Two new voting intention polls this week showing very similar figures. YouGov‘s latest poll was actually conducted last week, but was only released today and has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 4% (full tabs are here.

The regular ICM poll for the Guardian, conducted over the weekend, has extremely similar topline figures – CON 42%, LAB 42%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 3% (full tabs are here).

ICM also asked about people’s attitudes towards Britain paying a financial settlement as part of our Brexit negotiations (a so-called “exit fee”). ICM asked similar questions back in April and found very little support – only 10% thought paying a £20bn settlement would be acceptable, 15% a £10bn fee and 33% a £3bn exit fee. This time the figures suggested in the question were changed to what are probably more realistic figures and with interesting results – now 9% think a settlement of £40bn would be acceptable, 11% a £30bn settlement, 18% a £20bn settlement, 41% a £10bn settlement.

On the face of it this one might think this is a startling change, a few months ago only 15% thought it would be acceptable to pay a £10bn settlement as part of Brexit, now 41% think it’s acceptable. I think it’s probably actually a good example of the importance of context in a question. Most people are really not that good at putting figures of billions of pounds in context – any sum that involves the words billion is a huge amount of money to begin with, so what would be a relatively small settlement? A moderate settlement? A huge settlement? The only thing respondents have to scale it by is the question itself. In April £3bn was implicitly presented as the small option and £10bn was presented as the medium option. In this poll £10bn is implicitly presented as the small option and £20bn or £30bn are presented as the medium options – hence why a £10bn settlement suddenly seems to be so much more paletable.

That’s not to say the question doesn’t tell us anything at all – there’s still an interesting increase. In April only 33% thought a “small” financial settlement would be acceptable as part of the Brexit deal; now that figure has risen to 41% (despite the actual figure quoted tripling!). It looks as if the public may be moving towards accepting that a financial settlement may be an inevitable part of Brexit.


798 Responses to “Latest YouGov and ICM voting intentions”

1 2 3 4 5 16
  1. somerjohn: @PTRPYes, I agree TOH is missing the point with his “where’s the legal basis?” angle.

    Because that’s precisely what the EU is trying to establish and the UK is trying to avoid.

    As I understand it, the EU wants to agree a methodology for calculating what’s owed, and then agree a figure based on that, whereas the UK just wants to haggle over an acceptable fee for continued tariff-free SM access.

    I fear that the only ‘easy’ solution for UK politicians is to fiddle around until cliff-edge Brexit overtakes the country. Emperor May fiddling while the boats burn!

    I am thinking that there is even more of a shock.I think that ToH is right in that there is a fee to be negotiated for continuing SM access. But I think he is wrong to an equal extent that there is no leaving fee.

    The divorce phase of negotiations will not happen if the principle of a leaving fee is not negotiated or at least accepted. But the future relations phase will surely throw up a need for payment for a close relationship with the SM or the CU.

    I would think that the EU would be OK about leaving the final reckoning of terms for both payments towards the end of the future relations phase, but expect an agreed enumeration of the items to be paid for under the divorce settlement to bed in the principles of divorce as other posters have suggested.

    If ever the UK gets to the stage of enumerating the items in the divorce settlement, I expect an outburst of apoplexy once it is realised that the close relationship will require payment.

  2. @Sam

    That paper on UK liabilities is a good illustration of the mind-boggling complexities of Brexit. I’ve skim-read it and my brain hurts.

    Slightly easier going is this examination of different calculation scenarios:

    http://bruegel.org/2017/03/brexit-bill-negotiators-must-answer-these-12-questions/

    I’d urge anyone who wants to discuss the issue of what the UK owes to have a look at this blogpost. It shows, to my mind, what the EU and UK negotiators should be sitting down and negotiating. There are a number of methodological alternatives that clearly need to be agreed before a final figure can be hammered out: depending on which methods are chosen. the Bruegel people put the final figure at anywhere between €25bn and €65bn (see the final table).

  3. Sam – I read all of your posts but tbh find it hard to maintain interest to the end of some contributions.

    Maybe they think my posts are too short on detail?

