Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 38%, LDEM 11%. This puts the Conservatives back ahead in YouGov’s poll after over a week of Labour leads or the two parties neck and neck.

From what we’ve got, it’s impossible to be certain of the underlying position. It could be that Labour are still ahead, and this poll is just a bit of an outlier, or it could be that there was a short-term movement against the Conservatives, possibly as a result of the protests against tuition fees, but it has faded away again as the news agenda has moved on.


273 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – 40/38/11”

1 3 4 5 6
  1. @Adam
    No
    The current VI are completely IMO reasonable given:

    – we’re still at the tail end of the honeymoon period so the resilience of the Con share is understandable – perhaps it shoudl be higher?
    – the LDs have taken the ‘hits’ on popularity instead of the Con gov
    – the Con gov has ‘worked’ the media well over the last six months and also marketed its policies well
    – the cuts were planned by all three parties so the Con gov’s announcements were factored in anyway
    – there have been numerous ‘popular’ policy announcements by the Con gov and thus anger has been (re)directed at the vulnerable etc in our society rather than the gov
    – the impact of the cuts have not actually begun to bite
    – the economy is reasonably ok (inherited from the Lab gov) and as LordY correctly let us know, many of the UK populationhave never had it so good
    – the Lab party has yet to get its act together. This is partyly due to the protracted leadership election and partly due to needing to define policies that will resonate 9agaon) with the electorate.

    And as I posted yesterday, this is the lull before the storm. We’re in the phoney war period.

    So, you can choose between Roland’s informative ‘YES’ or my informative analysis. ;-)

  2. @Roland
    I’m very much in favour of overseas aid and also helping Ireland.

    The UK has a deficit. I do not agree with the Con gov’s polciies for dealing with it.

  3. I find it just a tad ironic that the Con gov can recognise that ‘investment’ in the RoI economy is sensible and sound policy but seems to have a different view with the UK economy.

    Oh, and our brilliant, brilliant, brilliant chancellor holds the RoI up as a shinign example.

  4. strange that so many well informed people should miss the point so completely

    Georgie boy is not bailing out Irish banks, he’s bailing out British banks, who stand to lose oodles of money if the Irish banks hit the wall

    at the end of the day it’s the Irish people that will pay for this bailout of the banks with at least a 25% drop in their standard of living

    i don’t know about the rest of you but that kind of drop in living standards would really hurt me

  5. It’s a bit of a weird world we live in where George Osborne (stringently opposed to bailing out banks and fiscal stimulus) is now proposing to give money to another country so that they can do both – and in subtext do so for our country.

    That dull banging sound you hear is Gordon hitting his head against the wall…

  6. @R I N
    Of course, Mr Osbourn has very good reason to help Ireland quite apart from being a good neighbour, I am gratified that some non Tories can see that.

    @ MIKE N
    I feel referring Adam to a non Tory journo in a non Tory paper, who has this very day published his view of the very question Adam posed, was more informative than a “party political” broadcast from me or for that matter you.

  7. Thanks Mike and Rholand

  8. @BILLY
    To persist in mentioning the fact that Gordon Brown is a head banger, especially after he saved the world, is very poor taste.

  9. @Billy Bob

    FWIW the Association of Residential Letting Agents is reporting that 34% of their offices have seen an increase in ‘reluctant landlords’ in Q3 2010 due to the stagnant housing market. The regional variation is affected by local house prices with 58% seeing this in the NE and 15% in London. The recent fall in house prices will dampen the rental market IMHO though London is still buoyant.

  10. @Roland

    I looked for but couldn’t find the article by AR to which you referred.

    Do you mean the one by Andrew Grice in today’s edition of The Independent? That’s interesting but not really supportive of your ‘YES’ to Adam.

    Can you oblige please?

  11. @MIKE N
    Then take the other option I mention and go to Mike Smithsons report of the article on Politiical Betting.

  12. @Roland Haines

    “I am a rent boy”

    So you’re turning your contributions from those that seem to emanate from some sad sort of lonely hearts club to a fully fledged confessional. That’s remarkably brave of you and I admire the candour of your revelations!

