YouGov’s weekly poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%.

On the regular approval trackers everyone is down – government approval is minus 14, with 50% disapproving of this government for the first time. David Cameron’s net rating drops to plus 2, still positive but the lowest he has recorded as Prime Minister (he recorded much lower scores as Leader of the Opposition back in 2007). Nick Clegg’s approval rating plummets to minus 22, down from minus 13 a week ago and by far his lowest ever score as leader. Ed Miliband’s approval rating has also dropped into negative territory for the first time, down to minus 9 (28% think he is doing well, 37% doing badly).

On the topical questions of the week, YouGov first asked a series of questions about the Euro and Ireland. As with the YouGov/Sun questions earlier in the week, just under half (48%) of respondents opposed Britain bailing out Ireland, with 36% supporting it. There was overwhelming (74%) rejection of Britain bailing out other European countries such as Portugal. Only 22% agreed with the statement that Britain’s economy was reliant upon our exports to other countries and therefore it was in our interests to help the Eurozone avoid a crisis, 60% think Britain has its own problems and cannot afford to help.

On the Euro, 76% think – in hindsight – ther Britain would have been worse off had we joined the Euro, and 54% think the Euro has been mainly bad for the other countries in the European Union (only 16% see it as a good thing for the Eurozone). However, there is some recognition that this doesn’t necessarily mean its collapse would be a good thing – only 26% think it would be good if the Euro collapsed, 34% a bad thing.

On the broader question of Britain’s relationship with the EU, 10% would like a more integrated Europe, 14% the status quo, 38% a less integrated Europe and 26% Britain’s total withdrawal from the European Union.

There were also a couple of questions on Howard Flight. 42% thought Flight was wrong about the effect of the government’s cuts in child benefit, and 46% thought that his peerage should be halted.

Finally, there were a series on questions on the Royal Wedding, which generally showed approval for the choice of date and the bank holiday. Only 19% objected to the idea of the wedding being held just before the AV referendum. On titles, 20% now think Camilla should become Queen when Charles becomes King (39% backing Princess Consort, the title it was announced she we would use when Charles and Camilla married, 26% some other title). YouGov also asked whether Kate Middleson should become Princess of Wales, should William be created Prince of Wales in due course. 74% think she should, 13% she shouldn’t.


178 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – 40/40/9”

1 2 3 4
  1. @AMBER AND GRAHAM BC
    Frankly Amber, with a leader such as the gentleman in question I don’t think anyone can blame Clegg. It would have been supporting the flawed and rejected.
    It does seem however that you guys are returning the complement now. That is to say telling the LDs that Clegg must go. Graham, however small the remaining LD contingent is, it is their decision as to who leads them. This man Clegg has significant Tory support, that will do him no harm when push comes to shove.
    John Major is right, the old two party thing is over and it might be that Labour is in more danger than the LDs in future. I speak as an Englishman who sees Labour are on a cusp. Not a Scot who knows that whatever Labour do, they will win in Scotland.

  2. Amber

    Yes i agree with all that, my earlier posts were to say whether we LDs want him or not is, believe it or not, our decision.

    Clegg only said what he said during the election campaign. Cameron siad he thought Clegg was a joke

    So what, they are all a joke..

    I can’t remember what GB said during the election except ‘who allowed that awful woman to get near me’. GB’s problem was that we already knew how he thought and had known it for years, as anybody who employs Charlie Whelan and Damien ‘forgotten his surname’ tells us exactly what sort of character he is, and why Clegg would not touch him with a coalescent bargepole.

    But he did save the world from financial collapse and a second depression. Not bad for the scowling plottter he was.

  3. “What a devastating judgement. To be called a lightweight by Obama. It is like being called a poor communicator by Gordon Brown.”

    Doesn’t that make it worse? To be thought of as a lightweight by an intellectual giant is one thing. To be thought of as a lightweight by a dullard…

  4. billy

    i had forgotten that you are a dem, but after rereading your post, i have to say that it still seems to support and expand upon the whole “clegg is the most ev!l man in history” theme

    just because you are paranoid dosen’t mean that they are not out to get you :lol:

  5. @ROBIN
    No Robin it does not, nothing I say to you will change your opinion of David Cameron, only time and results will prove the point. If it is positive, I am sure you will pick up a story on a left wing blog somewhere, that proves the much improved position in 2015, was due to Brown and Darling. If not, Obama the lightweight, spotted a kindred spirit.

