Here are the mid-week polls so far:

Kantar – CON 45%(+8), LAB 27%(nc), LDEM 16%(-1), BREX 2%(-7)
YouGov/Times/Sky – CON 42%(-3), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 15%(nc), BREX 4%(nc)
ICM/Reuters – CON 42%(+3), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 13%(-2), BREX 5%(-3)
Survation/GMB – CON 42%, LAB 28%, LDEM 13%, BREX 5%

A few things to note. Kantar and ICM have now removed the Brexit party as an option in the seats where they are not standing, which will have contributed to the increase in Conservative support and decrease in Brexit party support (YouGov had already introduced this change last week).

The Survation poll is the first telephone poll that they’ve conducted in this election campaign (all their other recent polls have been conducted online), hence they’ve recommended against drawing direct comparisons with their previous poll. The fourteen point Tory lead in this poll is substantially larger than in Survation’s previous poll, which had a lead of only six points, but it’s impossible to tell whether that’s down to an increase in Conservative support or the different methodology. At the last election their two approaches produced similar results, with their final poll being conducted by phone.

Finally, Kantar’s polling has received some criticism on social media for their approach to turnout weighting, with “re-weighted” versions of their figures doing the rounds. The details of this criticism are wrong on almost every single measure. It’s very easy for people to retweet figures claiming they show the turnout figures from Kantar, but it takes rather longer to explain why the sums are wrong Matt Singh did a thread on it here, and RSS Statistical Ambassador, Anthony Masters, has done a lengthier post on it here.

In short, the claims confuse normal demographic weights (the ones Kantar use to ensure the proportion of young and old people in the samples matches the figures the ONS publish for the British population as a whole) with their turnout model. Secondly, they compare youth turnout to early estimates straight after the 2017 election, when there have been subsequent measures from the British Election Study that were actually checked against the marked electoral register, so are almost certainly more accurate. Compared to those figures, Kantar’s turnout levels look far more sensible. The figures do imply a small increase in turnout among older voters, a small drop amongst younger votes, but nowhere near the level that has been bandied about on social media.

However, if we leave aside the specific criticisms, it is true to say that turnout has different impacts on different pollsters. In the 2017 election many pollsters adopted elaborate turnout models based on demographic factors. These models largely backfired, so pollsters dropped them. Most polling companies are now using much simpler turnout models, that have much less of an impact, and which are based primarily on how likely respondents to the poll say they will vote.

Kantar is the exception – in 2017 they used a model that predicted people’s likelihood to vote based on both how likely they said they were to vote, but also their past voting and how old they are. Unlike many other companies this worked well for them and they were one of the more accurate polling companies, so they kept it. That does mean that Kantar now have a turnout model that makes more difference than most.

Looking at the polls at the top of this post, factoring in turnout made no difference to the lead in YouGov’s poll (it was a 12 point Tory lead before turnout weighting, a 12 point Tory lead afterwards). The same is true of Survation – their poll would have had a 14 point lead before turnout was factored in, and a 14 point lead afterwards. In ICM’s poll, without turnout the lead would have been 7 points, with turnout it grows to 10 points. With Kantar’s latest poll, the tables suggest that the turnout weighting increased the Tory lead from 10 points to 18 points.

Hence, while the specific claims about Kantar are nonsense, it is true to say their turnout model has more impact than that of some other companies. That does not, of course, mean it is wrong (turnout is obviously a significant factor in elections). However, before going off on one about how important turnout weighting is to the current polls, it’s rather important to note that for many companies it is contributing little or nothing to the size of the Tory lead.

1,091 Responses to “Latest voting intention and the impact of turnout”

1 5 6 7 8 9 22
  1. @Redrich

    “The big question is, due to their respective miscalculations is their now sufficient time for remain voters go to drift to Lab to prevent an overall Tory majority.”

    Thereby, I think,hangs the outcome of this election. Still time, but a lot of catching up to do. In fairness to Cummings and Johnson, their strategy has been paying off up to now and, should it prevail, could well deliver them an historic political and electoral triumph, certainly if these current polls are right. You have to take your hats off to them, whatever you may think of their politics and the fate that could await the country after a Tory landslide. Their strategy has been to unite the Leave vote and neuter Farage (job done) and to frighten enough Tory remainers amongst their core vote about the prospect of Corbyn that they stay on board, despite deep misgivings (job on the way to being done, methinks.). Labour’s only hope of winning this election was for Tory hard leavers to go to Farage and for a chunk of Tory remain voters to go Lib Dem. Thereby they could sail through the middle. That isn’t happening by the look of it so the only show in town now, because a Labour win is inconceivable from here, is to stop Johnson winning.

