There are two new voting intention polls out today – YouGov for the Times, and Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor in the Evening Standard.

Ipsos MORI‘s topline figures are CON 38%(nc), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 4%(nc). Fieldwork was between Friday and Tuesday (1st-5th), and changes are from MORI’s last poll back in December.

YouGov‘s topline figures are CON 41%(+2), LAB 34%(nc), LDEM 10(-1), UKIP 4%(-2). Fieldwork was on Sunday and Monday, and changes are from YouGov’s last poll in mid-January.

This does not, of course, offer us much insight on what is really happening. At the weekend a lot of attention was paid to a poll by Opinium showing a big shift towards the Conservatives and a 7 point Tory lead. Earlier in the week Opinium also published a previously unreleased poll conducted for the People’s Vote campaign the previous week, which showed a four point Tory lead, suggesting their Observer poll was more than just an isolated blip. Today’s polls do little to clatify matters – MORI show no change, with the parties still neck-and-neck. YouGov show the Tories moving to a seven point lead, the same as Opinium, but YouGov has typically shown larger Tory leads anyway of late so it doesn’t reflect quite as large a movement.

I know people look at polls hoping to find some firm evidence – the reality is they cannot always provide it. They are volatile, they have margins of error. Only time will tell for sure whether Labour’s support is dropping as events force them to take a clearer stance on Brexit, or whether we’re just reading too much into noise. As ever, the wisest advice I can give is to resist the natural temptation to assume that the polls you’d like to be accurate are the ones that are correct, and that the others must be wrong.

Ipsos MORI tables are up here, YouGov tables are here.

541 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Ipsos MORI voting intention polls”

1 2 3 4 5 11
  1. “In the interests of accuracy the UK head of state is not the PM but the Queen.”

    Indeed. It’s her name at the beginning where the high contracting parties are listed. My American friend often mischievously contrast the first seven words of the US constitution, “We the people of the United States”, with the first seven of its EU equivalent, “His Majesty the King of the Belgians”.

  2. @Trevors – from me – you missed it I think?

    “Quite a reasoned and low hysteria item on no deal outcomes –
    February 7th, 2019 at 3:52 pm”

    “Frankly, whatever, some good posts today from various folks so hopefully we can both resist the urge to go back to slanging matches – but I’m up for it if you are, I have time to k!ll”

    Do what you like. The rest of us tend to avoid the childish slanging matches. Where we do stray, most of us find the time to apologise.

    Presumably you missed that too?

  3. @ WB61 / PETERW – My bad on Brenda! I’ll admit to an error there!

    That aside though, keen to hear any insight on the “process” aspects of how May (or new CON PM, even Rudd perhaps) is going to wave the white flag and go down in history as a “surrender monkey” by writing a letter to the Donald (who was kind enough to “help out” the other day).

    If Soubs+co want Corbyn as PM and want him to be the “surrender monkey” them I’m up a for the GE that would quickly follow that (CON go WTO, LDEM/SNP go Remain via new ref and LAB want “vassal state”)

    At a stretch I know some LDEM who think Cable will, any day now, organise a “coalition of the willing” even though they can’t even manage to table a coordinated ‘PeoplesVote’ amendment amongst the not so willing. You can get 150-1 on that but I wouldn’t waste my money.

  4. Hugo

    I can’t agree Corbyn has “played a good hand”.
    Let’s be honest his whole approach has been nothing more than a cynical ploy. First we had the 6 Labour tests that didn’t get anywhere then we had the vote of no confidence again no joy, and now we have the 5 point policy which again is a nonrunner not only with the Conservatives but also with the second voters within his own party.
    So far from playing a good hand all he has managed to do lose support within his own membership because he won’t support a second vote and in his attempts to split the Tory party has succeeded in splitting his own party.
    The only people givining thanks he remains Leader are the Lib/dems and the Tories .
    As a life time supporter of the Tory party I will be the first to concede that with almost anybody else as leader of the Labour Party it would be difficult for the Tories to win the next GE, however with Mr Corbyn/ McDonnell in charge the Tories have a more than reasonable chance of another 5 yrs regardless of brexit, and I’m sure the Lib/dems will also be looking forward in increasing there number of MP’s with all those disgruntled youth votes.

  5. Jim Jam,
    “In the end, though, MPs are elected by the constituency electorate and are not delegates of local party machines to vote as mandated.”

    I think thats completely incorrect. Most elections are to safe seats, and the chosen candidate will be the MP. The voters do not matter. Mps are precisely the tool of the political parties. Just how many MPs are not chosen by one of the big two, or stretch to big half dozen parties?

