Another week, another Brexit poll for partisan twitter to get overexcited about. In this case the fuss was caused by a YouGov poll that appeared to show people backing Brexit by 48% to 39%. This survey was actually the GB answers to question asked to several EU countries – the intention of it wasn’t to measure UK support for Brexit, but to see whether or not the public elsewhere in Europe still wanted Britain to stay, or whether we’ve got to point that they’d really just like us to hurry up and go away (for the record, most of the German, Danish, Swedish and Finnish public would still like Britain to stay. The French are evenly divided). There was also a question earlier in the survey about Martin Schulz’s vision of a federal Europe which may or may not have influenced answers – however, this post isn’t about the specific question, but about all the Brexit surveys we tend to see.

As ever, when a poll comes out that appears to show public support for Brexit it is excitely retweeted and shared by lots of pro-Brexit voices. When a poll comes out that appears to show public opposition to Brexit it is excited retweeted and shared by lots of anti-Brexit voices. Both of these create a deeply misleading picture. To start with, there are three different questions about current attitudes to Brexit that people often treat as being measures of public support for Brexit which don’t always show the same answers…

1) Questions asking how people would vote in a Brexit referendum tomorrow
2) Questions asking whether people think Brexit was the right or wrong decision
3) Questions asking whether people think we should now go ahead with Brexit or not

Starting with the first type of question, BMG and Survation both ask EU referendum voting intention regularly, and ICM, Opinium and YouGov have asked it on occassion. BMG’s most recent poll showed a ten point lead for Remain and got a lot of publicity, but this was something of an outlier. Typically these polls have shown a small lead for Remain of between one and four points.

Any question asking about voting intention in a referendum or election is really two questions – it’s working out who would vote, and then how they would vote. When polls ask how the public would vote in an EU referendum tomorrow they tend to find not much net movement among remain and leave voters, the Remain leads are down to those who didn’t vote in 2016. This raises all sorts of questions about whether those past non-voters would actually vote and whether they are actually representative of 2016 non-voters, or are too politically engaged and likely to vote.

There’s also a question of how useful a referendum voting intention question is when there isn’t actually a second referendum due. The most likely route to a second referendum is a referendum on the terms of the deal…which obviously aren’t known yet. In my experience, most people who contact polling companies asking whether we’ve asked a Brexit referendum question aren’t primarily interested in how people would vote in a second referendum, but really want to see if the public have changed their mind about how they voted in the first one…

YouGov regularly ask a direct “Bregret question” to get at that question, asking whether people think voting for Brexit was the right or wrong decision. The results here are quite similar to referendum questions, but because it is a question about public attitudes as a whole rather than voting intentions concerns about likelihood to vote don’t arise. Looking at the regular YouGov tracker, there has again been a slow movement towards Regret, meaning that for the last three or four months the poll has consistently shown slightly more people thinking Brexit was the wrong decision than the right decision.

The final group of questions is “what do we do now” questions. No company asks a regular tracker along these lines, but there are several questions asked on this sort of basis. By stating with “at this point” the question in the YouGov poll this week tilts toward this sort of question, but there are other more explicit examples asking what people think should happen next – for example, YouGov have a semi-regular tracker that asks how the government should proceed with Brexit, which this month found 52% thought the government should go ahead with Brexit, 16% that they should call a second referendum, 15% that they should stop Brexit and remain in the EU. The reason for the difference in these questions is that a substantial minority of people who voted Remain in 2016 consistently say that the government should go ahead and implement Brexit (presumably because they see them as having a democratic duty to implement the referendum result).

It is true to say that more of the public now tend to think Brexit was the wrong decision than the right decision, and say they would vote against it in a referendum. It is also true to say that most of the public think that Brexit should go ahead. Neither measure is intrinsically better or worse, right or wrong… they are just asking slightly different things. If you want to understand public attitudes towards Brexit, you need to look at both, rather than cherry pick the one that tells you what you want to hear.

1,317 Responses to “On measuring support for Brexit”

1 24 25 26 27
  1. Would also be happy with scenrio 1 ‘Continued SM and CU membership from March 2019’

  2. @ NEIL J – so you’d prefer lower GDP/Capita, lower % employment and more strain on societal shared goods (compared to the two WTO options)?