  4. Dugdale departing is no loss. She led SLab to third place in the General Election and was outperformed by Davidson. Yes SLab picked up a few seats but frankly they could not have done any worse than 2015. The only way really was up and in that respect SLab performed modestly under her leadership.
    Her decision to encourage voters to support the Tories to stop the SNP was idiotic.

    I know there is some love for Ms Dugdale on here. Good riddance as far as I am concerned

  5. Somerjohn 5.31

    Thanks for the clarity of your explanation on what is happening (or failing to happen!) re: the cost of UK’s departure from the EU.

    As for the search for a legal hub (S Thomas), I was under the impression from Brexiteers that no such search would be necessary, because all was going to be well, and all manner of things were going to be well…..

    But anyway, I would have thought that a sunny place with good communications and transport networks would be the best option. So what about Nice?

  6. BFR

    @”And the electorate voted the way tat they did because both the Tories and Labour failed to convince enough voters that they know what they are doing and should be trusted to form a government ”

    A statement of the obvious, with which I can obviously agree :-)

    Though there were, of course, many interesting voting changes which caused it , all of which have been analysed here & elsewhere.

    @”He’s softening up voters for a poor outcome where the government can say ‘well, it’s a shame this is rubbish, but you have a rubbish outcome because too few of you voted for us’

    I don’t think so. He isn’t in the Government for a start. And then he says “I think there was a pretty poor Conservative campaign.” which doesn’t look much like blaming it all on the voters.

  7. The Nissan news is welcome – it does appear that Nissan are planning to retain their Sunderland operation and are looking for ways to ensure Brexit doesn’t put them at a disadvantage.

    It’s no surprise that Brexiters will be trumpeting this news, but – some caution is required. The article is clear: Nissan are anticipating rising costs after Brexit, and so are looking to protect an existing assembly plant asset by gathering suppliers close by to reduce transaction and transport costs. So far, so good.

    However – the central point here is that Nissan are expecting costs to rise. If they are making these plans, then, presumably, lots of other cross border manufacturers will be making similar calls. This looks to me very like a case where there is sufficient resistance to moving from a well established and highly successful operational centre in the UK, so an alternative strategy is employed to overcome the anticipated cost increase post Brexit.

    This then brings us to the main point, and it’s simple maths. Are there more manufacturing plants here, or in the EU? It’s pretty clear that the EU has the majority, so if we reverse the Nissan logic, presumably they will be checking their supply chains and seeking to move any UK suppliers across to be closer to them?

    May be, or may be not, but Nissan are acknowledging the prospect of higher costs, and if this is true, the balance of numbers means that we are probably going to lose more than we gain.

  8. @PTRP

    I agree that a set of positive UK responses to the EU27s’ three initial prerequisites, such as the ones you suggest, will be needed to free the logjam.

    However, I don’t think they will be forthcoming.

    It will take a politician of greater stature than any of the current bunch to rescue us from this quagmire.

    “Cometh the hour, cometh the man,” they say. Well, one can only hope that’s right. But it will take a political upheaval to deliver such a giant.

    Much more likely, in my view, is that we go over the cliff edge with a whimper.

  9. Is there really any mystery about the status of negotiations on the Brexit “divorce bill” ?

    EU say it consists of “incontestable” , “legal” obligations. They have set out item heads ( Forward Spending Committments by the Commission; Unfunded future EU Pension costs etc ***) but have not put numbers on any yet.
    They have asked for UK’s agreement to each item category.

    UK officials have said they will ask -on a “line by line” basis-for evidence of the Legal nature of these liabilities.

    Davis has said that he agrees that UK “has obligations ” to EU on leaving. His Department has said that they want to avoid EU “salami slicing”-ie ticking off each category , then totting up a bill with unforseen & unknown total value.

    The UK strategy seems absolutely right to me. In any other organisation , Liabilities would be recorded in the last audited Balance Sheet , and supported by the relevant contracts & legal agreements. There would be no room for differing methodologies . Clearly this is not the case with EU’s list of categories.

