YouGov poll of London

YouGov have a new poll of London for Queen Mary University of London. Westminster voting intention in London stands are CON 33%, LAB 53%, LDEM 8% – little different from at the general election.

More interesting, given we are only a few months away from the London council elections in May, are local government voting intentions of CON 28%(+2), LAB 54%(+17), LDEM 11%(+1), GRN 4%(-6) UKIP 2%(-10). Changes are since the last London local elections which were back in 2014, on the same day as the European Parliament elections.

If these figures were to be reflected in May’s elections it would be an extremely strong performance for Labour, building upon 2014 results which were already pretty strong. Exactly how good it would be in terms of seats and councils gained depends on how the vote is distributed. The figures suggest a very different picture in inner and outer London. In inner London the poll suggests a swing of 13 points from Conservative to Labour – that would be enough for Labour to win the “flagship” Tory borough of Wandsworth (controlled by the Conservatives since 1978) and Westminster (controlled by the Conservatives since it was created in 1964). However, it wouldn’t necessarily net Labour a huge number of extra councillors since in many inner London boroughs like Islington, Lambeth and Lewisham Labour already hold the overwhelming majority of the councillors anyway.

In outer London, where the Conservatives are likely to be picking up votes that went to UKIP last time, the poll suggests a much smaller swing to Labour – something around four points. That would be enough for Labour to take Barnet, but the Conservatives would probably be able to hold onto other outer London councils where Labour are the main challengers. The battle between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives in South West London is, of course, difficult to discern from a Londonwide poll.

The full tabs for the London poll are here.

There was also a new GB poll out today from ICM for the Guardian. Topline figures there are CON 42%(+1), LAB 43%(+3), LDEM 7%(-1). Tabs are here.

626 Responses to “YouGov poll of London”

1 2 3 13
  1. Wonder if Boris will be without a seat?

  2. It does look like if there was a shift to the Cons, it has shifted back again.

  3. AW.
    Many thanks for the poll news.
    Not much change since the GE it seems.

  4. Will May be the end of May?

  5. I’ve always assumed that most people outwith the 3 GB areas that have quite regular proper polls – London, Scotland and Wales – few are interested except in so far as overall HoC MP numbers are concerned.

    Is that true of London, or do the English capital results have a disproportionate effect in thinking elsewhere in England.

    Again, my assumption is that most commentators on politics live in or near London (Hi, Anthony) so their personal interests might lead them to concentrate on those.

  6. Local elections are odd beasts, and if the results are at all interesting they tend to revolve around iconic results. If Labour really were to take Wandsworth and Westminster, these would count as significantly eyecatching results.

  7. @Oldnat

    I think there are sort of “two types of England” really, and it’s not just about North/South or Rich/Poor.

    There’s a sort of “cosmopolitan England” and a “traditional England”, for want of better phrases.

    Labour has done extremely well in “cosmopolitan England” – London, Bristol, Brighton, Cambridge, Exeter etc but less well in other parts of England.

    I suspect there is a certain element of naysaying in “traditional England” about what “cosmopolitan England” is up to, although probably less amongst younger voters.

    The big question is what happens to the UKIP vote. In London Labour seems to have got the Lion’s Share of it, along with the Greens, with the Tories picking up meagre crumbs – although I suspect this is churn to some extent with UKIP to Tory voters being balanced by Tory losses amongst centrists and floating voters.

    In “traditional England” Labour desperately needs its old voters back from UKIP. They are up for grabs. I think the best indications for polling will be in places like Plymouth. The Tories have control by a gnats whisker with the help of the defection of the whole UKIP group (all three of them). I expect UKIP’s vote to collapse completely this time, and if there’s a Labour council by the end of the night, that’s a good night for them. We don’t really have any LDs or Greens here, so places like Plymouth are a great indicator for the battle of the Big Two.

  8. I should probably add that local concerns about government plans for the Royal Navy, and particularly the Royal Marines, may weigh on the Tories’ prospects in Plymouth – albeit that Jeremy Corbyn is probably not the ideal Labour leader to try and capitalise on this.

  9. NEIL A

    Yep good analysis and agreed. Your analysis also applies to how the electorate voted in the E U Referendum.

  10. @NickP

    Electoral Calculus has his seat still staying Tory but not by much. IDS looks like he might well lose his.

    I’m told that the local Labour Party reckons they can beat Johnson though. We will see in time.

  11. chris riley

    We shall see indeed.

