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.


1,819 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 36, LAB 41, LDEM 9, UKIP 7”

1 32 33 34 35 36 37
  1. In my last post, for “European Community” please read “European Union” (the survey wasn’t that long ago!)

  2. LBC’s James O’Brien had a WTO expert on his show. Sobering listening.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DIz9UTmMQk

    If only half of what this expert says comes to pass we are in big trouble.

    Everyone’s assumption is that WTO membership is a given. I am not at all clear what happens if there are loads of objections and membership is delayed until after March.

    I would be interested to hear some feedback from some of the more knowledgeable contributors on UKPR.

  3. Nearlyfrench @ 7.48 am

    I agree with this message. Holiday letting is a good thing for both the visitors and usually the local economy. I was prodded by ON to give an opinion, and didn`t word as broadly as I should have.

    But I do see situations where problems arise.

    As more generally in housing with tenants exercising the right-to-buy and causing the needed stocks of places to rent to become minimal. So again for ON, I approve what the SNP government have done in ending right-to-buy.

  4. Davywel: Holiday letting is a good thing for both the visitors and usually the local economy.

    I agree. A distinction needs to be drawn between the often positive impact of actively let holiday properties and the deadening effect of second homes occupied only occasionally by the owners and empty for most of the year. Too often, these categories are lumped in together.

    Having said that, there is clearly a level above which dominant holiday lets change a community into one of visitors plus a few picturesque locals. Maybe something like 30% is the tipping point?

  5. There is a lot to be said for a tax on second homes as a way to help people who don’t yet have their first.

  6. The Opinium piece on Brexit options was titled “Which way to the (Br)exit?”

  7. Holiday letting has some economic benefits but it kills off any market for long term residential letting which can stymie economic growth by making it hard to move into or stay in the area unless (hah!) there is a surplus of social housing.

  8. Pete B

    “I’m sorry, I always try to be polite, but your post is utter drivel. You seem to be saying that because my daughter and her husband each had a house when they married (and my daughter bought hers at age 19 by the way), that they are somehow slaveowners because they kept both houses and rented the one they din’t live in? Perhaps if McDonnell becomes Chancellor he’ll confiscate all second properties? Would that be a better solution?
    “Imagine being 20 years old now, without family money, but with a good professional job (in London, because that’s where they are).”

    Rubbish. There are thousands if not millions of ‘good professional jobs’ outside London. They may pay a bit less, but the cost of living is lower.”

    Of course there are jobs outside London – I currently live in Liverpool. However, in many industries there aren’t many jobs outside London.

    I’m not saying *nobody* can find a good life. I’m saying that the inflated housing market, which sucks money from land owners and gives it to non land owners, makes the situation extremely hard, so less people find a good life.

    A report on the topic:
    https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/report_a_homes_of_their_own

    The solutions are fairly straightforward – no tax relief on mortgage interest, indefinite security of tenure with only market rate rent increases, capital gains tax changes, right-to-buy revenue getting spent on new social housing etc. etc. I don’t see enough willingness by Government to tackle them.

    As many have said in response to us – of course if there’s free money people will take it. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t cause direct, tangible harm meanwhile. I’m not blaming anyone who does this (although I find it morally hard to make myself do it myself). I’m blaming the system.

  9. @ Jo
    “Holiday letting has some economic benefits but it kills off any market for long term residential letting which can stymie economic growth by making it hard to move into or stay in the area unless (hah!) there is a surplus of social housing.”

    In Swansea and the Gower in the 1970’s it was a common planning restriction that property built as holiday accommodation could only be physically occupied for 10 months of the year. That kept the price of such accommodation separated from the rest of the local housing stock.

    I don’t know what happened but those restrictions appear to have been removed generally. However, it seems to me that it demonstrates that there can be relatively straightforward means to separate accommodation designated for commercial use and that designated as domestic property.

  10. On aspect of second homes people often overlook is that most were sold by local people to the highest bidder, often an outsider.

    In some areas at least initially they were poor quality and often needed refurbished or almost rebuilt so weren’t in demand.

