A year since the election, we have two new GB voting intention polls (from YouGov and Survation) and a new Scottish poll (also from YouGov) today.

Looking at the YouGov/Times GB poll first, voting intentions are CON 44%(+2), LAB 37%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1). The seven point Conservative lead is the largest since the election but normal caveats apply – it is only one poll. Over the last two months YouGov have been showing a steady Conservative lead of around 4 or 5 points, so normal sample variation alone is enough to explain the occassional 7 point lead. Watch the trend, rather than getting excited over individual polls. Full tabs are here.

Survation‘s topline figures are CON 41%(nc), LAB 40%(nc), LDEM 9%(+1). Changes are since mid May. Like YouGov, Survation have shown a steady position for the last couple of months, but there’s an obvious contrast in terms of what that position is – YouGov have a steady small Tory lead, Survation are showing the parties steadily neck-and-neck. As I’ve said before, there’s not an obvious methodological reason for this (while Survation have a very distinct sampling approach to their phone polls, this is an online poll and their online polls use broadly similar methods to YouGov, ICM and other companies, so there’s no obvious reason for differing results). Full tabs for the Survation poll are here.

Meanwhile YouGov’s Scottish voting intentions are

Westminster: CON 27%(+4), LAB 23%(-5), LDEM 7%(+1), SNP 40%(+4)
Holyrood constituency: CON 27%(+1), LAB 22%(-1), LDEM 6%(-1), SNP 41%(+3)
Holyrood regional: CON 26%(+1), LAB 21%(-1), LDEM 7%(nc), SNP 32%(nc).

Changes here are since the previous Scottish YouGov poll, way back in January. There is very little movement in Holyrood support, but in Scotland the Conservatives have moved back into second place. Full tabs for the Scottish poll are here.


759 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Survation voting intentions”

1 12 13 14 15 16
  1. Has the Kamikaze Squadron been Grounded by Contrary Winds??

    I have no idea after Tuesday whether we saw another bottled/collapsed Tory backbench rebellion [No. 1042 in my lifetime] or whether they really have got a veto on a Kamikaze no-deal Brexit– desired by its proponents so they can impose Thatcher2+++ on Brexit’s gullible supporters.

    Whichever, the recent arcane games in Parliament played by the Tories, Labour, SNP leave us no clearer, after 2 wasted years!, what the outcome of Brexit will be: & conscious that our creaking political system, the supposed pride of a 1,000 years of Western Democracy, has proved utterly incapable of dealing with the social, economic & political crisis caused by Brexit.
    I need a rest from this site!

  2. Alec,

    Indeed, there is lots of nonsense posted about the “national debt”. It is a necessary part of the money supply, without which the banks and other financial institutions would have to rely on non-guaranteed investments, becoming unstable (as in 2009).

    You can have too little of it as well as too much. If only someone renamed it the “national assets”, there might be a more reasonable discussion.

  3. @Robbiealive – what seems to have happened is a classic parliamentary dispute over who promised what in a behind closed doors panicked discussion.

    However, certain points are clear:

    1) Around 14 Tory remainer rebels believed that May promised them she would address the relevant issue to their satisfaction before the bill is passed
    2) Those rebels the called off their rebellion and the government won the vote
    3) There remains a further opportunity for the rebels to reinstate their rebellion if the continuing negotiations don’t produce the result they want
    4) If May doesn’t accede to their demands, this would represent a terminal loss of trust between the rebels and their leader.
    5) The rebels have the numbers to defeat the government if they so wished.

    Put all this together, and it looks very much like the outcome is not going to be a vote to accept the deal or crash out on a no deal scenario – although there are likely to be some twists and turns still before we reach clarity on this.

  4. Interesting selection of reports in my morning paper.

    Labour’s Brexit cake policy line destroyed by its own MPs.