  6. @ Roland

    Frankly Amber, with a leader such as the gentleman in question I don’t think anyone can blame Clegg. It would have been supporting the flawed and rejected.
    ——————————————————
    Frankly, Roland – that’s how we Labour people feel about David Cameron. He is flawed & his Party didn’t get a majority of seats; they got only 6% more of the vote than the leader you say was “flawed & rejected” ….therefore it could be postulated that DC was “rejected” too.

    Oh & Nick Clegg, he was even more “rejected” by the country than Gordon Brown. What did his Party get? 24% & 58 seats or thereabouts.

    People in glass houses, shouldn’t be throwing stones, Roland. 8-)

  7. @ Robin

    Obama allegedly made that comment 2 years ago when they first met, indications are he’s changed his view somewhat since.

  8. @AMBER
    Well you are certainly dragging up some old cold porridge there Amber. On the politics show last week, no less a lady than Tessa Jowell quite openly stated (as an excuse for Mr Millibands performance) that Labour “suffered a very serious defeat at the last GE”.)
    I have also heard the boy himself say something very similar over the last few days. BTW, I think the 6% represented about 3 million people.

  9. Good news from Catalonia for our SNP and PC friends: Convergencia i Unio, the main nationalist party, is clearly ahead in the exit polls, just short of an overall majority, whilst one or possibly two minor, more radical pro-indepenence movements will enter the Generalitat (Catalonian Parliament) for the first time. Bad news for us lefties, the center-left administration of J. Montilla has collapsed, all three parties (socialists, Republican Left and Greens) are down, but I feel they deserved this, for a year or so they could not agree almost on anything, and then the socialists (PSC) had almost lost their catalanist soul and been very passive in regards to the attempt by the national Spanish right (PP), with the tolerance of Spanish socialists (PSOE), to curtail via court decisions the autonomy rights of Catalonia. So congratulations to Mr. Mas i Gavarro and we hope that he will have a more progressive stance on social and civil liberties issues than the one of his party up to now.

  10. @ Amber Star

    The difference was actually 7.1% between DC and GB, the gap between GB and NC was only 6%.

  11. It is of course the sole right of Lib Dems to choose their leader and I have warned today that it is never likely to be a good idea to take your opponents advice on how to run your party. However we do have to look at things as they are. Electoral Calculus shows only a handfull of survivors if there was to be a GE and there is no reason IMO to think that is going to change For example Alexander is currently a poor third in Inverness
    They may in some parts of the uk get overt help from their Tory partners but then they will be an administrative convenience rather than a party

  12. @ Barney

    You’ve probably forgotten but I’ll remind you. The election isn’t next week but is not likely to be held for another 4 and a half years!! By then we will have different boundaries which will be fair for all parties.

  13. Roland Haines
    I am afraid that 3 million under the electoral system you and I support and will be in operation for the forseeable future can expect little in the way of representation

  14. @ Howard

    Yes, thanks for your post. I was fairly sure that many Dems would agree with that point. The Party gets to choose its leader; it is not for anybody else to force a change as the price of a coalition.

    People comment on the antipathy in the Labour Party about the coalition & conveniently forget that a large number of Ministers, MPs & voters were actually very loyal to Gordon Brown, as Party leader.

    Many were also against the principle of giving, or appearing to give, Nick Clegg a say in who should or should not be leader of the Labour Party.

    It would also have been an extremely bad precedent to set for coalitions in general; that one partner can demand the resignation by the leader of the other as a condition of joining the coalition.
    8-)

  15. Steve
    Fair they may or may not be but I think they will tell against the Lib Dems who tend to be more localised and rely more on incumbancy. Their chances will go down. They certainly won’t seem fair to one C Kennedy whose constituency is the only one to be guaranteed extinction

  16. @ Roland

    Any defeat is a “serious” defeat to a Party that is used to being in government with a clear majority.
    8-)

  17. @ Steve

    The difference was actually 7.1% between DC and GB, the gap between GB and NC was only 6%.
    —————————————————
    Neither figure giving Nick Clegg or Roland Haines any room to be smug or make claims about a Party leader being “flawed & rejected” then. 8-)

  18. @ Amber Star
    “It would also have been an extremely bad precedent to set for coalitions in general; that one partner can demand the resignation by the leader of the other as a condition of joining the coalition”

    Perhaps-perhaps not.

