YouGov’s regular poll for the Times this week shows another Labour lead, with topline figures of CON 36%(-1), LAB 41%(+2), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 7%(+1). Fieldwork was on Monday and Tuesday, and changes are from the middle of last week. We’ve now had four polls with fieldwork after the Davis/Johnson resignations – two from YouGov, one each from Opinium and Deltapoll – and all four have shown the Conservatives falling back behind Labour.

YouGov also found 40% in favour of a referendum on whether or not to accept the final deal, 42% of people were opposed – the highest level of support for a second referendum that YouGov have found so far with this tracker.

There was less support for Justine Greening’s idea of a “three-way” referendum between remain, Theresa May’s deal or no deal: only 36% thought that should happen, 47% were opposed. In the event it did go ahead, people said they would vote to stay – on first preferences support stands at Remain 50%, Leave with the deal 17%, Leave without the deal 33%. Once leaving with the deal has been eliminated and second preferences reallocated, the final figures would be 55% remain, 45% leave with no deal.


1,549 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 36, LAB 41, LDEM 9, UKIP 7”

1 20 21 22 23 24 31
  1. Good Afternoon from a muggy Bournemouth East beach.
    I think May will survive the summer and the autumn; the EU and UK will manage to put together a formula for transition over a long period; the Remain and Brexit Tories will not bring down their Government and the Labour NEC will continue to debate, leaving Corbyn in charge for now.

  2. CF quoting the Times
    “Labour’s lead over the Conservatives has vanished. A YouGov poll for The Times taken on Sunday and Monday puts the Conservatives on 38 per cent, level with Labour.”

    Crikey, even by Murd*ch’s standards that’s disingenuous.

  3. @BFR and @Millie – in a microcosm, the disaster that is the UK’s privatised probation service fits the failed neol!b mantra.

    The government bhas terminated the contracts at a cost of £175m as a complete failure. Theyw ere told this was going to happen when they came up with idea. They persisted purely due to an ideological obsession with privatisation.

    the Howard league for Penal Reform is scathing about this. They are saying that the reduction in services, literally to what @neil A described a couple of days ago is for offenders to be given a ‘phone call once every couple of months to ask how they are doing, maintained big profits for the bidders at a cost of a disastrous service to the public.

    You know what? I haven’t heard the Daily mail or the telegraph ranting about how soft probation is on offenders because of these new privatised contracts. Does that surprise me?

    We’ve had German hedge funds managing Welsh criminals on probation, for profits. This is how barking mad neol!beralism has become.

    Time for change.

  4. Interesting stuff from the US.

    Networks are reporting that Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has testified that Trump know in advance about a 2016 meeting in one of his hotels involving his son, son in law, campaign manager, and Russian lawyer. Previously he has claimed not to have known about this meeting, but critically, the reports suggest Cohen is claiming that Trump knew the purpose of the meeting was to discuss sensitive information on the Clinton campaign being offered by the Russian government.

    If true, this is explosive. Potentially, this puts Trump in prison, although the tortured nature of justice being applied to presidents in the US is so politized it would be jumping the gun to assume that’s where this might end.

    Having said that, polling shows Trump has the highest disapproval rating of any president at this stage of their tenure going right back to Trueman, generic polls on the congressional race for the November mid terms show a consistent and clear Democrat lead of around 8%, and small crop of individual and highly varied house seat polls from Monmouth pollsters show swings to the Democrats in line with the generic national polling. At this stage, the possibility of losing the Senate and at least seeing a big cut in majority in the house seems to be on the cards.

    If the substance of these allegations firms up, and the political geography of the US changes after November, it might just get really interesting.

  5. Jonesinbangor,
    “Is that Remain (Stay in EU) or Norway?”
    Yes.
    In my view the evidence says the conservative party is attemping remain in the EU, but will push in that direction as much as it can.

    WB16,
    “Was this written as a sketch for Yes Minister?”
    probably. Certainly that was a good general grounding in how to promise one thing and deliver the opposite.

    Somerjohn,
    “I wish I could share your high opinion of MPs’ willingness to put the interests of the country before those of their party and themselves.”