    In those areas where they are now prevalent, usually tourist hot spots, locals may complain about a lack of affordable housing, but they tend to gloss over their part in creating the situation.

    It’s disingenuous to sell a property for the best price to an incomer as a holiday home and then complain that there aren’t enough houses for locals.

    Peter.

  11. Prof Howard

    Given the likely advantages that special status would confer on NI what do you think are the chances DUP will accept it or that Mrs May might try to make it happen?

    http://karlwhelan.com/blog/?p=1756

    http://karlwhelan.com/blog/?p=1827

  12. Davwel

    You are welcome. I looked up the information to which I linked because I did not know the conditions but also because I thought there might be the possibility of lazy “SNP baaad” thinking on your part. I hope I am wrong.

  13. “The only intermediate options the EU might offer are ‘Canada’ or ‘Norway’”

    Depending on the politics this may be a point of procedural pedantry but it may turn out to be one of central practicality.

    As I see it “the EU” can’t offer “Norway” if by that we mean EEA membership via EFTA. This requires either that the U.K. joins EFTA in its own right. That isn’t in the EU’s gift to give. It’s in the gift of the EFTA states.

    And EEA membership outwith EFTA (for which the shorthand should in any case be “Switzerland”) has implicitly been ruled out and would appear tonrequire EEA treaty change anyway which also gives the EFTA countries a veto.

    Would you have us?

  14. For the record I was going to say “either that the U.K. joins EFTA or that the EEA treaty can be read that it doesn’t automatically leave the EEA when it leaves the EU” neither of which outcomes is in the EUs gift.

    Then I deleted most but not quite all of the reference to the second possibility (because I personally believe it is a nonsense argument) but that made what was left not make sense.

    In any event “Norway” is not formally the EU’s to offer.

  15. @ Roger in Mex

    “Almost as important as YouGov’s revelation about whether people put the milk in before or after the tea”

    This used to be regarded as one of the acid tests of social class, as I’m sure a person of your profound eudition knows.

    I have a friend whose Edwardian-born great Aunts said about women they saw as not quite the ticket: “She’s a little bit M.I.F., my dear [Milk in First]”.

  16. @Francis I

    “The solutions are fairly straightforward – no tax relief on mortgage interest, indefinite security of tenure with only market rate rent increases, capital gains tax changes, right-to-buy revenue getting spent on new social housing etc. etc. I don’t see enough willingness by Government to tackle them.”

    I also find the way the arch N3o L1b George O encouraged the Air Bnb explosion equally worrying.

    How that sector gets away with very little regulation whilst being allowed to undercut legitimate businesses is beyond me. And it also adds to the housing crisis as well!

  17. The political noises coming out of the EU27 are that EEA would be fine. The exact legalities are interesting in a lawyery kind of way but this seems to be rather where there’s a will there’s a way issue.

    Organising a sidestep into EEA is going to be far easier than sorting a FTA which even though it’s referred to as ‘off the shelf’ still will require some tailoring and negotiation.

  18. Sam

    I suspect the DUP are averse to any talk of special status. They would be worried about NI coming under laws and regulations that come from Brussels into which no UK politicians have a say. If the special status involved powers in Belfast, devolved from London that might be acceptable, since they are a devolutionary party. To cut a long story short I don’t see how they’d accept being in the single market and customs union if GB isn’t.

  19. @JamesB

    It’s a shame that Cameron and Osborne didn’t do any scenario planning, and specified what leaving the EU could mean i. E. They could have spelt out that EFTA would be a transition. But they weren’t those type of guys! I doubt there was a plan B if INdyRef wen’t Yes either.

    But then I suspect Leave would have won by an even bigger margin as Project Fear would have been nullified.

