The Times have a new YouGov poll this morning, carried out after Theresa May’s Brexit speech. Overall, it looks as if the PM has passed her first Brexit test – a majority of the public support the sort of Brexit she is seeking to achieve. Whether they support the sort of Brexit she actually manages to get other EU countries to agree to once negotiations are complete is, of course, a different matter.

YouGov asked respondents if they agreed with some of the key negotiation points May set out: many of these were uncontroversial (an overwhelming majority of people wanted UK control of immigration, an open border with Ireland, the rights of existing immigrations to be protected and continued co-operation on security). Most of these are obvious though – the two more controversial points were the confirmation that Britain would leave the single market and the customs union. A majority of people supported both, but it was split very much among pro-EU and anti-EU lines: a huge majority of Leave voters thought it was the right thing to do, but Remain voters tended to think it was wrong to leave the single market and were split over the customs union.

Looking at a list of specific measures is not necessarily a good way of measuring support for May’s stance anyway. Most of us won’t tot up the individual details, people tend to judge the overall package. Asked about May’s Brexit plan as a whole, there was a clear thumbs up. 55% think it would be good for Britain; only 19% think it would be bad. 62% think it would respect the referendum result and by 53% to 26% people say that they would be happy with the outcome.

While people like what May is seeking, that doesn’t mean they think it is actually achievable. While the public do express confidence in May’s negotiating ability (by 47% to 38%), only 20% of people think that other EU countries will agree to what she wants. Only time will tell how the public react to whatever EU deal May actually manages to get.

The poll also asked voting intention. Topline figures were CON 42%, LAB 25%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, putting the Tories back up to a seventeen point lead. As ever it is only one poll, so don’t read too much into that huge lead: it may be that May setting out a clearer route forward for Brexit (and the good press she got yesterday) has given the Tories a boost… or it may just be normal random variation. Full tabs are here


584 Responses to “YouGov polling on Theresa May’s Brexit speech”

1 9 10 11 12
  1. Hireton
    clinton obviously assaulted Monica in the first place. It is very unlikely that she made the first move. The only difference between Clinton & Trump is, she didn’t complain about it but as someone said earlier, he certainly took advantage of his office, his power and his seniority and I have never understood the revered halo that he has stuck around his head.

    So quit the double standards.

  2. Hi Valerie

    People are using the acronym ROC. I have no idea what it means. Also, could you enlighten us as to your own views on the matter under discussion?

    [It means “Right of Centre”, it’s one of those terms used to generalise about those with political views other than their own. Much as I dislike people referring to others on here as “lefties” or “righties” I’d ask people not to use it. As soon as people start lumping other commenters into “my side” or “the other side”, etc, we start getting partisan guff. There are no ROC posters here, no lefties or righties, there are just other people. Please do not think of other posters as being on your side or the other side, and we’ll all get along much better – AW]

  3. Pete B,

    it could be any of these????

    http://www.acronymfinder.com/ROC.html

    but I’d go for Right of Centre, though that should be “RoC”

    Peter.

  4. Peter C
    Thanks, though I’d suggest that posters of many persuasions are chipping in. I would genuinely be interested in Valerie’s views, as she is one of the few obvious ladies still active on the site.

  5. @Somerjohn
    “What is even more depressing is the haste with which our PM is rushing across the Atlantic to make obeisance at the court of the King of Mischief. Is that what our country has come to?”

    Taken together with our threatening to become a tax haven to try to compensate for the self-inflicted economic damage of Brexit: I was once proud of this country. I’m ashamed now.

  6. @Somerjohn “What is even more depressing is the haste with which our PM is rushing across the Atlantic to make obeisance at the court of the King of Mischief. Is that what our country has come to?”

    It is not obscene, it is Realpolitik.

    Definition: “It is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.”

    Theresa May is doing exactly what is needed for the UK. We have to have to have the strongest negotiating hand possible when we activate A50.

    People can complain about Trump being a horrible person all they like, they can march in their 100,000s but what is in the UK interests is to have a very strong releationship with the USA and that means schmoozing Trump.

  7. Sea Change
    Spot on. The UK has always been pragmatic, making alliances and trading relationships in our own interests, more or less regardless of the personality of other countries’ leaders or indeed their ideology.

    Robin Cook was the only Foreign Secretary to suggest an ethical foreign policy, and look what happened to him.

    G’night all.

  8. Sea Change,

    “but what is in the UK interests is to have a very strong relationship with the USA and that means schmoozing Trump.”