    Ah but thats the point. In the slightly longer term, it is in the interests of MPs to remain in parliament until retirement, and you do not do that by massively upsetting most of your voters. The real difficulty is that either leaving or remaining will upset voters. The farce we see now is a process of trying to defuse this timebomb.

    turk,
    “If I’m late to the party it’s because like many remainers I believed a fair compromise was possible, but with every utterance from the EU I see now how unlikely that is”

    So we must agree to disagree. The EU is a huge trading agreement, which we had no little part in creating. We made those rules to suit us as members. It is set up to help members win out against non members. Obviously.

    Why does anyone thing it would suddenly stop doing what it was created to do, and what we will still want it to do if we remain members?

  6. Chris,

    I agree with you 100% and would go further and predict May’s survival until the end of March next year when she might decide she has had enough.

  7. @Alec

    @BFR and @Millie – in a microcosm, the disaster that is the UK’s privatised probation service fits the failed neol!b mantra.

    It is also another disaster born of Chris Grayling. Another mess for someone else to clean up.

    I can see a new verb starting. For example “That policy is a right load of Chris Grayling”.

  8. ChrisLane, Jim Jam,

    To get a deal, May has to accept one of

    a) Customs/ Single market for the UK, ECJ oversight

    b) NI backstop (EU law to apply in NI only, ECJ oversight, wet border)

    c) A land border in Ireland.

    Which of these are you suggesting is possible?

  9. Carfrew,
    “Two years on from the referendum, the views of most voters have not changed.”

    This is not as clear cut as the raw numbers might suggest because perhaps as many again have changed sides in opposite directions cancelling each other out, as compared to the total headline switch to remain.

    Also, I don’t think the raw numbers on leave/remain are adjusted for turnout. A referendum result would not necessarily mirror the leave/remain totals.

    Peterw,
    The consequence of allowing the withdrawal bill to pass as it has, is as you suggest to hand government the default power to proceed with some sort of Brexit. Parliament could only stop this, as you say, by primary legislation, but surely given a parliamentary majority, this could be done in a day. Parliament cannot bind its own future decisions.

    However, what has been engineered now is that the government must present to parliament its case for leaving on whatever terms it has finally decided, and ask parliament its view. Then when the result is known, government must choose either to accept what parliament says or reject it.

    Because parliament has not created a right to stop the process, it forces the government to decide and does not take away any responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

    What has been created is a huge show trial where the government must defend its decisions and then either publicly repent and sentence itself or press on unrepentant in the face of general disapproval. (assuming there is disapproval). It magnifies the blame if it all goes wrong.

    What remainers want is not simply for parliament to stop brexit, but for the leave committed government to itself stop brexit.

    Jonesinbangor,
    “They are duplicitous Full EU Remainers who pretend to want a soft Brexit.”

    Now you are sounding more and more like Danny.

    Pete B,
    “52% of the voting public is more than any party has got since 1931.”

    but the tories did not get 52% of the vote when they tried to translate the referendum result into a general election one.

  10. jim jam, chris,

    May was chosen, as a remainer, to have to be the one who stands up and announces the party is now for remain. Thats why she was chosen, an expendable politician at the end of her career, to take the blame. She will not be replaced until she has carried out this task.

  11. @PETE B

    I am sure there will be some that will believe they were betrayed

    We have agreed to the budget, there is no linkage as Raab a lawyer as said. It is why he wants it to be. It is not what we have signed up to now. His argument is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is only partially true we leave on 29t March 2019 the EU could offer WTO as the future frame work indeed that is the implication. The UK can refuse but that leaves both side in limbo. The budget 49B spread over a decade in an GDP of the EU of US$17 trillion pa. It is not much of a lever is it in the grand scheme of things

    There is a party trying to organise a new referendum they have until jun 2019. and if they break the agreement then we are back to the EU doing what they did before. and the Swiss having to make a decision on everything else.

    As to a Canada deal: The reason is that it does not include a customs deal it does not reduce all the friction in trade. It is not the del we have now and that basically means less investment and less jobs and things moving away from the UK.

    My view our red lines means this is the only deal on the table, however May promised he likes of Nissan and the rest a lot more than this.

    As others have pointed out people have been waiting for a decision to be made in the end as Hammond said people did not vote to be poorer and lose their jobs. but that is what we voted for the problem is that as voter we can blame the politicians for not delivering. So May either delivers brexit and it cost jobs and so she loses because people are pi55ed off at her or we have no brexit and people are pi55ed off at her.

