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 4 5 6 7 8 11
  1. Jib

    I can be complimentary too.

  2. OldNat and JiB

    There are surprisingly few peer reviewed studies on biodiversity loss in the recent years (and non on CAP and biodiversity).

    Anyway, the studies in the link associate the loss of biodiversity with intensive agriculture, fragmentation of habitat and global warming.

    https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=biodiversity+loss+europe&btnG=

  3. Brexit will make life so much easier (Fe) for fish exporters to the EU from 30 March, if there is no deal.

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exporting-and-importing-fish-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

    In fact, so “easy” that they might not even bother buying the catch in the first place.

  4. Laszlo

    Thanks for the link. I had a look at a few of the abstracts there.

    I’m always chary of commenting on areas that I know damn all about(!) but I got the impression that bio-diversity was being reduced by human choices to reduce the range of habitats – regardless of whether the country was in CAP or not.

  5. Contrary to R and D’s admirable advice I went to a constituency labour party meeting to vote for various anti- Brexit motions there available. In the event a mild one (to the effect that there should be a special conference on Brexit) was carried, a strong one (that labour should be committed to remain) was tied, and a further one (that Labour was thoroughly behind the leadership on this matter) was carried strongly.

    Interesting meeting as contrary to my impression that youth were joining labour in numbers there was hardly a young person there. The anti-Brexit arguments were the usual suspects. The ones that interested me were the pro-Brexit ones. These were basically that a) it would be electoral suicide to openly espouse remain – we would never win the swing marginals, would alienate the leave voters on whom we rely b) we would expose our divisions at the precise moment that we had the Tories on the ropes (sic) c) the campaign for a second vote was a right wing ruse to undermine the Labour leadership and support the nasty fascist regimes of Europe.

    These arguments convinced me, not of their validity, but that it is very unlikely that Labour will come out and stop Brexit. It does, however, genuinely want to stop ‘no deal’. The danger is that in doing this it enables a kind of Brexit that alienates young people and a significant tranche of its supporters. I am wondering whether its best strategy might be to campaign for the kind of deal Corbyn has put to May. This, however, is clearly not a deal which anybody had in mind at the time of the referendum. So it can legitimately claim that it needs a second vote to validate itspreferred result. And conceivably this might be enough to deter mass defections, allow supporters to campaign for both sides and get us out of the current hole,

  6. @JiB

    The catalogue of failure is well illustrated by the decline in farmland biodiversity in the UK and EU speaks for itself. Just look at the tragic loss of biodiversity in Ireland just to see how effective the CAP is at destroying biodiversity!

    I would not argue that the EU Agricultural policy has caused many problems, however I am convinced that Dept for Farmers DEFRA would have been far worse.

    In addition, I have travelled to North America, Australia and Kenya where the biodiversity is literally frightening but their farming will soon sort it out.

    And if we do an ERG type trade deal with the US, then many UK farmers will adopt their methods to compete.

  7. @EOTW

    I would point out I’m not a no deal WTO advocate, and that the reality is that equivalence with the EU is ironically the basis for progression here.

  8. OldNat

    I don’t know anything about biodiversity. I assume one could connect CAP with intensive agricultural methods, but certainly in the last decade or so CAP favoured large units, which (again I’m guessing) shouldn’t fragment the habitat.

    There also seems to be a distinction of aoil, on soil, and above soil biodiversity on which I cannot comment.

    The reduction in biodiversity where ever intensive agriculture appears seems to be consistent irrespective of the regulatory environment.

  9. LASZLO

    @” I assume one could connect CAP with intensive agricultural methods,”

    Exactly.-and with loss of Biodiversity on Farmland.

    Recognised , quantified-with resultant efforts at mitigation by EU.

    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/farmlandbiodiversityandCAP.pdf

  10. On post-Brexit trade, I note that the UK and USA have signed a limited agreement on distilled spirits and wine, which involves recognition of the names Scotch whisky, Irish, Tennessee and Bourbon whiskies.

    While we don’t know the reason for the Geographic Indicators of various spirits being recognised by two governments who showed little interest previously, we can always speculate!

