I’ve been catching up on sleep after the election, but this is just to add a brief, post-election round up of how the polls performed. In 2015 and 2017 the equivalent posts were all about how the polls had got it wrong, and what might have caused it (even in 2010, when the polls got the gap between Labour and the Conservatives pretty much spot on, there were questions about the overstatement of the Liberal Democrats). It’s therefore rather a relief to be able to write up an election when the polls were pretty much correct.

The majority of the final polls had all the main parties within two points, with Ipsos MORI and Opinium almost spot on – well done both of them. The only companies that really missed the mark were ICM and ComRes, who understated the Tories and overstated Labour, meaning they had Conservative leads of only 6 and 5 points in their final polls.

My perception during the campaign was that much of the difference between polling companies showing small Conservative leads and those companies showing bigger leads was down to how and if they were accounting for false recall when weighting using past vote – I suspect this may well explain the spread in the final polls. Those companies that came closest were those who either do not weight by past vote (MORI & NCPolitics), adjusted for it (Kantar), or used data collected in 2017 (Opinium & YouGov). ComRes and ICM were, as far as I know, both just weighting recalled 2017 past vote to actual 2017 vote shares, something that would risk overstating Labour support if people disproportionately failed to recall voting Labour in 2017.

The YouGov MRP performed less well than in 2017. The final vote shares it produced were all within 2 points of the actual shares, but the seat predictions showed a smaller Tory majority than happened in reality. Ben Lauderdale who designed the model has already posted his thoughts on what happened here. Part of it is simply a function of vote share (a small difference in vote share makes a big difference to seat numbers), part of it was an overstatement of Brexit party support in the key Conservative target seats. Whether that was having too many Brexit supporters in the sample, or Brexit party supporters swinging back to the Tories in the last 48 hours will be clearer once we’ve got some recontact data.

Finally, the 2019 election saw a resurgence of individual constituency polling, primarily from Survation and Deltapoll. Constituency polling is difficult (and I understand has become even more so since the advent of GDPR, as it has reduced the availability of purchasable database of mobile phone numbers from specific areas), and with small sample sizes of 400 or 500 it will inevitably be imprecise. Overall, it performed well this time though – particularly given that many of the constituency polls were conducted in seats you would expect to be hard to poll: unusual seats, or places with independents or high profile defectors standing. David Gauke’s support was understated, for example, and in Putney constituency polling overstated Lib Dem support at the expense of Labour. However, in many places it performed well, particularly the Chelsea & Fulham, Wimbledon, Finchley and Esher & Walton polls.

And with that, I’m off for a nice Christmas break. Have a good Christmas and happy new year.


2,835 Responses to “General election polling – post mortem”

1 3 4 5 6 7 57
  1. TOH

    We will both believe what we choose to believe. Swapping variations of sets of evidence is a rather barren process – unless one is engaged in trying to persuade others – and why would anyone want to do it on here?

    However, I note that you have no objection to Scotland reconsidering its place in the world, at a time of your choosing.

    I can but imagine what your response would have been had the EU said “The UK may have a referendum on membership of the EU, when we decide it is appropriate for it to do so.”

    Some Unions are less coercive than others.

  2. OLDNAT

    “However, I note that you have no objection to Scotland reconsidering its place in the world, at a time of your choosing.”

    Not my choosing although I do feel it appropriate. It was Alex Salmond who suggested it was generational wasn’t it?

    Well since the UK Government allowed a referendum in 2014 I cannot see that your comment “some Unions are less coercive than others” in any way relevant or accurate.

  3. OLDNAT

    “We will both believe what we choose to believe. Swapping variations of sets of evidence is a rather barren process – unless one is engaged in trying to persuade others – and why would anyone want to do it on here?”

    Tend to agree and I have no desire to upset your Christmas so I am happy to leave our discussion at this point. I took the trouble to dig out the facts because your original post was so clearly wrong,

  4. TOH

    “I cannot see that …..”.

    I’m quite sure that that is an accurate statement! :-)

  5. SHEVII

    Thanks

    I am sure that I don’t understand “democracy within the Labour Party.”.

    But I do have a feeling that its voters have become less Working Class because its Membership has become more Middle Class..

    And do think that Corbyn seems to have accelerated that shift. If the Liberal, metropolitan , middle class liberal is now the driving force within the Labour Party then I think it has a good deal of thinking to do BEFORE it appoints a new Leader.

    Obsession with privilege , colonialism, implicit racism, gender definition etc etc is not going to grip the average voter in Hartlepool, regardless of its appeal in Hampstead and the Southern Halls of Academe.

