The Evening Standard have published a new BMG poll of the Richmond Park by-election, suggesting a significantly less exciting race than some people thought (and than the Lib Dems hoped). Topline voting intention figures are:

GOLDSMITH (Ind) 56% (down 2 from the Con share in 2015)
OLNEY (Lib Dem) 29% (up 10 from the LD share in 2015)
LABOUR 10% (-2)
OTHER 5% (-5)

While there is a month to go, this suggests that Goldsmith should hold the seat relatively easily. The idea that, with both main candidates opposing Heathrow expansion, it could become an by-election about Brexit in a pro-EU seat doesn’t really seem to working out at present. 25% of voters say that Brexit will be the most important issue in deciding their vote, but they are mostly voting Lib Dem and Labour already. Goldsmith’s voters say their most important considerations are Goldsmith’s own record and views, followed by Heathrow opposition.

BMG also asked people how they would have voted if the Conservatives had put up an official Conservative candidate against Goldsmith. Topline figures would have been GOLDSMITH 34%, LIB DEM 25%, CONSERVATIVE 20% – so the race would have been far more competitive, but with the Tories trailing in third place. It was an unusual decision not to stand, but the polling suggests it was the right one for the Tories (or at least, neither option would have produced a Tory MP, but the Conservatives presumably prefer Goldsmith winning to a Lib Dem). Full details are here.


522 Responses to “BMG/Standard poll of Richmond Park gives Goldsmith 27 point lead”

1 6 7 8 9 10 11
  1. @Pete B

    “We can and will until the day the deal is signed, and possibly longer if its unsatisfactory”

    ———

    Yes and remoaners likely to find it unsatisfactory also, so may well be much moaning on both sides for some time to come!!!

    I, of course, will stay out of it. (Except about synths, obviously).

  2. @Hireton – “Yes the international relations of fishing are a UK reserved matter. My point is that Scottish international waters are defined for legal purposes because they fall under Scottish legal jurisdiction so your wrong to say that for all practical purposes they do not exist.”

    My contention is that since fishing rights (both in international relations and in domestic matters) are a public right then they are governed by the law making and jurisdiction of Westminster and thus for all intents and purposes the definition of “Scottish Waters” or “English Waters” is currently of no consequence.

    @Danny – on the cost/benefit of unlimited semi-skilled and un-skilled migration

    We’ve been over this many times in the past on this site. It boils down to capital cost of infrastructure, cost of increased need for public services, harm to the environment, lack of cultural integration and erosion of the parent culture Versus the financial benefits of an unlimited pool of labour.

    70%-80% of the population when polled on the issue consistently state that immigration should be controlled. I respect your opinion, I just think you are misguided to believe the benefits outweigh the costs.

  3. Pete B: “Most leavers just want to get out, stop unrestricted immigration, and start negotiating later.”

    Well, that’s fine. It’s the ones who have a weird sense of entitlement to continuing membership privileges after leaving, and regard loss of those privileges as ‘punishment’ that exasperate me.

  4. old nat

    Rural Myther

    I think i met her at a different site

  5. Fine let’s just go WTO and forget about it. It’s not worth the ear-ache. Who needs the privilege of buying German cars and French cheese anyway. We clearly don’t deserve them, unreconstructed 16th century r*cist bigots that we are.

  6. Neil A: “Fine let’s just go WTO and forget about it.”

    Exactly the attitude I was advocating for Brexiters, and which I am happy to accept and respect.

    But I’m afraid you’ve lost me (and maybe the plot) with your “unreconstructed 16th century r*cist bigots” comment.

  7. Sea Change

    No one is disputing that the UK has the legal right to do what it wants to Scottish fisheries (both inshore and EEZ). What you are missing are the potential political consequences – that was the point of my original response to you.

    Fraserburgh and Peterhead are the largest pelagic fishing ports in the EU. More fish and shellfish are landed in Shetland alone, than England, Wales & NI combined.

    The “fisher” side of my family doesn’t exactly share the opinions of the corporate firms who were given their share of the UK/Scottish quota by Whitehall – but it is a live political issue in much of coastal Scotland, which is unlikely to want to see “Scottish” waters given away again by a London government, to whom the industry didn’t matter in the original EEC negotiations.