  3. Downsides of the two WTO options
    As expected, the more severe the type of Brexit (going from Scenario
    2 to Scenario 5), the greater the negative impact will be on London and
    the UK (see graphs below). The results show that Brexit will not only
    reduce the size of the UK economy (compared to what may have
    happened if the UK remained in the Single Market and Customs Union),
    but also put it on a slower long-term growth trajectory (i.e. the economy is still growing, but at a slower rate than if the UK remained
    in the Single Market and Customs Union). So the cumulative change in
    GVA over time will keep increasing in the long-term
    The modelling results show that Brexit will have a negative impact on
    the UK economy across all key indicators, in particular, investment
    (see table below). The UK is expected to experience a loss of 1.0%
    (£18.6bn) in GVA by 2030, 6.7% (20.2bn) in investment and 0.5%
    (176,000 people) in employment under Scenario 2 (compared to what
    may have happened if the UK remained in the Single Market and
    Customs Union). This loss would be 2.7% (£49.1bn) in GVA, 13.8%
    (£41.6bn) in investment and 1.4% (468,000 people) under Scenario 4
    and 3.0% (£54.5bn) in GVA, 15.4% (£46.7bn) in investment and 1.5%
    (482,000 people) in employment under Scenario 5. The fall in the value
    of investment is greater than that of overall GVA, as the expected fall in
    London is expected to experience a loss of 0.8% (£4.1bn) in GVA by
    2030 and 0.6% (30,500 people) in employment under Scenario 2
    (compared to what may have happened if the UK remained in the
    Single Market and Customs Union), a loss of 1.9% (£9.6bn) in GVA and
    1.6% (83,800 people) in employment under Scenario 4 and a loss of
    2.1% (£10.8bn) in GVA and 1.6% (87,000 people) in employment under
    Scenario 5 (see table below). It is not expected to be affected as much
    as the UK, in terms of GVA and productivity. This reflects that London
    has a higher concentration of higher-value sectors, which are more
    resilient, and are able to recover from economic shocks more quickly.
    Population (and so employment) impacts in London are noticeably
    stronger than in the UK. London has a larger proportion of non-UK
    workers, so border restrictions and a reduction in EU migration are
    expected to impact London the most.

  4. PTPR

    very rarely do i agree with a guardian article but the analysis almost completely explains Brexit vote and shows the economicially rational vote of people who voted leave. Two groups voted in their own economic interest.

  5. Example of bias in Khan’s study (p57):
    “It is uncertain to what extent the impact on start-ups would be and how long that impact would last, depending on the Brexit scenarios and how other economic variables are affected, but it is likely that the impacts would be negative

    No theoretical or empirical evidence to support that whatsoever. However, a large amount of both theoretical and empirical evidence does support the view that excessive regulations reduce the number of start-ups and scale-ups (whilst protecting the kind of larger companies that make up most lobby groups and most Remain press analysis!!)

    From memory Economists for Free Trade predict a windfall of +0.5% per annum to GDP from SME’s (most of whom are UK-UK trade) via removal of excessive EU regulation. I think they overstate it but for certain if parliament had the “sufficient energy” to focus on the opportunities of Brexit then the gains to start-ups (embryo SMEs) from a clean break of ECJ jurisdiction would be +ve not -ve.

  6. Sea Change: Was also interesting reading about the Chinese banks locating to London. When they were asked about Brexit they brushed it off saying 100 years of infrastructure and experience was far more important.
    The vultures are circling.

  7. @ NEIL J – adjust the findings for “per capita”. If the sole desire is to increase GDP as fast as possible then the solution is to massively increase net immigration – is that what you want?

    Should we go full-Merkel? More people = higher GDP. Fine for the Berlin and Brussels elites to adopt that policy but not so popular with the humble electorate due to the societal implications.

  8. @S THOMAS

    I agree that it does show the issues but I am not sure that the solution has anything to do with staying or leaving the EU. Hence my point, we are not solving the issue we are just casting blame and choosing a tribe in the simplest form of the debate. What I found interesting was that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to stay yet they are not best placed in term of this chart.

    My point is that our growth is london and South East centric our push toward more services makes that area even more important for investment and indeed movement of people. (it is not only immigrants that come to London)

    I have written this several times but it is worth reading Lord Ashcroft’s book in it he wrote the following

    “whatever was printed on the ballot paper the question large numbers of voters heard and the answer they gave had nothing much to do with the European Union … ultimately, the question many saw was: ‘Are you happy with the way things are and the way they seem to be going?’ And their answer was: ‘Well, since you ask … no'”

    My point about the referendum is that from my experience of campaigning was that it was not much to do with the referendum in the main it was people hurting. I think that feeling has been hi jacked as the people whom voted leave have in many case diametrically opposite views of why we are leaving the EU. for example depending on your view point the EU is a neo liberal rules based entity that serves corporate interest and does not serve the working class, or it is a socialist haven of regulation and stiles enterprise. both voted leave and both will sit on opposite sides of the solution to the our problems.