    Indeed some of those priorities clash jarringly with the concern about culture & identity which is evident in the “left behind” communities .

    I follow the musings of a Corbyn supporting retired Headmaster on Facebook ( Friend of a Friend of a Friend). His little group are all retired academics & arty types. They write the stuff one expects on politics & are all Remainers..

    This chap wrote a poem back in October called “Some Horrors now stalking our Dreams”.-a self confessed “ad hominem” attack on Gove, Johnson, Patel, Javid, Zahawi, Cleverly, Kwarteng, Davis, IDS, May, Cameron, Cummings and the Daily Mail. It was full of references to personal appearance & character.

    Buried in this outburst were these lines :-

    “And bungalow bigots wearing their Daily (chain) Mail
    of righteous indignation with their other
    mown and well-strimmed, vengeful disappointments.
    And h-dropping beefed-up ultras from the terraces,
    white van men with their white-face-only agendas,
    their forage-cap-wearing fantasies of flame-throwing
    their way through the villages of Eastern Europe”

    This beats Thornberry by a mile.

    This Social Grade A was responsible for the education of the children of the C2s & Ds who he despises.

    He is a confirmed supporter of Corbyn………….or was in October-he has gone a bit quiet on FB since the GE result.

  6. OLDNAT

    Touche :-)

    ” I cannot see that your comment “some Unions are less coercive than others” in any way relevant or accurate in this specific instance.

    Would have been better.

  7. @jboyd

    ‘I love Scotland, I admire the Scots and their culture: but after devolution, the Union became indefensible on principle because of the ‘West Lothian question’.
    For many of us in England, the spectacle of the SNP helping to thwart the will of the English and Welsh since the 2016 Referendum (the actual ‘leave’ vote excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland was over 53%, not the much quoted 52%) has confirmed that the current constitutional relationship between the constituent nations of the UK is undemocratic and unsustainable.
    I’d like to see another referendum in Scotland with the choice of either independence or a reversion to the pre-devolution constitution; and a parallel referendum for England offering an end to the Union.”

    That is muddled thinking.The devolution settlement has no bearing on Scottish MPs voting on reserved UK wide matters. SNP MPs were voting in line with their constituents votes in the EU referendum and the overall vote in Scotland as were Scottish Lib Dem MPs. A reversion to the pre-devolution constitution would make absolutely no difference. And the West Lothian question has been addressed by EVEL.

  8. Hireton

    One might add that the very phrase “pre-devolution constitution” is rather meaningless. How far back would one have to go to find that?

    1999 – when legislative devolution was introduced?
    1886 – when the wide range of administratively devolved matters were brought together in the Scottish Office?
    1828 – when the Home Secretary was given formal responsibility for Scottish affairs, but control was devolved to the Lord Advocate who oversaw the process of creating ad hoc boards to manage systems in Scotland that were perforce different to those in E&W, due to the requirements of Scots Law?
    1746 – when the post of SoS for Scotland was abolished and his responsibilities transferred to the Lord Advocate?
    1707 – when the post of SoS for Scotland was created to manage affairs in Scotland?

    Sadly, for those who believe that the UK is a unitary, (not a Union) state, Scottish affairs have always been “devolved”.

  9. I really can’t stand English imperialists saying that the Scottish should not be able to have a referendum.

    Perhaps the way forward might be for the SNP to call a general election in Scotland and if they win a landslide after standing on an openly pro referendum ticket they can then claim to have a mandate for another referendum.

    Would this be possible – I’m not that up to speed on the mechanics of how and when the Scottish Parliament can call elections.

  10. STATGEEK
    @Fred

    “There already was a vote , the answer was no.”

    A vote in a campaign driven by a mix of threat, woe, promise and fear. Project Fear wasn’t a Brexit invention.

    Not to mention the old ‘stay the UK to stay in the EU’ promise. Material change!

    “The SNP by the way got 45%”

    That wasn’t an Indyref campaign. It was a GE, and the SNP took over 80% of the seats. The Indyref campaign has not even started.

    This time, Labour won’t be bussing in a few hundred extra MPs to bolster their 40-odd Scots ones to scare pensioners about their pensions. Instead, there will be 40-odd SNP MPs marshalling thousands of SNP and Indy activists, not to mention all the other Indy groups that are not of the SNP.

    The rich and famous will not be listened to in the same way that they were in 2014. People are more clued in on celebs, such as Dan Snow, and his father in law’s estates. The ‘No oil’ scare stories will be laughed at. There have been two sizeable fields discovered this quarter.

