Donald Trump has been citing Brexit as the model of how he could win the election despite expections, his surrogates of how there might be a shy Trump vote, like Brexit. So what, if any, lessons can we learn about the US election from recent polling experience in Britain?

In 2015 the British polls got the general election wrong. Every company had Labour and Conservative pretty much neck-and-neck, when in reality the Conservatives won by seven points. In contrast, the opinion polls as a whole were not wrong on Brexit, or at least, they were not all that wrong. Throughout the referendum campaign polls conducted by telephone generally showed Remain ahead, but polls conducted online generally showed a very tight race. Most of the online polls towards the end of the campaign showed Leave ahead, and polls by TNS and Opinium showed Leave ahead in their final eve-of-referendum polls.

That’s the first point that the parallel falls down – Brexit wasn’t a surprise because the polls were wrong. The polls were showing a race that was neck-and-neck. It was a surprise because people hadn’t believed or paid attention to that polling evidence. The media expected Remain would win, took polls showing Remain ahead more seriously and a false narrative built up that the telephone polls were more accurately reflecting the race when in the event, those online polls showing leave ahead were right. This is not the case in the US – the media don’t think Trump will lose because they are downplaying inconvenient polling evidence, they think Trump will lose because of the polling evidence consistently shows that.

In the 2015 general election however the British polls really were wrong, and while some of the polls got Brexit right, some did indeed show solid Leave victories. Do either of those have any relevance for Trump?

The first claim is the case of shy voters. Much as 1948 is the famous examples of polling failure in the US, in this country 1992 was the famous mistake, and was put down to “Shy Tories”. That is, people who intended to vote Conservative, but were unwilling to admit it to pollsters. Shy voters are extremely difficult to diagnose. If people lie to pollsters about how they’ll vote before the election but tell the truth afterwards, then it is impossible to distinguish “shy voters” from people changing their minds (in the case of recent British polls, this does not appear to be the case. In both the 2015 election and the 2016 EU referendum recontact surveys found no significant movement towards the Conservatives or towards Leave). Alternatively, if people are consistent in lying to pollsters about their intentions beforehand and lying about how they voted afterwards, it’s impossible to catch them out.

The one indirect way of diagnosing shy voters is to compare the answers given to surveys using live interviewers, and surveys conducted online (or in the US, using robocalls – something that isn’t regularly done in the UK). If people are reluctant to admit to voting a certain way, they should be less embarrassed when it isn’t an actual human being doing the interviewing. In the UK the inquiry used this approach to rule out “shy Tories” as a cause of the 2015 polling error (online polls did not have a higher level of Tory support than phone polls).

In the US election there does appear to be some prima facie evidence of “Shy Trumpers”* – online polls and robopolls have tended to produce better figures for Donald Trump than polls conducted by a human interviewer. However, when this same difference was evident during the primary season the polls without a live interviewer were not consistently more accurate (and besides, even polls conducted without a human interviewer still have Clinton reliably ahead).

The more interesting issue is sample error. It is wrong to read directly across from Brexit to Trump – while there are superficial similarities, these are different countries, very different sorts of elections, in different party systems and traditions. There will be many different drivers of support. To my mind the interesting similarity though is the demographics – the type of people who vote for Trump and voted for Brexit.

Going back to the British general election of 2015, the inquiry afterwards identified sampling error as the cause of the polling error: the sort of people who were able to be contacted by phone and agreed to take part, and the sort of people who joined online panels were unrepresentative in a way that weights and quotas were not then correcting. While the inquiry didn’t specify how the samples were wrong, my own view (and one that is shared by some other pollsters) is that the root cause was that polling samples were too engaged, too political, too educated. We disproportionately got politically-aware graduates, the sort of people who follow politics in the media and understand what is going on. We don’t get enough of the poorly educated who pay little attention to politics. Since then several British companies have adopted extra weights and quotas by education level and level of interest in politics.

The relevance for Brexit polling is that there was a strong correlation between educational qualification and how people voted. Even within age cohorts, graduates were more likely to vote to Remain, people with few or no educational qualifications were more likely to vote to Leave. People with a low level of interest in politics were also more likely to vote to Leave. These continuing sampling issues may well have contributed to some of those pollsters who did it wrong in June.