  8. Im in total agreement with S tomas regarding the Clinton e-mail saga and its right to point out that if it was boris that had all this stuff swirling around him then most of us to the left would be screaming blue murder, I think most of the posters to the right would also be at least unsettled

  9. @OLDNAT

    I think what happened to the fishing industry in all of the UK was a national disgrace. The treaty of Rome said nothing about international waters being a shared resource. Which they were not until the prospect of grabbing those resources from Norway and the UK during the 1972 accession negotiations reared its head.

    The way successive governments since then have treated this industry has been scandalous IMO. It’s definitely not just a Scottish issue that’s for sure.

  10. Sea Change

    I think what happened to the fishing industry in all of the UK was a national disgrace.”

    I’m not sure what that is a reference to.

    Are you talking about the extension of EEZs by other countries – which prevented the plundering of “their” waters by UK trawlers mainly sailing out of English ports like Grimsby?

    Or are you referring to the catastrophic decline in fish stocks caused by a combination of sea water temperature change and hugely efficient modern fishing techniques?

    I was rather struck by a comment from one fisherman – just a few years younger than me – “I can’t fish like my Dad and Grandad did : they plundered the fish and left few for me”.

    The generational imbalance of wealth and opportunity has many more applications than urban dwellers may appreciate!

  11. “but I’m afraid you’ve lost me (and maybe the plot) with your “unreconstructed 16th century”

    ———–

    Don’t forget the cheese comment…

  12. @Sea Change

    “We’ve been over this many times in the past on this site. It boils down to capital cost of infrastructure, cost of increased need for public services, harm to the environment, lack of cultural integration and erosion of the parent culture Versus the financial benefits of an unlimited pool of labour.”

    ————-

    There are, to be fair other benefits of immigration that one needs to build into the overall picture. For eggers, increasing the population and size of the economy can give more clout. There are benefits to be had from introducing new cultures, it isn’t all just erosion of parent culture. Even mixing up the genes and immune systems can have some benefits. Obviously can I let skills that may be lacking. There can be integrative benefits in terms of links with other countries. If you have an ageing population it can rebalance the demographic…

    Etc. etc.

    (On the other hand, you left out the need for Neil to have more room to live…)

  13. Fishing

    the cornerstone of any new fishing policy ought to be that all fish caught in British waters must be landed at british ports so that proper monitoring can be carried out.

    if that has the by- product of rebuilding the freezing ,canning,ancillary industries at tthose centres and creating employment then that is just a burden that the UK will have to bear!

  14. @Carfew

    I would contend all those are achieved with limited immigration.

  15. @Sea Change

    Yes, but you might have more of the benefits with more immigration. And some of it, like becoming a significantly larger economy needs quite a bit of immigration.

    Equally, some of the “costs” of immigration you list aren’t necessarily costs. Growth from immigration might pay for its own infrastructure requirements. If there is a net gain then more immigration leaves us better off on those terms.

    It’s a more complex picture than commonly described.

  16. @Oldnat

    It’s a combination of the original accession agreement and the common fisheries policy coupled with government decisions made by both Labour and the Tories to give out quota licences to large EU corporations at the expense the local fishermen.

    The UK became a net importer of fish in 1984.

    It’s no surprise that the vast majority of UK fishermen voted out.

    Of course this is not confined to the fishing industry, way too many regulations are constructed for the sole benefit of large multi-nationals who can use their economies of scale to pay for them and push out smaller business who then cannot compete.

  17. @Carfew

    I agree with your statement however unskilled and semi-skilled labour do not in themselves provide a tax take that will meet the increased costs of infrastructure and services. Which is why I advocate a salary minimum where work permits are automatically given.

    This is nothing new. Almost every country that uses work permits (most of the world) requires salary minimums for this very reason.

  18. Sea Change

    “It’s a combination of the original accession agreement and the common fisheries policy coupled with government decisions made by both Labour and the Tories to give out quota licences to large EU corporations at the expense the local fishermen.”

