A quick update on some polling figures from the last few days.

ComRes released a new telephone poll for the Daily Mail on Friday. Topline voting intention figures were CON 37%, LAB 32%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 12%, GRN 4% (tabs are here.) On the EU referendum ComRes had voting intentions of REMAIN 54%, LEAVE 36%, DK 10%.

YouGov also released new figures on voting intention and the EU referendum on their website. Their lastest topline VI figures are CON 39%, LAB 30%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 17%, GRN 3% (tabs are here). On the EU referendum they have Leave slightly ahead – REMAIN 38%, LEAVE 42%, DK/WNV 20%.

Finally Ipsos MORI also released EU referendum figures (part of the monthly Political Monitor survey I wrote about earlier in the week). Their latest figures are REMAIN 50%, LEAVE 38%, DK 12%.

There continues to be a big contrast between EU referendum figures in polls conducted by telephone, and conducted online. The telephone polls from ComRes and Ipsos MORI both have very solid leads for remain, the online polls from ICM, YouGov, Survation and others all tend to have the race very close. In one sense the contrast seems to be in line with the contrast we saw in pre-election polls – while there was little consistent difference between online and telephone polls in terms of the position of Labour and the Conservatives (particularly in the final polls), there was a great big gulf in terms of the levels of UKIP support they recorded – in the early part of 2015 there was a spread of about ten points between those (telephone) pollsters showing the lowest levels of UKIP support and those (online) pollsters showing the highest levels of UKIP support. It doesn’t seem particularly surprising that this online/telephone gap in terms of UKIP support also translates into an online/telephone gap in terms of support for leaving the EU. In terms of which is the better predictor it doesn’t give us much in the way of clues though – the 13% UKIP ended up getting was bang in the middle of that range.

The other interesting thing about the telephone/online contrast in EU referendum polling is the don’t knows. Telephone polls are producing polls that have far fewer people saying they don’t know how they’ll vote (you can see it clearly in the polls in this post – the two telephone polls have don’t knows of 10% and 12%, the online poll has 20% don’t knows, the last couple of weekly ICM online polls have had don’t knows of 17-18%). This could have something to do with the respective levels of people who are interested in politics and the EU that the different sampling approaches are picking up, or perhaps something to do with people’s willingness to give their EU voting intention to a human interviewer. The surprising thing is that this is not a typical difference – in polls on how people would vote in a general election the difference is, if anything, in the other direction – telephone polls find more don’t knows and refusals than online polls do. Why it’s the other way round on the EU referendum is an (intriguing) mystery.

243 Responses to “Latest ComRes and YouGov polls”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. @Carfew

    My music list for my funeral includes “I’m in a Dancing Mood’ … hope that makes me eclectic :)

  2. @Syzygy

    It does, I had to look it up!! Relieved that it wasn’t “I’m in the mood for Dancing” By Nolans…

  3. Good Evening everyone from Bournemouth East, where the sun has shone all day.

    Does anyone have information about how much worse Labour is doing under the current leadership than it was under Mr Foot in 1980 and Mr Kinnock in 1983?

    Prediction for the Euro Referendum in June is ‘Remain’ to be 58%

  4. It looks like the Republicans will have a brokered convention – which means a public “floor fight” for the nomination, plus a shed load of air time in the months leading up to it which will suck the oxygen from the Dem campaign (big danger for them to be ignored in favour of the Republican drama).

    Trump needs 1237 delegates out of 2472 delegates to win outright and avoid the brokered convention.

    The way each state awards delegates is weird too – some do it proportionally to votes, some winner takes all. States with a republican governor get bonus delegates. Because some of the candidates are governors (Kasich, Bush, Christie) they will likely stay in the race to win their home state and collect the bonus delegates on top, to get leverage in the floor fight.

    Add to that they haven’t decided the rules of the convention yet – see the following for how convoluted the process is, and opinion polling becomes completely useless, because it will be decided on the day by old fashioned power broking.


    Makes you feel really grateful for our own straightforward parliamentary system.

  5. @ Carfew

    I shuddered… :)

  6. Interesting research by Cebr into actual ages that folk are likely to become debt-free – and their perceptions of when that might be.


    People typically expect to be clear of their debts, including mortgages, by the time they are aged 57 ……

    ……The report found the average Briton can actually only realistically expect to become debt-free at the age of 69.