    (hums happily)

  12. GARJ (fpt but relevant)

    Not particularly surprising, given that the enormous number of EU citizens in London are able to vote in locals and are unlikely to be overly keen on the government’s current agenda. They’re probably a good third of the electorate, and I doubt many of them will vote Tory.

    I’m afraid that’s not really true. We have estimates for the main nationalities in London and the mid-year figures for 2016 are here:

    From a total population for London estimated at 8,705,000, I reckon the citizens of the 17 EU nationalities listed[1] total to 1,041,000. They don’t list nationalities where the estimate is below 12,000 (Croatia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia), but even if you allow a very generous 10,000 each for these, you only get 1,111,000 EU citizens – 12.8%. All EU including Ireland but less UK would 14% not a third.

    Of course this is just those who are in London, not those who are registered. There are also regular figures of how many people are registered to vote, both in parliamentary and local elections[2]

    The latest exactly comparable figures are as at 1 December 2016 (the 2017 figures will be out soon) these showed 5,827,705 local government electors in London boroughs at that point (see Table 1). The equivalent number on the parliamentary register was 5,268,027[3]. So ther were a nett extra 559,678 local voters – 9.6% of all such. It suggests there is comparative under-registration of this group – which you might expect from people who might not have been in the country long.

    Whether even this much smaller percentage (than a third) of registered people bother to vote is another matter, though not one that there is reliable data on. Certainly long-established residents with local community involvement will be more likely to, but other less so. And Londoners are notoriously ignorant about their own local politics in any case[4] and are more likely to vote on national/regional issues. Which might also mean little to those recently come from outside the UK.

    As far as polling goes however such voters (or non-voters) are unlikely to be included in polls in any more than minimal numbers. Local election polls are fairly rare and not very reliable and pollsters are unlikely to want to include local-only voters in panels where they can’t answer answer the question that is most liley to get asked – Westminster VI. This YouGov poll asked that as well and there’s nothing to indicate that the two samples were different in number.

    As to the effect of Brexit on the voting behaviour of voters in general, YouGov did ask If you do vote in the local council elections later this year, which of the following will be most important to you in deciding your vote? Please tick up to three
    . “Britain leaving the EU” only came in sixth with 21%. It’s not in the power of local councils of course, but then neither are other topics that do better such as Health or Crime. And unlike when the question is asked in relation to the country as a whole, there’s not much difference between group by gender, class, ethnicity or age, or even between Leave and Remain. So if it has any effect, it’s liklely to balance out.

    [1] I haven’t included Irish citizens (90,000) as they have full voting rights in the UK, rather than just in local elections as others from the EU have. The same applies to those from Cyprus and Malta (as in the Commonwealth), though neither appears in this list separately.

    [2] There are other groups of people who can vote in one not the other, such as members of the House of Lords and some expats, but they will be small enough to be ignored.

    [3] Irritatingly they don’t produce separate regional breakdowns for this (seats outside London can be split over regional boundaries), so I had to add up all 73. I hope you’re grateful.

    [4] There’s a question in the YouGov poll about what the political control of respondents’ local councils is – and you would love to know how many got it right.

  13. @Neil A

    Hinkley Point is a big electoral deal in Devon as well. There are a lot of jobs there.

  14. Neil A

    Thanks for that analysis. It makes sense that both “traditional” and “metropolitan” England exist – but neither are party fiefdoms, as some stereotyping commentators appear to suggest.

  15. Roger Mexico

    In response to (3) – as always very grateful.

  16. BBC: “Trump backs guns for teachers”

    Now that’s how to keep those pesky school kids in order.

    (Sorry, bad taste, but maybe no worse than Trump.)

  17. The striking thing in those tables are the voting differences by ethnicity.

    Been looking at some London ethnicity heat maps

    And comparing those to the 2014 local election maps,_2014#/media/File:Greater_London_UK_ward_map_2014.svg

    And you can pretty much overlay the white british map to predict the ward results being conservative in 2014.

    So if we can get some up to date ethnicity maps it should be fairly easy to predict ward level results.

    Add in the extra swing that Labour is seeing with muslim voters with his pro Palestine policies that we saw resulted in large swings to Labour in 2017 in constituencies with large muslim populations, and looking at the Asian Pakistani heat map, and you can predict the areas most likely to see Tory losses in the local elections.

    The Yougov model in the last election basically proved that ethnicity/ age are a better prediction of constituency level results than universal swing, and we should be able to use the same methods to get to a fairly accurate estimate of the London local election result.

