There have been three GB opinion polls published over the last few days –

YouGov/Times (4th/5th Nov) – CON 35%(-3), LAB 40%(+2), LDEM 7%(+1) (tabs)
Opinium/Observer (5th/6th Nov) – CON 38%(nc), LAB 42%(+2), LDEM 7%(+1) (tabs)
Survation (5th/6th Nov) – CON 39%(-2), LAB 37%(nc), LDEM 9%(+2) (tabs)

YouGov and Opinium both have Labour clearly ahead (in Opinium’s case that’s confirming the lead in their previous poll; for YouGov it’s the first Labour lead since the election. They come after a ComRes poll last week showing the parties equal and an Ipsos MORI poll that also had a five point lead. While there will always be some volatility in individual polls, looking at the average across all of the polling companies it now looks as if Labour have moved into a small lead.

Back in the summer the Conservatives had a consistent lead averaging around five or six points – since then Labour have been chipping away at it. The most obvious explanation is the generally negative perception of the government’s handling of Corona and Boris Johnson’s leadership, married to the generally positive public attitude towards Keir Starmer.

Despite the timing I would be cautious about reading too much into the impact of Labour’s internal battle and the expulsion of Jeremy Corbyn – while the polling certainly suggested that it had boosted perceptions of Keir Starmer, that increase was largely among Tory voters. In reality, most of the daily soap opera of politics doesn’t have a noticeable impact on voting intentions (especially if it is so rapidly pushed off the front pages by events across the Atlantic) – my guess is that this is more just the continuation of a trend that has been apparent for months, which happened to reach the crossover point in this past fortnight.

Does it matter? In a predictive sense of course not – there are years until MPs have to face the electorate. In terms of it’s impact on politics? Of course – it strengthens Keir Starmer’s hand in internal party fights if he is the man who put Labour back ahead. Equally, it weakens Boris Johnson if he is no longer seen as a popular election winner, something that was once his main selling point to the Tory party.


2,741 Responses to “Labour moves ahead in the opinion polls”

1 53 54 55
  1. People have suggested the swedish model is a failure because it now has rising cases and deaths.

    In the Uk, we have rising cases and deaths because we told the educational establishments to resume. This was a block of people not yet exposed, and with associated contacts they brought a new wave of cases and deaths. Rather bigger than the Swedish one.

    In Sweden a while ago they told pensioners they could start coming out again.

    Releasing lockdown once entered into has been a process of group by group sending people back into circulation and managing the resulting illness.

    In Sweden is there really anyone left to send back out? if not, its over.

    In the UK…do we have a tranche of high risk people still to send back out, or was lockdown pretty much a failure and they have already all been exposed? So its over?

  2. @SOMERJOHN

    “Well, there are those who say brexit is an ongoing process, not a single event.”

    Can that be the new definition of Brexit?

    “An ongoing process, not a single event.”

  3. Bank of England Governor directly contradicts Sunak’s claim that the UK would ‘prosper’ with no deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/no-deal-brexit-to-cost-more-than-covid-bank-of-england-governor-says/ar-BB1bi4JV?ocid=msedgdhp

  4. JiB:Can that be the new definition of Brexit?

    “An ongoing process, not a single event.”

    I don’t think it’s enough to provide a complete definition.

    But I do think it’s true that the development of our future relationship with the EU will be much more troublesome and time-consuming than membership ever was, sucking the life-blood out of our engagement with the world and perpetuating division in the country.

    I wonder if they felt this way in 1337, as the 100 years war kicked off?

  5. Some thoughts on the gooid vaccine news of the last two weeks.

    1. We all have cause to be happy that the reasonable best case scenario of the vaccine suppoorters looks close to coming to pass, since most governments bought into it.

    2. As the reasonable best case scenario now looks more likely, that surely changes the balance we have had between planning for the best and covering for the worst. We probablty no longer need to run our “just in case the vaccine takes ten years” scenarios with the same gusto.