    As my mate says sometimes electorate gives politicians a hospital pass. Brexit is a hospital pass. There is no winners here but we voted for it.

    As DANNY said if May thought that a Canada deal was good enough she would not have jumped at it?

    @TURK

    I did not believe a ‘fair’ deal could be reached because of both sides red lines. indeed I agreed with THE OTHER HOWARD that if your follow the argument logically there cannot be a ‘fair’ agreement
    that is why he was happy about the red lines. It guaranteed there was not going to be a ‘fair’ agreement. Since the EU red lines mirrors ours. May reiterated hers a couple of days and Barnier mirrored them in his statement.

    @ALEC

    I am not sure why we put the failure of the probation service down to ne0l1beralism. It seems a catch all for everything. This was down to the idea that privatisation is an unalloyed good and that understanding the issue is not important. The real problem may no have been privatisation in itself although I suspect in this case I am not sure I want that sort of service not under the remit of the state but who the hell we are giving these contract to. As you said you would not give a toddler a contract to clean your house and drive your car that would be foolish but that seems to be what happened and did happen with a number of things.

    @DANNY
    I don’t think the conservatives are trying to stay in the EU they are genuinely afraid of the consequences of the promise they made to the electorate the red lines and the fact they are incompatible with the promises they made to the likes of businesses. They promised both control of borders and frictionless borders. They cannot keep both sides happy.

  12. Trump is going to be hard to shift with economic results like this :-

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-gdp-q2-2018-advance-first-estimate-2018-7?r=US&IR=T

  13. DANNY

    Carfrew:“Two years on from the referendum, the views of most voters have not changed.”

    This is not as clear cut as the raw numbers might suggest because perhaps as many again have changed sides in opposite directions cancelling each other out, as compared to the total headline switch to remain.

    Also, I don’t think the raw numbers on leave/remain are adjusted for turnout. A referendum result would not necessarily mirror the leave/remain totals.

    But if you look at the detailed numbers they also show little change from two years ago. YouGov’s Right/Wrong question in the latest poll:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/eswcvhvq60/TimesResults_180723_VI_Trackers_w.pdf#page=6

    shows 89% of Remainers and 83% of Leavers are sticking with their views and the percentage switch to the other side (6% to Leave, 7% to Remain are pretty small). As I pointed out in my previous comment the repeat EU Ref question even more recently has very similar results (87% and 82%). There really isn’t much change. The flipping over to Remain in the polls mainly comes from those who didn’t vote last time.

    As for likelihood to vote, other pollsters who do ask the ‘repeat’ question more frequently do tend to use a specific LTV filter. Here is Survation from earlier in the month:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MoS-final-tables.pdf#page=12

    In that case an initial result of Leave 43.6% Remain 48.7% (ie Remain 52.8%) was only changed to Remain 52.0% – so not a massive alteration.

    Of course with the two sides being so close, practically anything can tip the result one way or another. But there’s not much movement in the underlying feelings so far.

  14. @PRTP – “I am not sure why we put the failure of the probation service down to ne0l1beralism. It seems a catch all for everything. This was down to the idea that privatisation is an unalloyed good and that understanding the issue is not important.”

    I rather think we can, because ‘the idea that privatisation is an unalloyed good and that understanding the issue is not important’ is actually all that neol!berlaism is about – the markets are best, state provision doesn’t work.

    Nothing more needs to be said.

  15. @Danny

    “This is not as clear cut as the raw numbers might suggest because perhaps as many again have changed sides in opposite directions cancelling each other out, as compared to the total headline switch to remain.

    Also, I don’t think the raw numbers on leave/remain are adjusted for turnout. A referendum result would not necessarily mirror the leave/remain totals.”

    ——

    Yes, good to have your points on churn and turnout. An advantage of posting from behind the paywall so peeps can check over what the media are saying. (I mean, they could be saying anything behind the paywall. Subscribers could be getting a completely different reality. They also get more recipes, so there’s that).