    Despite having the most non-mortgage debt typically and owing £14,200 per household on average, the report found 18 to 24 year olds are the most optimistic and expected to be aged 38 typically when they have paid off their non-mortgage loans.

    However, people in this age group are unlikely to be free of non-mortgage debt until they are at least 66 years old with student loans the biggest single contributor to non-mortgage debts for 18-24s.

    The report also broke down how their findings vary by region across the UK, including mortgage debts:

    •Wales – 56 years old
    •North East (England) – 57 years old
    •East Midlands (England) – 58 years old
    •Yorkshire and Humber – 58 years old
    •North West (England) – 58 years old
    •Scotland – 58 years old
    •West Midlands (England) – 67 years old
    •East of England (England) – 69 years old
    •South East (England) – 71 years old
    •South West (England) – 72 years old
    •London (England) – 77 years old

  7. WB
    I can understand young people turning to corbyn because they are dissatisfied, and because they long for a past which they never experienced and are therefore in no position to judge.
    But corbyn is not a young person he DID experience the past. His position I find harder to grasp and much more interesting. Why are his memories of 1975 so different to mine?

  8. @”Why are his memories of 1975 so different to mine?”

    :-) :-) :-)

    Answers on a ( very small) postcard David.

  9. David Colby

    “I can understand young people turning to Corbyn because they are dissatisfied, and because they long for a past which they never experienced

    I’d suggest that you have precisely zero evidence that they “long for” such a thing. That kind of emotive language may be revealing of your own prejudices, but not of the “young people”.

    Perhaps of more value is this suggestion by one of those commissioning the Cebr survey – “younger generations are guided by the experiences of older ones as people used to become debt free earlier in life, as they owed less.”

  10. @David Colby

    “Why are his memories of 1975 so different to mine?”


    Well that might depend on the memories. What’s significant about 1975?

  11. @WB

    The idea that you can’t use data and analysis to compare past and present is liable to be pulled apart on here, because that’s what we do with polling.

    Also, the idea that you can’t compare and it’s a dead heat sounds even-handed, but isn’t if in fact overall boomers had it better then pulled up the ladder after them.

    Sure there will be differences, but one looks for the deal-breakers, and in the end, the impact of things like property prices and rents, cost of utilities, full employment and secure jobs and good pensions is so big, it dwarfs things like having inflation for a few years, or leaving school at 16 to go into a good apprenticeship. This is before we get to stuff like privatisation shares, university loans etc. etc.

    Agree that from a polling perspective, perceptions are important, but of course are liable to be shaped by reality.

  12. @WB

    I should add, that there are some red herrings thrown in which beggar belief. For example, the improvement in health and so on.

    This is a vague anyway: boomers who had the benefits of an austerity diet are living longer now in part as a result. While pressures of modern life might be leading to more diabetes etc. amongst the young as diets worsen.

    But the main reason it’s pointless, is that it’s not really a voting issue. People are not going to lay such things at the PM’s door. The improvement in health technologies is the normal march of progress, and occurs worldwide. If there’s a discovery somewhere of some new cancer treatment, peeps are unlikely to credit Cameron or Corbyn.

    But student loans, property prices etc., are more about policy, and will determine voting choices.

  13. Or to put it simply: boomers are arguing over who had it better OVERALL. But that’s not necessarily what we’re interested in in terms of what will be voted on. The votes will be more about the subset of the experience determined by policy.

    (Though other things may affect a feel good factor in some hard-to-determine ways…)

  14. Carfrew

    “boomers are arguing over ……”

    Correction. Several right wing boomers are arguing over …..

  15. @oldnat

    Well yes, there is that. Meanwhile we were just looking into Colin’s issue as to whether peeps voting Corbyn is anything more than the usual student placard-wielding. Hence seeing the parallels in Sanders etc., and looking into reasons why. (And improvements in health tech aren’t really all that relevant on that score. Though future advances might be if the result of, say, that government investment in that £300m centre up North I mentioned a while back).

  16. Carfrew

    “up North”? Do you mean Wimbledon? :-)

    It’s so easy to get geographically confused when the Daily Mail splashes with “Who WILL speak for England?” – which they helpfully go on to explain “and of course by England we mean the whole of the United Kingdom.”

  17. @Oldnat

    Not really, no. I couldn’t remember exactly where it was, so I used summat vague, as is common practice when not sure.

  18. Whilst house prices are undoubtedly mainly driven by economic fundamentals of supply and demand, I sometimes wonder about the contribution of mass sentiment. There have been plenty of examples of irrational boom and bust surges and slumps in house prices, just as there are rises and falls in the Footsie which seem to defy rational explanation.

