YouGov’s regular voting intention poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 41%(+1), LAB 42%(+1), LDEM 7%(-2). Fieldwork was Tuesday to Wednesday and changs are from early January.

The regular tracking question on “Bregret” finds 45% of respondents saying Britain was right to vote for Brexit, 44% think it was wrong. This is the first time YouGov have found more people saying right than wrong since last August, though I would caution against reading much into that. On average this question has been showing about 2% more people thinking it was the wrong decision than the right decision, but normal sample variation from poll to poll (the “margin of error”) means that with figures that close random chance alone should produce the occassional poll with “right” ahead, even if public opinion is actually unchanged. As ever, don’t get too excited over one poll, and wait to see if it is reflected in other polls.

Full tabs are here.


602 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 41, LAB 42, LD 7”

1 10 11 12 13
  1. The guardian poll….
    I see they asked a question about whether Brexit will have a negative or positive impact on the economy, and got 49% negative to 36% positive. Whereas the remain/leave question was 51% remain to 49% leave. This reflects polling from the referendum where a minority who believe leaving will cause economic harm still support it.

    But it does suggest a fairly robust belief that Brexit will have negative impact on the economy.

    Polarisation of views might be hardening. Ever more remote to believe there can be a compromise solution which will satisfy people.

  2. Carfrew

    Yes indeed there is always cricket. I thought the Aussies made an awful mess of winning yesterday having done the right thing by winning the toss. Tomorrows game should be interesting.

    Norbold

    Good morning, Hmmmmmmm to you to. :-)

  3. Danny

    “Ever more remote to believe there can be a compromise solution which will satisfy people.”

    Yes i agree which is why I still think the most likely scenario is leaving on WTO terms.

  4. Alec

    Sorry but I have not been caught out on anything. Thats just nonsense IMO. You cannot catch somebody out if they have a fundamental belief, you cannot prove it wrong because it is a belief. It’s like saying prove there is a God. The fact that you cannot accept that is what I find sad and pathetic.

    Since iIam not going to change my ways and you say the same then I guess we will continue to have pointless arguments from time to time.

    Anyway we can agree on Rugby, gardening and walking, so at least a little common ground.

  5. While the latest Ipsos/Mori poll show Labour 3% ahead the figure is reversed when “all giving voting intensions” is looked at. The Tories are 2% ahead on that basis. Support for May and the Government has increased since November 17 and fallen for Corbyn. Small movements but movements never the less.

  6. DANNY

    @”Means testing and patient contributions would have the effect of rationing health care away from the poor to the rich. It would add to the negative incentive against taking low paid work. It would add to the cost overhead of administering the system. It would increase inequality in society. But maybe that is the idea?”

    Can you provide evidence of that happening in Germany ?

  7. PETEB

    @” Unless he’s a true socialist ”

    McDonnell went to Davos & told them Venezuela got into this mess because it wasn’t socialist enough.

    You have been warned.

  8. “While the latest Ipsos/Mori poll show Labour 3% ahead the figure is reversed when “all giving voting intensions” is looked at. The Tories are 2% ahead on that basis. Support for May and the Government has increased since November 17 and fallen for Corbyn. Small movements but movements never the less.”

    I think the polarisation is evident, and what we’d see if we had another election – a straight Tory v Labour battle with all others getting squeezed (possibly even SNP) – I expect NI will go their own way as usual.

    Within that is the Remain v Leave argument, but what seems to happen is people who consider voting LD (the remain party) realise that they don’t want the ultra-Leave party in, so they vote Labour everywhere that LD cannot win – which is most places.

  9. @TOH – don’t worry – you can have the last word.

  10. GUYMONDE

    Thanks for that interesting chart.

    I think there are are some caveats about Commonwealth Fund -but interesting nevertheless.