    And so, back to your point, that can only happen if the answer to your question is yes.

    By the way I agree very much with your analysis of Labour’s miscalculations as well as the Lib Dems, in terms of their Brexit policy.


    Many thanks for your interesting post. I can well understand how the Lib Dems got to the policy they now have, certainly from a tactical point of view, but it’s been a folly, I think. You make some good points about the leadership issue and the weaknesses of both Swinson and Davey. I’m surprised after their almost near death experience in 2015 that they didn’t cut the links with Lib Dems who’d featured prominently in the Tory coalition and skipped if not a generation, then certainly carriers of toxic political baggage. It’s all very well if you appeal to soft Tories but no good if you alienate Labour voters still remembering the Tory/Lib Dem coalition’s record. Another own goal. Wasn’t there anyone in the 2015 intake, small I accept, without the coalition. baggage?

    By the way, I’m with you on Farron. I thought he had something about him but he sort of self-destructed. I remember one of those May-less multi-leader TV debates in 2017, and I thought he was head and shoulders above all the others involved, including Corbyn and Sturgeon. One that got sadly away, perhaps, a bit like Tom Watson for Labour.


    “Yes I think Labour would have preferred sex predators off the news for the day they were launching.”

    I note your use of the plural. Which sex predators are in today’s news?

  3. @Garj Your points about Labour’s housebuilding program are certainly well made and may well be correct. Similar points could be made about the conservative hospital building program and no doubt the Lib Dems policies on flood prevention and so on These things take time and we need a labour force with the skills to implement them. The reason I waited a year for a prostate operation adjudged to be ‘urgent’ was not the lack of an operating theatre but rather the lack of nurses to staff it,

    The resolution of these problems depends in my view on a) effectively stopping the harmful effects of Brexit – at the moment we can’t drive out lorries, pick our fruit, run our city of London computers, staff our restaurants or build our homes or hospitals without a significant overseas workforce. Brexit has arbitrarily curtailed a supply of labour on which we have come to rely b) a determined program of training for local people who could do these jobs (why on earth are we training so few nurses and making those we train pay for their training>) and c) ensuring that there are the planners, education staff and other civil servants necessary to facilitate this process.

    As I see it the Tories have no intention of enabling the above. Labour have and although they will undoubtedly meet the kind of problems you specify, I think that with political will they can in time be overcome.

  4. @Sam Your interesting points about who has made up their mind and who won the debate are related, If more conservatives have ‘decided’, the majority of those wo are undecided will be skewed towards ‘non Tories’. It is therefore likely that more of these will be prepared to give Corbyn a chance,

    That said, it does seem to me that the reported outcome of the debate – a kind of score draw – does represent a kind of victory for Corbyn since it was not what would have been expected given the approval ratings of the two (Robert Peston said a draw favoured the conservatives since they are currently winning, but I think that one reason they are winning by so much is that people despise Corbyn – this will have dented that a bit).

    So I think that your evidence suggests that things will start to move Labour’s way and particularly so if the conversation stops being about Brexit,, Whether they will move far enough is another issue.

  5. Redrich @11.28 am

    Yes, it is frustrating that no polls have investigated the possible result for 59 distinctive seats in the HoC, which could prove important after 12th December.

    But it is the same neglect that allows some people to use “a generic term” “S of Hadrian`sWall” that is wrong and insulting to 100,000 plus folk living in Cumberland and Northumberland. And also brings derision from Scots.

    So meantime we have to scrape tiny pieces of evidence from relatives and friends across Scotland on the 59 seats.

    My only contribution now that is that there will be no LibDem gains here, a change from my view 3 weeks ago.

    Take Aberdeen N which could have had the LibDems picking up Tory votes since that party have disowned their candidate.

    But the LibDem candidate is a nice elderly lady (former colleague) who simply could not cope if she reached the HoC. With just 4.6% of the vote in the previous GE, she ought to have been replaced by a younger able candidate, if the Scottish LibDems were in good shape..