    Just to get a little more serious with you for a minute. You referred in an earlier post to my reference to my father being a lifelong Conservative and me buying him an Obama baseball cap when I was in the US on holiday. In you’re typically charmless way you then told me that he obviously was a much more likeable man than me. My father and I have a great relationship and we love each other dearly. He taught me many things in life and we share a deep love of sport, particularly football (you called it a game for ladyboys in an earlier post) and cricket. On politics we agree to disagree but it takes nothing away from the strength of our relationship. Let me be very frank with you. From what I can tell about you from your endless posts, my father is a much, much nicer man than you’ll ever be and I rather suspect that he would abhor most of your views, and the way you express them, if he was ever forced to listen to them, fellow Tory or not.

  13. @AleKsandar – “… recent fall in house prices will dampen the rental market IMHO”

    Though FT a couple of weekends ago were forcasting strong house price inflation over the next five-year period. As to be expected SE will lead the trend with a 25% rise, and ‘premium’ properties in London are expected to increase in value by 40%.

  14. Roland,

    Thanks for the pointer to the Rawnsley piece. A fairly balanced take on the current situation….
    Link for those who couldn’t find it…..(Observer/Guardian rather than Indy)

    h ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/21/andrew-rawnsley-ed-miliband-reform

  15. Aleksander

    The trouble is that most “reluctant landlords”, who are unable to sell their property, are also reluctant tenants somewhere else. So they don’t increase the nett supply of properties and, because their primary motive is still to sell the property, may be restrictive on who they can take and under what contract terms.

    There are cases where such properties will add to the market, such as when they are part of a deceased persons estate, but even then, because sale is the long term intention, it doesn’t add to any solution in the long-term rentals market.

    A stagnant housing market won’t improve matters much, except possibly in those few areas where property is already near to surplus. In fact by stopping new build and conversion, it actually makes the long-term picture bleaker, because the basic cause, not enough homes, gets worse.

  16. all

    the housing market is going to go tits up at some time in the near future. it’s simple maths, it doesn’t matter if there is more demand than supply if those that need the housing don’t have the money

  17. @NICK HADLEY
    As you say I am an ex army officer, I am also a retired business executive from the pensions industry and a Tory. I am a real person and wonder why my profile makes me such a stereotype.
    Rob Sheffield, Eoin Clarke, Pam F, Julian Gilbert plus a half dozen more Labour supporters are all in state education. Their politics is exactly what one might expect for persons of that type. Does this not surprise you as well? My comment about your father being a nicer bloke than you, because he is a Tory, was as any non puritanical socialist, with his sense of humour next door to his prostate gland would see, a joke.
    I have no idea or interest about your relation ship with your father and certainly did not comment upon it.
    Now, please start acting like an adult on this board for AWs sake, I have no wish to continue at this level.

  18. Rawnsley wrote:
    At some point in every parliament, politics ceases to be a referendum about the sitting government and once more turns into a choice between governments.

    I think I disagree and Labour definitely lost the GE in May 2010; certainly Conservatives did not ‘win’ it. LD are curiously with fewer seats than in 2005, despite having recorded 800,000 extra votes. The answer lies in the turnout which was nearly 2 million more for the three parties added together than in 2005 (mental arithmetic has 2005 at 24.3 odd and 2010 26.1 million) .

    This seems counter-intuitive as an effect.

    So the larger turnout does not appear to have done Labour any favours. If a policy-rich approach is taken in 2015, this could polarise opinion and cause a higher turnout which clearly works against Labour and LD.

    Any thoughts? I’ll get the calculator out to check my eyeball arithmetic.

    Any thoughts?

  19. @HOODED MAN
    Cheers for that, no wonder Mike N could’nt find it in the Indy. Well they are always banging on about the old and sick, they can put this down to my dementia which has got worse since the cuts.

  20. Just read Rawnsley’s twaddle.

    He does not understand that where the UK is now is so different to previous post election situations.

  21. @PamF

    You said “…Interesting to hear that the UK government can afford to help out our neighbours. I gather what we led to believe about there being no money left because of the previous administration isn’t quite the truth then?…”

    Oh lord…ok, here’s the skinny.

    Part 1: Why does the UK Government borrow money?
    In terms of “fiat money”, the UK has as much money as it chooses to “print” – quantitative easing is based on this fact. The UK Government could give everybody a million pounds for Xmas if it wanted. The point is not whether the UK Government has enough money, the point is whether the UK Government can balance its books in a believable way. Ideally, UK Government expenditure should match its income (taxation), but for various reasons this is difficult. It could just print up the difference, but sooner or later people refuse to accept the newly-printed money. So the Government has to cover its bottom in another way. It does this by borrowing.