    House prices are presently rising, but not that rapidly, so this doesn’t feel like an irrational boom based on something near to hysteria, such as we saw in the late 1980s. But look out for the talk of ‘boom’ accompanied by youthful commentators saying ‘this time its different – there won’t be a slump’. That is the time to sell everything, head for the hills and buy a gun.

    Hawthorn must be on holiday – he is the property soothsayer.

  19. Interesting discussion re inter-generational issues. For myself born in 1960 there were good and bad experiences. School for example like 75% of my generation I went to a secondary modern school. It was noticeable that most kids from the council estates ended up there and most from private housing at the Grammar. My school had an intake of 300 a year, out of that 300, five of us went onto the sixth from college for the area. Out of that five, two ended up in University. Yes those two were lucky they had no fees and were given grants.

    Work wise it was better, you could walk into a full time low skilled job fairly easily, for example I worked in a chicken factory, canning factory., as a labourer etc, it was okay but low paid, but still probably better than many of the part time jobs currently on offer.
    Obviously no internet, one tv for the house, not much choice anyway so not an issue.

    Pub food was very poor, especially in the evenings, when if you were lucky you would have a cheese roll form the lunchtime session. Not really an issue as going out for a meal was rare, if you did the Bernie Inn was considered an upmarket venue. Speaking of lunchtime sessions, pubs were closed from 2.30pm until 6pm and then shut at 10.30pm-11pm. If you wanted music you would pay for the juke box, those that had it.

    Housing was good, with good quality council housing available for reasonable rates.

    Overall those days were not bad.The current generation do have it harder in many ways, job insecurity, high housing costs etc, but it is by no means a one way street.

  20. OLDNAT

    @”Correction. Several right wing boomers are arguing over …..”

    Correction. One UKPR regular ,obsessed with the word “boomer” and it’s potential to construct a past world of freely acquired wealth , from which today’s young are cruelly excluded, is incessantly arguing over………

    Anecdote time-a granddaughter undergrad.drawn to Corbyn via the £1 entry fee & huge dollops of social conscience & reaction against “injustice”, just decided to attend a lecture at Uni by Natalie Bennett……………..early signs of disillusion ??

  21. Lol.

    Every one is “obsessed” and “deluded” but you, eh Col?

    We were just indulging your attraction to Corbyn…

  22. Not sure why my comment at 7.39am is awaiting moderation, thought it was quite innocuous if a little maudling

  23. @Carfrew:

    I agree that, since this is a political polling site, we should perhaps be focusing on people’s subjective perception of their circumstances.

    I will briefly just say, however, that it can’t sensibly be disputed that, on average, the population has an objectively higher quality of life and standard of living than 30 years ago, mostly due to technological and scientific advances. And, as I said, this would become very obvious if we were to transport some young people back to 1985 – they would soon beg to come back. And few people who are struggling now would take up the offer of going back to a 1980s lifestyle to see their bank balance growing rather than shrinking.

    In relation to subjective perceptions, I think there is some nostalgia about the past here and how happy people were.

    Is there any doubt unemployed youth 30 years were also blaming the government? And the proportion of them in this predicament was MUCH higher than today (26% according to official figures, in reality probably higher). They also knew that only 5-10% of them could get into university, and the female half would have known they were entering a far more sexist world, with fewer freedoms and opportunities than they have now.

    Yes, there are a few notable issues that are significantly worse now.

    Pensions are worse, but that’s not relevant to this discussion. Few young people think about pensions, even fewer really care at their age.

    Housing is the one issue that IS significantly worse. But I’m not sure that it outweighs all the others, especially as even in 1980 an average young person would not have expected to buy their first house until 27, compared to 31 now.

    However, it is possible you may be right that young people feel unusually hard done by now, although not for the reasons you give.

    Young people today are unfortunate in that we have just come out of what, by historical standards, was a Golden Age of optimism and quality of life ie the period between the mid 1990s and mid 2000s (more than the 60s which was good for a select segment of the population).

    If that is what they are comparing to I understand why they could feel hard done by, but to be honest I’m not sure I see much evidence of it.

    I see a loud, angry, protesting small subsection of our youth generation, just as there has always been.

  24. @John

    I’ve dealt with a lot of that already John. I already said there have been technological and medical advances, but many of these are not a result of government policy, but instead are worldwide advances, therefore not a reason to support Corbyn or not, which was the point at issue.