  6. The Trevors,
    “3/ The ref would be:
    A/ Remain with NO SAY
    B/ Remain with a SAY”

    You seem to be getting over excited about this, forgetting that if con win this election, the choice will still be either to remain with a say or remain with no say. If conservative MPs believed no deal was viable it would have been done years ago. If there is a deal, it will say the Uk continues to follow RU rules, whoever is doing the negotiating.

  7. A quick look at Labour’s Budget Funding Grey Book:-

    All about Current Spending & Revenue-nothing on funding the Capital spend-ie no Public Borrowing projections.

    Current spending up £83 bn pa by 23/24

    Fully funded by £83 bn pa tax rises:-

    Income Tax 5
    Corpn. Tax & CT reliefs 39
    Wealth taxes 19
    Fin Trans Tax 9
    Tax avoidance 6
    IHT 5

  8. @ UKELECT – I’ll need to spend a bit more time on it but on a “1st sift” a few popped us as quite different (but I need to spend more time to see why). I note your using the final days of last HoC rather than GE’17 parties so I adjusted back for that.

    LDEM-CON marginals (in grouped batches)

    1/ Brecon and Radnorshire – with no BXP then you’re the only one thinking LDEM keep their by-election win. S.Cambridgeshire similar (although it is more Remainy so possible). LDEM doing a pact with a NAT will IMO get more CON voting in a GE v LDEM “maxxing” out in a by-election (and its new CON candidate, etc)

    2/ With BXP in N.Norfolk you see LDEM v.close to losing it where as you have them actually losing Carshalton+Walliington (both v.close on your numbers but I see BXP splitting the vote and allowing LDEM to keep both with a bit more comfort than you)

    3/ Cheadle v Cheltenham. Fully agree Cheltenham but I have CON more likely to keep Cheadle. St.Ives we’re similar. I see “age” as a factor in these seats (Cheltenham is “young”, Cheadle and St.Ives are “old”)

    LAB-CON marginals

    That’s going to take me longer to look at and is far more important. Lots of differences between various models and MRP on many of these seats.

    Ones that look a little “odd” IMO are (again batched to put the in contrast with a “similar” seat issue)

    1/ If LAB incumbent = Remainer MP

    CON winning Redcar (LAB Turley is a Remainer). I was surprised you saw LDEM % increasing so much. Also looking back at GE’15 then UKIP did better than CON so I see the Leave vote split less likely to help CON. LAB keep the seat as LDEM VI vote Turley and Leave vote splits.

    I can get my model to “accept” Redcar as possible CON but it would then say CON should also (just) win Yvette Cooper’s seat and other LAB Remain MP in LAB Leave seats

    2/ Where LAB incumbent is a soft-Leaver (or against 2nd ref)

    Hartlepool. You have LDEM going back up a lot which is fair enough but the CON-BXP split seems a bit off to me (especially as it’s Tice!). I don’t see CON winning that one (ie I see the CON-BXP split closer than you)

    Don Valley: This builds on the issue of what to do it if the incumbent is a Soft-Leaver. I’m really not sure what to do in these kinds of seats. Tactical voting wise then Remainers moving to LDEM might help but how would Leave side split?!?

    LDEM were same in both back in 2010 but you have LDEM doing better in Hartlepool than the more well know LAB Leave MP incumbent in Don Valley. I’d put those two the other way around and although it might not make a difference in who wins then it does pop up as a difference between our models.

    Above 1+2 highlight what I spot as an “incumbent” issue that both our models should pick up – but we differ on. I’m pretty unsure what to do in seats where GE’17 MP has opposite Brexit view to their constituents so it’s worth a more detailed discussion.

    PS For LAB-Leave seats then beyond URS[1] my model takes input from UKIP’15, have CON or LDEM ever done well in the seat (individual seat “override” – Redcar an example of that), Remain/Leave %, age demographic and the “work in progress” incumbency issue.

    In many cases (Redcar possible best example) some of those factors offset and of course they could work differently in different seats but beyond saying “lots of seats are very hard to predict” it would be good to discuss “approach”

    I’m waiting for YG MRP to see if that sheds any light on the issue. Input on any “localised” tactical voting pacts (ie “paper candidates”) I’ll put in as “seat specific” over rides

    PPS As i’m sure you already know then your model is quite a bit different to Electoral Calculus. Mine has some differences as well. We seem to differ on our differences though ;)
    That’s not a bad thing, just saying

    [1] Uniform Regional Swing from polling data.

  9. Sam: Epstein and his co-pests (it seems there were more than one), and the multiple alleged cases involving Mr Salmond.