    Part 2: How does the UK Government borrow money?
    Government borrows by selling bonds: you give Government money to buy a piece of paper now, the Government gives you a series of payments in the future for as long as you hold that piece of paper. The Government remains solvent for as long as it can find people to buy those pieces of paper.

    Part 3: So why is there a problem?
    There used to be pieces of paper called “collateralised debt obligations” (CDOs) and people thought they were worth lots – billions, in fact (trillions?). Then in 2007/08 the same people decided they were actually worth
    nothing and a lot of rich people discovered they were actually poor. Ooops. Even worse, some people (banks) had lent a lot of money based on those CDOs and couldn’t do it any more. So:

    * Banks couldn’t lend money (the “credit crunch”)
    * Businesses couldn’t function because they couldn’t borrow money (the recession)
    * People couldn’t buy houses because they couldn’t borrow money (the 2008 house price crash in the UK, when prices fell 20% in a year)
    * Tax revenues collapsed.

    So the Government was in a double bind: people couldn’t give it money directly by taxation because of the recession and people couldn’t lend it money by buying bonds because they didn’t have any money. Government tried to cure these problems by giving the banks (from memory) about £50 billion and creating (from memory) about £500 billion by quantitative easing (to put these figures into proportion, UK GDP is about £1,500 billion). So businesses could pay tax, people could buy bonds, house prices recovered by 10% in 2009. Phew, we’re saved.

    Part 3: So why is there still a problem?
    Giving the banks free money by taxing you (“Recapitalising the banks”) and giving the banks free money by devaluing your savings (“quantitative easing”) are only temporary measures. That only cures a shortage of money. But money isn’t wealth, it’s a measure of wealth. The underlying problem (a lot of wealth just vanished into thin air) still exists, and less Government bonds can be bought because (ultimately) there’s less wealth. If a Government can’t sell its bonds, it can’t cover its deficits. So Governments with large deficits are in a whole new world of s**t. Go on, have a quick guess which two countries *currently* have the largest and second-largest deficits in the whole wide world (as a proportion of GDP, IMF May 2010 figures, see h ttp://www.imf.org/external/data.htm). Yep, it’s Ireland and the UK. Really.

    Part 4: So how come the UK Government can afford to help out Ireland
    Because technically, the UK Government isn’t helping Ireland – it’s giving Ireland money now in return for more money later, it’s a loan. On the books, it looks like a positive transaction. The fact that Ireland will never be able to pay back this loan is being wilfully ignored by everybody.

    Hope that helps, regards, Martyn

  22. (reposted with right HTML tags)

    @PamF

    You said “…Interesting to hear that the UK government can afford to help out our neighbours. I gather what we led to believe about there being no money left because of the previous administration isn’t quite the truth then?…”

    Oh lord…ok, here’s the skinny.

    Part 1: Why does the UK Government borrow money?
    In terms of “fiat money”, the UK has as much money as it chooses to “print” – quantitative easing is based on this fact. The UK Government could give everybody a million pounds for Xmas if it wanted. The point is not whether the UK Government has enough money, the point is whether the UK Government can balance its books in a believable way. Ideally, UK Government expenditure should match its income (taxation), but for various reasons this is difficult. It could just print up the difference, but sooner or later people refuse to accept the newly-printed money. So the Government has to cover its bottom in another way. It does this by borrowing.

    Part 2: How does the UK Government borrow money?
    Government borrows by selling bonds: you give Government money to buy a piece of paper now, the Government gives you a series of payments in the future for as long as you hold that piece of paper. The Government remains solvent for as long as it can find people to buy those pieces of paper.

    Part 3: So why is there a problem?
    There used to be pieces of paper called “collateralised debt obligations” (CDOs) and people thought they were worth lots – billions, in fact (trillions?). Then in 2007/08 the same people decided they were actually worth nothing and a lot of rich people discovered they were actually poor. Ooops. Even worse, some people (banks) had lent a lot of money based on those CDOs and couldn’t do it any more. So:

    * Banks couldn’t lend money (the “credit crunch”)
    * Businesses couldn’t function because they couldn’t borrow money (the recession)
    * People couldn’t buy houses because they couldn’t borrow money (the 2008 house price crash in the UK, when prices fell 20% in a year)
    * Tax revenues collapsed.

