Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor for the Standard has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. This is MORI’s first poll since the general election, and like other companies now shows Labour with a small lead over the Conservatives. Fieldwork was Friday to Tuesday. As far as I can tell, the methodology is back to MORI’s usual methods, as they were using before the election campaign. Full details are here.

To update on other voting intention polls earlier this week, ICM for the Guardian on Tuesday had voting intentions of CON 42%(+1), LAB 43%(nc), LDEM 7%(nc), UKIP 3%(nc). Fieldwork was over the weekend, and changes were from a fortnight ago. Full tabs for that are here.

Finally YouGov for the Times, which was released on Monday but conducted last week, had topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 45%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 2%. Tabs for that are here.


1,533 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 41, LAB 42, LD 9, UKIP 3”

1 27 28 29 30 31
  1. PTRP
    I dont disagree with what you say but i think you are wrong about two things:

    a. The local physical issues of the border must be capable of resolution by compensation. If HS2 can be resolved then this can;
    b. Unless the EU is willing for NI to have tariff free trade and, yes Hireton, frictionless customs and to reap the commercial benefits of so doing if the UK is different, there has to be a hard border.no one may want it but it may be the only solution that works. you dismiss it but it is premature to do so. The EU cannot agree to it .

  2. @GUYMONDE
    @PAUL CROFT

    I find it interesting to debate the issue with people whom I don’t agree with. As I pointed out I think that brexit will be interesting. I campaigned for reamin and in speaking to many people whom voted leave I found that much of the argument was emotion versus facts we were often talking past each other. The Northern Ireland border is an interestign issue since I worked in Belfast and travelled frequency to the parent company in Dublin and I knew people whom did that journey everyday. I also cycled across the border with friends on a sportif and I remember packing my passport and everyone laughing at me.

    The change to FoM will be a massive issue for the border region. I fear that most of us here in England have no idea how differently this issue is perceived and indeed how differently beign Uk citizens is perceived by the Unionist community. The GFA was for them an intrenchment of unionism yes I know paradoxically for most English I believe we just don’t care or understand and at best believe it is a long term acceptance of reunification.

    it is pretty much a simile of the fact that we have voted for something we have not gully grasped what the implications are and even why we are doing this

  3. @Hireton

    Also, an Irish sea border is a strong step towards a united Ireland, something the government, composed of Conservative and Unionist Party, propped up by the Democratic Unionist Party, are unlikely to see as a viable option.

  4. @NeilJ

    It was an easy promise to make since we’ve always had the power to end unlimited free movement.

    If the Soft Brexiteers prevail the first thing that will happen is that they’ll invoke powers we have always had and not really used, and say that meets the promise.

    And most people will agree as well.

  5. @CHRIS RILEY
    It was an easy promise to make since we’ve always had the power to end unlimited free movement.
    If the Soft Brexiteers prevail the first thing that will happen is that they’ll invoke powers we have always had and not really used, and say that meets the promise.
    And most people will agree as well.

    True

  6. @HIRETON

    In fairness the situation is a fudge (or may be fudged up) but it is the only logical way around it. If you go through my discussion with S THOMAS my basic point is that if you are a leaver and want control of the borders then FoM as it currently stands (even in terms of the EU rules ) has to go so you would need visa and border control, registration and the like it either means a people border between NI and the Republic, Special Status i.e The NI is a part of the EU, we keep FoM or Ireland leaves the EU

  7. NeilJ

    Yes, whose turn is it to be in charge of Government policy today?

  8. @S THOMAS

    So you agree if we are to leave even with a FTA there has to be a hard peopel border somewhere.

    So you have chosen between Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is fine I think that is not going to happen since no one wants that and it defies the GFA if it happens. The people border will only work in my understanding if Either the Irish leave the EU or if the UK moves the people border to the Irish sea. Both solutions keep the GFA intact. the other I believe will cause real issues.

