perfectly good question, even if the answer may be obvious to some people. It's certainly not obvious to me.
– phoog
22 hours ago
42
42
Not a downvoter, but opinion polls were also against brexit one day before the vote, also opinion polls said Trump had no chance to win the election, etc, etc... Such polls have no value.
– Bregalad
18 hours ago
Not a downvoter, but opinion polls were also against brexit one day before the vote, also opinion polls said Trump had no chance to win the election, etc, etc... Such polls have no value.
– Bregalad
18 hours ago
3
3
Re. the downvotes: there is an inherent assumption in the question that opinion polls are being ignored. I think a more neutral question would have been: "Are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls on Brexit? If so, why?", instead of "Why are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls."
– Time4Tea
10 hours ago
Re. the downvotes: there is an inherent assumption in the question that opinion polls are being ignored. I think a more neutral question would have been: "Are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls on Brexit? If so, why?", instead of "Why are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls."
– Time4Tea
10 hours ago
6
6
@Bregalad Opinion polls did not say "Trump had no chance to win the election". They listed a chance. That chance was less than even odds -- so they said he /probably/ wasn't going to win, but they gave the chance as non-zero. If I remember rightly, on the day of the election FiveThirtyEight.com listed the odds of him winning as something like 1/5 -- that is very far from being "no chance".
– owjburnham
10 hours ago
@Bregalad Opinion polls did not say "Trump had no chance to win the election". They listed a chance. That chance was less than even odds -- so they said he /probably/ wasn't going to win, but they gave the chance as non-zero. If I remember rightly, on the day of the election FiveThirtyEight.com listed the odds of him winning as something like 1/5 -- that is very far from being "no chance".
– owjburnham
10 hours ago
3
3
No, presidential elections are not redone every 4 years. The term limit IS 4 years. That is similar to voting on a budget that must be renewed every year. There is a time limit specified which requires another election/vote when it ends. Did people vote to only be brexit for 3 years? As far as I know there is no time specified for brexit. Most policies with no time limit on them are indefinite until another policy is passed, and we haven't even implemented brexit yet. It is far too early to hold another vote.
– Matthew Liu
6 hours ago
No, presidential elections are not redone every 4 years. The term limit IS 4 years. That is similar to voting on a budget that must be renewed every year. There is a time limit specified which requires another election/vote when it ends. Did people vote to only be brexit for 3 years? As far as I know there is no time specified for brexit. Most policies with no time limit on them are indefinite until another policy is passed, and we haven't even implemented brexit yet. It is far too early to hold another vote.
– Matthew Liu
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
It was discussed in the discussion on one of the online petitions. The standard Tory line against it is:
17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against
But Brexit, as currently being operated, is not a public-driven process. Even if it was, making it opinion-poll-driven on small daily fluctuations between 49/51 one way and the other would make no sense either.
No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power. There has been a risk of a split over Europe since at least the days of John Major. Everyone is aware that under the FPTP system a split would be completely fatal to the party.
This causes an endless cycle of making concessions to one group within the party to prevent them defecting, followed by the discovery that those concessions have angered another wing of the party, or are infeasible to deliver, or the EU won't agree to them, and so on. It also explains the weird stasis where the government is unable to command a majority for its flagship legislation but has not yet lost a vote of no confidence.
9
To be fair, the risk of a split over Brexit also applies to Labour. Both parties recently had defectors over their Brexit policy. That's why Labour has to be indirect when accusing the Tories of indecisiveness..
– MSalters
15 hours ago
1
"17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against" - and article 50 was indeed invoked... however I don't think that answers the question; since there are a lot of acts that have been repealed.
– UKMonkey
12 hours ago
4
@UKMonkey it's very much a politician answer - it's true in a strictly factual sense, but is very far from a whole answer that addresses all the issues.
– pjc50
12 hours ago
"No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power" actually, May's method of operation does not suggest this at all.
– Orangesandlemons
3 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: You may well question whether May's method is effective for reaching that goal -- but she does seem to honestly think it is the one that is least likely to fail. And can you suggest anything she could have done that would have worked better?
– Henning Makholm
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
There is no strong evidence that UK politicians are ignoring opinion polls. There is some evidence that the information in the opinion polls is more subtle than what's expressed in the headline figures. Consider this Survation poll for the Daily Mail, with fieldwork conducted on the 15th March 2019. The headline question is
Imagine there was a referendum tomorrow with the question. 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?
and for likely voters, ignoring don't knows, the breakdown is
Leave 47%
Remain 53%
in line with your question. However the tables also have the breakdown by party voted for the in the 2017 General Election. This gives a split for the Conservatives of 62% Leave - 38% Remain, of Labour 34% Leave, 66% Remain. Meanwhile the SNP and Liberal Democrats split towards Remain by 79% to 21% and 73% to 27% respectively.
So all told, the party in government is following the wishes of its electorate by attempting to deliver Brexit, even if it's at constant risk of sparking an internal political civil war about what Leaving actually means.
Meanwhile the Labour party is in an unfortunate position:
Any firm positive action in either direct will displease one wing or other of its party, leading to a perception of disunity which will cost it votes.
Many of those pro-Remain Labour supporters are in London and other large cities, whereas many battleground constituencies are pro-Leave or more evenly split. Hence a switch to Remain could cost it a disproportionate number of seats in the next election.
Just switching back to a pro-Remain stance allows soft attacks on being anti-democratic for ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum.
Meanwhile, the SNP have no real need to point to current opinion polls, since Scotland voted Remain and the party ran an anti-Brexit Manifesto. The last point is also true of the Liberal Democrats.