  11. I find the Alec vs TOH thing interesting because I’ve had some experience of the same thing myself.

    It really looks like a clash of cultures. On the one hand, an approach based on Hegelian dialectics and the principles of social science: advance an hypothesis, provide supporting evidence, invite opposing hypotheses and counter-arguments, in turn supported by evidence, and end up with the original hypothesis either proved or disproved, or some sort of compromise position agreed on.

    As TOH points out, that system falls down when confronted with a belief-based system that rejects the notion of empirical testing, provision of evidence, rules of logic etc. It’s a game he refuses to play, or see the point of. From that point of view, a rational discussion is limited to a good-tempered exchange of views, not a process aimed at finding the right answer. “This is what I believe. If you don’t like it, tough”.

    I’ve come to accept that there’s little point in trying to win an argument with a fundamentalist believer, whether a believer in religion, astronomy, faked moon landings, the efficacy of herbal cures for HIV or anything else.

    I do think that the basic ways of thinking instilled by higher education have a big effect in later life. Those who are schooled in critical thinking, argument, debate and having to argue for and justify a point of view are often, in my experience, more accepting of the rough and tumble of robust discussion, and more willing to concede if they come up against contrary evidence or a more persuasive argument.

    Those, on the other hand, whose education centres more around learning a largely fixed, hard-and-fast body of knowledge and how to apply it, tend to have a different approach. They tend to see all that interminable discussion as arty-farty hot air divorced from the real world. When it comes to working out if a bridge is strong enough, you don’t discuss it, you reach for the rule book and apply a well known body of knowledge. Either you can do the calculations, or you can’t. Black and white, vs shades of grey.

    I’m not being judgemental here, simply trying to undrestand what’s going on.

    (Incidentally, this isn’t a reprise of the CP Snow two cultures thing, which was about literary vs scientific thinking)

  12. Having waded through two days of messages and noted the incessant arguing between ToH and Alec, I have a few comments.

    Alec argues with facts, intuition, logic, and wide general knowledge. I see no evidence that ToH has these qualities although he has been generously blessed in other ways, and it is wrong of Alec to expect detailed replies from ToH with these ingredients.

    ToH isn`t just not arguing in Alec`s style because of cussedness but because he shrewdly realises that this is not his strong point. Short sharp statements, faith in his judgement, and optimism, are his style, and we have simply to accept that..

    I could class ToH as a successful entrepreneur, and though that group is only a small proportion of the total electorate, it is useful for the rest of us to see the workings of their minds and where they come to wrong judgements.

    Margaret Thatcher was a great promoter for these people, and I note that ToH is a big supporter of her premiership and seems not to notice her faults. Maybe he was one who rose from a small role to leading a big enterprise in her time, such as the managers of town`s hundred-strong bus fleets suddenly being given chance to set up large amalgamated bus groups. And then the quick-footed, quick-witted leaders became wealthy, acquired big houses and gave their progeny top-class education. But these entrepreneurs are not university professors, or world-class researchers.

    So keep on entertaining us please, ToH, but try not to be too provocative, like talking of a day of celebration in March 2009 when for most people it will be a time of fear and sullen resentment. I think you have been trying in recent weeks.

  13. @”Alec argues with facts,”

    Sometimes-not always ! :-) :-)

  14. As to Colin’s question about income and access to health service – it is multilayered, and the country health service surveys may include influences that are not strictly related to the form of financing the service.

    Here’s an article on access to specialised services in Germany (it’s open access, so you can read the whole thing).

    As specialised services are located further from each other than general services, there is an associated travelling cost, and cost of taking time out. Income levels obviously negatively affect these.

    https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-016-1403-9

    As to the CWF data – it explicitly says that the UK (and the Dutch) samples were small – whether it would have an influence on the conclusions – who knows. I was also taken aback a bit by the use of the p value – talking about health service magnitude effects are surely more important than Fisher’s statistical significance formula.

  15. @Somerjohn & @Davwel – Interesting analyses, but a couple of comments.