    EU Commission again cites “security” grounds as it excludes UK companies from Galileo contracts.( The Trump Excuse :-) )

    Sebastian Kurz prepares for Austria’s presidency of the European Council by forming a group to review EU immigration policy.Members-himself, Salvini ……and Merkel’s Interior Minister Horst Seehoffer ( Bavarian CSU)

    New Spanish Socialist Government, installed after Conservative administration collapsed following a financial scandal………..loses a minister who failed to pay his taxes.

    Oxford University study finds British Digital News “Trust” scores as follows :-

    ( out of 10)

    BBC 6.79
    ITV 6.68
    Local Newspapers 6.42
    The Times 6.35
    The Guardian 6.24
    The Indy. 6.05
    Daily Telegraph 6.02
    The Canary 4.69
    Daily Mail 4.6
    Buzzfeed 4.59
    The Sun 3.91

  5. Fire in a 20 story block of flats in Lewisham last night.

    A sprinkler system was installed which helped suppress the blaze, and the 200 residents ignored the stay put policy and self evacuated.

    Whatever fire response policies there are in future for such buildings, it looks likely that stay put will be ineffective as it will be ignored. Emergency planners will have to take account of this.

  6. PETER CAIRNS

    @”The idea that Germany s somehow obliged to buy from less productive countries poorer quality products seems bizarre.”

    I really love this from an arch Europhile.

    The Janus mask which sees Naked Competition & Ever Closer Union as compatible and thus turns a blind eye to the inevitable imbalances produced by those incompatible bedfellows , Monetary Union & Fiscal Soveregnty .

    If Sovereign Debt doesn’t matter why is the ECB buying so much of it ?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2018/06/11/the-ecb-will-have-to-mutualize-all-sovereign-debt-to-prevent-an-eu-breakup/2/#6a9f89e150da

  7. @Alec

    Nice post at 09:04.

  8. Some might be interested in this study on populism in the EU with dedicated sections on Czechia, Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands.

    The general perspective is socialdemocratic.

    https://www.policysolutions.hu/userfiles/elemzes/282/the_state_of_populism_in_2017_web.pdf

  9. @ PTRP / PETER – the comments I posted were from OECD, not Trump, not a Putin Bot and not an Arch-Leaver!

    COLIN has already responded but I’ll expand with an example of Soros’s Theory of Reflexivity adapted to EU:
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reflexivity.asp

    Self-reinforcing trend towards disequilibrium causing politicians to become increasingly detached from reality
    (EEC was kind of OK, Maastricht (’93) and Euro (’99+) removed flexibility from the system, E.Europe expansion (’04+) added to the instability)

    This is not dissimilar from Control Theory in engineering or dynamic modelling in economics! Basically if you try to force ‘convergence’ without appropriate flexibility and ‘control’ in a system that is inherently unstable (as politics within any country, region always are) you can never create ‘equilibrium’. The pursuit of equilibrium (aka status quo) in itself is a bad idea, the system must be flexibile to adapt to shocks and the future unknowns.

    The political will trying to force convergence in a system that is diverging can go three ways:
    1/ refocus on reform (as Soros wants within EU and IMF/OECD/most nations accept at a global level!) to put in the missing flexibility and safety valves to try and rebalance the unstable system
    2/ row back the causes of instability (good examples would be break currency pegs such as UK leaving ERM (’92) and Euro (asap) and address trade imbalances, bad examples are protectionism against ‘free’ trade and heavy doses of austerity and recession to force competitiveness)
    3/ wait ’til she blows!

    Options 1-3 are roughly in time order. It is probably too late for #1 especially as Juncker is set on continuing to expand the unstable system. #2 is heading down the ‘bad’ path (started in EU after the Great Recession and German export of austerity aka ‘leading by example!’ and is rippling out protectionism from those on the receiving end of ‘unfair’ trade). I hope we avoid #3.

    @ ALEC – I’ll repost the WTO article refs supporting unilateral open border on a temporary and sector specific basis later as there is a lot more flesh on the bones of the case I’ve made before. I need to shrink it down, remove ‘trace-back’ and remove stuff like the example of India and Pakistan otherwise folks will totally miss the legal aspect.