  18. Good poll for London Labour, to put it mildly.
    @Roger Mexico not quite true that health and crime are not in the power of LAs – for example some councils in London directly fund police officers beyond what the Met allocate and there is an acknowledged overlap between health and social care.
    I’ve been doorstepping a lot over the last few weeks and I will say:
    1 Brexit is still heavily resented in certain areas and Lab will win votes over it, despite its own woolly stance – we’re targeting 7 Tory seats largely on this factor (well, targetting more but serious hopes of 7)
    2 Eastern Europeans generally don’t vote, and register only because they get heavy-sounding letters from the LA suggesting they will be hung drawn and quartered if they don’t
    3 We expect to lose some seats to the Tories because of the collapse of UKIP – there were defections and split votes last time which will go to the Tories pretty well wholesale – they always were Tories

  19. Richard
    “And you can pretty much overlay the white british map to predict the ward results being conservative in 2014.”

    That’s very interesting, and ties in with what I have posted previously, that Labour are becoming perceived as the ‘ethnic’ party. When northern and midland Labour voters realise this in sufficient numbers the effect on GE VI will be interesting. I don’t suppose many would switch directly to Tory, but enough might abstain to swing some seats.

  20. I know there is a lot of ‘ethnic’ people in london but some people on here are suggesting that 54% of people in london are ‘ethnic’. Maybe I’m colour blind but I’ve been in london recently and it didn’t seem that way to me. Also I’m a bit perplexed because according to this theory the amount of ‘ethnic’ people in london has gone up more than 50% since the last time these seats were contested, I’m sure that would have been news worthy!

  21. I work for Wandsworth and Richmond councils, both Tory, which merged their staffing structures in 2015 – saved £10M per council, reportedly, mainly through job cuts at the senior management levels. Both councils are seriously worried that they’re going to change colour, Wandsworth more so than Richmond. Interesting times.

  22. “Wandsworth and Richmond councils, both Tory, which merged their staffing structures in 2015”

    If one goes red and one goes blue, we might see an expensive de-coupling – it was hubris to merge two councils’ admin assuming they would both remain Tory forever.

  23. Pete B, Richard,
    “And you can pretty much overlay the white british map to predict the ward results being conservative in 2014.”

    Hmm. However, ‘white british’ by itself takes no account of class. You might get very different results if one area was white working class and another white ruling class. In the case of London, it might be that the white working class has been chased out of London, so there isnt one, and what is left lives in those non white areas. I imagine we are talking kensington tories when you mention ‘white’, but anywhere in London you need a bankroll and therefore high pay job to buy property, especially in any area which in effect excludes non-whites.

    So, a ‘white british’ area in London might be tory, while a ‘white british’ area in the north might be labour.

    There has been come chatter about the proportion of NHS staff who come from abroad, and argument over accurate figures. I will add to my occasional series of personal NHS anecdotes that I again was visiting a local hospital in the south east, a very white area. But inside the hospital you would think it was the Brussels commission, because of the huge number of all sorts of europeans working there. Except of course for all the non europeans working there as well.

    I wondered to what extent figures about the percentage of foreign nationals employed by the NHS might underestimate the number of critical medical staff from abroad, as compared to non medical support admin or maintenance, or portering or whatever. Because we keep meeting foreign medics. We had a european locum GP, too, and while I think of it three of the last four consultants we saw were locums.

    Of course, a number of the established staff who are plainly of foreign origin might in fact now have british nationality and be classed as such.

  24. Neil A/ON

    re ”Labour has done extremely well in “cosmopolitan England” – London, Bristol, Brighton, Cambridge, Exeter etc but less well in other parts of England.”

    Partly agree as Labour still doing very well in ‘traditional cities with Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sunderland for example being Tory free Zones.

    The issue for Labour is in smaller cities and towns which the last GE showed. Forgive me providing no evidence but I have seen date that the average age in such seats is increasing as a an element of younger (typically more Labour inclined) voters move to bigger Cities.

    There other factors to do with industry at play as well.

    FWIW, my view is that these small city/town seats is where who gets most seats at the next GE will be mainly decided and in particular if 15-20 seats can be taken off the Tories to stop them being able to be in Government.

    Labour overtaking Cons in seat count may depend on Scotland and how many LOC voters split ticket between SNP and Labour depending on what they voting for.

  25. Interesting from the BPS:

    Children today are cleverer and more able to defer gratification than they were 50 years ago, and the change has been happening year on year.