  20. The Enemy Within
    @ Crossbat11. Your sweeping post has been commended & rightly.

    What wearies me about the B(D)rexit posts, apart from the fact that (unlike your elegant contributions) they often exhibit a clunking prolixity, is that they are obsessed with bureaucratic proceduralism: interminable expostulations about the “real significance” of Para 21B of the WA etc etc. Many posters, there are of course exceptions, have lost sight of the big picture: that, as you say, “Brexit is a right wing political project a quarter of a century in the making”. A right-wing ideologues’ project which presents an existential threat to the future prosperity of much of the UK’s population. The enemy lies within.
    But are you not wrong to say that nobody cared about the EU until the “project” stirred it up? The EU in fact emerged in polls as a key issue after 1997 Lab victory = fears about joining the Euro? From 2000 its salience declined, but did not disappear, to be replaced by immigration, which by 2002 rivalled the NHS as the key issue. This was long before people worried about the economy or took UKIP seriously. These immigration fears must have had some linkage to anti-EU feeling?
    Balls, so he says, constantly warned Brown about immigration fears & their perils for Labour. But it was Farage who spotted their potential as an all-out anti-EU vehicle. In short, anti-immigration populism invented itself long before the Crash, was shaped not created by UKIP & the “crazies”, & always haboured a latent hostility to the EU that you have under-estimated.?

  21. If cameron had been smart enough to do scenario planning he probably would have been smart enough to not run such a negative campaign (or allowed it to be portrayed as such, plenty of project fear on the leave side as well about migration and turkey etc) or to even call such a poorly defined referendum (i.e. made it binding, required some form of super majority, not given way to the ERG on who was eligible to vote in every possible way).

    that said, I’m not particularly convinced about your logic. A chief concern of those who voted leave was immigration, EFTA/EEA does not solve that, most polling has indicated that there is no majority for EEA as much as there is no majority for a full brexit. The only reason leave was able to scrape the slim majority it did was by being vague enough that it picked up both the EEA and the FTA groups. Condense it to either of those options and that 3.9% is more than gone.

  22. @prof howard

    Yep – The DUP will not counternance anything that leaves NI with closer links to the republic than the UK – so any sort of “sea border” of different trade arrangement.

    The logic of it does not matter – it goes to the core of their beliefs.

  23. @JamesB

    I know the immigration question is not solved by EFTA, but it’s one of the many reasons for a Brexit result.

    Migration can be managed by domestic means within EFTA, or even EU, a surfeit of cheap labour helps no one if we want to move to a high skilled, higher wage economy.

    Doing so means more regulation, more certification and more closed professions…. An anathema to N£o L|ba.

  24. Can we all please just stop using the N-word? It’s banned for a reason – mostly because it’s now just a word for “stuff I don’t like”, or, according to one economist whose name I forget, a “meaningless boo-word”.

    It’s also the biggest straw man in modern politics. The gap between what these n**-l****** people are claimed to believe, and what they actually believe, is a vast, unfathomable chasm.

    Personal disclaimer: a close friend of mine lost a court case against her ex-husband yesterday. She is being stalked, and the situation is getting so bad she has resolved to leave the country to protect her children. All the way through she has battled dumb, common-sense-defying regulations about statutory contact time between her ex and her kids, and now she is fighting equally dumb visa rules. Regulations are ruining her life right now. So excuse me if I don’t applaud you for your sentiment that freedom of movement rules are only a vested interest of the 1%.

  25. ROBBIE ALIVE

    @” Many posters, there are of course exceptions, have lost sight of the big picture:”

    ..or even the facts about attitudes to EC/EU membership in UK. Why bother with them when the tired old basket of Right Wing Ideologues, Zenophobes & Racists rests so near at hand?

    This review by IPSOS MORI of properly established opinion in uk ( as opposed to an EU phile’s tired old list of those to blame for Brexit) shows that equivocation about membership has been a feature of UK opinion since the year after Heath took us in.

    Trigger points for disenchantment have been The Single Currency & Immigration from Eastern Accession countries.

    A period of stable support for membership was following Thatcher’s renegotiation of Budget contributions -from1987 “Get Out” never had a majority until 1999.

    So much for a Right Wing Political Project !.

    This is dated June 21 2016:-

    https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250

  26. @Colin

    This why I keep saying, EFTA is the ideal compromise.

    The British do not want political and monetary union, just free trading alignment.