  16. @Colin – the annualised rate of 4.1% does look impressive (it is the same as ~1% GDP growth figures elsewhere where GDP is reported only on a quarterly basis) but it is worth noting a couple of points:

    The main forecasts predicted this, alongside the predictions of a settling back to under 3% annual growth for 2018.
    US consumer debt is rising, with much of the rise in consumer spending down to debt, not higher income in the pocket.
    US federal debts are ballooning – as you would expect after massive tax cuts, mainly to the wealthy and businesses. This is what Reagan did, and then what Reagan did next was to initiate the biggest ever federal tax rise in US history, because his previous biggest ever tax cuts had so trashed the deficit he had to recover lost ground.

    Politically, timing is everything here. Today, these figures look great for Trump, and he really needs this. As I posted this morning, he is the president with the highest ever disapproval rating at this stage of presidency in US polling history, and his approval score are the second worst of all time, just beating Gerald Ford.

    If this economic data holds for the next two and a quarter years, he might be OK, but if he has pinned his reputation to GDP figures, and this isn’t sustainable, then he will need the Russians to help again.

  17. ALEC

    It is job generation he will get re-elected on.

    Actually the most interesting stat I heard today was about Investment. Inward investment from China has virtually collapsed-whilst domestic investment has increased. Manufacturing investment is booming.

    I heard Trump talking about his Q1 economic stats. He went on & on about jobs , manufacturing & reshoring.
    He knows full well how he got elected & who will re-elect him.

  18. …………..know thy voter.

    Perhaps a lesson Trump could teach some of our politicians -many of whom seem to have forgotten who they were.

  19. So, two identical polls from YG and IpsosMori with Lab and Con both on 38%. As with several other polling companies LD are on their highest figure of the year from IpsosMori and both polls have them on 10%. Ukip have plateaued after their rise, averaging 6% in the last 6 polls and getting 6% in these two polls, up about 3% from before Chequers. No further swing to them from Con since the boost after Chequers and BoJo resignation.

    Putti ng today’s polls into the swingometer gives
    Con 297
    Lab 272
    LD 18

  20. imo there will be a fudge with a framework agreed in principal that will be a starting point for negotiations during the transition period.

    This way the UK leave the EU get their money, business get 2 years at least (I reckon more likely 3) to prepare.

    For Hard Brexiteers the UK gets longer for some of those so call techo solutions at the Irish Border while for soft Brexit/Remainers the UK gets longer for demographic and possible Bregrets to grow.

    The deal on offer or voted through will be a major issue at the 2022 GE with maybe even the offer of a re-joining referendum from some parties. Not Lab though probably as too early for them)

    Of course Scotland could have indy ref 2 within range as well which will muddy the waters somewhat.

  21. NB) I hope I am wrong and that a Lab Government after a GE sometime in the next 7 months offers an affirming referendum which produces a remain majority big enough to be clear.

    Or Danny’s conspiracies are correct and May leads us to remain somehow.

  22. Or they just stall and it never happens.

    Or the hard leave faction take over and crash us out!!

  23. @BazinWales

    I’ve updated my model with today’s poll and get:

    Con 281 (-37)
    Lab 279 (+17)
    LD 19 (+7)
    SNP 48 (+13)

    Anyway, all is unknown at this stage.

  24. @Colin

    “I heard Trump talking about his Q1 economic stats. He went on & on about jobs , manufacturing & reshoring.
    He knows full well how he got elected & who will re-elect him.“

    ——

    Yep, this is the elephant in the room Trev keeps going on about, with little take up by Remain. It’s all very well talking about what we might lose from leaving the EU, but the critical thing is what might replace it.

    If we lose access to some cheap, tariff-free components from the EU, but foster our own indigenous suppliers, who might not be quite as cheap, but it generates local jobs and tax revenue and reduces transport costs… are we better off overall, is the question.

    You recently made a related point: that people might point to how Germany might get exemptions for their local procurement, but it seems rather opaque, and unreliable.

    We did get an exemption from the transaction tax I think. But might they change that in future?

  25. Post-Chequers, has any polling been done gauging the public’s views about the likelihood and helpfulness of a general election in the relatively near future?

    To phrase it another way, has the polling showing discontent with the way the Government is handling Brexit translated into Leave voters feeling that a General Election would improve the situation (it wouldn’t suprise me in the slightest that an element of Remain voters would prefer an election to provide a chance of a Government that explicitly wants to remain, however absurdly unlikely this is in practise).

  26. I wonder how much of the US manufacturing investment is borrowed money and whether it will bring much in the way of employment, given that robotisation has changed manufacturing dramatically since the days that Trump supporters hark back to. You’d be foolish to invest in bringing back industry like it used to be.