    It would seem possible that the rapid domination of gin production by Scots distilleries may have led US companies to realise that they would be equally capable of producing US style whiskey.

    Power struggles (which all trade agreements are) are intriguing to observe.

  11. Colin

    @LASZLO” I assume one could connect CAP with intensive agricultural methods,”

    “Exactly.-and with loss of Biodiversity on Farmland.”

    I don’t thing anyone is questioning that human determined changes in land use reduce bio-diversity.

    What opponents of the EU need to demonstrate is that CAP is more destructive of habitat than other economically driven changes caused by national policies elsewhere.

  12. TREVOR WARNE
    I read your post about the polling on leadership with interest.
    On J Corbyn; I think he will not resign even after the next GE. You know that the Hard Left hangs on to power. His main aim, with his ‘comrades’ was not to win a GE, but to just take control of Labour; with the vanguard theory that when the ‘masses’ rise the Party will lead them to power.

  13. @ Various

    If the Tories were to split because the more pro-Brexit MPs either leave on principle in protest at a Deal, or can’t reconcile themselves to fighting a sudden GE under May’s manifesto, does it really make any difference?

    Assuming that most would be left unopposed by an Official Conservative candidate, would having 30 or 40 MPs in Conservatives For Britain or whatever they’d call themselves make any practical difference in the HoC?

  14. ON, Laszlo, EOTW:

    I prefer your views on biodiversity decline than Jones`s.

    But Laszlo, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on biodiversity loss in Europe for different habitats. What they don`t do, is have both CAP and biodiversity loss in their titles.

    When CAP applies to all farmland, moorland, upland, it is a strange thing to include it as a keyword in a title, and the problem with studying its effects is that it has regularly evolved, and different countries/polities have different versions e.g. England and Scotland.

    So studies on setaside in the 1990s including my own are not very relevant now because the extent and positioning of this unmanaged or little-managed ground has changed greatly. For moorland my own work is more relevant, even though grazing intensities, burning regimes, nitrogen deposition, etc, has changed. And I soon see it, on googling.

  15. I have just gone through 30 pages on Laszlo`s link of peer-reviewed articles on biodiversity loss, so at 15 per page that`s getting to 450. Some of them apply to oceans and freshwater, but still I would say hundreds of studies.

    This has given plenty of ammunition to combat the commercial pressures for intensification, but clearly we aren`t winniing.

    But have slowed the decline.

  16. @Davwel

    I appreciate the efforts you have put in to reform the system, and set aside really was the first greening measure. It made a difference.

    But my fundamental point is that CAP is a subsidy scheme essentially run by farmers for farmers. A closed shop. As reformable as the NUM.

    Conservationists and heritage interests get crumbs via Tier 2.

    The fundamental ethos is more land reclaimed, more meat produce, more dairy and more intensifying and fertilising!!

  17. Davwel

    “And I soon see it, on googling.”

    But you have the great advantage of knowing what you are talking about on this topic, so you can filter out the old and the rubbish!

    Despite the term “conservationist”, I would hope that most in that field want to expand bio-diversity – not just to conserve what remains now after milleniums of human activity?

    On the topic of the Altnaharra wind farm, John Muir Trust et al object to any development of “wild land”, yet the locals don’t see it as wild land but as a “man made wet desert”.

    Have you a view on that conflict?

  18. Is this Chexit?

    Breaking #Chope Chair of East Dorset Conservative Ass Cllr Ray Bryan says he’s had constituents ringing him “in tears, very distressed about this”. Some members furious. Calling a meeting of the Assoc Exec “within 48hrs to sort this once and for all, one way or another” #FGM

  19. EOR
    “Assuming that most would be left unopposed by an Official Conservative candidate,…”

    That is a big assumption. It would depend on the Official Conservatives voluntarily not standing in many seats where they have always previously stood. It would be sensible not to, but some of these blighters are very stubborn and stupid.

    I’ve just had a thought – if the original party were to be called the Official Conservatives, should the breakaways be the Provisional Conservatives? :-)

  20. Apparently cross party group of MP’s will back May’s deal in return for a people’s vote. Will Corbyn and May follow suit.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

  21. ON:

    Your question on Altnaharra wind farm needs a careful reply, which I will maybe manage later tomorrow.