    So we should be locking down harder. As we are fairly sure it’s only medium term. But we’re doing the opposite. Wise? Doesn’t seem so to me. We are now, it seems, in the “fight the war with vigour, it’s not the 11 November yet” phase. And the deaths will be similarly futile.

    3. Even on the reasonable best case scenario, I remain sceptic on the strategy. You’ve taken best part of a year of normal life. By the end game predicted for the summer, at least 1.5 years. As a medium risk person, mid fifties, perhaps 6- 8% of what I had left. For a risk of death no more than a tenth of that.

    If I got it. But I might not have. Preliminaery estimates were 60% infection max before it burnt out the old fashioned way. 10% or so have had it (at least). So you’ve saved me from 50% risk. Perhaps a twentieth of the life period I’ll have had limited.

    Granted, I’ve not been dead since February. I’ve just had quality of life impatcted. To a degree. As a middle class office worker in middle age, not a big degree. I’m still working from home and earning. I still hae my creature comforts.

    But unless I can say I’m 95% or higher on quality of life these last few months, it was quite simply a bad bargain, a bad investment of reduced quality of life against risk, a bad gamble.

    And for all my favourable circumstances, I can’t say that. It was a bigger negative.So it was a bad bargain, a bad investment of qualitty of life against risk. Even for me, for all my advanatges. So, for the wait for the silver bullet brigade, I’m glad the silver bullet is here, I’m not convinced it vindcates your strategy.

  6. DANNY
    “The most obvious explanation of why this should be is that R has remained at 1 since the summer. ”

    Come on, this is a polling site. One set of the collected official data is in effect a poll of the populatiion randomly sampled. It shows a very different story.

    The dataset you usually champion, and I follow with great weighty, is a poll of a self-selecting but still pretty well corrected sample. It shows a very different story.

    The delusional, denial of all evidence interpretaion of the data is that R has remained at 1 since the summer.

    Why do you ruin quite well reaasoned scepticism with this Qanon level of nonsense?

  7. @somerjohn

    Our relationship with the EU is an ongoing and developing story. As it was before we joined and when we were in.

    Our membership is a digital state.

    If that is all that matters to you, and it is all that matters to most Leavers, then we are no longer an EU state and that is job done. The objective is achieved. It is a success.

    Why is this hard to grasp? Will you think OldNat should only be happy with his ambition that Scotland should be independent when Scotland achives some minor benefit on fishing quota or repatriates a few jobs making screws to Paisley? Or do you accept he will be happy if the constitutonal change happens? The latter I am sure.

    Anjd if the latter, why don’t you get that Leavers now think job done? However much you harp on about your view of the downside (a view I largely share as it happens).

    The Question: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

    The Answer: Leave

    The Outcome: Left

    Why do you not get that for those who voted for the answer, the outcome is the result they voted for, and it’s done?

  8. Peter W,

    The point of PTRPs comment about the UKs entry in to WW11 is not whether it actually was in the self interest of the UK but that the then leaders, in his opinion, believed it was.

    My history of that period is not good enough to judge.

  9. @ PETERW – There is certainly a bitter irony that we shouldn’t have locked down so hard (eg closing schools) in Spring when a vaccine was a long-term hope but now that the vaccine is close to providing the ‘silver bullet’ then we should lock down harder now as the time horizon is short (eg now we should consider a longer school closure over Xmas, notably ‘study from home’ for secondary school through to and including Unis next term)

    Also whilst I very much welcome the increased and rapid testing in hospitals, care homes, etc then I’m worried that the increased testing in the community is ‘interpreted’ as easy access to a ‘morning after pill’ when we want folks to be using prophylactic or abstinence.