    The lead researcher John Protzko, says “Contrary to historical and present complaints, kids these days appear to be better than we were. A supposed modern culture of instant gratification has not stemmed the march of improvement.”

  26. @JIm Jam

    “Forgive me providing no evidence but I have seen date that the average age in such seats is increasing as a an element of younger (typically more Labour inclined) voters move to bigger Cities.

    There other factors to do with industry at play as well.”

    Yes, higher skill, higher pay employment (usually requiring a degree) is becoming more concentrated in larger cities (there are exceptions, Derby being the most pertinent right now) which mean young educated people, who are more likely to vote to the Left, are leaving the towns they grew up in and moving to cities.

    We have to realise this is a serious problem for both parties. It may look like an opportunity for the Tories but we have to remember that the electorate are not fools and the modern Conservative Party is picking up votes in Mansfield and Stoke by default, not because they are culturally and politically able to offer a credible narrative and solution to help places like that. The voters there do recognise that the Tories are the cause of a lot of their present troubles, and electing Rees Mogg, for example, is not going to help the cause of Tories in these places. The Tories are currently devoid of anyone who even *looks* like they can credibly speak for left-behind towns of that nature.

    The only thing that will is a successful Brexit that actually improves the economic and social lot of Chesterfield and Grimsby.
    If it doesn’t, well you can kiss goodbye to those Tory votes, probably for good.

    My gut is that nationalisation will play very well in these towns too, though.

  27. @ RICHARD – great to see you posting. Could you repost the link with the demographic info by seat – I think it was a googledoc or similar link possibly from Britain elects?
    I agree age demographic was key predictor in 2017 GE. I don’t have the data that YouGov have but tried to include some of the seat level issues missed by UNS.
    I don’t have an ethnicity factor built in. Do you have any rough ‘factor’ numbers for the predictive demographic split of age v ethnicity (ie is it worth treating ethnicity as a separate factor?). I had a crude property value measure as well. At some point I intend to refine that to property value and home ownership as I think it helped explain some LDEM seats and could well be a factor in the future.

  28. @ NEIL A / OLDNAT / ETC- London stood out as a country within a country in 2017 GE and is similar to Scotland in that you have to treat it totally separate. AW even highlights that within London you have quite separate areas (e.g. to balance the aggregate poll maths LDEM might end up being wiped out in most areas but make gains in S.W.London – we’ve seen this at MP seat level in Scotland)

    Within London we really need to see 2015 vote info as well to know if UKIP are going direct to LAB. That feels far to simplistic to me. My guess would be several factors in the flow. Guessing on 2014 to 2017 changes

    LAB(+17): +6 from Green, +4 from UKIP which leaves +5 from CON-Remain and bit of rounding?
    CON (+2): +6 from UKIP, -5 to LAB/LDEM (LDEM then washing with opposite flow to LAB) and bit of rounding?

    The numbers don’t quite add up hence ’rounding’ but I’d be fairly confident guessing Greens have almost all gone to LAB and UKIP split was maybe 60/40 CON/LAB (+/-20!)

    2015 GE actual vote info in the x-breaks would help see where the ‘flow’ has come from (and where it might go back).

    You’ll also note high DKs in the poll. The biggest factor in LEs though is turnout is usually quite low. Polls suggest 85%ish turnout where as LEs are 20-40%. It all comes down to who is motivated to vote. Given the large differences between the parties I would expect higher than usual turnout but still low by GE standards. Clearly smaller parties are most damaged by the polarisation of the two main parties (e.g. Green voters tactically will vote LAB).

    Final thing to note is the UKIP vote in 2015 GE (and hence probably in 2014) was far from evenly distributed (e.g. Dagenham was 30% UKIP in 2015 (70% Leave) where as Vauxhall was 3% UKIP in 2015 (22% Leave – Richard’s demographic comment might cover the reasons for that)

    Brexit should not be a factor in LEs but I think it is fair to say many voters don’t focus solely on the local issues and
    national level politics sway their decision and likelihood to vote (e.g. high protest vote)

    I look at by-elections but don’t run any LE/Council/Mayor models so not making any ‘seat level’ predictions just curious to see what factors effect the outcome so I can consider adding them into MP seat model.

  29. Chris, its a nice sunny day here in Chesterfield actually. And I see that there’s some activity around the old multistorey that’s getting pulled down to make way for the big redevelopment of this end of the town centre.