    I haven`t full knowledge on the area, but I dislike the term “man-made wet desert” and consider human impact on these wet bogs as relatively small and that their present state is nearer to natural and wild than almost all other ground in the UK.

  22. Charles

    Well done. I haven’t got the stomach for it myself but am pleased that others, of similar mind, do.

  23. Davwell

    As I said I don’t know the subject, so my keywords are highly suspect. I arranged them by year of publication, and there is a surprising decline in specific papers (sorry, I should have gone to web of science with a hindsight).

    The other oddity is the extremely specific keywords. I ran a small subroutine (it basically goes through the keywords of each article and creates a frequwncy/distance calculation)to map them, and the clustering was rather vague. When running it by year, you can see the change of academic (and perhaps commercial) interest over the years,

    I’m ignorant of the subject (not because I want to be), but I know one or two things about literature reviews, and the small number of metastudies on a subject like this surprised me.

    I shouldn’t have entered the diacussion, but I genuinely dislike the “google” research.

  24. OLDNAT

    @”What opponents of the EU need to demonstrate is that CAP is more destructive of habitat than other economically driven changes caused by national policies elsewhere.”

    THe EU itself recognised that the intensive practices associated with early CAP were a factor in reduced biodiversity on European Farmland.

    As the study I linked to described, reformed CAP rules , particularly since 2000, were an ( not very successful) effort to mitigate that damage.

    I don’t know whether the variety of studies which prompted these conclusions were all by “opponents” of the EU. That seems unlikely -I assume many were supporters who merely wanted to help improve the organisations environmental record.

    Be that as it may , the gradual shift away from crude farm output through intensive methods , to rules which recognise the vital role of Farmland , which the SAC paper describes as “one of the dominant land covers in Europe, covering over 45% of
    the European Union’s 27 Member States.”; is to be welcomed -whoever prompted it.

  25. @ PETE B

    “That is a big assumption. It would depend on the Official Conservatives voluntarily not standing in many seats where they have always previously stood. It would be sensible not to, but some of these blighters are very stubborn and stupid.”

    Sure, tho the party as a whole has been sensible enough to grasp this concept with both recent pram-rattle by-elections.

    When left to local associations, some of course may well not be, but many would likely be behind their “rebel” MP in the first place, and some might be in the position where the majority would be large enough to allow one or other to win a contested race anyway. Hence saying maybe 30-40 “rebel” MPs could result.

    Tho whether it’s 20 or 50 my argument would still be basically the same.

  26. Davwel

    There are certainly parts of Strathnaver which have been wet bogs, since the climatic changes in the Holocene, but much of it was farmed by humans for thousands of years, until the population was cleared to the coast 200 years ago, to be replaced by sheep.

    I’d be surprised if these thousands of years of tilling the soil had little impact, and that the creation of a grazing monoculture hadn’t reduced bio diversity in the 19th century.

  27. Colin

    It’s often worth going back to the comment that originated a discussion. That way the context of subsequent comments becomes clear.

    JiB kicked this off with his

    For the true conservationist – not the EU funded types – Brexit offers a break from the over-regulated CAP and afterthought sticky plaster greening measures. Rip it all down and start again is what I say and focus on the outcome, not servicing the bureaucrats’ empire.

  28. DAVWEL

    @”What they don`t do, is have both CAP and biodiversity loss in their titles.”

    TRy:-

    “Farmland biodiversity and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)”
    April 2011
    SAC
    Rural Policy Centre.

    or

    “EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity
    G. Pe’er*,†, L. V. Dicks, P. Visconti, R. Arlettaz, A. Báldi, T. G. Benton, S. Collins, M. Dieterich, R. D. Gregory, F. Hartig, K. Henle, P. R. Hobson, D. Kleijn, R. K. Neumann, T. Robijns, J. Schmidt, A. Shwartz, W. J. Sutherland, A. Turbé, F. Wulf, A. V. Scott
    See all authors and affiliations
    Science 06 Jun 2014:
    Vol. 344, Issue 6188, pp. 1090-1092
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1253425”

    Birdlife Europe & RSPB are among conservation organisations still criticising the impact of EU Farming practices & policy on avian biodiversity:-

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/23/eu-in-state-of-denial-over-destructive-impact-of-farming-on-wildlife

  29. @ ALEC (on treason)

    Fair play! Apologies if I missed the humour when I initially responded, and personally I tend to agree with the poster who said using such a word risks needless inflammation, tho of course the same could be said by many words used with free abandon by both sides.