    Complicated, when you actually have to start looking at the detail, rather than relying on assumptions – or worse still. the English Fisheries Minister!

    “It’s no surprise that the vast majority of UK fishermen voted out.”

    I haven’t seen that data – care to share your source?

    Fishing isn’t a major industry in the UK (though rather more important in the Scottish polity than elsewhere) but the level of ignorance among those Brexiteers who pontificate on it, does surprise me somewhat.

    Maybe it’s the same for all industries?

    At the very least, I’d have expected that those with views on how leaving the EU would benefit the fishing industry would have at least a nodding acquaintance with the international agreements on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on Straddling and Migratory Fish Stocks and the situation in the Norwegian Fisheries Area.

    Still, as long as Eustice claims that “regaining control of the Channel” would be a major boost for UK fishing, I doubt that we will see much in the way of rational debate.

  19. @Sea Change

    It’s not all about tax take, or to the extent that it is, it’s not just the wages of the low-skilled. There’s the taxes of the companies employing them, the value of the services provided, the demand they generate in the economy which supports other business. Might not earn a lot but what’s the true economic value of a cleaner in the NHS in terms of lives potentially saved? Especially if difficult to fill the post sans immigration….

    Also, some may start off in low-paid jobs while finding their feet and learning the language but doesn’t mean they stay there. My mother started on the factory floor for a few months but soon moved on. Immigrants are often aspirant and so are their kids, hence I went to Oxford. This is before youo consider the impact of immigrant kids on the education of their native peers, lifting their standards as experienced in London.

  20. @Carfrew

    Everything maybe as you say. The issue is one of scale.

    If you are implying the benefits of unrestricted mass immigration clearly outweigh the costs then logically we should be building transportation ships to start bringing people en masse from the developing world to our already relatively densely populated island.

    I’d love to see some polling on that plan.

  21. @OLDNAT Here’s a link to the survey summary

    http://theconversation.com/british-fishermen-want-out-of-the-eu-heres-why-60803

    92% wanted out. MFE +/- approx 9%

    The research was done by Aberdeen University

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/aozg6tzd13jn1d1/Fishermen%20Survey%20-%20Report.pdf?dl=0

  22. @Sea Change

    No, I’m not arguing for or against immigration.

    I was just pointing out that there are rather more benefits to immigration than you gave. If you are going to do a useful analysis, need to take other considerations into account. Things have been rather oversimplified at times…

    Incidentally, you are misrepresenting the argument of Danny’s you were challenging anyway, with talk of shipping people en masse regardless, because Danny and indeed others don’t really argue for absolutely unlimited immigration, they just think the amount should be determined by economic need. If we have use for them, then there is potentially economic benefit, and if we don’t secure sufficient immigration we may incur a cost.

    Cramming in more than we can gainfully employ may start to diminish the benefits…

  23. somerjohn,
    ” can all Brexiters just stop whinging about the prospect of losing EU trading privileges and start making some concrete proposals for how we’re going to make our way in the post-Brexit world”

    I have no idea myself how the UK might make its way post brexit and have not seen any suggestions beyond what is in place right now. Its not as if the Uk has been turning away trade with the rest of the world. ‘once more into the breach’ speeches just do not fix the problem.

    Neil A,
    “A belief in free markets and comparative advantage doesn’t rely on them functioning perfectly,”

    But it does therefore rely on government interventions to give your own favourite the advantage. Always has. Is the Uk in a position to negotiate anything which might boost its current position, or is it simply doing its best to minimise the harm from leaving the EU? It will certainly be an interesting experiment.

    My view at the start of this was what the Uk has to fear is the long term and lasting harm of Brexit, not short or medium term. Seems to me the loss of competitiveness of the Uk for attracting industry to be based here will be permanent.

    sea change,
    “70%-80% of the population when polled on the issue consistently state that immigration should be controlled. I respect your opinion, I just think you are misguided to believe the benefits outweigh the costs.”

    My position is that the view ‘immigration is a good thing’, has been the universal policy of governments of both stripe for decades, and was also the view of spokesmen (women) for the Leave campaign. The line is something like ‘while obviously we want to limit immigration, we do accept the need to meet labour shortages in the economy”. There have also been no attempts to limit non eu immigration. QED.