    I am not even arguing this as a remain/leave perspective I am arguing this from the fact that we are leaving and I believe that you misunderstand the sensitivities that each solution brings

  9. @COLIN

    On the FTA:

    yes Global trade grew because of the free movement of capital it sought the cheapest set of inputs to make the product and sometimes business were prepared to reduce quality to get the perceived advantage

    I was in a meeting with a VP of Engineerijng of Texas Instruments and I had just come back from India where I was workign with a company developing a derivative of our products I pointed out to him that the engagement was a disaster and I would have done better to have hired some raw grads and trained them myself since I would have got more productivity out that. he said for a big company it was worth it. he said we could take one engineer with multiple skills and split that skill into 4 engineers and still have cost advantage since the US engineer was 5 time the cost of the Indian engineer. When I pointed out the quality of the work he said we could cope with that. So the problem I see has nothing to do with FTA and even individual countries laws but actually matching transglobal companies with transglobal rules (i.e shared sovereignty)

    On teh point of electing people to institute our own laws. I find that as bogus as the idea of democracy itself at times

    I normally use this video to show we have no clue of what we are voting for

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7lsRbDKOXg

    I find it hilarious these people are voting conservative despite being against many of heir policies and their only association to policy is essentially whom the messenger is.

    Now as with everythign my view is that markets do not work well because people have not enough information to make good decisions. I fear that we never say that of democracy. for if we did then I think we would become skeptical of party politics since it would be essentially be seen as tribal rather than rational.

    So do I believe we have more power because of brexit. that is an emphatic no. it is the worst of the red herrings that is the argument for Leave. indeed the changes that peopel would argue we need to make have nothing to do with the EU. for example take immigration if the government’s answer is that we need to reduce immigration down to less than 100K then what about the immigration we control why has that gone up. it has not gone up because of the EU. It gone up because the government believes that it needs to and that it understand that restricting it makes no sense.

    I also point to the fact that we as an electorate with the system that we use to create our representative democracy appear to hate welfare however when you poll deeper the hatred is of welfare in general but not when people know what it is being used for. So no one says child benefit is bad but benefits in general is bad when you go down the list we find that the more people know the less they see benefits as bad,

    My view is simple we as an electorate are nto sophisticated enough to hold our politicians to account and thus look for simple answers to blame that lack of accountability on. However when we examine the issue beyond the take back control slogan we find that we are voting against ourselves and are often blaming the wrong thing for the issues we have.

    As I said the advantage of leavign the Eu is that there is one less thing to blame. I reckon we will move to PR and that will be one less thing to blame and then we may find that we will have to pool our sovereignty and then I will laugh at the decision to leave because we will be back at square one blaming bad deals a la Trump.

  10. @barny

    Yes I agree.

  11. If the EU are sensible they will work out a deal with poland to increase their net payments which are massively negative at the moment in exchange for the agencies based in London. But I expect they will go to net contributors instead, it’s a compelling argument that “We should get those agencies because we pay most in”. Besides which where ever the banking agency goes is the most likely next major financial centre in the EU.

  12. No 10 has now publicly contradicted the Chancellor ( and by association the Home Secretary) following the public disagreement between Fox and Hammond. Vince Cable has aired the strong rumours in Westminster that Johnson is picking his moment to resign.

    This is beginning to look like a very unstable Cabinet internally which isn’t going to hold together.

  13. Tony Ebert

    “Brexit: Remainer crumb of comfort.
    My feeling is that if we do leave (very likely), we will most likely rejoin in some form or other within the next 20 years. The Brexit generation who dislike Germany and immigration will have moved on, and the next generation have no problem with either.”

    The problem is that it is quite possible the EU will have fallen apart by then, certainly the Euro problem has not been dealt with.

    Popped in to see if there was anything interesting going on. Still the usual Brexit discussion, so back to enjoying the aftermath of Englands great win at the Oval. Ali taking the last three with a hat trick!

  14. CambridgeRachel

    Poland is under an Article 7 procedure …. Deservedly.

  15. @passtherockplease

    The other potential option is a soft border – free movement of good continues, free movement of people continues only for tourism, EU citizens would need a work permit to work in the UK.

    Seems like the solution most likely to please (almost) everyone, but would require a full free trade deal with the EU.

  16. ToH – still wonder why Root batted on so long last afternoon?

  17. JIMJAM

    He wanted to give them no hope at all. If somebody othere than Elgar had shown a lot of fight it might have been costly but it wasn’t.

    Ali’s hat trick first by an England spinner since Tom Goddard in 1938. Two years before I was born.

