We’re heading into Summer and the silly season now, so don’t necessarily expect much polling (August tends to be quite anyway…the month after a general election even more so). This is just a quick update on the latest YouGov voting intention figures, which are CON 41%(nc), LAB 44%(+1), LDEM 7%(+1). Fieldwork was Monday to Tuesday and changes are from a fortnight ago. Full tabs are here.


891 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 41%, LAB 44%, LDEM 7%”

1 13 14 15 16 17 18
  1. JP

    @” I think that if you drill down into problems of negotiating Brexit you reach the swirling magma of a government orgroup of politicians which is prepared to take risks”

    I don’t know that any of them are “prepared” to take risks on Brexit. These are just words & opinions.

    Seems you don’t trust them at all JP.

    That is your right-of course. But it aint Holy Writ .

  2. COLIN
    I take it you mean pretty good words JP.
    I also take it you don’t think Boris’s brain is made of swirling magma. A lot of people wouldn’t agree.

  3. COLIN
    Moreseriously, Michael Heseltine in the Times letters today seems to agree with me.

  4. I remember reading, with horror, the revelations after the terrorist attacks in France & Belgium , about the multi layered EU security agencies who failed to talk to each other.

    Seems like Regulation on Food Safety is yet another area of mythical EU Regulation & INter-State co-operation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/11/tainted-eggs-found-in-hong-kong-switzerland-and-15-eu-countries

    And old JP is worrying about DD taking risks !

  5. Alan, you wondered about the life expectancies of those in the Leave and Remainer groups. Is this a useful answer?

    “The report included 9 key messages:

    Reducing health inequalities is a matter of fairness and social justice. In England, the many people who are currently dying prematurely each year as a result of health inequalities would otherwise have enjoyed, in total, between 1.3 and 2.5 million extra years of life.
    There is a social gradient in health – the lower a person’s social position, the worse his or her health. Action should focus on reducing the gradient in health.
    Health inequalities result from social inequalities. Action on health inequalities requires action across all the social determinants of health.
    Focusing solely on the most disadvantaged will not reduce health inequalities sufficiently. To reduce the steepness of the social gradient in health, actions must be universal, but with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage. We call this proportionate universalism.
    Action taken to reduce health inequalities will benefit society in many ways. It will have economic benefits in reducing losses from illness associated with health inequalities. These currently account for productivity losses, reduced tax revenue, higher welfare payments and increased treatment costs.
    Economic growth is not the most important measure of our country’s success. The fair distribution of health, well-being and sustainability are important social goals. Tackling social inequalities in health and tackling climate change must go together.
    Reducing health inequalities will require action on six policy objectives: (1) Give every child the best start in life; (2) Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives; (3) Create fair employment and good work for all; (4) Ensure healthy standard of living for all; (5) Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities; (6) Strengthen the role and impact of ill-health prevention.
    Delivering these policy objectives will require action by central and local government, the NHS, the third and private sectors and community groups. National policies will not work without effective local delivery systems focused on health equity in all policies.
    Effective local delivery requires effective participatory decision-making at local level. This can only happen by empowering individuals and local communities.”

    http://www.health-inequalities.eu/resources/marmot-reviews/

  6. S THOMAS @ BZ

    dont shoot the messenger because you dont like the message

    No need until there is evidence that it is not a voodoo poll.

    Unless the participants have been properly weighted there is nothing to like or dislike and as OLDNAT pointed out, it hasn’t even been peer reviewed yet.

  7. BZ

    If Lord George Ffoulkes or Dame Michelle Mone are part of the “peer review”, then expect little. :-)

  8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40878381

    At the speed of light , the EU Commision will meet to………..and note this folks -to stop “the “blaming and shaming”. …………..got that?-not to find out which agency screwed this up, but to stop anyone being blamed.

    Yep they will meet with the urgency which this risk to human health demands……………..at the end of September :-)

    Lets hope EU Food safety Regs are a lower threat to human health than EU Security Co-operation turned out to be.

