YouGov’s regular voting intention figures this week are CON 42%(+1), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 6%(-1). Fieldwork was Sunday to Monday and changes are from mid-January, showing the stable levels of support that have become the norm in recent months.

One thing that is notable in the tracker questions is the question on whether Brexit was the right or wrong decision: 40% said right, 46% said wrong. Six points is the largest lead for “wrong” that YouGov have shown in this tracker, which has provoked some comment. In YouGov’s last poll there was a blip in the opposite direction and the results put “right” ahead for the first time in months. That didn’t mean anything in hindsight, so I’d urge caution on this one too. All polls have a margin of error, so you get extremes one way or the other – the thing to pay attention to the trend (which does now tend to show slightly more people think it’s the wrong decision than the right one) rather than get wrongly excited about the outliers.

Full tabs are here.


444 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 42%, LAB 42%, LD 6%”

1 3 4 5 6 7 9
  1. Just seen BBC news on-line and it is THE Customs Union that membership of is being ruled out of, so no story here.

    Assuming BBC news accurate of course.

  2. Interesting letter to The Times this morning :-

    “………..as for the Treasury’s 2016 long term forecast, it estimated that GDP in 2030 would be 7.5% lower if the UK left the EU with no deal on trade.,The analysis firstly estimated an impact on the loss of trade and then added a large “knock-on” effect from trade to productivity. The Treasury did not re-examine whether trade & productivity are related across richer countries. In fact they are not related. This sin of omission is not good enough when assessing a major issue of public policy”
    Graham Gudgin
    Ken Coutts
    Centre for Business Research
    Judge Business School
    University of Cambridge

  3. I wonder if the frantic comparison of precise TA terminology isn’t becoming a bit Pythonesque.

    Supposing we said:-

    The objective of the UK is to reduce the incidence of new Customs barriers between UK & EU to the minimum possible ,and to increase our ability to make TAs with third countries to the maximum possible”

    If we don’t take too much note of the chorus of “cake & eat it-can’t be done”, is there a large majority of UK voters who might say -yes -try for that ?

  4. @ CR – err, the gravity model is the basis of the UK Treasury and all groupthink tank models.

    @ CARFREW – option pricing has come a long way since Black Sholes (1973). However, it is a good example of “bad tradesman blaming the tool”. All these theories and models are fine if users “read the label” and understand the limitations of the product. As time goes by the product should be refined and if, after the passage of time, we discover the side effects are very bad then we discard it totally (e.g. Communism – great in theory, awful in practise). Derivatives are IMHO like nuclear fusion – capable of efficient energy or mass destruction.

  5. Got this from a friend. Quite funny IMHO :)

    Snake oil sales pitch: The EU Customs Union (sold under license as “Elixir for Economic Success”)

    Principle ingredient: the Gravity Model for trade designed back in the 1960s to predict GDP impacts.
    Applications: as good for the coming decades as it was back in the ol’ pot smoking 60s, applying to not just goods but also services and some even say FDI!
    Approved by: Isaac Newton, UK civil service, all EU trade surplus nations, SMMT and other major lobby groups, Blair, Clegg and Adonis.

    small print:
    known side effects
    – user will be unable to sign meaningful trade deals with anyone else
    – user will not benefit from lower prices outside of CET ‘protection’

    Suggested responses to likely questions:
    – How much is it going to cost? It more than pays for itself and you get a warm glow helping out poorer EU27 nations who need our money more than we do
    – What about “regulation without representation”, that doesn’t sound good? Excellent point, that is why we should really be trying to stay in the full EU which like a Porsche is a status symbol of success and being a luxury good commands a higher price of course, but one I’m sure you agree is worth paying (Note: do not use this in LAB heartlands)
    – What about immigration? (for LAB heartlands only). Well like Turkey, we can be in the CU but not the SM or if you want the full EU version then we can promise future EU reform that will tackle immigration – how about a slice of cake?

    If anyone asks anyone of the following then drop economic impact totally and move swiftly on to saying it is the only cure for the NI problem – nothing else will work.
    – What about jobs? I want a job’s first Brexit and by that I mean UK jobs, not EU27 jobs
    – Can you offer any historic or peer comparisons to show EU Customs Union has been a success?
    – What about the future of EU? Continued political integration and being a rule taker concerns me. Would we keep our vetoes? What about an EU army?
    – What about services and FDI? Services are not part of the CU and surely as a more independent nation we would have more ability to attract FDI and in future 3rd country trade deals surely being outside CET is an absolute must?