    “In practice, a PM would be best advised to get a vote in the HoC first, approving the revocation at a political level, even if no laws are changed”

    There has already been a meaningful vote by the commons, which instructed the PM not to leave the EU with no deal, or with the negotiated deal.

    “I can’t see these words. Which page?”

    p23, first sentence.
    “Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. ”

    The only way to put the national interest first is to stop brexit, QED. But the rest of it goes on to list all the things they will not be leaving

    “Throughout the Brexit process, we will make sure that all derived laws that are of benefit including workplace laws, consumer rights and environmental protections – are fully protected without qualifications, limitations or sunset clauses. ”

    Which again, means all of them. Strictly speaking, the concept of Uk sovereignty does not allow a law to be unrepealable, but the deal May has negotiated seems to extend a precedent in this direction by giving the EU a veto. This would not be unprecedented in UK law, because it would be rather similar to the commons and lords currently claiming a veto on the power of the sovereign. They could hand back this power to the sovereign, but it could not be claimed back without their agreement.

    Isnt it odd that the so-called withdrawl agreement negotiated by the UK would in fact enshrine the EU as a permanent part of the government of the UK. (which it isnt now)

  6. PPPPS – I nearly forgot “Revoke+Retrigger”. Sure, if May wants to do that as we head into a new GE then that is possible. OLDNAT and I discussed that a while back.

    Risky legally and politically but CON would be in a very tight spot if we somehow got to needing that option.

  7. @Turk – “First we had the 6 Labour tests that didn’t get anywhere then we had the vote of no confidence again no joy, and now we have the 5 point policy which again is a nonrunner not only with the Conservatives but also with the second voters within his own party.”

    I really don’t want to get into a potentially partisan argument over whether Corbyn is or isn’t doing well, but while avoiding this, your post above has strayed beyond the factual boundaries of reason.

    Firstly – as @Jim Jam admirably and tirelessly explains, Labour’s six tests are simply a restatement of government policy – what was promised by May, Davis et al. If you want to claim that Corbyn has goofed because ‘his’ six tests haven’t gone anywhere, then you are basically telling the world that the Tories have l!ed.

    Secondly, I’m pretty sure that you were one of the people decrying Corbyn for not calling a no confidence vote, but now you decry him for having one and losing it. This is the job of opposition, and it’s very difficult to win a no confidence motion. I’m really not sure what you expect from Corbyn?

    Finally, you have presumably missed the fact that Corbyn has effectively split Conservative MPs with his proposal. There has not been monolithic condemnation of his initiative from the blue team, with a number of senior MPs and party figures suggesting that this is the way out for May.

    As it happens, I would suspect that if the HoC is facing a no deal in another months time, either May falls in behind Corbyn’s type of plan and splits her party, or she revokes A50 and splits her party. Labour are probably going to suffer some form of split as well, unless they somehow manage to get a second vote and this overturns the 2016 version.

    There is no point counting votes and studying polls to decide now if and how and of these eventualities may come about. When things move, they are likely to move quickly, and the political landscape will transform with it.

    I can fully understand if people don’t like Corbyn, or his plan, and it’s beyond obvious that Labour have a dilemma holding onto all their voters with Brexit, but it might still be worth getting the historical genesis of ideas and the factual content right before commenting further.

  8. Just realised I’ve cc’d the wrong post in my 1.55pm.
    Can’t find either my original or @Pete’s posting of the NIESR report. Seem to be suffering from some missing posts.

  9. ALEC

    @”We seem to be navigating through an ever shifting landscape of obfuscation,”


  10. JOHNTT


    I was just preparing to put to you the proposition that even if something is not in your “interest” , it could still be your “view” that it is correct & appropriate.

    It all depends how tightly you define your “interest”. For example I might have a view that if I pay more tax, and it is deployed in a particular way by Government, that makes for an “interest” which I can vicariously share-whilst having my direct & imediate “interest” adversly affected.

    And so there will never be a view held which does not represent the holders interest.


  11. @ ALEC – I did read the Tom Kibasi piece.

    As you should know full well then IMHO they’ve been doing that for years/decades and we’ve been too Eu-centric, laissez fairre, ne0liberal playing by the rules whilst rEU have being laughing at us – nicking our jobs (E.Europe), nicking our taxes (RoI) and having the audacity to charge us c10bn/year for the “pleasure”

    Good to see the Graun caught up eventually! Obviously they spin it as all Brexit’s fault but from JLR to Kia or Dublin to Luxembourg we’ve been the “patsy” for too long – at least that was the view of 17.4million voters, in case you missed that as well?

