ICM’s regular poll for the Guardian is out today and has topline voting intention figures of CON 41%(nc), LAB 40%(-1), LDEM 8%(+1). Fieldwork ws Friday to Sunday and changes are from the large ICM poll in mid-January. Tabs are here.

The latest Survation poll meanwhile has topline figures of CON 40%(+3), LAB 43%(-2), LDEM 8%(+2). Fieldwork was the previous weekend, and changes are since the start of December. While Labour’s lead has fallen away since the previous poll, I suspect this is largely a reversion to the mean after an unusual poll last time. Full tabs are here.

Survation also ask how people would vote in a second referendum on EU membership (and unlike some other polls that ask this question, weight it by likelihood to vote!). In the latest poll the figures are Remain 51%, Leave 49%.


298 Responses to “Latest ICM and Survation voting intentions”

1 4 5 6
  1. ON
    There are other examples of variant spellings outside Northumbria – e.g. Aldeburgh. Also, -bury is very common, which is another variant. E.g. Glastonbury, Shrewsbury, Bury, etc.

  2. Pete B

    Good point.

  3. LASZLO

    “it would be easier to deport the low skilled British people, and if nobody wants them, creating a health insurance system (also proposed earlier) that would eliminate them”

    Come on now, let’s not be silly. Placing legal limits on migration is orders of magnitude easier, both on a practical and a political level. It’s funny that you should talk about rational arguments about immigration, when the rest of your post is really just a series of emotive arguments as to why it’s morally wrong (in your opinion) for voting populations to want to place any limits on immigration.

    There are, anyway, clear costs to immigration as well as benefits. London has grown economically and culturally off the back of high levels of immigration over the last few decades, but at the same time immigrants now account for 60% of private renters and 40% of social renters in a city suffering from severe housing affordability issues. The externalities associated with immigration are felt by the existing population rather than businesses, it’s perfectly rational for voters to want them limited, the question is just by how much. After all, most people would accept that to have totally open borders would be harmful to the UK, but to call an absolute halt to immigration would be harmful too. There’s a position somewhere in between the two which represents the greatest good, the debate is just over how you figure it out.

  4. I’m not a philologist, as you requested, but my understanding is that the -ough ending of many words was a product of the 17th Century penchant for the Latinisation of English, combined with the spread of printing and hence spelling standardisation of the period. It’s too late to look up references to prove it though (or perhaps I should say tho!).

  5. Pete B

    Thanks. Whether that is fully accurate or not, it seems eminently reasonable and satisfies my curiosity..

  6. What do folks think about this observation? If the leaked forecasts resemble the truth, my understanding is not that we will actually be worse off in any of the scenarios, but that growth would be slower than if we stayed in the EU. If this is the case, shouldn’t Brexit appeal to Greens and others who feel that we are exploiting the planet too much, and that capitalism is bad? We would be leading the way in restricting ourselves to a more sustainable future. Just a thought.

  7. Pete B

    Some enthusiasts for population limitation have made similar points.

    https://www.populationmatters.org/scottish-green-promotes-unsustainable-growth/

    Their criticisms possibly fall down because the problem of world over-population isn’t solved by limiting it in one small European island.
    The exploitation of the planet isn’t reduced by limiting the geographical distribution of the human population.

    While I’m sure that there are a fair number of Greens that could be described as “anti-capitalist” in the sense of opposing the ne0-liberal agenda (as there are in other parties), I’ve never seen anything from the SGP to suggest that they want to replace capitalism with some other ism.

  8. Thanks ON. G’night all.

  9. @Somerjohn “@SeaChange was saying CU membership wasn’t that important because goods exports to CU were only 27% of our total goods exports; I was saying they were 49% to EU (which means over 50% to CU, which adds Turkey and others).”

    Read my post again. I was not saying it was not important I was putting the case for and against staying in the CU. I said having tariff-free, frictionless goods trade with the EU were benefits as that is 27% of our exports.

    In my post I even explained why it was 27% and not 43% (last annual numbers for exports with to EU) as I had deducted services because they are not covered by the CU.

  10. Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 43% (+1)
    LAB: 39% (-3)
    LDEM: 8% (+2)

    via @YouGov, Feb 2018
    Chgs. w/ 29 Jan

    Ooh ‘eck.

