There were two new voting intention polls yesterday, plus ICM’s fortnightly poll this morning. Topline figures are

ICM/Guardian (22nd-24th): CON 40%(-2), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 8%(+1)
Survation/Mail on Sunday (22nd): CON 38%(nc), LAB 42%(-1), LDEM 8%(+1) (tabs)
Opinium (19th-22nd): CON 42%(+1), LAB 40%(-1), LDEM 6%(+1) (tabs)

Changes are from a fortnight ago for ICM, last week for Opinium and the start of September for Survation.

One Conservative lead, two Labour leads and no consistent trend in either direction. Survation and ICM were both conducted after Theresa May’s Florence speech, so give us the first chance to gauge reactions to it. Survation asked about whether people supported or opposed paying £20bn to the EU during a transition period when Britain had access to the single market – 34% of people said they would support it, 47% said they would be opposed. ICM asked a similar question, but found 41% of people supported the idea and 31% were opposed – the ICM tables aren’t available yet, so I don’t know what the particularl wording was and whether it might explain the difference.


665 Responses to “Latest voting intentions from ICM, Survation and Opinium”

1 2 3 14
  1. Also tucked away at the back of Survation is a “bad dea”l/”no deal” question (Q20).

    “If Theresa May decides after negotiations end that “no deal” is better than the deal EU has offered the UK, which of the following is closest to your view?”

    Accept her decision 47%
    Not accept her decision 35%
    DK 18%

    As you’d expect there is a large partisan split with CON at 73% for accept but weirdly 30% of LAB are accept and even higher amounts for LD (44%, although its a tiny number).

    Also 39% of remain would accept her judgement that no deal is better than a bad deal?!?

    Not sure I trust it.

    With LAB ruling out SM access then how would they whip their MPs if it came to “bad deal”/”no deal”?

    The 47% oppose the transition payment has more believable crossbreaks but given Barnier has already thrown that back in DD’s face I’d like to see more “no deal” polls going forward to see if this one is way off for some reason.

  2. German poll (sorry I don’t have details)

    71% of Germans (but just 14% of AfD voters) pick “a country open to the world” over “national borders”.

    Despite how things are reported in the media sometimes, that’s not a conflict between “nationalism” and “internationalism”, but (as in both the UK, and its constituent parts – and probably everywhere else too) a difference in emphasis as to what the direction of travel for the state/country/nation should be.

    I understand why polls often present things as alternatives, when in reality few people will be at either end of a scale.

    However, it would probably help the process of democracy if these complex issues were tested as points on a scale rather than diametric opposites.

    Some polls do ask questions in such a format, so it’s not a matter of technical impossibility, but (presumably) the choice of the customer paying the pollster?

  3. On the “no deal” question maybe the high accept rate is due to Remain maybe thinking May would then go back and try and get a better deal, or we’d have a 2nd ref or something?

    The question didn’t make it clear if it would/would not be too late to try to go back and get a better deal but it might help explain what seems like a very weird cross break for the Remain folks.

    Hopefully get tighter phrasing on similar type questions in future polls.

  4. It is a little incongruous that Mrs May talks about asking for a transition period while stating that no deal is better than a bad deal.

    Clearly, the bespoke deal – the deep and special relationship – is fantasy having your cake and eating it. Also, it may not be of great interest to the EU that the UK thinks a deep and special relationship is important. The EU may not share that view.

    None of this will be lost on the EU. What the people of the UK think of the Florence speech is, just now, slightly less important than what the EU thinks. The talks are close to a breakdown unless considerably more detail can be attached to Mrs May’s warmer words.

  5. @ SAM – the Survation poll suggests that maybe peeps think we’re already being overly generous (47% oppose the 20bn payment for transition) and hence starting to see “no deal” as the better option (47% would also accept May’s decision that no deal is better than a bad deal)

    I’m surprised by the Survation poll and as AW has said the ICM poll shows much higher approval for the transition payment so maybe its a freaky outlier?

    Barnier has already hit the ball back in the talks so where do we go from here? No deal looking increasingly likely and if we continue to get offers thrown back at us then the electorate might be OK with no deal. Good luck to EU filling the budget black hole if that scenario plays out.

    I wouldn’t go as far to call May shrewd but at some point we were always going to have to make a generous offer and to have it thrown back at us so quick might well have been the first error from Barnier?

    Polls consistently show peeps don’t way to pay a high divorce bill – if its “lots of money bad deal” or “no deal” I’d guess high % say “no deal”.

    Seems odd peeps happy to spend taxpayer money on LAB manifesto promises but ask them to pay the EU and very different response.

