This morning the Communication Workers’ Union released a Survation constituency poll of Hartlepool, the first one we’ve seen (earlier in the campaign figures were released from a Focaldata MRP of the North, but you can’t really use MRP for a by-election – it doesn’t pick up the unique circumstances). Topline figures with changes from the last election were are CON 49%(+20), LAB 42%(+4), NIP 2%(+2), GRN 1%(+1), LD 1%(-3), ReformUK 1%(-25).

I should start by saying that constituency polling is difficult. It is mostly done by telephone and often has small sample sizes (in this case, the sample was 500, but the actual voting figures are based only 302 who gave a response). Its track record has sometimes been patchy. Nevertheless, it’s the best evidence of where the race stands that we are going to get. What can we tell?

The Conservatives are ahead (though the two main parties are within the margin of error for a sample of 302). Compared to the general election the poll suggests an 8 point lead from Lab to Con, significantly better than how the Conservatives are doing in national polls.

It would be extremely unusual for a governing party to gain a seat in a by-election. There have been only two instances in the last fifty years (Copeland in 2017 and Mitcham & Morden in 1982). Few governments poll ahead of their last election performance mid-term anyway, and if anything they do worse than that in by-elections.

The reason the Tories are doing better in Hartlepool than nationwide appears fairly straightforward, and doesn’t offer any obviously transferrable lessons. In Britain as a whole the Brexit party got 2% at the 2019 election. In Hartlepool they got a very healthy 26%. That vote has almost completely vanished, presumably to the benefit of the Conservatives.

As ever, by-elections are extremely unusual beasts that do not necessarily tell much about national politics. Maybe if the actual by-election turns out like this it will be a steer on how other seats with a high level of Brexit party support in 2019 may go… but then, come the actual by-election we’ll have a glut of other data from the local, Scottish, Welsh, Mayoral and London elections due to be held on the same day, so hopefully we won’t be trying to desperately read too much into one single by-election.

Also worth noting that – given this poll was commissioned by the CWU – it also asked about some of the issues that they are concerned about like broadband, Royal Mail privatisation, nurses pay. The answers in Hartlepool were as you’d expect from national polling (people like free stuff & nurses. They don’t like privatisations). It doesn’t tell us anything particularly useful about why Labour aren’t doing better. Don’t assume because the CWU chose to ask about those issues that they are necessarily ones that are driving support in Hartlepool. Maybe people in Hartlepool care more about Corona, or crime, or Brexit, or economic regeneration, or taxes…

Finally, before this poll there was also significant social media buzz about the Northern Independence party having an impact, not least because their candidate is Thelma Walker, a former Labour MP who resigned over the party’s refusal to re-admit Jeremy Corbyn. Realistically a party that hasn’t even been registered yet may be very pleased indeed if they manage to get third place, but nevertheless, the poll suggests they are not significant players here.

UPDATE: The tables for the Survation poll have appeared, and worth adding a further caveat. At the last election the Brexit party got 26% of the vote. Among people who took part in the poll, only 3% recalled voting for the Brexit party. This does not *necessarily* mean its a duff sample – there will undoubtedly be issues of false recall, of people re-aligning their past vote to match with present circumstances (especially since the Brexit party has rebranded itself into ReformUK and no longer exists in its old form), but it should be an extra reason for caution.


There were two Scottish Parliament voting intention over the weekend, one from Panelbase, one from Survation. Topline figures are that both show the SNP continuing to cruise towards victory and on the edge of winning a majority. Both show a tight race for second place between the Conservatives and Labour.

However, these were also the first two to measure support for Alex Salmond’s new list only party, Alba. The Panelbase poll showed them at 6%, the Survation poll showed them at 3%. To understand the significance of these we need to explore the nuances of the Scottish Parliament electoral system.