    I imagine that DD’s objective is a discussion during the current round of talks something along these lines :-

    OK thanks for your explanation of each category-we can now agree none of them are Legal Liabilities , though some may represent areas of reasonable obligation by UK on leaving.

    UK is prepared to agree a contribution to these EU future costs & committments by way of a single overall sum , and in the context of the future relationship we are able to agree upon.

    *** The list of categories includes , I understand, “Contingent Liabilities” in respect of guarantees against non-repayment of Loans/Bailouts etc. This is really throwing the kitchen sink in-not just Forward Commitments to Spend on Commission Projects -but the possibility that Forward commitments might arise !

  10. I suspect we’ll have a year of occasionally bitter rows over the exit terms, and when the EU presents its offer to the UK, our government will say that it falls well short of their expectations.

    And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if May then called a snap referendum, giving the option to accept or reject the EU’s terms. This would have the great benefit of keeping both wings of the Conservative Party on board, and of passing the blame (or at least sharing it) with the electorate.

  11. @ Colin

    I think you might find this useful:

    http://bruegel.org/2017/03/brexit-bill-negotiators-must-answer-these-12-questions/

    I really don’t think it’s as simple as you suggest.

    Re your: “In any other organisation , Liabilities would be recorded in the last audited Balance Sheet , and supported by the relevant contracts & legal agreements. There would be no room for differing methodologies .”

    Do you believe this to be the case in, for instance, the balance of liabilities between Scotland and rUK? If IndyRef2 happens and goes Oldnat’s way, we’ll see just how crystal clear the settlement methodology appears.

  12. @Colin – “*** The list of categories includes , I understand, “Contingent Liabilities” in respect of guarantees against non-repayment of Loans/Bailouts etc. This is really throwing the kitchen sink in-not just Forward Commitments to Spend on Commission Projects -but the possibility that Forward commitments might arise !”

    I’ve just read the EU position paper on the exit bill, and it seem reasonably fair and straightforward. It dictates that where there are assets, the agreed share of these should be repaid to the UK, but on the point I think you are making abovem yes, it does say that where the European Investment Bank has taken on financing liabilities while the UK was a member of the EU, these should be shared with the UK but decreased in line with the “..amortisation of the EIB portfolio outstanding at the time of
    United Kingdom withdrawal”.

    That surely would be simply meeting commitments we have previously taken on, so I can’t see why this would be an issue?

    The notion of maintaining spending that has been agreed for future annual budgets but not yet spent is a more interesting issue. Again, we have already committed to this, so I can see the EU’s point here, but if we leave before this money is spent then arguably that negates our commitment to fund these areas, but the counter to that I guess is that that is the price of leaving – we shouldn’t have agreed to fund these future things.

    Personally I don’t see the Brexit bill issue as being very complicated. The EU approach is pretty transparent and very straightforward, but the UK is making it thoroughly complicated because it is worried about the political implications of havng to pay up.

  13. Somerjohn

    Thanks-I had already seen the Bruegel Group’s thoughts.

    I wasn’t suggesting it was “simple”. I was suggesting why DD & team are approaching it in the way their statements suggest, and how their chosen approach might manifest itself in this months talks.

    I have no idea what the outcome will be. I imagine the closing News Conference body language will provide a clue-though I’m guessing that DD will be less than ambiguous if its gone badly from his viewpoint :-)

  14. James E: when the EU presents its offer to the UK,

    The problem with that is that the EU won’t be presenting any offer to the UK.

    The UK has announced it’s leaving. But we don’t want to just go: we want to secure some concessions regarding continuing benefits. The onus is on us to achieve those concessions, not on the EU to offer them.

    Mrs May has said that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Well, if the negotiations don’t secure the concessions Brexiters expect, then that – bad deal or no deal – will be the choice on offer. A rock and a hard place come to mind.

  15. Moving a car factory, alongside the trained workforce and supply chain to another country is something of mind-boggling complexity.

    Nissan would therefore move heaven and earth (metaphorically) to not move, as other car manufacturers would to.