    If they still aren’t buying the “Elixir for Economic Success” then publicly denounce them as a N4zi or someone still fighting the N4zis (check with Remain HQ for which version is currently selling best).

    _______________________________

    Leave of course tried to sell snake oil in the past. The NHS bus being the obvious sham but “we haven’t left yet” as they say – all to play for once we do! Of the Leave snake oil still in production the most worrying one for me is “UFT milk with NHS honey” (UFT = Unilateral Free Trade).

    Anyway, back to paid work :)

  6. Colin,

    They did not wet their fingers enough when licking before putting in the air to assess the impact.

    The sectoral impact assessments in my view are more important as they should inform decisions about the desire relationship with the EU27 which may have special measures for some industries.

    Also, if Brexit hits some sectors harder HMG can look at offsetting domestic measures.

    The GDP is to an extent meaningless as a decision to leave has been taken, imo only the comparative aggregate net impact with no amelioration of the options available has any relevance.

  7. WB,

    I suspect Huff Post is right and at last we have a proper difference between Labour and Tory leaderships real positions.

  8. From that Paul Waugh article.

    ” Or, as another senior aide put it to me this morning: “The key point, as the PM said about 15 times last week, is we need to have freedom to sign trade deals”.

    Exactly.

  9. This is a post on pb.

    Don’t know how informed it is-but it is certainly a change to read about the practical aspects of post Brexit trade , rather than a lot of empty rhetoric & theology.

    ” On the customs union (“a”, “the”, and “customs arrangement”) both the EU and UK know there will be zero tariffs on goods, so the issue is how to police transport for Rules of Origin.

    Container ports shouldn’t be an issue. Most goods there are unloaded by crane and can wait many hours before being collected by lorry, or hauled away by locomotive. So there is scope for inspections and paperwork, if required. Indeed, for non-EU imports it already happens.
    Airport freight is varied, but not hugely. Consignment paperwork will be checked in freight terminals. It is a legal (safety) requirement for planes to list their cargo manifests in full. Goods will be scanned in the same way your baggage is every time you board, check-in, or collect from the carousel. That’s how they spot smugglers for a “random” inspection; the x-ray shows up a huge hole in your bag if you’re trying to sneak in 2,000 fags, and CCTV/customs officers then monitor who picks it up.
    The issue is Northern Ireland, and Dover/Eurotunnel. There are something like 13-14k lorries going through there each day. Norway uses an IT system and comms network to register goods before they leave the warehouse. Auto-Numberplate Recognition (APNR)/CCTV at the border, with mobile customs units that can then intercept behind the border for anyone who is fishy.
    I imagine we’d something similar and, as we’re starting from scratch (sort of) the system can be designed accordingly. APNR can easily scan every numberplate – just as your car reg flashes up overhead for your 2-hours free parking every time you go to park at Sainsbury’s. The challenge is integration of the IT, CCTV, ANPR, and database, via super-fast broadband, with a slick customs operation.
    The key to success is close collaboration between the UK and EU on the new system. A new border agreement would require data-sharing on fraud, monitoring and interception. But I don’t see that as a problem. The Sandhurst Treaty shows how practical Macron/May are.
    I’d argue that’s what the UK will try to do. It could take 5-10 years to fully implement such a system (IT infrastructure and training isn’t quick) so I’d expect “a” customs agreement on alignment transition in the meantime, with a long-term plan for integration into a new UK customs clearance regime.”

  10. @ANDREW MYERS
    “Back to the polling, if after the worst year in living memory of Tory fortunes, dire leadership and disarray over Brexit you cannot command more than parity in the polls then that is cause for serious self-analysis. ”

    I think this is because since June the”worst year in living memory” meme fails to stand up to scrutiny. Especially if you factor in what Labour has been doing.

    The Tories negotiated a C&S arrangement that apart from one wobble has looked solid.

    They’ve piloted the withdrawal bill through the Commons with just a single punch landed by the opposition.

    They’re in far less visible disarray over Brexit than Labour. Labour has routinely seen 50+ rebels in open defiance of the front bench on votes in the commons. There were an utterly unprecedented 30+ on a vote on the Queen’s speech. It’s astonishing how little attention this gets.