The Scottish Parliament elects members using an additional member system. 73 MSPs are elected in constituencies using first past the post, a further 56 are elected on a proportional regional list system. The regional list seats effectively operate as a “top-up” to the constituency seats already won, so that overall the seats won should be proportional to the list vote. For example, if party A won 6 constituency seats, but got 10% of the list vote, they’d be awarded another 7 list seats so they had 10% of the total seats. It’s more complicated than that because it’s done by region, meaning there is an effective threshold to get any seats at all, but we’ll come to that.

Crucially people cast two votes – you don’t have to cast your constituency vote in the same way as your list vote, you can vote for different parties.

The SNP did extremely well at winning constituencies at the last election (59 out of 73). This meant that that despite winning 42% of the list vote, they didn’t receive many list seats, because they had already won almost their fair share through constituency seats. Compare this to the Scottish Greens – they don’t win any constituency seats (they barely stand), so there is nothing to set against their list vote and their list vote of 7% translates into 6 seats.

Therefore, the Alba argument goes, SNP votes on the regional list are “wasted” votes, that are unlikely to return MSPs. If a significant chunk of SNP voters voted Alba instead, it would return more pro-independence MSPs.

So far, so good. However, because the Scottish system uses regional lists, there’s an effective threshold to get any seats at all (about 5-6%). There is also already a second pro-independence party, the Scottish Greens. That means in practice Alba could have a positive or negative impact on the number of pro-Independence MSPs elected. If they get over 5% in a substantial number of regions, and do so by taking SNP second preferences, rather than taking votes who would otherwise back the Greens, they will increase the next number of pro-independence MSPs. If they get under 6% in most regions, they are unlikely to win any MSPs at all. If they get under 6%, but in doing so, take votes from the Scottish Greens, they could even reduce the the number of pro-independence MSPs.

Hence, in judging the impact of Alba, the thing to look at is the level of Alba and the Scottish Greens in the list vote, and whether each is above or below that threshold of around 5-6%. The two polls so far paint contrasting pictures – in the Survation poll, Alba were at 3% and the Scottish Greens were unchanged at 11%. In the Panelbase poll Alba were at 6%, the Scottish Greens at 8%, again comparable to their showing in previous Panelbase polls.

So in neither case was there any evidence that Alba were cannibalising the pro-independence list vote by taking support from the Greens, but the evidence on whether they’ll actually win seats of their own is unclear. On the Panelbase figures they may well do (John Curtice tentatively projects 6 Alba seats, with a total of 79 pro-Independence MSPs). On the Survation figures they probably wouldn’t, but the SNP and Greens would get 77 pro-Independence MSPs between them anyway.

And that, in itself, maybe underlines the extent to which this matters. As things stand most polls show the SNP getting a majority or getting close to one. Taking the SNP & Scottish Greens together, there will very likely be a majority of pro-Independence MSPs anyway. Whether Alba manage to scramble over the threshold to win some seats or not doesn’t look likely to change that given their present level of support.

3,381 Responses to “Polling on Hartlepool and the impact of Alba”

1 66 67 68
  1. The Trevs/Alec,
    “Feb-Mar’20 I was anti-lockdown and pro ‘splitting the herd’, slow hand clap for actually 1/2 remembering something accurately for once. I also thought we stayed in lockdown1.0 for too long (ie late April to July (mid point being the one and only date you gave (May 25th, 2020 at 1:44 pm)), doing unnecessary socio-economic damage and have again never once denied that view or pretended otherwise.”

    Ah indeed, we agree. Of course, the same logic applies to this year too. In fact we seem to have stayed locked down even longer this time despite mass vaccination.

    Its almost as if government is expecting vaccination to be a waste of time and money.

    “It was Captain Obvious we’d bounce back from C19”

    No. It isnt obvious. Nothing really went wrong in 2008 with the world economy. Some banks ran out of cash and got refloated. But it didnt prevent a recession. Thus far it isnt obvious there has been any restoration of normal services…because there hasnt been a restoration of normal service
    Quite a lot of saying there cannot be another lockdown, which is a particularly stupid observation. Either its essential as claimed up to now, or it has always been too costly.