    And if it seems I query against your posts more than others recently it’s not personal per se. I’ve never had a dog in the Brexit fight, and still don’t. But I’ve got very weary of realising that (on here and elsewhere) when I challenge an argument someone makes on Brexit, they often reply like the simple fact of my question must mean I subscribe to everything they dislike about the Other Side, and they reply to that straw man rather than to what I’ve said.

    Whereas you can be relied on for a reasoned and measured response to what’s actually been put to you.

    In fairness so can quite a few others on here, which is why I still read despite all the chaff, but few such folk post as often as you do or engage as many subjects that interest me!

  30. The latest cunning plan – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

    Essentially this is a simple re-run of a referendum, but pre-filtered such that the vote is between may’s plan or remaining. On the face of it, no chance in the HoC.

    However, there are some merits to it, and political dynamics as they are, if May doesn’t shift on the CU and the EU doesn’t shift on the backstop, this might end up as MPs least worst option, not least because it means that they wouldn’t be stopping Brexit.

    The promoters of this pln are suggesting that MPs could vote for or abstain on May’s plan, but if the plan is voted through, a condition is attached that it would be subject to a confirming referendum and if the public vote supports the plan, we leave asap with no further reference to parliament. If it falls, we remain.

    There is a certain neatness to this approach, as it defines the mechanics of a referendum and doesn’t just call for one, but obviously there are also problems with it. It’s hard to tell, but apparently ‘senior government figures’ are interested in it – although that could just be bluster.

    The bottom line, as it has been all along, is that parliament will be seeking to intervene decisively to reject no deal, and May will also be looking for a face saving route out of no deal as well. As the clock ticks, the interests of the majority of MPs and the government might just start to align, so I certainly wouldn’t rule out this kind of scenario.

  31. Another general question – are “the EU” actually for Corbyn’s five whatnots?

    I googled and the most I could find were comments from Tusk about how they “could represent a way forward” but those comments seemed really quite similar to Barnier and Tusk and others saying they’d “carefully study” whatever fudges May has sent them before flatly rejected them.

    Is there anything on record yet that suggests that if May were to approach the EU with a Deal based around Corbyn’s Points then they’d actually agree to it?

  32. Alec: The latest cunning plan – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

    Essentially this is a simple re-run of a referendum, but pre-filtered such that the vote is between may’s plan or remaining. On the face of it, no chance in the HoC.

    However, there are some merits to it, and political dynamics as they are, if May doesn’t shift on the CU and the EU doesn’t shift on the backstop, this might end up as MPs least worst option, not least because it means that they wouldn’t be stopping Brexit.

    It would be a neat way of stitching up the DUP …

  33. @Edge of Reason – “Apologies if I missed the humour when I initially responded..”

    Thank you for your kind comments, and no need to apologise. I can accept that it really wasn’t much of a side splitter.

    On CAP and agricultural reform: Not sure if anyone can gude me here, but a week or so ago I saw a report into post Brexit agriculture which was suggesting a mix of enhanced intensity farming in certain areas linked to the withdrawal of productive agriculture from others. They has calculated something like a 50% boost to species numbers nationally (can’t recall exactly how they measured this) would arise from 10% of farmland being vacated and left to nature. which they said was quite feasible with no loss of production.

    Interesting thoughts. It’s a kind of flip over from the reports into organic farming that claim it damages the environment due to reduced yields and the consequent need for more land.

  34. Alec

    That Kyle/Wilson plan is so neat that the current crop of MPs and party leaders will probably sideline it!