There's a lot more that could be said by looking at the figures comparing voting intentions now with voting patterns in 2016 (the short version is that relatively few people appear to be actively switching, so some of this signal is be being driven by non-voters) but that would need a much larger meta-analysis of polls.
2
IIUC, SNP and LibDem voters both favor remain, yet you list their percentages as "79% to 21% and 27% to 73% respectively".
– hkBst
13 hours ago
@hkBst thank you. That's what comes of swapping the order of one set of figures, then attempting to make the text flow better.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
I've taken the liberty of editing the paragraph on the Labour position. The parenthetical comment on electoral mathematics seems to me to merit more prominence, so I've split that paragraph into bullets. Please feel free to revert if I've misunderstood.
– Paul Johnson
10 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer is slightly different for each of the two main parties (Labour and Tories) but boils down to trying to upset as few people as possible with an eye on the next general election.
Consider the ramifications of changing their policy from delivering brexit to cancelling it. That would certainly annoy many millions of leave voters. On the other hand sticking with "we want a unicorn no-damage no-down-side brexit" and blaming the failure to deliver it on other people just plays into people's existing opinions that politicians are generally useless and you pick the least worst one.
The Tories have additional problems with any possible brexit ripping the party apart. That's why May tried for so long to not commit to anything, merely spewing literally meaningless slogans like "brexit means brexit".
Labour could more easily switch to remain, but a much better strategy for them is to support a confirmatory referendum. That way they can blame the failure to deliver on the Tories, and claim they delivered the will of the people with minimal responsibility. Of course some will blame them for even having a second referendum, but it's the least bad option for them.
add a comment |
In practical and on principle, being a slave to the polls is a bad idea.
The politicians who favour remaining in the EU ignored the polls from the 1970s to 2015 that have shown sometimes wide margins in favour of leaving. Arguing that something is right because a fickle public are currently in favour of it is politically risky, as it seems certain that the public mood will change and change again.
In principle, politicians are elected to lead. The principle of "Parliamentary sovereignty" is almost an article of dogma to many MPs. The idea that an MP will change their mind on a matter only because the opinion polls are against it. would erode this principle. In private and behind the façade of Westminster we know that they are very interested in opinion polls (and focus groups, and audiance response surveys etc). But in public they try to act as if they are motivated only by their own judgement and understanding of an issue.
I don't agree with the last paragraph - traditionally individual MPs are unimportant and the government executive has control through party whip and control of the order paper. It's historically somewhat rare for MPs to go against government policy at all, and even more rare for Ministers. It's only recently that it's becoming apparent that all options are disastrous that they are breaking ranks.
– pjc50
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I would imagine that its because that's not how democracy works.
In your standard democratic vote, everyone chooses, in good faith, a decision that they believe to be best. If then the votes result does not swing your way, you are unfortunately restricted by the democratic element of the vote to honour it anyways. Therefore, when the governing body sees a poll, of a small fraction of the voters, that requests the decision be revoked, they will ignore it. This is because it is not only undemocratic, but unfair.
Small polls or protests from a side that lost a vote is simply irrelevant. People may argue that opinions have changed, yet these small polls take such little proportions into account it'd be impossible to show anything without a second referendum. It's therefore necessary for the government to ignore minor protesting or polls and continue to deliver what people voted for, just as if a Prime minister was hated they would still serve their full term.
A second referendum would be undemocratic and seems as though the voters have played a coin flip, only to demand a second go when they lose. No matter what your stance on Brexit is, you have to respect the democracy of the situation. The government are not displaying ignorance of the voters, rather they have chosen to follow them, towards a decision that the government did not want.
New contributor
small polls
, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?
– JJJ
5 hours ago
add a comment |
So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum
They had
A referendum
A GE where the lib Dems as the only 'remain' party did badly.
This leaves the implication of your 'at least' highly suspect; to ignore to votes for an opinion poll in order to do 'what the people want' is absurd. (There is an argument of ignoring the vote because of best interest, but that's another matter)
As to having another vote, that is a more complicated matter, but part of the criticism of the EU in the past was the 'neverendum', which almost certainly plays a part.
Also note that while arguing for a vote on the aspects deal can be sold as a practical matter, having a vote because of what opinion polls say is opening a whole can of worms. For instance, what if people are dissatisfied with a government halfway through a mandate?
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40340%2fwhy-do-uk-politicians-seemingly-ignore-opinion-polls-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It was discussed in the discussion on one of the online petitions. The standard Tory line against it is:
17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against
But Brexit, as currently being operated, is not a public-driven process. Even if it was, making it opinion-poll-driven on small daily fluctuations between 49/51 one way and the other would make no sense either.
No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power. There has been a risk of a split over Europe since at least the days of John Major. Everyone is aware that under the FPTP system a split would be completely fatal to the party.
This causes an endless cycle of making concessions to one group within the party to prevent them defecting, followed by the discovery that those concessions have angered another wing of the party, or are infeasible to deliver, or the EU won't agree to them, and so on. It also explains the weird stasis where the government is unable to command a majority for its flagship legislation but has not yet lost a vote of no confidence.
9
To be fair, the risk of a split over Brexit also applies to Labour. Both parties recently had defectors over their Brexit policy. That's why Labour has to be indirect when accusing the Tories of indecisiveness..
– MSalters
15 hours ago
1
"17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against" - and article 50 was indeed invoked... however I don't think that answers the question; since there are a lot of acts that have been repealed.
– UKMonkey
12 hours ago
4
@UKMonkey it's very much a politician answer - it's true in a strictly factual sense, but is very far from a whole answer that addresses all the issues.
– pjc50
12 hours ago
"No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power" actually, May's method of operation does not suggest this at all.