  18. It has always been obvious that it would be impossible to reconcile the Common Travel Area of the British Isles with a Brexit that meant that Ireland was in the EU and the rest wasn’t. You simply can’t have no documentary restrictions on travel[1] (as with the CTA) and any sort of border within that area. It would be meaningless. To make matters worse, both the UK and Ireland have no tradition of using ID documents internally and a resistance across the political spectrum to doing so[2]

    But you can’t have different restrictions on who can enter the UK or Ireland and free movement between the two without a way of randomly checking who is who within either country. You can’t have different tax rates or tariffs in them without some way of checking on goods moved commercially between[3]. There are fantasies that in some magic ‘technology’ will monitor things (DUP MPs such as Dodds seem keen on this), but no actual method proposed as to how things should work. As so often with Brexit-related topics, finding the right words is thought to be sufficient.

    What I suspect what a lot of people in Northern Ireland are hoping for is an “Irish solution to an Irish problem” – everyone breaks the law and everyone ignores the fact they are (and some people make a lot of money from it). But there’s no guarantee that will be acceptable to the Irish Government or, more important, the EU.

    [1] Not only are there no ID requirements on sea travel, but there are technically none on air travel. The ID checks for security are currently imposed and carried out by the airlines (which explains why there is no standard list of what ID is or is not acceptable). Were such checks to be made mandatory travel would be either more costly (because carriers would be responsible for more stringent checks) or more time-consuming (because it would have to be paid for and done by the state). Probably both.

    [2] There’s the additional problem that many people may not even have one, depending on which ones are deemed suitable.

    [3] Of course this happens on a domestic scale at the moment – one of the reasons none of the NI Parties want any sort of border control as it is their economy that benefits more. At the moment, when the UK leaves the EU all cross-border goods will automatically incur tax on entry – no more shopping trips North (or indeed booze-cruises to Calais).

  19. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    @”On teh point of electing people to institute our own laws. I find that as bogus as the idea of democracy itself at times”

    Do you?

    I don’t.

    @”Now as with everythign my view is that markets do not work well because people have not enough information to make good decisions.”

    This is far too general a statement for me to engage with . Which markets? I certainly agree that all governments need to keep an eye of Market functioning. and intervene with regulation, monitoring or fundamental law change if consumers are being deliberately disadvantaged.

    @”So do I believe we have more power because of brexit. that is an emphatic no. it is the worst of the red herrings that is the argument for Leave.”

    I disagree-it is fundamental.

    @”take immigration if the government’s answer is that we need to reduce immigration down to less than 100K then what about the immigration we control why has that gone up.”

    Non-EU immigration has been falling since 2004 actually ( Full-Fact). We might not “need ” to make that reduction. It was always silly to target Net Migration because that is a function, in part, of Emigration-which we cannot control.
    So I’m pleased that this number is now just a general aspiration. My belief is that Leave voters did want net immigration reduced. To do that you first have to gain control of all of it. I believe that doing so will meet the Leave vote requirement & that no-one will complain when a UK Government , with total control over who comes settles into periodic public assessments of economic need , which include work permits for key workers .The net migration trend which emerges from that will have received democratic acceptance.

    @”I also point to the fact that we as an electorate with the system that we use to create our representative democracy appear to hate welfare ”

    I find this an extraordinary statement-somewhat offensive . It begins to move into very partisan politics. I doubt there is any evidence for your claim. My belief is that UK citizens are among the most generous & open hearted in the world. I believe that helping the disadvantages is a central tenet of social outlook here-but I also believe that we expect State Welfare to be given to those who really need it .WTaxes which pay for Welfare have to be fair to the taxpayer as well as the recipient.

    @”My view is simple we as an electorate are nto sophisticated enough to hold our politicians to account ”

    Again I disagree fundamentally with you. I think that a very elitist , pompous & patronising attitude of the sort that got Trump elected. Idon’t trust the word “sophisticated” in this context. I prefer the idea of “common sense”-which I think our electorate has plenty of with which to “hold our politicians to account”.

    And there won’t be any hiding places for then after Brexit. I look forward to it.

    .

  20. @COLIN

    here is an interesting take on FTA tarrifs and all that from the perspective of Ghana
    https://www.geg.ox.ac.uk/sites/geg/files/documents/Trade%20Document_Ghana.pdf

    tell me what you think

  21. So number 10 slaps Hammond and wikileaks does likewise to Macron, an interesting start to the week.

  22. @sthomas

    ‘..and, yes Hireton, frictionless customs and to reap the commercial benefits of so doing….”