    As always, May can get a majority for the deal if sufficient Lab MPs vote for it, and SNP/PC/LD abstain.

  35. Colin

    You clearly haven’t read your second referenced paper (the Sciencemag one).

    It is not based on research (there is no data attached to the paper), it is a policy statement that the new policy should be tighter. The penultimate paragraph starts with: the way forward….

    The article actually praises the CAP, just wants it to be more strict.

    Here’s the abstract:

    In December 2013, the European Union (EU) enacted the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2014–2020, allocating almost 40% of the EU’s budget and influencing management of half of its terrestrial area. Many EU politicians are announcing the new CAP as “greener,” but the new environmental prescriptions are so diluted that they are unlikely to benefit biodiversity. Individual Member States (MSs), however, can still use flexibility granted by the new CAP to design national plans to protect farmland habitats and species and to ensure long-term provision of ecosystem services.

  36. Colin

    This is the first recommendation of the Sciencemag article (which has all together 16 references, not very good).

    “publish an evidence-based assessment of the CAP’s impacts on farmland habitats, species, and ecosystem services, drawing on national-level monitoring as a base for improvements”

    That is, their article is not evidence based.

  37. Laszlo

    “The article actually praises the CAP, just wants it to be more strict.”

    Sounds like an article I read recently about the CFP – the problem not being the EU, but the deep-sea fishing lobbies influence on their state governments.

    Conservation of stocks was sacrificed to each state maximising their share and over fishing. Worst offenders were Spain, France, UK, Ireland, though Denmark and Netherlands not much better.

  38. Wow Corbyn’s ratings sinking like a stone. -55 is the worst rating of any opposition leader since Foot at his record low of -56. Only 17 percent of the country is now satisfied with Corbyn with 72% dissatisfied. The worst rating of any opposition leader who became prime minister is Cameron who was at -22 all the way back in 2007 and Corbyns approval is nearly 20 points worse than Ed milibands lowest point in late 2014. Corbyn approval at 17% is now lower than Cables at 24% which is dire for labour as cable is still very much unknown (my own mother couldn’t even tell me who he was today when I asked and was actually surprised the Lib Dem’s still existed LOL). I feel like labour is fraying at the moment and the closer brexit day comes the harder it will be to hold the party together. I know there’s been plenty of talk of a labour split for years now but it seems increasingly likely, I feel that just one Mp leaving could cause an exodus. Corbyns approval among 18-34 year olds now sits at 24% and it’s clear that he will only sink further the longer he waits to speak out and stand up for them. I personally feel that he needs to give up trying to salvage the mess that brexit has become and actively campaign against it. It is the only way he can save his party, his ratings, his job, electoral chances and the country and he needs to act fast because pretty soon something will snap.

  39. @Edge of Reason

    Does it make a difference? Well, it might leave the Conservatives relying on MPs who weren’t elected as conservatives and don’t take the whip for its majority. Has that made a difference since 2017?

  40. I am always a little reluctant to add to any debate about the common agricultural policy, because, as a mere practitioner, I am usually overruled by the experts who have never so much as wielded a spade.
    The CAP has often been something of a blunt instrument, we used to use a five year grass break in our arable rotation until the rules meant that we had to regard that grass as permanent pasture and could never plough it again. That rule actually encouraged monoculture. Shorter rotations mean fewer grass species in the seed.

    However, there is absolutely no evidence that things would be any better without it. Where our own government has got involved it has usually got things completely wrong. From the war ag who oversaw the ploughing our of hill tops to the min of ag who encouraged the draining of the hills, with huge grants and advised us all to use hormones on our cattle, oh yes, and feed meat and bone meal.
    I have absolutely no confidence that things will improve if our own government agencies take this on. There is a tendency for Defra to rely on advice almost exclusively from large agribuisness and impractical environmental activists.

    There are of course a number of philistines in the farming industry so rules are necessary. It is ironic that Defra seems to take its advice from the Philistines and a few tree huggers.