    Yes, unemployment was bad thirty years ago: I already said some boomers – and younger – suffered in the North. But that was the era of the change in policy away from what the post-war peeps had enjoyed.

    I don’t see why pensions are irrelevant just because young peeps can’t afford them. Doesn’t mean they don’t care about them.

    But you are leaving out the fact that it’s not just housing, but for two decades we had full employment which is a big deal. No forced career breaks, better career paths and it keeps wages higher too. Not much of this zero hours stuff. You’re also leaving out cost of utilities and student loans, peeps benefitting from privatisations etc. etc.

    And that above all, that it isn’t just about boomers, that’s just what peeps are seizing upon, but I also said it was about things like the rigged game, different rules for the rich and the big corporates etc., being anti-austerity…

  25. @John

    Also, post-war policy was such that it didn’t tend to permit extremes of inequality as much. Some might argue it went too far. But once you get bankers getting squillions for tanking the economy, it’s much easier to make the case that things might have swung too far the other way.

  26. @John

    Oh, and nearly forgot. Another aspect that isnt about boomers that got ignored: polling shows younger peeps attracted to Sanders for honesty. And a BBC short was on about millennials drawn to honesty in their employers Thus it may apply to Corbyn too. I stress that I’m not saying they necessarily ARE more honest, but if that’s the perception…. maybe because they don’t appear to do triangulation and stuff…

  27. My earlier comment also awaiting moderation.

    Here is the Nationwide house price graph:

    It suggests that house prices have some way to go before they peak. There is a pattern indicating a 17-18 year cycle. The slump tends to be steeper than the recovery. So the six year fall between 2007 and 2113 in ‘real’ house prices, is consistent with the 17-18 cycle.

    All things being equal, we should expect house prices to peak around 2024, with a rapid acceleration from 2021 onwards.

    It looks unlikely that there will be a sharp property fall this side of the next election. Another example of Cameron being lucky, perhaps.

  28. @Millie

    The only issue with average house price data, is that it hides the high spots and low spots.

    The area where I live in West Yorkshire hasn’t ever recovered from the previous fall in prices. The value of my house of still probably 10% less than what I paid for it 10 years ago. The fall was about 20%.

    Given it’s smallish mortgage at a low LTV rate, it’s no big issue for me personally, but those who have a high LTV mortgage will be much more stuck.

    Other parts of West Yorkshire have risen much more, but the difference between the high demand and low demand areas with just a few miles is quite large.

    Many houses in the low demand areas have been swamped by buy-to-let landlords. If you have £80,000 in the bank, the interest is pitiful. Buy a house for that, and you can get about £5,000 pa income for it.

  29. TNS Scotland – https://twitter.com/StatgeekUK/status/695226363947651072


    SNP 57%
    Lab 21%
    Con 17%
    Lib 3%
    Other 2%

    Regional List:

    SNP 52%
    Lab 19%
    Con 17%
    Green 6%
    Lib 6%

    (no show for UKIP or others)

    Bit of a small poll at less than 500, and the regional samples are woeful, so it’s not worth doing a regional breakdown.

    Slightly suspicious of the Scotland Votes site results though, as it spits out:

    3 x Tory constituency seats in South despite SNP on 52% / Con 23%

    1 x Lib Dem constituency seat in Highlands & Islands despite SNP on 57% and Lib Dems on 3%

    Methinks the calc tool needs a tweak.

  30. OMG. Matt ale Blanc is going to be presenting Top Gear….

  31. Le Blanc, haha

  32. We seem to be approaching St. Andrews Crossover (sorry) between the Tories and Labour in Scotland. Until now, TNS had been the only pollster to have a wide gap between the two main unionist parties.

  33. * St. Andrew’s Crossover. I wouldn’t be surprised if Labour have never been ahead of the Tories in St. Andrews, or at least not for a long time!

  34. @Carfrew

    According to Google basic rate tax was 33% in the ’70’s and 30% in the ’80’s.

    It’s 20% now. Plus they didn’t have tax credits back then.

    That’s a massive difference. It explains why home ownership was so low back then – people’s money was being sucked up with taxes to pay for the 10% who went to university. Those lucky students then got well-paying jobs and bought houses cheaply, prices not high because most people locked out of the market due to not being able to raise a deposit.

