Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Poll - Public trust Boris more than Parliament

Another Humdinger of a poll today - Comres for the Telegraph, with the paper's write-up here. However, here are my highlights -

Parliament is out of touch with the British public
Agree - 88%
Disagree - 12%

Don't knows were 12%

On Brexit, most MPs seem to ignore the wishes of voters and push their own agendas
Agree - 90%
Disagree - 10%

Don't knows 12%

Parliament is more in tune than Boris with the British public 
Agree - 38%
Disagree - 62%

And that's the tone of the poll; we don't wholly trust Boris, we don't think he can unite the country and the jury's out on his competence but by God he's miles better than this shoddy, anti-democratic Parliament, the country is saying. And that helps to understand the Telegraph headline from Q7

Boris needs to deliver Brexit by any means, including suspending parliament if necessary, in order to prevent MPs from stopping it
Agree - 54%
Disagree - 46%

It confirms the growing support from the last Opinium poll for 'Brexit now - deal or no deal'. And confirms my recent point that in any people vs parliament election if they force a vote of no confidence next month, they'll get slaughtered - rarely have I seen a parliament held in such contempt by the British people.

Right. Next .... the Lords.


Bloke in North Dorset said...

Nice results but I refer you to the Yes, PM episode on conscription.

We need to know a bit more about how the poll was carried out and how the questions were framed before getting too exited.

DeeDee99 said...

Whenever the next GE is held it will turn into a People v Parliament election. Even IF Boris somehow manages to push through Brexit there is a democratic score to be settled with many members of this disgraceful Parliament.

And then there's the House of Frauds ........

Raedwald said...

JPM - get your green ink out and write some poison pen letters to your fellow villagers. When you've vented your spite and bile come back and comment on the post.

JPM said...

But it isn't Al Johnson running the show, is it?

It's Dominic Cummings, we are informed.

Who elected him?

If I were really that crazy, I think that it'd be red ink these days, don't you, Raedwald?

DiscoveredJoys said...


Not your best effort. Particularly when people can point to Olly Robbins or Mark Sedwill guiding Mrs May away from her 'red lines'. Who elected them?

r said...

Boris stands astride, he can make history for the right reasons and be able to nail his plate with his name with (but a long way under) W. Spencer Churchill.

Or he falls, scrabbling down into the EU dung hill and we stay shackled, as unit slaves.

He - Boris also knows FULL well that the opprobrium he's taking from the remoaniacs will be as nothing, if, he defies the people's will.

Pat said...

Which is why there will be no vote of no confidence. It would trigger a general election, albeit after 14 days. Don't forget that Boris could whip his party to abstain- playing to lose the NC vote could well be playing to win the battle.

decnine said...

A 'people vs parliament' election needs some preparation. There must be, in every constituency, a candidate who is not one of Them. After getting us out, Boris must then purge the Conservative Party of Them. Otherwise we risk electing another instance of Them to replace the current one.

Mark said...

Red crayon probably

Sackerson said...

I don't understand the first two stats quoted - add up to more than 100. Though of course they reflect my feelings in general.

Raedwald said...

Sackerson - figs exclude don't knows

John Brown said...

Leave won 64:36 by constituency as well as winning the majority vote and it is utterly disgraceful how Parliament is now trying to block our leaving.

We also need to leave without signing the surrender WA, a trap cooked up by the unelected EU supporter Olly Robbins. As Mr. Macron said :

“The UK will be trapped in a customs union after Brexit unless Downing Street offers European fishermen full access to British waters during the coming trade negotiations.”

If a GE is to take place before Brexit, then the Brexit Party, who currently intend to contest all possible constituencies, may like to offer the electorate that any Brexit candidate who is voted to become an MP will resign as an MP once Brexit has been achieved to allow a by-election to take place in which they may or may not stand for re-election.