One thing that Brexit does have in common with Trump is those demographics. Trump’s support is much greater among those without a college degree. I suspect if you asked you’d find it was greater among those people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics. In the UK those are groups who we’ve had difficulty in properly representing in polling samples – if US pollsters have similar issues, then there is a potential source for error. College degree seems to be a relatively standard demographic in US polling, so I assume that is correct already. How much interest people have in politics is more nebulous, less easy to measure or control.

In Britain the root cause of polling mishaps in 2015 (and for some, but not all, companies in 2016) seems to be that the declining pool of people still willing to take part in polls under-represented certain groups, and that those groups were less likely to vote for Labour, more likely to vote for Brexit. If (and it’s a huge if – I am only reporting the British experience, not passing judgement on American polls) the sort of people who American pollsters struggle to reach in these days of declining response rates are more likely to vote for Trump, then they may experience similar problems.

Those thinking that the sort of error that affected British polls could happen in the US are indeed correct… but could happen is not the same as is happening. Saying something is possible is a long way from there being any evidence that is actually is happening. Some of the British polls got Brexit wrong, and Trump is a little bit Brexity, therefore the polls are wrong really doesn’t carry water.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

*This has no place in a sensible article about polling methodology, but I feel I should point out to US readers that in British schoolboy slang when I was a kid – and possibly still today – to Trump is to fart. “Shy Trump” sounds like it should refer to surreptitiously breaking wind and denying it.


451 Responses to “What can British polling mishaps tell us about the US election?”

1 5 6 7 8 9 10
  1. John Pilgrim.
    ” there was a strong correlation between educational qualification and how people voted [AW]”

    Or to put it bluntly, thick, uneducated and uninformed people voted to remain. This would suggest the more carefully someone considered the issues, the more likely they believed remain was prefereable.

    Previously we (here) discussed the question of whether the correlation between belief in economic consequences of Brexit and direction of vote was causal or rationalisation. If this is evidence that the more carefully someone made a decision, the more likely they were to vote remain and also believe that Remain was economically best, then it would seem to undermine the likelihood that deciding remain was economically better was rationalisation based upon a fixed decision.

    Running the argument in reverse, the less analytically one considered the issue, the more likey to vote leave, and perhaps to be guilty of rationalisation?

    I am talking statistically, and no offence intended to anyone here.There are rational arguments for supporting Brexit, but it was not a very rational campaign.

    The case in the US is a little different to Brexit. If I was a rational voter in the US, it would not simply be a matter of cutting through campaign lies to find truth, but it seems to be that US voters think neither candidate is a palatable choice. It is a binary choice to be in the EU or out, and there must be fixed consequences of each. In the US election, many Americans must be considering that there are millions of alternative candidates, and whether supporting either one of the two on offer is an acceptance of a non functional system.

    This is the issue I refered to above, with voters only getting a choice of two parties neither of which is acceptible. The system forces a bad choice upon the nation.

  2. why is the educational attainments of voters in the referendum an issue?Does it make their vote less worthy or important?

    it may be of some polling interest but is it not being used to diminish a particular group? Would this be acceptable if you substitute a gender or ethnic group to this disparaging commentary

  3. S Thomas

    Fully agree. The arrogance of some who think educational attainment or intelligence or having read more about the issues, made them a better judge, is very sad and doesn’t reflect well on us as a society.

  4. Well clearly, moving along the spectrum of more information makes you a better judge of the issues.

    if you ask a random footballer to opine on a banking fraud, as opposed to asking a forensic accountant to opine, you will almost certainly get a better assessment of the issues and conclusions fro the forensic accountant, because they are better educated both generally and in the areas affected.

    It’s offensive to say that views of the less well-educated are of less value – it is not offensive to say that they may, in aggregate, be less well-informed.

  5. Many regional airports do not need extra runways. They already have surplus capacity.

    I probably would have gone for Gatwick, the cheaper and more deliverable option, combined with increasing usage at regional airports. Surely raising the status of Manchester and Birmingham are obvious in the light of Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine.

    Here in Exeter, we have an airport that is virtually disused, and which can take 747s. And in Plymouth, to widespread dismay, the airport has closed.

  6. BT SAYS…
    S Thomas
    “Fully agree. The arrogance of some who think educational attainment or intelligence or having read more about the issues, made them a better judge, is very sad and doesn’t reflect well on us as a society.”

    The thing that people like Danny forget is that educational attainment in much of the older generation as measured by having a degree for example is not actually a reflection of that generations intelligence. I happen to have adegree but when i went to University i think I’m right in saying only about 5% of youngsters did.