  2. Davwel

    Lots of folk in all parties display a loyal faith in their leader – though research on “authoritarian followers” suggests that is stronger among right wing parties.

    Given that DRoss was parachuted in by Johnson et al to the SCon leadership when Carlaw was unceremoniously dumped by Tory Central Office, I wonder if DRoss’s poor performance [1] will lead to a genteel revolution against him?

    [1] By some reckonings he will be presiding over the Tories’ 50th consecutive election loss in Scotland.

  3. The Trevs,
    ” the predictions of Br-Armageddon is delayed yet again, even though we have now fully left?!?”

    We havnt fully left. It will take years to unwind our Eu membership. Chances are we will rejoin part or all of the EU before the full impact of leaving is seen.

  4. Correction with apologies for historical error in post at six pm ish.

    I meant to have written that there have been just four leaders of the Labour Party who have won General Elections. This might make people less surprised when they see what is happening now.

    JIM JAM and Graham, Crossbat and Nick P may be ablle to give the explanation for the structural weaknesses in the Labour Party which cause this electoral politics, from the gaining of power perspective.

  5. @DAVWEL

    I think Johnson by his reckless behaviour has blown the SCON chance here. No wonder the Scottish Tories want rid of him.

    Do they actually want rid, or does it just suit them to run against him in these elections given how unpopular he is in Scotland?

    I don’t have numbers on this bit but I’d suspect it’s easier to attract tactical votes from other unionist parties if they’re voting for SCON as distinct from Johnson?

  6. new thread (which caught me out!)


    An interesting short survey of historic voting patltterns in Hartlepool over the past 50 years or so:

    Interesting yes, tho rather strongly spun to say the least.

    If his point is that it would be silly to say a Labour loss here was clearly because Starmer has been too centrist, I’d agree with that, tho it would still present Starmer with a major problem he’d need to resolve.

    If he’s trying to say that Labour losing wouldn’t be that surprising or problematic if you know the history and the area, then…no, that’s much too big a stretch.

    And either way, he’s at best doing what he complains about, and “trying to shoehorn in a narrative”, combining parties where it suits him, ignoring split votes where it does not, projecting GE votes onto a by-election, and using vague and overstated generalisations to get past the implications of his own logic.

    If his way of adding parties together is ok, then the very data he cited shows a dramatic change in the last decade which continues to expand – isn’t that kinda the point of the “red wall” narrative he says is just lazy remote journalism?

  8. Alec,
    “None of this is surprising, and much of it was predicted – and ignored – by those railing against lockdowns. The idea given was that lockdowns would so damage the economy that the long term problems would be worse than the lockdown cure. ”

    The position is complicated because some really have done well from lockdown. However this has fundamentally been financed by government borrowing. Whether you believe that borrowing has to be repaid, or whether you think it was free money the BofE printed, either way it could instead have been invested in making the UK more competitive.

    The real argument against lockdown is simply that it did not work to reduce deaths. The reason is it failed to prevent high risk people catching covid. Which in turn is because covid is highly contageous, but for most people there is pre existing immunity which can fight off a small (or not so small) exposure. This isnt controversial, its exactly what WHO said from the start.

    The problem is that some people are particularly susceptible and will die. They are a small and largely identifiable group, which we failed to identify and isolate. Again like a row of dominoes, instead of isolating them we gathered them together in care homes and hospitals to which we introduced infected people with inevitable results.

  9. The Trevs,
    “As for post lockdown1.0 onwards then I’ve stated many times that Boris needed to move quicker on regional tiers from Sep and he did ‘too little, too late’ once it was clear the Kent strain was more transmissible (Dec). ”

    I do wish people would research more carefully.

    The second wave starting when schools reopened in september happened largely in the North of England, not South. I hope by now we have debunked the argument made at that time, that his happened because of poverty in the north making transmission easier. The subsequent southern kent wave and indeed initial spring 2020 southern outbreak bely this, and show we have had an oscillation S-N-S. I see no way poverty could have altered in this manner to thereby cause transmission to wax and wane.