    Actually what’s in the UK’s interest is that we don’t let the pursuit of a “Special Relationship” or a Maggie/Ronnie relationship to blind us to other considerations.

    It was at least in part Blairs attempt to be as close to Bush as Thatcher was to Reagan by “Standing Shoulder to Shoulder” and “Paying the Blood Price” that set us down the road to Bagdad.

    Be in the UK/US or US/Israel, elevating one partnership to the exclusion of other considerations is usually a bad idea.

    I’d follow the example of other leaders and wait a while to let the dust settle a bit rather than rush in.

    There’s a danger that we might seem to keen if not desperate.

    Peter.

  9. @S Thomas

    I did look it up. In several different places. You seem to be dealing in alternative facts.

    We aren’t even the second largest net contributor. That is France.

    Of those countries who make a net contribution to the EU, those other than Germany and the UK pay in 3.5 times as much as the UK’s net contribution.

  10. @Peter Cairns,

    Nowhere do I suggest that we elevate that relationship to the exclusion of all others.

    What I said is that it is entirely in the national interest for TM to have a very strong relationship with the USA and that means getting on a plane and go and build bridges with the Trump Administration and get the ball rolling on starting the initial groundwork for a trade deal.

    It is basic Realpolitik.

  11. Sea Change

    While I imagine the discussion may have moved on since I last logged on, thanks for your “I do not consider Norway or Iceland fully independent”.

    But just do go back to my original point to you – what you think is the situation of those polities is utterly irrelevant, as to how they choose to define their “independence”. If their definition satisfies them, they really don’t need to have your approval of their definition! :-)

    You choose to have your own interpretation of the word.

    Many arguments are just semantic because partisan people insist on just defining terms in ways that suit them, and imagine that that they “win” by doing that,

    A bit sad really.

  12. “I’d follow the example of other leaders and wait a while to let the dust settle a bit rather than rush in.”

    ———

    When it comes to Trump, you may find the dust never settles. So peeps either get too confused or give up trying to gauge what’s happening. Bit like auto-correct, or modding…

  13. Carfrew

    “Well Scotland has the ability to leave the UK union, they get referenda on it even without sovereignty

    We had one referendum, by the kind permission of the sovereign Queen in Parliament.

    If you are assuring me, from your vast understanding of the UK constitution, that the Scottish Parliament can call another whenever it wants, then I will be much reassured.

    Alternatively, you are spouting rubbish.

  14. Carfrew

    ” Somehow I think there’d be a ‘polity’ still campaigning to leave the Union!!”

    You don’t understand the word “polity”, do you?

  15. Sea Change,

    If you go on too much more about Realpolitik I will be forced to prove Godwin’s Law……

    We are getting this comparison with the Reagan-Thatcher relationship but the big difference is that Reagan and Thatcher thought of each other as equals…

  16. @OLDNAT

    My interpretation of the word is generally understood to be a Sovereign Nation which has control over all functions of government,
    be it trade, defence, borders, energy, law etc

    So the USA is independent, Australia is independent the UK is currently not.

  17. @oldnat

    Well one common dictionary interpretation, the one I’m using, is a political entity or organisation. But according to you, in different polities words can mean different things. Like in whatever polity you inhabit, you said you can be independent if you simply have the means to leave!!! Hilarious!! You were therefore independent already when you had the referendum.

    Also some in your polity think currency is an asset!!

    Regarding your answer to Sea Change, it’s a straw man anyway. You can waste your time quibbling about the definition of independence but it’s not especially important in considering whether there’s any hypocrisy in the stance towards the UK or EU unions.

  18. @oldnat

    So, how much is the fact that you get to keep the oil a consideration in Nats fondness for EU as opposed to UK?

  19. @Sea Change

    But in Oldnat’s polity it’s about the ability to leave a union and stuff. Weird, I know…

  20. @ WOOD

    No worries, I like to split a good hair as much as anyone!

    If May had called a snap GE then I’d agree with you, for current national polls to be about right then a seat like Copeland would be up for grabs. But given the way governments tend to underperform their national polls in by-elections, and the way that the anti-government vote tends to coalesce towards one party, I’d say even if the current national polls are accurate then Copeland should still be well out of reach for the Cons.

    I know the dataset of by-elections is small anyway, and when you strip out the safe seats it’s smaller still. And governments being more popular mid-term than when they got elected is also rare, so maybe we’re already looking at a big outlier in terms of how this one is set up.