  7. re: The Heathrow decision

    So much for regional policy. I understand that the average Londoner receives £1400 per annum of central government investment in transport infrastructure, whereas in the South West we are the grateful recipients of £19.

    Great news, however, for the A30/303 Expressway. Plans are being formulated to replace our single lane major holiday route with a brand new, er, single lane route…

    You couldn’t make it up.

  8. On a polling site we should surely be grown up enough to discuss correlations between voting behaviour and other characteristics without resorting to accusations of sneering.

    AW has summarised the association between educational attainment and support for Brexit in an entirely non-judgemental way, and we should be able to follow suit.

    For me, the most interesting question is whether more extensively educated people are less likely to be swayed by external influences. One academic study of pre-Referendum press coverage established that 80% of coverage was pro-Brexit. If that had relatively little effect on younger, more educated voters but a big effect on older, less educated ones, that would be most interesting.

    Does anyone know of polling on Brexit vote by newspaper readership? I would guess that readers of the Mail, Sun and Express would have split at least 80/20 in favour of Brexit, but it would be good to see data.

  9. BIGFATRON

    I remember a newspaper doing a share portfolio competition (yes, it was the 90s!) between a 9 year old girl, a clairvoyant and a seasoned professional investor. The seasoned pro was quite confident at the beginning his portfolio would perform best, and I along with most others backed him. Actually, the 9 year old girl’s did best and the clairvoyant’s second best.

    Sometimes experts in their discipline can be reliable, but in certain disciplines, including economics and investment, experts seem as likely to be wrong as they are to be right.

    I voted remain, largely because I thought the short term consequences to the economy would be disruptive. As for the long term consequences (or even mid term consequences), not even the wisest people know. The wisest people just know that they don’t know.

  10. Millie: “So much for regional policy.”

    Absolutely. The shovelling of yet more infrastructure spending into the overcrowded, overfunded south east makes no sense in macro-economic terms. I think it was Greenpeace that pointed out that of the £18bn in support costs (new roads etc), just £1bn was coming from Heathrow and the rest from the taxpayer.

    There has been a big shift in air traffic, especially in Europe and the USA, away from ‘hub and spoke’ patterns to point-to-point services. That will be strongly reinforced by the new generation of smaller, highly efficient long-range aircraft like the A320neo and 737 Max. We can expect to see big growth in direct services from places like Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh (maybe even Exeter!) and comparatively slow growth at Heathrow. White Elephant alert!

    As for the A303, from the mid-80s until quite recently I used this sometimes two or three times a week on return trips from Somerset to the south east. Until the early 90s, there was a steady process of improvement as bottlenecks were progressively replaced by new bits of dual carriageway. Since 1994, not a single bit of new dual carriageway has been added. There are still the same four stretches of old, single-carriageway road between Basingstoke and my exit at the Podimore roundabout. We just seem to have given up.

  11. Somerjohn

    “On a polling site we should surely be grown up enough to discuss correlations between voting behaviour and other characteristics without resorting to accusations of sneering.”

    I agree with that, polling companies try to be neutral, at least the reputable one’s do.

    Of course it is also reasonable to question the reasoning behind the correlation as I have above. While it is true that the majority who voted to leave are less well educated as measured by having a degree I would suggest it is not a measure of their intelligence or ability to make sensible well thought out decisions.

  12. Just a little good news to cheer us all up.

    “Little evidence’ of Brexit impact – ONS
    Posted at
    9:36
    The economy grew at the strongest pace on an annual basis in more than a year, according to the preliminary figures from the Office for National Statistics.

    “There is little evidence of a pronounced effect in the immediate aftermath of the vote,” ONS chief economist Joe Grice said.

    He added that growth in the third quarter was in line with the pattern since 2015.

    GDP rose 0.5% on the previous quarter and 2.3% compared with the same period a year ago, the ONS said.”

    Before anybody else makes the point i would add that we have not left the EU yet so this is not a reflection of any Brexit effect just a reflection of how wrong those who forecast an immediate recession were. Osborne in particular has egg all over his face.

    I still expect a difficult period economically as we leave the EU.

  13. There are a number of problems with linking educational attainment to voting on Brexit.

    The big point – already picked up on by others – is that there is a strong correlation already between educational attainment and age. Accordingly, the fact that older people are more likely to have voted for Brexit means that less educated people are automatically more likely to have voted for Brexit. You have correlation but no causation.