    PS However, it’s a bit Captain Hindsight to want to change decisions in the past based on info we only have now. ‘What’s done is done’ or if you prefer the French proverb

    “Mez quant ja est la chose fecte, ne peut pas bien estre desfecte”

  10. @ JJ – Thoughts on

    “Jeremy Corbyn urged to apologise ‘unequivocally’ and ‘unambiguously’ for Labour anti-semitism comments”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-anti-semitism-labour-chief-whip-b77374.html

    1/ a true account (ES is both anti-Corbyn and anti-Tory these days – if you/other has the actual raw source info please post)
    2/ will Corbyn just state the words (even if like Patel he probably doesn’t mean them)
    3/ if Corbyn did state the words then would that see him reinstated and be the end of the matter and LAB could ‘unite’ (at least in the eyes of the masses)?

  11. PeterW: Why is this hard to grasp?

    I’m a bit surprised that you seem to have so completely misunderstood what I said.

    I have no trouble grasping the idea that some brexiteers, or leave voters, may think that all that matters is membership. For such people, Brino would be fine, or an ever-closer relationship, payment of fees, free movement, ECJ – anything so long as the UK isn’t a member.

    What I have trouble with is the idea that there are many brexiteers in that category. I know they’re stupid, but not that stupid (joke, folks – that famous English sense of humour).

    But that’s irrelevant. What I wrote was:

    “But I do think it’s true that the development of our future relationship with the EU will be much more troublesome and time-consuming than membership ever was, sucking the life-blood out of our engagement with the world and perpetuating division in the country.”

    That has nothing to do with what brexiteers may or may not think. It’s just me saying I think this will go on and on and be terribly destructive.

    By the way, what did you mean by ‘digital’? Binary, perhaps?

  12. Two more Republican senators tell Trump to concede today, with a couple also isolating with covid. If Trump had hoped to enlist the enate in election rigging, he now doesn’t have the numbers.

  13. I am just waiting for the news that we have completed Brexit turning up in an episode of Red Dwarf!

    Peter.

  14. Alex,

    “ If Trump had hoped to enlist the enate”

    Was that a misprint?

    Definition of?’enate’

    ADJECTIVE also: enatic (i??næt?k )
    1. biology growing out or outwards
    2. related on the side of the mother
    NOUN
    3. a relative on the mother’s side
    C17: from Latin ?n?tus, from ?n?sc? to be born from, from n?sc? to be born

  15. @Peterw – don’t really agree with you assessment of the covid strategy and whether it was worth it.

    The lockdown was essential, and it worked. It was the least bad option in the spring, and did a good job in reducing infection.
    It would have been better applied a few days earlier, which would have had a greater benefit and quite likely shortened the period of lockdown needed.

    We then took a series of wrong decisions, seeking to boost high risk parts of the economy, completely failing on track and trace[1], and basically getting the unlocking very badly wrong.

    The second lockdown was delayed, and consequently there have been more deaths, longer lockdown, and more economic damage.

    The strategy wasn’t wrong, but the way it was applied was catastrophically poor.

    [1] There was much debate on here very early on about the national/local track and trace and the failure of the government to share data and coordinate with LAs.

    C4 news covered a local authority track and trace team last week. In their area, the national effort was contacting less than half of contacts. The LA was then passed the failed contacts, and they were hitting 89% of them.

    Bizarrely, when the local tracers contacted a case and generated new contacts from them, they had to hand these back to the national tracers, even if they were in their own area.

  16. Alex,

    Maybe Samual L Jackson is right and they ate a bunch of Mother…#£@#&*s

    Peter.

  17. Somerjohn
    “I wonder if they felt this way in 1337, as the 100 years war kicked off?”

    I suppose it depends whether their internet chat rooms were talking about it. :)

  18. peterw,
    “2. As the reasonable best case scenario now looks more likely,”

    Strcitly speaking, it doesnt. there is no specific evidence the vaccines can achieve either of the necessary goals: protecting the high risk or creating herd immunity. I dont think there has ever been any doubt vaccines would do something like they have been shown to do so far.

    ” Even on the reasonable best case scenario, I remain sceptic on the strategy. You’ve taken best part of a year of normal life.”