  27. @Robbiealive

    “Many posters, there are of course exceptions, have lost sight of the big picture: that, as you say, “Brexit is a right wing political project a quarter of a century in the making”. A right-wing ideologues’ project which presents an existential threat to the future prosperity of much of the UK’s population. The enemy lies within.”

    ——-

    Well as someone not v. involved in Brexit debates, it’s possible they may not have lost sight of it, it’s more that people avoid stuff that’s a bit harder to prove, and which might be fractious.

    Part of the reason people discuss Brexit is that it lessens the tribalism a bit because it crosses party lines. And hence gets modded less too.

    And the procedurailsm is another way to avoid modding, because it can be quite hard to get into a flame war about Paragraph A subsection 4 of something arcane.

    It’s also complicated, which appeals to those who like wrestling with complex systems. This is a disaster for people who instead like to boil things down to something or other e.g. “Oh FFS it’s just THIS Isn’t it!” Which of course doesn’t always work.

    In the end the solution is to post more interesting and less fractious stuff yourself instead of demanding it from others?

  28. This is the estimable Professor Vernon Bogdanor FBA CBE in the first of his lectures on Britain in Europe.

    http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/britain-and-the-continent
    ( click on PDF for full text)

    A tour de force with from which I highlight two sections which I particularly noted:-

    ” In the press conference at which he announced his veto, de Gaulle said that the Treaty of Rome which established the European Community had been signed in 1957 by six Continental states which were of the same nature. Britain, by contrast, he said, was insular: “She is maritime.She is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines, to the most diverse, and often the most distant, countries. She pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones.”
    That, he said, was why Britain was so opposed to the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community,which the French regarded as an essential element of it. De Gaulle concluded that, I quote: “The nature, the structure, the very situation” – “conjuncture” in French – “the very situation that are England’s differ profoundly
    from those of the Continentals.”

    and

    “One of the official negotiators on the British side said about our entry in 1973 that there had been a number of European enthusiasts in public life, who had always imagined that entered the Community would be an easy,pleasant and comfortable process. “They had never bothered to discover how intensely technical and difficult the process was bound to be, and had relied too much on mere idealism and good fellowship to do the trick.”
    That comes from a pro-European negotiator, not someone hostile to it.Now, we found, upon joining, that we were required to make far greater adjustments than any of the other member states, and the question was whether we could make them, and whether we wanted to make them, and whether it was in our interest to make them.The first fundamental problem was that our economic and social arrangements were often very different from those of the other member states. Our system of indirect taxation was different, so we had to introduce VAT to replace Purchase Tax, and our system for subsidising agriculture was different because, as I mentioned earlier, Britain, unlike the countries of the Continent, did not have a large agriculture sector. We relied on cheap imports,
    primarily from the Commonwealth countries, for our food, and the Continent, on the other hand, relied on guaranteed prices, which meant higher prices than you would get in the market, to maintain a large agricultural sector – that is the basis of the Common Agricultural Policy.But I think even more fundamental is the fact that our constitutional arrangements and our party system and
    our electoral system are so different from those on the Continent, and that is in part a result of the fact that our constitutional evolution has been so very different from the countries of the Continent.”

    The first bit of that second extract echoes down the years to the current negotiations between us-this time to leave !

  29. JONESIN BANGOR

    Your second sentence-I agree. Whether a poll would prove it I don’t know. Its certainly my own view.

    Your first sentence. Dunno-I’m losing the will to think about different options. Its all too complex. I just have everything crossed at present !

  30. @polltroll

    it was john rentoul. who is not a economist – hes a columnist and something of a troll himself.

    and ne0-liberalism is not meaningless – it has a pretty clear meaning – it refers to a particular school of economics lead by the likes of milton friedman and the “chicago school”

    wiki definition = “refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980”

    nothing vague or contentious there – and pretty much how it is taught if you study economics

    The problem stems – perhaps – from the fact that noone wants to openly admit following this school of thought – new labour certainly didn’t – even though much of their program either failed to challenge the ne0 liberal consensus inherited from thatcher, or tactically continued much of it. After the 2008 crash and brexit these ideas are have become increasingly unpopular – but the likes of the BofE, the ECB and the IMF are still pretty much wedded to them.