    “Frictionless customs” is an oxymoron. They can be as friction free as possible but they will still not be the same as being in a customs union:

    https://www.scer.scot/database/ident-2923

  23. I think much like “single market”, “freedom of movement” is being used by different people to mean about four different things, these being Freedom of Movement of Labour in the EU’s Internal Market, the extended freedom of EU citizens to settle as developed by the ECJ since that status was created, visa free travel, and the absence of immigration controls within the CTA.

    All have existed separately. All were created separately. So as a matter of simple logic, they are not contingent on each other, and to make them so is a political choice.

    Assuming you don’t wish to bring an end to visa free travel between the UK and the rEU, which no-one seems to desire, and assuming Ireland remains out of the Schengen zone, which it seems to wish, you continue to require hard immigration borders at all points of entry to these islands. Which seems to me in consequent practice to make it essentially immaterial (and certainly without any effect whatsoever in respect of any country other than UK and Ireland) whether you have one within the island of Ireland or not.

    It doesn’t create any back door in reality. Why would an EU citizen wanting to come to GB to work illegally or settle here illegally assuming those freedoms come to an end choose coming in via Ireland, the Irish border, and the North Channel ahead of coming in directly over the English Channel “as a tourist”?

    As far as the hard immigration control between UK and Ireland is concerned I therefore still don’t get the problem. It’s gesture politics. There is no practical need to change.

    The customs border is more problematic. If you have two customs zones you can’t simply ignore that one. It has big practical effects. But it’s less “symbolic”. Which is presumably why everyone is getting so much more excited about the one that doesn’t seem to matter so much in practice.

  24. @peterw

    “Why would an EU citizen wanting to come to GB to work illegally or settle here illegally assuming those freedoms come to an end choose coming in via Ireland, the Irish border, and the North Channel ahead of coming in directly over the English Channel “as a tourist”?”

    Exactly. Unless we’re looking at a ludicrously extreme no-deal Brexit where visa-free travel ends, anyone entering from Ireland would have been able to enter at Dover.

    The keys are a permanent resident status for existing EU immigrants, a work permit program (probably much more limited) for new immigrants, and ensuring that benefits are only paid to those in possession of one of the two.

    The number of EU citizens who would come to the UK as tourists then try to work illegally would be pretty small. There might be some health-tourism issues, especially around EU retirees moving to the UK, but that is hardly the stuff of “they took my job!”.

    Movement of goods will be a problem whatever you do with the border; a hard Irish border would cause serious economic damage and shatter the peace process, an Irish sea border does nothing to stop imports into NI and allows a lucrative smuggling industry to develop by relabeling goods as NI produce, not to mention encourages NI’s exit from the Union.

    The only real solution is therefore to retain free movement of goods – frankly, nearly everyone wants that, except Theresa May because it would require accepting some role for the ECJ in UK law.

    May’s single-minded desire to leave the ECJ genuinely threatens peace in Northern Ireland.

  25. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    Thanks. I had not been aware of the history of EU EPAs with Africa. It is a chequered one indeed. No wonder the program remains incomplete.

    What clearly emerges from all the commentaries I have just scanned is the all too obvious difficulties which arise for the less developed economy when total liberalisation of Trade is pursued between economically unequal partners.

    Your link refers to a decade ago. Searching for something more up to date I chanced across the HoL debate below-2016 so Brexit is included in the consideration of an interesting set of exchanges.

    I take from the remarks of Lord Boateng & Lord Bates ( the Minister ) a positive feeling that a model which includes development , productivity enhancement & partnership is extant , and that UK will be learning the lessons of crude liberalisation as it considers post Brexit Trade with Africa.

    I would say in conclusion that a common theme in the papers I have quickly scanned on this topic is the bullying attitude of the EU to Africa.during this failed project.

    Thanks for bringing a fascinating subject to my attention.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-11-17/debates/A6F31767-DE51-4732-93E1-7CDF3FAA9CE9/AfricaEuropeanUnionEconomicPartnershipAgreements

  26. Colin

    “I find this an extraordinary statement-somewhat offensive . It begins to move into very partisan politics. I doubt there is any evidence for your claim..”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/17/demonisation-poor

    ” As a former minister for children and families, Teather believes elements of the government are in effect playing politics with children’s futures.

    “The policy was essentially conceived as a political device. It is simply not in the same league as other policies that are challenging in their consequences but done for a good purpose. I don’t think it was even remotely conceived as a financial cost-cutting device. I think it was conceived as a political device to demonstrate whose side you are on.””