    Scenario 5 gives us a higher rise in unemployment, lower productivity, lower exports, lower investment, a lower GVA.
    Perhaps I am strange but I do not think that is a good option


    What EU regulations are stifling the UK to the tune of 0.5% of GDP?

    That is a huge amount per annum what are we asking them to do count a million on their fingers……..

    I personally think that most if not all the regulations will remain. If the overhead were that heavy you would have had lobbyists crying for change. Everytime the UK does the bonfire of red tape we find that we really need it and it never delivers what we believe it would.


    I forgot to send you a link to the book

  11. Alec
    “@Robert Newark – as with @Sea Change, you are missing the fundamental point. Whatever free trade deal we negotiatiate it will be worse than we currently have. That’s a given, so you need to just accept that and accept that in terms of trade, there will be negatives to us leaving the EU. These may be outweighed by the positive gains – that’s a matter of debate – but stop [retending that we will have unfettered access to the largest free trade area in the world – we won’t. This doesn’t mean we won’t be able to trade with them – just that some of the terms of that trade will deteriorate. It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.”

    At no time in any of my posts have I said or inferred that the trade deal that will be negotiated which will give us access to the single market, would be exactly the same as we have now as members. The extent of the deal is to be negotiated and I think that I have used the words negotiate in appropriate posts.

    If a satisfactory deal cannot be negotiated, then we leave without one and trade under wto. But that also destroys the divorce settlement recently agreed because until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed. I do actually believe that something will be agreed at the last minute, as usual within the eu.

    Of course there will be some short term negatives to leaving the eu but nothing like the future positives which will arrive in the medium term. In that I am of the same view as @TOH.

    So I am not missing any ‘point’, as you say I am.

    When the referendum was proposed, I was on balance, a remainer, but by the vote I had become on balance, a leaver, persuaded by the nonsense predictions of an apocalypse by Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, et al and by my brother in law who highlighted the monumental wastage of money, much of which can’t be accounted for but including ludicrous levels of expenses, which don’t have to be accounted for, special low rates of tax for EU officials, tax free shopping, in special shops, 1st class travel everywhere not to mention the monumental waste of time and money decamping to Strasbourg each month.
    No wonder the Kinnocks and othe good socialists have become multi millionaires.

    @NeilA also put forward excellent arguments regarding the over population of England in particular, which, a bit like the M25 has become a victim of its own success and how we can do little about it as long as free movement is sacrosanct.

    Since the vote, my view has hardened considerably caused mainly by the antics of Junker and his crew and by extreme remainers like Blair, who start every ulogy on the subject with, “we respect the result of the vote,”, when they clearly do no such thing.

    I do think that TOH’s suggestion of a vote every 40 years is a good idea, as I do accept that maybe there is a generational side to this and that the majority attitude may change over time.

  12. @Crofty

    Quote from article:

    Mr Farage told Channel 5’s The Wright Stuff a fresh vote could “kill off” the Remain campaign for a generation.

    He said “the percentage that would vote to leave next time would be very much bigger than it was last time round”.

    That looks like over-confidence to me.

    Not like Farage in the slightest!

  13. @ PTRP – thank you for the Guardian piece. The chart of regional growth would look very similar for EA19 countries (although the scale would have to be lowered and expanded to include the austerity punished countries). We dodged the Euro bullet, dodged Schengen (although did not put transitional arrangements in place for the E.Europe expansion) and kept some vetoes elsewhere but the history of being in EU has been dodging the disasters and sharing in the misery. What happened to the promised economic benefits of the EU? EU GDP has lagged other developed nations since it began in early 1990s and the lag and divergence has been especially severe in the EA19 since they formed the Euro (thankfully Brown convinced Blair not to join that disaster)

    This Guardian piece shows the big difference between EU and UK. UK is a full transfer union – London’s gains benefit the UK.
    “The report said a near doubling in the threshold for paying income tax to £11,000 had taken thousands of low income workers out of paying tax.”