    So the Government was in a double bind: people couldn’t give it money directly by taxation because of the recession and people couldn’t lend it money by buying bonds because they didn’t have any money. Government tried to cure these problems by giving the banks (from memory) about £50 billion and creating (from memory) about £500 billion by quantitative easing (to put these figures into proportion, UK GDP is about £1,500 billion). So businesses could pay tax, people could buy bonds, house prices recovered by 10% in 2009. Phew, we’re saved.

    Part 3: So why is there still a problem?
    Giving the banks free money by taxing you (“Recapitalising the banks”) and giving the banks free money by devaluing your savings (“quantitative easing”) are only temporary measures. That only cures a shortage of money. But money isn’t wealth, it’s a measure of wealth. The underlying problem (a lot of wealth just vanished into thin air) still exists, and less Government bonds can be bought because (ultimately) there’s less wealth. If a Government can’t sell its bonds, it can’t cover its deficits. So Governments with large deficits are in a whole new world of s**t. Go on, have a quick guess which two countries *currently* have the largest and second-largest deficits in the whole wide world (as a proportion of GDP, IMF May 2010 figures, see h ttp://www.imf.org/external/data.htm). Yep, it’s Ireland and the UK. Really.

    Part 4: So how come the UK Government can afford to help out Ireland
    Because technically, the UK Government isn’t helping Ireland – it’s giving Ireland money now in return for more money later. On the books, it looks like a positive transaction. The fact that Ireland will never be able to pay back this loan is being wilfully ignored by everybody.

    Hope that helps, regards, Martyn

  23. @ Roland

    I know. I couldn’t help it, I know he’s a hero of yours. All my apologies for any offence I may have caused :)

  24. RH
    I too set off on a wild goose chase for the article but i found a much more interesting one on being a dutch housewife -this is the ref wwwdot

    independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/harriet-walker-have-the-courage-to-go-dutch-2135924.html

    My wife never ‘worked’ in NL. It’s impossible. The children’s’ school times are not conducive to it and this child-centred nation expects young children to have the benefit of their parent’s company when they leave school.

    My wife led the life of Reilly – a true emancipation.

  25. @MIKE N
    An interesting but to me, not surprising little episode.
    A guy I dont know comes on the board with a question.
    I, the arch ranting unbelievably stereotypical Tory, directs him to a left of centre journo in a left of centre newspaper. You, on the other hand, give the Labour map of the world. You later come back saying the left wing (ish) journo talks twaddle because it does not concur with your view, in that it does not praise Labour to the sky’s. Your tolerance of other peoples freedom of speech leaves much to be desired.

  26. @Roger Mexico

    I totally agree that the overall supply is little changed however these ‘reluctant landlords’ still wish to sell or rent out and therefore are a depressant on both house prices and rental values. They hold the weak hand as unsold/empty properties are expensive to keep.
    We were not building masses of houses in the early 90s but we still managed to collapse the property market because the sellers were keener to transact than the buyers.
    The unaffordable prices and lack of mortgages currently will lead to lower house prices until a new equilibrium is reached. Lower house prices will bankrupt some highly leveraged buy-to-let landlords which will certainly put pressure on prices. The changes in the under 25s LHA rate will lead to more sharing amongst 25-35 year olds which will change occupancy rates. IMHO.

    I agree that the long term solution is a massive housebuilding program but there are short-term aids. Scotland has today launched an initiative to return some of the 50k empty homes back into use. A number of empty commercial properties in London have been renovated as residential housing removing the excess from the commercial market and helping the residential sector. The govt plans to sell off commercial property into a weak market. Much better in London to transfer it to residential use.

    @BillyBob

    If I’ve got the right FT article, it is based on Savill’s long term forecast. I’d trust their analysis more if they ever forecast stormy clouds rather than just fine weather.

  27. Martyn
    Oh lord…ok, here’s the skinny.

    I understood your article (before you wrote it) but that expresiion has me foxed.

    Que?

    Good post BTW

  28. @Roland
    Lol

    I’m entited to my views too!

    You have some very odd ideas.

    So, basically, the fact I disagree with someone means I cannot tolerate other people’s views!

    It is hilarious that you of all people should make such a comment.

    It also suggests that you don’t have a mind of your own but slavishly and unthinkingly follow the Tory line without criticism.