  11. @Somerjohn — You are completely off-base:

    Here is what I wrote:

    You could add an addendum if you want to add the positive benefits and negative consequences of that situation:

    Do you think the EU should continue to decide our import tariffs and our trade policy when we are no longer an EU member by remaining in the EU Customs Union?

    This would mean we can take advantage of zero tariffs and frictionless trade in goods with the EU which makes up approximately 27% of our exports. It would also mean we could take advantage of the EU’s current free-trade agreements that will cover approximately 30% of the world’s economy.

    This would have the disadvantage that we could sign no new trade agreements ourselves with the other 70% of the world’s economy and could not lower the high EU’s high tariffs on food. It would also mean the EU’s agreements would be unlikely to consider the special needs of the UK as our economy is 80% services.


    Note: 27% figure is the 2016 43% of trade reduced by services which accounted for 38% of the 43%.

    What I wrote is unambiguous, goods trade with the EU in the Customs Union is approximately 27% of our exports.

    Here is the Commons Library Briefing Paper (Number 7851, 19 December 2017) on the subject. (They have not cherry-picked any particular quarter which will have seasonal variances).
    http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf
    Have a read of it, it’s instructive.

    You will see from the summary:

    •The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2016, UK exports to the EU were £236 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £318 billion (54% of all UK imports).

    •The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has fallen over time from 54% in 2006 to 43% in 2016. The share of UK imports accounted for by the EU fell from 58% in 2002 to 50% in 2011 before increasing to 54% in 2016.

    •The UK had an overall trade deficit of £82 billion with the EU in 2016. A surplus of £14 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of £96 billion on trade in goods.

    •The UK had a trade surplus of £39 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £78 billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of £39 billion on trade in goods.

    •Services accounted for 38% of the UK’s exports to the EU in 2016. Financial services and other business services are important categories of services exports to the EU.

    •Wales and the North East of England had the joint highest percentage of goods exports going to the EU of all the countries and regions in the UK in 2016. The East of England had the highest proportion of goods imports from the EU.

    •EU tariffs are generally low but are high on some goods, especially agricultural products.

    —-

    Everything I have said is consistent with that and I assume you have simply misunderstood what I wrote.

  12. Neil A,
    “with any reduction in UK contributions to the EU factored in”

    All the evidence suggests the Uk direct payments are negligible. Much talked about, but we here have been through the effects of compounding year after year small changes in growth due to being a member, or not. In a few decades this effect becomes much bigger annually than the payments.

    Neil A,
    “Governments can be pretty jobsworth and stupid in their application of rules.”

    No, I suspect that if you made exceptions to the minimum income limits for teachers. doctors and nurses, you might suddenly find you don’t really have a policy of restricting any immigration at all.

    Or put it another way, the existing level of immigration was already mostly essential workers and it is impossible to restrict migration without cutting into these classes. So the real cost of reducing immigration will be a shortage of teachers, doctors, nurses. Do voters really want that? Is it acceptable that the GDP loss might actually be taking place in delivery of health services to the voters?

    And while we are at it, the problem of farm labourers has been glossed over, but the loss of such low paid workers will eliminate an industry. Maybe we dont care about then having to import asparagus and apples, but that trade deficit just keeps getting bigger after Brexit…

  13. Pete B,
    ” my understanding is not that we will actually be worse off in any of the scenarios, but that growth would be slower than if we stayed in the EU”

    I dont understand your point. If growth is slower, then we will be worse off. Though I agree that real individual wealth is badly measured by GDP either national or per capita. Per capita is pretty meaningless for this if one person might be earning 500x what another is.

    Wes,
    “Westminster voting intention:
    CON: 43% (+1)
    LAB: 39% (-3)
    LDEM: 8% (+2)
    …Ooh ‘eck.”

    Now, interesting polling question: At the last election labour managed to lag 20 points at the start, encouraged the government to call an election and thereby improved their position when the real result was a draw. The strategy was let down by the SNP failing to keep their seats. If labour can push down their polling by ten points, will it encourage the tories to call another elections, and then with the labour campaign recovery of 20%, will they this time end up 10% ahead?

    Or put another way, what was the effect causing the labour polling lag last time, and would it be replicated if there really was another election some time soon?

    To answer my own question, I all through pointed out the large numbers of dont knows, which fell as the campaign went along. People actually changed their minds during the campaign. Is the situation building up for this to happen again?

