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?













33















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 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















33















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 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













33












33








33


1






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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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












  • 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










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















26














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.






share|improve this answer




















  • 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



















15














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.






share|improve this answer




















  • 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


















12














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.






share|improve this answer






























    6














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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


















    2














    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.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    • small polls, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?

      – JJJ
      5 hours ago


















    1















    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



    1. A referendum


    2. 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?






    share|improve this answer























      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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      26














      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.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 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
















      26














      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.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 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














      26












      26








      26







      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.






      share|improve this answer















      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      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













      • 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












      15














      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.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 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















      15














      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.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 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













      15












      15








      15







      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.






      share|improve this answer















      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      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












      • 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











      12














      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.






      share|improve this answer



























        12














        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.






        share|improve this answer

























          12












          12








          12







          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.






          share|improve this answer













          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 16 hours ago









          useruser

          10.5k32442




          10.5k32442





















              6














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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















              6














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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













              6












              6








              6







              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.






              share|improve this answer













              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              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

















              • 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











              2














              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.






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















              • small polls, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?

                – JJJ
                5 hours ago















              2














              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.






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















              • small polls, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?

                – JJJ
                5 hours ago













              2












              2








              2







              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.






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.










              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.







              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 5 hours ago









              JJJ

              6,02822454




              6,02822454






              New contributor




              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              answered 6 hours ago









              Tom RTom R

              211




              211




              New contributor




              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





              New contributor





              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              Tom R is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.












              • 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





              small polls, wouldn't that only be a problem if the polls aren't statistically representative?

              – JJJ
              5 hours ago











              1















              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



              1. A referendum


              2. 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?






              share|improve this answer



























                1















                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



                1. A referendum


                2. 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?






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1








                  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



                  1. A referendum


                  2. 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?






                  share|improve this answer














                  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



                  1. A referendum


                  2. 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?







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 3 hours ago









                  OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons

                  2,434621




                  2,434621



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                      Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                      Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її