  10. …….that last 5 isn’t just IHT-its a bunch of taxes :-

    Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance,introduce a second homes tax.

  11. Re the libs strategy,

    I dont really follow the criticism. If we take as a starting point that libs will not win this election, that they might make a few gains but will not be decisive in any outcome, how has their policy harmed them?

    FPP voting ensures lab and con will get the lions share of votes, assuming they stay broadly aligned con/leave and lab remain.

    The libs policy is positioning. It shows they are serious remainers. It cannot gain them votes now but it could disgrace them if they fail to support remain. Another student fees moment. It places them ready to assume the mantle of remain if labour drops it. It makes sense to be ready. But it will not help them unless labour fails remain.

    If brexit proceeds and proves disastrous, they are ready to claim they knew it all along and voters should listen more to them. Its a long term thing.

  12. @ COLIN – The “capital account” spend from McDonnell will be “bonds for shares”.

    If they get to pick next BoE governor then they can use QE for nationalisation – ie a forest of MMT

    The question no LAB person will ever answer is why would the previous shareholder want McDonnell bonds?

    It is L00NY Left to think you can “fix” the capital account when we’re already running a large current account deficit (one LAB would make even worse by making UK less competitive (hike taxes, regulations and exodus of wealth creators) whilst keeping us in CU+SM) – BONKERS

    The currency would collapse and we’d enter a vicious spiral. RoC’s are not joking when they compare this bonkers approach to Venezuela (who at least had huge oil exports when they started “democratising” their economy).

    However, I’m not sure how likes of IFS will address these issues. They run a very conventional (ne0liberal) view of “status quo” on things that are “outside the box” – they might simply ignore it?!?

  13. The allegations against Mr Salmond are serious and he and the people who have come forward to make the allegations, all deserve a fair trial. It is really not a matter to beat the SNP with.

  14. @Colin

    “…………introduce a second homes tax.”

    There already is in effect. Hammond introduced a 3% Stamp Duty surcharge on second homes in 2016. Haven’t seen the details of Labour’s proposed tax, but I remember being told by someone buying a second home last year that the Hammond stamp duty change would cost about an extra £6k on a £200k home.

    More generally, I think the challenge for Labour is to argue that the costs imposed to individuals and corporations by extra taxation are fair and equitable and wholly repaid by the social returns to all of us in a transformed and renewed public realm. I guess it will come down to a political argument about whether increased social capital is more valuable than degrees of personal and corporate affluence.

    It’s an argument that probably hasn’t been truly had in this country since the 1970s. The right won it back then and social democracy has been in retreat ever since..

    It’s time we had the argument again, hopefully without scaremongering and distortions. The country deserves it. We all do, really.

  15. The “Funding[1] Real Change” info can be found here:

    [1] A couple of “-lite” bits in their that are OK, but the ones the Greens had were IMO better.

    Anyone who thinks the UK needs to compete “globally” (or even just intra-EU if you’re a Remainer) and thinks the L4ffer curve might just be the tiniest bit influenced by global competition (again EU only if you think that way) will be shocked by the huge damage LAB policies would do to UK competitiveness and hence the almost certain huge hit to tax revenues (and hence any ability to “fund” long-term increases in public spending).

    It’s BONKERS, totally BONKERS.

  16. @Davwel

    ‘But it is the same neglect that allows some people to use “a generic term” “S of Hadrian`sWall” that is wrong and insulting to 100,000 plus folk living in Cumberland and Northumberland. And also brings derision from Scots.’

    In the alleged words of Bill Clinton,. I feel your pain. Hard to see Aberdeen North as anything but an SNP hold on the basis of current information. I doubt Labour’s proposed tax on the oil companies is going to win them the seat.

  17. The Trevors,
    “It is L00NY Left to think you can “fix” the capital account when we’re already running a large current account deficit (one LAB would make even worse by making UK less competitive (hike taxes, regulations and exodus of wealth creators) whilst keeping us in CU+SM) – BONKERS”

    The tories show every sign of believing Keynes was right, because they adopted keynsian spend policies at the worst points of threatened recession during their current period in office. An alternative interpretation of their policy in government is they have deliberately under used stimulus as much as they thought they could get away with, so that the resulting lack of growth allowed them an excuse to cut the size of government.

    Under this interpretation, there has always been headroom to spend more and expand (or not shrink) government services, they simply have chosen not to.