    Of course we can and should do more to promote a more balanced regional growth but consider how Westminster has helped the lower paid people of Wigan compared to how Brussels/Berlin punished the youth and economies in general for Southern EA countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain! Economics will help a little as we see more London companies move some staff out to the regions (banks have been doing this for a long time as London has been more than capable of replacing the jobs it outsources to rUK with new jobs due to the Global financial capital status of London).


    @”tax free shopping, in special shops, ”

    Are they still called GUM ? :-)

  15. Re Khan’s reports:

    Whatever your view of the conclusions it is strange in the extreme that the Mayor of London has commissioned this rather than Central Government or its Departments (whether by sectorial analysis or otherwise). When it was revealed that no economic forecasting or planning for any potential outcome had been undertaken on a strategic basis I was horrified. We are told, and I believe, that Brexit will occur no matter what. Surely in those circumstances it is incumbent on any competent administration to attempt forecasts in order to plan to ameliorate any negative impacts but also, and perhaps more importantly, to take advantage of any positive opportunities. Not to have done so must amount to a dereliction of duty and is playing poker with all our futures.


    From that link on EU REgional GDP :-

    EU Metropolitan REgions generate 66% of EU GDP .

    London generates 22% of UK GDP

  17. COLIN
    Ah, good old ‘Gum’ (and ‘Zum’)

  18. @ PTRP – cost of EU regulation is hard to estimate. Back before the Ref, OpenEurope put the amount at 33bn/year (1.7% of GDP) and I’ve linked you to that for the details on the specific regulations as per your request. The number is “gross” and I think they have revised it lower. SMEs are hit hardest as they don’t have the economies of scale that larger companies have and even where they have no EU trade they have to meet EU regulations.Longer reply hit the auto-mod and need to crack on with some paid work! I think a gain of 0.2% of GDP is a “fair” number to use but accept it is highly subjective and depends on HMG action (ie does not fit a “robust” model)

    NB I’m not saying all of EU regulations are bad. The Repeal Bill is obviously getting bad press amongst Remain types as they see it as a way to frustrate or stop Brexit but the important issue is that it will be for the UK parliament to decide on the regulations for the UK economy and then where relevant for exporting companies to ensure they meet the regulations of the country to which they export.

  19. Good afternoon to all at UK Polling.

    Am pleased to see John Mcdonnell going to the forum of bankers, leaders and “opinion formers” in Davos. I am sure John will urge them to spread the wealth of the corporations amongst the working people so all can share in the bounty.
    I cannot see this accident prone government surviving much longer so the captains of industry need to listen to John as he maps out the Labour plans for a better tomorrow.

  20. @technicolouroctober “Sea Change: Was also interesting reading about the Chinese banks locating to London. When they were asked about Brexit they brushed it off saying 100 years of infrastructure and experience was far more important.
    The vultures are circling.

    Deary me. You should read the articles, they see London as the perfect base from which to manage their worldwide investments

  21. Since the Yuletide interlude, those of us in our local party have been tasked with assisting our Scottish brethren with turning 2018 into the “Great Revival”. Our friends in HQ believe Scotland is now fertile ground for the party to reconnect with its traditional Scottish base. The feeling is Scottish nationalism is on the wane and the working people of this island need to remember our shared struggles and history and march onwards, and together, towards the promised land.
    Our local members have been excited to be part of this project and have worked with great gusto. We feel there is only one man who can succeed rapidly , and that man is Jeremy.
    We look forward with eager anticipation as the politics of divisiveness and fear are replaced with hope, anticipation and excitement.
    We shall overcome.

  22. @ TW

    The open europe analysis is utterly flawed, about 10% of that figure is from a pre implementation impact assessment of the working time directive. The government didn’t really ever do a serious follow up but but the Dept of business/trade/skills or whatever name it was going on at the time found some years after it had been implemented that it didn’t seem to have any impact at all.

    Many of the other contributions to the £33bn figure are similarly flawed or outdated.

    The other thing to consider is you’re assuming that any such deregulation is politically possible. With labour where they are in the polls that seems rather unlikely, particularly regarding workers rights.

    Also, the few economically positive visions of post brexit britain essentially involve emulating places like Singapore, given that such places are several times more dependent on cheap immigrant labour than the UK is (signapore’s resident population is i recall ~40% immigrants) I’m not sure how that’s going to fly with the electorate’s concern on immigration levels…

  23. RUDYARD: Our local members have been excited to be part of this project and have worked with great gusto. We feel there is only one man who can succeed rapidly , and that man is Jeremy.
    We look forward with eager anticipation as the politics of divisiveness and fear are replaced with hope, anticipation and excitement.
    We shall overcome.