  10. @Trevor – no need – just let me know the relevant WTO articles and I can look into it from there.

  11. Really interested in hearing how Rees-Mogg’s own company are wrong about the risks of Brexit.

    At some point, you’re going to have to acknowledge that a lot of high profile Brexiteers – Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Lawson, Farage – seem really keen to escape the actual outcomes and also don’t actually seem as optimistic about Brexit as they are pretending.

    Big, big elephant in the room there,

  12. The last two days of debate in HoC allow some fine tuning on the HoC Rebel maths.

    CON-Remain (3-12)
    Arch-Remain (3): Soubs, Clarke, Grieve
    Remain (9): Allen, Djanogly, S.Hammond, Heald, Morgan, Neill, Sandbach, Wollaston and add in P.Lee

    LAB-Leave (2-16)
    Arch-Leave (2): Field, Hoey
    Strong-Leave (4-5): Campbell, Hopkins, Mann, Stringer and often but not always Skinner
    Leave EEA (9): Baron, Cooper, Fitzpatrick, Flint, Hill, Jones, L.Smith, Snell, Spellar

    also one to add a 1/2 for LDEM S.Lloyd (respects the ref and abstains on Brexit votes)

    Taking out SF, the 4 Speaker related abstains and S.Lloyd (but adding back Lewisham East) takes HoC eligible votes to 638 so majority threshold is 319 (Bercow or other d.speakers coming into play on a tie)

    It is still very tight and I admit to mixing votes to get the above numbers. Also May is obviously not going to want to rely on the 2nd tier of LAB-Leave which she needs if all CON-Remain rebel. However, bias aside, it does appear LAB-Leave will more than offset CON-Remain when ping pong2 occurs on the WB.

    Simply put the CON-Remain rebellion bottled it although risky to assume they’ll continue to bottle it going forward although all we need for now is the WB finalised. One hurdle at a time!

  13. Alec

    I agree that countries should invest in national infrastructure (where this investment has +EV) as you say. Not investing because of concerns about the raw national debt levels would be a mistake. There is a debate to be had about when to load this investment.

    I’d be perfectly happy to wait until an economic downturn to increase the levels of infrastructure spending significantly. Racking up national debt in the good times and racking it up even faster in the bad times doesn’t seem a sustainable model. Having a low national debt gives a country more “headroom” before people start questioning whether to lend any more.

    Borrowing as much as you can in the hope that all of your investments make the predicted return does at least expose a country to increased risks that these investments don’t bring home the bacon. If you borrow at 2.5% for a return of 3% +/- 5% then it isn’t wise to put everything you have into that investment.

    From 2010-2018 the UK’s national debt grew quite a bit and apart from a wonky bank, I’m not sure what we gained in terms of national assets. If we had brought forward projects like Heathrow I’d have been a bit more relaxed about letting the national debt grow.

    I’d be perfectly happy to use the figure of Assets – Debt as a sensible metric. The idea that the UK doesn’t have potholed roads is a bit laughable.

    Germany’s surplus is pretty much going to be wiped out in 2019 when Soli comes to an end. A few years of belt tightening while maintaining 2% inflation and growth doesn’t seem terrible. Even without this tax, Germany’s tax rate doesn’t seem excessively low.

  14. @ Colin

    https://img.datawrapper.de/2X3kB/full.png

    Thanks for the link Colin. For those that don’t like clicking on Colin’s links with no knowledge of what they are, it’s a graphic showing the media trust results and also the variation by age.

    The age variation is interesting – most outlets show a similar performance in 35+ and 35-, but the three exceptions are DM, Mirror and Sun, which are all trusted less by under 35s*. I wouldn’t mind if that trend continued into the future, but is this another one where people will (or won’t) change their views as they get older? I would have thought not. So maybe, in the long run, these papers/web sites will have to change their ways to survive. Wishful thinking probably.

    * Of course this could easily be due to participation bias, rather than being significant.