  6. At it again Trevor.

    Labour Have Not rules out SM access.

    Show my quote not newspaper report if I am wrong and not an interpretation what Corbyn or someone else said.

    I think you may be confusing access and membership and/or extrapolating from remarks made about restrictions that membership of the current SM

  7. oops.

    Show me quote not newspaper report if I am wrong and not an interpretation of what Corbyn or someone else said.

    I think you may be confusing access and membership and/or extrapolating from remarks made about constraints that membership of the current SM places on member state Governments including some anti-austerity measures.

  8. Trevor Warne

    Trevor, I was talking more about the perceptions of the EU of the Florence speech. Unlike the UK, the EU knows what a transition deal will lead to as things stand today. It is to the UK becoming a third country. That is all.The UK does not know yet, and may never know, what kind of deal it wants. It is unable to decide. One part of the government thinks it is stupid to leave the EU while the other side thinks it is stupid to try to mimic the EU from outside it. In those circumstances it might be inevitable for the UK to choose what it should have known after 40 years of membership was not achievable. The bespoke deal.

    The EU did not seek the payment of a particular sum, it sought agreement on a method of calculating the sum. It is easy to imagine the EU looking on this in a kind of fascinated horror. it cannot go on for much longer. We (you and I) are looking from different angles and seeing the same prospect.

  9. Apologies I meant membership – long day

  10. But JIm Jam if the “deal” was SM membership (e.g. Norway for perpetuity) which way would LAB whip lean? Take the “bad deal” and blame CON for having done such a bad job on the deal or push to take a deal that had SM membership (and ECJ etc that comes with it)?

  11. Meant take the no deal above. Blimey having a brain f4rt this evening

  12. Sam

    I noted a report in the Independent earlier re Barnier’s response to May’s speech – basically that he has instructions from the 27 as to the position that the EU is adopting (settling the separation issues first, before moving onto the future relationship of EU/UK), and that nothing in her Florentinian comments changed anything.

    As I understand it (which may be wrong) Barnier can only change the direction of negotiations if instructed by the Council – and all members have a veto on such a change.

    DD can be instructed to change his position in a trice, as May has not engaged with the other Governments within the UK.

    So, it remains baffling as to how the UK Government think that it can alter the EU’s negotiating position.

    Of course, perhaps it doesn’t think that, and this entire process has nothing to do with the UK negotiating, but just posturing for a couple of years.

    As I understand the EU papers on the separation settlement, they have never asked for fine detail, at this stage, but broad agreement on the principles that should apply – regardless of a “no deal”, “transition arrangement” or some form of permanent association.

    Due to the scandalous lack of impartial coverage of EU matters in the UK media, we know that few in the UK have much of a clue as to how the EU works.

    If that level of ignorance extends to the UK Cabinet, then we are in real trouble!

    Trevor Warne

    No deal looking increasingly likely and if we continue to get offers thrown back at us then the electorate might be OK with no deal. Good luck to EU filling the budget black hole if that scenario plays out.

    You may well be right that the UK (at least the English) electorate might be OK with that. However, I worry about the attitude (that you seem to be representing) that the EU and its 27 constituent members hadn’t thought that out before adopting their negotiating strategy.

    Any side, in any negotiation, can make a strategic error, but it concerns me that Brexiteers are so often convinced (or convince themselves) that the entire structure of the EU, with all its resources and those of its constituent members) are wrong, and that England/UK will battle through (against the odds, as so often before – according to the mythology) to final victory.

  13. I don’t know Trevor and I expect even Corbyn and Starmer don’t know yet.

    Wont be Corbyn anyhow imo as either he gone by then or in office.

  14. Trevor Warne: Barnier has already hit the ball back in the talks so where do we go from here? No deal looking increasingly likely and if we continue to get offers thrown back at us then the electorate might be OK with no deal. Good luck to EU filling the budget black hole if that scenario plays out.

    I wouldn’t go as far to call May shrewd but at some point we were always going to have to make a generous offer and to have it thrown back at us so quick might well have been the first error from Barnier?

    But what has Barnier actually done? As I see it, he has firstly made it clear that the divorce deal has to be settled before subsequent arrangements, secondly, he has said that any transition is SM and CU [which was what May suggested in Florence] plus ECJ [which May sort of agreed to], thirdly he is saying that paying our way for the transition period is not the same as settling the divorce bill.

    I cannot see any error. The EU position is quite transparent that anyone can predict the reaction Barnier will have to any proposed position. The error is on the part of the UK to make offers compounded by having mouthed off previously. We should not be making offers, we should be making choices. We are supposed to be be choosing a Swiss, Norwegian, Canadian, Turkish or WTO option, or indeed continuation.