    There are other problems though, relating to the conclusions drawn. Suppose it was the case (I don’t believe this by the way) educated people are doing well from the existing set up and would do worse from Brexit, while less educated people are doing badly now and would do well from Brexit. It would be rational for well educated to vote remain and less educated people to vote for Brexit. This would not overturn the point made about educational attainment, but it would mean you could not draw a further conclusion that Brexit supporters were ignorant or did not understand the issues.

    Also, surely even the most ardent remainer would believe there are well educated people who are not insane and who genuinely believe Brexit will make people better off. There’s no point treating the debate like the calendar riots and explaining to Brexiteers in condescending fashion that by remaining in Europe their lives aren’t really shorter by eleven days.

  14. BFR

    @” it is not offensive to say that they may, in aggregate, be less well-informed.

    But it is stupid , since the context is a vote in which they will have reached a decision based upon their own circumstance-about which they can hardly be more informed.

    IUVENUS

    @”Suppose it was the case (I don’t believe this by the way) educated people are doing well from the existing set up and would do worse from Brexit, while less educated people are doing badly now and would do well from Brexit. It would be rational for well educated to vote remain and less educated people to vote for Brexit. This would not overturn the point made about educational attainment, but it would mean you could not draw a further conclusion that Brexit supporters were ignorant or did not understand the issues.”

    Indeed so-and if it was the case that there is some correlation , indeed causation, between education and income, then your caveat would be questionable.

  15. IUVENIS,

    Quite right, the cross breaks from polls post Brexit tell us how different demographics voted, but not why.

    Clear away all the prejorative nonsense about insulting people who voted Leave ans some good points have been made.

    People with lower qualifications were more likely to vote leave, fact!
    Older people were more likely to vote Leave, fact!
    A generation ago fewer people had degrees and higher qualifications, fact!

    Is the driving factor education or age? We don’t know.

    The worse off financial voted Leave, fact!
    The lower educated tend to be worse off, fact!

    Did the worse off vote leave for a better future or because they were duped?
    We don’t know!

    We can speculated on how the factors inter related and put forward theories but the figures can’t prove them.

    For my part I think much like in Scotland I think the “It’s worth a try any things better than this!” Attitude was a factor, but I can’t say how much.

    I am happy to debate and discuss the possibilities but have no time for those who respond to ones they don’t like with indignation, let alone rubbish claims that even to suggest such a thing is “Unpatriotic!”

    Peter

  16. PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    Good post Peter, well argued.

    Personally I didn’t really understand your last paragraph. Personally I only say people who talk or behave in an unpatriotic way are unpatriotic.

  17. TOH,

    “Personally I only say people who talk or behave in an unpatriotic way are unpatriotic.”

    Exactly, but you place that Label on those who say things you don’t agree with, even when they are based in fact.

    Pointing out were getting hammered isn’t unpatriotic if we’re getting hammered and denying the fact isn’t being patriotic…. it’s being deluded!

    As I’ve pointed out before you are far to quick to shoot the messenger and far to often dodge the issue when asked to justify your assertions!

    Patriotism isn’t the last refugee of the scoundrel, but it does tend to be attractive to Colonel Blimp!

    Peter.

  18. PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    A a brief intelligent post followed by a lot of nonsense. Never mind Brexit has produced strong emotions.

    I prefer it when you post sensibly Peter.

  19. @Somerjohn

    Thanks to you and Peter C for pointing out that the next generation of smaller long distance jets will change things – I was unaware of that.

    The A303 farce has now become quite comical. The new Devon/Somerset LEP-based regional powerhouse is fearlessly demanding ( yes, you guessed ) a new single lane road – by 2031! Devolution, south west style.

    Down here, our leaders still point at planes rather than fly in them.

  20. Nice job of shooting down the “stupid people voted for brexit” thesis folks. I have nothing to add because you have covered all my arguments. However in relation to trump do we have any hard evidence that his voting bloc is similar to the brexit voting bloc? I read somewhere that trump supporters earn more on average than clinton supporters

  21. Millie: “Down here, our leaders still point at planes rather than fly in them.”

    Well, as someone Devon born and bred I’m not sure I can quite accept that with an indulgent smile, but as long as it’s just the leaders you’re castigating…

    A decade or so ago there was a firm plan to link the A303 to the M5 between Ilminster and Taunton. It would only have needed about 7 miles of dual carriageway, and would have left the apparently sacrosanct Blackdown Hills unscathed. But of course it was ditched. A lot of people driving from Exeter to London use the M5 and M4 via Bristol – a massive dogleg that must create a lot of extra vehicle mileage and emissions.