    The second wave was pushed by infection amongst youngsters at schools and universities. We proved that both by timing and the very high rates in that age group. The fact it did not happen in the south is only accountable by assuming those southern kids were immune. Which makes sense because the original spring outbreak started in the south, so southern kids were exposed earlier. Northern kids were somewhat protected by closing schools, which happened before lockdown.

    The september schools wave could have been prevented if those schools had not been shut down in the spring, at negligible cost in additional dangerous infections in the spring. Covid death toll has always been about how to stop high risk groups being infected by outbreaks in low risk groups, and getting the schools immune earlier would have accomplushed this.

    Hastings and some London schools had outbreaks of covid like illness early 2020, before the official start of the disease. Given the september experience that schools can indeed push the epidemic through a community, it is reasonable to assume there was a schools wave at the start of 2020, spreading via schools undetected. Maybe someone will in the future research this from school records to see if this could have been a major and hidden means of spread before it officially started.

    School age and parent of school age people are all in the pretty safe bracket who thus create no wave of hospitalisation which is how covid has always been first detected.

    You reckon restrictions in september were too little too late, but because they were slow to start, those areas which had highest spread in schools also had fastest end of the outbreak, and had time to peak and start falling before those restrictions were applied. Thus we know the disease would have burnt itself out without the restriction and with little or indeed no additional death. QED.

    There was clear evidence of growth of a new outbreak in November in South East England, ie Kent (and indeed adjacent eastern sussex such as Hastings). This wasnt so apparent during November, but once December figures were also available, it was very clear the rise of the Kent variant third wave was visible in figures from November too. Whether thats cases or ONS or King’s app. So no, the Kent Strain happened in November, probably originated in October even. By December it was clearly declining again in the earliest infected areas and peaked at the end of December regionally.

    So to reiterate, the third wave rose during November lockdown and started faling during the December temporary relaxation. Lockdown didnt work. QED.

    Government insists on using the description ‘more transmissable’, becaue it hides the obvious truth behind twhat has happened. People have failed to catch covid despite widespread infection because of immunity. The kent strain overcame exisiting immunity.

    It was proved people had immunity to covid before it arrived. This was done by testing old blood and finding it had an immune response neutralising covid. How this worked is less clear, but the explanation I have repeatedly heard is that immunity against other corona viruses also worked against covid.

    The best explanation of what has happened therefore is covid has adapted to escape that existing immunity, which was impefect anyway because it was created against different strains of corona. So what we have seen is a gradual process of people becoming more susceptible to covid as it steps around different aspects of our immunity, but at the same time these same people will develop instead a tailored immunity to the real corvid instead of to cousins. This has been shown to be as good or maybe better than vaccine induced immunity. (which is what would be expected)

    Government policy however has refused to permit antibody testing (people will remember it was banned by government in 2020), which would have allowed people for a year to be certified safe and go about their normal lives. Most people would have been thus released from lockdown by now.

  10. The Trevor Consortium,
    “Very clearly a rapid vaccine roll out was important and as soon as it was obvious we could obtain herd immunity via vaccination with very effective vaccinations then quite clearly lockdowns was the way to ‘bridge’ to herd immunity via vaccination as I’ve repeatedly stated. ”

    Please put your heads together and think more clearly.

    We have not shown it is possible to create herd immunity through vaccination. Even if it is, we have not shown this is a desireable outcome.

    The reason covid is dangerous is because it had been confined to animals. Thus humans had no direct experience of infection by it, which would have built up our library of immunity to the point it ceased to be dangerous. Endemic similar diseases are not dangerous BECAUSE they remain endemic and re constantly upate out immunity.

    A policy of herd immunity means deliberately halting the natual process wherby we stay safe from this or similar diseases.