    I’d like the UK to “calmly dismantle the EU and bring jobs and taxes back to UK.. over time”. Time for UK to wake up to what the EU has been doing to us and intends to do to us as we Leave and once we’ve left.

    If you “liked” the Tom Kibasi piece then I’m sure you agree with me that it is time we fight back (not on the beaches though, it is c21!)

  12. JIM JAM

    @”Which is why Tory (and Labour) Party managers are against them, can ‘thave our MPs being too independently minded now can we?”


    BUt SW isn’t an INdependent. She is a Conservative.

    We need more of her ilk in my view-and of course they can cause occasional problems for their party.

    But that is a good thing imo-a conscience if you like.

  13. Colin she won a primary of course which is what Carfew was raising.


    @”What is your view about the threats to deselect Nick Boles?”

    As discussed with Jim Jam-they are entitled to put who they wish infront of a GE Electorate. When the voters have decided, the MP has a duty to excercise his/her judgement. Thats what we pay them for.

    @”And how do you feel for example about Scottish Tory MPs representing Remain voting areas supporting Brexit in line with the views of their constituency associations but not their constituents?”

    Thats an interesting one!

    Same rules apply though. MP uses their judgement. Voters decide every few years if they agreed with that judgement.

  15. @ Colin
    It all depends how tightly you define your “interest”. For example I might have a view that if I pay more tax, and it is deployed in a particular way by Government, that makes for an “interest” which I can vicariously share-whilst having my direct & imediate “interest” adversly affected.

    And so there will never be a view held which does not represent the holders interest.

    seems a false syllogism to me or do you hold to the Joey Tribbiani philosphy that there is no such thing as an unselfish act!


  16. JIM JAM

    @”Colin she won a primary of course which is what Carfew was raising.”]

    Exactly ……….which is why I quoted her in my response to Carfrew’s post about Primaries.

  17. @ Colin

    Exactly what problems has Sarah Wollaston caused for her party in any meaningful vote? A little bit of Brexit noise is all I see and talking a bit about the NHS without ever actually rebelling.

  18. I’m quite sure that formal logic cannot map the problem of MP; party and constituents.

    By definition the party comes from part (which comes from pars) so they cannot represent the whole; although the other parts may join THE part.

    By definition the constituents are not a homogenous group (apart from their addresses), but often antagonistic groups; thus they cannot be all represented. Moreover, while the majority of the constituents (who turn up on polling day) elect the Mps, it is not at all certain that they are majority on all issues. So, while the MP may represent the majority, at the same time they may not.

    The MP is a zoon politicon, thus both the party and the constituents are transormed to percwptions, convictions, and so on.

    In effect; in absence of direct democracy (immediate recall, breakdown of constituencies, establishing constitutional roles for business entities (giving them constituencies), and so on) the system of MPs is a high probability lose-lose construct. But there is no demand for changing it.

  19. @ Turk

    The fallout from Brexit is likely to be anywhere from significant to massive. Many voters will feel let down however it goes, it is quite possible that very large numbers of voters will have their lives significantly changed.

    I don’t claim to know where the fallout is going to land with voters and parties split but your post seems to suggest business as normal for the electorate.

    It’s very likely that in either a remain political landscape or a post Brexit political landscape that the political arguments will have moved on to the future. If economic conditions are bad to very bad then the Tories don’t get elected end of story. It doesn’t matter who is in charge of the Labour Party. Equally if whatever the Tories negotiate is a success then again it doesn’t matter who is in charge of the Labour Party as the Tories are back. I still don’t think the average voter is paying much attention to Brexit.

    We’re not living in politically predictable or stable times and that’s not just UK- it’s France, Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe, Spain as well. The only place that I’d take a punt on is Scotland electing a full slate of SNP again!

  20. @alec

    ‘As it happens, I would suspect that if the HoC is facing a no deal in another months time, either May falls in behind Corbyn’s type of plan and splits her party, or she revokes A50 and splits her party.’

    I said after the first meaningful vote that May has to risk splitting her party whichever way she goes (assuming that the EU do not back down on the backstop to any significant extent). The icy political logic would be to let the ERG die-hards splinter off; it would purge the party of them once and for all and there are more votes to be won in the centre than pursuing an extreme nativist course.