– Orangesandlemons
3 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: You may well question whether May's method is effective for reaching that goal -- but she does seem to honestly think it is the one that is least likely to fail. And can you suggest anything she could have done that would have worked better?
– Henning Makholm
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
It was discussed in the discussion on one of the online petitions. The standard Tory line against it is:
17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against
But Brexit, as currently being operated, is not a public-driven process. Even if it was, making it opinion-poll-driven on small daily fluctuations between 49/51 one way and the other would make no sense either.
No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power. There has been a risk of a split over Europe since at least the days of John Major. Everyone is aware that under the FPTP system a split would be completely fatal to the party.
This causes an endless cycle of making concessions to one group within the party to prevent them defecting, followed by the discovery that those concessions have angered another wing of the party, or are infeasible to deliver, or the EU won't agree to them, and so on. It also explains the weird stasis where the government is unable to command a majority for its flagship legislation but has not yet lost a vote of no confidence.
9
To be fair, the risk of a split over Brexit also applies to Labour. Both parties recently had defectors over their Brexit policy. That's why Labour has to be indirect when accusing the Tories of indecisiveness..
– MSalters
15 hours ago
1
"17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against" - and article 50 was indeed invoked... however I don't think that answers the question; since there are a lot of acts that have been repealed.
– UKMonkey
12 hours ago
4
@UKMonkey it's very much a politician answer - it's true in a strictly factual sense, but is very far from a whole answer that addresses all the issues.
– pjc50
12 hours ago
"No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power" actually, May's method of operation does not suggest this at all.
– Orangesandlemons
3 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: You may well question whether May's method is effective for reaching that goal -- but she does seem to honestly think it is the one that is least likely to fail. And can you suggest anything she could have done that would have worked better?
– Henning Makholm
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
It was discussed in the discussion on one of the online petitions. The standard Tory line against it is:
17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against
But Brexit, as currently being operated, is not a public-driven process. Even if it was, making it opinion-poll-driven on small daily fluctuations between 49/51 one way and the other would make no sense either.
No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power. There has been a risk of a split over Europe since at least the days of John Major. Everyone is aware that under the FPTP system a split would be completely fatal to the party.
This causes an endless cycle of making concessions to one group within the party to prevent them defecting, followed by the discovery that those concessions have angered another wing of the party, or are infeasible to deliver, or the EU won't agree to them, and so on. It also explains the weird stasis where the government is unable to command a majority for its flagship legislation but has not yet lost a vote of no confidence.
It was discussed in the discussion on one of the online petitions. The standard Tory line against it is:
17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against
But Brexit, as currently being operated, is not a public-driven process. Even if it was, making it opinion-poll-driven on small daily fluctuations between 49/51 one way and the other would make no sense either.
No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power. There has been a risk of a split over Europe since at least the days of John Major. Everyone is aware that under the FPTP system a split would be completely fatal to the party.
This causes an endless cycle of making concessions to one group within the party to prevent them defecting, followed by the discovery that those concessions have angered another wing of the party, or are infeasible to deliver, or the EU won't agree to them, and so on. It also explains the weird stasis where the government is unable to command a majority for its flagship legislation but has not yet lost a vote of no confidence.
edited 14 hours ago
terdon
279137
279137
answered 16 hours ago
pjc50pjc50
8,17311935
8,17311935
9
To be fair, the risk of a split over Brexit also applies to Labour. Both parties recently had defectors over their Brexit policy. That's why Labour has to be indirect when accusing the Tories of indecisiveness..
– MSalters
15 hours ago
1
"17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against" - and article 50 was indeed invoked... however I don't think that answers the question; since there are a lot of acts that have been repealed.
– UKMonkey
12 hours ago
4
@UKMonkey it's very much a politician answer - it's true in a strictly factual sense, but is very far from a whole answer that addresses all the issues.
– pjc50
12 hours ago
"No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power" actually, May's method of operation does not suggest this at all.
– Orangesandlemons
3 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: You may well question whether May's method is effective for reaching that goal -- but she does seem to honestly think it is the one that is least likely to fail. And can you suggest anything she could have done that would have worked better?
– Henning Makholm
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
9
To be fair, the risk of a split over Brexit also applies to Labour. Both parties recently had defectors over their Brexit policy. That's why Labour has to be indirect when accusing the Tories of indecisiveness..
– MSalters
15 hours ago
1
"17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against" - and article 50 was indeed invoked... however I don't think that answers the question; since there are a lot of acts that have been repealed.
– UKMonkey
12 hours ago
4
@UKMonkey it's very much a politician answer - it's true in a strictly factual sense, but is very far from a whole answer that addresses all the issues.
– pjc50
12 hours ago
"No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power" actually, May's method of operation does not suggest this at all.
– Orangesandlemons
3 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: You may well question whether May's method is effective for reaching that goal -- but she does seem to honestly think it is the one that is least likely to fail. And can you suggest anything she could have done that would have worked better?
– Henning Makholm
3 hours ago
9
9
To be fair, the risk of a split over Brexit also applies to Labour. Both parties recently had defectors over their Brexit policy. That's why Labour has to be indirect when accusing the Tories of indecisiveness..
– MSalters
15 hours ago
To be fair, the risk of a split over Brexit also applies to Labour. Both parties recently had defectors over their Brexit policy. That's why Labour has to be indirect when accusing the Tories of indecisiveness..
– MSalters
15 hours ago
1
1
"17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against" - and article 50 was indeed invoked... however I don't think that answers the question; since there are a lot of acts that have been repealed.
– UKMonkey
12 hours ago
"17.4 million people voted to leave. After that, 499 Members of Parliament voted in favour of invoking article 50, and 122 voted against" - and article 50 was indeed invoked... however I don't think that answers the question; since there are a lot of acts that have been repealed.