    This is like buying a mobile phone contract, you choose phone plus SIM or SIM only, you choose inclusive monthly or PAYG. You don’t get to negotiate a new tariff and trade off texts vs calls vs internet.

    Negotiation with Barnier is easy. The hard part is choosing a deal which will go down acceptably in the UK and Barnier really is not going to mess around with the basic options to achieve that. This is purely a UK problem, which remains unsolved, because we are still arguing among ourselves about having cake and eating it, about how to have the SM and the CU and not have FM. May’s talk in Florence of deep and special relationships does not cut it as an answer to which of the available deals we want. And partly we are conducting negotiations in a miserable way to provide a fall back position of blaming the EU.

    We do really need to make our choice of final deal type in order to resolve the divorce. Once we know that, the type of border required in Ireland can be determined and which items are in play for the financial part of the divorce settlement will become clear.

    As a remainer, I don’t want these negotiations, I don’t want brexit, but if ToH, for example, told us which brexit model he wanted, out of the choices listed, I can see how to negotiate it with Barnier. The EU are not making life difficult for the UK, they are about making it easy for themselves. And if we understand that we must make big choices rather than cherry pick and look for cake to have and cake to eat, it will be straightforward for us too.

  15. “Iraqi” Kurdistan independence referendum

    Reports suggesting a 76%+ turnout and 93% Yes vote.

    With highly effective armed forces, they are in a much stronger position re the Iraqi Government than the Catalans are against Madrid.

    Sad that this matters.

  16. @Trevor W – “Barnier has already hit the ball back in the talks so where do we go from here? No deal looking increasingly likely and if we continue to get offers thrown back at us then the electorate might be OK with no deal.”

    I think this is something of a misunderstanding of what was offered in the Florence speech. In reality is wasn’t an offer as such – merely a request to stay in the EU for an additional period to give us time to work out the future deal. The EU haven’t batted anything back to us at all – they have merely explained to Davis yet again that he needs to address the three key points, and then we can move onto to talk about what happens next.

    If you take a serious look at the Florence speech, it contained nothing of substance. Commentators here got hooked on the £20bn ‘offer’, which displays simplistic ignorance. This was May asking to stay inside the club, and the money simply equates to the fees we are paying now. Yes, it helps smooth the EU’s short term budget, but what kind of offer is it when you ask to remain a member and pay the fee – that’s simply what you would have to do, nothing more, nothing less.

    I said at the time that Florence doesn’t move anything forward, and it didn’t.

  17. TREVOR WARNE

    On the “no deal” question maybe the high accept rate is due to Remain maybe thinking May would then go back and try and get a better deal, or we’d have a 2nd ref or something?

    I also wondered if some Remainers are interpreting ‘no deal’ as meaning that the UK wouldn’t leave at all.

    The trouble with all these ‘no deal’ questions (and indeed the reality) is that no one knows what ‘no deal’ actually means. Certainly it’s not being spelled out by the pollsters or the politicians and so there’s no chance of people making an informed decision. So it’s all about the rhetoric of it rather than coldly assessing consequences. So people are reacting emotionally (“You’ll be sorry when I’m gone!”).

    There may be other reasons for the differences Anthony notes. ICM are usually Fri-Sun while Survation was just Sat, so those being polled may have had more time to think about things. And the Survation question was part of a long series of Brexit-related ones, so that may have influenced things.

  18. TREVOR WARNE

    I wouldn’t go as far to call May shrewd but at some point we were always going to have to make a generous offer and to have it thrown back at us so quick might well have been the first error from Barnier?

    I think you’re trying to whistle up a wind there. Barnier is clearly operating on the brief he has been given, as he made clear from day 1 and has had to repeat ad nauseum. He’s hardly responsible for Davis not having prepared anything on the agreed timetable and assuming that May’s awayday speech would change anything.

    Davis agreed to the agenda at the beginning of the talks but he seems to have a short term memory defecit. Why the meeting which was scheduled for last week was delayed is a mystery.

  19. @Oldnat

    I have a huge amount of sympathy for the plight of the Kurds.

    A strengthening of the Kurdish identity does raise serious questions, for example the situation in Turkey.

    Personally, anything that makes life hard for President Erdogan is good with me. However, picking away at the currently Middle-East settlement, however justified a Kurdistan state is, does little for the prospects for peace and stability.

    A real conundrum.

  20. I don’t think Starmer rules out what has become the commonly accepted definition of “membership of the Single Market”, which is to say the level of access, rights and responsibilities associated with being subject to the EEA Agreement.