    But if the Cons do win it, I don’t think it would have a truly comparable precedent since at least the 1920s, so it would be statistically extraordinary. Even without that, setting aside that it’s a by-election and who’s in government etc, if Labour can’t win a seat like Copeland in a vote now, they can only be seen as going backwards fast since a big losing GE in 2015.

    Hence I’m not surprised at the appearance that with the leak they are trying to say that this seat was always going to be hard, that the fundamentals were somehow against them, and that even competing well is a good result.

  21. Sea Change & Carfrew

    I have no problem with some people using “independent” in an absolute sense – that no other polity (or a group of them) has any control over the actions that the “independent” state has.

    I just can’t think of any polity in the world that actually “enjoys” such a status.

    The reality for every state in the world is that they choose to pool some aspect of their sovereignty (no matter how limited that pooling is – as with N Korea) for a common benefit.

    There is a perfectly reasonable debate to be held within each polity as to the degree of pooling that is commensurate with their own idea of being “independent” – but the concept isn’t some absolute that the likes of Sea Change can impose on every one else’s view of their world.

    I’m content that Sea Change has an individual view of what a state being “independent” means, but it would be singularly arrogant for him to demand that everyone shares that view!

    If he wants to campaign in Norway, to tell Norwegians that they are not an independent country, then I would be the last person to try and stop him.

    Perhaps if more folk in England read Nicholas Boyle’s article in the New European (I linked to it earlier) then they might have some understanding of why their understanding of national identity and “independence” is so different from perceptions elsewhere than in their locality.

    http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the_problem_with_the_english_england_doesn_t_want_to_be_just_another_member_of_a_team_1_4851882

  22. On another topic all together, given that the Trident we tested in June actual turned towards America rather than off the coast of Africa where it was supposed too….Does anyone know where it actually ended up????

    Peter.

  23. Peter Cairns

    If the missile chose to go home to its native country, rather than being trafficked to an alien state, who could blame it?

    “America First” was the message it heard. :-)

  24. candy,
    “It is always people who pay the most money who leave”. Perhaps this is more cleat cut in the US than the Uk, but I keep hearing it is the democrat states who persistently vote for social and redistributive programs and who do most of the paying, whereas rhe respublican states keep voting for slashing such programs despite always being the beneficiaries.

    ” But in 2016, our trade with Europe was shrinking thanks to the eurozone crisis”
    Myself, I am very concerned that the reason our trade was shrinking was because of a lack of UK competitiveness.

    Tancred,
    ” It’s an astonishing fluke that Trump became president with a minority of the popular vote – probably a 1 in 1,000 chance.”
    No, it isnt a fluke. He got fewer votes, but the system is designed to work that way, just as in the UK a government can win outright on 25% support. Thats 3/4 of people who do not support you, yet you can win. Presidents get re-elected if they make a good job of it. Trump is very likely to fall out with republicans, and may make bridges with at least some democrats. I agree that some of his speeches could have come from Sanders, and indeed that is why he won. It remains to be seen what he does and the consequences for the economy, etc.

    It is no more a fluke he won than Farage. Both have roots in voter dissatisfaction, and in neither case will the result necessarily satisfy that dissatisfaction. Quite honestly, I think Trump has a better chance of working out than Brexit. For one because Trump can change his mind, and for 2 because the US has sufficient clout to impose policy changes on the world order.

    While on the subject of world trade, I don’t know how much real evidence there is that free trade works to boost economies? Sure, I can see the theoretical argument that if A is better at making widgets, and B at skyhooks, then they should do what they are good at and swap what they make. But this is normally not the case. Normally A is better at making both, and so B goes bankrupt. Free trade is great for A, but ruins B. Free trade expansion is always accompanied by technological advantage. Or to put it another way, protectionist Trump may be a great success.

  25. Sea Change,
    “Can you imagine the UK applying to join the EU now if we had been independent for the last 40 years”

    Oh yes. If we had done as badly during the last 40 years as we were doing before we joined. The 40 years of membership has been an economic success. I can also see us leaving and rejoing in 10 years time. It all depends on the economics, Brexit is a total leap in the dark. Britain right now is viewing things from the luxurious position of being wealthy. The problem being reported by pollsters is inequality of wealth within the UK.

    The Other Howard,
    ” I think that’s because the leave vote was as much about regaining sovereignty as it was about controlling immigration. If you accept that, then it all makes sense, the voters accept that leaving fully will have an initial adverse effect on the economy but are prepared to put up with that to leave the EU”

    The polling seems to suggest that Voters like May’s vison for Britain, but do not believe it is practical. We would all like to win the lottery, while accepting we cannot all do so, but still keep playing. We all reckon a couple of quid a week is a small enough loss for the tiny chance of a huge gain.