    This has been the funniest revealing moment today! Thank you.

  29. martyn

    fantastic

    this sh*t transcends party political bøllox

    we are all being conned

  30. Mike N

    I thought your disagreement with Rawnsley’s views gave no hint that you thought he should not be allowed to express them. As you gather I disagree with him too.

    Labour lost the GE because people blamed it for the downturn. I just do not understand why that is not understood. It matters not whether it was Labour’s fault. That’s the reward for being in Government.

    So in that strange way of the world, EM must hope for stagnation and misery before 2015.

  31. My take on why the UK is ‘lending’ money to RoI is that if the RoI economy isn’t supported the fallout will damage British banks and businesses, and lots of RoI citizens will choose to leave Ireland and settle here.

    Hence, supporting RoI for £7bn is comparatively ‘cheap’.

  32. Howard

    Rawnsley seemed to have forgotten that a party in government usually loses an election through its failures rather than the successes of the opposition.

  33. @howard

    “So the larger turnout does not appear to have done Labour any favours. If a policy-rich approach is taken in 2015, this could polarise opinion and cause a higher turnout which clearly works against Labour and LD.”

    Not sure i agree with you here – I think there’s definitely an argument that things would have been even worse for Labour with a lower turn out in some areas. Looking at my local area, Edinburgh, I think that a high turnout (driven by fear of a Tory government) saved Labour in both Edinburgh South and North and Leith, seats they might otherwise have lost.

  34. On Rawnsley again

    I just wonder what ‘policy’ EM is supposed to come up with.

    I put Policy in quotes, because so much is so described now as policy that isn’t and it’s similar to ‘strategy’ which isn’t strategic as the recent pathetic defence review priority discussions shewed.

    I once noticed, a while back, when nobody else was looking (as it were) in a parliament debate, that EM is highly intelligent, like his brother. He was way ahead of his opponent and indeed displayed the qualities of being able to think strategically (in this case it was on Energy policy).

    If he turns his talents towards general Lab policy I would not expect him to come forward with anything more definite than (say):

    the role of the state (the eternal dividing line)
    our place in the world (in limbo as I see it – see above)

    Nothing more at this stage.

    My own party needs to do this too, I am not sure the Conservatives do, as ‘let matters not move further in any direction’ is a fine Conservative strategy and one they would be more credible in maintaining.

  35. @Mike N

    “It also suggests that you don’t have a mind of your own but slavishly and unthinkingly follow the Tory line without criticism.

    This has been the funniest revealing moment today! Thank you.”

    I’ve said my piece about old Rolo in a previous post. I’d allowed him, just for a short moment to get under my skin, but it’s not worth it in the end. The odd time I’ve weakened and engaged with him in his puerile fantasy land, I’ve somehow felt poorer for the experience, almost as if I’d lapsed into a slightly unpleasant and distasteful world, albeit temporarily. It’s almost like you feel as you need to take a shower afterwards! I’ve tried humour and irony with him but to no avail because, it would appear, we inhabit completely different planets. I’d disengage with him entirely, if I were you, and that will be my policy from hereon in. He has his regular acolytes and admirers on here and he will no doubt be able to play with them for many years to come, but why waste the time getting involved with him when there are plenty of other far more interesting, pleasant and stimulating contributors to debate with?

  36. TonyOtim
    Yes my generalisation had to be wrong for Scotland :-(

    but it must have been right somewhere. My understanding is that Tory and Lib Dem votes piled up uselessly in safe Tory seats (both parties) otherwise Con could have achieved victory.

    With the reorganisation of seats expected to benefit Con, I can only see a debacle of an economy delivering a Lab government (even in coalitiion with LD) in 2015.

    EM can do absolutely zilch about it except hope that a small Lab lead with good locals (key to his cowardice on AV) will save his own neck until the hoped-for downturn delivers him a revival at the next GE.

    I don’t see a load of pie in the sky stuff will, just a few populist handouts and reforms would suffice tactically.

    I’ll look in again later.

  37. Howard

    I agree with your analysis.

    I also think it is dangerous for Lab to attemot to put in place too soon new policies that differentiate it too much from those of the last Lab gov. Others may take a different view, of course, but at this moment no one can predict what the political, social or economic landscape is going to look like next year let alone in 2015.