    Hmm. 1% of normal life for everyone in order to try and fail to prevent o.1% of people losing an average of about 2 years of life,(maybe less). Not taking any account of those who will now die because of extended lockdown who would not have died had it been done in as short a time as possible.

    And maybe we should think about all the old people locked down while this is going on who just lost their last year of life which they would have used seeing family – instead they were locked down. Life at all cost is not the goal.

    And I still see no evidence I am wrong that hastings had covid last year. Which means it ran through the urban area of 100,000 without being noticed. Some epidemic!

    The most likely explanation is that the relatively low density and poverty struck situation of hastings reduced total of severe cases and favoured natural vaccination. Hastings looks like it could reasonably expect to be on the low end of the average 0.1% deaths rate, so the total was not noticed compared to normal deaths rate.

  19. PeterW
    “Or do you accept he [ON] will be happy if the constitutonal change happens?”

    Difficult to imagine, but I’ll take your word for it. Sorry, couldn’t resist. :)

  20. Peterw,
    “The delusional, denial of all evidence interpretaion of the data is that R has remained at 1 since the summer. ”

    dont think you got what i said.

    1) in the summer R was agreed to be about 1. At that time most people were once again circulating and socialising. Amongst them and those condition, the result was R=1.

    2) so what changed? schools and universities went back. Several million new people who had been largly isolated from society (because they are kids, dont work, and dont socialise much outside small groups)

    3) Those people had varying immunity, more in the S than N of England. They were a snapshot of immunity at the time they locked down, and by then there had been more cases in the south.

    4) They started catching covid. general anti spread measures in schools, uni are useless. (they would never have worked in a hospital or care home) Big explosion of cases amongst them. Spreading to family and friends outside schools, and pushing up community rates because they are feeding more exposure to the community.

    5) R is high, BUT ONLY AMONGST THIS NEW GROUP. The ouside community has rate of spread within it unaffected. Still 1.

    6) The new groups fast spread begins to exhaust susceptible people. happens fastest where spread was fastest, in the North. South still rising, but to much lower levels.

    7) R amongst the new group falls back.

    8) What the government measures is spread amongst known cases. if the cases in the new groups exceed those in the old groups in total number (by quite a bit), then what you are measuring is not R in the old group, but in the new group.

    9) However the old groups is far more numerous than the new, The true R for the majority was always much lower than measured, but there is no way to measure it except from cases.

  21. Interesting aside from a public health official on BBC Scotland today, She was stressing the importance of vaccines, like the Oxford one, that are suitable for use around the world – not just for humanitarian reasons, but out of self-interest as well.

    Referring to the results from genomic tracking – “The virus was introduced to Scotland more than 300 times from abroad.”

  22. Following the certification of results by Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, the GSA have bypassed Trump and opened transition resources to the Biden team.

  23. Alec,
    “The lockdown was essential, and it worked. It was the least bad option in the spring, and did a good job in reducing infection.”

    I would love it if you could find proof of that, but i fear there isnt any. In as much as it flattened the peak to prevent hospital overload, then I agree. But that ended about end april. The NHS was in the event never overloaded. There are exceptions, but on the whole those people who could benefit from intensive care got it.

    Lockdown probaby created cases amongst the high risk, and severe cases too because pensioners (etc) were forced to wade through huge crowds includingn infected people to get goods in supermarkets. The way this was handled created crowds where normally pretty isolated people got exposed.

    “It would have been better applied a few days earlier, which would have had a greater benefit ”

    I dont agree. Again, I am entirely content this is your opinion, but i dont see any actual evidence. What we have seen is a long lockdown which failed to prevent a resurgence. This has only been limited by the immunity acquired in the spring, which has made the second wave much milder in the south.

    Essentially, most of the deaths were inevitable from the start, and most of those ever likely to happen have already done so. very little was prevented by lockdown. Its largely completed naturally despite all attempts to prevent it ending.

    Again, you may not agree, but i dont see any proof i am wrong. The cirumstantial evidence remains that covid is self limiting around 0.1% death rate.