  9. JOHN PILGRIM

    @” Michael Heseltine in the Times letters today seems to agree with me.”

    No Sh*t Sherlock ?

    Do Ursidae defecate in the boscage?

    “Lord Heseltine has said he believes that the UK will eventually join the euro, as Brits prepare to vote in the EU referendum later this week.”

    CITY AM.
    21 June 2016.

  10. SAM

    Thanks for that, it doesn’t really answer my question though which was more about the differential between leave and remain deaths. It’d be interesting to see a projected date (albeit with a zillion caveats) for when a clear majority for returning appeared based on attrition alone.

    The report seemed like an ephemeral wish list based on limitless funding rather than a “we should increase NHS funding by x which will have results y”. I have no problem with spending more on the NHS but the finding “If all treatments were affordable to everyone it’d be great” is a bit meaningless.

    Does the report touch upon health choices made by different social classes? I suspect that there is a big differential in smoking rates across social classes. If so then you’ll never be able to remove the gradient caused by these choices, even if equal funding was available, a smoker will have poorer health outcomes than a non smoker.

  11. @ Old Nat at 7.49

    Baroness Mone to you, ON :)

    (Dames are not members of the House of Lords, though lots of people seem to think they are; ditto Knights.)

  12. Kitsune

    Thanks for the correction. Always good to get clarification on the gradients of honorifics among the failures in life that Brenda elevates to rule over us.

    They’re a’ birkies tae me!

  13. On the LSE link – sometimes I wish social scientists were bothered and hooked in statisticians in their large data projects (not necessarily this project, but in general – they just don’t get it (especially economists)). Mind, qualitative research projects would be benefited by hooking in philosophers who have some understanding of epistemology. A sorry state of British social science in which affirmative sentences overtake the power of evidence (if it goes like this I may even agree with Kuhn … No, it’s too much to contemplate).

  14. Colin: “Seems like Regulation on Food Safety is yet another area of mythical EU Regulation & INter-State co-operation.”

    So what’s it to be, Colin? Bullying superstate rides roughshod over national rights? Or ineffectual supranational institutions given the run-around by self-interested national agencies?

    I’d like to say you can’t have it both ways. But that’s what europhobes tend to accept as their right: damn ’em if they do, and damn ’em if they don’t.

  15. @ Old Nat

    Birkies indeed. Especially your other example. A veritable coof.

  16. Colin

    You didn’t really read that BBC report, before you burst into an ecstatic condemnation of the EU, did you?

    It says nothing about the EU wanting to avoid finding “out which agency screwed this up”. Indeed, if you knew much (or anything) about the EU, you would know that the responsibility for ensuring that the regulations (which one or more private companies appear to have breached) is the responsibility of the national governments – who are, indeed, taking action, and arrests have been made.
    Your misunderstanding of the relationship between the EU and its member states possibly explains your aversion to the Union. Now, if it had the same powers to make and apply rules to its member states as Westminster has to the devolved nations, you would have a point. But it doesn’t and you don’t.

    Indeed, it ill behoves anyone from the UK to complain about a contamination of the food chain while beef from England and Wales continues to be recognised as having controlled risk BSE status. (Fortunately beef from two parts of the UK – Scotland and NI – have been classified by the World Organisation for Animal Health as having the lowest category of risk – “negligible”.

    In your argument, the entire blame for E&W beef still being categorised as risky would be the fault of DEFRA and the UK Government. That might even be the case, in which it makes your fulmination against these nasty foreigners even more odd.

  17. COLIN
    Heseltine states that Brexit will become increasingly unpopular asevents reveal the weakness of our position, calling for a change both of the song and the singer, but recognising that neither is likely, and handing the next election to Labour.