This means that the Brexit Party will not be caught by being forced to offer a complete manifesto and the electorate can feel confident in voting for a Brexit supporter in that they can then return to their usual voting preferences or not after Brexit has been achieved.

JPM said...

JB. Parliament are not trying to block the UK's leaving the European Union, if you hadn't noticed.

They are merely trying to ensure that the UK leaves on the terms promised by the Leave campaigns themselves.

That is, with a sensible arrangement with our ex-partners that does not unduly damage the country.

All this cynical goalpost-moving post-referendum, by the degenerate liars amongst them, shows them up for exactly what they are.

The "will of the people", incidentally is twenty-six percent to leave, twenty-four percent to remain, and fifty percent did not, or were not allowed to express a view by voting.

Parliament is morally obliged to consider their interests, particularly those of the young.

Raedwald said...

Yes - all those infants and babies at the breast should be given the vote.

Mark said...

Don't give them ideas Radders!

JPM said...

That's a pretty dismal straw man, Raedwald. No one is saying that children should vote, just that Parliament has a moral duty to consider their well-being.

Incidentally, a rallying cry of the American Revolution was "No Taxation Without Representation" and yet there are three million fellow Europeans here, liable to pay tax, who were denied a vote in the referendum, weren't there? Then there were all those ex-pats...

Maybe the UN should declare it invalid, even if our courts can't?

Must drop Gina a line...

Mark The Skint Sailor said...

JPM said...

Think of the cheeeeldren! What about those that couldn't vote? and other excuses..

Unfortunately those are irrelevant arguments. The voting procedure in the referendum was agreed by Parliament and it was simple: the most votes in or out wins. End of.

There can be no equivocation: leave won. The margin of victory is also irrelevant.

We were told by those that wanted to stay in that voting leave meant leaving the EU, the single market, the customs union and the ECJ. That's what we voted for.

Had it been the other way round and remain won, the status quo would have stayed in place and there would have been no thought to the minority that voted to leave.

No excuses, no equivocation. We should leave the EU, leave the single market, leave the customs union and leave the ECJ as was stated during the referendum campaign.

If the EU wants to provide tariff-free access across the border so be it.

If they want to limit tariff-free access, they can provide a licencing scheme whereby companies on both sides sign up to a regulatory process that both sides mutually agree on so products conform to EU and UK standards. The companies pay a fee so the licencing scheme is self-financing and it avoids the taxpayer paying a £39bn fee for access to EU markets. Products so licenced transfer across the border without checks at the border.

Or is that too easy?

RAC Esq. said...

"All this cynical goalpost-moving post-referendum, by the degenerate liars amongst them, shows them up for exactly what they are."

P. R. 0. J. E. C. T. I. O. N.

Holy shit I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this rabid clown.

JPM said...

Well, the signs are that you - the fanatics among the generally otherwise reasonable Leave voters - are going to get exactly what you want, and yet you're still frothing at the mouth and grinding your teeth with rage.

Why is this, exactly?

Could it be that your little pet project isn't going to bring the revenge upon the world that you had hoped?

DiscoveredJoys said...


"No Taxation Without Representation" - glad you mentioned that... so I assume you now reject the EU because my representative at the EU cannot directly affect taxation proposed by the Commission?

Dave_G said...

You can smell the fear can't you! The desperation! The Remoaners are about to lose and those that pay their tab for their deceitful support are going to want their money back.

It parallels the 'panic' and angst the cAGW crowd are trying to muster before the Solar Minimum kicks in and exposes their fatuous claims as the lies they really are.

The supporters of the EU want to keep Britian in, keep access to their cash, markets and fisheries etc before the SHTF and the inevitable collapse of that USSR Mk2 is fully exposed - a situation that gets closer by the day!

The next GE will be fun - real fun - for a change. A chance to vote for a Party with genuine concerns for the electorate and not just self-centred views for their own tenured positions. I can guarantee my vote will NOT go to the established parties and suspect this will be the case for a majority of voters.

RAC Esq. said...