– UKMonkey
12 hours ago
4
4
@UKMonkey it's very much a politician answer - it's true in a strictly factual sense, but is very far from a whole answer that addresses all the issues.
– pjc50
12 hours ago
@UKMonkey it's very much a politician answer - it's true in a strictly factual sense, but is very far from a whole answer that addresses all the issues.
– pjc50
12 hours ago
"No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power" actually, May's method of operation does not suggest this at all.
– Orangesandlemons
3 hours ago
"No, the absolute driving motivation is to keep the Tory party together and in power" actually, May's method of operation does not suggest this at all.
– Orangesandlemons
3 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: You may well question whether May's method is effective for reaching that goal -- but she does seem to honestly think it is the one that is least likely to fail. And can you suggest anything she could have done that would have worked better?
– Henning Makholm
3 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: You may well question whether May's method is effective for reaching that goal -- but she does seem to honestly think it is the one that is least likely to fail. And can you suggest anything she could have done that would have worked better?
– Henning Makholm
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
There is no strong evidence that UK politicians are ignoring opinion polls. There is some evidence that the information in the opinion polls is more subtle than what's expressed in the headline figures. Consider this Survation poll for the Daily Mail, with fieldwork conducted on the 15th March 2019. The headline question is
Imagine there was a referendum tomorrow with the question. 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?
and for likely voters, ignoring don't knows, the breakdown is
Leave 47%
Remain 53%
in line with your question. However the tables also have the breakdown by party voted for the in the 2017 General Election. This gives a split for the Conservatives of 62% Leave - 38% Remain, of Labour 34% Leave, 66% Remain. Meanwhile the SNP and Liberal Democrats split towards Remain by 79% to 21% and 73% to 27% respectively.
So all told, the party in government is following the wishes of its electorate by attempting to deliver Brexit, even if it's at constant risk of sparking an internal political civil war about what Leaving actually means.
Meanwhile the Labour party is in an unfortunate position:
Any firm positive action in either direct will displease one wing or other of its party, leading to a perception of disunity which will cost it votes.
Many of those pro-Remain Labour supporters are in London and other large cities, whereas many battleground constituencies are pro-Leave or more evenly split. Hence a switch to Remain could cost it a disproportionate number of seats in the next election.
Just switching back to a pro-Remain stance allows soft attacks on being anti-democratic for ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum.
Meanwhile, the SNP have no real need to point to current opinion polls, since Scotland voted Remain and the party ran an anti-Brexit Manifesto. The last point is also true of the Liberal Democrats.
There's a lot more that could be said by looking at the figures comparing voting intentions now with voting patterns in 2016 (the short version is that relatively few people appear to be actively switching, so some of this signal is be being driven by non-voters) but that would need a much larger meta-analysis of polls.
2
IIUC, SNP and LibDem voters both favor remain, yet you list their percentages as "79% to 21% and 27% to 73% respectively".
– hkBst
13 hours ago
@hkBst thank you. That's what comes of swapping the order of one set of figures, then attempting to make the text flow better.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
I've taken the liberty of editing the paragraph on the Labour position. The parenthetical comment on electoral mathematics seems to me to merit more prominence, so I've split that paragraph into bullets. Please feel free to revert if I've misunderstood.
– Paul Johnson
10 hours ago
add a comment |
There is no strong evidence that UK politicians are ignoring opinion polls. There is some evidence that the information in the opinion polls is more subtle than what's expressed in the headline figures. Consider this Survation poll for the Daily Mail, with fieldwork conducted on the 15th March 2019. The headline question is
Imagine there was a referendum tomorrow with the question. 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?
and for likely voters, ignoring don't knows, the breakdown is
Leave 47%
Remain 53%
in line with your question. However the tables also have the breakdown by party voted for the in the 2017 General Election. This gives a split for the Conservatives of 62% Leave - 38% Remain, of Labour 34% Leave, 66% Remain. Meanwhile the SNP and Liberal Democrats split towards Remain by 79% to 21% and 73% to 27% respectively.
So all told, the party in government is following the wishes of its electorate by attempting to deliver Brexit, even if it's at constant risk of sparking an internal political civil war about what Leaving actually means.
Meanwhile the Labour party is in an unfortunate position:
Any firm positive action in either direct will displease one wing or other of its party, leading to a perception of disunity which will cost it votes.
Many of those pro-Remain Labour supporters are in London and other large cities, whereas many battleground constituencies are pro-Leave or more evenly split. Hence a switch to Remain could cost it a disproportionate number of seats in the next election.
Just switching back to a pro-Remain stance allows soft attacks on being anti-democratic for ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum.
Meanwhile, the SNP have no real need to point to current opinion polls, since Scotland voted Remain and the party ran an anti-Brexit Manifesto. The last point is also true of the Liberal Democrats.
There's a lot more that could be said by looking at the figures comparing voting intentions now with voting patterns in 2016 (the short version is that relatively few people appear to be actively switching, so some of this signal is be being driven by non-voters) but that would need a much larger meta-analysis of polls.
2
IIUC, SNP and LibDem voters both favor remain, yet you list their percentages as "79% to 21% and 27% to 73% respectively".
– hkBst
13 hours ago
@hkBst thank you. That's what comes of swapping the order of one set of figures, then attempting to make the text flow better.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
I've taken the liberty of editing the paragraph on the Labour position. The parenthetical comment on electoral mathematics seems to me to merit more prominence, so I've split that paragraph into bullets. Please feel free to revert if I've misunderstood.