    I guess the message is that in a two side contest, so long as the other lot are playing worse, you’re fine. And in terms of disarray over Brexit, Labour is playing far worse.

  11. Well worth reading this, on why Corbyn and May both have problems (the former is a personal issue, the latter is a party one)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/02/why-labours-brexit-strategy-may-be-trouble-four-charts

    Essentially, Corbyn is out of step with his party’s voters (and members and MPs) on the Single Market, but his MPs are not.

    However Tory members and MPs are aligned on the Single Market, but both are out of step with their own voters whilst May is less so.

    Corbyn can compromise if he is willing to (he might not be, of course). The Tories have a rather more serious problem.

  12. To respond to the same quote:

    @ANDREW MYERS
    “Back to the polling, if after the worst year in living memory of Tory fortunes, dire leadership and disarray over Brexit you cannot command more than parity in the polls then that is cause for serious self-analysis.”

    We’ve heard this a lot, and it seems reasonable, a comforting refrain for the Tories. But I wouldn’t rush to judge anything until the local elections in May. I can see these going in almost any direction, and after last year’s GE, I wouldn’t like to predict anything.

    The only inevitable outcome will be the probable complete disappearance of UKIP wards. That’s a lot up for grabs. Maybe the Tories will get them by force of Brexit. Maybe Labour will sweep all aside with grass-roots enthusiasm. Maybe LibDems (and others) will surge back on a wave of protest votes. It really is all to play for.

    While local electrions are not the same as the GE, it seems likely to me that if there has been a serious shift in voter thinking, we’ll get some hints there. Maybe it’ll be boring and we’ll learn nothing, but there hasn’t been a boring election recently, and I think we should, as they say, ‘expect the unexpected’.

  13. @TREVOR WARNE

    “@ CARFREW – option pricing has come a long way since Black Sholes (1973). However, it is a good example of “bad tradesman blaming the tool”. All these theories and models are fine if users “read the label” and understand the limitations of the product. As time goes by the product should be refined and if, after the passage of time, we discover the side effects are very bad then we discard it totally (e.g. Communism – great in theory, awful in practise). Derivatives are IMHO like nuclear fusion – capable of efficient energy or mass destruction.”

    ——–

    Wouldn’t disagree with any of that Trev, though none of it challenges my point that it is reasonable to borrow from hard science and apply it to Economics.

    If economists overreach, then yes that can lead to error, but the mere fact of using something from the hard sciences does not automatically mean they treat the whole of economics as a hard science, as you contended.

    They borrow from metallurgy the science of soft annealing and use it to calculate optimal delivery routes but that doesn’t mean they consider business to be a hard science either!!

  14. Danny (7:35am)
    “Though while the tories lost the election, …”

    I can concede that the Tories did worse than they hoped, but to say that being the largest party and forming the government is in any sense ‘losing’, is just insanity. On second thoughts, it’s more as Humpty Dumpty says – “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    TOH
    Agreed. A lovely day. I’m off to do a bit of gardening.

  15. Trevor Warne,
    seems to me the debate is being directed towards the putative costs of Brexit, but very little to the gains. Leavers assert that the Uk will be able to make better trade deals than it enjoys currentl via the EU. Leavers are saying we must leave a customs union, so as to preserve this advantage.

    Trouble is, I see no reason why economic logic should not apply to any future trade deals. We will be a smaller market than the whole EU and a lot more desperate to make agreements. The only possible outcome of such a situaion will be worse terms than we enjoy now. Why this insistence on a right to be worse off?

  16. “Baby boomers to get far more welfare support than Generation X and Millennials, warns report

    Wealth taxes are the only way to avoid harsh future welfare cuts, study says – as the post-war generation prepares to drain the public finances

    Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor @Rob_Merrick Monday 5 February 2018 09:45 GMT122 comments

    Retiring baby-boomers are poised to enjoy the rewards of the welfare state – while younger generations could miss out

    New taxes on wealth are the only way to avoid harsh future welfare cuts for Millennials and other working-age people, a stark report has warned.

    Baby boomers – born between 1946 and 1966 – are poised to receive a bumper 20 per cent or more in support than they will have contributed in taxes over the course of their lives, the study said.

    But the prospects are far bleaker for younger cohorts, for those in Generation X – born from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s – and for Millennials, born later, according to the Resolution Foundation.”

  17. Pete W,

    I read what you say about the Labour rebellions on the remain side and it is embarrassing.