    Of course the same could be said about a lot of the UK’s lost industry that some folk are nostalgic about.

  27. Carfrew: If we lose access to some cheap, tariff-free components from the EU, but foster our own indigenous suppliers

    Your if….but binary construction might fall foul of all those shiny new free trade deals. USA, China and Japan are the big prizes and I guess they have plentiful supplies of cheap components ready to flood in when tariffs are torn down, drowning those plucky indigenous component makers. Plus, of course, plentiful supplies of finished products to supplant those plucky indigenous component makers’ customers.

  28. CARFREW

    @” foster our own indigenous suppliers, who might not be quite as cheap, but it generates local jobs and tax revenue and reduces transport costs… are we better off overall, is the question.”

    To which both Trump & Corbyn conclude the answer is yes.

    For Trump , the State legislates to relieve domestic private sector producers of foreign competitive entrants & cheap imports.

    For Corbyn the State owns & runs domestic producers , crowding out all private sector competition, & crashes the value of sterling pricing out cheap imports.

    Same drawbrige being pulled up . Just different ways of hoisting it.

  29. STEAMDRIVENANDY

    @” You’d be foolish to invest in bringing back industry like it used to be.”

    Trumps Press Conference on Q1 economic data was interesting to watch. He read out lists of employment sector changes-all increases of course. He told a lengthy story about opening a new manufacturing plant where tough blue collar workers were in tears -men who had never cried before he said :-)

    Then he made a scathing comment about the previous regime;’s attitude to US manufacturing. He said he was told those jobs are gone & he said he didn’t accept it.

    I found myself imagining JC making the same speech.

    I find it fascinating.

  30. Colin,

    If I may quibble the Labour Party policy is to do with natural monopolistic utilities not back to owning BL for example.

    The procurement piece taking advantage of current EU rules and/or those that can be adopted outside the EU are arguably anti-competitive but it is what many other EU member states do.

  31. @DANNY
    “In my view the evidence says the conservative party is attemping remain in the EU, but will push in that direction as much as it can.”

    But Norway is actually leave isn’t it?

  32. SteamDrivenAndy

    The kicker will be if it kills investment such that the UK buys French/German designed robots in the future.

  33. JIM JAM

    I’m not convinced by your first para. McDonnell will be CoE-not Corbyn.

    It may start as you indicate -and be projected in a GE campaign like that. But my feeling is that it will develope into something much more fundamental.

    Re your second para-If you don’t mind I won’t get into that again. We only recently exchanged views on the topic.

    Whilst you’re here Jim Jam-can I ask you-.do you think the prospect of PLP & NEC having different definitions of Anti-Semitism is a real one?. If yes -do you think it will be a significant stress factor?. Will it arise at Conference ?

  34. PTRP (3:21)
    “The budget 49B spread over a decade in an GDP of the EU of US$17 trillion pa. It is not much of a lever is it in the grand scheme of things”

    You are (deliberately?) conflating to things – contribution to the EU budget and GDP of the member countries. The link below shows that in 2016 the UK contributed 13.4% of the EU budget. Quite significant in my view.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/european-union-eu-budget-share-of-contributions/

    But all this obsession with economics is far less important to many Leavers than matters such as sovereignty, control of immigration, ability to strike our own deals and so on. Perhaps most importantly, to be able to kick the government out. The present situation feels like our GEs are about equivalent to a local council because even if we kick them out, there is a layer above which can’t be affected by voters.

  35. @Trigguy @ Roger Mexico Thanks for answering my question

  36. @Somerjohn

    “Your if….but binary construction might fall foul of all those shiny new free trade deals. USA, China and Japan are the big prizes and I guess they have plentiful supplies of cheap components ready to flood in when tariffs are torn down, drowning those plucky indigenous component makers. Plus, of course, plentiful supplies of finished products to supplant those plucky indigenous component makers’ customers.“

    ———

    Well of course, if we don’t actually change the paradigm, but just replace the EU approach with something similar, that does make the Remain calculus somewhat easier and saves on thinking! I was just considering the situation in which it might not happen quite like that. Trump seems not afraid of tariffs, for example.