    He just doesn’t like calling it that personally, because the lawyer in him knows it’s a mischaracterisation.

    He used to brief Corbyn that way as well, but that tended to make Corbyn look like he didn’t know what he was talking about, so he’s eased off on that too.

    To those of you who like cricket analogies, and I know there’s a few here, he’s like the Durham supporter who has long since given up as hopeless correcting everyone else by pointing out that “The Riverside” is a football ground in the next county, but still knows himself what his home ground should be called.

  21. MO

    i think that you mistake intransigence and a lack of freedom to negotiate with strength.
    If the EU does not want a trade deal with the 5th largest economy in the world, the 4th largest manufacturing economy in the world( w e over took france last week) then they ought to say so.
    Where does it say anywhere that we have to make “progress” before they talk to us about selling more into our market than we do into theirs? A50 does not say that. It is a construct to make the uK pay money to them.
    Apart from them saying so can anybody tell me why they should all not be one set of negotiations. if they were we would be negotiating on everything by now. It is the EU that is wasting time and leads me to believe that there can be no deal between us. I wonde r whether TM knows this and the uK game is to put ourselves in the way of the wronged party.
    a no deal brexit with the blame on the EU would suit the EU org and the UK.

  22. The Kurdish Question…

    Boy now there is a tough one eh.

    Frankly I think due to the monsterous way they have been treated like forever, even before Sykes and Picot basically drew great big lines in between their land, they deserve a homeland to call their own.

    They have demonstrated great dignity, strength and fortitude, stuff like the women brigades and democratic experiment that is Rojava in Syria is fascinating, i’ll put the PKK to the side for a moment as that is where the line between terrorist and freedom fighter tends to get a bit more hazey.

    I say go for it Iraq be damned, morally we should support a new Kurdistan state, not to mention purely in raw REALPOLITIK having a secular ally in the middle east rats nest could be invaluable.

  23. OldNat

    “Despite how things are reported in the media sometimes, that’s not a conflict between “nationalism” and “internationalism”,”

    Vladimir Ilyich once said that “socialist patriotism and proletarian internationalism are one and the same” :-)I

    ————-

    I’ve seen the first meme attacking Corbyn for not speaking up for Catalonia, and that he’s doing so, because of his adversarial position to Scottish independence. The meme is not very good, but it’s shared by people who were rather pri-Corbyn a few months ago. I don’t th I k it’s important, but it could get on to other ussues.

  24. Oldnat

    Social psychology uses the kind of scale I think you mean all the time and I’ve wondered why pollsters didn’t use them more. After all, as you point out, lots of people would find it easier to position themselves on a continuum rather than choosing between two poles.

    My best guess is that they don’t use them because if you want to make use of the extra information you have to do a bit more analysis and the results don’t lend themselves as readily to soundbites. In your example, if you were to use a Likert scale you probably wouldn’t be able to say ‘the large majority of Germans would prefer to be ‘open to the world’, because your responses are going to be smeared across the scale. You could, just about, claim that all the respondents who choose responses on the ‘open to the world’ side of the scale would prefer that, but it would make me a at least a bit queasy, perhaps very queasy, depending on the wording of the question and the labelling of the poles.

    If you’re going to throw away all that information, why collect it in the first place? If you’re going to reduce the responses to a binary variable there’s a good argument for getting the respondents to provide binary data, rather than recoding their more nuanced responses – how confident can you be that your recoding corresponds to the binary responses they would have given?

    As a scientist I’ll take as much reliable information as I can collect, every time. As a newspaper editor I’d probably choose my questions and my response formats with an eye to how the data are going to be written up (caveat: I’d probably make a lousy newspaper editor!). The scientist is trying to understand a system. The editor’s trying to sell newspapers/influence opinion/publish the story that gets picked up by TV news/shape political debate.

  25. Laszlo

    I haven’t seen anything on Corbyn and Catalonia or the Kurds. I’ve seen a lot about his support for Irish re-unification and his opposition to Scottish independence.

    There is a general principle at stake (recognised by the UN Charter) about self-determination of peoples.

    There is so a general principle at stake (recognised by the UN Charter) about respecting the boundaries of the states that constitute the UN.

    Now THAT is a conundrum! (CMJ) How do you square the circle between two entirely contradictory principles enshrined in the UN Charter?

    There is a philosophical choice –

    1. Borders are what they are. “We” the power elite at the time created them, and you poor sods are stuck with what we decided to do.