    “We then took a series of wrong decisions, seeking to boost high risk parts of the economy, completely failing on track and trace[1], and basically getting the unlocking very badly wrong. ”

    The evidence seems to be that pubs and restauarnts are not big spreaders. Not now the community has immunity, anyway. Dunken parties much more likely to be a risk, but I’m not clear they were reopened?

    Track and trace was never possible because we never had the capacity to test on a sufficienty large scale.

    “The second lockdown was delayed, and consequently there have been more deaths, longer lockdown, and more economic damage.”

    The second outbreak was centred amongst schools and universities. To stop it, you needed to close schools and unversities. Government chose not to do that. Since it made that choice, a second lockdown was pointless because it did not address the problem.

    Oh, and the claimed total of deaths from covid is rather dodgy. Quite a lot probably died from something else, eg cancer, but did so in hospitals where they caught covid incidentally. This has bumped up the figures of people who died within 28 days of a test. Meanwhile, the excess deaths figure is being inflated by people who are dying because their different illness isnt being treated properly. But that is significantly because of the disruption caused by covid, which has been allowed to continue for 9 months when it could have been ended by mid summer.

  24. ON
    “Referring to the results from genomic tracking – “The virus was introduced to Scotland more than 300 times from abroad.””

    That’s interesting. I wondered why airports weren’t shut down or restricted much sooner. I remember seeing a figure early on (around April?) that about 23 million people had passed through UK airports since the start of the outbreak. I didn’t believe it, so checked, and there was actual data to back it up.

  25. Pete B

    Only the UK Government has the powers to close international borders, but my guess would be that governments across the UK consider the survival of airports to be a key economic factor, and weren’t willing to risk them by banning (as opposed to discouraging) non-essential international travel.

    Just a guess, though.

  26. Today is quartidi 4 Frimaire in the year of the Republic CCXXIX, celebrating the medlar.

    Appropriate, on the day that Trump accepts that transition has to begin. The fruit of the medlar is only edible after it has begun to decay.

  27. PeterW

    Had the UK and France took the declaration of war seriously in September 1939, there wouldn’t have been a second world war.

    There is enough documentation of war games – the point was that they hoped that the Poles held up longer and seeing the Anglo-French defense the Nazis would attack the Soviet Union (which was very far from being prepared).

    There was an interesting war game (again available from the archives) of a German-French track on Baku with British support. Oh, it is February 1940.

    But the politicians knew that it was not a real thing (even if the French sent weaponry to Finland). They couldn’t make the alliance with the Soviet Union (April 1939), they didn’t have the popular support for a war at home (the transcripts of the French parliament are very interesting). So, they played the safe cards (with the declaration of war and the phoney war) and it became WW2.

  28. OldNat

    You left out the décade (the 4 is just the quartidi). So it is décade 7.

    :-)

  29. Laszlo
    “But the politicians knew that it was not a real thing (even if the French sent weaponry to Finland). ”

    Wasn’t Finland sort of on Germany’s side because they were fighting the USSSR?

  30. Laszlo

    Now that we have left the EU, we no longer have to follow those pettifogging European rules that provide clarity and accuracy!

    In the sunlit Brexit uplands, true Brits are released from these limitations on our creativity.

    :-)

  31. So the Tory party is ok with sexual assault as well as bullying.

    Natalie Elphicke and fellow Tory MPs try to influence judge

    I expect the usual suspects will be along to defend Natalie and her fellow MPs.

    The head of the judiciary has admonished six Tory parliamentarians for seeking to influence a judge overseeing a hearing this week on whether references written in support of the former MP Charlie Elphicke can be made public.

    The six wrote last week to senior judges, copying in the judge who will oversee the hearing on Wednesday, expressing concern that “matters of principle” should first be considered by senior members of the judiciary and by parliament.