  14. @Danny ”@seachange You could also add in the sheer capital cost and debt repayments necessary to fund the building of all the infrastructure required for such rapid population growth.”
    – “Surely, it would be self financing from the incomes from the property. That seems to be the view of housing associations and local councils? Probably even turn a profit., in a relatively short time. Hasnt this been the experience of new town projects?”

    Infrastructure also means roads, hospitals, schools, new government administration offices, airports, ports, telecommunications, sewerage, power stations, power grids etc etc

    Of course then there is the cost of hiring and training all the people to run the increase need in services.

    That’s why a controlled high-skilled high-net benefit immigration policy is a sensible fiscal policy.

  15. GARJ,
    “Companies competing in international markets are not generally the ones paying minimum wage, that’s reserved for people doing low-status service jobs in the domestic market.”

    Such as office cleaners, keeping their premises clean? Do they have dealings with civil servants who rely on subcontractors paying minimum wage to cut the tax bill? Does granny have a foreign care assistant, thereby reducing the cost to the taxpayer or directly to the employee of that exporting company? Do people get to work using UBER cabs?

    An exporting company only functions because the infrastructre, including roads, taxation, schools, health care, which all the workers need is being taken care of by the system as a whole. Even foreign workers in fields picking raspberries are contributing to those backup services. The exporting company itself is the tip of an iceberg.

    “you want to keep high levels of immigration in order to create an underclass of people to do menial work for you cheaply? ”

    No, I would go for slashing directors pay and boosting pay at the bottom, but I dont see much sign of this happening. I would go for wholesale remodelling of society. However, I dont see that as very likely, and in the meanwhile it is important to understand the truths behind how society functions now.

    The truth is that people voting to get rid of foreign workers because they see them as competition for jobs, homes, healthcare, are misunderstanding how the system works, and actually will end up worse off if they get their way. Because these immigrants are not pushing UK citizens out of work, but actually subsidising UK citizens standard of living, even if it might still be considered inadequate and unfair compared to other UK citizens.

    As to whether I am now being unfair to immigrants by exploiting them, no I am not. They have a free choice whether to come here or not, and only come because the deal on offer is better than the one back home. One of the great things about free movement within the EU is that at any time they can opt to go back home, or return to the Uk again in the future if circumstances change again. Its far better than the traditional visa system, which imposes limitations on people, forcing them to stay here and never go home or stay in particular jobs, for fear of losing the visa qualification. Such systems actually lock in immigrants and stop them leaving again.

    Abandoning freedom of movement will be wholly harmfull to labour supply in the Uk, and has never led to more immigration. I mentioned it before, but a linked government paper on immigration showed that the rise in EU migration a couple of years ago happened just as the Uk cracked down on immigration from the rest of the world. The labour market adjusted automatically, increasing EU migrants to meet demand when world migrants were deliberately cut. What it illustrated was that EU migration is demand let, it is not people just coming here and displacing brits. If we want to cut immigration, all we need to do is limit the supply of jobs in the Uk, and it will drop automatically. But be very careful what you want to crack down on, because cutting the number of NHS nurses or teachers (for example) is not going to be seen by anyone as a vote winner. Nor is cutting raspberry pickers, when it leads to higher taxes on remaining industry.

  16. “They argue that Brexit has had the effect of deeply embedding tribal politics, based on social identity, into British political life, and that it is difficult to envision this changing any time soon.”

    https://ucl-brexit.blog/

  17. Sea Change,
    “Infrastructure also means roads, hospitals, schools,”

    Thats why I mentioned the new towns projects, which must include all those things and which turned a profit in the end.

    “That’s why a controlled high-skilled high-net benefit immigration policy is a sensible fiscal policy.”

    See my answer to GARJ, why maintaining low skills immigration is even more important than high skills. Because frankly we would rather they do the dirty work and we do the value added. Why the proposed immigration policy is a total nonsense, and indeed will have voters screaming at you when the nurses shortage bites. A policy of insisting UK people do the scut work instead of the nice well paid jobs is indefensible!

  18. “After months of wrangling and Tory infighting over the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU, a set of proposals have been drawn up that aim to maximize what Brexiteers see as the “opportunities” now available to Britain as a result of exiting the bloc.