  15. @ ALEC – Probably best to give you the totally unbiased source info anyway. I hope we can have an intelligent and respectful debate on this as I’m obviously prone to side with the ‘Leave’ bubble – we are all human!

    The main Article you need from GATT is Article XXIV within this it links to other articles.

    https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/gatt1994_art24_gatt47.pdf

    NB This is to establish a worse-case temporary unilateral WTO ‘legal’ (or at least tolerated while we fight it in WTO court) backstop to avoid a full-Minford (UFT WTO), it is not Plan A or B! It does (at least in opinion of Leave lawyers) work in a crash out scenario if required. It is not 100% ‘all-weather’ as 3rd countries would object. The other more risky bit is making the assumption that EU would not reciprocate and guessing their response – assuming they ‘protect’ the CU+SM then that lets UK off the hook and opens up reciprocal retaliation, etc which is dealt with elsewhere in GATT. Of course if EU do reciprocate then job done – we just file it as a permanent ‘fix’ and NI sorted!
    NB2 Without jumping too far ahead. Plan C is different to Plan D on whether or not and for how long GB use this option. Back before the DUP pact, NI should have received temporary special status anyway (that is relevant for Plan C which IMHO is a little heavy on the cake)

  16. TRIGGUY
    “For those that don’t like clicking on Colin’s links with no knowledge of what they are…”

    My attitude is that if someone can’t be bothered to say what links are then I can’t be bothered to click on them. Knowledge doesn’t enter into it, I just regard it as rude and inconsiderate to presume that anyone here will click on anything regardless of what it might be having been given no reason to do so apart from the poster’s whim.

  17. An interesting potted history of Germany’s Trade Balance.

    https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/why-germanys-surplus-is-so-huge-752529

    Another article pointing out that the quality of German goods didn’t suddenly improved, after 1999.

    https://theminskys.org/germany-unfair-trade-advantages/

  18. I am not without sympathy for the “why don’t they get on with it” vox pops mentioned earlier. Progress is glacial to an extent that seems hard to justify.

    Sure, dissolving the EU is complex. Lots of things in international relations are complex.

    Objectively, it’s hard to see why dissolving the EU should be more complex than, for example, dissolving a full-blown sovereign state, and we have same recent experience of the latter.

    We’ve already taken four times as long since the referendum as the velvet divorce, which took six months soup to nuts and shows what is possible with goodwill.

    We’ve even taken longer already than the period that elapsed between the ceasefire in the Irish War of Independence and the creation of the Free State.

    Brexit creates issue in Ireland sure. But is it really plausible to say that working out how to deal with them should take longer than the settlement of 100 years ago did?

    Between parties of supposed goodwill, progress is a joke.

  19. TW: clear that the government is only in danger when all the Tory awkward squad rebel, and only FF & KH support them from the Labour benches (as happened on the “meaningful vote” last December).

    But one thing missing from your analysis is that, in my view at least, there are probably another 5-10 potential rebels on the Tory benches – people who haven’t voted against the government yet, but only because the government has bought them off with compromises. (Justine Greening and Tom Tugendhat are probably the most high-profile people in this group.)

  20. @Trevor Warne – thanks for the link. First glance tends to confirm my initial view that the entire idea of unilateral removal of tariffs and barriers exclusively for EU trade is utter rubbish, but I’ll work through and see what other evidence I can find.

    We can very quickly indeed remove any reference to the situation between India and Pakistan – this reference makes clear that this is written into the WTO treaties as an exceptional case so has no legal bearing on any other case. Forget and move on.

    We can also forget the idea that the EU would reciprocate by removing all barriers – it’s abundantly clear from this that they legally can’t take this course of action, as it would mean they would have to do this for everyone else, thus ending completely the CU and SM. Even if they could under WTO/GATT, they wouldn’t, for the same reasons. The very idea that there might be a reciprocal move by the EU in response to a unilateral move by the UK is idiocy of the highest order, and can be dumped at the starting line. We need to work on the basis that the only starting option is for no tariffs and restrictions on one side of the border, but normal EU external controls on their side.