    As to deliberately making the Uk economy less competitive, that is the most likely consequence of Brexit, any sort of Brexit. If under labour Brexit doesnt happen, they are off to a head start immediately.

  18. Ipsos-Mori tabs are up:

    Note they have higher switchers than anyone else has had. 99% I can predict who will comment on that ;)

  19. People should consider that if lab won this election and probably therefore brexit is cancelled within 6 months, there would be an economic boom.

    Which should be handy for a spending programme. Labour’s plans could be comfortably funded.

    There would then likely be a bandwagon desertion of the whole idea of Brexit.


    ” I guess it will come down to a political argument about whether increased social capital is more valuable than degrees of personal and corporate affluence.”

    Yes indeed. IMHO the pendulum has swung ridiculously too far towards personal/corporate affluence. Corbyn has predicted that the cheerleaders for the 1% will complain like crazy (as evidenced on this site!), which he wears as a badge of pride.

  21. And now for something that really is bonkers: the one economist who actually thinks Brexit is a good idea…..a message from Minfordland:

  22. Danny

    “Hung parliament to be expected.”

    We will be able to discuss that on 13th December. At the moment I remain very content with my forcast of Tories winning 350 seats.

  23. Watched the BBC News at lunchtime. I must say i was very impressed with Norman Smith’s initial reaction to the Labour manifesto. I thought it very measured.

  24. Tories are always bullish in elections, regardless. They are particularly bullish in this one, as they have a leader that l!es without a thought, a party HQ that changes it’s face to ‘factcheck’, external funding from God knows where, and getting to call the shots in the debates.

    Anything other than bullish, given these circumstances would be amazing. They don’t do humility. So when we factor in all that, and factor in that people are talking of them losing 31% to 100% of their Scottish seats as upbeat and bullish…

    * shakes head *

  25. The other Howard

    Unfortunately I have to disagree, the tories wont get 350 seats, it will be closer to 400

  26. The other Howard

    Unfortunately I have to disagree, the tories wont get 350 seats, it will be closer to 400

  27. P.S. – The SNP lost 37.5% of their seats in 2017, and everyone said they had peaked. Based on the past couple of months of polls they’re supposedly going to regain 45%-90% of those losses.

    So it’s really important that politicians with the only voice (i.e. debates and interviews) are not taken as a measure of VI. I don’t travel in any circles on social media, but the ones I occasionally glance at for some opinion on issues are not particularly worried, beyond the usual fear of a WM Tory majority, and the consequences.

  28. COLIN

    Corpn. Tax & CT reliefs 39

    This one is particularly eyebrow-raising. Ignore the talk about what percentage the headline rate will be set at, this means Labour want to increase the corporate tax burden by nearly 70%. Upping the rate while scrapping reliefs is a double whammy, then we have the nationalisation plans and the proposals to confiscate 10% of all companies over a certain size. It adds up to a pretty aggressive attack on the private sector, and it would seem that these kind of policies are likely to lead to substantial disinvestment and make it very hard for Labour to raise the kind of sums they’re talking about.


    I just take an interest because property is sort of my area, and parties are prone to making lots of sweeping announcements and setting targets without actually doing anything to address the causes of shortages. What really needs to happen is to make more land available for development and de-risk the planning process so as to increase the amount of investment in housebuilding. If we want to resolve the housing crisis then what we need is for housebuilding to be easy and profitable. It is for some of the larger developers, but not so much at the small and medium end of the scale (particualrly the ‘easy’ part). My concern, as someone trying to bring projects to fruition, is that a Labour government would take the approach of trying to punish developers into building, with tighter time limits, higher taxes, and (even more) unaffordable affordable housing requirements.

    If a government of any stripe wanted to increase social housebuilding then one of the best ways would be to allow social rents to rise closer to market levels, which would pump a lot of money into the sector via housing benefit and make it easier for social landlords to make their sums add up for borrowing. It doesn’t do much good unless you make more land available though.


    “Unfortunately I have to disagree, the tories wont get 350 seats, it will be closer to 400”

    Good to see you posting again even though we agree about very little politically.

    You may be correct of course, but I remain optimistic (from my point of view) but also cautious remembering 2017. Of course Johnson is very different from May and the Tory manifesto will be very different from 2017.

  30. @Trevors “It’s BONKERS, totally BONKERS”

    I have just survived an argument with my stalwart neighbour who is totally of your opinion in relation to JC while being someone less well informed. (She differs from you on Boris Johnson whom she considers a total clown and unfit to govern. She will vote Green or nothing at all).