    Actually there has been a historic fight against the transfer on powers on food safety and the related issue of animal welfare since the 1994 EU election, over which the loss of UK control was largely due to Mrs Thatcher’s policy of removing local government control, including meat inspection, in the interests of up-scaling meat and livestock marketing to serve the European market.
    The policy for the retention of these powers has been linked with that of radical reform of the EU, including the CAPand Fisheries, with emphasis on retaining subsidiarity in the devolving of powers to regions and local authorities – which, if it – rather than a policy of Brexit had been followed, and if in future it is renewed, would mean that this element of preventive and public health would join protection of the NHS and its linkage with social care in a greatly improved UK health system.
    It is true that these are policies which might well have come from Heseltine or other wets. How far I wonder is the Brexit Mrs May and DD are pursuing a heritage of those giddy days of Thatcherism, and how far is their rejection in the country a recgonition that the approach is a slap in the face of reform of the EU, as much as it is a cock-up of our leaving it?

  18. Something to think about here for those who maintain we don’t need to worry about losing tariff-free access to the single market:

    Friday 11 August, 2017 Exports of British-built vans, trucks and buses rose 11.6% in the first six months of 2017, with almost all headed to the EU, according to figures released today by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) of commercial vehicles (CVs) built in Britain were exported, with 27,818 of the 43,782 total produced headed to more than 45 countries around the world.

    British CV manufacturing has been bolstered by growth in the EU following the recession, resulting in a 13.8% rise in demand from the region, and 94.7% of UK-built CVs headed there so far this year. Moreover, every British van (24,447 vehicles) and almost two thirds (62.9%) of trucks exported in H1 2017 were destined for EU fleets.

    Israel topped the list of largest markets outside of the EU, taking 1.2% of all exports, followed by Australia (1.1%), Hong Kong and Taiwan (both 0.6%), and New Zealand (0.4%).

    The UK and European vehicle manufacturing industries are highly integrated, with both vehicles and parts moving seamlessly across borders. Therefore, any changes to tariff and non-tariff barriers or regulatory and labour issues will have a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of this vital industry.

  19. I think nation states should be entitled to sell unsafe food, especially to the lower classes. There is a good historical precedence for this (the last 200 years with odd breaks due to inference in the sovereign execution of rights, like civil disobedience). Consequently, we must have Brexit, or we must Remain.

    While the egg issue is very real (and many others), it has absolutely has nothing to do with Brexit. Arguments do not matter as they are in the slippery slope or just false dichotomies. It has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Executive, as they don’t have a clue, and has nothing to do with expertise as probabilities and risk taking cannot be matched (they aren’t comparable). So, there’s no rational argument (so some people find it boring, some find it interesting).

    Thus, the sentence “the people spoke” is barely more than a legitimizing statement to make some sort of rational bounded decision – but it really follows the garbage can. The government (and the opposition) follows the Carniegie model of decision making, which is highly suspect in this case, but it doesn’t matter because of the legitimisation (the thought that it has been known for over 50 years is frightening).

    So, the outcome will be what the smallest effort to build a majority coalition behind a plan requires. The trouble is the other side (EU) that obeys o a different rationality, and it is remote from the coalition built here.

    As the opposition leader in his now secure position wants the hardest possible Brexit, the bounded rationality outcome of remain is not feasible. As there are no pointers for the a unifying coalition here and with the EU, my prediction is an awful mess.

  20. @ somerjohn

    Does anyone really actually maintain that we don’t need to worry about losing tariff-free access to the EU’s internal market?

    What I might call more mainstream Leavers (reflecting, for example, the government position) seem to wish to preserve as much of this as they can, albeit not at any cost, and even what we might call the more extreme cliff-edge leavers only argue that there are benefits out there to be had elsewhere that will offset losing tariff-free access to the internal market. And most of them admit this might take a bit of time.

    None of these positions is to me one that suggests a belief there is nothing to worry about. Quite the contrary, they all suggest there is something to worry about, but that worry is not so marked as to transcend all other considerations.