    But in a response from the office of the lord chief justice for England and Wales, they were told it was “improper” to seek to influence the decision of a judge who would ultimately rule on the basis of evidence and argument in court.

    “It is all the more regrettable when representatives of the legislature, writing as such on House of Commons notepaper, seek to influence a judge in a private letter and do so without regard for the separation of powers or the independence of the judiciary,” said the reply from Ben Yallop, the private secretary to the lord chief justice.

    “It is equally improper to suggest that senior judges should in some way intervene to influence the decision of another judge. The independence of the judges extends to being free from interference by judicial colleagues or superiors in their decision-making. Judges must be free to make their decision independently of pressure or influence from all, including legislators.”

    The original letter was sent to the president of the Queen’s bench division and the senior presiding judge for England and Wales by the Tory peer David Freud and the MPs Sir Roger Gale, Adam Holloway, Bob Stewart, Theresa Villiers and Natalie Elphicke.

    The latter is the estranged wife of Charlie Elphicke, who succeeded him as the MP for Dover before his conviction and jailing this year for three counts of sexual assault against two women.

    The other five parliamentarians identified themselves last week as the authors of some of the character references provided for Elphicke’s sentencing, and claimed that publishing the statements could deter people from providing similar background details in future cases.

    An application is being made on Wednesday by the Guardian, Times and Associated Newspapers for release of the letters where the author is a public figure, in public office or holds or has held a position of public responsibility.

    Where the authors are ordinary members of the public – such as former constituents – the media organisations’ position is that if publication will cause unwanted intrusion into private life, the letters could be anonymised.

    The issue has also been raised in parliament by Stewart, who called for a debate. The leader of the house, Jacob Rees-Mogg, told him he had raised a concerning point and said he would refer the matter to the lord chief justice and the attorney general.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/23/tory-mps-rebuked-over-letter-to-judge-in-charlie-elphicke-references-case

  32. A long piece on ‘Levelling Up’ and post C19 ‘Build Back Better’

    https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/library/the-great-recovery-a-post-covid-19-deal-for-britain

    NB I’m not necessarily agreeing with all of it, but it certainly should help focus the discussion and help shape the policies required.

    NB2 Yes, it will be biased, as all think tanks are, but CSJ have a strong backing on CON back benches and hence worth a read even if for no other reason that knowing that some CON MPs will be pushing.

  33. I suspect the effect of some relaxation of Covid rules for Christmas and the prospect of a vaccine will be good for the Tory VI, but I wonder if anyone else was struck last night by just how incoherent the Prime Minister was. Several times after he had burbled on a for a few minutes, Whitty felt that he needed to intervene to clarify the essential message, which he did in a few seconds. I doubt it will affect VI, but I found Johnson’s desire to have the lion’s share of attention even when the experts knew more and expressed it more clearly, off-putting – but I know that I am biased against him.

  34. @ Pete

    I am saddened but not surprised at that approach by MP’s. I wouldn’t relate to any particular party though. The understanding of the separation of powers and general constitutional norms amongst all parties has become astonishing. In particular, e.g. I remember David Blunkett and his rants against the judiciary.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/judges-are-out-of-touch-says-furious-blunkett-104765.html

  35. that was meant to be “astonishing in their paucity” sorry

  36. There is an interesting little observation hiding in the King’s app data for SE and SW England.

    https://covid-assets.joinzoe.com/latest/covid_symptom_study_report.pdf

    In the earlier part of the summer after lockdown, the SW had the lowest cases in the country. As this recent outbreak went on so, all the way back to august, cases in the SW while still low edged above those in the SE.

    But since 1 Nov the SW has fallen back.

    This has been a season in which people have been unable to holiday aboad. The SW has a lot of holiday properties and big toursit industry (well big compared to anything else).

    Seems likely therefore the relatively increased cases through the tail end of the holiday season was due to holidaymakers from the rest of the UK.