    Are the relationships between political parties conducted on such chivalrous conventions ? :-)

    In any event-GB didn’t need telling :-

    “Gordon Brown drafted a speech on the eve of the general election campaign setting out plans to stand down within a year of the poll, but was persuaded by senior ministers not to go ahead.

    At a meeting on the eve of the election, his proposal to announce his plan to stand down was supported by David Muir, his director of political strategy and chief polling adviser. But Ed Balls, Lord Mandelson and Douglas Alexander argued against the idea. One adviser, present at the meeting where Brown’s plan was discussed, told the Guardian: “Gordon was under no illusions about his popularity, or the degree to which he was a barrier to Labour’s re-election.”

    Guardian 18/5/2010

    Anyone who has read Dr Anthony Seldon’s account of Brown & the affair of the EU Presidency will have considerable sympathy with Nick Clegg’s nervousness at the prospect of being hitched to GB in government-bad precedent or not.

  19. Amber,

    Unfortunately, from the 80s onwards, the Labour vote share in May 10 ranks behind every one of the major two parties performances at a GE. Major, Hague, Howard, Kinnock were all better.

    With one exception. GB was narrowly higher than Michael Foot in ’83…..

    I anticipate you’ll turn from vote share to seats now…. :-)

  20. People seem a bit spiky tonight.

    The main phenomena about the polls recently has been the falling LD vote. The fact is that the coalition seems to have been unpopular with a large amount of the people who voted for them in the last GE. I suspect that these were mostly left leaning. This would be true whether Labour supporters were indifferent or angst filled. The question then facing the yellows is how to win these back (unless they don’t care).

    Possible solutions.
    1.Wait for positive economic news and ride a tide of the feel good factor.

    2. Change tack/direction distance themselves from the tories.

    3. Pray for a miracle

    IMO 1 will not work therefore they will need to do 2 as I cannot think of any other alternative. To do 2 they may need to ditch NC. This is not advice just a bit of political commentary.

  21. @Amber Star – “Do you think the Coalition are beginning to see the polls as important & to worry about the strength of the Labour support?”

    I suppose if you are a Norwich City supporter, somewhere in your self-image you will cherish the Saturday afternoon when your team ended the Liverpool unbeaten run that spanned three seasons (1980s).

    Looking at opinion polls over the last two years or so, Tories have hit 45%, LDs the dizzy heights of the early thirties, while Labour has sunk to the low twenties (on occasion).

    The euphoric assertion that coalition politics would unexpectedly deliver the best of all possible worlds after a disappointing election result is dying down, and the massively enthusiastic raft of notional reforms announced by individual ministers is beginning to encounter reality. (Anne Widdecombe has pointed out today that the government appears too eager to ‘micro-manage’ our behavior.)

    Meanwhile the press has no alternative but to turn its exclusively critical eye away from Labour for a moment, and hey presto… 40%. :)

  22. @ RinN

    Clegg the most evil man in history? Don’t be ridiculous. That honour lies squarely with Walt Disney ;)

    “just because you are paranoid dosen’t mean that they are not out to get you”

    LOL

    (reposted due to moderation)

  23. GRHAMBC

    Agree with you – there’s no other way out for the LDs – at 9% (9 seats on Elec Calc) they are already in desperate territory.

    STEVE

    I think the future of the coalition will become increasingly unpredictable – there’s a greater than 50% chance that the next GE will be before the end of 2012.

  24. @Roland + Amber

    No party has a real mandate to govern. All three parties were ‘rejected’ by the electorate.

    But someone has to form government.

    And that is what DC and NC have done. As the “rules” of the “constitution” allow.

    They have exactly the same legitimacy as did Gordon Brown. No more. No less.

  25. billy

    while i would agree with you about walt disney, i suspect that he would not feature in the top ten if a proper poll was conducted

    killing millions of people is considered a greater crime than Hanna Montana, strange but true

  26. @Richard in Norway

    I think that I must have missed the post about Clegg killing millions of people – I am a bit cross with him leading the Lib Dems into oblivion and clubbing us back to the era of two party politics, but the mass killing bit passed be by entirely!