"......... there are three million fellow Europeans here, liable to pay tax, who were denied a vote in the referendum ....."

If they feel aggrieved by that they are perfectly free to piss off back to europe.

Notice that whilst Boris is generally treated with a certain amount of disdain, Dominic Cummings over several several weeks has been the target of concern trolling, I find it interesting our "fellow european" has a bee in his bonnet about this guy.

JPM said...

Aw, don't be like that, RAC. You'd miss them if they went.

As I say, according to analysis last year by Oxford Economics, over the duration of their stay, people from other parts of the European Union on average pay seventy-eight thousand pounds more in tax than they cost to the UK.

On the other hand, UK-raised people just about break even, with no net fiscal benefit.

British taxes will have to rise, when our young, fit, ready-educated, productive, fellow Europeans go home.

There again, non-EU immigration - that is most of it - is off-topic and irrelevant here, since the UK has always had sovereign control over that.

Mark said...

"Young, fit, ready-educated, productive, fellow Europeans"

(Were you browsing a certain sort of magazine when you typed that?)

Wonder what made them come here in the first place if it's such a dismal shitehole full of drooling inbred sub primates.

Dave_G said...

Given that benefits in Europe are considerably less generous then those afforded to Europeans in the UK, millions of Brits living/working in Europe will be making as much, if not more, contributions to local coffers than those Europeans living in the UK. Yah boo.....

Except the Brits in Europe can't vote to end the EU, can they? In the same way that the people of the EU were denied a say in its creation, they are denied a say in its dismantling. For now.....

The political landscape is shifting towards the demise of the EU as a controlling structure. If it isn't achieved politically it will happen by an economic force they can't stop.

Tick, tock.....

JPM said...

Dave, research by NASA shows that solar sunspot minima do indeed appear to affect our weather, but not average global temperatures to any extent. The sun's total energy output remains remarkably constant.

Rather, they cause changes in weather pattern distribution, so Europe might experience a "mini ice age", whilst other regions experience warmer, wetter, or drier conditions.

If there were no carbon dioxide at all, then the whole Earth would be frozen solid. If no heat whatsoever escaped on the other hand, then we'd be incinerated. We sit at about 300K, and CO2 levels have increased by about 45% since the start of the industrial age.

I'd have thought that even the dimmest would put those facts together and be at least concerned, but do as you please.

Dave_G said...

Getting a bit off topic but:

Warming is said to be 1.5degC above that of 1850 and they assign 1degC of that to natural phenomena. The other 0.5degC is claimed to be man-made.

The accuracy of any mercury thermometer used to create the global temperature recordings is....... +/- 0.5degC.

In other words the claimed warming is within the ERROR reading of the thermometers that create them. Of course, the 'adjustments' to readings (funny how they are all towards warming) make all the difference......

Sorry Raed...

Elby the Beserk said...


You've missed out cloud nucleation. See Svensmark and Cern experiments. And that, the models don't even cater for at all. See also Zharkova passim. And do keep up.

Anonymous said...

"and CO2 levels have increased by about 45%"

Horse balls. On Stilts.

JPM said...

Hey, guess what?

Gina's team are looking into it.

Yes, I was surprised too, Anon., but there we are.

Maybe Reuters publish tripe? Prove it if so eh?

Smoking Scot said...

I found it interesting that, for the first time in yonks, slightly over 50% of Europeans chose to vote at the 2019 EU elections.

I know there was a certain amount of criticism in 2014, when it was just over 42%, but that was shrugged off as being voter's choice.

However it's clear that in some countries voters don't give a hoot with several smaller states not even cracking 29%.

So the way I see it the 77% who chose not to vote in Slovenia really only have themselves to point a finger at if they don't like their MEPS.

And by the same logic those who chose not to vote at Brexit can go look in the mirror, quietly.

And those who take it upon themselves to speak for the non voters, most notably the 18 to 24 year old's, are just blowing flatulence out the wrong orifice, though the stench is just the same.