    If you were in that lucky 10%, then I guess you would think that things have gone to hell now because your children arn’t being subsidised by the masses like they used to be, and gasp, have to compete with the hoi polloi for housing and have to pay their own tuition fees.

    If you were in the 90% though, then your children’s chances are better – you probably have a home to pass down to them, making them the first generation to receive family assets, and your children are also educated way better than they would have been in the 60’s and 70’s, when they would have been fobbed off with useless things like woodwork (hand carpentry had been made obsolete before WW2 by machinery). The wwc who are in their 50’s and 60’s and struggle with poverty and vote UKIP are victims of this sort of education policy.

    The past sounds like a dreadful place. Try proposing to raise basic tax by 13% to 33% to subsidise the betters and keep the lower orders in their place by reducing their disposable income, and see how far you get…

  35. Bill,

    It’s probably the boomers’ fault. Everything is apparently. Those peeps are behind everything.

  36. @CANDY

    I agree with much of what you say but I disagree with your comments about woodwork. Making and mending wooden stuff has saved me a fortune over the years. It is also something interesting to do on a wet day.

    Perhaps another reason that people can’t raise the cash for a house until later in life is that they tend to start paid work much later. Even in the more highly paid professions, people don’t start to make really good money until they are in their 30s. In the past, a tradesman would be out of his apprenticeship by 21 and could earn quite a lot (in relative terms) before he was 27 when, apparently he would expect to buy a house.

  37. @Candy

    You have to look at the whole thing. Sure, it was harder to get a mortgage. But by the Eighties, rather easier, with property affordable due to the massive housebuilding programmes of the past. That’s when boomers could start cashing in, once Governments started ramping property prices.

    Not all the benefits accrued DURING the sixties and seventies. Some benefits are accruing now.

    Also, on tax, don’t forget that at one time, there was no VAT. And if costs are cheaper, then tax is less of a deal. The oil crisis was the tricky time. But that came after a couple of decades of rising prosperity, plenty of time to gain some resilience, and was temporary.

    Education left summat to be desired, as ever, frankly, but there were plenty of good apprenticeships and stuff on offer. Full employment, because of demand for employees, ramps up wages and terms and conditions and job security. Whereas nowadays even Oxford grads effectively paying to work in internships.

    I mean, you used to be able to bring up a family on a single wage…

  38. On the housing thing, from today’s Times. “Home ownership among under-35s falls by 300,000”.

    “The figures, drawn up using data from the official Labour Force Survey. reveal that even young professionals are struggling to climb the housing ladder. There were 150,000 fewer properties in England owned by someone under the age of 35 in a “higher managerial, admin and professional” job – a 16% drop on 5 years ago”.

    The article also reminds of Cameron’s comments on the matter at Conference. “When a generation of hardworking men and women in their 20s and 30s are waking up each morning in their childhood bedrooms – that should be a wake up call for us”…

  39. Candy, income tax payed for much more than your dystopian tale tells. Income tax was also much more progressive.

    V.a.t. was zero or eight percent, the most regressive way to tax surely.

    Oh and we had a functional and kind social security system, care for the elderly, fair rents and disco.

  40. Pete B,

    I’ve ignored that discussion so far and I’m not going to stop now.

  41. @RMJ

    “Perhaps another reason that people can’t raise the cash for a house until later in life is that they tend to start paid work much later. Even in the more highly paid professions, people don’t start to make really good money until they are in their 30s. In the past, a tradesman would be out of his apprenticeship by 21 and could earn quite a lot (in relative terms) before he was 27 when, apparently he would expect to buy a house.”


    You may be right, dunno if there’s any data on it. I know on the continent peeps may spend years in training or academia before properly qualified. One does get the impression that might be happening here at least a bit. Part of iit may be degrees becoming a bit devalued, so peeps feeling obliged to go for extra qualifications. Mind you, some of it is people going travelling after graduating because no jobs in the offing. Increasing number of peeps tell me that these days…

  42. Bill Patrick

    I like the “St. Andrew’s Crossover” metaphor! :-)

    Worth noting that TNS are stressing that, their headline figures are now those with a preference and certain to vote.

    I presume the poll was conducted before the LiS proposal to raise Income Tax was made. Could that shift a few of their AB folk to the Tories?

  43. “V.a.t. was zero or eight percent, the most regressive way to tax surely”


    It’s possible they might think up some worse ways…

  44. I mean, I don’t know if peeps are aware of this, but now they’re taxing storage. (And they nearly taxed pasties…)

  45. @carfrew

    “Also, on tax, don’t forget that at one time, there was no VAT”

    No but there was Purchase Tax certainly through the 40s, 50s and 60s until VAT replaced it.