  27. @ Hooded Man

    I anticipate you’ll turn from vote share to seats now….
    ———————————————–
    I think I mentioned both seats & share of votes in my posts. And I’m not sure that there is much more to be said on the subject of leaders of one Party picking the leader of another Party; unless you’d like to move the dicussion on, in which case Ed M’s suggestion that future Labour Party leadership elections might include an element of general public voting (similar to US primaries, I believe) may be of interest to you.

    Regarding the 2010 GE outcome, as I said, I don’t believe Labour care what the extent of the loss was… being unable to form a Labour government is a “disaster” for us, regardless of the underlying numbers.
    8-)

  28. @ RinN

    It was tongue-in-cheek remark about Walt Disney the person, not who I literally believe to be the most evil.

    Although you mention Hannah Montanna, which makes me think of the Jonas Brothers…

  29. @ Ian from Lichfield

    What? You mean you didn’t hear? I thought everyone knew ;)

  30. @DAVIDB

    You said “…I think the future of the coalition will become increasingly unpredictable – there’s a greater than 50% chance that the next GE will be before the end of 2012…”

    Dude! If you’re going to start quoting figures, I’m gonna want to see your workings!

    @All

    It seem to be the general consensus amongst Reds that the Coalition is doomed – doomed, I tell you! Now, I’ve pointed out before that there are good reasons why the Coalition will remain in place, but it’s pointless pointing them out again – people just aren’t listening. However, this raises a fascinating possibility – if many people believe it’s on the verge of imminent collapse, the betting odds will be skewed in the wrong direction. So I was thinking of putting a bet on…

    Problem is, being a bear of tender upbringing ( our outside toilet was close to the back door… :-) ) I have no idea how to go about it. Because Brits don’t really understand the way the UK is governed, it’ll have to be tightly defined – something along the lines of “David Cameron will be Prime Minister on 31 December 2011” or “There will not be a UK General Election in 2011” So my question is: how do I go about it? Is this a question I should be posting on politicalbetting?

    Regards, Martyn

  31. Martyn,

    It seem to be the general consensus amongst Reds that the Coalition is doomed – doomed, I tell you

    I am one Red who doesn’t think the Coalition will collapse before 2015, and I am not the only one.

    The Conservatives only need twenty odd LD MPs to support them to keep a working majority. The benefit of breaking the Coalition is unknown and highly risky, so for me they will run until 2015 and hope things improve for them. That doesn’t mean some MPs might leave the LDs, but these will be the exception.

    What happens after 2015 will probably tough for the Yellows, but I am not sure jumping ship now makes things any better. So I guess keeping in power for another 4 1/2 years might be as good as it gets.

  32. Well, not only have I had the Guardian plagiarising my bon mots in a leading article earlier this week, but I’ve now got that bounder Andrew Rawnsley doing the same thing in today’s Observer. He was writing about the end of the two party duopoly in this country, citing the antiquated FPTP voting system as the only thing that had prolonged its natural life after it had essentially ceased to be in the 1970s. Here’s what he had to say and, rather like the Guardian’s piece, I heard some of words I’ve used in my posts to these pages, resonating back to me: –

    “They used to be right. At the 1951 election, more than 96% of the vote was scooped by Labour and the Tories. Only a tiny minority of voters did not associate with either the red tribe or the blue one. By the two elections of 1974, a quarter of the voters were refusing to make a cross for either Labour or the Tories. The decline of class-based identification with the big two has been accompanied by diminishing respect for the duopoly that dominated British politics for decades. At the most recent election, more than a third of voters rejected both blue and red – and more than a third of the total electorate declined to vote for anyone at all.

    The May result was Labour’s second worst at a general election since 1918 while David Cameron moved into Number 10 with a smaller proportion of support from the electorate than any previous Conservative prime minister. This was not a surprise one-off. It was the culmination of a decades-long movement against the two bigger parties.

    The alternative vote is not a perfect adjustment to this transformation, but it does at least recognise that, for millions of voters, their first choice is neither Conservative nor Labour. AV also has the merit of tending to reward politicians who try to reach out to as many of their constituents as possible. It better aligns how we vote with how most of us now think about politics. A declining minority of people identify wholly with one party. For the majority, any choice is a compromise, there are more colours in the rainbow than just red and blue, and cave-dwelling tribesmen belong in TV documentaries not modern British politics.”