    2. People matter. While there are no particular identifiable reasons that peoples identify as particular groups, those living within a particular part of the globe may share a particular identity, and that should be reflected in their governance

    3. Only “my” people matter. Those that I think are sufficiently like me, to be part of my tribe. everyone else can “F*** Off” from the bit of the globe that I and my mates claim as ours.

    Of course, there are variations on all those positions, but 1. and 3. seem to deny humanity, but endorse the concepts of “us” and “them”. Personally, I find both equally distasteful.

    I can see no philosophical consistency in Corbyn’s position on these issues.. he may just be a “chancer” who has responded to issues raised by some constituents, because he has no considered position on these core issues.

  26. Sorbus

    You might make an extremely good newspaper editor – albeit an unemployed one! :-)

    It’s that conflict between those of us who are struggling to understand the world that we live in (despite the uncertainties caused by our own and others prejudices) and those who want “simple” answers to complex issues – no matter how irrelevant such answers are!

  27. I’m going to repost this one from the last thread, because I am interested if anyone has any comments

    Andrew111,
    “The most shocking thing for me was that apparently 50% of Leave voters over 65 were prepared to see a member of their family lose their job if only they could have Brexit”

    What interests me is the psychology of this. Why the generation older than these voted to join the Eu, and why the generation younger voted to remain. The oldest people around now (say aged 100) were born 1917 and were 22 when WW2 began. Anyone 90 or below missed it, and only experienced it as a child.

    Basically, the generation which had to fight and experience the war voted to join the EU – I suggest because of their experiences. Younger people voted to remain because of their own experience of Europeans. The people who wanted to leave are those who lived through the experience of the Uk being declared the winner (but without experiencing the negative impact of the war itself), and then seeing many years of decline. Thus they feel cheated of their victory.

    Viewed this way, the demographic would be doomed to fade away as it ages. It is a group suffering a delusion of grandeur without the understanding of the price with which that grandeur had been bought or sustained in the past.

  28. Danny

    ” It is a group suffering a delusion of grandeur without the understanding of the price with which that grandeur had been bought or sustained in the past.”

    It’s part of that English/British mythology that has been embodied in English school curriculums for many years (though much reduced over previous decades, I understand). The BBC, of course, still tends to propagate it.

    Not that the BBC is unique in that regard. State broadcasters everywhere favour versions of the past that feed into the desired conditioning of the people.

    Few remember much of the detail of their school history lessons, but the underlying narrative often remains. Such conditioning of the population during childhood should not be underestimated.

    In Scotland, the narrative was a little different. Until the 1970s, school history was essentially the story of how plucky Scots (despite occasional victories) were usually losers (and victims), until “history” came to fruition in the British Empire

    The Whig version of history was still being taught in Scottish Universities till the late 1960s, so many teachers carried that indoctrination to their pupils for decades after.

    there does seem to have been a generational change in both England & Scotland in political attitudes and some of that may relate to school history.

  29. OK, a sort of a poll. For a few months I have been participating in a ‘poll’ run by the Public Service Research Panel – a US initiative run out of Rutgers University of Newark NJ. You can draw your own conclusions as to the integrity of the panel given that I’m just a Brit surveying the US scene across the ocean.
    That was the health warning, here are the headline results:

    “A growing number of public service professionals say that things in this country are heading off on the wrong track.
    • In our recent survey, 76% of public service professionals (including you, if you participated) said that the country is heading off on the wrong track. This is up sharply from early 2016, when only 47% of public service professionals said that things in this country were heading off on the wrong track.

    Overall, public service professionals have more negative opinions about President Donald Trump than the general public.
    • 83% of public service professionals, compared to 58% of the general public, disapprove of the way Donald trump is handling his job as President.
    • 65% of public service professionals, compared to 33% of the general public, are “not at all confident” that Donald Trump can manage the Executive Branch effectively.
    • 61% of public service professionals, compared to 31% of the general public, are “not at all confident” that Donald Trump can work effectively with Congress.”

    More here http://psrpanel.org

  30. s thomas,
    “Apart from them saying so can anybody tell me why they should all not be one set of negotiations”
    No one here (I think?) is privy to the inner councils of the EU, so could answer from direct knowledge. But I assume they see the process of the Uk leaving and the process of the Uk creating a new relationship with the EU as completely separate, and the second necessarily following after the first.

    I would suggest that unless the UK satisfatorily winds up its current relations with the EU, the EU will not be willing to creat a new one. Makes sense to me. Would make sense to your local bank manager, too.

    “If the EU does not want a trade deal with the 5th largest economy in the world, the 4th largest manufacturing economy in the world( w e over took france last week) then they ought to say so.”