– Paul Johnson
10 hours ago
add a comment |
There is no strong evidence that UK politicians are ignoring opinion polls. There is some evidence that the information in the opinion polls is more subtle than what's expressed in the headline figures. Consider this Survation poll for the Daily Mail, with fieldwork conducted on the 15th March 2019. The headline question is
Imagine there was a referendum tomorrow with the question. 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?
and for likely voters, ignoring don't knows, the breakdown is
Leave 47%
Remain 53%
in line with your question. However the tables also have the breakdown by party voted for the in the 2017 General Election. This gives a split for the Conservatives of 62% Leave - 38% Remain, of Labour 34% Leave, 66% Remain. Meanwhile the SNP and Liberal Democrats split towards Remain by 79% to 21% and 73% to 27% respectively.
So all told, the party in government is following the wishes of its electorate by attempting to deliver Brexit, even if it's at constant risk of sparking an internal political civil war about what Leaving actually means.
Meanwhile the Labour party is in an unfortunate position:
Any firm positive action in either direct will displease one wing or other of its party, leading to a perception of disunity which will cost it votes.
Many of those pro-Remain Labour supporters are in London and other large cities, whereas many battleground constituencies are pro-Leave or more evenly split. Hence a switch to Remain could cost it a disproportionate number of seats in the next election.
Just switching back to a pro-Remain stance allows soft attacks on being anti-democratic for ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum.
Meanwhile, the SNP have no real need to point to current opinion polls, since Scotland voted Remain and the party ran an anti-Brexit Manifesto. The last point is also true of the Liberal Democrats.
There's a lot more that could be said by looking at the figures comparing voting intentions now with voting patterns in 2016 (the short version is that relatively few people appear to be actively switching, so some of this signal is be being driven by non-voters) but that would need a much larger meta-analysis of polls.
There is no strong evidence that UK politicians are ignoring opinion polls. There is some evidence that the information in the opinion polls is more subtle than what's expressed in the headline figures. Consider this Survation poll for the Daily Mail, with fieldwork conducted on the 15th March 2019. The headline question is
Imagine there was a referendum tomorrow with the question. 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?
and for likely voters, ignoring don't knows, the breakdown is
Leave 47%
Remain 53%
in line with your question. However the tables also have the breakdown by party voted for the in the 2017 General Election. This gives a split for the Conservatives of 62% Leave - 38% Remain, of Labour 34% Leave, 66% Remain. Meanwhile the SNP and Liberal Democrats split towards Remain by 79% to 21% and 73% to 27% respectively.
So all told, the party in government is following the wishes of its electorate by attempting to deliver Brexit, even if it's at constant risk of sparking an internal political civil war about what Leaving actually means.
Meanwhile the Labour party is in an unfortunate position:
Any firm positive action in either direct will displease one wing or other of its party, leading to a perception of disunity which will cost it votes.
Many of those pro-Remain Labour supporters are in London and other large cities, whereas many battleground constituencies are pro-Leave or more evenly split. Hence a switch to Remain could cost it a disproportionate number of seats in the next election.
Just switching back to a pro-Remain stance allows soft attacks on being anti-democratic for ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum.
Meanwhile, the SNP have no real need to point to current opinion polls, since Scotland voted Remain and the party ran an anti-Brexit Manifesto. The last point is also true of the Liberal Democrats.
There's a lot more that could be said by looking at the figures comparing voting intentions now with voting patterns in 2016 (the short version is that relatively few people appear to be actively switching, so some of this signal is be being driven by non-voters) but that would need a much larger meta-analysis of polls.
edited 10 hours ago
Paul Johnson
8,43642038
8,43642038
answered 15 hours ago
origimboorigimbo
13.3k23254
13.3k23254
2
IIUC, SNP and LibDem voters both favor remain, yet you list their percentages as "79% to 21% and 27% to 73% respectively".
– hkBst
13 hours ago
@hkBst thank you. That's what comes of swapping the order of one set of figures, then attempting to make the text flow better.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
I've taken the liberty of editing the paragraph on the Labour position. The parenthetical comment on electoral mathematics seems to me to merit more prominence, so I've split that paragraph into bullets. Please feel free to revert if I've misunderstood.
– Paul Johnson
10 hours ago
add a comment |
2
IIUC, SNP and LibDem voters both favor remain, yet you list their percentages as "79% to 21% and 27% to 73% respectively".
– hkBst
13 hours ago
@hkBst thank you. That's what comes of swapping the order of one set of figures, then attempting to make the text flow better.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
I've taken the liberty of editing the paragraph on the Labour position. The parenthetical comment on electoral mathematics seems to me to merit more prominence, so I've split that paragraph into bullets. Please feel free to revert if I've misunderstood.
– Paul Johnson
10 hours ago
2
2
IIUC, SNP and LibDem voters both favor remain, yet you list their percentages as "79% to 21% and 27% to 73% respectively".
– hkBst
13 hours ago
IIUC, SNP and LibDem voters both favor remain, yet you list their percentages as "79% to 21% and 27% to 73% respectively".
– hkBst
13 hours ago
@hkBst thank you. That's what comes of swapping the order of one set of figures, then attempting to make the text flow better.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
@hkBst thank you. That's what comes of swapping the order of one set of figures, then attempting to make the text flow better.
– origimbo
12 hours ago
I've taken the liberty of editing the paragraph on the Labour position. The parenthetical comment on electoral mathematics seems to me to merit more prominence, so I've split that paragraph into bullets. Please feel free to revert if I've misunderstood.
– Paul Johnson
10 hours ago
I've taken the liberty of editing the paragraph on the Labour position. The parenthetical comment on electoral mathematics seems to me to merit more prominence, so I've split that paragraph into bullets. Please feel free to revert if I've misunderstood.