    The key is whether they invest new models once we have left the EU and the terms of trade are known. Investing in new models takes vast investment up front and the product life-cycle is long. Where I work we manufacture steering column parts for US cars, and we start development about three years before the final build and assembly of new models commence.

    Therefore I think trying to view Japanese investment post-Brexit based on Nissan now is premature, and an atypical example.

  16. ALEC

    @”we shouldn’t have agreed to fund these future things.”

    Its not clear to me that items under “reste à liquider have been agreed by Member States. !!

    So far as items in the official Budget 2014/2020-presumably we will have paid our Budget Contributions up to the day we leave.

  17. @ Somerjohn

    I had understood that per Art 50, the EU had to offer a ‘divorce settlement’ following negotiations with the leaving state.

    Agreed that the EU is under no obligation to enter into a replacement trade deal.

  18. @catmanjeff and @alec

    It’s worth remembering that Nissan also have the UK Government’s secret letter of comfort in their corporate back pocket. Other’s don’t.

  19. catmanjeff: Moving a car factory, alongside the trained workforce and supply chain to another country is something of mind-boggling complexity.

    It is doable at a price, I would think, but probably at a price which makes a new line for a new design look attractive.

    But India would probably be in the market for a new car line as they were for the Morris Oxford, which became the Hindustan Ambassador. And the price India might pay could shave years off the economic life of a plant in the UK if a wind down is intended.

  20. Jim Jam

    Sorry. Me,too, if it matters.

  21. James E: I had understood that per Art 50, the EU had to offer a ‘divorce settlement’ following negotiations with the leaving state.

    The words ‘offer’ and ‘divorce settlement’ don’t appear in A50.

    It says:

    the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

    However, A50 envisages the possibility of failure to reach agreement:

    The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2

    So it would seem that a brief agreement along the lines of, “the EU and the UK agree that the UK’s membership of the EU will cease on 29 March 2019. Following that withdrawal, both parties agree to use their best efforts to achieve a constructive future trading and political relationship” would fulfill the EU27s’ obligations.

    And delight TOH!

  22. Sam @11am

    Jeremy smiled. ‘Did somebody remember to water the strawberries before I left the allotment?’

    Lots of good stuff in that Bateman article – but this?

    It’s late August, so who the hell waters strawberry plants at this time of year? (Of course, they might be double-cropping in Islington).

  23. Paul Croft

    “their” – “Oh dear”.

    Despite the useful advice that I’ve received on this site, I remain dyslexic and sometimes still get the “their”/”there” thing wrong.

    There is a physical explanation for my problem, but I don’t think there is one for your incivility. Such behaviour is probably just down to your personality – which is a shame.

    No need to call me “dear” btw.

  24. Thanks, Somerjohn.

    As you say, in the absence of any agreement, the treaties would simply cease to apply on 29 March 2019.

  25. olnat

    lol.

  26. OLD NAT

    Oh dear!

  27. Hireton: It’s worth remembering that Nissan also have the UK Government’s secret letter of comfort in their corporate back pocket. Other’s don’t.
    I do wonder what was in that letter. I would speculate they actually had advance info on the government’s electric vehicle policy, but I doubt they had anything meaningful on Brexit, because even the government don’t know.

  28. @ James E

    You’re welcome.

    Actually, thanks to you too, because it was useful for me to re-read this bit:

    The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement

    because it’s just occurred to me (being a bit slow on the uptake) that the mooted transitional period can simply take the form of inserting a “date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement” a couple of years, or whatever agreed period, after the agreement date.

    Simples! Especially if the agreed date is after the 2020 election, so the Tories can campaign on having met their promise to sign a withdrawal agreement, while delaying the pain till after the election.

    (Not really that simple, of course, because under that scenario we would remain full members during the transitional period, thus not able to negotiate independent trade deals, stop free movement etc. But possibly a useful get-out-of-jail-free card in the medium term).

  29. OLDNAT

    “No need to call me “dear” btw.’

    That’s riidiculous. If he had said “Oh sh-t”, you would not be protesting “No need to call me “sh-t” btw.”