    I don’t think anyone on the leave side is suggesting that losing tariff-free access to the EU’s internal market is in and of itself a good thing are they? Just a necessary consequence of something whence other good things may come.

    Leavers who post should feel to correct me. Otherwise this feels a bit like a straw man argument to me.

  21. Laszlo
    “sometimes I wish social scientists were bothered and hooked in statisticians in their large data projects”

    However, its good to see that in a number of administrations, government statisticians [1] are seeking to improve the quality and usefulness of government statistics.

    In Ireland, thy seem to be finally putting to bed the idea that GDP is the best measure of the economy in an interdependent world.

    In the UK, ONS are finally getting to grips with trade statistics, and removing the anomalies created by the politically determined “Ex-Regio” area.

    While the recent (and largely unpublicised) alteration in the UK Regional Trade Statistics produced a storm of (very ill-informed comments from some zealots – rather along the lines of Colin’s lack of understanding) they have shown a more accurate picture for the NUTS1 areas of the UK.

    In Scotland, for example, the revised methodology “saw Scotland’s 2015 total export figures over all categories increase from £17,490 million to £25,480 million and imports increase from £13,030 million to £21,356 million. This actually reduces Scotland’s overall trade surplus slightly from £4,460 million to £4,124 million. (The UK’s overall trade deficit is recorded as £119,103 million. Scotland is the only region in 2015 with a trade surplus.)”

    https://thecommongreen.scot/2017/08/11/trading-places/#more-9258

    More accurate (and relevant) data and measures can only help the political debate as to how countries, including the UK and its component parts, can best move forward.

    [1] I’ve always been impressed by those that I’ve worked with in Scotland, and I’m sure the same is true elsewhere.

  22. NBC – “President says US could pursue “military option” in Venezuela”

    Why doesn’t Trump just butt out and let N Korea and Venezuela go to war?

  23. Sam
    “Reducing health inequalities will require action on six policy objectives: (1) Give every child the best start in life; (2) Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives; (3) Create fair employment and good work for all; (4) Ensure healthy standard of living for all; (5) Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities; (6) Strengthen the role and impact of ill-health prevention.
    Delivering these policy objectives will require action by central and local government, the NHS, the third and private sectors and community groups.”

    You are of course entitled to your opinion, but mine is that numbers 2,3, 4 and 6 are nothing to do with the government and 5 is even more of a meaningless feel-good phrase than most of the others. I do agree with number 1.

    Somerjohn
    “The UK and European vehicle manufacturing industries are highly integrated, with both vehicles and parts moving seamlessly across borders. Therefore, any changes to tariff and non-tariff barriers or regulatory and labour issues will have a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of this vital industry.”

    Or to look at it another way, there is a big opportunity for UK component manufacturers to grow.

    Laszlo
    This may be my fault in lack of understanding, but may I ask whether you write your posts in a foreign language (Hungarian, maybe from your name?) and then get a computer to translate it? Sentences like the folllowing do baffle me, though I kind of half understand it
    ‘Thus, the sentence “the people spoke” is barely more than a legitimizing statement to make some sort of rational bounded decision – but it really follows the garbage can. ‘

  24. ON
    “Scotland is the only region in 2015 with a trade surplus”

    Does that include trade with the rest of the UK or is it just trade external to the UK?

  25. Pete B

    Sorry, I thought it was clear from it being a restructuring of the “Regional Trade Statistics”. It refers to the import and export of traded items from and to the Scottish economy.

    Similar data is available for all of the UK’s NUTS1 regions.

    Whether that will give any better data in GERS separately as to the proportion of imports/exports from/to rUK and RoW, I have no idea – though I doubt it, unless there has been a significant increase in data collection by the ONS.

    We’ll find out soon from the new GERS!

  26. ON
    Thanks for the reply. I’m too tired to google NUTS1 and GERS (which I always thought meant Glasgow Rangers).

    Anyway, g’night all.