    Firstly, just to note again that this exchange was originally between myself and @Nickp and others – not @TOH, but then @TOH jumped with a factually incorrect statement.

    From here on, my comments have nothing to do with @TOH, but are general comments only.

    I would caution against viewing my posts as based on logical analysis alone – they are not. I have my own beliefs, and make judgements accordingly, and I certainly believe that sentiment plays a role in politics – it has to. We all have our biaises, and that’s the point of democratic societies – we need to find a way to balance these out across large populations.

    While I have come across many Brexit ‘believers’, who seem immune from the nuances of factual analysis, I don’t believe it’s fair to cast the debate in terms of two distinct cultural approaches. There are many remainers who hold illogical and untested opinions, and whose views are guided by sentiment and belief with little or no factual basis. Equally, there are leavers who have reached their viewpoint on the basis of analysis. Both sides have strong points, both have flaws, and holding each viewpoint requires an element of faith.

    The point about fundamentalism is valid. On Brexit, there are fundamentalist elements on both sides. I’ve long held an interest in the point at which fundamentalist views crash down as reality makes them untenable, and this happens. It can be a personally highly distressing time for individuals, and needs careful management to avoid adverse public and private reactions. Politics tends not to manage these transitions very well.

    So far, the Brexit process has seen the testing of the more fundamentalist positions more on the leave side, with the obligatory compromises required as part of a sensible deal. These will intensify, in my view, and there are challenges ahead. I think the real problem with Brexit, on both sides, is that changing opinions is genuinely difficult because we have so little hard factual evidence of what the future scenarios will be, wwhich leaves us more bound by beliefs.

    On Friday, we had Davis tell us that we will be signing trade deals during the transition. On Monday, the EU will say that we can’t. What are the public meant to think about this? As time rolls on, the facts will become clearer, and give people on both sides some emotional cover to change their minds (‘I didn’t expect that to happen….’). Until then, we’re rather stuck discussing hypotheticals, which ends up as a debate between beliefs.

  16. Having taken TOH’s advice, I no longer read his posts, but I do enjoy reading people’s responses to them.

  17. @BIGFATRON
    “The result was, if I remember correctly, a couple of elections where the Liberals were returned with increased majorities, a constitutional crisis, and finally the creation of the rules which now apply about the inability of the Lords to block a money bill.”

    Strictly speaking you remember incorrectly.

    The result was a couple of elections in the first of which the Liberals lost 123 seats and with it their majority, and in the second of which they went marginally further backwards, a constitutional crisis, and finally the creation of the rules which now apply about the inability of the Lords to block a money bill thanks to the support of the Liberal minority government by the IPP.

    Some parallels to the present we might say, in that the Government the second 1910 election produced was the last minority to government at Westminster to last for a significant period, and it did so with the support of Irish MPs.

  18. Nick P – your analysis makes sense and seems to be borne out by the recent polls. It is a continuation of the last election results in that sense and means that there would most likely be a similar result if the election were to be held tomorrow give or take 20 seats either way.

    JC has played a delicate balancing act between his own position on Brexit, and scooping up much of the Remain vote. I wonder how the VI would change in the following scenarios:

    1) A new Tory leader
    2) JC getting off the fence
    3) Brexit issue being sorted by next election by way of a Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or a second referendum followed by remain.

  19. @ANDREW MYERS

    Interesting questions, that I’d like to venture speculative answers at.

    1) A new Tory leader

    Little change beyond a brief honeymoon if Brexit remains the dominant issue. If it’s post-Brexit, see below.

    2) JC getting off the fence

    Can’t see this as being anything other than bad for Labour as he loses a chunk of his current coalition without picking anything up.

    At present this coalition in England can only basically consist of:
    1. Lab Leave who can live with Labour’s current softer Leave position;
    2. Lab Remain who can live with Labour’s current softer Leave position;
    3. Supporters of Remain parties whose preference a softer leave option that was from a credible UK govt led them to switch;
    4. Con Remain whose preference for a softer leave led them to switch.
    5. Con softer leave whose preference for a softer leave led them to switch.