  30. John Pilgrim

    Oh, dear! :-)

  31. @ToH “I suspect your just wishful thinking on your part. I am assuming you are a Remainer. If I’m wrong about that let me know.”

    Your logic seems awry.

    I was suggesting to Alec and others that while it would be absurd to suggest that nothing could change in the next eighteen months, the number of things that need to change above and beyond a mere change of heart by the UK electorate, including identification of both a legal mechanism to give effect to any expressions of that change of heart and the political conditions necessary for that legal mechanism to operate, are such that an undoing of the process is unlikely.

    I suggested that in all their scenarios, in the absence of that unlikely to be achieved legal and political framework, the UK merely left without an agreement, and possibly without a functioning government as well.

    To paraphrase crudely, I suggested that even if public opinion got to 60:40 pro-remain or beyond, it would be too late for any difference to be made in practice.

    I intended that to be a reasoned assessment, particularly having regard to the 16 months that have passed already with nary a shift in public opinion other than the emergence of the “consenting to leave” grouping amongst the remain voters . But if it is to be characterised as wishful thinking, it’s scarcely of the remainer variety given that its prediction is that we leave.

  32. I sometimes get their/there correct!

    I take pleasure from knowing my occasionally poor grammar and frequent poor typing helps other people feel better about themselves.

    That’s my cover sorted.

  33. My guess as to the new SLab leader would be Anas Sarwar – probably because he will be the only candidate that the selectorate have heard of, if the current rate of the “I’m not standing” announcements continues.

    Whether that would be good or bad for SLab is an open question.

  34. john pilgrim

    “That’s riidiculous”

    I don’t want to cause you unnecessary distress John but [……gulp….] you’ve spelt “ridiculous” riiddiculously rong.

  35. “Theresa May has said she wants to lead the Conservatives into the next general election, telling the BBC she intends to remain in power “for the long term”. ”

    So, to coin a phrase, the lady’s not for buggering off.

    Oh well, full marks for optimism. Apparently she wants a “brighter future” for the UK – which sounds like a cracking policy to me.

  36. Oldnat

    Any chance of borrowing Mhairi black, just until the next election.

  37. @PAUL CROFT

    The only ones that could replace her would be DD or JRM. After all so many people tried before and failed it was why May got the job in the first place. Everyone I could name comes across as perfectly mad. or too ‘remainy’ and there is no real policy direction that they would agree to.

    I am not sure that either DD or JRM would have a platform to defeat Labour indeed the Tories recognised this for DD when confronted with cameron. They will need someone not associated with the either Remain or Leave and I am not sure there is anyone.

    The real problem is policy so I reckon she will stay. The polls seem to be very much independent of whom is leader anyway as it stands I think either party could put a Dog withe requisite coloured rosette and I think the polls will be as they are.

    @PETERW

    I agree that the changes in the UK electorate will be too slow and the indications of success or failure will not occur in the 18 months required to make change. On the contrary I believe people will point to ‘successes’ as milestones of Brexit going well. For example Nissan announcement of increasing production and local content, BMW assembly of the electric mini. There will also be negatives announcement which may escape people indeed will be somewhat unheralded

    The needle of the electorate is a lagging indicator, thing go wrong badly and then people decide. There will be no election before we leave and the only time we will know that it has been a success or failure is after the event. (it is Iraq without the body bags)

    @SOMERJOHN

    My uncle used to work at Fords Dagenham plant. in 1999 their were 8000 workers now there are 4000. The changes will happen over time, It will be a combination of technology and investment but I see an inexorable move of car manufacturing towards eastern europe, Many of the announcements for electric vehicles appear to follow this trend. I think it is not dependent on brexit but may be accelerated by brexit.

    The biggest cost is drivetrain development, I believe the amount of money involved is as much as 500M euros. So any money that either Nissan does not have to pay for infrastructure or other items is a saving for the development of drivetrain and in addition money an be used for R&D. I suspect the money ingrants in the round would add up to £100 over the time of development. if you remember Nissan talked about remaining competitive

    @COLIN

    I am not sure that DD is expecting it to go well. at the moment conference season is happening soon. I believe Both DD and TM positioning is actually rather consistent with their thing of the base of their party. hence the decisions they have made (including the election) pretty much backs this up.