    It seem likely therefore the policy is actively dangerous. (though very good for drug company profits)

  11. The Other Howard,
    ” he now actively supports Brexit because of the way that many Remainers would not accept a demoratic vote.”

    As passtherockplease is often wont to say, reality will take care of itself. It makes not the least difference what the result of a vote is to reality. Either brexit is beneficial or harmfull and that will remain the case however many people vote for the opposite to be true.

    You cannot wish away harmful effects of Brexit just because people voted for something else, you still have to deal with them. Problem is, the obvious solution is to reverse brexit…and that is why you are so upset.

    It is not clear there is any solution to the harmful effects of brexit except to reverse it as much and as fast as possible.

  12. The Trevs,
    “It was a painful drawn out ‘frustrating’ process nightmare but despite all the dirty tricks and shenanigans of Project Fear/Remain we ‘Got Brexit Done’ in the end.”

    Mate, th conservatives organised the referendum and committed to leave. They had a decent majority to execute it and could have done so in a year. They chose to delay. And delay. And delay.

    Not simply because their remain inclined opposed things, bu also beause their leave inclined could no agree what to do.

    It wa a vast disaster. Mostly because leavers had no idea what to do once they had a commitment to leave.

  13. Does Johnson have much support on Jersey?

  14. Statgeek,
    “The FT tells it as it is”

    What – that if you want something you have to pay for it in a subscription?

  15. Edge of Reason,
    “Curious. In the second wave I kept asking you why more people were getting COVID and dying in Hastings and Rother than anywhere else, despite all the immunity you claimed them to have acquired.”

    There were not more people dying in Hasting and Rother overall than anywhere else.

    However, the people who have died from covid have been old and sick, where being old is probably essentially a proxy for saying you have various complex health reasons why your immunity is no longer in tip top condition. So the number dying depends on how many high risk people are exposed, and they most commonly get exposed by visiting hospitals infected with covid, or if it enters their care home. People just living quietly at home with family, especially relatively old family, are much safer even if they are high risk.

    Covid was proved to exist in Milan and Turin for months before it was noticed there. It was only eventually noticed when deaths started to occur in significant numbers in old peoples homes/hospitals. The typical evolution of an outbreak, absent any testing and special monitoring, may well be that most of the epidemic happens in the community before it even gets noticed. If it never climbs the age ladder and reaches those people, it can go totally unnoticed.

    I know some died of unidentifiable pneumonia in 2019 in Hastings. Not in itself unusual…unless the numbers get significantly larger than average. But overall it doesnt look like many did. Handling of covid in Hastings in 2019 managed to avert significant deaths. Doing nothing whatever saved hasting from deaths at that time. This is one of the bits of evidence why I argue doing nothing would have caused no more deaths than doing everything we did. (but I accept hastings is a low density area where spread would natually be slow, so the fact it could happen safely here doesnt necessarily carry across to big cities.. It is probable hospitals can and do cope effectively with suspected contagious diseases and effectively isolate them…provided total numbers stay low. There is likely a threshold effect, where isolation in hospitals breaks down and thus deaths shoot up)

    Cases in Hastings remained low throughout the official epidemic in 2020 and only took off when the kent strain arrived. This was indeed followed by deaths. In fact it looked very like Hastings ‘caught up’ on the deaths it didnt have in early 2020 or 2019.

    This is further evidence that the total number of at risk people has always been capped at a very low perecentage of the population, around 0.1%. Hastings experienced a more dangeous strain of covid striking its vulnerable all at once.

    We know most people had a degree of immunity to covid before it spread across the world. Thats proved. The most likely scenario is that for some this was not sufficient to prevent covid illness, so a small new poportion of the population has become seriously ill in every covid wave. Amongst the rest some would have escaped exposure, some thrown off mild exposure, and others did get ill but not dangerously. Maybe as much as 1/3 last spring and another 1/3 this winter have had covid and are thus equally immune to it as if they had a vaccine. Though by now most of them ill have had a vaccination additionally.