    Shaken by her and your vehemence I turned to the OECD figures on income tax and corporation tax to see if we were going, in Labour’s scenario, to be grossly out competed. As far as i could see this was not the case.

    In the case of countries who are doing ‘reasonably well’ our corporation tax will be less than the OECD figures for France (44%), USA 39% or Belgium 34 percent and among the majority of ‘successful countries’ with rates from 22 percent (Sweden) to Germany and Australia at 30%.. East European countries tend to have lower rates as does Ireland.

    On income tax similarly we are definitely below the tax average taxing both single people and two child families more and subsidising them less than the average for other OECD countries.

    I realise that it is more complicated than this, that I have not considered VAT or other taxes, and that your point is about the impact of tax rate on tax take. All that said, I don’t think that evidence on what other countries do suggests that this aspect of Labour’s policy is so manifestly bonkers that it deserves either your capitals or her invective.

  31. @Charles

    Yes, frequently proponents of the L4ffer curve (is that actually an autofiltered word? will assume so) seem to conveniently neglect all the developed nations that run a higher tax burden than we do and have both higher productivity and a higher average wealth and income.

    Part of the latter is of course that their wealth and income is distributed rather more equally with less bunched up at the very top end.

  32. Survation poll for Great Grimsby (Labour)

    Con 44
    Lab 31
    Lib 4
    Brx 17
    Grn 3

    14th / 15th Nov

  33. Survation poll for Great Grimsby (Labour)

    Con 44
    Lab 31
    Lib 4
    Brx 17
    Grn 3

    14th / 15th Nov

  34. Maths check for Remainers

    Swinson states £50bn “Remain Bonus”

    Without reading further how much (roughly) would that be £xbn/year in terms of HMT revenue. ie what is X

    Assumptions you (not me) can make

    – Remain would add 0.5% GDP per year (versus Leave)
    – Average (not marginal) HMT revenue is 35%ish
    – Parliamentary terms are 5yrs (bit less this time but go with 5)

    So X=??/yr

    Now compare X to LAB’s prediction of per year spending/revenue changes (p2-3 in link below)

    LAB’s manifesto “promises” are 24X bigger than what Swinson thinks the impact of Brexit would be

    I just hope that if/when folks put and “X” in the LAB candidate box on 12Dec they understand the implications of McDonnell as CoE and aren’t simply voting LAB to “Stop Brexit”

    PS if you want a single “sensible” policy that obviously neither CON or LAB would impose given they know they need to win the “grey” and “greying” vote then look to Green’s idea of making pension tax relief 20% (that saves £6bn/year) or go back and look at the two of the punches to pensioners in CON’17 manifesto (eg ending triple lock would be around £6bn/yr saving by 2023/4)

  35. @GARJ

    “It doesn’t do much good unless you make more land available though.”

    Yes, exactly. In case you didn’t know, the postwar council housing boom as partly based on the fact that local councils at that time were able to zone land for housing (as they do now) and then buy that land at current use value, i.e. it’s value as farmland. That vastly increased the economic viability of council house building. I read somewhere that 80% of house price increases 1950-2012 was due to the rising cost of land.

    However, this law was unpopular with landowners, and was duly repealed by CON.


    If you go to the IFS website you will get a snippet of Paul Johnson’s initial reaction to the Labour manifesto on BBC. It is almost exactly the same as mine.

  37. @GARJ

    ….no reason why LAB couldn’t bring it back though!

  38. Ho ho ho – From Led By Donkeys twitter account –

    “We own . Farage and co have sent us a long legal letter demanding we give it to him. Well, he can have the website… for a million quid, all proceeds to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (price goes up £50k a day)”

    Even better, the legal letter quotes EU law on five separate occasions……


  39. That Grimsby survey looks pretty abysmal to me from a technical point of view:
    – sample size is only 400;
    but its far worse than this…..
    – they only bagged themselves 63 no. 18-34 year olds, and 79 no. 35-54 year olds;
    – these were then nearly doubled in the weightings, with the 55+ year olds almost halved;
    – 18-34’s give sensible sounding results, but 35-54’s are 41% CON, 18% LAB, 23% BXT, which I would say has got to be way way out on what you would expect. Even for Grimsby. :)

    Duff survey?