    The country is split and to be fair both side of the debate reacting as if it is not, or more succinctly as if the electorate will move in their direction if they just hold fast.

    The reality is DD cannot push a figure since there is not one that is acceptable to the UK electorate at this time. He has no guarantee of the sort of deal he would get for any price and even he could not say what he wants for a given price or what he thinks is value for money. As I have said before if the liabilities end up being 2B what does he think he will get for that in terms of access compared to a liability of 20B. For him the idea of liability is a real problem at the moment, he is trying to pay for a ‘good’ deal, not liabilities.

    As much as the negotiation are going on what is clear is that DD is not negotiating with the EU as of yet. he has not got his ducks lined up. He cannot agree a methodology because it defines the idea of liability. So hence you have everyone UK side accepting we will pay our bills but saying what do we owe. The EU saying here is a preliminary list give us your list of what you believe we owe. and the dance continuing. as soon as a the first item of liability is agreed. the UK not paying that liability become a moral hazard. we could walk away without agreeing what the liabilities are and rightly say but the liabilities are not agreed.

    @CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    I am not sure that a leadership change alone will do it for SLabour I think policies are more important this cycle. I think SNP made the same mistake as Tories, they concentrated on what they thought was their main wedge issue independence, when they could have gone for hammering Tories on austerity, it became a referendum on the idea of a referendum. also as an incumbent your record becomes open to attack I felt their decision on policy left them vulnerable. SLabours strong chance for seats would need to be a reinvention of policies and possibly personality not associated with SLabour so it needs to be more than a leadership change.

  38. What am I going to do with my Tory boyfriend. He’s actually trying to defend the reporting of the ‘Christian girl fostered by rabid Muslims’ story in the press. Even defending the mail and it’s use of a photoshopped image which came from Dubai rather than tower hamlets. It’s ok cos the mail “never actually said it was a picture of the family”. The rest of his defence seems to rely on the greater truth theory, it’s ok to lie to illustrate a greater truth.

  39. @ Oldnat

    ‘My guess as to the new SLab leader would be Anas Sarwar – probably because he will be the only candidate that the selectorate have heard of, if the current rate of the “I’m not standing” announcements continues.’

    I would have thought that it would be the same selectorate that put a majority of Campaign for Socialism delegates on the Scottish LP executive but you may know better. I believe that Richard Leonard is prepared to stand against Anas Sarwar.

  40. @ SYZYGY
    “I would have thought that it would be the same selectorate that put a majority of Campaign for Socialism delegates on the Scottish LP executive but you may know better. I believe that Richard Leonard is prepared to stand against Anas Sarwar.”

    Indeed. Expect a Corbynite as the purge of Blairites continues.

    In Wales it’s going to be interesting as well.

  41. @ptrp

    ” I think SNP made the same mistake as Tories, they concentrated on what they thought was their main wedge issue independence, when they could have gone for hammering Tories on austerity, it became a referendum on the idea of a referendum”

    The SNP did not concentrate on independence in the UK GE 2017. That was the Tories campaign tactic supported by SLab ( with Dugdale’s advice to Labour voters to vote tactically for whichever Unionist Party was best placed to beat the SNP).

  42. Was Andrea Leadsom correct in her prediction about Brexit in 2013 ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MarieAnnUK/status/903018667591557123/video/1

    I think the UK public opinion expressed in polling will turn against Brexit, as the economics start to hurt. As the cost of living increases, so does the amount of personal debt with a record monthly increase in credit card balances being reported.

    It seems that the Brexit negotiations are likely to be paused, as the two sides do not agree on first stage issues at the moment. The UK team seem to be making a legal argument that no financial settlement is legally due and the EU disagrees with this. I cannot see how they will get around this, unless a third party umpire is called in to act as an arbiter. Unless these first stage issues are agreed, then i cannot see a trade negotiation starting.