    The media is treated with disdain, and license fee subscription is at a low. The new channels have not been embraced. Print media is dying a death.

    With a hostile Westminster, it should prove to be very, very interesting. I look forward to Project fear Mk2.

    Have it your way, Laurel and Hardy’s Bonnie Scotland is much more fun.
    The one interesting thing you commented on, is that with 45% of the votes the SNP got 80% of the seats and apparently 100% of the bragging rights on independence.
    I think Boris should ask for another 100 seats then.
    And of course let us note the comments of Sturgeon she of the we love the Eu flag wavers, we are great internationalists not like the rest of the insular Brits , oops did I say that over 60% of trade is within the UK and 20% with the EU, ohoo forget that.

  11. Tony BTG

    There’s a scheduled Scottish GE in 2011.

    An extraordinary GE can be called by the vote of two thirds of MSPs, or if the FM resigns and no other nominee is selected (only requires a change in Standing Orders on a simple majority vote to ensure that no candidate can be elected without 50% of MSPs).

    That really isn’t the issue, though. The point of requesting an S30 transfer of powers is to put a referendum result beyond legal challenge.

    International recognition of indy is what matters.

  12. Fred

    75% of Canadian exports are to the USA. The top export destinations of the United States are Mexico and Canada.

    Proximity is more relevant than being in a political union.

  13. TONYBGT

    “I really can’t stand English imperialists saying that the Scottish should not be able to have a referendum.”
    By definition imperialists follow a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means. I am not aware of anybody on this site who fits that definition so I think your post is rather irrelevant.

  14. Definition of imperialism

    1 : imperial government, authority, or system
    2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas

    broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence (Mirriam-Webster)

    That might include a few. :-)

  15. OLDNAT
    Fred

    75% of Canadian exports are to the USA. The top export destinations of the United States are Mexico and Canada.

    Proximity is more relevant than being in a political union.

    We aren’t arguing that , we are saying stop pretending that Scotland is closer to the EU than the rest of the UK physically, economical, emotionally and in every other way which is how NS which is how NS puts and presents her remain stance

  16. @FRED

    I find it interetsing that the argument thatw as made for not having any shared sovereignty with fellow members of the EU makes sense for the UK but then the same thing does not make sense for the Scotland

    I find the fact that firstly that one of the major pushes that was used by the Uk government was that the Scots would not be allowed in the EU

    That they voted to stay seems to seen as a something that can be safely ignored.

    I personally do not want Scotland to leave the union but in truth we seem to be making sure they have enough ammunition to do so

  17. Fred

    It seems likely that you have neither seen, read or heard much of what Sturgeon has actually said.

    In any case, there are other aspects of politics that can and should be aired on these boards.

    While supporters of indy will respond to comments made on the topic from those furth of Scotland, we normally only introduce it when there is a specific poll or event that is worth noting.

  18. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    @FRED

    I find it interetsing that the argument thatw as made for not having any shared sovereignty with fellow members of the EU makes sense for the UK but then the same thing does not make sense for the Scotland

    I find the fact that firstly that one of the major pushes that was used by the Uk government was that the Scots would not be allowed in the EU

    That they voted to stay seems to seen as a something that can be safely ignored.

    I personally do not want Scotland to leave the union but in truth we seem to be making sure they have enough ammunition to do so

    I think the EU would be very wary to promote Scotland joining the EU.
    Lets go another route here, the UK as a whole voted to leave like it or no. Then comes along a part of the UK and says I don’t like that I want to remain and to do that I am going to promote the independence agenda and get everyone worked up on this and say how bad are the majority of UK for forcing this on us, what brutes and bullies. where does this stop, why at Scotland, why not London.
    I live in London and let me surprise you by saying I voted to remain and was livid with the voters for voting the other way for many months until I accepted that we have to respect the will of the majority.
    That the SNP are using this , is to me disgusting

  19. @FRED

    Lets go another route here, the UK as a whole voted to leave like it or no. Then comes along a part of the UK and says I don’t like that I want to remain and to do that I am going to promote the independence agenda and get everyone worked up on this and say how bad are the majority of UK for forcing this on us, what brutes and bullies. where does this stop, why at Scotland, why not London.

    So should the kosovans accepted Serbian control after all it was a united country not 40 years ago and Slovenia, Croatia etc

    We are seeing the same in the Northern Ireland. the argument about the EU was subsiduarity, so why not London taking a different path to the rest of UK, Are you saying that can never happen, that should never happen.