  31. The post-war Keynesian consensus was effectively finished with the Phillips-curve doctrine, so late 1950s, it was only a question of the political process when it would be done.I

    Joan Robinson’s article “What are the questions” in 1978 shows clearly that neoclassical economics has always been dominant.

    Schunpeter, completely corectly, said that Keynes was a monetarily (i.e. the same as Friedman – and yes, Friedman’s adaptive expectation hypothesis is basically Keynesian).

    Wikipedia is a pretty bad source on most social science theories, and excellent on many other things.

  32. @Polltroll

    “Can we all please just stop using the N-word?”

    ———

    It’s unfortunately a real phenomenon though that’s hard to avoid, that cropped up in many countries. The reintroduction of old-style, anti-interventionist Liberalism. (As opposed to the sort of Liberalism that’s more ok with interventionism). You can’t ignore it, any more than you can ignore Capitalism, Socialism, Environmentalism, Conservatism etc., all of which get massively misrepresented at times, and treated perjoratively. And as I have found, if you use something else like Liberalism, the Liberals May protest because there are other kinds of Liberalism.

    In the end, the term isn’t necessarily being misused, you just differ over the outcomes, the same way some differ over the results of Socialism, Capitalism etc.

  33. “In my last post, for “European Community” please read “European Union” (the survey wasn’t that long ago!)“

    ——

    It’s ok, it’s easier* if one just substitutes “Federalist Fantasy” for Remain nowadays, and “Isolationist fantasy” for Brexit. Or a choice of being the German poodle if we stay in, or Ruskie poodle if we don’t. (There are other dimensions…)

    * though not necessarily better

  34. “On aspect of second homes people often overlook is that most were sold by local people to the highest bidder, often an outsider.”

    ——

    In the end the key issue is how easily can one purchase one’s own home. Or indeed a second home. It then matters less if others have a home or two of their own, or rent one out e5c,

  35. “There is a lot to be said for a tax on second homes as a way to help people who don’t yet have their first.”

    ——

    Or just make homes a lot cheaper, like we used to. If you tax second homes, and people then acquire fewer second homes, you get less revenue to help others buy a home. Also higher property prices push up rents and make it hard to save for a purchase, and they make shop prices higher which means they have to charge more for goods. And it diverts money away from other more productive forms of investment.

  36. “The problem is the price/availability and the location relative to employment centres. This is a worldwide issue associated with all major cities.“

    ——-

    Indeed. Our issue might have got ramped up a bit via QE, immigration, right to buy etc.

  37. @Danny

    “They seem to believe international trade stifles home production.“

    ——

    Well if a factory gets offshored and nothing replaces it, or you get good jobs replaced by McJobs, there’s potentially an issue.

    We found out in the Eighties that if you lose jobs, they don’t necessarily spring back up if the economy recovers.

  38. The last of Vernon Bogdanor’s Britain in Europe Series-“The Growth of Euroscepticism.”

    …….how we went from this :-

    :-“Margaret Thatcher attacked the Labour Party for what she called its “frequently obstructive and malevolent attitude towards Europe”

    to Cameron’s Bloomberg Speech of 2013

    and why.

    http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-growth-of-euroscepticism

    ( click on PDF for full text)

    His little opinion poll at the end of the lecture-two years before the Referendum -is interesting !

  39. ”We found out in the Eighties that if you lose jobs, they don’t necessarily spring back up if the economy recovers”

    That’s one of the problems of the wistful wish for a return of manufacturing to the Midlands and North etc. Even if you can get someone to invest in new factories, technology has moved on apace and the number and type of jobs in a new factory will be very different.

  40. There are a number of rarely acknowledged housing problems to add to the second home issue.

    The cost of moving (and other factors) means that lots of houses are extended and this reduces the availability of smaller, cheaper houses both for first timers and downsizing. The average size of existing houses (not new build) is inexorably rising.

    There are many, many under occupied houses, with one or two empty nesters in 4 or 5 bed properties where they are unable to find suitable smaller places to live. This blocks such houses for new families and means they’re forced to purchase new builds. It would be far better if developers built properties suitable for downsizing so that the blocking ceased to happen.