  27. Pete B

    i may have been wrong in that reply!

    https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/RTS/Pages/default.aspx

    The UK RTS data relates to imports/exports from/to the UK, and not internally.

  28. Pete B

    Rangers are known to their supporters as Gers (though some of them can’t discriminate between upper and lower case letters – or any letters at all!) .

    To everyone else they are known as ….. (No. I won’t sully this site with those terms!) :-)

  29. @Colin Do Ursidae defecate in the boscage?
    “Lord Heseltine has said he believes that the UK will eventually join the euro, as Brits prepare to vote in the EU referendum later this week.”
    CITY AM. 21 June 2016.”

    True to form, I note the old viper’s prognostication skills are as dull as ever.

    At least Clarke admits that the UK will not be joining the Euro and has done now for several years.

  30. OLDNAT
    “More accurate (and relevant) data and measures can only help the political debate as to how countries, including the UK and its component parts, can best move forward.”
    viz the excellent and comprehensive Scottish Government Report to Parliament on Migration.
    Your trade figures also indicate the increased economic actiivity which underlies the unemployment rate(4.5% in 2016/17) as an indicator of economic health, and the higher level of migrant unemployment as to where action needs to be taken other than attempting to reduce net migration.

  31. PeterW: “Does anyone really actually maintain that we don’t need to worry about losing tariff-free access to the EU’s internal market?”

    Well, I think TOH, for one. I hope he won’t object if I summarise his view as, “a little bit of short term pain for a lot of long-term gain.”

    Actually, in the interests of brevity I used ‘tariff-free access’ as shorthand for the SMMT’s “changes to tariff and non-tariff barriers or regulatory and labour issues.” My view is that our position as a manufacturing nation is, except in some specialist fields, very precariously dependent on integration into EU manufacturing chains. At the margin, any increase in costs and non-tariff barriers will negate the case for continuing to manufacture in the UK, except where home-market or RoW demand supports it.

    That last point is probably what supports the insouciance of many leavers: the belief that home-market and RoW demand, bolstered by new trade deals, will be sufficient to sustain UK manufacturing industry. But I note Colin has not yet come up with that list of countries “with which [he expects] us to be able to sign deals more advantageous to us than to them.”

  32. @peterw

    “Does anyone really actually maintain that we don’t need to worry about losing tariff-free access to the EU’s internal market?”

    Yes, I think they do ( possibly out of ignorance). There have been posters on here, commentators and politicians who have said that “WTO tariffs” by which they mean the EU’s CET are not significant and, if they are, have been offset by the depreciation in the value of the pound. They also ignore the importance of non tariff barriers.

  33. Pete B: “Or to look at it another way, there is a big opportunity for UK component manufacturers to grow.”

    The concerns I was quoting were those of the SMMT, which represents (inter alia) the interests of the UK automotive component manufacturers.

    The danger is that if UK manufacturing firms takes a big, or in many cases terminal, hit from loss of their privileged place in the singe market, then component manufacturers go down with them.

    Let me give an example.

    The EU has just agreed an outline free trade deal with Japan. It’s been described as “cars for cheese.” ie, the EU drops its tariffs (10%) on Japanese-built cars, and the Japanese allow tariff-free access for EU foodstuffs. (There’s much else on both sides, obviously, but that captures the flavour of it).

    Some have been surprised that the EU would be willing to concede free access for Japanese cars. Won’t it open the floodgates to all those Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans etc? And thus spell the end for the EU assembly plants those countries have set up to circumvent those tariffs?

    Ah, but where are all those EU-based Japanese car assembly plants? Yup, in the UK. And where will the UK be when that FT deal comes into effect? Yup, outside the EU. So, no longer Brussels’ problem. The EU exists to promote the interests of its members, and if the price of booming EU food exports to Japan is the closure of plants in Swindon, Sunderland, Derby, Deeside, well, so be it. Welcome to the brave new world of post-Brexit Britain.