    This is from the Independent in 2016

    “The Government’s welfare reforms and austerity policies have led to “grave and systematic violations” of disabled people’s rights, an inquiry by the United Nations found.

    The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dispatched investigators to London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast in October last year.

    They found that a string of legislation introduced since 2010 as part of welfare reforms and austerity policies had had a negative impact, including the Welfare Reform Act 2012, Care Act 2014, and Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.”

    It is well known that work program providers have a quota” of people to “sanction” deprive of benefits even if those people have done nothing wrong.

    Have you met anyone who has received a sanction? Do you know why food banks are in existence -I think you must?

  27. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    We touched on political discourse just now in our exchanges.

    Thought you might be interested in this from a new organisation promoting diversity of viewpoints -particularly in academic institutions today.

    https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/07/31/are-misperceptions-of-certainty-making-political-discussions-difficult/

  28. SAM

    I was responding to PASSTHEROCKPLEASE’s contention that “we as an electorate appear to hate welfare”.

    We weren’t discussing Government ( or opposition) policy on Welfare.

    As you know AW tends to get twitchy about exchanges on whose policy is good or bad.

  29. @COLIN

    My point on voting for people to institute laws that we want, Trump is a brilliant example of the problem that we have.

    Asked the US electorate what they felt about ACA in 2010 they would have told you it was awful, death panels etc. ask the same people whom voted Republican to repeal ACA and now they say they like it and want it fixed which would mean more money given to it rather than less as congress has done with all the discretionary items. the Rubio budget amendment did more to reduce the market subsidies than anything else.

    Ask the same people in 2010 about the individual components of ACA and they love it ask them if they like ACA and they say no

    is that common sense/ sophistication or is that cognitive dissonance. Now ACA approval is above 50%. Why? It based on the fact that Obama is not in power anymore so the ACA is less associated with him? Is it because the alternatives are so much worse? or is that people have learned that there now they have a real comparison compared compared with a level of optimistic projection that ACA is not bad after all or is it a combination of all these things.

    Now I agree the electorate has a right to change it’s mind but it seems rather curious to me that in the close the ACA came to be repealed the more support it got.

    If you look at any poll on ACA I would be hard pressed to say at best it was some form of overselling of the alternatives.

    So if I take your view the electorate had used common sense in 2008, used that same common sense in 2010 to not want ACA and 2016 used common sense again to vote for GOP candidate that promised to repeal it and then the same GOP now refuses to repeal and replace it for fear that it is wildly unpopular and some politicians that had voted to repeal this thing multiple times are now looking at their constituents and thinking I can not do this or I would be elected.

    who would be a politician?

    Here is something on immigration
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/02/immigration-immigrants-british-people

    our view on immigration changes from when we think of generality compared to specificity. is it because in generality it is easy to project the worst view of immigration and yet when given the absolute specifics we tend to have negative views on those we either do not know or have never seen ( i find that 13K albanians seem to be the butt of our disapproval of immigration)

    The same is done with welfare, could not find the poll for that one but it actually mirrors a lot of detail polling on issues such as this

    the reality is that we are sold things as simple slogans, as I pointed out take back control. the pound in your pocket. Most people are not political junkies and they are fed by people that are political salesmen.

    To say the we the electorate know what we want and use common sense is simplistic.

    here is an article on welfare with the poll about our view on it consider the fact this was also the height of the scrounger versus striver narrative

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/labour-welfare-reform-shakeup

    As the youtube video showed tory voters loving what they felt were ‘sensible’ policies only to learn that they were not ‘sensible’ policies because they were Corbyn’s policies

    Now I don’t care where on the political spectrum you sit but either you should find this hilarious or scary. Hilarious because we do not seem to make judgement on policy and often vote for our tribe despite the policies they pursue or scary because our politicians have to make judgements for us because we collectively would vote for things that they deem impossible to deliver or detrimental to our own welfare.

    So forgive me for thinking that democracy will always give us the right answer after all Mugabe and Hitler were both elected to power and we would both agree those were bad choices by the electorate at the time but one could argue democracy was served.

    I agree that there will not be any hiding place for politicians but as it is there was not before, yet we believe they were hampered by the EU which indeed makes my point. if we really think that the EU stopped UK in terms of domestic policy then we are truly fooling ourselves.