– Paul Johnson
10 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer is slightly different for each of the two main parties (Labour and Tories) but boils down to trying to upset as few people as possible with an eye on the next general election.
Consider the ramifications of changing their policy from delivering brexit to cancelling it. That would certainly annoy many millions of leave voters. On the other hand sticking with "we want a unicorn no-damage no-down-side brexit" and blaming the failure to deliver it on other people just plays into people's existing opinions that politicians are generally useless and you pick the least worst one.
The Tories have additional problems with any possible brexit ripping the party apart. That's why May tried for so long to not commit to anything, merely spewing literally meaningless slogans like "brexit means brexit".
Labour could more easily switch to remain, but a much better strategy for them is to support a confirmatory referendum. That way they can blame the failure to deliver on the Tories, and claim they delivered the will of the people with minimal responsibility. Of course some will blame them for even having a second referendum, but it's the least bad option for them.
add a comment |
The answer is slightly different for each of the two main parties (Labour and Tories) but boils down to trying to upset as few people as possible with an eye on the next general election.
Consider the ramifications of changing their policy from delivering brexit to cancelling it. That would certainly annoy many millions of leave voters. On the other hand sticking with "we want a unicorn no-damage no-down-side brexit" and blaming the failure to deliver it on other people just plays into people's existing opinions that politicians are generally useless and you pick the least worst one.
The Tories have additional problems with any possible brexit ripping the party apart. That's why May tried for so long to not commit to anything, merely spewing literally meaningless slogans like "brexit means brexit".
Labour could more easily switch to remain, but a much better strategy for them is to support a confirmatory referendum. That way they can blame the failure to deliver on the Tories, and claim they delivered the will of the people with minimal responsibility. Of course some will blame them for even having a second referendum, but it's the least bad option for them.
add a comment |
The answer is slightly different for each of the two main parties (Labour and Tories) but boils down to trying to upset as few people as possible with an eye on the next general election.
Consider the ramifications of changing their policy from delivering brexit to cancelling it. That would certainly annoy many millions of leave voters. On the other hand sticking with "we want a unicorn no-damage no-down-side brexit" and blaming the failure to deliver it on other people just plays into people's existing opinions that politicians are generally useless and you pick the least worst one.
The Tories have additional problems with any possible brexit ripping the party apart. That's why May tried for so long to not commit to anything, merely spewing literally meaningless slogans like "brexit means brexit".
Labour could more easily switch to remain, but a much better strategy for them is to support a confirmatory referendum. That way they can blame the failure to deliver on the Tories, and claim they delivered the will of the people with minimal responsibility. Of course some will blame them for even having a second referendum, but it's the least bad option for them.
The answer is slightly different for each of the two main parties (Labour and Tories) but boils down to trying to upset as few people as possible with an eye on the next general election.
Consider the ramifications of changing their policy from delivering brexit to cancelling it. That would certainly annoy many millions of leave voters. On the other hand sticking with "we want a unicorn no-damage no-down-side brexit" and blaming the failure to deliver it on other people just plays into people's existing opinions that politicians are generally useless and you pick the least worst one.
The Tories have additional problems with any possible brexit ripping the party apart. That's why May tried for so long to not commit to anything, merely spewing literally meaningless slogans like "brexit means brexit".
Labour could more easily switch to remain, but a much better strategy for them is to support a confirmatory referendum. That way they can blame the failure to deliver on the Tories, and claim they delivered the will of the people with minimal responsibility. Of course some will blame them for even having a second referendum, but it's the least bad option for them.
answered 16 hours ago
useruser
10.5k32442
10.5k32442
add a comment |
add a comment |
In practical and on principle, being a slave to the polls is a bad idea.
The politicians who favour remaining in the EU ignored the polls from the 1970s to 2015 that have shown sometimes wide margins in favour of leaving. Arguing that something is right because a fickle public are currently in favour of it is politically risky, as it seems certain that the public mood will change and change again.
In principle, politicians are elected to lead. The principle of "Parliamentary sovereignty" is almost an article of dogma to many MPs. The idea that an MP will change their mind on a matter only because the opinion polls are against it. would erode this principle. In private and behind the façade of Westminster we know that they are very interested in opinion polls (and focus groups, and audiance response surveys etc). But in public they try to act as if they are motivated only by their own judgement and understanding of an issue.
I don't agree with the last paragraph - traditionally individual MPs are unimportant and the government executive has control through party whip and control of the order paper. It's historically somewhat rare for MPs to go against government policy at all, and even more rare for Ministers. It's only recently that it's becoming apparent that all options are disastrous that they are breaking ranks.
– pjc50
14 hours ago
add a comment |
In practical and on principle, being a slave to the polls is a bad idea.
The politicians who favour remaining in the EU ignored the polls from the 1970s to 2015 that have shown sometimes wide margins in favour of leaving. Arguing that something is right because a fickle public are currently in favour of it is politically risky, as it seems certain that the public mood will change and change again.
In principle, politicians are elected to lead. The principle of "Parliamentary sovereignty" is almost an article of dogma to many MPs. The idea that an MP will change their mind on a matter only because the opinion polls are against it. would erode this principle. In private and behind the façade of Westminster we know that they are very interested in opinion polls (and focus groups, and audiance response surveys etc). But in public they try to act as if they are motivated only by their own judgement and understanding of an issue.
I don't agree with the last paragraph - traditionally individual MPs are unimportant and the government executive has control through party whip and control of the order paper. It's historically somewhat rare for MPs to go against government policy at all, and even more rare for Ministers. It's only recently that it's becoming apparent that all options are disastrous that they are breaking ranks.