    The important point is that an outbreak will go through the whole population and end realtively quickly and with this death’s ceiling of 0.1%, which can be moderated down by an effective policy of shielding the high risk. New outbreaks have happened because covid has mutated to overcome a bit more of the pe-existing immunity, and so finds a new set of victims. Once it spreads generally, it reaches high risk people and they die. (although the Hastings evidence suggests many in this category are dead already, thus why Hastings had a bigger death toll including people previously shielded)

    So far it seems immunity from either vaccination or infection is good against any strain. By now, absent any vaccination program, we would already be on most people immune. The september outbreak and deaths happened because kids were kept away from school in the spring, and so did not become infected and immune -quite safely. Then sending them back out started a brand new outbreak, which could have been prevented if they had stayed in school and become immune in the spring. This preventable outbreak then spread to the high risk…and more avoidable deaths resulted. We would have done much better allowing wider community spread amongst the young in spring 2020 (and I mean anyone under 50 realy).

    A stronger spring outbreak might also have completely prevented the kent variant. Both beause more people immune so would have suppessed its spread, and because without the September outbreak there would not have been high community prevalence providing the conditions for a new strain to develop.

    Government deliberately kept the epidemic going for a long time. It deliberately prevented safe people building their immunity. This allowed covid to keep coming back and cause more deaths. The strategy had a logic, that we would suppress until a vaccine was available, but the reality was suppession was impossible and so the strategy completely failed, ending with more deaths not less. Sage still do not seem to have learnt this lesson.

    Incidentally, side effects being most severe if you have had covid, based on recorded cases the youger age groups will be the most likely to have had covid already and so would be more likely to show side effects. Dont know if that has been allowed for in concern over vaccines, but the solution if that is what’s happening would be to not vaccinated people who have had it. Except testing antibody level is not a reliable test of past exposure, and if there is a way to do so it involves more complex and so probably prohibitive lab testing.

  16. Edge of Reason,
    “And yet a further five or six months on, here it is back again and scrambling the vaccine impact. ”

    Must have missed that Edge, where is it back again? Certainly not in the UK. I havn’t seen any suggestion it has evaded vaccine immunity either, though its good you realise it is more likely to do so than to evade natural immunity post infection. The human immune system works better than vaccine, at leat for most and we can identify those ‘most’.

    In India the outbreak seems to dying away once agian, and their death tota remain a fraction of ours. Oh that we could have done so well. Funny that the obvious difference between them and us is they used less intervention.

  17. Charles,
    “Apologies for being so vague but you really cannot assume that the Indians figures are remotely reliable.”

    What, you think those colonials can’t even record a death?

    I dont think the Uk figures are reliable. I know they arent, based upon specific examples.

    “Successive governments, Labour and Conservative, have colluded in the cover up of state crime and not only in NI but also in Iraq and Afghanistan”

    Something is only a crime within a definition created by government. So if they say something is not a crime, then it isnt. (whether its right or wrong is another matter). Thats kinda what it means to be the government of a sovereign state. (like, wot those brexiters have been fighting for)

    “August 1971”.
    yeah. Long time.

    But I’m afraid i’d still says you cannot blame soldiers or police for following orders. Many like to pretend that you can, but it is the people giving those orders who are responsible. Those people are quite likely to say they acted in the best interest of the state. But it was them who chose that course of action.

    Good Evening to you. Thank you for your post about the Labour Party.

    The scrutiny of Jeremy Corbyn really started in earnest, I think, when it looked as though he might become PM following the GE of 2017. The wider electorate then became more aware of the wreath laying for Black September, that infamous cartoon and the arrest during the IRA trial of one of the Brighton Bombers.

    The PLP numbers did not look as if they were there but Margaret Beckett helped out.

    In terms of polling it seemed it went badly wrong for him after the response to the Salisbury Poisonings in the House of Commons.