    That said, not enough attention is being paid to one simple logistical fact: we are past the point where the necessary legislation for a deal or no deal can be put through Parliament by 29 March. Any orderly exit now requires an extension to A50 and consequently the UK Government is no longer in control of the timetable however much May and Leadsom pretend that they are.

  21. SHEVII

    I don’t know. She uses her judgement & speak her mind -doesn’t she?

    This is her WIKI if you want the record:-

  22. WB61

    I just posted a longish response to your question & it was zapped. I have given trying to find the offending word on these occasions.

    So , regretfully our exchange will be forever incomplete .

  23. @Colin

    So , regretfully our exchange will be forever incomplete

    Ah it was ever thus, alas, for the fleeing years (in the voice of Robert Robinson)


  24. Colin
    I get you. So if I vote for something that damages my income, but adds value in a different form, I’m not actually voting against my interests.

    Given the choice, voters might well decide the price is worth paying. They need to be given agreed facts for the process to be reliable

    MPs have a duty to tell their voters when they think they are wrong, and to prove it with facts, so that they might change their minds. There’s too much hot air for my liking and not enough facts..

  25. WB61

    …or , as the DT suggested he might have said :-

    Eheu fugaces labuntur anni,


  26. JOHNTT

    @”. So if I vote for something that damages my income, but adds value in a different form, I’m not actually voting against my interests.”


    We would probably then need to start discussing the essential characteristics of Altruism.

    But best not-eh?

    Agree with your last para !

  27. If the Tory party split, assuming the ERG were the breakaway party, how may would keep there seats?

    Would the good denizens of North East Somerset return Rees-Mogg under some new UKIP/Tory/ERG party or would they go with the blue rosette*?

    Would the remain voting citizens of Wokingham return John Redwood or whoever the Tory party shipped in?

    Same question if the Labour party split.

    Finally, would a split vote jeopardise any safer seats?

    *James Acaster on Mock the week commented on a picture of Jeremy Corbyn holding a large marrow that the caption was “This is a photo of a politician and a really big vegetable – two of the only things that wear rosettes.”

  28. Alec

    Perhaps if you spent more time reading what posters actually say rather than your spin on what you think people say it would save the rest of us wasting time replying to your posts.
    First I never said Corbyn’s 6 test were Labour policy however it was Labour through Starmer who made them a issue often repeating them in HoC and in the media.
    Secondly Corbyn knew full well he couldn’t win a ncv if nothing else because the Tory party and the DUP had told him before the vote. And the only reason why he went ahead was because he was pressured into it after the numerous threats in the weeks before hand that Corbyn and others in the Labour Party had made to call such a vote. All it did was waste parlimentary time.
    Finally I didn’t deniy he hadn’t tried to split the Tory party no more than you can deny not agreeing to support a second referendum hasn’t split the Labour Party and its supporters.
    Maybe it’s you should take your own advice on commenting .

  29. 2y anniversary for the HoC vote to trigger A50!
    (as requested by Gina Miller of course!)

    “(1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.”

    Aye: 494
    No: 122
    majority: 372

    publicwhip site is great as you get to see “absent”, sort by rebel or by party, etc:

    SNP/PC/SDLP/Green all “No” so fair play to them continuing the fight to “Stop Brexit”.

    LDEM missing 2 “absent” so only managed 7 “No”, Cable and Farron subsequently continuing the sloppy attendance record for LDEM at important votes!

    Notable rebels:
    K.Clarke – only CON (but note he is firmly against a new ref)
    Owen Smith, David Lammy and total of 52 LAB who voted “No” – fair play to them, even if they eventually lost a shadow minister job for trying to “Stop Brexit”

    Some surprises for some UKPR readers perhaps?:

    1/ LAB whipped to back it, hence 163 LAB in total backed it (including likes of Umunna, but perhaps Chris Leslie had a migraine along with total of 15 LAB that abstained?)

    2/ CON – Soubs, Wollaston, Grieve, Boles, Letwin, etc – all backed it! A few abstained but far less than opposition parties so more likely to have been “matched”

    I wonder, did these “born again” Remainer MPs understand A50 – did they know what they voted for?

    For CON Remain MPs did they then not bother to read the CON manifesto under which they were elected – if they did then why did they not stand as an Independent or defect to LDEM before the 2017 GE?

    (DANNY has a different read on LAB manifesto to me, but that is for LAB internal issues)

    Anyway, the Trevors collective like anniversaries so we’ll be knocking off shortly (POETS day) to raise a glass or two to the 494 that respected the wishes of the people and to Gina Miller of course who ensured Parliament is sovereign on such matters!!