  34. Interesting piece in the Independent about a new Brexit study by the LSE and Oxford University. I look forward to full publication of the report which will be published after peer review.

    The Independent says “It will be uncomfortable reading for campaigners and politicians hoping the referendum decision could be reversed.

    “The study uncovered a phenomenon Dr Leeper called “losers’ consent”, meaning Remain voters appeared willing to accept features of a hard Brexit out of respect for the result of last June’s referendum.”

    “It found that 68 per cent of the country now wanted Brexit carried out — 45 per cent who were Leavers and 23 per cent consenting Remainers.”

    The independants report can be found here:-
    h ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-29-remain-voters-accept-deport-eu-citizens-must-leave-study-lse-oxford-a7889241.html

    Other aspects of the report are reported in the Sun, Express and Mail for those interested.

    The Mail reported 67% referred leaving with no deal to “soft” brexit: 68% opted for “hard” over “soft Brexit.

    Have a nice day all.

  35. COLIN
    You remarked earlier on in strangely derisory terms to the fact that I was “worrying about DD” in the mismanagement of Brexit – I assume you meant David (Laughing Boy) Davis. 9Have you noticed BTW his resemblance to Chucky – are they, they ask in Private Eye, in any way related?)
    My concern is real and is with the underlying and gross misconception of migration of this Governement and their lack of understanding of its function in relation to the UK economy and demographic balance.
    In turn I am concerned with how relates to a failure of this and previous governments apparently to look at or understand the evidence, or are deflected from doing so by manipulation of the public facts.
    This is not, as others have noted in recent posts, just incompetence or error; it is a loss, which has become increasingly apparent in the context of Brexit, to grasp and so to bring into the process of policy management tangible facts about population and the economy essential to good government. It is ideological in origin in as much as it reflects the dislike of politicians whose characteristic is to know unchallengeably that they are right, and thus to disregard and devalue researc=,h, seen in public affairs primarily in a disdain for the statistics. On migration these are very clear and would be understood and presented to ministers by any good civil servant. That is, for a measurable period our economic well being and success and demographic balance, and thus care provision and viability in pension provision, have depended on approximately the present level of net mlgration,and especially that from the EU. It seems to me impermissible that access to the facts should be hindered, as it appears, by clownish misrepresentation of the kind which was apparent during the Brexit campaign and whose perpretratorsare now supposed to somehow accredited by a phony and ephemeral success in the referendum,still less that this should be the basis of their handling of Brexit in negotiation with Brussels.

  36. SOMERJOHN

    @” Bullying superstate rides roughshod over national rights? Or ineffectual supranational institutions given the run-around by self-interested national agencies?”

    Well I’ll have a try :-

    “Ever Closer Union” of a group of countries ceding more & more legislative” competencies to a supra-national governance structure-who discover all too often that the implementation & co-operation across the group fails ***

    In short-a classic failure of the Top Down/One Size Fits All management of a diverse organisation.

    ** OldNat please note my recognition of your reminder to me that implementation is , in many, cases the responsibility of the Member States ( The Poor Bl**dy Infantry ? )

  37. TOH

    Look forward to seeing that LSE Poll detail-wonder if AW will do a thread on it.

    Did you see this ? !-from a former LD Minister I think !

    http://www.cityam.com/270099/city-londons-top-eu-envoy-slams-bewildering-brussels

  38. JOHN PILGRIM

    @”My concern is real and is with the underlying and gross misconception of migration of this Governement and their lack of My concern is real and is with the underlying and gross misconception of migration of this Governement and their lack of understanding of its function in relation to the UK economy and demographic balance.and demographic balance.”

    I am aware of your particular -and oft repeated- feelings about immigration .

    I am not aware of any evidence that this Government lacks ” understanding of its function in relation to the UK economy”.-on the contrary.