    Right Mr Rawnsley, you cad, a writ suing you for breach of copyright will be winging its way from Mr Anthony Wells’ favourite and, I gather, highly effective firm of solicitors! Come on Anthony, we can’t have this charlatan repeating the very words that your favourite poster is supplying on a regular basis, exclusively, to this website!! My growing readership and fan-base demands nothing less.

  33. Martyn
    I am another Labour supporter who doubts the coalition will end. It just has an inexorable working towards the decline of the Lib Dems but their is little to gain for them by leaving
    Nick Hadley
    One of the great fallacies under-pinning the crecit crisis was that trends went on forever. A century ago people would have been looking forward to the end of the 2 party system. Looking at opinion polls as we do on this site, it would seem according to Rawnsley that we have a higher proportion of the population supporting the two parties than at any ime for the last 35 years plus. Maybe it is the start of a trend. At any rate Martyn’s racing brain could make money betting against any change in the voting system in the next few years.

  34. I predict we’ll see a Labour/Tory duopoly come 2015 the likes we haven’t seen since 1979, thanks to realigning of the main left vote.

  35. @Garry K

    Thank you for that. Although, bizarre as it may sound, I was serious about asking how to put a political bet on… :-)

    @Nick Hadley,

    Although you may know this already, you do not retain copyright on what you post on this site.

    Regards, Martyn

  36. Nick H
    I suggest Labour supporters should always take RH seriously

  37. I noticed Other got 2% of the vote in this latest poll, mainly in the North (4%), are we talking the English Democrats? Or is it independents?

  38. Apologies if this interrupts the flow of the massively partisan party-political bickering that seems to be the stock-in-trade hereabouts, but to go back to Anthony’s original blog and the YG weekly it discusses, does it ever depress anyone else the extent to which people seem willing to have strong opinions about things about which they know, essentially, nothing? How many of the people who gave an opinion about, say, whether UK helping to bail out Portugal was a good idea, have a clue about it beyond whichever bit of cynical mudslinging in the media has caught their eye lately? I don’t, and I reckon I’m more up on economics/politics that most of the population (as, almost by definition, is anyone reading this blog). That’s democracy, I guess, but sometimes it seems to me we’re barely out of the stone age when it comes to this sort of thing.

  39. Nick Hadley must be Scottish. They are the only people I know who write to web sites and talk of issuing writs. I think it is their favourite word.

    But why then would he want to watch cricket?

  40. Interesting that a majority of voters appear to agree with Howard Flight.

  41. MARTYN

    Nice to be calle a ‘dude’ – first time for me!

    The debate about whether the coalition will last the course or not is based o our individual preconceptions and or anaysis of ther knowledge we have and the contacts we may or may not have.

    On the Lib Dem side, I can tell you that the key person is one Simon Hughes – if he jumps then the writing will be on the wall. At the moment his frequent media appearances give the impression of a man desperately seeking reasns not to jump ship. We’ll get a much better idea after the May elections.

  42. @Amber

    “Regarding the 2010 GE outcome, as I said, I don’t believe Labour care what the extent of the loss was… being unable to form a Labour government is a “disaster” for us, regardless of the underlying numbers.”

    I have to disagree with you here. Being unable to form a Labour government is a “disaster” for the country.

  43. @Wolf
    Interesting that a majority of voters appear to agree with Howard Flight.

    42% Disagree
    30% Don’t Know
    29% Agree

    and

    46% Should withdraw the offer
    33% Don’t Know
    21% Should still get peerage

    Anthony always quotes the largest figure, so although only 42% disagree with his statement, and therefore not a majority, you have to take into account for the don’t knows.

  44. @Martyn

    There are two distinct ways of betting on the date of the next election.

    You can get odds for each year. The current prices are 2010- 80/1, 2011-9/2, 2012-6/1, 2013-11/2, 2014-7/2, 2015-6/4.
    This suggests that the betting market is favouring a 2015 election as per your analysis.

    You can also have a spread bet on the outcome and that is priced around a 2014 election giving you little upside for a full term.

  45. @Martyn

    “Although you may know this already, you do not retain copyright on what you post on this site.”

    Do you have any basis for making that assertion? Unless I explicitly assign copyright to someone else, I retain copyright over anything I write, anywhere. Just because I post on a blog or a web forum or anywhere else does not mean I am giving up my right to assert copyright over whatever I write.