    Have you read Andrew Grice’s article in today’s Independent? Quite interesting about the LDs and the advice they are receiving from parties who have been or are in coalition in Europe.

  38. Howard

    If in doubt, look at the Urban Dictionary:

    ht tp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the+skinny

    (I didn’t know either)

  39. @all

    Sorry, I forgot the revaluation of Greece’s deficit in November (They fibbed about their figures). Consequently Greece is now in first place, with a deficit of 15.5% of GDP in 2009, compared to Ireland’s second place (14.4%) and UK’s third place (11.4%).

    See h ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11755320

    Regards, Martyn

  40. @Nick Hadley

    Wise words. I shall do my best to observe them.

  41. @mike n

    “It also suggests that you don’t have a mind of your own but slavishly and unthinkingly follow the Tory line
    without critisism”.

    In which case why did I direct someone to Rawnsley in the Guardian? Why not Heffer in the Telegraph?

  42. @Mike N

    Rawnsley is an interesting character and a journalist that I’ve been reading for a very long time in the Observer. He’s been on something of a political journey of late and while he’s a fine writer, and a very witty one too, he’s become ever more erratic in his political stances. My theory, for what it’s worth, is that he was very much a Blairite and didn’t take kindly to the Brownite plotting against his old hero. When Blair resigned and Brown assumed the throne, he more or less turned at that very same moment and began to write some very critical pieces about Brown personally and, indirectly, the government he led. As you probably know, he went on to write and publish some very anti-Brown material at a time when it could hurt him most; in the run up to the last election. Now, don’t let’s get too conspiratorial here, but considering Ed Miliband was part of the Brown inner circle when Labour were in government, should we be entirely surprised by Sunday’s article? He’d already written a piece during the Labour leadership campaign that essentially said that Labour should pick Dave instead of Ed. He’s an interesting political commentator but, as with all journalists, it’s helpful to know where he might be coming from at times.

    For a much more balanced and nuanced account of Miliband’s leadership thus far, I’d recommend the excellent leading article in today’s Guardian. A fine piece of writing that suggests that the newspaper is slowly returning to form.

  43. @NICK HADLEY

    “but why waste the time getting involved with him when there are plenty of other far more interesting, pleasant and stimulating contributors to debate with”?

    In other words dyed in the wool reds who will criticise the coalition all day long and will not argue with Nicholas. Absolutely illustrates my point about some Labour supporters views on differing opinions. Little wonder you have all fallen out with each other.

  44. @Nick Hadley

    Thanks.

    I’ll have a look at the Guardian.

  45. @ Mike N

    “Lol
    How do you know about Basil and Cybil? Which represents the LDs and which the Cons? ”

    I don’t know actually. Originally I thought the Tories were the equivalent of Basil and the Lib Dems the equivalent of Cybil. But now I’m not so sure.

    I doubt Nick Clegg ever whacks David Cameron in the face after the Prime Minister’s Questions.

  46. @Martyn

    Thanks for that, a pretty decent explanation of where the current crisis came from. However, there is one thing I take issue with:

    “The underlying problem (a lot of wealth just vanished into thin air) still exists,”

    I think this needs modifying. The wealth didn’t vanish into thin air, it simply wasn’t where everyone thought it was. Instead of being owned by banks, the wealth is in the hands of the people/institutions that sold the worthless CDOs in first place.

    Although the banks are culpable due to their idiocy, the real ‘crime’ was committed by the snake oil salesmen who concocted CDOs in the first place.

  47. @Socalliberal
    “Originally I thought the Tories were the equivalent of Basil and the Lib Dems the equivalent of Cybil. But now I’m not so sure.”

    I’m tempted to say it’s a great double act in the best traditions of comedy! There, I’ve done it.

    I won’t be able to see any clip of Fawlty Towers without thinking of DC and NC.

  48. @Mike N

    “I’m tempted to say it’s a great double act in the best traditions of comedy! There, I’ve done it.”

    While we’re on the Fawlty Towers theme, Vince Cable the equivalent of Manuel, perhaps? “More cuts please, Vince” says Dave Fawlty. “Que, senor. Non comprendez??” replies Vince!!

  49. @Nick Hadley

    Lol
    Ah, yes, the smacking on the head with spoon sketch springs immediately to mind.

  50. i have always thought that fawlty towers was cliched, purile and only fit as enertainment for children aged 11 to 13 but what do i know

1 3 4 5 6