    And as for lack of understanding of its function in relation to ” demographic balance.” , it seems clear to me that this Government is all too aware of this particular function of uncontrolled & un managed immigration -as indicated in the Referendum vote. It seems clear to me that the failure of previous Labour Governments to understand this function of their immigration policy is well understood by this Government-and by many Labour MPs themselves these days.

  39. Colin: “In short-a classic failure of the Top Down/One Size Fits All management of a diverse organisation.”

    That sounds like a description of an over-centralised state composed of disparate polities. I think Oldnat could give you a good example of one of those, closer to home than Brussels.

    BTW, how’s that list coming along?

  40. @TOH

    I do think Remainers have generally discounted what would happen once negotiations started from a Nationalistic perspective. The biggest obstacle being the cash!

    The fact is the UK has been a net contributor in real terms (and in nominal terms) in the £100+ Billion bracket.

    I do believe that the Government is going to face a nightmare once the realities of leaving are broadcast…
    “They want WHAT? But WHY? We were always told that we are an independent country in a trading relationship!?”

    The EU’s position is political and not on the basis of even basic accounting standards.

    Thus this is and will continue to be the biggest bone of contention

  41. Sea Change: “I do think Remainers have generally discounted what would happen once negotiations started from a Nationalistic perspective.”

    I don’t think many remainers discount the impact of simplistic, misleading narratives, powerfully promoted.

    In this case, the narrative is Rees-Mogg’s line ‘we’ve paid all this money and got nothing in return’.

    There may be very low awareness of ‘what we’ve got in return’ but that doesn’t mean it isn’t enormous and crucial.

    For starters, there is all the hitherto shared stuff for which the government is now having to budget billions and recruit thousands of extra bureaucrats. Then there are small things like the continued existence of a UK motor industry.

    But you’re probably right: there will be a nationalistic backlash against the settlement of liabilities. Only when we’ve left and feel the loss of ‘what we’ve got in return’ will the penny drop (and probably not even then, given the power of those shaping the narrative).

  42. COLIN @ TOH

    The Indy article TOH mentioned linked to is another take on the “study” in the Buzzfeed article which PETE B posted yesterday afternoon.

    Neither article indiciates any involvement of any BPC member. Until/unless the detailed tables become available I think it unlikely that AW will be posting a thread on it, especially given that “peer review” will be sometime in the future.

    One might wonder why Prof Hobolt, Dr Leeper & Prof Tilley [the researchers listed in the Buzzfeed article] made the study available to us hoi polloi before the peer review.

    For anyone who hasn’t read them, the 2 links are Buzzfeed and Indy.

  43. SOMERJOHN

    Why should failure of Top Down/One Size Fits All management be restricted to the EU?

    The beauty of old saws like ” You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”** is that the best of them are timeless in their veracity .

    As true in Whitehall as in Brussels. But with 27 horses , the problem of organising that approved method of drinking gets a little bigger.

    ** this particular one was first recorded in 1175 in Old English Homilies.-do you think a Degree in the Origin & meaning of Proverbs should be required qualifications in Whitehall & Brussels ?

  44. BBZ

    Thanks.

    I note that LSE & Oxford Uni are authors.

    Presumably it would be academically embarrassing for both if they failed to produce appropriate credentials for their results ?

  45. Colin: “Why should failure of Top Down/One Size Fits All management be restricted to the EU?”

    Your assumption that the EU is an example of ‘Top Down/One Size Fits All management’ doesn’t bear analysis.

    All member states are fundamentally involved in the EU’s legislative and decision-making process. If they often leave the Commission to get on with things, that’s because it’s easier that way (and convenient to have a scapegoat). That’s a failure of national governance, not the EU. Can you come up with examples of where the UK has been unable to protect what it perceives as its vital interests? It may have conceded on points, but only to gain its way on others. And how often have you seen our sovereign parliament dirty its hands with the nitty-gritty of regulations and directives, except after the event when it’s too late to do anything but finger-point? The fact is, our government is all too happy to do all that stuff behind closed doors, then blame ‘them’ for what they’ve imposed on us.