    We shouldn’t look to dismiss something just to make life easier. Crucially, even if it turns out we don’t actually leave the EUit is worth considering the cost in terms of what we might be losing in not having the indigenous production and jobs, and if the EU can be adapted to ameliorate a bit more, and of course there’s what polling might reveal about opinions on the matter.

  37. @Colin

    “To which both Trump & Corbyn conclude the answer is yes.
    For Trump , the State legislates to relieve domestic private sector producers of foreign competitive entrants & cheap imports.
    For Corbyn the State owns & runs domestic producers , crowding out all private sector competition, & crashes the value of sterling pricing out cheap imports.
    Same drawbrige being pulled up . Just different ways of hoisting it.“

    ——-

    Lol, your Corbyn caricature made me laugh out loud. I’m not sure how clear the Corbyn – or perhaps McDonnell – policies are on the matter, so I am myself wary and we do have to consider worst case scenarios I suppose, god knows we had to with some privatisations, but there are less fearsome ways of doing state intervention and it would be a surprise if they were all soviet about it given lessons of the past. But then I never thought Leavers would push the price of synths up.

  38. @Pete B

    “But all this obsession with economics is far less important to many Leavers than matters such as sovereignty, control of immigration, ability to strike our own deals and so on.“

    ——

    Well, immigration came to dominate the polling charts in the same way that sovereignty, striking deals etc. didn’t. Immigration even triumphed over the economy in polling, so yes it’s true it’s not important to many Leavers who are retiring of course.

  39. @Colin

    I should add, that given McDonnell was prepared to give New Labour a good go, he’s possibly not a diehard on such things, prepared to compromise quite a bit. Corbyn on the one hand wasn’t much for compromise in voting against his own party line repeatedly, but as leader he seems happy to defer awkward stuff to the majority. They’ve not held senior roles in government either, so until you see them in power it’s hard to really know.

  40. Colin – I think it unlikely that the PLP will adopt a different set of examples of anti-Semitism to the NEC. I think an NEC climb down recognising that the examples so far excluded may be applicable

    Up here in the North we are largely untouched by the issue as we have less far left new members some of whom are imo anti-Semitic sadly routed in a single state paradigm solution to the Palestinians plight.

    I like to think I am well informed on Labour Party matters and discerning but on this issue I feel unable to make judgements with any confidence.

    It will be an issue at conference behind the scenes if not dealt with by then but I expect it to be so.

    Forgive me repeating that anti-Semitic prejudice is more prevalent on the right of the political spectrum (we had evidence on here) but not in ROC political parties it seems.

  41. Interesting reports from Brexit talks on Galileo.

    The Guardian has been told that Barnier (not the EC or council) has floated an idea to allow the UK unretsricted access to the encrypted signals, which would be guaranteed never to be switched off. However, he remains adamant that companies contracted to build and run Galileo must be governed by EU security law (something the UK has supported while an EU member) and given May’s red lines on the ECJ, this means no post Brexit UK firms.

    If true, this shows several things. Firstly, just how much the UK is hoist by our own petard. We campaigned for the security clearance idea for contractors while in the EU, so we just can’t complain when that counts against us as a third country.

    It also shows that Barnier is thinking of movement in some areas – cleverly in this instance, as this plan would mean no one could accuse the EU of jeopardising UK security post Brexit – only that we won’t be able to financially gain from Galileo due to our own red lines.

    Thirdly, it hints at what Barnier said about them moving their red lines if we move ours. The play here is for may to agree to allow ECJ/EU law oversight in matters related to Galileo and so allow UK companies the chance to bid. Once the red line is breached on that, it makes other areas susceptible.

    The Galileo talks will be one to watch, but it does suggest that behind the scenes we are inching toward a withdrawal agreement.

  42. Carfrew: Well of course, if we don’t actually change the paradigm, but just replace the EU approach with something similar, that does make the Remain calculus somewhat easier and saves on thinking!

    It’s not me or most remainers who are gung-ho for free trade deals to replace the mega free trade deal we currently have.

    So I don’t see why you should say – as you appear to be doing – that the Brexiteer model (loads of quick free trade deals) is used by lazy remainers as some sort of sloppy prop to save on thinking.

    If you reject both free trade with the EU, and replacement free trade deals with Uncle Tom Cobley and all, then you are presumably falling back on some kind of autarky model. Good luck with that.