  22. there we go again

    the assumption the less well off might have been duped. Presumably because they lacked educational attainment! whereas those with such attainments could not have been duped.The educationally attained could not have possibly have given undue weight to the threat of war, financial fear mongering,experts etc

    if polling suggested that women were more likely to vote remain because of project fear and this was deliberate tactic of the remain campaign would it be permissable to say that their votes were of less weight or that they had been duped? i do not think so

  23. More good news for those who support the UK, following on from today’s good GDP figures..

    Nissan have announced they making substantial new investment in two new models to be made in Sunderland.

  24. Nobody was duped on “Brexit”.
    The majority voted to leave the EU.
    Not “hard”, “soft”…just out.
    Single market, customs union…all froth. The job of HMG is to exercise the will of the people.
    We leave, as we do, we talk about the relationship we’ll have in the future – but we leave, lock, stock and barrel.

  25. SEA CHANGE

    Thank’s for the reference. Seems a reasonable article to me.

  26. TOH

    Agreed good news, sounds like there enough support agreed that if the Government damages Nissan through Brexit we’ll pay them the cost of damages. Makes a lot of sense really, if you want industries investing in a country you don’t want those governments pulling the rug from under you once the investment has been made. It’s similar in a way to the clauses in TTIP which brought a lot of criticism but really make a lot of sense.

    One way to help people make decisions when risk is involved is to take away the potential down side. “Heads you win, Tails you don’t lose”.

    Other good news, it seems CETA will go ahead which will benefit us, at least until we leave the EU.

  27. ALAN

    Yes i was about to post the CETA good news, but you pipped me to it. I think this is good news for the UK both before, and after we leave the EU. A good day for news so far.

  28. Jasper22:” Nobody was duped on “Brexit”.”

    So no-one believed the £350m pw figure? I saw several interviewees giving that as their reason for voting leave.

    As for “Not “hard”, “soft”…just out,” that’s as meaningless as “Brexit means Brexit.”

    Do you intend it to mean:

    (a) We leave with no deal on trade, move to WTO terms, then talk about it. Or

    (b) The terms don’t matter as long as we’re out. So continued payments, free movement and ECJ are fine as long as we’re out of the EU. Or

    (c) We terminate all joint projects on science, education, environment, leave the Single Sky agreement, tear up the Belfast agreement, stop police, anti-crime and anti-terrorism cooperation, move the border back to Dover. Is that what ‘lock, stock and barrel’ means?

    (d) Something else?

  29. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    “CANDY at 3.23 am
    One of your very best posts, totally agree. Your last two paragraphs particularly pertinent.”

    ————-

    It was ok, if you put aside that she missed the point of what I was saying…

  30. “since the context is a vote in which they will have reached a decision based upon their own circumstance-about which they can hardly be more informed”

    —————

    They might be informed as to what they are experiencing, but the analysis as to why, and attribution towards whom are summat else.

    For eggers, research shows it’s not unusual for peeps to internally attribute success and externally attribute failure.

    Similarly it’s possible some may blame immigration for stuff that ought perhaps to be attributed elsewhere etc.

  31. Jasper22

    :” Nobody was duped on “Brexit”.”

    Sadly I think a lot of people on both sides of the argument were duped during the referendum. The campaign arguments from both sides were appalling and I think it was the worst campaign I can remember. Of course that in no way invalidates the result.

  32. Nissan have got the first multinational pound of flesh from the government.

    If the UK government ends up underwriting heavy industry as well as the banks in the case of leaving the single market and customs union, it weakens our negotiating hand even further.

    Brexit in name only just got a bit more likely.

  33. HAWTHORN

    On what factual basis do you make what appears to be a rather silly biased comment? Just asking.

  34. Im loving brexit. The orthodoxy of the recent past has been cast aside. Now we are directly helping exporting firms, taxpayer subsidies for everyone!

  35. CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    Same question to you Rachel, what factual evidence do you have for that comment?

  36. TOH

    “I am pleased to announce that Nissan will continue to invest in Sunderland. Our employees there continue to make the plant a globally competitive powerhouse, producing high-quality, high-value products every day,” said Carlos Ghosn, Chairman and CEO of Nissan. “The support and assurances of the U.K. government enabled us to decide that the next-generation Qashqai and X-Trail will be produced at Sunderland.