    They have. The various options are available to view. membership, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Canada, WTO. But no self service buffet.

  31. @BZ “What does surprise me is that AfD support was highest in the former GDR, which would have been a very poor state indeed had not the FRG very generously agreed to an instant re-unification. Biting the hand which feeds you comes to mind.”

    It’s not surprising to me at all. The East German’s identity had been squashed for a couple of generations during the Soviet occupation. To suddenly be confronted with mass immigration without any discussion with the voters is likely to cause fear and resentment.

    It’s the same with the other Eastern European States, they are clearly not keen at all on seeing a recently regained identity suddenly under threat (whether that threat is actual or perceived).

  32. it should be pointed out that die linke(the left) was also strong in east Germany. It’s a pattern which is repeated throughout western democracies. Though rightwing populists are generally more reported on than left wing populists

  33. Also in not sure how right wing AfD is compared to the moggy wing of the British conservative party. I think it’s about the same really, the main difference being the unique historical baggage of Germany which makes some views that would be normal here frightening and dangerous in a German context.

  34. Labour Conference:

    Been catching up on the Corbyn love-in where complaining about Brexit is somehow an attack on Saint Jez apparently.

    Old Len came out with this pearler:

    “The whingers and whiners say we didn’t win; I say to them…We did win!”

    Interesting definition of win, coming a distant second. Perhaps “whingers and whiners” is code language for “moderates and Blairites” – it then makes sense!

    As for the ‘fiscally interesting’ McDonnell speech, I do find it noticeable that the kind of people who clamour with approval when the CBI say Brexit will be a negative to the economy, seem to go very silent when the CBI says Labour’s plans “will send investors running for the hills!”

    The shadow chancellor’s vision of massive state intervention is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It raises a warning flag over the British economy at a critical time for our country’s future.

    Business and politicians share a determination to create a fairer society in which everyone benefits. But the trickle of stalled investments caused by Brexit uncertainty could become a flood if these plans were to become reality. This would threaten the living standards of the very people that need help, from pensioners to students.

    Forced nationalisation of large parts of British industry will send investors running for the hills, and puts misplaced nostalgia ahead of progressive vision.

  35. @TREVOR WARNE
    ” LAB ruling out SM access”

    Okay appreciate you have now changed this to ruling out single market membership but can you give me a link where they have said they have ruled out such membership.

    The most I could find out was there would be no vote on it and that the NEC ‘Backed membership of the single market and the customs union only during the “transitional period” and “Labour campaigned to remain in a reformed European Union, but as democratic socialists we accept and respect the referendum result.”

    I just cannot see how that equates to ruling out S.M. membership but am glad to be enlightened by you with the relevant linmk

  36. @NeilJ – from the NEC announcement

    “Labour is clear that we need a tariff and impediment-free trading relationship with the European Union. Labour’s priority is an outcome that puts jobs, living standards and the economy first. The precise institutional form of the new trading and customs relationship needs to be determined by negotiation. Labour will not support any future arrangement that sees the introduction of a hard border, or which restricts freedom of movement between Ireland and the UK.

    In order to avoid a cliff-edge as we leave the EU and allow time to negotiate this new relationship, Labour would seek a time-limited transitional deal on the same basic terms we currently enjoy. During this transitional period Labour would seek to remain in a customs union with the EU and within the Single Market and would abide by the common rules of both.”

    I think that is clear that they intend to negotiate a bespoke new trading relationship. That implicitly rules out SM Membership. Also by saying they’ll stay in the SM during a “time-limited” transition this also implies they would leave after the transition.

    Of course, that is the policy at 7.04 a.m on the 26th September 2017. It could change at any moment!