    What the egg business actually demonstrates is the limitations of the “trade agreement only” model of European organisation preferred by Brexiters. If you have agreed common standards and procedures (which are essential to eliminate non-tariff barriers), but rely on member states to enforce them, the results will be patchy at best. As we’ve just seen.

  46. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

    I read somewhere that the best question to ask if you wanted to find out if a person was for Leave or Remain was: Do you support capital punishment?

    Pete B reminded me of this.

    It’s worth noting that worldwide there is a steady movement away from the death penalty. Last year, the only countries that executed more than 20 people were such bastions of democracy and human rights as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt. Shall we follow where they lead?

  47. TOH
    The Independent and other reports on the LSE Oxord study of opions on Brexit is, as you say, very interesting, but probably needs study of the report itself to be meaningful. The quote by Dr Leeper: ” Twenty-nine per cent of Remain voters would accept a Brexit scenario in which all EU nationals were forced to leave the UK……” may need a hefty pinch of salt while we wait to see the wording and the full report and methodology.

  48. Alan

    Pete B

    The research says that the fundamental drivers of health inequalities (how long you live and how free from disability) are the unequal distributions of wealth,income and power. You might read, “What would be sufficient to reduce health inequalities in Scotland? by Dr Gerry McCartney and others. The
    link is below.

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Healthy-Living/Health-Inequalities/Equally-Well/Equally-Well/MTF3a

    Research implicates stress as a key factor that affects early deaths. If you would like to know more about how it works go google 10th Kilbrandon Lecture by Sir Harry Burns former CMO Scotland. If I provide too many links it gets modded.

    Poverty is at the root of health inequalities. Inequality matters too. There is interesting research done by Marmot who looked at the “social gradient” in Westminster. Those doing the more menial jobs died earlier (they were not in poverty, of course). Two longitudinal studies by Marmot brought him to the conclusion that it was low control of the job being done that was associated with
    future coronary heart disease. You can find the studies by googlin unhealthy work westminster studies.

    Health inequalities in the UK began to rise from the 1980s having ben falling between 1920 -1970s.. The Marmot REview has been put out to Local Authorities in England to implement without additional funding. In Scotland the Scottish parliament lacks the powers most effectively to redistribute wealth, power and income.

  49. SOMERJOHN
    “Can you come up with examples of where the UK has been unable to protect what it perceives as its vital interests? ”

    It depends what you mean by the UK. In the case of livestock and meat inspection, the issue for meat farmers and butchers in Devon in 1994 – when the government had legislation on the books removing District Council responsibilityfor animal health through Meat Inspectors and creating the basis of regional livestock markets under regional and national veterinary and product health control – was that of universal support by farmers and parish and District Councils for retention of small slaughterhouses and District inspectors, allowing direct certified supply to local butchers, seen as necessary to the economicsof raising the Devon breed, to rescue slaughter of injured cattle and deer, and animal welfare in short distance transport. These were achievable under rules of subsidiarity,but not to the liking of the UK govenment in Westminster, which wanted a structure favouring mass livestock marketing to Europe.
    Ditto subsidies offfered for the retention of the coal mines in areas of industrial decline and related development of low carbon emission coal firing. Support and subsidisation by the EC were welcomed by the communities concerned and the NUM, but not by the Government which was intent on running the industry down,not unrelated to Mrs Thatcher’s disputes with Scargill and the union.

  50. John pilgrim

    would that remainers were so picky about the articles and blogs they cite which are anti-brexit.

    i see the new party brigade are at it again. They want to call themselves the “democrats”; their main aim is to…er… overturn the democratic referendum decision.Shurely Shome mistake as private eye might once have said.

1 13 14 15 16 17 18