John Brown said...

JPM @ 10:01 :

“The "will of the people", incidentally is twenty-six percent to leave, twenty-four percent to remain, and fifty percent did not, or were not allowed to express a view by voting.”

So what ?
Parliament decided to give the decision to “the people” via a referendum and set all the rules for the referendum.
You’re trying to move the goalposts.

“Parliament is morally obliged to consider their interests, particularly those of the young.”

No, they’re not.
This has never been the case for any Parliamentary election. Our democracy has always worked on “losers’ consent”.
You’re trying to move the goalposts again.

If Remain had won, there would have no consideration for the leavers and it would have been taken as a mandate for full blown EU membership.

“Parliament are not trying to block the UK's leaving the European Union, if you hadn't noticed.
They are merely trying to ensure that the UK leaves on the terms promised by the Leave campaigns themselves.
That is, with a sensible arrangement with our ex-partners that does not unduly damage the country.”

Of course Parliament were trying to block Brexit by installing a remain PM who produced a Withdrawal Treaty which was not leaving at all.

Don’t take my word for it, take the description by Mr. Verhofstdt’s staff who described it as making the UK an EU colony.

Or, Mr. Macron who said :

“The UK will be trapped in a customs union after Brexit unless Downing Street offers European fishermen full access to British waters during the coming trade negotiations.”

The idea was to produce a totally unacceptable Withdrawal Treaty in order to put it against remain in a second referendum.

The question on the referendum ballot paper, which was decided by Parliament, was whether we were to leave or remain. Not on what terms would we be leaving OR remaining.

Any terms promised by the Leave campaigns are irrelevant and just as “leave” was not defined, neither was “remain” defined:
In or out of the Euro ?
EU army ?
How many more countries would be joining the EU (see Mr. Cameron’s “Atlantic to the Urals” speech July 2013 in Kazakhstan)?

If we leave without an arrangement, then it will be the EU breaking its Lisbon Treaty Article 50 paragraph 2 which states :

"...In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union….”

I will admit that the Leave campaign completely misunderstood just how nasty and intransigent would be the EU “pour encourages les autres” (President Hollande) and hence why “no deal” was always going to be the most likely final outcome - other than a completely stupid remain Parliament accepting a surrender deal of course.

There was no way that the Withdrawal Treaty could be described by the UK as a “sensible arrangement with our ex partners”.

RAC Esq. said...

Read it and weep Cheesie
Brilliant – President Trump and PM Johnson Structuring Trade Deal to Commence November 1st…

" President Trump supports the nationalistic position, purposes and intents of Brexit. PM Johnson has promised to deliver Brexit by the mandatory date of October 31st. One of the benefits, and also concerns amid the political left in the U.K, surrounds the economic impacts. President Trump and PM Johnson would counter all those concerns with the announcement of an agreement for an interim bilateral trade deal ahead of Brexit.

This strategic approach, a deal that delivers both the Brexit result and the economic stability to offset any Brexit downside concerns, was the original idea that President Trump proposed to Theresa May two years ago."

JPM said...

Every little would help, but to replace trade with and revenues from the European Union, it would require a twenty percent contribution to GDP.

That mooted with the US would only be a tiny fraction of that.

Try again.

Mark said...


The UKs current account deficit is essentially with the EU. Dealings with the rest of the world are more or less in balance.

(Forgive the link radders) look at

Who do you think has most to lose here? What is the basis for trade deals with the US or anybody else? Well, look at the graph!

Something like £80 billion or so of trade currently with the EU is up for grabs. How much of this can they afford to lose?

I can see why they are frantic to keep us imprisoned inside their customs union. I just don't understand why anybody British wants to.

What's your reason?

Span Ows said...

Mark 09:49

Your link is missing and 's' from Updates:

Mark said...

@Span ows

Much obliged. I'm a silly old Hector!