    What about Kim Yong Un? Has he fallen out of favour?

  24. @ COLIN – I think we are at x-purposes. UK has a transfer union to solve the disparity with such distributive measures as increasing the lower rate threshold for income tax to benefit poorer people in poorer regions. EU is not a transfer union by Germany’s insistence and hence you see countries like Greece forced to raise taxes to pay off bail-out packages furthering their economic divergence. The map of the link you provided shows one colour for everyone below 75%, they really should expand that out down to those as low as 25%!
    We can also elect and kick-out our govt if we believe they are doing a bad job of distributing wealth – not something the people of Greece have much control over anymore as they are forced to meet the requirement of their bail-out!

    @ WB – go to Table 5.4 on p45 and you’ll see the huge differences between Khan and Dhingra’s sector level economic impact studies. In general Khan has lower impacts but if you take something like agriculture then Dhingra shows a gain of 4.2% from ‘Hard’ Brexit and Khan has a lose of 2.1%. DD’s impact studies are, from what I understand, are more “technical” about how to do it rather than what the cost/benefit might be – I’d like to see those published as they contain the info on the areas we need to be implementing (with 3bn set aside to do so). Any economic model depends on its assumptions and the example of agriculture shows the wildly different results that different models predict. My simple point is that a pro-active HMG can effect the economic impact at all levels (regions and sectors) but that in order to be “robust” most published models will assume a static HMG response and hence are IMHO missing the most fundamental predictor of future performance (that we are in control of, external shocks are an even bigger factor). Agriculture should again be an obvious example where HMG can chose the priorities of the future and needs to balance the demands of economics with environment, etc. rather than necessarily pursue a GDP maximising outcome.


    Let’s start by where I agree. i think the EU does not do enough fiscal transfers to poor regions. It is also something that the UK itself has been against. The argument is that we can spend the money on our own……….so in many ways we are no different to other EU countries and in fairness we bleat about it more than any other country in the EU but i think that is to do with the whole Europhobia and euromyths

    I also believe the UK is not a full transfer union. Indeed much of the problems of they way Tories did austerity meant that it hit the poorest hardest the middle hardly at all the richest in a proportion that they could coupe with

    Indeed there is a IFS report which basically covered this that I would find as it effected me when I was unemployed and then doing a NMW job. The 11K income tax threshold is a real bugbear to me as it was accompanied by tax credit cuts, steeper withdrawal of fund and NI increases and stupid sanction on people to make them find more work just to name a few

    More over the loss of central government local authority grants hit the poorest disproportionately

    it was highly political as we can see from the events in surrey. What was interesting to me is my one experience of working with EU and a local development agency in NI I have to say the EU office was very helpful although their mandate was limited. Invest Northern Ireland my contrast sent money back to the government since they had such impossible criterion for doing development and basically prefered not to give to new businesses but basically funded a new microsoft office and other companies that really did not need the money but left local companies stranded who need capital and or had cash flow issues.

    What was also worrying in that in Northern Europe I believe 7 out of the 10 poorest regions were in the UK. so compared to much of our near neighbours and supposedly similar placed countries we have bigger regional disparities. Now we do better than Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain but considering that the germans took over the east and we are not better than them is actually frightening since we have had none of that upheaval.

    As I have pointed out many times EU countries have been on different trajectories, Spain is not the same as Holland which is different to Sweden and Germany. As you say the many of the countries problems predate the EA19 and if they break up the euro in my view will not be solved by them since it will take fiscal transfers to do this hence why they stay.

    There was an interesting argument in that we should have helped pay for german reunification we did not and that was a biggest set back for the EU coupled with the Eastern European countries joining I think that was something that was alway going to set the EU as a whole back compared to say US or Canada indeed the fact that EU as a whole as been able to assimilate EE countries is a real testament to the EU success

    Simply put we seem to rubbish the EU but have the same problems ourselves we argue that they are using austerity but we are doing exactly the same we want them to help the poorest but we make a point of stand out of the way and we have voted to leave so I fear much of our problem now is that we don’t have any one to blame but ourselves. Joining or not joining the euro was a choice for each country there was nothing wrong with the rules it is just that some countries did not abide by them and hence got burnt.
    My real concern about the EU is that it will not do the level of investment as a unit to make improvements across the nations but in many ways the point of EU is that it is not a federation as much as people think it is people can make their own decisions some of which will be wrong. Take a country like Latvia why is it doing better than greece. it is nothing to do with the EU or else all of the countries would be exporting giant like germany or complete basketcases like Greece.