    Blair’s view that since the Party is not welcoming at the moment for people like JK Rowling and Trevor Phillips it does not seem welcoming to many non Tory voters, seems fairly convincing

    I remember COLIN saying that John Macdonnell would have been a more formidable opponent and he would have done better than the leader in that election interview with Andrew Neil.

    Going back a bit, Ed Miliband was very upset at the end of that speech at Coference when he forgot to include the passages on the economy and immigration. The text had already been circulated to the media.

    COLIN and TREVOR would probably agree that the UK does not need to have a Labour Party that is unelctable as was the case in 1931-35 and 1983 to 1992.

    Apologies for length of post. John Smith died this day in 1994 RIP

  19. The Labour Iain Macleod.

  20. I read the discussion on healthcare funding with interest.

    As a regular user of private healthcare insurance I have never had any qualms about doing so. I believe in the freedom of the individual to use any wealth he creates for himself, as he pleases within the law of the land. At my age it is very expensive but I don’t begrudge a penny, without it i estimate i would have died from my cancer at least 10 years ago if not more (I was diagnosed in 2003).

    The two basic benefits are that you can, at least to an extent choose your consultants, and tests surgery etc are all timely.

    I note that Somerjohn wants Consultants ability to do private work to be phased out. The Attleee government had to give way to the Consultants and I believe any Government today would have to. Its not going to happen.

  21. I should have added that Colin is correct, a Private consultation is nothing like an NHS one. You are treated as an intelligent adult and you can build up a really good relationship with your consultant as i have.

  22. Looking at the polls the Tory double-digit lead is clear and very unusual for this stage in a parliament.

  23. TOH Dictionary.

    “Talking nonsense” = Not agreeing with me.
    ” The man’s an idiot”= I don’t like him
    “There’s no real argument” = I can’t prove my point.
    ” I am not prepared to waste my time” = I can’t prove my point
    “Fair and reasonable” = I agree with them.
    ” Lack of self awareness”=I can’t prove my point why have you mentioned it.

  24. @TOH

    I’ve benefitted from Private treatment in the past, and I can agree it’s quite a difference.

    NHS, umm well… Maybe 6 months. You’ve got BUPA… How about next week?


    As this is a polling site can anybody explain how they get such big differences in the same question within a couple of days.

    Biden approval tie or +23

    Direction of the country +14 or -18

    Are they just biased towards who pays for them. If so what’s the point?

  26. Danny

    I suspect the reason why most aren’t engaging with you on your myth of a trillion pounds is it’s a myth

    Debt 2018: 1.8 trillion
    Debt now: 2.2 trillion

    Considering we were running a deficit in 2018 the delta caused by the measures would be significantly less than the difference.

    It’s a myth invented by you to presumably serve your narrative.

  27. New Delta Poll out 23-26th.

    Con 42%
    Lab 37%
    LD 6%

    Other parties not shown yet.

    Tories pleased to be over 42% while Lab please to get 37% and the lead only 5% but that LD score is the equal lowest (1 other) in the last 25 since the C&A By-Election.
    Plus Labs 37% is their highest since the local elections and Hartlepool By-Election (May 06th)
    I know moe generally smaller with lower VI but think sample may be a bit Lab at LD expense; could be ahead of curve of course but unlikely imo.

  28. @ James E

    ” this argument clashes with the argument you made on this site around a week ago”

    There should be a warning sign after the posts:
    Please don’t feed the rabbit

  29. ALEC

    I think that’s a very generous interpretation of events. Starmer has offered nothing. No leadership, no vision, no policies and certainly no charisma. His chosing to ignore one wing of the party is not going to end well.

    As a member of the party I don’t have a clue what Labour stand for any more. Can’t see myself staying in the party much longer.

  30. “Where’s Peter Mandelson?!”

  31. TW

    “Scots have SNP option but Scot.Gov does need to Leave.UK before they can Rejoin.EU”

    Scots have indyref option but they need to Yes.Indyref before they can Join.EU

    Fixed it for you.

1 66 67 68