  43. @Alec

    That sounds like a perfectly logical compromise to me.

    Of course, if I think that, I’m sure that JRM et la thinks it’s a betrayal of Brexit…

  44. @ Somerjohn

    I think it is all very well saying that protectionism won’t work but from an economic perspective things have been taking a downward turn (in the West) for a long time for an increasingly significant section of society. This is demonstrated by an increasing desire for radical change from Western voters.

    It’s no longer enough to say that something won’t work but not offer solutions because the bloody doors will be blown off whether you like it or not!

    There almost certainly is a choice of something between free trade and autarky (had to look it up although I guessed right!). I don’t think you should see this as an either/or. Seems to me the more free trade we have had the worse things have got for the UK and the poorest in society.

  45. @Shevii

    I think there are two different points involved here. One is what degree of free trade works best for people. As you say, there is a half-way house between complete free trade, Minford style, and the equally loony extreme of insisting on growing our own coffee, bananas and oranges. I’d argue that the EU, with its modest protection of local industry and agriculture, but plenty of free-ish trade, is in that halfway position.

    The other point is growing inequality and the lopsided distribution of the fruits of everyone’s labour, which I think is at the heart of your feeling that “from an economic perspective things have been taking a downward turn”. That, I think, is a separate point from how much free trade we should have. Earlier today Millie (I think) posted an interesting piece from the Economist on this, which basically argued that the rich have captured control of democratic politics through the ability to manipulate voting behaviour.

  46. Gary Lineker’s support for a second referendum seems to have had an impact in the polls – possibly because he is the sort of person ordinary people can relate to.

  47. @Somerjohn

    “It’s not me or most remainers who are gung-ho for free trade deals to replace the mega free trade deal we currently have.
    So I don’t see why you should say – as you appear to be doing – that the Brexiteer model (loads of quick free trade deals) is used by lazy remainers as some sort of sloppy prop to save on thinking.
    If you reject both free trade with the EU, and replacement free trade deals with Uncle Tom Cobley and all, then you are presumably falling back on some kind of autarky model. Good luck with that.”

    ——-

    Yes, you’re changing things, to talk about EU-style trade deals, making the convenient assumption that one must be for such deals, or that they might be inevitable, as a means of dodging the question of the cost of letting jobs go elsewhere.

    As I pointed out, this won’t work very well but I shall make it clearer for you if you like!

    Reasons the dodge won’t work include (but are not limited to):
    – it’s not a given all our trade deals will be like EU. Trump is indicating a reaction against that and towards more protectionism, as are we, and others may well join the party
    – even if we can’t avoid such deals, as I said, it is still useful to know the cost of sacrificing the jobs and local investment, to make an informed comparison. Remainers are happy to list costs of leaving, but aren’t so keen to engage with costs of staying
    – even if we stay, this analysis may be useful in pressuring EU to make it easier to keep local jobs if we stay
    – it’s worth analysing rhe issue from a polling perspective. How much might people prefer keeping jobs etc., versus having cheaper imports.
    – even if we leave, and then later join some other EU-style bloc, we may in the interim have generated some new industries a# a result of needing the import substitution in the interim

    In other words, the utility of the information about costs converning jobs etc. is independent of whether we continue with EU-style deals.

  48. JIM JAM

    Thanks.

    I won’t respond to your last para. Merelt to say that other opinions are available.

  49. @Shevii

    “I think it is all very well saying that protectionism won’t work”

    ——

    Well, Somerjohn has gone further and assumed I’m falling back on “autarky”, I.e. self-suffiency. When I have done nothing to advocate that, it’s a complete straw man, I am just talking about weighing the costs of imports on jobs etc, vs benefits of cheaper products etc.

    This is not the same as arguing for having no imports at all. Different sectors have different costs and benefits anyway, some are more strategic than others. Some offer better value jobs than others, some offer much better value imports. So one operates in a case-by-case basis.

    The reality is, we are already quite protectionist in some sectors. Some sectors, e.g. banking, enjoyed HUGE amounts of protection, hundreds of billions and more.

  50. Shevii
    “Seems to me the more free trade we have had the worse things have got for the UK and the poorest in society.”

    Do you have any evidence for that? Surely more free trade means cheaper products which benefits the poorest in particular.

1 20 21 22 23 24 31

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)