    Simply put just follow the data and the polls
    What I find frightening is that if I accept your premise the electorate can never be wrong they are constantly right it is politicians that are wrong. My view is the old adage you can fool some of the people all of the time, fool all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    The real issue I have is that the electorate never admits to being fooled, never admits it wrong and seldom says it has changed its mind. Indeed politicians do it for us it means that we can blame them for our decisions when these decisions go wrong. I think we need to change the debate from slogans to an understanding of the detail. it is that which will help us allow politicians make good decisions.

    Churchill made a famous comment about voters and democracy, I prefer something that Norman tebbit said. People do not want to know the detail they want to know you are on their side, you are part of their tribe from that everything else follows.

    We blame politicians whom are afraid to tell the electorate that they could be wrong it took 7 years for Obamacare to break 50% and again if you sold it as a word/slogan I believe it would fail but now people have to sell an alternative and it seems it was not as bad as they first thought

    The electorate can win power without them……..and sometimes they will vote for something that will fail.

    Now you could tell me that is elitist and will say follow the polls and the data.

    I have a last one for you. When New Labour did their focus groups renationalisation of the railways was low down on the list of peoples priorities it remained so even to today so it was never offered because wisdom said that people prefered privatisation over public ownership. A labour transport secretary conceded that in truth they ignored this as an issue because whilst it was easy to do peopel had conflicting views about it when asked a deeper set of questions.

    I would say my views is not whether it is privatised or public owned but whether it fit for purpose and value for money however the issue is sold in a tribalistic way and as such we debate it in a tribalistic way and vote on it in a tribalistic way and hence my view of the problem. We never get a quorum of the electorate saying this is stupid we line up into our tribes and vote.

    As to democratic will of immigration many polls have half of all leavers wanting no immigration at all. how do we get democratic control over the numbers?

    What happen if the survey say that the numbers should stay the same or increase how do we take the will of the people into account or do politicians just guess and hope for the best?

  30. Colin

    It was not my intention to encourage debate on welfare policies. I was a bit surprised to read that you thought there was no evidence to support PTRP’s claim that “we” hate the idea of welfare.

    If “we” regard the poor as the cause of their own poverty ( as I think is the case now – not always), “we” are certainly more likely to be unsympathetic to (if not hate) the idea of welfare.

    There is lots to be found that points to the fairly frequent political attacks on the poor by politicians with an axe to grind or a policy to sell. For example, John Major and the Bulger case.

  31. sam

    thank you kind sir. I can stop reading Mills and Boon now and concentrate on your link.:-)
    You are certainly promoted to Davy Crockett. Incidentally as i have guessed from the tone of your posts that you have a passing interest in matters Irish quite a high % of fighters at the Alamo were from the uK and Ireland in particular.( not on the mexican side obviously)
    Your link is an interesting read but at the end of the day highlights the difficulities on the uK side but fails to set out the corresponding apocalypse on the euro side. The mutuality of difficulties makes me confident that a solution will be found.
    not long ago on this site posters confidently predicted that brexit would lead to the inevitable Scottish departure from the uK in 2018.Odd they dont post that any more.
    we are on a difficult road but we .may as well get on with it. This country has faced greater problems than where to put a customs post

  32. @ANDREW111
    Yes, whose turn is it to be in charge of Government policy today?

    I suspect which ever Minister happens to be being interviewed on any particular day. Good news is that if we don’t like what they say another Minister will say something different the next day

  33. neilj

    mutatis mutandis the labour party and brexit.

  34. @S THOMAS
    mutatis mutandis the labour party and brexit.

    I agree the Labour Party has also not agreed a settled position on Brexit, of course the big difference is they are not in power nor in charge of the Brexit negotiations.
    Perhaps asking for consistency from one day to another from the Government on probably the most single important issue (Brexit) in a generation is asking too much

  35. @COLIN
    @SAM

    Firstly I know what I have said is contentious and I did not have time to back it up with data I never managed to read all the posts in response to COLIN

    I stand by the fact that most people do not understand the detail of the argument on policy and yet politicians are attempting to get them to vote for their solutions.

    SAM I am well aware of the link you posted again having been unemployed myself and seen some of what went on in my local job centre I actually had a long meeting with the manager and wrote a long letter of complaints about some of the staff.