    Governments could have chosen another path, such as boosting UK education to meet high skills shortages, or boosting low end wages to make manual jobs more attractive to uK citizens. But they have chosen not to. Or they could have taken measure to reduce growth and raise native unemployment thus increasing competition for jobs, But they have not.

    Which course will government follow now? The one you reckon 70% want, or the one government has always favoured? I expect either we will accept free movement, or there will be a quota designed not to limit immigration.

    Your 70% might be correct, but as it always comes down to money, the decisive question for voters is ‘would you prefer to cut immigration or cut your own standard of living’? Governments plainly believe the answer is always people want more money.

  24. Immigration

    I come from a very european famiy and we enjoy the free movement of peoples
    .
    It seems to me that there is insufficient focus on the difference between the right to control immigration and the setting of the level of that immigration.
    After Brexit the UK would have the right ,in theory, to allow free movement of people or labour or to slightly restrict that. It would also be able stop it completely.The arguments on this site seem merely to be about the correct level and what is best for the economy.

    Provided the UK can reach that decision itself i am content.

    On the same topic the EU commitment to uncontrolled movement of people is truly out of character. All the other pillars are not only regulated but some say over regulated. Why is this pillar not regulated at all? It is the last bastion of uncontrolled capitalism.It undoubtedly benefits industry since it provides a vast pool of cheap labour while leaving government to deal with social costs and changes..To me the fact that it is uncontrolled when logic and good government would suggest it should be regulated shows the influence of big business on the eu body politic.

    I ask again;why is the unregulated movement of people a pillar of the EU?

  25. Still the same old stuff.

    Waiting for a new poll of any sort and for Art. 50 to be enacted so we can really start the process of leaving.

  26. neil A,
    ” Who needs the privilege of buying German cars and French cheese anyway”

    Obviously, no one. We can all get by on the traditional UK subsistence diet of oatmeal porridge. Trouble is, there is an expectation of getting German cars and French cheese which will not go away after brexit. Trade defict will widen.

    Sea Change,
    “way too many regulations are constructed for the sole benefit of large multi-nationals who can use their economies of scale to pay for them and push out smaller business who then cannot compete.”
    yes. But this has nothing to do with EU membership: in or out westminster will put these regulations in place.

    I was unimpressed by arguments about fish and the EU, for the reasons mentioned that Iceland was the most recent nation to destroy the UK fishing industry, when it stopped us taking their fish. Before that we fished out our own. Since then Uk fishermen have voluntarily sold all our quota to Spain. And as mentioned, national policy on quota distribution has always disfavoured small local fishermen.

    Carfrew,
    ” Might not earn a lot but what’s the true economic value of a cleaner in the NHS in terms of lives potentially saved?”

    Oh my, ‘Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy’ from my youth. Planet depopulated by disease spread from telephones, after it got rid of all its useless telephone sanitisers. Nothing changes.

    Carfrew,
    ” Danny and indeed others don’t really argue for absolutely unlimited immigration”

    What I mostly argue is that so called free movement has only resulted in labour demand in the economy being met, and has never resulted in excess labour in the UK. All it does is fulfil government policy. If we deliberately restrict demand for labour in the Uk, then immigration will reduce. Its a simple solution no one seems to like. Close some Uk businesses and the immigrants will go home. Free migration with the entire world would be unlikely to work this way because of the massive income differences, but with our comparably rich european neighbours it has worked well. The lack of formal paperwork also means they can go home again if they want, whereas strict rules discourage this.

  27. The other Howard,
    “Waiting for a new poll of any sort and for Art. 50 to be enacted so we can really start the process of leaving.”

    It will not change the fundamentals. The only difference will be more time will have elapsed for some effects to become apparent. But we will not see any results from leaving the EU until we do, so it will be years or decades before this issue is settled. Unless we cancel it, of course. But I doubt that would bring a speedier resolution to the debate. It seems likely this will still be a live issue at the next election even if its in 2020.