    The rest consist of:
    6. Lab Leave who can’t live with Labour’s current softer Leave position (could have voted UKIP or Con);
    7. Lab Leave who can’t live with Labour’s current softer Leave position (could have voted for a Remain party);
    8. Cons who can live with Con’s current position;
    9. Supporters of Remain Parties voting their first choice.
    10. Supporters of Remain Parties voting for a Leave party this time.

    Assuming by “coming off the fence” we mean Labour going Remain, they put 1 at risk. 2, 3 and 4 stay with Labour, but some of 5 may be at risk too. They appeal more to 6, but less to 7, 8 and 10. They may appeal more to 9 too.

    On the first side 1 is a big chunk, polls suggest 33% of the current Labour vote. 5, if it exists, has barely registered in the polls.

    On the other side 7 is measureable but following the labour surge last time pretty small, and 9 is a cohort was loyal to other parties last time so it is probably fairly hard.

    It is very difficult to see how a switch to Remain potentially delivers more from 7+9 than it loses from 1+5, unless the electorate moves dramatically from its current roughly even split on Leave/ Remain.

    3) Brexit issue being sorted by next election by way of a Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or a second referendum followed by remain.

    A game changer, with three options assuming Corbyn hasn’t “come off the fence” and the Government owns the outcome.

    If it’s perceived a huge success they win pretty much whatever. If it’s perceived a catastrophe they lose pretty much whatever. If it’s a wash or too early to say, all bets off.

  20. 7 should be Lab Remain who can’t live with Labour’s current Leave position of course

  21. What about Labour staying on the fence but offering a new referendum if they win?

  22. and I should have said “They appeal more to 7, but less to 6, 8 and 10. They may appeal more to 9 too.

    Apols, if I can’t even follow it myself, it must be strained.

  23. @Alec

    Yes, of course the situation is far more nuanced than I presented it.

    But I wasn’t really thinking about brexit, but of nearly all the sort of discussions we have here. I think what it comes down to is that the study of politics in general and polling in particular is a social science. It’s based on probability, not certainty; correlation, not causation; human behaviour, not physical laws.

    So most of us here, consciously or not, play by the rules of social science research. We accept there will never be certainty or absolute confidence in predictions. We try to understand what’s going on, and the underlying causative factors, but we know it’s all imprecise.

    Compare the physical scientist looking at what happens when you apply heat to a fluid. After a certain amount of heat, and under a given set of conditions, it will boil. But try to work out the effect of applying a devaluation, or an injection of spending, to the economy, or a government sleaze scandal on VI, and all you can say is what will probably happen, going by previous experience.

    There are two different ways of looking at the world here. Of course, when you get into abstract theoretical physics, and the strange world of quarks (or is it strange quarks?) and Schroedinger’s cat, then those hard-and-fast physical rules melt away.

    I accept, and appreciate, your point that your sort of approach shouldn’t be idealised as super-rational and free of bias or belief, but I think the more important point is that you do accept the usefulness of explaining how you arrive at your view and what evidence you base it on, so that others can come to their own conclusions.

  24. @Bigfatron said:
    “I’m sorry you didn’t understand my post – it’s possibly a little arcane in that I am referring to the fight the Tory peers put up to prevent the imposition of inheritance tax to fund the first old age pensions.

    “They also viewed IHT as a form of theft and an attack on their privileges, and felt perfectly entitled to repeatedly vote the measure down using the then inbuilt Tory majority in the Lords”

    Your memory is slightly incorrect.

    The People’s Budget introduced a number of different tax increases; it included proposals to introduce a complete land valuation and also a 20% tax on capital gains from transfers of land, so it wasn’t specifically IHT. Had the Liberal Government continued after WW1, we might have ended up with a form of Land Value Taxation as they were strongly influenced by the ideas of Henry George.