  30. I see that Q4 GDP growth has been revised down to 0.4%, and 2017 growth to 1.7%

    But quarter-by-quarter 2017 growth now goes: 0.2; 0.3; 0.5; 0.4.

    Which adds up to 1.4%. I’ve asked this before, and no-one has ventured an answer: how come 1.4% cumulative quarterly growth morphs into 1.7% annual growth?

    (And no, it isn’t a question of compounding: that would take you to just 1.407%)

  31. @Somerjohn
    Why do the quarterly figures not add up to the annual figures?
    There are two answers:
    1) Because of rounding. If you can find the unrounded figures or the level figures and calculate 2017Q4 / 2016Q4, you will see that the data match.
    2) Quarterly and annual figures are actually calculated from partially different data sources. They should agree but may be slightly different.
    However, the data released today is only the quarterly figure annualised, so only answer 1) is relevant to your question.

    That’s a question I’ve also asked myself (the growth figures). There’s something that gets carried forward. I read recently that German gdp figures were so strong at the end of last year that “even if there were no growth at all for the hext Four quarters, year on year, 2018 would still show 1% growth”.

  33. @ PR – A lot of the people you see in London don’t necessarily live in London! Commuters, tourists, etc. Conversely a lot of people who live in London aren’t necessarily that visible when you visit (e.g. work behind the scenes, in school, at home, etc).

    @ SJ – ’rounding and revisions’ as I’ve ventured to answer every time you’ve asked.

  34. Answer=42, Thanks.

    Welcome, I have not seen you post before, apologies if you have.

    So 0.4% growth in Q$ is an annualised rete of 1.7% which makes sense.

    1.7% is not the annual growth rate?

    Is that right?

    BBC says 1.7% as a whole 2017, though?

  35. @Somerjohn – careful now – you’ll upset @Trevor. You know he desn’t like decimal places.


    It is confusing. ONS have too many measures & don’t explain them well.

    From this link go to Table A2.


    The 0.2/0.3/0.5/0.4 numbers are “Percentage change , latest quarter on previous quarter” ( see Table A2-IHYQ)

    So their total effect-ie 1.4%-gets you Q4 vs Q4 in Prior Year. ( see Table A2 IHYR) -not This Year vs Last Year ……………which is what 1.7% ( Table A2 IHYP) is.

    …………..think so anyway…………..!!

  37. Sorry-tried to link to PDF !

    click on “Download PDF” from this -then Table A2

  38. @OLDNAT
    Your implicit suggestion that London has more regular proper polls than the rest of England isn’t really true.

    London votes twice in the four year cycle.

    All (I think) other English metropolitan areas vote 3 years in 4 as do a number of the non-met areas with unitary authorities although other UAs are once in four. Much of rural England that still has counties and districts votes 2 years in 4 as well and some areas go the the polls four in four.

    London probably does get most attention (as your own post kind of shows) but it’s not down to its frequency of going to the polls.

  39. @JimJam
    I’m around occasionally
    The 1.7% is not annualised Q4 data but, in effect, 2017Q4 / 2016Q4 in levels.
    Coincidentally it matches Q4 growth annualised (allowing for rounding) but it’s just a coincidence.

    1.7% is for the whole of 2017.

    In terms of interpretation, it is probably the slowest rate of the large industrialised G20 countries and slower than most countries in the EU.
    In overall terms, it’s a bit worse than meh. If you define meh as 2.0%, which is the point at which growth matches productivity gains and hence allows stable employment levels or ‘normal’ wage growth.
    At this stage in the economic cycle, 1.7% is not ‘meh-minus’, it is really quite bad.
    Not coincidentally, UK real wages declined by 0.3% in 2017.

    If you want a reason and are reasonable, you need look no further than Brexit. The breakdown of the 1.7% growth rate shows a concentration of slow growth in services, which is consistent with the rationale.


    Also please note various definitions of GDP in ONS reports.

    The ones we are discussing are “Chained Volume” GDP- stated in real (or constant, i.e., inflation- and deflation-adjusted) terms.

  41. @B&B

    Personally, I’m very fond of Chesterfield and pleased to hear it doing well, although we must bear in mind that the Northern Gateway redevelopment is largely due to the well-run Sheffield City Region Infrastructure Fund (and Sheffield is now all Labour. Well, depending on how you see Jared O’Mara), and not a lot to do with the redoubtable Lee Rowley, who I strongly doubt feels especially secure on his brand new NE Derbyshire majority of under 3,000.