    If we hard brexit, the debate will become ‘why dont we re-join the Eu and get all these nice advantages we are missing’. UKIP let the genii out of the bottle by encouraging the public to become actively involved.

  28. I thought this comment below a Guardian piece on the implications of CETA for the UK was interesting, for giving a perspective on what life outside the EU, playing with the big boys in trade might be like:

    “Speaking for the moment AS a Canadian… please don’t do us favours. We make trade deals with trading partners FAR FAR more annoying than the EU (like.. the US for example).

    The fact is that *all* trade negotiations are difficult. Even when there’s just two countries involved, there are still MANY players who want their say on both sides.

    For example, this deal almost got scuppered by our Dairy Board – our dairy farm market management agency – who saw the imports of cheese and yoghurt into Canada as potentially being destructive to our dairy industry.

    Even though Canada has a free trade agreement with the US, they’re constantly trying to nail us on things like how we market softwood lumber.

    And with a free trade deal, we don’t have the same access to goods and services on either side of the border. Most companies set up Canadian and American branches of their business, then restrict each other from selling into the other’s market. However, since the US population is about 10x larger, they have the purchasing clout to have more models and versions of products.

    So in Canada we’ll get say, one of two models of a laptop from say Samsung, usually the base model, Americans will get five or more configurations and more models.

    And we’re not *allowed* to buy them.

    If you go on line and try to buy it from an online retailer, you’ll be rejected the moment you try to enter your address or credit card info.

    These are the realities of living with a big partner with a normal trade deal.

    PS: It took us a total of over seven years to get this fairly lousy deal. And Americans think even this is too good – Trump, for example, want to repeal NAFTA.”

    I asked earlier for Brexiters to come up with concrete proposals for securing our prosperity in a post-Brexit world. Deafening silence from that direction so far.

  29. I don’t think Brexit will happen within the next 5 years, but of course government has to proceed to try to implement the referendum decision. If they were not making the right noises, then UKIP would be taking more supporters from Tories and Labour, with the chance of winning council seats around the country. At the moment UKIP are in a mess and have lost support. It suits both Tories and Labour if UKIP are unable to organise themselves in the run up to a 2020 election.

    My prediction is that the UK will still be in the EU at the next election, whenever it takes place. I think A50 won’t be triggered until Summer/Autumn 2017 and the 2 year divorce settlement period will be extended by consent of the EU. Remember that the UK will still be paying membership fees in until the Brexit date, so there is an incentive. Before the Brexit deal can go through, i think it will take a general election win for the Tories with a majority. There is a possibility of another referendum on the Brexit deal and that might stop Brexit happening, if the country has changed its mind.

  30. Danny

    As you will have gathered I find the endless discussion from fixed positions really boring. Your not going to change your mind nor am I going to change yours. We disagree almost totally about leaving the EU so what is the point of continuing the dialogue.

    “But we will not see any results from leaving the EU until we do, so it will be years or decades before this issue is settled. ”

    I said almost totally, but this is one area we can agree, your just posting what I have been saying here for months. My usual phrase is ” we wont know the full effect of brexit until 2025-2035″.

    As for your last paragraph……………..LOL. I think us reapplying to join is as likely as me going to the moon. Why would anyone want to rejoin an organisation which if it still exists in 2035 will be on the edge of toatl collapse. I think most of Europe’s future is bleak unless the EU breaks up quickly. I think our future is potentally very bright but of course it’s only IMO.

  31. Somerjohn

    “I asked earlier for Brexiters to come up with concrete proposals for securing our prosperity in a post-Brexit world. Deafening silence from that direction so far.”

    Why should any of us do that for God’s sake? Personally I have got much better things to do with my time. You should get out and get a life, join a debating society or something like that.

    All you need to know is that we who want Brexit are just looking forward to it and we can all discuss the result after it’s happened. Maybe one of us got the time I certainly haven’t.

  32. @Somerjohn
    “I asked earlier for Brexiters to come up with concrete proposals for securing our prosperity in a post-Brexit world. Deafening silence from that direction so far.”

    Invent a better mousetrap?