    However, when the choice is between a softer Lab Brexit or a harder Tory one they will vote with their front bench.

    The key number in this parliament and for me remains so is how many Cons remain MPs would be prepared to rebel on a meaningful vote?

    If we add 10 Lab leave rebels to the DUP/Cons total remove speaker and SF then15 or 16 would be needed to vote with Labour and the combined opposition.

    About 10 have already indicated they would and I guess more are re-assured for now but a hard Brexit stance might get to that magic 16. How many Tory remainers have told the PM and/or whips in private what their red lines are?

  18. jim jam,
    “The GDP is to an extent meaningless as a decision to leave has been taken”
    ah but that is an assertion rather than a fact. Nothing is decided until it is decided (adapted from tory mantra).

    Colin,
    you seem to have forgotten the recent agrement where the government committed to open borders with the Eu without any customs checks!

  19. @Trevor Warne – thankyou for your posts.

    I see not the slightest bit of evidence within these to back up your asserion of economics being viewed as a hard science – indeed, rather the opposite. It seems clear to me that the gravity model is well debated and discussed within the field, with limitations and empirical successes apparent. You haven’t given a shred of evidence that anyone of note believes believes these to be certainties. Applying theoretical approaches from hard sciences to the social sciences is nothing new, and doesn’t mean that practitioners are making any claims that economics is as accurate as physics. Frankly, it’s silly to imply such a thing.

    Likewise with the rest. Nothing you’ve said about the IMF etc is particularly disagreeable to me, but none of it is focused on the point in question.

    I gather you have paid work to return to now, which I suggest you do. I think we’re done here.

    I certainly am.

  20. Survation have sneaked out the tables for a poll onto their Archive, that no one seems to have noticed yet:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Full-Voting-Intention-Tables-310118.pdf

    it’s dated 31 January with fieldwork 26-29 Jan. It may have been commissioned for the Mail on Sunday but not used, though the dates aren’t quite right for a Sunday poll. They did a similar anonymous poll in October, so they may have tagged it onto commercial work. It’s an online poll with an initial sample of 1059 and includes NI. VI figures (after weighting, LTV, and rounding to get rid of their silly decimal points) are:

    Con 40% (+2)

    Lab 43% (-3)

    Lib Dem 8% (+2)

    SNP/PC 3% (-)

    UKIP 3% (-1)

    Green 1% (-)

    Changes are from Survation’s last MoS poll (f/w 30 Nov – 01 Dec):

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Final-MoS-041217.pdf

    There’s also an EU Ref question Imagine there was a referendum tomorrow with the question ‘’Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’’ How would you vote?:

    Leave 46% (-)

    Remain 49% (-)

    Undecided 5% (-)

    Figures after LTV etc and (non)changes from the same question in the MoS poll above.

    Survation continues to give a slightly bigger lead than other pollsters. The Lab-Con gaps may be down slightly, partly from more attention on the government and UKIP collapse, but also a too-low Lib Dem figure in the previous MoS (sorry Chris) being corrected. Otherwise the picture of stasis continues.

  21. I’m afraid the Treasury’s economic modelling has not looked far enough ahead. World population will be a staggering 30 per cent higher in 2050 – up from 7.5bn to 10bn. Millions will flood into Europe like never before and after a couple of years will be able to claim EU citizenship, making them legally entitled to settle here if we were still in the EU, overwhelming public services. This will dwarf one or two GDP per centage points they are worried about now.

  22. @ CARFREW – I have no issue with “borrowing” ideas then tweaking them. That is how progress is made and I’ve pretty much made a career out of that approach as many others have – no patents on freedom of thought :)
    I think we are broadly aligned and see no need to pursue full alignment. We can each operate within our own jurisdictions and continue to share ideas and work on common problems together – much like Corbyn is doing with May ;)

    @ COLIN – our position in negotiations is very weak and IMHO we are playing our hand very badly, however, in principal back when this all started I had thought we’d “transition” out in a phased manner – maybe we still can?