  41. @JAMESB
    “The political noises coming out of the EU27 are that EEA would be fine. ”

    This is exactly where the point becomes potentially political and not lawyerly pedantry though.

    The indications coming out of Norway are not so unambiguously favourable. PM Solberg makes nice noises. Eurominister Aspaker does the opposite. Just good cop bad cop to keep the negotiating position for a nice quid pro quo and/ or an arrangement that ensures they keep U.K. as a member firmly reined in possibly.

    But that’s why it is important to note that Norway has a veto. It’s part of the politics. It’ll need squared.

    Anyway, probably academic as others have said as it doesn’t solve the free movement thing.

  42. I hope everyone is enjoying their Summer – enjoying a great break in French Alps and just checking in on ‘politics’ and ‘polling’ due to a thunderstorm.

    An interesting poll and write-up from YG concerning “Where is the most fertile ground for a new party”:
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/where-most-fertile-ground-new-party/

    I put new in emphasis as it is CON and Leave voters who feel that “none of the main parties” express this view (UKIP are not considered a main party) – we’ve clearly seen this with some CON VI moving over to UKIP.

    There is no need for a new party simply a new approach from CON. 6.5 of the top 8 areas can and should be easy shifts for CON party (to make it believable I think that would simply require a new leader, CoE and some high profile changes in the civil service):

    1/ Harsher justice system
    2/ Stricter immigration (I’d prefer “sensible” to strict but that can be achieved by selling “sensible” as stricter)
    3/ No military intervention in other countries (a difficult one for CON, although I’d be personally quite happy with less military involvement)
    4/ Regulate big business more (tricky for CON but I’m giving it a 0.5 on the basis of regulate “better” and the belief that “less is more”)
    5/ Benefit system is too generous
    6/ Britain should leave the EU (by this we know voters don’t think Chequers is actually leaving the EU)
    7/ NHS spending should be increased
    8/ More govt intervention in housebuilding.

    The poll and write-up suggests little need for a new EU centre/left party and focus on Leave voters being “up for grabs”. So no need for “new” just an ‘evolved’ post ne0-liberalism form of the CON party!

    P.S. Just finishing reading “Reclaiming the State” by Mitchell and Fazi. An excellent (far?) “left” review of the rise of ne0-liberalism and a Corbynite(not Corbynista)/Melanchon/M5S progressive vision of sovereignty for a post-ne0liberal World

    Too far left IMHO (oddly they don’t mention Venezuela’s attempt to reclaim their state), however, an excellent read all the same and many of the points can be applied to a more pro-active Centre-Right (new-CON?) party that can take back the VI “parked” with UKIP. My view has always been that ne0-liberalism failed in 2007-9 but wasn’t killed off. If the Centre-Right don’t find a post-ne0liberal model then the far-left and far-right will fill the void.

  43. Carfrew: My problem is not that I can’t stand discussion of the modern economic model – it’s just that the actual word which most used to describe it has become a term of abuse rather than sensible critique.

    The main problem is that the scope of its definition has gradually expanded to the point of meaninglessness (as part of a concerted effort to push the Overton Window ever further left). We are reaching the logical endpoint of this process: the leftist rhetorical construction of a false dichotomy between The Absolute Boy and an absurd social Darwinist strawman, which really contains a dozen different variants running the spectrum from social democracy all the way to anarcho-capitalism, but which are all bundled together under the n-word banner. Any word that can describe both Ed Miliband and Augusto Pinochet is not a useful one.

  44. @ Oldnat

    Happy Anniversary- I think it was today but too many pages to go back to check. Hope you did something special and have had a good time.

  45. @Laszlo

    “The post-war Keynesian consensus was effectively finished with the Phillips-curve doctrine, so late 1950s, it was only a question of the political process when it would be done.”

    ——-

    They soon revived it when they needed it during the banking crisis though! Plenty of stabilisers and old-fashioned stimulus, along with the more modern approach of finding stimuli with less government borrowing – QE, Help to buy etc.