  33. @TOH

    Throughout the campaign (and since) it seems to me that Brexit played heavily on emotional responses nationalism, taking back control, tinges of xenophobia etc etc. Nothing wrong with that per se – it was a classic populist campaign, lambasting “elites”and “experts” along the way.

    Problem is it was light on practical ideas and it is fairly clear to me that the powers that be are now having to make it up as they go along.

    From May’s GS speech its evident she doesn’t believe it is a wise thing to do but she’s stuck with trying to make the best of it. Of the 3 Brexiteers in charge Boris demonstrably doesn’t have his heart in it and Fox and Davis were rightly consigned to the dustbin of political failures until they somehow found themselves in positions of power.

    With only 7% of their supporters believing they will be worse and 58% actually think they will be better off I would suggest that support for Brexit faces some testing times ahead!

    As to your reply to Sommerjohn, it’s just bluster to cover up the fact there isn’t even a plan let alone a masterplan

  34. @MrJones – my point about early voting probably wasn’t expressed clearly. I meant to say that Republicans traditionally favoured early voting, as more Republican voters used this method.

    Now, and particularly in 2016, major efforts by Democrats in certain demographic groups mean that in a number of states, early voting is favouring the Democrats. Surprise surprise, Republican administrations in places like North Carolina have now discovered reasons why they don’t like early voting, and are trying to restrict it.

    Incidentally, it looks like the US operates an entirely different system, as there are numerous polls reporting actual numbers of early voters and how they voted. In some places, like Nevada, I understand we know how many registered party supporters have voted, and polls/results are suggesting that the Democrats lead is sufficiently large to mean Trump is now unlikely to win the state.

    Elsewhere, Clinton is being helped by high early voting in Hispanic districts, but is a little worried about lower turnout among black neighbourhoods. These areas are down on Obama’s rates.

  35. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    “As you will have gathered I find the endless discussion from fixed positions really boring. Your not going to change your mind nor am I going to change yours.”

    ———

    If peeps post stuff that others think needs challenge or elaboration that’s prolly going to happen. Whether that’s free trade or immigration or much else, and you’re not shy of doing the same yourself, though you don’t necessarily add such value beyond complaining summat is just an opinion. The other day you said that same thing repeatedly. Strangely that doesn’t bore you…

    The discussion isn’t static anyway, it is actually people from different sides honing a position, the argument is developing. I’m going to hone it a bit more after this. For eggers, I don’t recall you or anyone really getting stuck into what’s the optimum level of immigration from the point of view of the economy.

    Another disaster in the cricket. Exciting stuff, but boy could we use a consistent spinner. Peeps that can hold catches would help…

  36. @Danny

    The issue of what immigration is necessary for the economy is a bit fluid. Because if they have access to cheap labour from abroad, business can set up here to produce stuff for export that isn’t entirely necessary for the economy. We might get tax revenues,
    But whether it’s necessary is summat else.

    Alternatively, if there are jobs that do need doing, but wages can be depressed by hiring from abroad, then the jobs get done but immigration rises and local peeps stay on the dole. Some would argue that local peeps don’t want the jobs, but if undercut by peeps for whom the money is worth more back home, it’s tricky.

    Of course as you know, some of this could be ameliorated by government investment etc., Or transfer payments, but if in practice they don’t do it, then peeps will vote accordingly.

  37. @The Other Howard

    Forgive us. We had thought that because you had campaigned so hard for this result, and spent so much time telling us that things would be brighter and better outside of the EU, that you had some concrete ideas on why. I now understand your position that it’s only sad lifeless losers who hang around polling discussion sites who bother with things like that. I regret my error.

  38. @ALEC

    “@MrJones – my point about early voting probably wasn’t expressed clearly. I meant to say that Republicans traditionally favoured early voting, as more Republican voters used this method.”

    ————-

    Interestingly, Republicans still seem to be ok with absentee voting, even though this also happens earlier and is more vulnerable to fraud.

    It’s the early voting which has to be done in person they don’t like, a method that coincidentally favours Dems because it allows hard-pressed workers to find time to vote, and also reduces queues on polling day making it harder to find an excuse to turn peeps away…

  39. I’m wishing @Socaliberal was around to help here (presumably he is busy campaigning nervously?) but there is more on the US early voting story.