    Historical comparisons of well being are notoriously difficult not least because of changes in how each generation perceives that and debates about them descend too easily into a poor imitation of the Yorkshireman Monty Python sketch. Personally looking at the younger people I know I don’t see a huge historical generational disadvantage other than in the property market especially in some parts of the country. And even there it is likely that some will soon start benefiting from a cascade of wealth when the boomers stop booming!

  46. @Carfrew

    It’s actually easy to get mortgages, the difficulty is raising the deposit (and the BoE has forced banks to insist on bigger deposits).

    Raising a deposit is a function of your disposable income. Reduce disposable income by 13% by jacking up basic tax to 33% and you lock out a bunch of people from the market. Therefore competition for home ownership is lower, and the middle classes can find a property quite cheaply. That in a nutshell is your ideal world of the 1960’s, but the price of that was locking out the poor from home ownership.

    You see similar things in other areas. Rupert from the Home Counties will be moaning about how in the olden days it would have been easy to get little Jemima into a good public school for lowish fees but now it’s all been ruined by those horrid Chinese competing for places throwing their money around and bidding up the fees. :-)

    Wayne in Hackney will be moaning in a similar way – the evil illuminati allowed China into the World Trade Organisation to compete for manufacturing jobs making Wayne’s dream of an easy but well paying job out of reach.

    All these utopias depend on locking out or suppressing a group of people, These lower orders/other people must be poor to enable a chosen few to have an easy life.

    It’s not a liberal attitude. Basically level playing fields mean more competition for housing, jobs, school and university places, and competition is always tough…

  47. @Candy

    I think we know how disposable income works, lol. Well I say that, but you are only looking at tax and not taking into account what I said, about VAT, higher wages, lower house prices etc., lower rents making it easier to save a deposit, cheaper utilities etc. etc.

    And also, job security. Even if they give you a mortgage with an insecure job, you may not boer because you know you won’t be able to keep up the payments reliably.

    Also, the fact one wage could support a family meant both partners could work temporarily for things like saving a deposit. And when deposits smaller, easier for other family to help out. Oh, and don’t forget the days of things like mortgage tax relief either, or more assistance with your mortgage when on the dole, and easier to move where the jobs were when property prices closer together, and so on…

    But you’re still missing the point beyond that, because boomers benefitted from eighties too, and the tax cuts and ability to buy cheap properties. While the cheaper tax rates meant those who followed had less investment in their futures. Beginning with things like cuts to education, cuts to social housing and so on…

    privatisation sales could also help boomers buy property in the eighties…

  48. @Candy

    My parents bought a house for about three grand in the early sixties. A ten percent deposit would have been £300. For comparison, a Mini cost roughly twice that I think. And it wasn’t a tiny home…

    Housing was cheap, because of the massive housebuilding programme. Your reasoning is backwards. You leap to assuming a high deposit, then work back from that to claim exclusion. The rationing of mortgages was prolly a bigger deal…

    The early Seventies was when property prices got particularly tricky, after Heath’s stoking of the market. But temporary…

  49. Or more accurately, leap to assuming an unaffordable deposit…

  50. @Carfrew

    You are missing the point that the lower house prices were a function of locking out the poor from the housing market by applying high taxes to their meagre income. Reduce the ability of 50% of the population to raise a deposit and buy a home and of course a nice middle class chap like your good self would be able to buy a cheap house! :-)

    Also, they key dates in this discussion are 1989 (when the Berlin wall came down) and 1991 (when China joined the World Trade Organisation).

    About 2 billion people who had been locked out of world trade suddenly came into play. Whether by competing for manufacturing jobs, by actually turning up to work here (eastern europeans), or by a flood of capital flowing into London to buy housing as a form of safe asset (China, Russia, Middle East).

    You ask why someone in the 80’s could afford to fund a family on one wage and now they can’t – the answer globalisation and outsourcing.

    Like I said pretty much all the things you are complaining about are down to increased competition.

    The only way to go back to “how it was” is to reverse globalisation and reverse the emancipation of the working classes. To lock out bunches of people from housing, university, from trade. To suppress a bunch of people so that a chosen few can benefit.

    Is that what you are proposing. Are you a secret Kipper? :-)

1 2 3 4 5