    COLIN
    thanks for the link, I believe I have seen something similar before it is why I present my views and my rationale (it is why sometimes my polls are overly long and rambling for which I apologise). I am happy to be corrected and I have found that my viiews do not fit into the standard left/right approach because of discussions I have had over the years. I find I am a mixed bag when I do political mapping sites. I suppose I am a contradiction in many ways. I am 52 year old but cycle to work, I also have RS megane which I do track days on and is the emergency car for my two childrens school run, which makes many of the people whom are decidedly green supporters scratch their head. i think that eating meat is bad for the planet (worse than cars and much of our other activity yet I love bone in ribeye steaks.

    That said I found THE OTHER HOWARD and COLINs S THOMAS views interesting and challenging. it is eas to be in an echo chamber of like minded people

    My parent were born in Sierra Leone so I have an understanding of dictatorship and democracy which may be differen from the rest I often say that dictatorships can be a better reflection of peoples nature than democracy which may often lead to more tribalism. I also believe we fail to see tribalism in western society because to identify it qwould mean that we are no better than ‘others’ whom we think we have more mature democracies than those in other countries

    i find the fact that we are happy that our democracy is decided by essentially a 100K people in as few as 100 marginal seats as most seats are safe. I do not call that democracy when your voter does not count at all,

    Despite my believe that the electorate is ‘unsophisticated’ I am one of those remainers that is happy that we had the vote. Whilst I am not happy with the result I believe both sides will reflect on the consequences in years to come. I do believe however it has made many EU countries baulk at the idea of leaving and it also has broken the taboo of who we reflexively blame for issues. I fear that no matter what happens that we will blame politicians for our decisions at the ballot box so I remain skeptical that we would ever be happy with this decision, as with the Iraq war I suspect we wil just move on

    I do refute the idea that democracy is well calibrated COLINs assertion that the number of immigrants will be democratically settled is to me a comment that makes me chuckle as if we can as a society come to conclusion of what we want. or indeed as pointed out by many polls on policy as to what people want and what they get,

    There is one thing I do find fascinating about this site we do not use much in the way of data to back up assertions. So I have to thank SAM for the guardian article which dovetails the link I have placed.

    I personally think a more data driven approach may make many of the discussions easier but again I understand that data can be tainted and I often do not take the time to fully back up some of the things I talk about so I apologise in advance.

  36. PASSTHEROCK PLEASE

    Blimey-that was a long one !

    Will try to cut the column inches down I think :-)

    Re @”So forgive me for thinking that democracy will always give us the right answer after all ”

    I assume you meant” forgive me for not thinking”. -I don’t think I said that it will. And in any event there isn’t a “right answer” is there? ( unless you are a politician). It is the Electorate’s answer. And if they have second thoughts, they get a chance to change their minds a few years later.

  37. SAM

    If you can point me to a Poll showing that the UK Electorate “hate welfare” -that would be helpful.

  38. Caracas-7 shot dead today by the police.

    Venezuela has bigger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.

  39. @COLIN

    I should not have used the word hate welfare since I suppose that would be too emotive but they think of welfare negatively as there is a presupposition that welfare goes to people that do not deserve it. In the same way people think of immigrants in the round as people that are either undeserving or ‘not like us/me’ as per my links about the two issues

    As to the point of the electorate rethinking. As I point out with ACA in the US which to me is a brilliant example of the ability to demonise a policy that is complex. The point has been that for 7 year the ACA was seen as millstone around Obama and the Democrats neck and yet now it is above 50% and there is isn’t a proposal from the GOP that gets past 25% support.

    So I do think it is fascinating that just being in opposition to something can allow the making of political hay, it is why I believe the Labour Party is enjoying it time as government in waiting it can snipe from the sidelines with no need to detail anything and yet the Government has to scramble on every policy even though as many people will say they won.

    it is why I believe that for example that winning the referendum was the easy part for the Leave campaign. Implementing the ‘will of the people’ will be hard because as with GOP campaign it was essentially a projection of what people thought it would be. Leave was sold as everything from Norway to WTO.

    it is also why I feel that remainers would feel that terms like brexit means brexit are meaningless in that context

    Lastly how do we know and test whether the electorate has second thoughts? What triggers the change of heart? as the ACA has shown as long as the GOP did not get into power with all three branches it may have mired in disapproval

    What allows Leave voter to change their minds or reevaluate? Do we wait 20 years?
    here is the latest British social attitudes it makes for interesting reading I would like to hear your thoughts

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-34/key-findings/context.aspx

  40. S THOMAS

    “The Irish Problem

    The Irish border issue has become the” alamo” for remainers.Hold the Alamo and they can stop Brexit.”