    The outlines of the long-awaited plan, which will be discussed by a Brexit sub-committee of May’s Cabinet Thursday and are expected to be signed off by the full Cabinet over the coming weeks, envisages the U.K. diverging from a series of key EU rules and regulations “immediately” after the end of any Brexit transition period while retaining the power to go further in other areas at a later stage, according to senior British officials.

    One official named three areas where the government wants to diverge after Brexit: agricultural subsidies currently administered under the Common Agricultural Policy, financial services regulation and trade policy.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-mays-plan-for-immediate-break-with-eu-after-brexit/

  19. “After months of wrangling and Tory infighting over the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU, a set of proposals have been drawn up that aim to maximize what Brexiteers see as the “opportunities” now available to Britain as a result of exiting the bloc.

    The outlines of the long-awaited plan, which will be discussed by a Brexit sub-committee of May’s Cabinet Thursday and are expected to be signed off by the full Cabinet over the coming weeks, envisages the U.K. diverging from a series of key EU rules and regulations “immediately” after the end of any Brexit transition period while retaining the power to go further in other areas at a later stage, according to senior British officials.

    One official named three areas where the government wants to diverge after Brexit: agricultural subsidies currently administered under the Common Agricultural Policy, financial services regulation and trade policy.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-mays-plan-for-immediate-break-with-eu-after-brexit/

  20. “After months of wrangling and Tory infighting over the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU, a set of proposals have been drawn up that aim to maximize what Brexiteers see as the “opportunities” now available to Britain as a result of exiting the bloc.

    The outlines of the long-awaited plan, which will be discussed by a Brexit sub-committee of May’s Cabinet Thursday and are expected to be signed off by the full Cabinet over the coming weeks, envisages the U.K. diverging from a series of key EU rules and regulations “immediately” after the end of any Brexit transition period while retaining the power to go further in other areas at a later stage, according to senior British officials.

    One official named three areas where the government wants to diverge after Brexit: agricultural subsidies currently administered under the Common Agricultural Policy, financial services regulation and trade policy.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-mays-plan-for-immediate-break-with-eu-after-brexit/

  21. @Pete B – “What do folks think about this observation? If the leaked forecasts resemble the truth, my understanding is not that we will actually be worse off in any of the scenarios, but that growth would be slower than if we stayed in the EU. If this is the case, shouldn’t Brexit appeal to Greens…”

    It’s being reported that the projected scenarios include an allowance for gains made by cutting regulation, including in environmental protection. Not what Greens want.

  22. I see three posts disease is spreading!

    Sam, seems to me the statements are incompatible with the agreement over the Irish border.

    The article you linked says “Everyone around Cabinet agreed there should be a Brexit bonus,”

    I guess they quoted that because it is a particularly farcical comment. As if the cabinet has any power to create such a thing! Will they have a whip round? Dip into their trust funds?

    Although it does also say “the prime minister has made it clear in private that Britain must aim high in its opening offer to the EU, according to one of the officials.”

    So maybe the government expects things to go like last time. We make impossible demands, and then sign up to everything.

    Curiously Davis is also quoted as saying he does not want to diverge from EU rules, but merely reserve the right to do so in the future.

  23. @Sam – it really does look like the December fudge on Ireland is going to be a problem. The British demands are simply inconsistent with their stated objectives, and it was always the case that the EU would require what was agreed in December to be written up as a legally binding agreement.

    May has already boxed herself in because of what she had to promise on Ireland, but it doesn’t sound like UK ministers realise this yet.

  24. DANNY

    Browser took a long time to load my post and I was impatient. Apologies to all.

    I think it means the Brexiters put forward their proposals. If it involves Cake it will be rejected. Then what? If not Cake then it will limit the nature of the deal with EU.

    New bus?

    I am being modded – possibly over UFT being regarded as too partisan. If so, message understood.

  25. ALEC

    The Irish Times piece may reflect the concern of the Irish government.

    As you rightly observe Mrs May has little wriggle room over Ireland/ NI border.

    She may be astute in letting the Brexiteer position on the framework for a new deal go forward. It means that if it is rejected she probably will not be removed from post. It means a harder Brexit.

    The transition terms put forward by the EU must surely be accepted? There is no leverage against the cliff edge.

    In the background trade experts work with the EU and WTO to unravel and put together trade deals. Some problem other than the clock may emerge from that.

    Parliament meantime is starting to be informative to MPs and the public.