    Those who support Brexit, but only if a sensible arrangement with the EU can be negotiated, are likely to be very concerned and may change their opinion to support staying in the EU.

  43. @HIRETON
    Why do you think the SNP lost votes?

    here is another view which mirrors my own
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/laurie-macfarlane/five-reasons-why-snp-lost-seats-in-general-election

  44. Oldnat

    I suppose it is possible that Jeremy lacks knowledge about the growing of strawberries as much as his knowledge of Scottish politics and legal system.

  45. @Passtherockplease

    I’m no supporter of Labour, but my view is that – if there were a GE soon – then Labour would hoover up a shedload of seats across Wales and Scotland from SNP, PC and the Tories.

  46. PTRP

    @”The reality is DD cannot push a figure since there is not one that is acceptable to the UK electorate at this time”

    Frankly I think this is meaningless nonsense.

    I disagree with your analysis on this topic.

  47. So……………this morning we learn:-

    TM is going to fight the next GE. -a surprise to her colleagues I’m thinking :-)

    DD’s team got nowhere with Barnier’s lot on Financial Liability-not a surprise to anyone.

    ………….which could well bring us back to TM-going around the Heads of State at the October meeting and saying-look are you going to rescue this thing from Barnier & his “procedure”-or will the accountants really bring it all to a crashing end?

    The answer will be interesting-and probably determine whether TM gets to fight that GE.

  48. @PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    @HIRETON
    “Why do you think the SNP lost votes?
    here is another view which mirrors my own
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/laurie-macfarlane/five-reasons-why-snp-lost-seats-in-general-election
    August 31st, 2017 at 8:09 am”

    Agree with the article. SNP had a really great period where they were popular because they were pro Scottish interest. Not in the sense of independence, but they were strong advocates for Scotland. The previous Scottish leader whos name i have forgotten criticised Ed Milibands Labour for not being interested in Scotland. SNP then took a load of votes from Labour and some of these people may have returned to Labour because of Corbyns politics.

    I think SNP will stabilise their support and number of MP’s, but they will never get back to their 2015 high. Labour and Tories might have a chance in a few SNP seats, but i think SNP would also gain a few, so not much change overall. From memory quite a number of seats are very tight.

    There is another big point in that article which applies to the whole of the UK. The Tories spend a lot of money in seats in the years before elections and there is not much information about who has donated the money. I thought that all donations of more than about £10k had to be fully disclosed ?

  49. @Colin

    I’m not surprised that TM is emboldened, I imagine a lot of Tory MPs she’s the least worst option, and they definitely don’t want a leadership crisis and a possible GE…..

  50. Colin
    Your post of 7.44.

    A number have said I do not understand the EU’s approach. Well I do, and think it one of the reasons why it is likely that the negotiations, will fail unless the EU shifts its position. My legal basis argument is actually exactly the same as the UK governments. I think the problem is that the Remainers posting, fail to understand the UK’s position. You set out that position clearly in your post, and I agree with your take on it. It’s a sensible, uncomplicated, and logical strategy. To agree to the EU’s demands in their current form would be madness as I posted earlier. Fortunately I see no signs that the UK will do so.

    PeterW
    Thank you for your reply. Having read it I am happy to accept that “wishful thinking” was not appropriate. I am also glad to see you seem to accept that we will leave, although I accept that you are unhappy about it.

    PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    Your post to PeterW
    “There will be no election before we leave and the only time we will know that it has been a success or failure is after the event. (it is Iraq without the body bags)”

    Again, I agree with you, my own view posted many times here is that a review in 2030 would probably to appropriate. By then we should have some hard facts that show whether or not Brexit has been a success. At the moment much of what we get day after day here, is opinion from both sides of the debate.

    Somerjohn
    I will certainly be delighted when we leave the EU, and posted how my wife and I would celebrate, to Sam in an earlier post. Just to be clear I still hope that sense will prevail in the EU and that they come to a mutually beneficial deal with the UK but if not, then so be it.

1 2 3 4 5 16