    Applying that same reasoning to Brexit, the question is whether we are just paying a couple of quid for the chance of a big win, or paying rather more. Voters will put up with small ‘initial adverse effects’, but the real and wholly unanswered question is whether there will be a long term negative impact on the UK. This seems as likely as not.

    I personally doubt voters really appreciate how much of a gamble they have made. No politician is willing to admit to such lack of control of the situation, so no one has been willing to tell them. Cameron et al. said they chickend out from using the worst case predictions of the outcome of Brexit, and no politicians are interested in explaining them now. No one wants to admit to supporting a policy which they believe could end catastrophically.

    If they did, then when they were proved right, they risk opprobrium for failing to have had the courage to act in what they knew was the national interest. May’s line right now is to express belief in brexit publicly, even though privately she must accept the view of her professional advisers and of the public that it is most unlikely to work.

    Somerjon,
    ” Is that what our country has come to?”
    It is an illusion to believe that leaving the EU makes the Uk sovereign: it just means we have to pander to someone else.

  26. oldnat

    “We had one referendum, by the kind permission of the sovereign Queen in Parliament.”

    Don’t the SNP want to retain Brenda so that you can keep trotting off for permission after independence (stopping off at the Bank of England to check what your current financial policy is while you are down south)

  27. Robin

    yes Bloomberg the EC all of us dealing in alternative facts whereas you are the holder of the key of truth.

  28. Robin

    You might also care to look at the treasury document :EU finances and note page 15 chart 3d. That deals with 2014and 2013 positions of net contributors and beneficiaries. I quote the 2015 position and all expectations are of a further uk deterioration in 2016.

    still your opinions as to facts are always welcome.

  29. @oldnat

    Well, I wrote about pooling sovereignty a while back, referencing an article which pointed to the historical trend towards greater trading of freedom for the benefits of pooling. This must be music to the ears of Nationalists, so glad to hear you have discovered it!!

    Regarding Sea Change, if she had argued for absolute independence then you might have a point, if not then you’re introducing another straw man. Might be a surplus of straw north of the border at the mo…

  30. PETER CAIRNS
    @They both may be nasty pieces of work but only one of them seems to want to translate that nastiness into policy.”

    He is going to make abuse of female employees law?-really??

    @”Clinton may have been a philanderer but he wasn’t in danger of changing the law to allow it.”

    Misses the point of the protest old chap-abuse of women isd not acceptable. Abuse if female employees by POTUS in the White House must be the Supreme Example.

    Just stop prevaricating-they are both wrong on this. Clinton did it IN OFFICE.

  31. Sea Change

    “Theresa May is doing exactly what is needed for the UK. We have to have to have the strongest negotiating hand possible when we activate A50.”

    It would be interesting to see polling on her visit, I suspect a big majority would agree with that.

  32. SeaChange

    Nicely put, I was going to say something along those lines to OLDNAT until i saw that post.

  33. @Danny

    Brilliant posts IMHO. Thank you. (Bertrand Russel made one of your points about pins, If one factory makes pins .0005 p cheaper than another, it scoops the pool and the other goes bust.. Perhaps this is not a good way to run things).

    On risks of Brexit – could we not try to minimise them?

    1) try to satisfy Sea Change by saying a) our supreme court is supreme b) we control our borders.

    2( Say to the European Union – this is all we want to negotiate within two years. In practice a) we welcome your workers and will put no obstacle in their way as we need them, (We will, however, expel your criminals and welfare tourists in a vain attempt to placate sea change) b) we accept that any trade deal requires some agreed method of arbitration and c) past EU legislation is part of our law and will be enforced by our supreme court. Any other changes will be by agreement after we have negotiated this initial step.

    This avoids a clifff edge, asserts our ‘sovereignty’, makes the minimal changes that might be seen as required by the referendum, and leaves it to the European Union to say how much pain they wish to extract in return. If they extract too much they will of course excite retaliation but as we are all on the side of the European project, there is no need for this and we don’t need to mention it.

  34. OLDNAT

    “Perhaps if more folk in England read Nicholas Boyle’s article in the New European (I linked to it earlier) then they might have some understanding of why their understanding of national identity and “independence” is so different from perceptions elsewhere than in their locality.

    Exactly that’s why leaving the EU is right for the UK.