    IHT in its modern form was introduced by Sir William Harcourt (also a Liberal) in 1894 and this was not opposed by the Lords.

  25. Somerjohn

    “I’m not being judgemental here, simply trying to undrestand what’s going on.”

    Accepted.

    Thank you for an interesting analysis much of which I agree with, but I also think flawed in some respects.

    In one sense it is a clash of cultures, but in another it isn’t. It would be a clash of cultures if individuals only used one method or the other in their lives. However, from my experience many individuals use both approaches in their everyday lives and therefore their cultural experience encompasses both methods. Both methods have merit in the right circumstances and I use both.

    I have an honours science degree and am therefore well used to the scientific method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. This is absolutely the correct method for scientific research and similar activity. However, as I think I have explained to you before in some situations it is not a good method at all. In the fast-moving consumer goods industry decisions often have to be made with very little time and very little information so “gut feel”, “faith in one’s knowledge and ability” whatever you want to call it is the method of choice.

    “As TOH points out, that system falls down when confronted with a belief-based system that rejects the notion of empirical testing, provision of evidence, rules of logic etc.”

    Agreed

    “ It’s a game he refuses to play, or see the point of. From that point of view, a rational discussion is limited to a good-tempered exchange of views, not a process aimed at finding the right answer. “This is what I believe. If you don’t like it, tough”.

    Absolutely correct, it’s how I want to post here as I have explained many times before.

    “I do think that the basic ways of thinking instilled by higher education have a big effect in later life. “

    I agree with that as well. University helped me widen my horizons to take in many aspects of art, history, literature and serious music that I would probably have missed without the University experience.

    So in reality it all boils down to how I wish to post.

  26. Davwel
    Thank you also for your comments.

    “ I see no evidence that ToH has these qualities although he has been generously blessed in other ways, and it is wrong of Alec to expect detailed replies from ToH with these ingredients.”

    You just have to take my word for it (see my reply to Somerjohn), I certainly use the scientific method when investing for example, although “gut feel” also comes into it as it did when I took profits and turned my investments into cash before the 2008 crash.

    “ToH isn`t just not arguing in Alec`s style because of cussedness but because he shrewdly realises that this is not his strong point. “

    Not true, it is cussedness on my part I really don’t want to spend the time I am today very often.

    “Short sharp statements, faith in his judgement, and optimism, are his style, and we have simply to accept that..”

    Fair comment, that’s exactly how I want to post and it would be nice if people accepted that.

    “I could class ToH as a successful entrepreneur,”

    Not so I’m not that clever, but I was a successful businessman and yes, I was and am a great supporter of Thatchers’s premiership although she got Europe very wrong or at least her cabinet did. I did do very well during the Thatcher years spending most of them as a managing director and then a UK operations director. However, I made most of my current wealth by careful investing after I retired in 1992.

    “So keep on entertaining us please, “

    Happy to do so when I have the time.

  27. Alec

    Your 11.33

    Much to agree with in that post Alec, as far as Brexit goes. I won’t both to point out the error in the third line, I think we are past that. :-)

  28. Valerie

    Well done, very sensible. I appreciate my strongly held views can upset some people hence my advice to them.

  29. Good Afternoon everyone from Seat Number 78 on Momentum’s list here in wet Bournemouth in Dorset.

    IMO polls show that the Cons and their allies are going to win the next GE again.

    IMO they also over estimate Liberal Democrat figures.

  30. Very interesting Guardian poll on brexit.

  31. PETERW – thank you for your very comprehensive reply to my post!

  32. Valarie,

    ToHoward has addressed a polite post to you at 1.23.

    Just letting you know as may read it now.

  33. Chris,

    You may be right but polls showed the Tories would get a majority of over 100 even 6 weeks before the 2017 GE.

    I think past VI to result movements are not as good a guide as they have been in recent decades due to a return to 2 party politics in much of E&W and Brexit entrenching VI.