    You are arguing that SNP are using a change in circumstances that defines their relationships, that they distinctly were told that if they chose independence they would not have the opportunity to follow yet now they are being dragged into it because of the England and Wales. I am sure you are angry at it, and as I say I would want the the Scots to remain in the UK but in truth it should be up to them and if self determination is disgusting I suspect we as a nation we really do have a problem

  20. @Technicolouroctober
    “Unless you are saying it should be voluntary for England but coercive for Scotland.”

    Of course I’m not: I’m saying that it must be voluntary for both but that England’s consent should not be taken for granted.
    And yes, it should be ‘all’ (i.e. independence) or ‘nothing’ (union without devolution, or a genuinely fair federal system). I don’t think that it is ‘trolling’ to say as much: I’m simply pointing out that the current constitution is unfair and undemocratic from an English point of view.

    @Hireton
    “That is muddled thinking.The devolution settlement has no bearing on Scottish MPs voting on reserved UK wide matters. SNP MPs were voting in line with their constituents votes in the EU referendum and the overall vote in Scotland as were Scottish Lib Dem MPs. A reversion to the pre-devolution constitution would make absolutely no difference. And the West Lothian question has been addressed by EVEL.”

    I don’t think that EVEL adequately deals with the problem; it doesn’t address the formation of a government, budget setting and the Queen’s Speech. If the election had resulted in another hung parliament and the SNP had propped up a Labour administration even though a majority of English constituencies had returned Tories, that would have been indefensible.
    I actually agree with the SNP about Scotland’s future: the Scots should be able to decide whether they want independence. And if they choose to leave the UK because membership of the EU matters more, that’s perfectly reasonable.
    But it can’t be democratic for the English to have to accept decisions that the majority of them oppose simply because a bloc of representatives from another country vote them through.

  21. Fred

    I am surprised that you find it disgusting to respect a clear democratic vote in an ADVISORY refeerendum.

    1,661,191 voted to Remain, 642,869 more than voted to Leave.

    Surely you could have expressed yourself rather more kindly. Your attitude will likely lead to fighting within Britain, just like we have had in Ireland.

  22. Moving the discussion westwards –

    Does anyone know if the 2 SDLP MPs have taken the Labour whip, as their predecessors did?

  23. Oldnat

    “broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence (Mirriam-Webster)

    That might include a few. :-)”

    Thanks, you beat me to it.

  24. Sadly we are in entrenched mode today, because folk are very very sore on several major issues.

    My big worry is that Johnson is going to slash environmental protection to satisfy big business, who merely see the countryside as a way of making profits. Yesterday the farRight papers were saying Johnson will take us out of ALL EU rules, so clearly the Habitats Directive is out for the UK.

    When the HabD superseded in 1992 our UK Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981), it nearly doubled the list of protected plant species as well as bringing in habitats. This step was a wiser approach, more effective at dealing with species that relied on each other, some of which might not be rarities.

    If the UK goes back to the 1981 short plant list, much effort on the discarded biota will be wasted – even if we now know what has to be done to help these species, Johnson`s Tories are saying they cannot be protected, and there will be no cash or manpower to do this.

  25. Sadly we are in entrenched mode today, because folk are very very sore on several major issues.

    My big worry is that Johnson is going to slash environmental protection to satisfy big business, who merely see the countryside as a way of making profits. Yesterday the farRight papers were saying Johnson will take us out of ALL EU rules, so clearly the Habitats Directive is out for the UK.

    When the HabD superseded in 1992 our UK Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981), it nearly doubled the list of protected plant species as well as bringing in habitats. This step was a wiser approach, more effective at dealing with species that relied on each other, some of which might not be rarities.

    If the UK goes back to the 1981 short plant list, much effort on the discarded biota will be wasted – even if we now know what has to be done to help these species, Johnson`s Tories are saying they cannot be protected, and there will be no cash or manpower to do this.

  26. Sorry for the double post. This time I clicked on Submit Comment, but nothing happened. So five seconds later, I foolishly clicked again.

    But putting in this extra message, lets me pose a question someone might know: could being in a Habitats Directive equivalent be allowed for Scotland as a devolved matter?

  27. [email protected] re “Unless you are saying it should be voluntary for England but coercive for Scotland.”

    Of course I’m not: I’m saying that it must be voluntary for both but that England’s consent should not be taken for granted.
    And yes, it should be ‘all’ (i.e. independence) or ‘nothing’ (union without devolution, or a genuinely fair federal system). I don’t think that it is ‘trolling’ to say as much: I’m simply pointing out that the current constitution is unfair and undemocratic from an English point of view.