    I have started to see the term “psychodrama” being used about Brexit. I have no idea what it means – intuitively it seems right.

  26. Quickie on new Economic Impact “leak”.

    Sector Analysis – seems like high values for NTBs (Non Trade Barriers). We do trade with other countries on WTO already so these will be easy to check. Awaiting full breakdown embargo to comment further

    Regional Analysis – Sky News focused on N.East and politically sensitive areas, let’s look at N.East though, home of the infamous Nissan letter!

    EU funding has been removed, let’s put aside the irony of that and not get into talking buses. How much does N.East get from EU? Tricky – well ‘ish. ERDF+ESF only (other parts are ignored) can found from starting with the full report in this link (useful background) then opening up footnote 5.
    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7847

    Adjusting for the 6years and FX.

    N.East funding (ERDF+ESF) = £109mm

    GVA for N.East = £19k/person
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossvalueaddedgva/bulletins/regionalgrossvalueaddedincomeapproach/december2016

    Population of N.East = 2.6mm (source:wiki)

    GVA for N.East = £49.2bn

    EU funding = 0.2%

    I’d rather decompound 16% than compound 0.2% as GDP is annual but let’s not switch horses.
    (1.002^15)-1 = 3.4%

    So 21% of the scary N.East number is EU funding. FFS, if HMG can affect the weather for anything from leaving the EU it is certainly where to allocate the small change we get back from our annual contribution (ERDF+ESF = £1-1.5bn/year for the whole country, less than 10% of a Brexit bus). Apologies for mentioning the bus, I did try to constrain myself.

  27. Sam 8.14 p.m.

    :-)

  28. P.S. Fag packet guess for population (per capita) issue is 5% (or in round numbers 30% of the scary number)

    P.P.S. The regional info took me about 10mins, including typing. That is most certainly not bragging. My concern is that either we have hundreds of very low productivity workers in Treasury/DExEU with fairly low intelligence managed by political muppets or something more sinister is going on!

  29. @ ALEC – your 7:46am:
    “It’s being reported that the projected scenarios include an allowance for gains made by cutting regulation, including in environmental protection.”

    Could you link to that please. I’m not saying that is wrong. FWIW I had thought we are finally seeing the HMG (or the worrying faction thereof) respond with suggestions to “affect the weather”.

    First you scare people, then you offer hope?

    We’ve been here before, maybe what we think is political incompetence is actually a carefully orchestrated plan on timing? Narrr, not buying that yet but doubts are rising.
    (see my “joke” from y’day re 3lions on UFT milk – very dark, very worrying, many a true word is said in jest)

  30. Carfrew and TW c. 6 p.m.

    Helpful up to a point, thanks.

  31. Trevor,

    Ignore the numbers for now.

    The NEast of England is the only net exporting region for manufacturing goods in the UK.

    The non-tariff checks and disruption to supply chains is what worries industry up here.

    Being in a Customs Union with e EU would address this concern imo.

    Irony is the region voted strongly leave.

  32. Tables are out for the yougov poll. Always have to beware of subsamples but i understand that yougov does weight them by voting in election 2017? London figures catch my eye (labour lead just 6%, greens on 7%) as being a big change but the sample was small and had to be weighted up quite a bit. Could be an effect from the Haringey fall-out or could just be noise due to a small subsample. We’ll see.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fb1csi9qjl/TimesResults_180205_VI_Trackers.pdf

  33. The latest YouGov showing a 4% Tory is probably an outlier but I do get the feeling that we have moved from a small Labour lead to at least equality in polling for the next election.

    May as PM gained 2% to 37% , Corbyn static on 29%

    On the EU right to leave increased 3% to 44% and wrong to leave dropped 2% to 44%.

    Voters continue to think the government are not negotiating well with the EU. I can agree on that. We have not been anything like tough enough IMO.

    Have a good day all.

  34. Sorry right to leave on 43%.

  35. As ever we shouldn’t get too excited about a couple of polls, but this is the same kind of movement as in the Survation poll at the top of this thread. There isn’t any evident reason though, if anything the government have been having a pretty tough time of it lately rather than Labour. I wouldn’t have thought that the Haringey brouhaha would have much traction, but perhaps along with some of the anti-business noise Labour have made post-Carillion it’s put a few moderates off. It’ll take a few more showing the same kind of movement before I’m convinced that this is anything genuine though.