  34. Andrew Myers,
    “1) A new Tory leader
    2) JC getting off the fence
    3) Brexit issue being sorted by next election by way of a Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or a second referendum followed by remain.”
    Crystal ball time.

    1)There has been a little polling on the popularity of others who might become tory leader, and they all seem to do as badly as May. I think most likely May will remain leader until something happens about Brexit, so after negotiations, after a referendum on same, or possibly after a tory civil war. In any of those cases what matters will be the event, not the new leader.

    After whatever defining event, there will be a new leader to bury the distaste for May which will exist from one faction or another…unless she pulls off a brilliant Brexit. If she does, she could get a record breaking span as PM.

    2) JC going hard Brexit would tear labour apart and destroy its election chances. Libs would recover significantly.

    JC going remain would potentially only upset around 10% of labour voters (judging from polling). Most are already pro remain, or not committed leavers (or obviously they would have moved con already)

    There would probably be some modest gain from remainers who felt the previous soft brexit policy wasnt sufficiently different to the tories to bother voting for. Leadership from one main party pushing remain might cause undecideds to think there is something in remain and to shift that way. Remain has suffered from lack of political support. Its remarkable that a movement with so few politicians endorsing it is doing so well.

    3) If Brexit is truly over, then we would be back to economics. But brexit will not be over. A number of people have endorsed free trade and slashing taxation to make Brexit work. There is no way such a policy will boost tax revenue in the short term (and I dont believe it will in the long), and recriminations will abound.

    However, the next elections would probably be in the sweet spot after leaving but before anyone can see the results even short term, and so probably on a cut or spend traditional platform. Probably the pendulum swing just on this is against the tories (promising the referendum saved them last time out, then promising hard brexit proved less popular. They might actually have got a majority for soft Brexit)

  35. CL 1945

    @”IMO polls show that the Cons and their allies are going to win the next GE again.”

    I am glad you don’t reach the conclusion that it will therefore be true.

    A cynic , acquainted with these pages particularly, might suggest that the conclusion must therefore be Labour will win it :-)

    As Andrew Myers’ interesting question implies-there is much potential change for both parties before the next GE, which will have a significant VI effect.

    I think the dynamics of the Labour VI is so complex that I wouldn’t attempt to offer scenarios for his 2).

    On the Tory Leader though , I think the chances of May being replaced before the next GE are high-and the chances of the Conservative Party choosing the “wrong” candidate are even higher.

    So I’m reading everything McDonnell says at present :-)

  36. Danny – JC going remain would be his best chance of winning I agree, but that would really polarise North against South and I think could push Tory support further (given UKIP are all but dead) to the point where a number of seats go blue.

    The question is whether sufficient additional seats will go red in the South. Personally I don’t think they will as most Metropolitan seats are already Labour and I just have a feeling that 2017 was the high point for middle-England pro-Corbyn support. I don’t know why but I just have 320 Tory seats in my mind. I may be completely wrong of course!

  37. @ Colin

    “the chances of the Conservative Party choosing the “wrong” candidate are even higher”

    I can see plenty of ‘wrong’ candidates right now, but having trouble identifying a ‘right’ one. Have you any thoughts on who might be ‘right’? Is it someone who’s still on the sidelines at the moment?

    (Similar problem for Lab too. About the only thing going for LibDems is that they clearly do have someone better than the current leader waiting on the substitute bench.)

  38. @TRigguy, Colin

    I’m picking up rumblings that the tories have really had it with May. Not sure where from – press? twitter? – mainly because she so palpably can’t control anybody. Most of the cabinet seem to be on manoeuvres of one sort or another and she couldn’t even get her reshuffle done, something I don’t ever remember happening before.
    But my feeling is when push comes to shove, whilst everybody hates her each faction probably hates her a little less than the one they fear they would get if there was a change, so she may well survive

  39. Trigguy – on the sidelines now, but I think Tom Tugendhat would be excellent. JRM also possible but a bit too “Marmite” for my liking!