    As Scotland has devolution right now, who is going to take it away? You are offering independence or assimilation. As I see it, there is no Scottish desire for integration, but it is for Scots to choose whether to have a referendum and indeed to choose what the referendum should be about. I suggest that it should be Status Quo [ie devolution] vs Independence or it should be Status Quo vs Assimilation if there is really enough support in Scotland.

    If England does not like Devolution, then England can decide to leave the union, or indeed it can attempt to renegotiate the union. England too has a right to choose.

  28. davwel: … a question someone might know: could being in a Habitats Directive equivalent be allowed for Scotland as a devolved matter?

    EU directives are not direct legislation, they are generally incorporated into Member States’ law by legislation in each Member State. The only thing which would stop Scotland incorporating EU directives in this way would be if the matters are reserved to Westminster. [AFAICS]

  29. Since 3.15pm – ie four and a quarter hours – there have been only eight posters on here, all with repeated postings, and all on variants of a single topic of limited interest to the majority of the inhabitants of these islands.

    Might I gently advise that, between elections when the pace of discussion slows, we take care to be inclusive of posters of all views and interests, and not merely special-interest cliques.

  30. MOG

    I made a similar point earlier.

  31. @OldNat

    In fairness, you did.

    As to your question, I have been unable to unearth any info on SDLP plans. However, given its history I’d be very surprised if they failed to take the Labour whip.

  32. Ok, since it’s quiet I’ll share an anecdote which echoes many from up and down the country. My nephew-in-law came to see us today. In the 70s and 80s he was a Trotskyite and of course hated Mrs T and thought all the wealth of the world should be shared out equally. We had a few discussions, but I’ve avoided contentious subjects for at least twenty years.
    Today he (unprompted) started talking about the election and Brexit. He said he voted Tory and would not vote Labour again as long as Corbyn or anyone like him was the leader. In his case one of the main reasons was the obsession with the Palestinian situation. Why can’t they concentrate on this country first? He is convinced (as are several other ex-Labour voters I know) that it is no longer the party of the working man.
    It is also an illustration of how people move to the right as they get older.

  33. @Fred

    “I think the EU would be very wary to promote Scotland joining the EU.

    Your thoughts and reality don’t match.

    The rest of you post was all about you and what you find disgusting. I don’t much like the Tories right now. Instead of arguing the toss with them, I prefer to paddle my own canoe in another, better direction.

    If that’s disgusting, you must be disgusted often.

  34. Hard to find precise info on the SDLP stance, though commentators think they are expected to follow the Labour whip on most issues.

  35. @Davwel

    “Yesterday the farRight papers were saying Johnson will take us out of ALL EU rules, so clearly the Habitats Directive is out for the UK.”

    I think right now the only thing that we can be certain of is that there is going to be a lot of loose talk from the government that isn’t going to have a great deal of correlation with what they actually do.

    As far as this goes, I think most of the law to translate things broadly ‘as is’ has already been made hasn’t it? It’s the act that May had the exit day written into as a PR stunt which has since had to be amended twice.

    Does appear to be a matter where at least some parts are not reserved:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?title=habitats

    If Johnson’s gov were to subsequently water down the UKs and/or Eng&Wales laws here it would have to be with further SIs or acts.

  36. Hal

    Thanks. There doesn’t seem to have been any information that I’ve seen on the SDLP taking the Labour whip.

    Of course, under EVEL and E&WVE&WL their votes are an irrelevance on anything other than UK wide issue votes, so the whip becomes much less of an issue.

    I’d expect to see most of the opposition MPs trooping through the same lobbies on UK issues anyway – unless Labour abstentionism is as common in future as it has been previously.

  37. ON
    “…trooping through the same lobbies…”

    What a ludicrous ritual that is. What do they do in Holyrood? It must be better.

  38. @jboyd

    “I don’t think that EVEL adequately deals with the problem; it doesn’t address the formation of a government, budget setting and the Queen’s Speech.If the election had resulted in another hung parliament and the SNP had propped up a Labour administration even though a majority of English constituencies had returned Tories, that would have been indefensible.”

    A Westminster Government being formed under the current settlement is a government for the UK, the budget is for the UK and the QS is for the UK. You appear to be saying that MPs from outside England do not have the same standing in determining that formation or that MPs from parties unacceptable to England should not have that standing. Did you think it unacceptable that the DUP enabled thr formation of a Tory UK Government although a majority of Scottish constituencies did not return Tories? Or should only England have ths6t power of veto in the Union?