    It’s possible that there may be something buried somewhere on this blog that affects copyright, but it would have to be posted in such a way that a poster could reasonably be expected to be aware of it. There’s nothing in the Comments Policy, and the ‘Submit Comment’ button does not read ‘Submit Comment and Assign Copyright’.

    That said, unless Andrew Rawnsley was reproducing substantial sections of text or clearly identifiable novel ‘bons mots’, I doubt that anyone could assert copyright on postings on the site. There is no copyright in ideas. AR would be quite within his rights to read something, think “yes, that’s right – and it would make a great article” and to then write something along the same lines.

  46. @Roger Mexico

    If I remember correctly, Alderdice has been a peer taking the Lib Dem whip on non-Northern Irish matters since 1996 while sitting first in the NI Forum and then the Assembly for the Alliance.

    Pre 1972 there were a number of Ulster Unionists who sat simultaneously in Stormont for the UUP and Westminster for the Conservatives, with the Westminster candidates standing as Ulster Unionists but committed to taking the Conservative whip. Tom Elliot has spoken of wanting to go back to that arrangement rather than the complexity & confusion of UCUNF. In line with this UUP peers taking the Conservative whip is much the same thing.

    Although he never made it to Stormont, an interesting case was William Stewart, MP for Belfast South from 1929 to 1945. Throughout his time at Westminster he took the Conservative whip even though in 1938 he broke with the UUP and formed the Ulster Progressive Unionist Association to fight the UUP in that year’s Stormont election on a platform focusing on unemployment and housing.

  47. Robin,

    @Amber
    “Regarding the 2010 GE outcome, as I said, I don’t believe Labour care what the extent of the loss was… being unable to form a Labour government is a “disaster” for us, regardless of the underlying numbers.”

    I have to disagree with you here. Being unable to form a Labour government is a “disaster” for the country.

    __________________________________________

    Robin,
    Can you please at least include some kind of smiley thing next time, such a comment may then get by largely unnoticed if you convey even a small sense of irony or humility.
    Unless you have any polling evidence for your statement or any basis in fact, then such blind assertion, after gazing through your red-tinted crystal ball, should be posted elsewhere.

    The country was given the chance to side with you on your viewpoint and they overwhelmingly disagreed….

  48. @ Nick Hadley

    Sorry to disappoint you but I always take Rollie seriously unless it is obvious he is playing to the gallery.

    But, I agree – I have seen your comments & Roger Mexico’s repeated almost verbatim in articles written by political commentators. It is no surprise to me – you & Roger post some bloomin’ good stuff.

    I have also seen some of my own scribblings lifted from here & used – word for word – in articles. I have wondered, what crisis in the writer’s life made them desperate enough to use my stuff in order to fill their column inches?

    @ Howard

    Despite being Scottish, I tend to be flattered when somebody uses something of mine, rather than reaching for a writ. ;-)

    8-)

  49. I had a look at where the dis-satisfaction with Ed Milliband was coming from. There’s a general element to it – but the big movement in the past week has been in LibDem opinion of Labour’s leader.

    This, IMO, was the consequence of Ed M saying that Labour would not support AV & – whilst personally in favour – he would not campaign for a “yes” vote because his focus is on the devolved & council elections.
    8-)

  50. @Robin

    The disclaimer on these pages reads “Disclaimer Copyright Anthony Wells 2004-2009. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and in no way reflect the views of YouGov plc or PoliticsHome.”. I think (but do not know) that the “explicit assignment” is the act of posting itself.

    I assume (but do not know) the precedent would be when (in pre-Internet times) one wrote to the newspaper, and I assume (but do not know) that copyright would be ceded, although whether “when sent” or “when printed” I don’t know.

    @Aleksandar

    OK, the odds on there being an election in 2011 are 9/2. Fine, but how do I bet on there *not* being an election in 2011?

    @Amber

    You said “…This, IMO, was the consequence of Ed M saying that Labour would not support AV & – whilst personally in favour – he would not campaign for a “yes” vote because his focus is on the devolved & council elections…”

    Yes, “focus is on the devolved & council elections”, that was it. Entirely plausible. Was it signed “Ed’s Mum” and looked like it was written by somebody with his left hand so the gym teacher wouldn’t guess it was a fake? (And let’s face it, Ed spent a *lot* of his adolescence sitting on his left hand…) Amber, have the grace to admit that Ed might, just concievably, be a teensy bit fibbing here… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

1 2 3 4