  26. @ JAMESB – hence why I use +0.2% not +1.7%. Khan’s report assumes a -ve number with no justification.

    This was a debate for pre-23Jun16. It is now for UK parliament to decide on which EU regulations we keep/change/remove.

  27. @Colin “When you look at the global rankings, the sheer critical mass of expertise in London compared to the other Financial Centres is astounding.

    We should be hugely proud of this.”


    Around the turn of the millennium, US exchanges captured approximately 75 percent of the total value of global public offerings. By 2008, this figure had fallen to 15 percent, in large part due to the rise of London. Most things of financial importance in most parts of the world are subject to decisions made in boardrooms across London’s financial districts. The same cannot be said of New York.

    To put this into perspective, even the US federal and municipal governments refer to London daily to set referenced interest rates on a wide range of financial contracts. This is also true of loan contracts throughout the USA (and the world), including simple commercial mortgages in, for example, New York, Chicago or Houston. Even the most obscure insurance contracts from flyover America to rural China pass through the London re-insurance market. Regional markets like this are in communication with London, not New York, every day.

    By far the most liquid markets today are the foreign exchange, interest rate derivatives, insurance and bond markets, the essential lifeblood of the global financial system. These dwarf the equity markets by orders of magnitude. Even by conservative estimates, London dominates all of these markets by magnitude of transaction volume. To put this into perspective, more money flows through London, daily, than all the exchanges in North America combined.

  28. @ PTRP – I really do need to do some paid work. I’ll read your reply later.

  29. @Robert Newark

    You are wasting your time trying to reason with Alec on this. He even thinks that when the Leave campaign talked about the Free Trade that Europe as a whole has, through various preferential treaties from “Iceland to the Russian Borders” that this meant Leave were saying we were staying in the Customs Union.

    Iceland isn’t in the Customs Union.

  30. Technicouluroctober

    Your cynicism does you no good. To be against everything is easy, to work for something you believe in is much harder, but truly rewarding.
    Lift up your eyes and look around you, listen and learn. The world is only as bad as we make it.

  31. I must say some splendid contributions from Leavers today. The UKPR World seems a brighter place for once.

  32. @Rudyard

    So Momentum are marching North to spread the gospel according to St. Jeremy then.

    My question to you is what is the general feeling amongst those who think Jez is the 2nd coming: are they okay with his ploy to not fight Brexit at all apart from the odd token effort just to troll the likes of Chuka Umunna?

  33. @Sea Change – “Iceland isn’t in the Customs Union.”

    You are quite right – I apologise. I hadn’t realised that, and admit to getting highly confused about the various trading structures linked to the EU.

    In many ways, this makes that promise by Vote Leave on page 11 of the document I posted to even worse.

    They aren’t promising that Brexit would mean we stay in the Customs Union – but in the Customs Union as well as EFTA! Wow!

    Joking aside, I actually think you and I are in some level of agreement on this. I note you said that you accepted that we wouldn’t have the same level of market access after Brexit, and that is really all I am saying. You also said that the idea of remaining in the formal free trade areas ‘from Iceland to the Russian border and Turkey’ – whatever these are classified as – would mean accepting other things that Vote Leave said they would reject, so we can accept that they were self contradictory.

    I don’t really think anyone can reasonably argue that the intention of that p. 11 quote was to convince voters that there would be no disruption to trade with the EU/CU/SM/EFTA or whatever, which is the point you and I started arguing about. This was the intention of the Vote Leave statement, and you have accepted that it was a false claim to make.

  34. First yougov poll of the year, Lib Dems reaching the dizzy heights of 9%

    Lab 41
    Con 40
    LibD 9
    UKIP 3
    Green 2

  35. Very interesting to see the latest news that first Nigel Farage, and latterly the official Leave.EU campaign have now called for a second referendum. From the Indie – “Mr Banks said the UK must “act radically now” or it would “sleepwalk into a faux Brexit,” adding “the only option now is to go back to the polls and let the people shout from the rooftops their support of a true Brexit”.”