  39. Pete B

    It is, isn’t it? Like many modern democracies Holyrood has “Decision Time” at the end of the session, when MSPs vote electronically on all the issues that have been scheduled for a vote.

    Of course, it sometimes produces a giggle moment, as when the proposer of a motion presses the wrong button!

  40. I’d like to raise a question I don’t think has been discussed here yet, namely: the future of the leftist faction in Labour if they lose control of the leadership.

    This is now a possibility. Bill Hill last week had Rebecca Loud-Hailer as clear favourite, but the current odds are 7/4 Starmer, 9/4 Loud-Hailer, 5/1 Nandy, 11/1 Phillips, 16/1 bar.

    This only hypothetical, of course. It would take a sizeable proportion of the remaining 2015/17 membership intake to significantly change position. Not impossible, though, since the majority are young and educated, and presumably can see the cul-de-sac the project has led them down.

    If this happens and Starmer, say, recaptures the party for the soft left (let’s call him Ed Milliband without the brother, the bacon sarnie, and the geeky image), do the left:

    (a) return to the pre-2015 position and accept a role as small minority faction within the party, poosibly for a quarter-century before their chance comes round again?

    (b) walk out of the party, with a significant number of CLPs, and attempt to form a constitutional opposition?

    (c) walk out of the party, with a significant number of CLPs, and attempt to form a revolutionary opposition?

    (d) or…. I’m sure there are other possibilities.

  41. MOG
    “(let’s call him Ed Milliband without the brother, the bacon sarnie, and the geeky image)”

    Or the charisma :)

  42. Pete B

    Another advantage of a purpose built Chamber is that all MSPs have a seat and desk with its own microphone.

    Consequently, while MSP behaviour is just as childish as in any other legislature – cheering and sneering, bawling and cat-calling – the Presiding Officer only activates the microphone of the MSP s/he has called to speak, so that to the viewer of the proceedings, it appears far more civilised than it actually is.

  43. ON
    Thanks. I thought they’d be more sensible.

  44. Pete B

    The procedures are more sensible but (as you may have gathered from my 2nd response – the politicians aren’t!

  45. These more modern elements are also found in the welsh and london assemblies and plenty of councils.

    It’s pretty much just westminster that has this odd desire to hang around a century ago.

  46. @ DAVWEL

    “My big worry is that Johnson is going to slash environmental protection to satisfy big business, who merely see the countryside as a way of making profits. Yesterday the farRight papers were saying Johnson will take us out of ALL EU rules, so clearly the Habitats Directive is out for the UK.

    When the HabD superseded in 1992 our UK Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981), it nearly doubled the list of protected plant species as well as bringing in habitats. This step was a wiser approach, more effective at dealing with species that relied on each other, some of which might not be rarities.

    If the UK goes back to the 1981 short plant list, much effort on the discarded biota will be wasted – even if we now know what has to be done to help these species, Johnson`s Tories are saying they cannot be protected, and there will be no cash or manpower to do this.”

    Sounds terrible Davwel, just as well you’re spouting alarmist nonsense.

    Natura 2000 sites are part of the The Emerald Network ecological network. Its implementation was launched by the Council of Europe as part of the Bern Convention.

    Just so you understand, the UK will remain a member of the Council of Europe (1 of 47) post Brexit.

    The Habitats Directive is merely the implementation of the Emerald Network (from the Bern Convention) within the EU (which we are leaving).

    Most UK SACs and SPAs are also Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and will continue to be also covered by UK domestic legislation.

  47. ON
    Well at least that’s a comfort of sorts.
    ————————
    JamesB
    “It’s pretty much just westminster that has this odd desire to hang around a century ago.”

    Only 1 century?

  48. It would take a sizeable proportion of the remaining 2015/17 membership intake to significantly change position. Not impossible, though, since the majority are young and educated, and presumably can see the cul-de-sac the project has led them down.

    MOG, you are forgetting the £3 for a vote mechanism and it would be surprising if these did not have a majority away from the continuity candidate. Also this is a recognition exercise to a degree and Starmer has more than the others I expect.

  49. Sorry the first para should have been in ”s and was quoting MOG.

  50. Sorry, last time was £25 but not clear this time.

    Also people can join now and vote before a cut-off date no less than two weeks after the timetable is set and no less than three weeks before ballot papers are sent out. There is no qualifying period of membership prior to the freeze date.

    So get joining if you want a say.

1 3 4 5 6 7 57

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)