    So, Ghosn says he will only build the new Qashqai in Sunderland if the government indemnifies Nissan against EU import duties. A couple of weeks later, he thanks the govt for its “support and assurances.”

    The interesting question is whether these subsidies will be legal under TO rules, or under any free trade deals we do. I’m pretty sure that under CETA or TTIP rules, for example, the UK govt could be sued by other car makers for supporting Nissan.

  37. @CAMBRIDGERACHEL – It certainly is a brave new world. And politics is far more interesting because of the renewed responsibility (and ramifications for our decision making) that we have taken back for ourselves.

    @TOH – There has certainly been 3 good pieces of news financially for the UK today.

    I would hazard a guess that Nissan have been told that in the event of Brexit with no trade deal then corporation tax will be slashed. I suspect that is what the EU will also be told if they insist on WTO tariffs.

    @BARBAZENZERO

    I’ve been travelling a lot and haven’t had time to follow the court case. I have not seen anything in the media lately. Have all the arguments been presented and the judges are now deliberating?

  38. @ToH
    Re both sides being duped during the Brexit debate – I couldn’t agree more, the discussion on both sides was horribly misleading…

    I also agree that this does not invalidate the result, although it complicates the government’s task in achieving Brexit, as expectations are – I believe – out of line with what is realistically achievable.

  39. Somerjohn

    We leave, and all those agreements you, and your ilk, bang on about as if they somehow stop us from leaving, can be discussed as weleave/when we’ve left.
    Why do you think we have no power over any of this? Do you think it suits the continentals to play “hardball”? As a country, we import much more than we export. It s urely follows that those who sell stuff to us will want to ensure they continue to do so.
    The plain fact is the EU will be poorer with us leaving – we are a net contributor.
    Remain voters need to get a grip, and stop talking the country down.

  40. SOMERJOHN

    Is this another of your hard facts again? Can you show me a statement which confirms that the UK government will pay Nissan a subsidy. If you can’t your just speculating again and in that case you should at least add IMO as it’s just your view.

  41. Jasper22

    OK, so you’re happy to leave with no agreements. That’s hard Brexit.

    it’s just that you said, “Not hard…”

  42. SEA CHANGE

    All arguments have been hear and we await a judgement.

    Hope you had a successful trip, I’ve been to both the Philippines and China, both fascinating countries.

  43. TOH

    We know that Ghosn asked for indemnity against tariffs. We know that he subsequently thanked the govt for its “support and assurances.” I’ve given you his direct quote (from a Nissan press release).

    Short of the text of May’s assurances being released, we won’t get a direct confirmation of subsidies. But either he has received assurances of compensation for tariffs, or he was lying when he said he wouldn’t build the car i Sunderland without that assurance. Which do you think is more likely?

  44. SOMERJOHN

    Personally i’m not interested in speculating, I’m just pleased with the news. You are the one speculating which is why I asked was it one of your “hard facts” again. It clearly wasn’t hard fact, it was just you speculating again.

    Nothing wrong with speculating, I do it a lot, but when I do I try to always remember to add IMO so that I am clearly just expressing an opinion, not facts.

  45. @CAMBRIDGE RACHEL

    “Im loving brexit. The orthodoxy of the recent past has been cast aside. Now we are directly helping exporting firms, taxpayer subsidies for everyone!”

    ————–

    Yep, indeed a fair few old-style leftish peeps weren’t keen on EU because hampered our ability to intervene. Possibly a reason why Corbie woz tepid towards it…

  46. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    “Same question to you Rachel, what factual evidence do you have for that comment?”

    ————-

    It’s possible Rach may have been having some fun, but leaving the EU does raise the possibility of more freedom re: intervention etc.

  47. CARFREW

    I suspect your correct that Rachel was just highly amused by the way things are panning out.

    I must say I have been both very pleased with some of the economic news, and very amused at the response from some of the Remainers. It’s good to have a laugh.

    On serious matters it looks as though Ansari will get a game. I don’t know much about him other than he has a first class degree, I think from Cambridge. Whether that means he will be able to spin out Bangladesh remains to be seen.

  48. Carfrew: ” leaving the EU does raise the possibility of more freedom re: intervention etc.”

    Yup, we’ll be free to do all the things TOH hates.

    (Just speculating, of course. He may now be all in favour of subsidies and other manifestations of protectionist featherbedding, along with the abandonment of any attempt to reduce the fiscal deficit. Oh, happy Brexit days!).

1 5 6 7 8 9 10