  37. ALEC
    I picked up on a post of yours on an earlier thread referring to the case of the cyclist jailed for causing the death of a pedestrian under a Victorian law which forbids furious driving – no other more recent or apposite law being on the statute book. You referred to the minimal statistics on accidents and deaths to pedestrians caused by cyclists, to illustrate the inordinate attention given to this case in the press.
    I had personal experience of this situation which suggests first that it may be more frequent than the statistics suggest, and secondly that there may be factors in meeting a risk of accidents and injury to pedestrians by cyclists and its basis in law, policing and insurance than your account suggests, particularly in respect of access of hurt pedestrians to redress, and the availability to policy of instruments in the law or in their responsibilities enabling them to respond.
    If the latter are lacking or deficient, my experience suggests that the incidence of accidents caused to pedestrians by cyclists is under-reported. Logic also suggests that that is so, and that the matter deserves to be addressed in legislation and polic practice, not just in treatment by the law.
    Briefly, my wife was knocked down by a cyclist courier in London some five years ago, when she stepped off the pavement of a side-street on Regent Street in the West End as he turned at speed from Regent Street into the side road. The cyclist paused for some seconds while bystanders helped her onto her feet and then sped off without leaving any details of himself, or taking details of my wife or her conditio – of the kind which would be statutory in a car accident. She was able to walk in some pain, to attend the meeting she was going to, but later was found at the hospital where she was taken by friends to have broken her pelvis and upper thigh.
    In successive hospital treatment over the following three years she had metal implants in her thigh and a hip replacement. She has had successive episodes of treatment for related arthritis and pain, and has never fully recovered her normal walking.
    I visited the central police station at Bath where we live, to get advice on the law and any crimiinal or civil action and on police procedure, and was informed of the Victorian law on furious driving as the only one governing collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. I then visited Thames Valley Police station near Regent Street, to enquire was steps,, including detective proceudure they might take to identify the cyclist and his firm. The answer was that they had more serious matters to investigate, but I could do so if I wished.
    I would conjecture that – given the information provided by the Bath police – accidents and injury by this kind of collision are substantially more frequent than your figures suggest. Moreover, your reference to the pedestrian stepping off the pavement without looking has specific reference to the nature of the silent and minimally visible nature of cycists moving at speed, which demands different treatment in law and highway practice to that related to motor vehicles.

  38. I’m trying to interpret what seemed like a very strange polling response and considering the implications.

    We all know where Barnier stands but the big unknown is exactly what “sufficient” is in terms of progress.

    May’s transition offer should have helped EC with a big issue in our departure – their budget black hole.

    Maybe Barnier is too honourable and saw it as an attempt to bribe the executive? Maybe those in the poll who ticked “opposed” to the transition were also principled and saw it as the wrong thing to do?

    I was very surprised to see a lot of peeps not happy about the transition payment and seeming to be OK with “no deal” and trying to make sense of what looked like weird crossbreak info.

    More later

  39. Sea Change,
    ” The East German’s identity had been squashed for a couple of generations during the Soviet occupation. To suddenly be confronted with mass immigration without any discussion with the voters is likely to cause fear and resentment.”

    Friend of mine suggested there is more to it than that. That the identity of the German state itself is relatively weak since Germany was a collection of independent principalities until 150 years ago. The german election results page posted above illustrates this because if you click on the location where AFD did best, its all in Saxony. My friend said, ‘well of course, they were always an independent lot’, but it applies to all the principalities. Consider how British politics would be if instead of one massively dominant state it was made up of ten scotlands.

    So this might be a revolt against invasion by Prussians as much as against Africans.

  40. “the availability to policy of instruments……..” should read “the availability to police…..”

  41. @Trevor Warne “I was very surprised to see a lot of peeps not happy about the transition payment and seeming to be OK with “no deal” and trying to make sense of what looked like weird crossbreak info.”

    If they are kicking up a stink about £20 Billion imagine what the outcry will be over £50-100 Billion! Not politically deliverable I would wager.

    @Danny – On a disparate Germany

    That is certainly a factor. I would suggest however that Prussians are likely to be less potentially aggravating to people’s identity and culture than mass migration from the Middle East and Africa.

    I spent some time reading up on the manifestos of the Greens and the FDP. Merkel is in a right mess and Macron’s grand vision is now more stuffed than a bacon and egg croissant.

    I wonder if there will be an early election because squaring this circle looks incredibly tough.

  42. Sea Change,
    “Forced nationalisation of large parts of British industry will send investors running for the hills, and puts misplaced nostalgia ahead of progressive vision.”

    I can see why the CBI might say this, and of course why traditionally they support the conservative government. But their very own version of the ‘rock and hard place’ debate becomes how they see the opposing difficulties of a bunch of socialists opposed to Brexit and a bunch of economic liberals supporting it.

    For the voters ourselves, the problem with the CBI thesis is that ‘investors’ frequently do not invest at all in a private or privatised company, but instead milk it for every penny they can. There is a huge difference between Honda setting up a car company in the Uk and the French government or an investment house buying up UK water companies. The latter kind of investor we need to ban completly, or at least replace with UK ownership.

    The evidence of polling during the last election is that the economic tide has turned, and the excesses of so called investors who might better be described as asset strippers has discredited them in the eyes of the electorate. Thus these policies you complain about are distinctly popular. Even tories are starting to make noises in this direction. It would not amaze me to see some proposals on these lines at the tory conference next.

  43. Oldnat

    There was no EU representative at the Florence speech. There were three prominent Cabinet members there. The Florence speech was mainly for the consumption of people at home. The speech itself seems to have been heavily discussed and amended prior to delivery.