    Other than these immediately obvious points, I’ll dig through and see what else I can find.

  21. PeterW

    I suppose it depends on the relative competence of the Government and it’s ministers at the time. At the moment, they seem incapable of collectively making a decision. I feel the big mistake was firing A50 before the cabinet could even agree on it’s desired final negotiating position and make it’s case to the commons. The lack of “goodwill” within the cabinet alone is staggering.

    With David “Lazy as a Toad” Davis “in charge” of proceedings, it’s no wonder we’re still trying to put into legal text what was agreed last year.

  22. PETER W

    @”Between parties of supposed goodwill,”

    “supposed” is the important word there :-)

  23. @ ALEC – :-) :-)

    As expected and hence not surprised with your response. FWIW exceptions create legal precedence and as I stated I don’t see EC reciprocating – that is why I added info on that and NB2!

    FWIW I do try my best to understand Planet Remain – I know where Soros (and Heseltine) are coming from I just think it is not something UK can or should fix (ie Remain in order for UK to help with Reform is Cake in the extreme – we’re not even in the Euro for starters so they won’t be taking our advice on the Eternal Recession Mechanism!)

    Good luck with PeoplesVote though, let’s pretend revoke isn’t cake and work to split the LAB party – something LDEM and CON-Leave can agree on ;)

  24. Colin,

    ”Labour’s Brexit cake policy line destroyed by its own MPs”

    Is that your view?

    I can see that the EEA vote undermined the leadership position but not sure how it destroys it.

    Rebellions can be embarrassing but only meaningful when they change an outcome, either through the vote itself of through a compromise prior to the vote. The EEA was about positioning rather than impact in the near term.

    We are going to end up with 3 year or longer transition a basis very close to now and a deferral regarding a long term CU with the EU possibly until after the GE; Stamers policy from very early on.

    The single market access of the EEA is much more difficult for Labour.

  25. Colin,

    I should have added the 15 who votes against is more of an issue as possible more than the 5 (plus Hopkins) who supported HMG Tuesday could be significant.

    Presently, I think Tory soft Brexit rebels are sufficiently greater in number than the Labour 5/6 in order extract concessions; I still don’t think may will be defeated as she will back down if necessary.

    Another 10 Labour rebels even abstaining could be enough to tip the balance back.

    I see Trevor is saying something similar above but we don’t really know how many other Con MPs are acquiescing for now but have told the whips they want movement in a soft Brexit direction.

    The pro EEA Lab MPs are not relevant except for embarrassment/posturing purposed.

  26. So to sum up all these Bo Ho the Germans posts and links.

    Germany is a very successful exporter because.

    It invested heavily in Manufacturing prior to and after Unification.

    It has cooperatively and effectively practiced wage restraint for decades.

    It has conducted a tight fiscal policy trying to avoid debt.

    The creation of the Euro has meant a level playing field across Europe where the value of individual goods and products are no longer altered depending on the state of the national economy.

    Thus the price of a Golf against a Megane or Punto doesn’t go up or down depending on the value of the DM, Fr or Lira, instead it’s based on what the car costs to make all valued in the same currency.

    Proposed solution: Germany should spend more on other peoples goods to create a balance as opposed to other countries becoming more competitive.

    Equally we have the Greek solution, drop out of the Euro and devalue… can’t compete on a level playing field, don’t try just opt out. To hard to face your problems then just run away.

    I’ve posted this before and will continue to do so. If you go into a Currency Union with Germany you need to be a productive and efficient and fiscally prudent as the Germans.

    Here’s a map of European GDP per capita…

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe-GDP-PPP-per-capita-map-worldbank.png

    Rich North poor South.

    But look at on a regional rather than National level

    https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2s5jbn/map_of_europes_regions_in_terms_of_gdp_ppp_per/

    Oh look there’s wales and the North of England in the poor category while London is up at the top, i suppose that means that Sterling the bank of England and the Treasury are all wrong.

    Why of Why won’t London buy more Welsh Goods. If only the UK government was to build a third runway at Heathrow so that Companies in Newcastle could get more work.