– pjc50
14 hours ago
add a comment |
In practical and on principle, being a slave to the polls is a bad idea.
The politicians who favour remaining in the EU ignored the polls from the 1970s to 2015 that have shown sometimes wide margins in favour of leaving. Arguing that something is right because a fickle public are currently in favour of it is politically risky, as it seems certain that the public mood will change and change again.
In principle, politicians are elected to lead. The principle of "Parliamentary sovereignty" is almost an article of dogma to many MPs. The idea that an MP will change their mind on a matter only because the opinion polls are against it. would erode this principle. In private and behind the façade of Westminster we know that they are very interested in opinion polls (and focus groups, and audiance response surveys etc). But in public they try to act as if they are motivated only by their own judgement and understanding of an issue.
In practical and on principle, being a slave to the polls is a bad idea.
The politicians who favour remaining in the EU ignored the polls from the 1970s to 2015 that have shown sometimes wide margins in favour of leaving. Arguing that something is right because a fickle public are currently in favour of it is politically risky, as it seems certain that the public mood will change and change again.
In principle, politicians are elected to lead. The principle of "Parliamentary sovereignty" is almost an article of dogma to many MPs. The idea that an MP will change their mind on a matter only because the opinion polls are against it. would erode this principle. In private and behind the façade of Westminster we know that they are very interested in opinion polls (and focus groups, and audiance response surveys etc). But in public they try to act as if they are motivated only by their own judgement and understanding of an issue.
answered 15 hours ago
James KJames K
36.4k8107155
36.4k8107155
I don't agree with the last paragraph - traditionally individual MPs are unimportant and the government executive has control through party whip and control of the order paper. It's historically somewhat rare for MPs to go against government policy at all, and even more rare for Ministers. It's only recently that it's becoming apparent that all options are disastrous that they are breaking ranks.
– pjc50
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I don't agree with the last paragraph - traditionally individual MPs are unimportant and the government executive has control through party whip and control of the order paper. It's historically somewhat rare for MPs to go against government policy at all, and even more rare for Ministers. It's only recently that it's becoming apparent that all options are disastrous that they are breaking ranks.
– pjc50
14 hours ago
I don't agree with the last paragraph - traditionally individual MPs are unimportant and the government executive has control through party whip and control of the order paper. It's historically somewhat rare for MPs to go against government policy at all, and even more rare for Ministers. It's only recently that it's becoming apparent that all options are disastrous that they are breaking ranks.
– pjc50
14 hours ago
I don't agree with the last paragraph - traditionally individual MPs are unimportant and the government executive has control through party whip and control of the order paper. It's historically somewhat rare for MPs to go against government policy at all, and even more rare for Ministers. It's only recently that it's becoming apparent that all options are disastrous that they are breaking ranks.
– pjc50
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I would imagine that its because that's not how democracy works.
In your standard democratic vote, everyone chooses, in good faith, a decision that they believe to be best. If then the votes result does not swing your way, you are unfortunately restricted by the democratic element of the vote to honour it anyways. Therefore, when the governing body sees a poll, of a small fraction of the voters, that requests the decision be revoked, they will ignore it. This is because it is not only undemocratic, but unfair.
Small polls or protests from a side that lost a vote is simply irrelevant. People may argue that opinions have changed, yet these small polls take such little proportions into account it'd be impossible to show anything without a second referendum. It's therefore necessary for the government to ignore minor protesting or polls and continue to deliver what people voted for, just as if a Prime minister was hated they would still serve their full term.
A second referendum would be undemocratic and seems as though the voters have played a coin flip, only to demand a second go when they lose. No matter what your stance on Brexit is, you have to respect the democracy of the situation. The government are not displaying ignorance of the voters, rather they have chosen to follow them, towards a decision that the government did not want.
New contributor
small polls
, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?
– JJJ
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I would imagine that its because that's not how democracy works.
In your standard democratic vote, everyone chooses, in good faith, a decision that they believe to be best. If then the votes result does not swing your way, you are unfortunately restricted by the democratic element of the vote to honour it anyways. Therefore, when the governing body sees a poll, of a small fraction of the voters, that requests the decision be revoked, they will ignore it. This is because it is not only undemocratic, but unfair.
Small polls or protests from a side that lost a vote is simply irrelevant. People may argue that opinions have changed, yet these small polls take such little proportions into account it'd be impossible to show anything without a second referendum. It's therefore necessary for the government to ignore minor protesting or polls and continue to deliver what people voted for, just as if a Prime minister was hated they would still serve their full term.
A second referendum would be undemocratic and seems as though the voters have played a coin flip, only to demand a second go when they lose. No matter what your stance on Brexit is, you have to respect the democracy of the situation. The government are not displaying ignorance of the voters, rather they have chosen to follow them, towards a decision that the government did not want.
New contributor
small polls
, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?
– JJJ
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I would imagine that its because that's not how democracy works.
In your standard democratic vote, everyone chooses, in good faith, a decision that they believe to be best. If then the votes result does not swing your way, you are unfortunately restricted by the democratic element of the vote to honour it anyways. Therefore, when the governing body sees a poll, of a small fraction of the voters, that requests the decision be revoked, they will ignore it. This is because it is not only undemocratic, but unfair.
Small polls or protests from a side that lost a vote is simply irrelevant. People may argue that opinions have changed, yet these small polls take such little proportions into account it'd be impossible to show anything without a second referendum. It's therefore necessary for the government to ignore minor protesting or polls and continue to deliver what people voted for, just as if a Prime minister was hated they would still serve their full term.