  40. Probably equivalent to having a sample size of about 200, if you’re doubling and halving like that. MoE of about 6-7%. So can’t reject null that the two parties have same level of support.

  41. Profhoward,

    Thanks for bringing some actual knowledge to bear.

    They also have 21% of remain voters voting Tory.

  42. @ CHARLES – I consider Boris a total clown, but I consider McDonnell as CoE so much worse than Javid that absolutely no way would I ever vote LAB.

    This isn’t about Brexit. I’d rather Remain with Javid as CoE than Leave if it meant risk of McDonnell as CoE.

    However, before “you-know-who” says something !diotic then if we Remain under CON then CON are dead – game over -gone. I’m not that keen of Plan F (Farage) but I’d be Brexit Party VI way, way, way before LAB

    Anyway, thank you for highlighting that “East European countries tend to have lower rates as does Ireland’

    So how fast have their economies been growing compared to say Germany??

    So we have clear evidence from the Real World that lowering taxes increases your GDP growth.

    NB It is as much about the “change” and speed of that change as the absolute rate. Businesses won’t move for a 1% change but “punch” them with a lot more in one go (and with other “punches” as well) then goodbye, gone (especially if other countries are welcoming them with huge sweetheart deals and much lower longer term costs)

    NB2 It also depends on how “mobile” the business is. Banks etc are VERY mobile so the Golden Geese will be GONE. I’m happy to accept utilities are zero mobility – you can go after them (eg “force” then to invest or “punch” them with a windfall tax)

    PS I’d add that E.European countries also have lower wages, generally lower environment and workers rights BUT get EU money and are allowed higher amounts of state aid. So,

    Q: would you call that a level playing field??

    No wonder we’ve been exporting manu jobs to those countries! OK that bit is to do with Brexit. I can write a full post without mentioning it it seems ;)

    @ TE – Minford’s a mor0n, no argument from me. He’s backed off on some of the crazy stuff (eg increase in NTBs would be so low that is 0) but Remain side still massively over exaggerate those numbers. I’ve always been happy to state there will be some short-term -ve impact from Brexit but if we don’t “fix” the current account soon they we are going to have one hell of recession in order to “fix” it later on.

  43. A remarkable Labour manifesto.

    It will be very interesting to see its impact, as it is unprecedented in the scale of its spending ambitions, as the IFS are saying.

    My guess is that the Remainer middle classes might react badly, and switch to the LDs. And that Lab might attract back those Leavers at the bottom of the economic pile who are contemplating voting Tory/Brexit Party.

    Overall, I suspect that Middle England is not going to find it credible.

  44. Lily Allen in tears about Labour’s manifesto, but not for the reasons that you might expect a a very wealthy young lady to be

    ‘Guys I’ve just watched the Labour manifesto. I think it’s the best manifesto I’ve ever seen”

    Well, one vote for Corbyn there, I think.

    (Cue monstrous hatchet job on Lily Allen. Guido working on it now, I expect. Internet trawl. Internet trawl! Internet trawl! Hypocrisy Alert! Hypocrisy Alert!


  45. @TW

    “So we have clear evidence from the Real World that lowering taxes increases your GDP growth.” As John McEnroe said: ‘You cannot be serious!”

    You give one tiny piece of economic data and expect it to prove a macro-economic theory that whole books have been written on? Us posters are not complete idiots you know.

  46. @Millie

    “Overall, I suspect that Middle England is not going to find it credible.”

    Only if they’re totally insulated from the depth of the public squalor and the human misery “at the bottom of the pile.” If they’re not, then they will appreciate why Labour’s plans are unprecedented in their scale of spending.

    It’s what the scale of the challenge that confronts us requires.

  47. @Millie

    As a member of the “Remainer middle classes” I can only tell you I’m delighted with the manifesto.

    The 2017 manifesto persuaded me to vote Labour for the first time in decades in this solid Tory constituency; this one is even better.

  48. People who regularly travel between Glasgow and London will welcome Labour’s pledge to complete the HS2 route to Scotland; this will encourage people to use train rather than air and help the environment.

    Those living in the north of England who travel between the main cities – not just Leeds and Manchester – will be interested in Labour’s pledge of creating a “Crossrail for the North”.

  49. Those who believe that our young people – and EU citizens not just the Irish – deserve an equal say in the country’s tax and other policies that affect them will be interested to see the proposal to reduce voting age to 16 and to extend voting to EU citizens.

1 5 6 7 8 9 22