    If only Wales could leave the UK and devalue it’s problems would be over.

    Her’s one for the US in 2012.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Map_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_in_U.S._dollars_%282012%29.svg

    If only Florida had their own currencies and could devalue or Alaska would spend more so that poor Nevada could sell it more.

    Peter.

  27. @Alan – I agree that triggering article 50 before we were ready to do so was a mistake. I suspect it was done to appease those leavers who are terrified that the ‘establishment’ will somehow delay Brexit and then ultimately prevent it.

    Similar fears currently prevail among the Brexiters who feel that all this delay is ridiculous and quite unnecessary. The major risk is a Cliff Edge Brexit for which we are totally unprepared. Hence the crucial importance of extensions, backstops and the like. Without them we have no possibility of negotiating anything remotely satisfactory.

    Hence in my view comes the importance of specifying the conditions for ending the backstop. This at the moment is fudged. Davis thinks he has a fixed date with all the risks that entails (I am surprised he wants to negotiate under the threat that unless he agrees the EU demands he could have no agreement at all). May thinks that she has only conceded ‘an expectation’.

    My suggestion is that we should seek an agreement in which we stay as we are until either a) we agree the terms of our relationship b) tell the EU that this relationship is unsatisfactory and we are leaving on WTO after one year or C) call the whole thing off.

    In preparation for the above we should work hard to make the threat of leaving on WTO terms realistic. This would mean having the infrastructure in place to cope with lorry parks etc, having reasonable assurances that future trade deals would actually materialise on reasonable terms, gearing up British industry to sell to China etc etc. Signs of this national effort would encourage the EU to be a conciliatory as it can be and give us a much more realistic sense of what is possible.. Parliament or the electorate could then take a much more rational stance on where our national interests lay.

    Unrealistic? Well probably so but no more unrealistic than the current positions of both major parties which I cannot see the EU accepting. So why not make the above suggestion something towards which we should aim.

  28. @Alan – I agree that triggering article 50 before we were ready to do so was a mistake. I suspect it was done to appease those leavers who are terrified that the ‘establishment’ will somehow delay Brexit and then ultimately prevent it.

    Similar fears currently prevail among the Brexiters who feel that all this delay is ridiculous and quite unnecessary. The major risk is a Cliff Edge Brexit for which we are totally unprepared. Hence the crucial importance of extensions,

  29. 5,085 new SNP members in the last 24 hours.

    Murray Foote (reluctantly, but determinedly) joining the pro-independence movement.

    However it all pans out, it is clear that Con, Lab and LD totally failed to understand the political consequences in Scotland of their sidelining of Scottish interests.

  30. @Trevor Warne – “FWIW exceptions create legal precedence….”

    No – that is a misunderstanding of the law. The India/Pakistan clause is an exception written into the treaty in recognition of the unique circumstances surrounding the creation of the two countries. A precedent is where a new interpretation of a law gives rise to a new definition or meaning.

    The India/Pakistan clause in the GATT treaties cannot be used to create a precedent, as it only applies to India and Pakistan – it has no relevance anywhere else, and cannot be interpreted in any way to have relevance to the UK and EU.

    It does give an example of an exception, but one that dates back to the first GATT treaty. The EU and UK could argue for a similar exception to be added to the treaties, but they wouldn’t be able to argue that the example of a former empire territory breaking up into independent sovereign countries is in any way similar to the UK leaving the EU, so the exception is again completely irrelevant. Again, it’s just a little daft to raise this as having any relevance to Brexit, unless we are suggesting that we should get all 164 WTO members together to agree a new treaty.

    I accept you didn’t think the EU would reciprocate, but the fact is not that they wouldn’t – they are prevented from discriminating in favour of the UK, so they simply can’t.

    Reading through your link, it seems very clear that the UK can’t waive tariffs and controls either, unless we waive them for all WTO members. We are required to submit our standard schedules for trade to WTO members who would need to agreement, and we aren’t permitted to offer different conditions to the EU to other WTO members.