    The implication of course being that these were imported cases, artficially increasing numbers. Now holidaymakers have gone home (whch happened before lockdown of course, winter is coming) cases have fallen back to their natural level for the local population. Plenty of local immunity I fancy. Torridge in Devon being one of the cold spots in the Uk for official cases, so likely had an early outbreak. This too might have been tourist related. Be interesting to know if there are any local links there to Wuhan for some reason.

    A while back there was an analysis which I think reported 1300 different strain of covid had been found in the UK. Most now considered extinct. Analysis of where these came from is complicated because the Uk has done more of this sort of analysis than any other country, so data is lacking in other countries to compare strains. But what it did plainly say is that an outbreak is quite likely to die out naturally unless circumstances are favourable.

    In Hastings, the initial infection happened in a workplace of some 300 people. That one first traveller from Wuhan could instead have gone to bed and self isolated, quite naturally, and there never would have been that outbreak. But as it was, the first contacts were extensive and it got a firm start. Its likely those cases which established were also ‘lucky’ for the virus.

    Here is an article from June discussing where there were high or low incidence of cases. https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/understanding-excess-deaths-countries-regions-localities

    It says:
    “The least affected localities in England were north-east Lincolnshire (1%), Hastings (6%), and Torridge (6%).”

    and
    “A potential second wave of the pandemic may particularly impact areas less affected by the first wave if their populations have been exposed and developed some immunity. Total excess deaths in the UK over the 10 weeks of the pandemic to 22 May were around 62,000. If English local authorities in the bottom three-quarters of the distribution were to have the same death rate as the local authority at the top quartile, there would have been around 19,000 more deaths.”

    But interestingly Torridge, hastings and Norfolk persist in refusing to have any further cases. For other places this prediction came true. Conclusion: different circumstances.

    Hastings has poverty and a surplus of older people. Its close to london with a commuter link so there ought to be a redy source of infection and ready victims. But no infection has taken place since the epidemic officially started. Either hastings got a secret test vaccine lat autumn (i dont remember that happening) or something lse happened to make it immune.

    The obvious is it caught the disease. The other local factors would all tend to make Hastings to be on the low side of a general epidemic, which would all help to explain if the epidemic actually took place last winter why it was not noticed. Hastings managed to do the right things to minimise deaths. This most definitely did not include general lockdown or closing schools.

  37. @PeterW @Somerjohn

    Why do you not get that for those who voted for the answer, the outcome is the result they voted for, and it’s done?
    ========================================================

    Clearly ‘yes’ in a sense. But for some people what matters is not that we have left but whether we have left or are about to leave ‘properly’. Hence Johnson’s brinkmanship, the anger among the Scots that their wishes have been ignored, the anxiety among business people about no deal, the issues about the good Friday agreement and so on. It is a question of words whether one want to describe these issues as ‘part of Brexit’ or the consequences of Brexit or whatever. What is obvious is that we have put an exocet into the heart of our relationship with our major trading partner, we have got to go on living with them, and sorting out a good way of doing this is a process that is going to take a long time.

    But having disagreed with PeterW I should note that I really liked his comment about Danny ruining perfectly reasonable and well argued scepticism with Qanon quality nonsense. i don’t understand why he does it either.

  38. @ Pete

    the other thing I should say is that attacks on a particular Judge or their judgment or sentencing of a case is particularly unfair as they are not permitted to respond to such criticism. Even on the matter in question the Judge has not been allowed to say anything and the response of the Lord Chief is set out in general rather than specific terms.

  39. “He will sell us out, he’s backtracked and Uturned on everything he’s promised. We’re going to get shafted and they all have hedge funds in PPE. Or are betting against our economy. Worst PM in UK history.”

    First comment I read on a thread following an article on a possible deal. Looks to me as if at least some Brexiteers are not yet convinced that they have won.

  40. PETERW

    Why do you not get that for those who voted for the answer, the outcome is the result they voted for, and it’s done?”

    You may well be wasting your time Peter, I have been saying more or less the same thing for ages now but it has not registered yet.

1 53 54 55

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)