    IMHO things like agri-food will take longer than say cars and car parts. It has a lot to do with how quickly we could adapt, current trade balances, perishability, etc. Companies operating JIT inventories etc in industries highly protected by the CU will just have to suck it up or rearrange supply chains to minimise any -ve impacts (ie reshore some manufacturing to UK and in a few isolated cases move some engine manufacturing, etc to EU or, more likely, simply suck up a small tariff as a hit on profit margin – net winner HMRC and hence UK taxpayer, net loser large multinationals)
    This isn’t actually just a IMHO but I have no idea why certain reports still haven’t been published. I understand the political sensitivity but we are sleep-walking into either EEA+CU or crash out on WTO terms and time is against us. In aggregate I suspect the sector reports are “good” (economically for GDP, jobs and lower consumer inflation) – of course there will be winners (e.g. UK SME suppliers) and losers (e.g. German car companies) but the serious issue is implementation time.

  23. JIM JAM

    @”However, when the choice is between a softer Lab Brexit or a harder Tory one they will vote with their front bench.”

    “Choice” is something no party has had to face yet.

    Choice rears it’s head when the EU say what they will agree to. Then UK politicians really do have to put their necks on the block.

    Until then all the talk is about “preferences”-NOT “choice”.

  24. Re: Why the Opposition isn’t making further headway against the government.

    It’s partly that Brexit is motivating leavers to stick with the government, which is hard to Corbyn to counter, given Brexit’s dominance. If he picks Remain, Tories still have the sizeable Leave vote. If he picks Leave, he might only split the Leave vote while losing Remainers.

    But more generally, the fruits of the Postwar settlement have been used to keep the left in check.

    In the Early Twentieth Century, it became clear that despite loads of growth and wealth, workshop of the World etc. wealth tended to get concentrated at the top rather than trickling down.

    So postwar, measures were put in place to counter this. Nationalisation of essentials to stop capital eliminating competition and then price gouging. Full employment to stop Capital driving down wages and conditions. Investment to provide cheap housing etc.

    The abandonment of this approach following the Oil Crisis in the Seventies meant that once again, there might be growth, but it wasn’t trickling down much. However, now one could leverage the fruits of the postwar settlement. Initially via selling off utilities cheap, and demutualising etc., and then selling off housing cheap.

    When that ran out of steam, the next step was to then inflate these assets acquired cheaply like housing. By really quite large amounts. And then there were new instruments like QE that could provide further largesse. With boomers continuing to benefit from the Postwar settlement via good pensions, it’s quite a challenge for the opposition to counter.

    It’s all a bit ironic…

  25. JONBOY

    Excellent point.

    I posted a short while ago about the Rise of Eurasia.

    EU will be the small ,remote , western bit of this new Economic Behemoth.

  26. @Colin

    “Depends what you mean by “taking over”.
    Is the ability to organise the selection of Labour candidates for LAs & Westminster who support your particular views & to control the Parties overall strategic direction , policy development & discipline procedures through its Governing body ,from an organisation separate from The Labour Party-“taking over the Labour Party” ?”

    For me Colin, the key words in your sentence are “the ability to organise”. You appear to see Momentum as a panzer division rolling inexorably to victory under the leadership of Field Marshal McDonnell.

    Momentum may well want to achieve this but, in my view, it is a movement made up of different factions containing people with different beliefs and visions of the future . They may well be in the ascendancy in some CLPs, though certainly not in mine , but I don’t believe they will ever be a well-drilled national force and, as Jim Jam points out, are increasingly likely to splinter.

    That is why I do not see Momentum as the threat which you clearly do. I don’t think they are worth losing sleep over :-)

  27. @VALERIE

    “Is the ability to organise the selection of Labour candidates for LAs & Westminster who support your particular views & to control the Parties overall strategic direction , policy development & discipline procedures through its Governing body ,from an organisation separate from The Labour Party-“taking over the Labour Party”

    ——–

    They are cheating by taking over democratically, as opposed to the favoured arrangement of business effectively buying parties etc.

  28. “EU will be the small ,remote , western bit of this new Economic Behemoth”

    ———

    Unless we grow our population to compete. Which might explain a few things…

  29. VALERIE

    Thanks

    I acknowledged Jim Jam’s idea that they would splinter-Life of Brian portrays the scenario for these sort of people brilliantly.

    I don’t lose any sleep over them.

    I just think that one of the very few plus points out there for Cons at present is the potential for bad headlines in the forces which JC has spawned around him.

  30. CARFREW

    @”Unless we grow our population to compete”

    ………..er………….”europe” will be part of it.!

    …….Hence the name-Eurasia.

  31. @Colin

    Obviously but if we grow our population then we won’t be sch a “small bit” now will we. Maybe I should not have said “compete” but instead talked of not being swamped.