  42. @Trevor – this one won’t be about revisions I would assume, if @SJ was looking at the current estimates.

  43. ANSWER=42

    @”UK real wages declined by 0.3% in 2017.”

    It is worth observing that this is a function of inflation & not nominal wages-the latter being on the increase:-

    “Between October to December 2016 and October to December 2017, in nominal terms, regular pay increased by 2.5%, higher than the growth rate between September to November 2016 and September to November 2017 (2.3%). ”


  44. @A=42 – “If you want a reason and are reasonable, you need look no further than Brexit.”

    Thankyou for a careful and illuminating set of posts.

    Please be careful. The quote of yours I repeat above clearly marks you out as one of the metropolitan elite subverter of democracy enemy of the people traitorous betrayers of this country.

    Are you clear on that?

    Oh and by the way – how dare you spread fake news and attempt to stifle free speech.


  45. Re Chesterfield – it’s just sad to see their football club slipping toward non-League…

  46. Colin, no. It is simply inflation – nominal wages.

    At this stage of the economic cycle, negative real wages simply should not be happening.

  47. @ DAVID COLBY / etc – near future GDP has a high component of ‘order book’ type issues so hence an economy with large exports (and order books for those exports) will have ‘momentum’ into the near future which can be fairly accurately estimated. PMI data, etc is used in both near future predictions and near past estimates. Being survey based these kinds of measures have quite a bit of MOE v actual but it is important to get a rough idea of what is going on in an economy (e.g. for central banker rate decisions).

    UK economy is domestic (3/4ish) and service sector orientated so far more sensitive to short-term potentially volatile factors such as consumer spending. UK and likes of USA should have higher MOE in predictions/estimates/revisions than likes of Germany or Japan.

    @ ANSWER=42, meh minus agreed.

    Lower consumer spending on non-essentials is IMHO a good thing but going cold turkey would be bad. Weening off while boosting other GDP areas would be ideal.

    The concerning part of the data is business investment – I think we can all agree on at lest one reason why that is low! Construction not highlighted today but another weak area in UK that needs addressing. Lots HMG can do to “affect the weather” although different policies will clearly have very different lead-lag times. Hammond had a boost in tax receipts in Jan so has a bit more money but Osborne2.0 is tighter than a gnat’s chuff!

    The issue with business investment is how much of the ‘lag’ is being ‘stored’ for future release. This then implies HMG needs a plan to ensure that ‘stored’ potential is released and released in UK (along with hopefully FDI, etc) – again a lot HMG can do to “affect the weather” only part of which depends on the Brexit outcome.

    Probably also worth mentioning lower immigration (per capita adjustment) and UK having high capacity utilization (ie can’t easily generate meh plus from simply cranking out more ‘stuff’ with same fixed assets), etc – I don’t usually concern myself with the 0.1% stuff, business investment is IMHO the important detail to focus on ;)

  48. Quite a harsh restatement of the EU’d trade negotiating guidelines this morning, in what will be problematic for May.

    They have rejected her ideas for three categories of rules (one group where we are free to diverge,one where we align, and one where we find different ways to meet the same outcome). They also reject out of hand any idea that the UK would have influence over their regulatory structure, arguing that these proposals breech the integrity of the SM.

    It’s no great surprise, but again shows a very united and very firm approach to the UK proposals. By this stage we were meant to be seeing the EU position fracture and the UK gaining ground in the trade arrangements, but it all seems to be groundhog day, with May putting forward proposals, the EU rejecting them, and May finding a way to concede.

  49. @ COLIN – correct on real wages. It’s all to do with lags.

    Inflation feeds through fairly quickly after large moves in currencies and/or commodities but these are base effects and begin to drop out after 12-24mths.
    Wages lag inflation.
    Most people (e.g. BoE) see inflation lowering later in the year due to the base effects dropping out and wages picking up slightly. The risk is cost-push inflation from real wage rises above productivity gains but that is a longer-term issue.

    The difference in opinion between Haldane v Carney is heating up but for Haldane’s view:

    P.S. Haldane for next BoE governor? Seems a smart chap!

  50. News said EU immigration to the Uk was down over the last year. But rest of world immigration was up.

    No surprise there, demand is the same so if you discourage them from coming from the EU they must come from somwhere else.

    It is indicative of the likely outcome after Brexit. Who thinks voters will be happy with this? The leave lot or the remain lot?

1 2 3 13