  41. So many threads here – but can I focus on fish. Regardless of what the youtcome is the economic issue is that fish in UK waters are the wrong species for the UK mrket – unless you swap cod & chips for herring & chips. So we need access to EU ports to land our fish (about 40% of UK fish are landed in the EU) – and we need access to North Atlantic and EU waters to catch fish required by the UK (white fish in essence). We will have to enter into some form of CFP whatever the outcome, as has Norway. CAP was set up to enure food supplies for post-war Europe – but today its policies seem to be more political than economic – mor of an issue would be the impact on tarrifs on UK meat & dairy when (if) we leave the EU – far more damaging than loss of subsidies – so again when (if) we leave we will still need some sort of agreement (CAP like) on farming exports. As for Labour – 79% of Laboir voters are pro-Remain so it is hardly surprising that Labour’s polling is down – but surely May’s deal will push Tory leavers back into the hands of UKIP?

  42. @ERICGOODYER
    I think you are probably right. As a folk music enthusiast in my youth, I know a lot of songs about fishing. It’s all herring basically. Not a word about cod or haddock.

  43. LASZLO

    Lets come at this from a different angle.

    Look at what happens to biodiversity when Farms reverse the damage of intensification.

    Two examples:-

    Restore weedy margins, uncut corners, hedges & copses. Revert to spring sown crops leaving winter stubbles etc etc.etc

    Have a look at the results at RSPB’s Hope Farm:

    https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/conservation/conservation-and-sustainability/farming/hope-farm/the-farm

    or

    go the whole hog and abandon farming interventions in the landscape.

    Have a look at the Knepp Estate.

    That CAP has encouraged the loss of smaller farms & their mosaic land patterns, and all the sterile monoculture which flows from intensification is , I really believe, indisputible.

    That the EU itself is trying to mitigate & reverse this damage is testament in itself -isn’t it ?

    https://euobserver.com/economic/136716

  44. Charles
    Sorry for the delay in replying, Rugby and cricket got in the way! :-)

    On the question of climate change I have an open mind. I can agree that at the moment the climate is becoming warmer, however the reason for that is less clear to me. There probably is a man-made element to it, but I am far from clear how much and suspect that the biggest factor is the warming process which historically proceed the next ice age.

    I support the development and use of alternative forms of energy mainly because the supply of fossil fuels is limited. I think our efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the UK have virtually no effect overall.

    As to international treaties I cannot support any treaty which does not have a “get-out” clause, one of my many reasons for opposing May’s “so called deal” the draft WA which must be one of the most poisonous documents ever produced in a negotiation.

    TW
    “PS Thank you ALEC for giving us the definitions of “Treason”, one of which was: “The action of betraying someone or something.”

    Indeed, glad to see he understands and agrees with the use of the word in the context I quoted. His subsequent post denying that he agreed was one of his funnier backsliding epistles. :-)

    JONESINBANGOR
    “The catalogue of failure is well illustrated by the decline in farmland biodiversity in the UK and EU speaks for itself. Just look at the tragic loss of biodiversity in Ireland just to see how effective the CAP is at destroying biodiversity!”

    Agreed, I also believe the CAP has had a negative effect.

  45. “Indeed, glad to see he understands and agrees with the use of the word in the context I quoted. His subsequent post denying that he agreed was one of his funnier backsliding epistles. :-)”

    Another one who lacks basic comprehension skills.

    For treasonous betrayal, one must first define what it is that is being betrayed.

  46. Actually, I’ll correct my last post – @TOH and @Trevors both have perfectly good comprehension skills – they’re not stupid.

    It’s just a habit some have of diverting debates where they deliberately misinterpret what someone else has said, in the full knowledge they are doing this, in order to gain a reaction I suppose.

    Many others have also noted this down the years on here, and while it’s ultimately pointless, if it keeps them amused then perhaps it serves some small purpose.

  47. @nearly French
    Yes you need Newfoundland folk songs for cod fishing. Try the truly excellent Pamela Morgan on spotify
    Here in Britain it is mostly shoals of herring, showing how much we used to eat Kippers for breakfast

  48. @ANDREW111
    Unfortunately, the younger generation won’t eat them because they are terrified of swallowing the bones. Over protective parents have a lot to answer for.

1 4 5 6 7 8 11