    Except that there will still be competition with the other big trading blocks.

  32. Good afternoon all from a cold and sunny central London.

    Hmmm…I only get an hour for my lunch so can posters please keep their comments down to bite size chunks and refrain from posting entire manuscripts.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

  33. @Allan C

    I get as long as I want for my lunch so could you make your posts longer as it’s a pain to have to skim through all the fluff!

    Kthx

  34. Agree Colin,

    Hence while MPs are for the most part expressing preferences much is posturing or pressurising. When the time comes to make a choice however limited or extensive that might be is when the parliamentary arithmetic and willingness to ‘rebel’ becomes meaningful rather than just embarrassing.

  35. @AndrewIII

    “The vast majority of the electorate no longer care much about the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Tories (barring a few Labour hacks and obsessives”

    ——————————————————-

    Ooh Andrew, that is not the case in these parts. The ex-Lib Dem voters I know do blame the party for going into coalition with the Tories. They despise them for the way Lib Dems embraced the Tories’austerity agenda and acted like a Greek chorus constantly declaring it was all Labour’s fault, with no mention of the causes of the financial crisis in 2008.

    My own Lib Dem MP developed a split personality. On the one hand he blamed Labour for the swingeing cuts to public expenditure which of course is he voted for. He then sent round lots of leaflets blaming our Labour Council for making cuts to public services which were a result of said swingeing cuts.

    Anyway he got the boot in 2015.

  36. @ ALEC – “I think we’re done here. I certainly am.

    Err, clearly not it would seem! I gave you a get-out with the excuse the BoE used but you have refused to take it and wish to keep digging? I’m game!

    How is that 3.6% justification going – who “of note” agrees with you?

    Plenty of people disagree(d) with UK Treasury model – a large part of the 52% I expect. I’d say that is of note. If your after Nobel prize winners then Josesph Stiglitz (2001). Even darling of the ne0liberals Paul Krugman is careful on overplaying the role of “gravity” beyond a role in predicting volume (not whose GDP benefits from that increased volume)
    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/gravity/

    So:
    ” It seems clear to me that the gravity model is well debated and discussed within the field, with limitations and empirical successes apparent.”
    Really?? Then why are groupthink thanks using it to predict GDP and even things like FDI. Regarding trade volumes (its original purpose) it has indeed been debated and discussed and using empirical evidence it has been found wanting to say the least. Economists like Stigltiz etc are trying to find a post-ne0liberal model for Western economies. Ideologies become imbedded and are hard to shift – ne0liberalism is on the wane, what comes next is TBA!

  37. With you Allan Christie, so I’ll keep it brief as possible.
    Apparently there is a model for the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU and that comes from the other side of continent: Ukraine!

  38. Valarie,

    Andrew is a Cons or Labour supporter (think he or she is English) whose mission is parody the LD’s.

    I think some posters from the extremes may be similarly be facades either for fun or aiming to debilitate.

  39. Mildly interesting poll released by Survation done for Bath Labour in September showing that if each party had an equal chance of winning the next election there then more people would vote Labour (36%) than Con or LibDem (30%). Perhaps gives an insight into the extent of tactical voting?

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Bath-Labour-Tables-for-Publication.pdf

  40. Not sure about the 10% of CON VI voters who would vote Lib Dem if they thought all three parties had an equal chance – unless those CONs were really Lib Dem voters who thought that it was going to be a LAB-CON battle in the next election and so were planning to vote CON?

  41. Reference momentum I agree with some on the left who post here that it’s
    Influence is overestimated, not that it doesn’t pose a threat to democracy in as much that it seeks to have likeminded individuals elected to local and government posts and is prepared to con joule and imtimadate those who don’t think as they do within the Labour Party and seek to remove those individuals from councils or Parliament.
    The reason why I don’t believe there a substantive force in British Politics is rather like Militant Tendancy before them the momentum power base is a hotch pot of different left wing factions which although on the surface seem United under the momentum banner are fated to fall apart should Labour win the next GE as each faction strives to dominate the political agenda,and under what I perceive will be the weak leadership of Corbyn who like Kinnock before him will struggle to control these factions are destined to make the splits in the currant Tory party look like the model for a strong and stable government.

  42. @Trevor Warne – “Err, clearly not it would seem! I gave you a get-out with the excuse the BoE used but you have refused to take it and wish to keep digging?”