  35. OLDNAT

    To be specific it was the headline i refer too. I disagree with a lot of what i would consider rubbish in the detail of the article. We don’t want to be part of team EU is the way I would put it.

  36. Danny

    Thanks for that long post to me. We disagree fundamentally about so many things including the likely long term effects of leaving the EU that i see little point in replying in detail. We both think the other seriously wrong, i suggest we leave at that and hope that we get more polling to discuss soon.

  37. I hadn’t realised that the population of Scotland is the same as the population of Yorkshire.

    With the clout that the jocks have in the kingdom, why on earth would they want to be “independent in the EU”?

    Strewth !

  38. @Charles

    Hmm,

    On pins, lots of other factors than price alone, but in general yes this is a known issue. It is the purpose of anti-trust laws and monopolies and mergers commissions I suppose.

    I suppose in the end, is it better to have your industries and population have access to the best, cheapest goods they can obtain, or to maintain employment by either supporting inefficient industries or suppressing competition. For me, the answer to that depends largely on the scale of the problem, the reasons for the disparity in productivity and the nature of the product. What would be a reasonable policy for pins might not be a reasonable policy for shipbuiding, or universities, or health care.

    On the EU, it is not just about what we could ask for but about what the EU would give. We tried to negotiate for an end to “benefit tourism” (which like you I believe is not really the issue it is made out to be) but essentially failed. And getting rid of criminals isn’t that easy either. Much easier to do checks on people who want to move here than to rely on the police to identify people who shouldn’t be here after they arrive, or the immigration authorities to do the paperwork to get rid of them.

    Also, once again we are in to a binary position on immigration and labour shortages. Do we “need” every single EU migrant that arrives in the UK? Have we really completely run out of UK residents who are looking for jobs, do we really have so many unfilled positions that 300,000 EU migrants can walk directly in to jobs for which there were no UK applicants each year?

    Ending the right to move here to look for work, doesn’t necessarily remove the ability of UK firms to recruit for jobs they genuinely cannot fill. The opinion has been expressed that between the “message” that this sends (you’re not welcome etc) and the admin involved in getting work visas, such a policy would cause massive labour shortages. I am not completely convinced that this would be the case, or that any labour shortages created would necessarily cripple the country.

    Perhaps the government’s new Industrial Strategy will plug the gap? (Not holding my breath though).

  39. @NEIL A

    “I suppose in the end, is it better to have your industries and population have access to the best, cheapest goods they can obtain, or to maintain employment by either supporting inefficient industries or suppressing competition.”

    ———-

    False choice alert!!!!! This is a presentation of standard, flawed liberal fare

    – First of all, it isn’t just about maintaining employment, but also keeping up demand and associated business investment, avoiding the associated costs of unemployment, about keeping critical, strategic industries and knowledge.

    – Secondly, if we feed the ground to others in a sector they may initially offer lower prices but if people defend they corner the market, they can push prices up again. And it’s harder for us to restart production because list expertise etc.

    – ceding summat strategic can allow others to pressure us

    – quite often it’s not about supporting summat inefficient but unduly stressed by externals eg oil crisis. Even if it is inefficient, Govt investment can help modernise etc. The French not only bailed out Renault but gave it the money to reinvest and now it owns Nissan.

  40. Feed = cede
    Defend = cede
    List = lost
    Autocorrect = b’stard

  41. http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the_problem_with_the_english_england_doesn_t_want_to_be_just_another_member_of_a_team_1_4851882
    @oldnat January 23rd, 2017 at 1:48 am

    Thanks for the link. I tend to agree with the article about being lost without an empire. And even more importantly, each ‘country’ insists on having its own football team. That must tell you something. I asked Google translate what Vergangenheitsbewältigung means, and it said ‘the past’! That made me smile.

    I also liked this sentence:

    “Like resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, 17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.”

    And I learned from another article on that site that ‘Rue de Brexit’ — the newly named street by a French mayor — is a cul de sac.

    Although I’ve often very tempted, I don’t now respond to the comments from the ‘lager louts.’ More fun to smooze in the background and watch the ping-pong from a distance. I can see no one will be happy at the end of it. So best to be prepared from the failure that is to come.

  42. @Neil A

    “The opinion has been expressed that between the “message” that this sends (you’re not welcome etc) and the admin involved in getting work visas, such a policy would cause massive labour shortages.”

    ————–

    Well, it might not always result in shortages. But it might mean not getting the best candidates, or as you suggested, having to pay more, which might be problematic for NHS etc.