  40. TRIGGUY

    The short answer is not really.

    It so much depends on whether anyone on the current top team is able to put some positivity & direction into the offering which is likely to have broad appeal . I quite like Rudd, but her majority is a problem. I think Hunt could do it & for me he has the guts & tenacity , but , like Gove, has a negative image in some quarters.

    So I suppose the second rank in the Government is the place to look -and I don’t have a feel at all for an obvious candidate.

    May has been such a poor performer in public that it shakes ones faith a bit.

    A bit depressing for a Con voter :-)

  41. GUYMONDE

    Yes the Press are never short of suggestions that her end is nigh.

    I try to draw a distinction between Brexit kamizazes like Rees Mogg , and level headed backbenchers who can see the lack of leadership & public presence.

    Sadly, its the former group who will do the damage & make the most noise. The latter group just might get it right if they were allowed to.

  42. Colin

    At least May has managed to make Major look like a jolly good PM.

  43. CROFTY

    I think they are both thoroughly decent people .

    They share the problem of the EU headbanger tendency. Extraordinary really after all this time.

  44. Jim Jam

    Having read yours, I took a look at TOH’s post addressed to me. He implies that I am ‘upset’ by his ‘strongly held views’ :-)

    That’s not the case at all. I find them inaccurate and repetitive. As his post to me clearly shows :-)

  45. Thanks for the answers. Don’t know much about Tugendhat, will have to find out. Amber Rudd does sound plausible. Hunt is certainly tough enough, but can he relate to voters? Not obvious.

    New thread by the way.

  46. Andrew Myers,
    “but that would really polarise North against South and I think could push Tory support further (given UKIP are all but dead) to the point where a number of seats go blue. ”

    I really agree with Colin, that the whole thing is very compex and so dependent upon events that it is very hard to predict. We could end with a landslide for either party in 4 years time, but in general I think labour is on the ascendent, though of course from the position of conservatives having come first last time.

    I think the motivation of traditional labour supporters north and south is different, because they are different kinds of people. Strictly, when you say Brexit might polarise the vote, what it seems to have done is boost labours chances in the south and cut them in N. England, so in practice de-polarising the n-S divide.

    As I recollect, tories failed to capitalise on the leave vote in N. England in the last election as they had hoped to do. It really isnt clear what the pattern would be if labour became a more remain party, but it equally isnt clear they would suffer for doing so. Currently the tories are also a more remain party than their stance at the election, and I suspect this has benefitted them (in general, but not necessarily in seats.) Brexit has cut across support for both main parties, so even a 60/40 leave split does not guarantee the leave candidate will win (or vice versa). The non voting group in the two different kinds of vote might not be the same.

  47. I am the only person who thinks their is a paradox or irony in the Hard Brexit wish for an implementation rather than transitional arrangement.

    Labours’ official position (which means given recent history will be DD and May’s in a few months ha ha) is that there can’t be a vote on the deal until the terms of the deal are finalised and that will be after March 30th 2019 by which time the UK has left the EU.

    The paradox is that is RJM had his way and the final terms where agreed by this autumn than a referendum on the terms could be held on those terms with a no vote quite possibly leading to a second in/out ref.

    Hard Brexiteers may be more sensible to accept a transitional arrangement as that makes leaving next year even more nailed on. My guess is that they know this and also know that there is no chance of final deal being negotiated this year and their stance is more to do with posturing and positioning within the Tory party.

    Perhaps they are concerned that during the transition the mood in the UK will swing and the EU would allow a reversal as we won’t have really left, other than non involvement in EU governance. I cant see that myself but what do I know?

  48. Seems I am the new new thread monitor!!

  49. @ Jim Jam

    “Seems I am the new new thread monitor!!”

    And that you didn’t read my post.

1 10 11 12 13