    Indeed, you did say something about the BoE that made no sense at all and wasn’t remotely relevant to the point in question, and you claimed that this was some form of ‘get out’ for me? I’m afraid I didn’t understand that, nor do I still, and I have no need of a ‘get out’ anyway – thanks all the same. Chaff and distraction.

    “How is that 3.6% justification going – who “of note” agrees with you?”

    Well, as I’ve said before, the actual data is looking quite promising I think. Again, as I said before, based on the OBR before and after forecasts backed up with retrospective actual GDP measurements (now into the second and third revisions for some of the data – yes, we really do know how they calculate GDP) we’ve already seen a 1% slow down, with the new 2018 forecasts now suggesting a further 0.8% of slippage or so in the next year.

    If you then take into account the +ve impact of the additional 0.6% pa of GDP equivalent of additional borrowing and the fact that the original forecast was based on an exit by March 2019 with no transition period, which has helped allay immediate business concerns, I’d say the data supporting the original forecast looks pretty solid.

    As to who agrees with me – I’ve no idea. I just looks at the actual data and make my own mind up and don’t get too sidetracked with bluff and bluster about this and that. Just sticking to the numbers, really.

    “So

    ” [From me] It seems clear to me that the gravity model is well debated and discussed within the field, with limitations and empirical successes apparent.”
    [from you] Really?? Then why are groupthink thanks using it to predict GDP and even things like FDI. Regarding trade volumes (its original purpose) it has indeed been debated and discussed and using empirical evidence it has been found wanting to say the least.”

    I think this really encapsulates why some people find your posts completely baffling. Of the gravity model, I clearly said “….. with limitations and empirical successes apparent…” and you said “…. it has indeed been debated and discussed and using empirical evidence it has been found wanting to say the least.”

    What you actually said was in complete agreement with what I said, but somehow you are presenting this as a killer point against what I said. Frankly, it’s completely daft. You’ve just found a way to repeat almost precisely the point I was making, and then you stand back and shout ‘ha – gotcha!’. It really is just incomprehensible.

    We both agree the gravity model has flaws, and we both agree that these flaws have been widely discussed within the field of economics. We may both agree that while the gravity model has some predictive success in some fields, it has also proven to fall short in other ways.

    It is still used in economics, along with many other approaches to many other aspects of economic analysis, but it is recognised, as they all are, by virtually everyone in the field, as an imprecise tool within an imprecise science. This doesn’t mean that economists don’t try to estimate things – they just accept that these are estimates, not pure science ‘facts’ that are correct with a 95% confidence interval. That is what you claimed, and you are just wrong.

    All you have succeeded in doing is highlighting what my, @Carfrew and @Chris Riley and others were pointing out to you from the outset.

  43. COLIN

    “I just think that one of the very few plus points out there for Cons at present is the potential for bad headlines in the forces which JC has spawned around him.”

    With the way our press is balanced there seems to have been that potential forever Colin – possibly longer.

  44. COLIN

    “I just think that one of the very few plus points out there for Cons at present is the potential for bad headlines in the forces which JC has spawned around him.”

    With the way our press is balanced there seems to have been that potential forever Colin – possibly longer.

  45. Turk
    As ever your grasp of Labour politics is shaky, it was Kinnock who sorted out Militant good and proper. Nothing weak there, prepared the way for TB and all that followed.

  46. Regarding Momentum, the critical thing is the extent to which they’re pragmatic rather than ideological. The same applying to Corbyn and McDonnell etc.

    To what extent are they keen to stick to stuff that won’t undermine the party’s standing*. There is much speculation that it might wind up like Militant etc., perhaps from those who might fervently wish it would, but thus far, it seems to be die what speculative.

    One would have thought that the left have learned the lessons of the past, in fact they were so willing to compromise they let Nulab take over. They’ve seen the problem with that now, but it doesn’t mean they’ll swing the whole other way.

    * One might reasonably argue that it was more the Nulabbers who were doing things to undermine the party rather than the left.

  47. Can I just apologise to everyone – I appreciate these ding dongs between two posters can get extremely tedious to wade through. I will try to desist – it’s not my job to be some kind of UKPR logic monitor, and I can get very boring at times.

  48. CROFTY

    @”With the way our press is balanced there seems to have been that potential forever Colin – possibly longer.”

    You feel TM is getting a good Press ?

1 3 4 5 6 7 9