    Hmmm, except the quitters in that case were the Texians, who wanted out of Mexico, which they considered was becoming increasingly centralised and democratically unrepresentative, to establish their independence; “(re)gain their sovereignty” if you will.

    The fact that the Texians were themselves English-speaking immigrants to a Spanish-speaking country seems to have not influenced their righteous indignation at the unfairness of it all.

    Perhaps your point is better considered a British Problem rather than an Irish Problem…

  41. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    @” there is a presupposition that welfare goes to people that do not deserve it.”

    You posted just now about UKPR-“do not use much in the way of data to back up assertions.” Would you care to provide the data to back up the above assertion?

    @”Lastly how do we know and test whether the electorate has second thoughts?”

    Erm…………they vote differently in the next Election?

    @”What allows Leave voter to change their minds or reevaluate?”

    You mean to decide they want to vote “Remain” now? -Nothing so far as I am aware.

    Is their evidence that they have changed their minds?

    Thanks for the BSA link.

    I like that headline very much :-

    “Key findings: A kind-hearted but not soft-hearted country”

    That-as I think I said to you up thread-is my perception of UK voters.

  42. @BARNY

    Worker cross the border everyday too which is why I believe there will have to be some control. The point is at the moment there is no border driving from belfast to dublin is like driving Bristol to London there is no border it is like going to Wales or Scotland from England and vice versa.

    Again I do not doubt it could be an option but essentially you are saying there is no border control. I can come in to dublin walk across the border and get on a ferry and not show any ID and I am on the UK mainland.

    Now I agree that is an option but then what basically you have FoM with no control.

    I am not saying it is a bad thing and indeed it was one of the options I put in earlier posts but it does become farcical.

  43. Some interesting data in this ( click on Full Report pdf)

    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8060#fullreport

    Age demographic turnout differences in last UK GE .

    Comparisons with EU countries.

  44. colin

    Venezuela oil.

    Now i know why OOOOh jeremy Corbyn wants to hunker down with them.Our closet Brexiteer is also a closet Big Oil supporter. Who would have guessed.

    No electric car for our jezza.

  45. S THOMAS.

    Yes-his favourite role model of Socialism in Practice.

    The practice is you run out of money despite having more oil than any other country on earth, can’t feed the population & end up shooting them dead in the street for what PASSTHEROCKPLEASE might call a politically unsophisticated failure to understand the facts.

  46. S THOMAS

    Didn’t mean to be flippant-two of the dead were teenagers.

    Over 120 dead in last 4 months.

  47. @COLIN

    it was part of the guardian article I sent I believe buthere is something more direct about perceptions on welfare
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-brainwashed-by-tory-welfare-myths-shows-new-poll-8437872.html

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-32/welfare.aspx

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-32/welfare.aspx

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/we-have-to-talk-why-some-want-benefit-cuts

    As SAM showed in his link there has been a demoising of the poor. We created scroungers versus striver narrative and it has pushed the needle of what we believe. I think the trend is reversing but if you look at all the data taken together is shows that the unemployed are viewed as people whom are undeserving the amount of benefits they get is overstated massively and the amount and indeed people felt that. It thus tailored peoples views as to what is reasonable. hence the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and this drove the welfare cuts.

    Again much of this data has been available throughout the period of the of the coalition together with SAM link. There was an interesting article in the FT but I no longer subscribe

    Again you may say that it is not very clear but I would disagree since I would find it difficult to justify any other conclusion

    In truth the perceptions rather than the reality is the problem. In the same way that the link I gave you show the perception of immigration and then the specificity of immigration produces very different results, You see that on welfare. It is a well known phenomenon and one which the scroungers versus strivers narrative exploits.

  48. Colin

    Without civil war the US police kills around a thousand people, a year and keeps 1% of the population in prison.

    Venezuela is in civil war effectively.

  49. LASZLO

    Its isn’t a civil war at all.

    Its a dictator trying to stay in power after his predecessor screwed the country with “Socialism”.

    Guns in the USA is just one of those unconnected , distractions – “what about this” which is irrelevant.

    Guns in the USA is a mad mad situation. But they don’t shoot you for demonstrating against the President.. ( They shoot the Presidents instead)

1 27 28 29 30 31