    And very effective it was too, turning a seven percent hit to plus two percent inside two years. (It was quite handy elsewhere too, and Americans saved their car industry etc.)

    THEN they reverted to the less interventionist approach. Although London and the SE still get their infrastructure spend of course.

  46. “6/ Britain should leave the EU”

    by that point it’s down to just 11% so I think

    “(by this we know voters don’t think Chequers is actually leaving the EU)”

    perhaps needs a qualifier before the ‘voters’…

    even the calls for harsher justice (24%) or strict immigration (16%) are hardly huge portions.

    Also any movement by a main party to keep these in risks losing some others out of the other side.

  47. Not heard of Jonathon Lis or the British Influence thinktank, so I can’t comment on their funding or affiliations, but his report for them sums up what I have felt regarding the chances of a no deal Brexit since the vote:

    “Theresa May. She will not accept a no-deal scenario. Everything she has done so far demonstrates her terror of it. The EU has called her bluff on the negotiation sequencing, divorce payment, Irish backstop and transition terms, and to keep the show on the road she has blinked each time.

    Assume then that May folds and subsequently resigns. The new prime minister declares that no deal really is better than a bad deal. He or she needn’t come clean about the consequences: reality will step into the breach. Put simply, Britain will start shutting up shop by the new year. Tens of thousands of EU citizens will leave, manufacturers will make show-stopping announcements about the closure of businesses, and the pound will tumble. Can the new prime minister depend on voters’ enthusiastic embrace of an entirely voluntary and pointless Blitz spirit, or will they call for a climbdown?”

  48. ALEC

    Not hard to find out though :-

    “British Influence, formally the Centre for British Influence Through Europe, was an independent, cross-party[1], pro-single market[2] foreign affairs think tank based in the United Kingdom. The group was founded in 2012 to make the case for the European Union amid increasing calls for British withdrawal from the EU[3]. It appointed Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat), Kenneth Clarke (Conservative) and Peter Mandelson (Labour)[4] as joint presidents ahead of a possible 2017 referendum[5], however they are no longer associated with the organisation.”

    Wiki

    Here they all are including Mr Lis:-

    http://influencegroup.org.uk/people/

    Lis is behind this :-

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-eea-challenge/uk-think-tank-plans-legal-challenge-over-europe-single-market-access-idUKKBN13N0JC

    or was-don’t know if it is still live.

  49. @Polltroll

    Yes, you didn’t seem to read my post. You just reiterated your point which as already explained had issues.

    So, you’re correct that the term might get misappropriated. This, as pointed out is pretty much inevitable and it happens to ALL the ideological terms. Either intentionally, or as a genuine mistake, people are liable to misrepresent things at some point.

    But this doesn’t mean we can just abandon the term any more than we [email protected] abandon using Socialism or Capitalism, because used properly it describes a real phenomenon.

    Thus, challenging the misuse may be necessary rather than effectively ruling out referring to the phenomenon. Socialism often gets conflated with extremes of authoritarian Communism, for example. Some caricature Greens as Luddites, Nationalists as fascists, the problem abounds. Some people are unfair to women, are you going to abandon the use of the word “women”?

    Regarding the expansion of the term, to encompass mild and extreme versions, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It just captures reality. You can indeed have mild intervention and the extreme sort, just as you can have a bit of redistribution or a lot in terms of Socialism, or a little Capitalism or a lot.

  50. @SteamdrivenAndy

    “That’s one of the problems of the wistful wish for a return of manufacturing to the Midlands and North etc. Even if you can get someone to invest in new factories, technology has moved on apace and the number and type of jobs in a new factory will be very different.“

    ———

    Well, it’s an argument to not lose the jobs in the first place. Other countries invested and saved their car industries.

    But sure, if you have to replace the jobs once lost, then they may be somewhat different in nature, but that’s ok if they’re good jobs and retraining is available.

    State investment of course can be in sectors that favour the creation of good jobs.

    Though even if the new jobs are quite automated, that can still be ok if there are knock on jobs with suppliers etc.

1 32 33 34 35 36 37