    Very few of the Conservative responses to the Florence speech that I have found are favourable. Here is a bit of one.

    “The speech, whilst sticking to the fundamentals of leaving the EU by the end of March 2019, kicks the can down the road, makes Brexit vulnerable to a change in government, commits us to pay more money, doesn’t quite demand an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice…and yet, no real backlash! There is virtually no commentary from Association Chairmen, very little from MPs and nothing of substance from Ministers.”

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/09/helen-harrison-mays-florence-speech-2-its-time-for-party-members-to-speak-out-against-these-feeble-careerist-pro-remain-ministers.html

    It is the absence of backlash that interests this past Conservative candidate.
    There is no good negotiating position for the Conservatives. It can jump now, take the economic consequences and blame the EU for not being “flexible and imaginative”. It can wait for negotiations to develop, if that word “negotiations” is appropriate for the UK interactions with the EU. Doing so is likely to reveal how little there is to the advantage of the UK to come out of the present positions and how misplaced is the UK hope of having the cake and eating it.

  44. SC – now your turn to misrepresent Labour Policy and then suggest they have changed many times.

    I can’t be bothered detailing it for you as I would hope that you really know and are just trying to be troublesome.’

    I respect leavers and many on here but 3 of you are somewhat tiresome with distortions, inaccuracies and occasional rudeness.

    There are some ‘remainers’ similarly tiresome sadly.

  45. Sea Change,
    “I think that is clear that they intend to negotiate a bespoke new trading relationship”

    The passage you quote sounds to me perfectly in tune with the manifesto. It doesnt say they want to leave the customs union/market, it says they have a policy of definitely staying in them (or something equivalent) for a transitional period. But it also says that longer term there must still be a relationship equivalent to this. It doesnt say that after the transition any such terms can or will be ditched.

    ” ‘ Labour’s priority is an outcome that puts jobs, living standards and the economy first.’ ”

    This passage you quote strikes me as fit for the Delphic oracle, because how you interpret it will depend upon your own view of what kind of outcome puts the economy first. If you believe leaving does this, then it is a leave inclined statement. If you believe remain does this, then labour are saying they are remainers too.

    It could clearly be argued, and presumably is the intention it could be so argued, that the policy you quote actually precludes leaving the EU if there is no alternative deal available, and indeed this is how remainers interpret it. This phrasing is what persuaded remainers to switch from liberal to labour and the labour party is happy for this to continue, indeed needs this to continue.

  46. SEACHANGE

    It’s just as stupid to suggest Labour came a “distant second” in the General Election as it is to suggest they won it. They won 40% of the national vote compared to Con on 42%.

    You will be suggesting the election was a decisive win for the Tories next.

  47. sea Change,
    ” I would suggest however that Prussians are likely to be less potentially aggravating to people’s identity and culture than mass migration from the Middle East and Africa. ”

    Why? Those german states have been at war with each other for 1000 years. The early history of the unified German state was less than spectacularly successful, resulting in the destruction of much of it and the continued enslavement of in particular the eastern block until quite recently. What reason would its ciizens have to like other Germans?

  48. Sea Change
    which ‘distant second’ are you talking about. Labour 2% behind Cons or Rem 2% behind Leave. In most polls that is a margin of error not a distant second. Or is this a new definition of IMO?

  49. @Jim Jam

    Abbott supports Freedom of Movement.
    Mcdonnell says it must end.
    Gardiner says we must leave the Customs Union.
    Starmer wants to stay in.
    Watson wants to stay in the Single market forever.
    And Mcdonnell says we must leave it.

    Excuse me but it’s hard trying to keep up with all the different positions the Labour Leadership espouse on this.

    That’s not to say there are no divisions on the Tory benches of course, though I don’t think they are quite as broad as in the Labour Party.

  50. Question for those on the right of politics who support Brexit.

    If the UK leaving the EU meant that a future Labour Government could renationalise Energy, Water, Railways, Royal Mail and incur large amounts of borrowing to aid state investment, is this a price worth paying ?

    Brexit means that EU state aid and other financial/market rules would no longer apply to the UK. Therefore a future Government could decide to implement Socialist policies that those on the right of politics would probably dislike more than the EU.

    Corbyn and McDonnell are already licking their lips at the thought of implementing massive state interventions that the EU would currently not allow.

    My thoughts are that at some point many Tory Brexiteers are going to start thinking about the consequences of Brexit and they might not be as enthusiastic about UK independence as they were on 23rd June 2016.

1 2 3 14