  36. @Danny “Abandoning freedom of movement will be wholly harmfull to labour supply in the Uk, and has never led to more immigration. ”

    In 2004 the borders were opened to Freedom of movement from the Eastern Bloc and we were told 13,000 would come. Almost 100 times that number came.

    In 2014 the borders were opened to Freedom of movement from Romania and Bulgaria and again we were told not many would come because the rest of Europe was also open to them. By the end of 2014 there were 234,000 living here an increase of at least 100,000 on the estimate before that (who had come on “self-employed” terms since 2004). By 2016 there were 413,000 living here.

  37. typp (who had come on “self-employed” terms since 2004).

    should be 2007

  38. “The former Sheffield Hallam MP and ex-deputy Prime Minister went on to reveal how he had found “a barely-concealed, almost sneering disregard for the politics of identity and the politics of patriotism” during his time in Brussels.

    “There was an assumption that patriotism was an old-fashioned vestige of an order that was dying away,” he said.

    “The genesis of European integration was to go above and beyond the trap of patriotic politics. But it was a terrible misreading of what makes people tick.”

    City AM

    Bit late for an epiphany Clegg.

    And I have news for you. They haven’t even started yet. Jupiter is at the reins now.

  39. GARJ

    Sensible caution.

    …………but an interesting Poll :-)

  40. GarJ – we have 3 in a row now with movement Lab-Cons even if one was from the 7% Lab lead outlier from Survation.

    Rule of thumb we take note after 3 but needs 4 to declare a definite movement.

    FWIW – at my last GC there was understandable Carillion bashing and critcism of excessive out-sourcing etc. The room was stony silent when I said that whilst I agreed with much of what was being said some of the rhetoric from the centre and locally was coming across as antibusiness.

    I offered that we needed to point out more that we believe in a mixed economy and that poor public services and utilities hinder business etc.

  41. Sea Change,
    “In 2004 the borders were opened to Freedom of movement from the Eastern Bloc and we were told 13,000 would come. Almost 100 times that number came.”

    But what is your point? From what I remember the numbers were obviously wrong when announced. There were already many more than that working illegally. You only had to go to dover and watch coach after coach of ‘tourists’ rolling up to know they were already here working illegally. All that happened is they became legal.

    It was blatantly obvious to me what was happening. I can only assume customs were deliberately turning a blind eye, because the economy needed the workers. If I remember the chronology, once the supply of legal cheap workers was assured, then we tightened up control on illegals.

    Win win. Cheap labour, even paying taxes!

  42. Yougov latest

    with the current polls I would tend to stick with the aphorism
    “Nothing is quite as good, or as bad, as it first seems”

  43. New thread

  44. New thread on the YouGov

  45. The support of Labour folk on here for Ree-Smogg as Tory leader does rather remind me of how Tories on here were talking of joining the Labour Party to make sure Corbyn was elected.

    The British people are quite capricious and have a soft spot for the showman…

  46. @ DANNY
    “Abandoning freedom of movement will be wholly harmfull to labour supply in the Uk, and has never led to more immigration. I mentioned it before, but a linked government paper on immigration showed that the rise in EU migration a couple of years ago happened just as the Uk cracked down on immigration from the rest of the world. The labour market adjusted automatically, increasing EU migrants to meet demand when world migrants were deliberately cut. What it illustrated was that EU migration is demand let, it is not people just coming here and displacing brits. If we want to cut immigration, all we need to do is limit the supply of jobs in the Uk, and it will drop automatically. But be very careful what you want to crack down on, because cutting the number of NHS nurses or teachers (for example) is not going to be seen by anyone as a vote winner. Nor is cutting raspberry pickers, when it leads to higher taxes on remaining industry.”

    I find your first assertion regarding immigration and freedom of movement very bizarre, given that the obvious impacts of that was a key causal factor in Brexit.

    The main advantage of controlling freedom of movement for UK plc will be that the said raspberry pickers will still be able to come here and work – it’s just that they will no longer be entitled to the full social benefits (subsidy from UK taxpayers) like healthcare and tax credits.I have said before that employers should still be allowed to employ non-UK workers – but that a premium employers NI rate should be paid for a set period to cover healthcare and social impacts.

    It may even mean we can increase social support to the entitled citizens of UK plc currently subsisting on often very low wages.

1 4 5 6