    Cheers ;)

  30. New blog from Chris Grey Britain in a tailspin

  31. @Turk @Alec

    Turk said First we had the 6 Labour tests

    You definitely gave ownership of the tests to the Labour party, whereas they were in fact Conservative promises.

  32. All happening today, from the Guardian newsfeed:

    A new Brexit party, supported by Nigel Farage has been officially recognised by the Electoral Commission and is likely to win over thousands of Tory defectors, the Telegraph reports.

    The party is called …The Brexit Party. It says it will field candidates in England, Wales, Scotland and Europe.

    The party leader is former Ukip candidate, Catherine Blaiklock, who the New European profiled her last month:

    She is best-known for failing to win Great Yarmouth for UKIP in the 2017 general election despite an innovative campaign which saw her brandish a large photograph of her Jamaican husband at one hustings in an attempt to demonstrate that ’Kippers were not racist, later telling Vice “I sleep with somebody who is black.”

    Her recent return to the limelight has provided equally startling quotes, with Blaiklock telling the Sun that “people feel treason has been committed” in the fight against Brexit …

    Blaiklock advised those on low income to heed the example of Sherpas in the Himalayas, who eat “practically nothing but boiled potatoes with a bit of salt and chilli on the side”.

    The Telegraph says:

    Farage, the former Ukip leader who is supporting the party, said “the engine is running” and he stood “ready for battle” to fight the Tories and Labour of the European Parliament elections are held.

  33. Values, interests and actions.

    Let’s say (hypthetically).

    Health is a value for me. I also recognise that being healthy is my interest. I also know that smoking is bad for my health, yet I’m a smoker. So, I can act against even conscious values and interests (let alone those of which one is not conscious of).

  34. @ EOTW – It’s not so much whether or not SMogg would be re-elected under a new banner but the “split vote” risk under a FPTP system.

    Electoral Calculus allows you to “tick” a LAB split box as it was a strong possibility back in the day (and possibly is again now?)

    For a good example of the risks of a split vote then look at Scotland in 2015 GE. SNP won 50% of the vote but 95% of the seats as the “unionist” vote was split 3-ways.

    For a smaller example you could look to 2017 GE where UKIP stood in enough seats to stop a CON win (Dudley North best example, LAB (hold) majority 22, CON 2nd but UKIP took 2,144 votes!)

    If either main party split but the other did not then they’d be hammered by the FPTP system – unless they did some serious pre-election pact (e.g. Zac Goldsmith, Richmond Park, stood as Ind uncontested by CON – lost anyway, but you get the idea). On the ground tactical voting might limit the damage but it would still be horrific in terms of seats lost.

    If you’ve built a seat-level GE predictor you can model the scenario of a CON split (quite easy to knock up a simple one, bit longer if you want to add lots of bells and whistles and go back to 2015 GE data as well).

    I expect YG model can be “tweaked” to estimate scenarios as well (eg LAB or CON split due to Brexit)

  35. Brexit party recognised by the Electoral Commission.The engine is running says the old mischief maker.It stands ready to fight the Euro elections -yeah right -.

  36. @ ALEC – :-) :-)

    I should resist but I’m sorry I can’t stop myself from having to point this out.

    “Just realised I’ve cc’d the wrong post in my 1.55pm.
    Can’t find either my original or @Pete’s posting of the NIESR report. Seem to be suffering from some missing posts.
    February 8th, 2019 at 3:04 pm”

    There are no missing posts. Here I’ll help you out!

    I reposted PETE’s post (see 1:07pm today, page 2, this thread)
    He stayed up v.late or got up v.early as posted at
    “February 6th, 2019 at 2:59 am”

    Then you posted:

    “@Pete – that’s a helpful report from the NIESR.
    …(lot of drivel and nonsense)…
    February 6th, 2019 at 9:57 am”

    both PETE and your comments are on page 6, last thread.

    Perhaps blame the UKPR delay? Oh wait, you started your reply to PETE with “@Pete -“

    Always happy to help! :-) :-)

  37. @Bantams

    “The alternative potential path, which the Labour party are clearly not saying no to, is that she goes for a softer Brexit, a Norway style arrangement.

    “Quite possibly there is a majority for that in the House of Commons.

    “The trouble is it’s a majority that is based on a bit of the Conservative party and much but not all of the Labour party and as a result both parties split.”

    If you want a fictional equivalent, then read C. P. Snow’s “Corridors of Power” where a government minister with a controversial policy succeeds in getting it through the Commons only with the support of the opposition, but is then forced to resign because he has lost the confidence of his own Party and so the policy is never implemented.