    This makes the assertions from many leavers on here that a second vote would be undemocratic as the decision has already been made rather difficult to maintain. Clearly, many leavers are seeing the Brexit being delivered as not being what was voted on, which undercuts the assertions that there is only one type of Brexit.

    It’s an interesting point in the whole process, and the key issue is going to be to watch how other leavers respond to this call. Whatever happens, it’s great news for any remainers and true democrats who want a second confirming vote.

  36. Edit: first Yougov poll conducted this year, there was the one released a week ago which was done pre-xmas. Fieldwork for this one was 7-8 Jan

  37. TCO

    “What about Kim Yong Un? Has he fallen out of favour?”

    Kim Rong Un – for proper overcoming Jeremy is the right one.

    My skin still crawls at the thought of the Blair/Brown Terror, that H.P Lovecraft himself predicted – children being paid allowances to continue their education through to the age of eighteen for example.

    [And other tales of madness of which we no longer speak…..]

  38. Opinion poll: Lab/Con virtually level pegging seems pretty awful for Labour to me. Obviously much of the personnel and the overall situation will be entirely different come an election, but it doesn’t suggest that Rudyard’s vision of Labour sweeping to victory is quite a certain as he predicts.

    LD rise may be significant but – to me – they have the feel of Python’s dead parrot. Farron’s latest stuff about gay sex and sin won’t help.

  39. “RUDYARD

    Do not be downhearted. Look where the party was when the PM called the last election…and look where Jeremy led us to.”

    Defeat I believe it’s called.

  40. Both parties neck and neck May leading Corbyn all despite the unrelenting negative press.
    Maybe in the real world people realise Brexit is going ahead and negotiations are difficult but not impossible and the NHS despite the very negative reporting of lack of funds hasn’t actually collapsed and that money is only part of the solution and are sick and tired of politicians making political capital out of every twist and turn when less politics and more independent reorganisation is the way forward.

  41. “When the Leave campaign talked about the Free Trade that Europe as a whole has, through various preferential treaties from “Iceland to the Russian Borders” that this meant Leave were saying we were staying in the Customs Union.
    Iceland isn’t in the Customs Union.”

    Nor are half the countries on the Russian border.

  42. We know Rudyards view is a minority position amongst Labour Voters but has any polling been done of LP members and the EU.

    Anecdotal I know but all momentum members in my branch that I know 10-15 or so voted remain.

  43. so we have

    ABT 41
    ABL 40
    ABT and Lab 9
    UKIP 3
    Green 2

    Apologies to ON cant get SNP in to this table.

  44. Thanks FROSTY, I think JIM JAM has nailed it (see rise in the DKs below)!

    As CROFTY and TURK point out quite disappointing poll from LAB perspective. Health has risen as a top3 priority, now at 53% (+14) but the benefit has gone to DK at 26% (+4) with CON 19% (-3) and LAB 37% (-2).
    DKs putting in a strong performance in VI as well! Amongst 2017 voters the DKs are:
    CON 18% (+4)
    LAB 14% (+4)
    LDEM 21% (+11)

    The LDEM “resurgence” is small and tiny x-breaks but can be seen as coming from 2017 LAB (combined with an increase in their own loyalty than is offset but their increased DK) – one to watch for 2018!

    A new baggage free party, led by Sadiq Khan perhaps, would probably be more attractive to young Remainers than either LAB or LDEM?

    Final minor point of minor note: from memory we see that for the first time since the GE we have a poll with CON loyalty (90%) being above LAB loyalty (88%).

    Personally with no GE on the horizon I’d prefer CON to be further below LAB in the polls to keep them focussed on delivering Brexit, avoid the ferrets getting restless. The window to change leader and CoE has sadly passed, back burner until 2020 with 2yrs to next GE. A larger LAB lead would also bias CON to a further small shift in policy a little more to the Centre but I expect May lacks the bravery to: bring back the drop to double lock on pensions; rebrand and return of the poorly executed Robin Hood tax (aka Dementia tax); any hike in personal taxes; any modification of the final cuts in corporation tax to focus companies on societal benefits; using some of those to invest more in public services.

  45. Is Rudyard for real?

  46. PETE B

    Please explain?

  47. Rudyard
    Sentences such as “Building the new socialist Jerusalem is not compatible, in my opinion, with belonging to a bosses cabal run for the benefit of German businessmen. ” strike me as being so OTT that I wasn’t sure if they were an elaborate p-take.

    I do agree with your remarks about the Greeks however.

1 24 25 26 27