  43. @Robertnewark

    No double standards, the allegations against Trump are more serious than Clinton’s misdemeanours. The lawsuit against Trump may establish the truth of the matter as far as.he is concerned.

  44. @Carfew

    I was positing a question, rather than reciting dogma. I went on to express the view that there may be various different answers to that question rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

    I specifically mentioned anti-trust legislation. In order for pricing your competitors out by dumping, only to exploit your new monopoly to gouge customers, you need a government that lets you dump, and you need measures to prevent new competitors arising to undercut you when you start to gouge. Both of these things are appropriate areas (in my view) for government intervention and regulation. Of course, in some industries competition is harder to generate than others (the water industry for example) hence the multiplicity of answers to the question.

    In terms of community investment, employment rates, etc. And also strategic industries. That was sort of what I was getting at when I said that pins were different to, say, shipbuilding.

    I can’t see a foreign power dominating the UK due to their monopoly in pin production, but losing the ability to build warships would put as at the mercy of countries who can, and who may or may not agree with whatever use we intend to put those ships to.

    And closing a pin factory in, say, Swindon has a very different effect to closing a dockyard in, say, Belfast. Again, lots of different answers to my question.

    The Renault point is interesting. I don’t know a huge amount about the car industry, but you prompted me to a bit of Wiki-ing.

    It seems that the nationalization of Renault did indeed turn it around to some extent, although not through massive investment, but through slimming it down and making a lot of people redundant. Perhaps doing this in France is so difficult that it needs the power of the state to achieve it. It got the man responsible assassinated, so not everyone thought it was a great idea.

    Wiki says that Renault’s problems weren’t solved, and that financial problems remained. To try and fix this it was privatized* in 1996 (before the alliance with Nissan).

    And also, it doesn’t own Nissan. It is in an alliance with it, with each company owning a minority stake in the other whilst they both own half of a shared investment company. All very Masters of the Universe.

    (*The French government retained a small stake in it, which it increased to 19.73% in 2015. It may be that which made you think it was state-owned).

    Please don’t think any of this is me trying to one-up you. As I say I am just paraphrasing the wiki entry. I think this is one of those interesting questions that gets to the heart of the issues that drive which political policies people tend to support, and is therefore very interesting.

    I hope I’ve made it clear that I am in no sense a pure Thatcherite neo-liberal. As I’ve said over and over, I am more of an Orange Book Liberal Democrat at heart, but with one or two irreconcilable differences (over Europe and “civil liberties” for example) that force me to vote for the Tories (usually).

  45. RE TRIDENT

    Go to UK Defence Journal for an impartial view of what probably happened – again too much media hype – these missiles are jointly pooled with the US – could easily have happened to a US test launch – the key word being TEST.

  46. @Carfrew

    Having to pay more is a double edged sword of course. In other debates, you have extolled this as providing multipliers for the economy.

    One might say that if the UK economy needs anything, it needs higher pay for the unskilled and semi-skilled workers who are the backbone of the country, and who have been left behind with net incomes that haven’t improved in decades.

    That part of Trump’s assessment probably has more validity than any other. The idea that we need to suppress the wages of the working poor to make the country “affordable” is one of the real shady areas of globalization. Of course, the fact that he has hired a bunch of billionaire corporate sharks as his cabinet doesn’t exactly point to him actually doing anything about this (other than a trade war with Mexico and removing restrictions on coal mining, perhaps).

  47. @Hireton,

    Clinton was actually accused of perjury, which is pretty serious.

    @BobinNorfolk,

    Trident is a ridiculous non-story. I question the wisdom of Labour seeking to make an issue out of a subject upon which they don’t yet have a policy, and upon which their leader is quite politically vulnerable.

    I thought May did poorly on Marr. She should have actively shut him down when he asked the questions, rather than trying to talk past the questions and repeat her “line” over and over.

  48. AL URQA

    I have long expected the EU to fail and i certainly expect it to do so in the next 30-40 years. I don’t take pleasure in it, and i wish Europeans well provided they allow us to go our own way, and wish us well in return.

  49. The £ is gaining against the $, the Euro and most other currencies this morning. Presumably the currency markets see May’s visit to Trump favourably.

  50. New poll:

    ICM/Guardian

    Con 42% (-)
    Lab 26% (-2)
    UKIP 13% (+1)
    LD 10% (+1)
    Greens 5% (+1)

    Online poll of 2,052 adults, 20-22 Jan.

1 9 10 11 12