    The only way we could do this is via a CU or FTA. Failure to enforce border controls would leave us open to a complaint from any of the other 163 WTO members, enforcement action and compensatory payments, and I just don’t see why there is any case in favour of this.

    As far as evidence goes, it’s lacking.

  31. Anyone care about Lewisham East? Of course LAB going to win (you can get 100-1 if you think they wont!).

    Seems the ‘interesting’ aspect is 2nd place and to a much lesser extent turnout and LAB %

    Betfair has a few ways to bet on it for those so inclined.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.144625558

    Folks seem fairly sure (75%ish) LDEM will come in 2nd, not much action on the turnout market, LAB expected to get around 53%).

    I didn’t look into it in detail but my very quick modelling up:

    LAB 16k (55%)
    LDEM 6k (21%)
    CON 6k (21%)
    Other 1k (3%)

    Turnout 43%

    A lot will depend on whether or not LDEM can pull votes from LAB and go back to pre-Clegg levels. Although it sounds counter-intuitive CON want to come 3rd here (but not by getting under 5k or much below 20%)

  32. “On nationalism I am not a keen advocate, but I feel people in a country should take pride in their good achievements and view these objectively alongside the successes of other countries.”
    @davwel June 13th, 2018 at 8:52 pm

    I think nationalism is becoming an old man’s game. 30 years from now, when our yoof are old[1] (or older) the third world will have blossomed, very many people will have ‘relationships’ with people from there. In my line of work now (in IT) I talk daily to the US, India, the Philippines, and frequently to many other parts of the world.

    There was a program on R4 recently about digital nomads — people who take a laptop to the beach in Thailand or Portugal or where ever they want to go. Of course we won’t become one homogenised world, but the Internet is tearing up the last 300 years of organisation and will continue to do so. ‘Nationalism’ will have a much more diluted meaning; indeed it will probably mean who can tax you. If you work in Thailand for a US company and haven’t signed any Thai contract, how will they even know you are there?

    Like I’ve said many times before on here, we live in fascinating times.

    [1] Are you still a yoof at 50?

  33. @Trevor Warne – meant to add – I suspect the relevance of this is that it does indeed mean that the government have just pushed through an amendment that means we are legally committed to a customs unions deal with the EU.

    If we aren’t, then we need physical infrastructure at the border to avoid falling foul of WTO rules, and I do wonder whether HMG (or at least the government politicians) have actually realised this.

  34. I am finding it impossible to post on this site. There is no evidence I am being put into moderation. My fear is that I am actually succeeding but in a way I can see but others cannot. If so, apologies for any repeat posts.

  35. Charles

    I see (and read) your posts.

  36. This is worth subscribing too!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc0FwoIsDMI

    Peter.

  37. @Charles – there definitely is a problem, but rest assured – we can see your posts.

    What I have noticed is that when I post, I cannot see my posts straightaway, with one exception. They only seem to become visible once someone else adds a subsequent post, so I never see my own posts in the most recent post position.

    the only exception I have had to not seeing my posts at the point when I submit them was a case this morning when I submitted a post to find there was a simultaneous post by someone else so mine was second last.

    If this applies to everyone, then it just means that you need to be patient after submitting and wait for someone else to post a subsequent comment before seeing your appear. I do think other people can see your posts when submitted though.

  38. Al Urqa

    “I think nationalism is becoming an old man’s game. ….. ‘Nationalism’ will have a much more diluted meaning; indeed it will probably mean who can tax you.”

    The term already has a wide range of meanings, partly because the 19th century usage has already been “diluted” (or rather redefined) in many polities.

    This old man is quite keen on its current usage in the Yes movement, which essentially concentrates on “who can tax you”, at what rates, for what purposes and to whose benefit; and is based on the concept that all who choose to live and work here are part of the “nation” (or state or country), regardless of where they originated.

  39. ALEC & CHARLES

    I don’t recall how long ago the posting process changed but at least on Chrome, when you press the submit button, your post appears on a new page with the URL of your new comment.