    I’ve read a few articles by US conservative commentators arguing against early voting, as they say it everyone should vote on the same day to encourage serious deliberation once they have all the information to hand.

    It’s an odd stance to take by generally more libertarian Republicans, as it suggests that individuals can’t make up their minds about when they have had enough information to make up their minds. It’s also undercut by the fact that many of the same commentators still back absentee ballots, which I assume ar postal ballots, for those who can’t get to the polling stations (my understanding is that early voting in many places is still in person, but I could be wrong).

    From all this, it seems clear that the highly partisan nature of politics in the US is again despoiling the functioning of the democratic process, in that apparently philosophical positions are being taken about issues like early voting which match the partisan benefit felt from any given set of proposals, and worse, where those positions alter over time as the net benefit to each party waxes and wanes.

  40. @ToH

    “Why should any of us do that for God’s sake? Personally I have got much better things to do with my time. You should get out and get a life, join a debating society or something like that.”

    ————-

    To be fair to Somerjohn, you’re prolly finding fault and argument for no reason as he prolly wasnt expecting an answer. He knows you guys don’t have a Scoobies, that’s what he was pointing out with a question that’s rhetorical.

    You may be happy with the contrivance that we should wait 20 years to find out but on a polling site that’s very much about prediction most are likely not to just settle for that.

    You don’t either, e.g. your prediction the EU will fall apart.

  41. New ICM poll – 43/27 so a 16% lead.

    And no Labour infighting.

  42. PMI manufacturing data – exports being boosted by the devaluation, and the sector probably returning to growth this quarter on the back of that, although the headline PMI score was slightly down on September.

    However – the fastest rise in import prices in the surveys 25 year history flags up the problems coming down the track.

    @Candy’s armchair warriors are going to have to be sharp to police prices, I think.

  43. A Poll !!!

    Labour still in the doldrums. No sign of LD lift off.

    TM still smiling .

  44. There was a short on the BBC yesterday, dealing with the question, of how did Clinton and Trump, candidates with such low favourably ratings, rise to the top.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37802358

    They begin by highlighting that politics is becoming more polarised, with Pew Research showing that the median voters of Republican and Democrats moving farther apart, and that people more active in the political process tending to be more partisan.

    Point is, that these partisans are the types who vote in Primaries, hence how Trump and Clinton get elected. It also notes that they both used to be a lot more popular, Clinton at the State Dept. and Trump in the Apprentice, but their recent political involvement tends to tarnish…

  45. “However – the fastest rise in import prices in the surveys 25 year history flags up the problems coming down the track.
    @Candy’s armchair warriors are going to have to be sharp to police prices, I think.”

    ————-

    They haven’t done very well policing synth prices…

  46. Interesting Manufacturing PMIs for October.

    ““SMEs showed the biggest appetite for employing
    more staff as the overall employment index showed
    a rise for the third consecutive month. Production
    and warehouse staff, plus apprentices fared the
    best for employment opportunities”

    A good sign that smaller companies are motoring like this.-the broad base of UK manufacturing.

    “These ( import) price hikes resulted in manufacturers passing on higher prices to their customers as charges rose for the sixth consecutive month and to the steepest degree since June 2011. ”

    Exchange Rate generated inflation being passed on in prices. BoE will be watching this.

  47. Does anyone have access to the full ICM poll result?
    I can’t find it anywhere…

  48. Alec, I know you are er unenthusiastic about JC but after a large part of the plp has spent a year fannyi g about it would be a surprise if things revert in a few weeks.

  49. Conservatives: 43% (no change)

    Labour: 27% (+1)

    Ukip: 12% (+1)

    Lib Dems: 8% (no change)

    Greens: 5% (-1)

    @Mark W

    I would like to know why you think Middle England is going to vote for an incompetent unreconstructed Bennite any time soon.

  50. So, ICM is essentially no change.

    I understand the Labour score, but not really the LibDem considering their local by-election results (I know the caveats, still).

1 6 7 8 9 10 11