A second referendum would be undemocratic and seems as though the voters have played a coin flip, only to demand a second go when they lose. No matter what your stance on Brexit is, you have to respect the democracy of the situation. The government are not displaying ignorance of the voters, rather they have chosen to follow them, towards a decision that the government did not want.
New contributor
I would imagine that its because that's not how democracy works.
In your standard democratic vote, everyone chooses, in good faith, a decision that they believe to be best. If then the votes result does not swing your way, you are unfortunately restricted by the democratic element of the vote to honour it anyways. Therefore, when the governing body sees a poll, of a small fraction of the voters, that requests the decision be revoked, they will ignore it. This is because it is not only undemocratic, but unfair.
Small polls or protests from a side that lost a vote is simply irrelevant. People may argue that opinions have changed, yet these small polls take such little proportions into account it'd be impossible to show anything without a second referendum. It's therefore necessary for the government to ignore minor protesting or polls and continue to deliver what people voted for, just as if a Prime minister was hated they would still serve their full term.
A second referendum would be undemocratic and seems as though the voters have played a coin flip, only to demand a second go when they lose. No matter what your stance on Brexit is, you have to respect the democracy of the situation. The government are not displaying ignorance of the voters, rather they have chosen to follow them, towards a decision that the government did not want.
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
JJJ
6,02822454
6,02822454
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
Tom RTom R
211
211
New contributor
New contributor
small polls
, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?
– JJJ
5 hours ago
add a comment |
small polls
, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?
– JJJ
5 hours ago
small polls
, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?– JJJ
5 hours ago
small polls
, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?– JJJ
5 hours ago
add a comment |
So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum
They had
A referendum
A GE where the lib Dems as the only 'remain' party did badly.
This leaves the implication of your 'at least' highly suspect; to ignore to votes for an opinion poll in order to do 'what the people want' is absurd. (There is an argument of ignoring the vote because of best interest, but that's another matter)
As to having another vote, that is a more complicated matter, but part of the criticism of the EU in the past was the 'neverendum', which almost certainly plays a part.
Also note that while arguing for a vote on the aspects deal can be sold as a practical matter, having a vote because of what opinion polls say is opening a whole can of worms. For instance, what if people are dissatisfied with a government halfway through a mandate?
add a comment |
So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum
They had
A referendum
A GE where the lib Dems as the only 'remain' party did badly.
This leaves the implication of your 'at least' highly suspect; to ignore to votes for an opinion poll in order to do 'what the people want' is absurd. (There is an argument of ignoring the vote because of best interest, but that's another matter)
As to having another vote, that is a more complicated matter, but part of the criticism of the EU in the past was the 'neverendum', which almost certainly plays a part.
Also note that while arguing for a vote on the aspects deal can be sold as a practical matter, having a vote because of what opinion polls say is opening a whole can of worms. For instance, what if people are dissatisfied with a government halfway through a mandate?
add a comment |
So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum
They had
A referendum
A GE where the lib Dems as the only 'remain' party did badly.
This leaves the implication of your 'at least' highly suspect; to ignore to votes for an opinion poll in order to do 'what the people want' is absurd. (There is an argument of ignoring the vote because of best interest, but that's another matter)
As to having another vote, that is a more complicated matter, but part of the criticism of the EU in the past was the 'neverendum', which almost certainly plays a part.
Also note that while arguing for a vote on the aspects deal can be sold as a practical matter, having a vote because of what opinion polls say is opening a whole can of worms. For instance, what if people are dissatisfied with a government halfway through a mandate?
So why do British politicians seem to ignore their electorate and keep pushing for leaving the EU instead of at least voting for a new referendum
They had
A referendum
A GE where the lib Dems as the only 'remain' party did badly.
This leaves the implication of your 'at least' highly suspect; to ignore to votes for an opinion poll in order to do 'what the people want' is absurd. (There is an argument of ignoring the vote because of best interest, but that's another matter)
As to having another vote, that is a more complicated matter, but part of the criticism of the EU in the past was the 'neverendum', which almost certainly plays a part.
Also note that while arguing for a vote on the aspects deal can be sold as a practical matter, having a vote because of what opinion polls say is opening a whole can of worms. For instance, what if people are dissatisfied with a government halfway through a mandate?
answered 3 hours ago
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,434621
2,434621
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40340%2fwhy-do-uk-politicians-seemingly-ignore-opinion-polls-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
10
Why was this downvoted? Please explain. It seems like a perfectly good question, even if the answer may be obvious to some people. It's certainly not obvious to me.
– phoog
22 hours ago
42
Not a downvoter, but opinion polls were also against brexit one day before the vote, also opinion polls said Trump had no chance to win the election, etc, etc... Such polls have no value.
– Bregalad
18 hours ago
3
Re. the downvotes: there is an inherent assumption in the question that opinion polls are being ignored. I think a more neutral question would have been: "Are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls on Brexit? If so, why?", instead of "Why are UK politicians ignoring opinion polls."
– Time4Tea
10 hours ago
6
@Bregalad Opinion polls did not say "Trump had no chance to win the election". They listed a chance. That chance was less than even odds -- so they said he /probably/ wasn't going to win, but they gave the chance as non-zero. If I remember rightly, on the day of the election FiveThirtyEight.com listed the odds of him winning as something like 1/5 -- that is very far from being "no chance".
– owjburnham
10 hours ago
3
No, presidential elections are not redone every 4 years. The term limit IS 4 years. That is similar to voting on a budget that must be renewed every year. There is a time limit specified which requires another election/vote when it ends. Did people vote to only be brexit for 3 years? As far as I know there is no time specified for brexit. Most policies with no time limit on them are indefinite until another policy is passed, and we haven't even implemented brexit yet. It is far too early to hold another vote.
– Matthew Liu
6 hours ago