    To get to see it as others do, you need to go back to the previous page, where your post doesn’t show except in the comment box itself. Refreshing the page then shows the new comment, empties the text box and also shows any comments others have posted in the meantime.

  40. The list of amendments being ping ponged back up to HoL has been updated and is here:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0111/18111.pdf

    #19 Meaningful Vote – is as per May’s wording with a few weak phrases such as “So far as practicable’
    I can’t see Soubs, Grieve liking that and expect HoL to rewrite it for ping pong2

    #25 is the NI one that caused a minor fuss in the Remain press and folks on UKPR. It does read quite a lot like Ireland having a veto (I had thought 2b had been trimmed). I am a little surprised DUP aren’t kicking up a fuss?!?

    @ JJ – I think we generally agree. IMHO CON-soft Remain will wait for the Trade Bill (if at all). The problem is we are still arguing within HoC. Soft Brexit is ill defined but not something I see EC offering as they know the NI issue. For the EC it is full BINO or WTO. Full BINO (ie CU+SM) does not appear to have HoC support due to FoM and the 15 LAB MPs would require 22 CON-Remain prepared to risk a Corbyn govt – possible but unlikely IMHO.

    I’m aware LAB policy has ‘evolved’ but if we go back to the Customs issue then 18 LAB MPs voted with CON back in Nov (do you remember Gardiner explaining why McDonnell and he walked through the same door as CON?)
    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2017-11-20&number=43

    As I said earlier though, May is too weak to risk relying on LAB-Leave (beyond the 2 dead certs of Field+Hoey who net with Soubs+Clarke). Hence I agree with you regarding LAB’s policy (or lack of) not being an issue for Corbyn just yet (if ever!)

  41. @Alec and Old Nat Thanks. Returning I see my posts, one semi-duplicated as I feared. I will be patient in future.

  42. Charles
    You ain’t the only one.

    The PM got a bit of a showing on the BBC tv news this lunchtime, she was clearly identified ( including archive footage) as being directly responsible for stopping foreign medical staff from coming to the U.K..
    Is she about to get knifed?

  43. Good afternoon all from a warm and sunny Central London.

    OLDNAT

    “I see that almost 1,000 folk joined the SNP this afternoon, so some are obviously gearing up for that race”
    __________

    Over 5,000 now so the “race” is really on….. At this rate the increase in SNP membership will surpass the attendance at the Grange last week. :-)

  44. In terms of posting problems, I have had loads and have only just maned to correctly log in my user-name/password etc.

    However I have now been reverted to an earlier user name, which I used when my little dogs took a fairly active interest in politics. [I would discuss brexit with them at bedtime and they’d be asleep in minutes.]

    I can’t be arsed to change it right now so for the moment it will have to stay.

    Nothing to say anyway – it is just so tedious at the moment.

    I do have a lot of sympathy for Scotland though – fancy discovering you’re good at cricket after all this time.

  45. Test

  46. CHARLES

    Things have changed here.

    For me:-
    Mt “Name” & “Mail” boxes used to be filled when downloading the site & I could post merely by hitting “Submit content”. I had never registered & never logged in.

    From a few days ago all this changed.

    My “Name” ” Mail£ boxes have to be filled every time before I can post. If I then update & look for that post it isn’t visible. I suspect other recent posts aren’t visible either.

    I have now registered & if I log in every time all posts to date are visible.

    So I have gone from:-

    Type Comment & Press submit to:-

    Register.
    Log in every time
    Complete Name & Mail every time
    Type Comment & Press submit.

  47. @COLIN
    “supposed” is the important word there :-)”

    True enough. And there’s certainly far too much “sir, sir, the other boy won’t play nicely” about the whole thing.

    But this is where the partisan and the less interested disconnect. The committed tend to buy the line that it’s just about the other side that is a bunch of children. You see it on here. Outside though, I think a more common feeling is that everyone is being hopeless. And for once I think the common feeling has a point.

1 12 13 14 15 16