  38. @ SHEVII (@ COLIN) – Wollaston’s “rebel” voting record. The ones that resulted in a majority are the ones to look into.

    Of course all the ones that culminated in the “Meaningful Vote” clause (section 13 of EU Withdrawal Bill, now Act) can be found next to Gina Miller in examples of Pyrrhic victories

  39. JJ

    A HPC with independent minded MPs voted for by independent minded electors and with no formal party allegiances would suit me fine.

    They could be able to vote for every issue based on what they feel is best rather than whether they will face the sack and, theorteically at least, they would stand a far better chance of coming to decisions which reflect a majority view of the country.

    On another issue, do Labour Party members automatically have a vote in prospective de-selections or is it done by smaller, elected bodies?

  40. @Trevors – Yes – I have got confused between that link and the exchanged with @Charles. My mistake. Always happy to admit when I get something wrong.

    Thanks for tracking it down and correcting my error, but again you just couldn’t manage doing it without the insults.

  41. Hi Laszlo
    If we deliberately act or vote against our interests, how can we expect our representatives to act in our interests?
    The instances of such conflicts of interest are widespread and the subject of such films/novels as The Children’s Act
    There has to be a wider interest on which MPs should rely. I also think we should lose the word “democracy”. The ancient Greeks who invented it and kept failing to sustain it would not recognise our party system at all.

  42. I wouldn’t necessarily be so quick to dismiss the damage to the VI of primarily tories when Mr Farage rides back into town and plonks himself down on the question time panel once again.

    Having presided at a lot of elections I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked which of them is Mr Farage’s lot because they want to vote for him, and have encountered a fair amount of hostility when I very politely point out that it’s not my job to tell them who to vote for, since the system assumes they have educated themselves about what they are doing prior to coming out to vote.

    Looks like Nige has decided that there’s a good chance of Euro elections being held in May after all, since I can’t imagine that even he would be seen consorting with the lady in charge of his new party unless he imagines that there is a possibility of the gravy train leaving without him otherwise, and if they do take place it is going to be hard to try to blame Corbyn for failing to deliver the peoples’ Brexit.

    Can’t wait.

  43. BBC R4 Tonight told by no less than 3 cabinet ministers that no deal would lead to Irish border poll, and probably a united Ireland.

    Lots of MPs will have lots to think about when they come face to face with the prospect of no deal.

  44. Sky Data Poll on the views of Irish people on their views on the backstop and tbeir Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations. Overwhelming support for the backstop and for the Irish Government not to offer concessions:

  45. Paul – all members get to vote in trigger ballots as part of the organization they are members of that affiliates to local Constituency Labour Parties. If a third of affiliates vote for a full ballot to be held an open selection with the sitting MP automatically short-listed is held.

    In my CLP for example there are 4 branches but also several Trade Union affiliates, I don’t know how many. Lets say 8 affiliates so if 4 of them vote by simple majority in their group (branch for example) to trigger a ballot one is held.

    Due notice of the trigger ballot being held has to be given; it is not like the Tory MPs letters to Graham Brady that can be drip fed.

  46. You can even see the “rebel” league table on Public Whip:

    Hoey (LAB): 31.7%
    Stringer (LAB): 28.0%
    K.Clarke (CON): 21.8%
    Soubs (CON): 14.3%
    Wollaston (CON): 7.4%

    Sadly Field and Hopkins dropped off the board now as they are independent but I’m pretty sure they’d be up with Hoey and Stringer.

    The other thing to note in the “league table” is how quickly the numbers drop to near zero – breaking whip used to be “serious”. Having said that party discipline has collapsed in both main parties.

    Lastly, SNP are way down the table – but no jokes please!

  47. Just browsed the Britain Elects council by election results and some encouraging results for LIBDEMS
    – Wokingham (Evedens) Lib Dems +16% Con -8.80% Lab -7.5% perhaps John Redwood should watch out!
    Bolton & Underhill (bradford) LIB Dem gain. Lib Dem +9 Lab -10
    Thornton Lambeth Lab Hold. Lab -18 Lib Dem +23

  48. DANNY
    ““I can’t see these words. Which page?”

    p23, first sentence.
    “Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. ”

    I can’t see “these words”, that is, the words you used in the post I replied to, in that sentence either.

    Because you made them up. Thanks for the confirmation.

  49. peterw: p23, first sentence.
    “Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. ”

    There is an oxymoron which does not stand the test of time.

1 2 3 4 5 11