Tonight’s YouGov/Sun daily poll figures are CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. Leaving aside that single poll showing Labour and the Conservatives equal on 41% – which in hindsight must have been an outlier – there seems to have been a significant shift in YouGov’s daily polling over the last week, with the Labour lead widening from around 3 points to 5 points or more, and the Conservatives dropping below 40% to the mid to high thirties.


146 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 37/42/9”

1 2 3
  1. My, perhaps over-simplified, view of elections here is that basically the country votes either soft left or soft right. The Tories have benefitted from a split soft-left vote in the last century, where the Liberals in all incarnations have been seen as essentially anti-Tory.

    I think Cameron’s lasting legacy may be that he has destroyed this, and split his side of the electoral spectrum. People may think the Lib Dems are doomed, but it could be that for the first time since 1918 the anti-Tory vote is unified. He might actually need AV more than Labour (and I write as both pro-AV and pro-Labour).

  2. @Phil – “… if only Clegg had the nous to… let Cameron govern on leading a minority government”

    He seems incapable atm, but will LDs continue (as the scope of the Tory revolution becomes more apparent) to allow the burden of that decision to be borne by Clegg alone?

    Ed Miliband doesn’t want to prejudge policy reviews, but the country as a whole would benefit from a critique applied to the “cuts necessary” dogma which has reached the status of a popular delusion.
    While the dogma may not be able to be sucessfully challenged in its entirety, we need an advance on the “too deep, too fast” response.

    Perhaps a senior Labour figure not currently in the shadow cabinet, could provide some overall benchmarks to help local groups who are challenging the closure of public services.

  3. Phil

    It might be, though I’d prefer to see a couple of days’ polls before deciding. The ‘Non voters’ figures seem low by recent standards, so the poll might be a bit of a rogue.

    But if not, ‘Non voters’ is presumably where the new Labour support is coming from. I suspect most people changing Party do so via ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Would not vote’ rather than directly.

  4. @TheGreenBenches

    Since the 2010 GE, I figured the Greens would displace Yellow to become the “Party of Nice Middle-Class Protest” in the South East… :-) As to your other point, if party X have to beat party Y and party Z in a FPTP election, and Y&Z are not fielding a joint candidate, then X doesn’t have to beat the total vote for Y and Z, but it does have to beat max(voteY,voteZ). As you have noticed, Red’s increasing lead is currently due to Blue’s diminution – if this is down to Red attacking Blue instead of Yellow, then it is good tactics by Red.

    On an associated point, those who state that a Coalition candidate would be bad because vote(Coalition) is less than vote(Y)+vote(Z) are missing the point: vote(Coalition) doesn’t have to be less than vote(Y)+vote(Z) to be worthwhile, it just has to be greater than max(vote(Y),vote(Z)). And, of course, it works both ways – if Red has grasped this, but Blue has not, then Red has a strategic advantage.

    @Julian Ware-lane

    You said “…I think Cameron’s lasting legacy may be that he has destroyed this, and split his side of the electoral spectrum. People may think the Lib Dems are doomed, but it could be that for the first time since 1918 the anti-Tory vote is unified…”

    Hmmm. If you are faced by two opponents A and B, and you co-opt some of opponent A to your side, resulting in an unified B-and-part-A opponent, do you win or lose? I’ve been working off a 1930’s scenario (Blue co-opts some of Yellow, the Yellow vote splits, Blue beats Red and owns the decade), sometimes characterised as “Labour are working hard to preserve a two-party system, without noticing their second place in it. Ooops.” If Blue can shovel Yellow votes in faster than he’s losing UKIP votes out, and in the right areas, then he wins. Red have a similar problem: they’re beginning to pile up votes, but in the wrong areas (60% in the North East. What is the point?)

    @Gary Gatter

    First of all, thank you for replying to my original POINT-y post with perhaps more politeness than I deserved: I appreciate the honesty. I get what you mean, but the point of referendums (Referenda. Whateva.) is that the citizenry will inspect whatever issue is presented and judge it on its own merits – a proper citizen direct democracy. If we vote depending on which politician it upsets (and it’s reasonable to suspect that this will, in fact, be the case), then the politicians are still making the decision, albeit indirectly (if one votes according to what X thinks, then X is making the decision) and the referendum becomes superfluous. I’d like to think this wouldn’t happen, but…well, reality is what it is.

    @all

    Anyway, to perhaps a less depressing point. There was an article in the Telegraph by Tim Montgomerie of ConHome listing reasons for voting against AV, and I was struck by his assumption that AV and coalitions were synonymous. I’ve seen that assumption around a couple of times and it bothers me, because it’s not actually true – the Australian evidence is ambiguously against (coalitions under AV were the rule pre-1970, but the exception post-1970) and the Curtice UK models are unambiguously against (*all* his pre-2010 UK models point to a majoritarian party win). I can’t overcome the conviction that voting “No” to give Clegg a kicking is a good thing (Nose. Spite. Face.) but I may be able to overcome the conviction that AV and coalitions are synonymous, since all I have to do is point to the truth. So could you be so kind as to tell me whether you believe that AV and coalitions are synonymous?

    Regards, Martyn

  5. @Roger M
    Quite possibly I could have been a bit premature – s*ds law says it wont be repeated tonight.. But if anyone is looking out for signs that the Con vote is going soft, that figure in the tables is the one to watch.

  6. In a break with tradition I’ll post on Green Party matters for a change.

    I think the comments upstream about minor parties, and the Greens in particular, attracting more first round votes under AV are correct. I’ve never felt able to vote Green in a GE before due to fear over getting the worst candidate, so I’ve been forced into voting for a series of ‘least bad’ options. I don’t think I’ll be alone in placing my party of choice as my first choice, and then move to the least bad analysis lower down the ballot paper.

    While this makes little practical difference, I’m sure the presence of second prederence votes will concentrate the minds of the major parties and while it won’t lead t any extra minor party MPs, it will probably mean their policies are better represented as parties compete for the second and third choice votes.

    For this reason, I would be supporting AV – to attempt to expand the range and quality of the political choices on offer and to try and expand the effective decision making beyond a few thousand swing (people who can’t make up their minds) voters in a handful of marginal seats.

    @Davey – “If I understand correctly what you are saying an improved UK financial position is only an illusion and probably temporary.”

    Not necessarily. It’s more that globally we haven’t actually dealt with the debt crisis – we’ve just shifted it around and hidden it, at present in China. If the China bubble does burst, which it will at some stage, the global economy will be right back in the mire. Our economies need to be very much more robust to cope with that, but by the time it happens I doubt they will be. Somewhat pervesley, that’s because we will be labouring under a heavy inflation burden created by the Chinese bubble itself.

  7. @MARTYN

    I didn’t find your comments POINT-y at all, your points were valid and well thought out. My point is almost 100% emotional with a dash of political shenanigans :-)

  8. @Roger Mexico

    “The dissatisfied don’t only have one place to go. Apart from the smaller Parties or even a reluctant return to the Lib Dems, they can simply stay at home. Remember that Labour’s dropping vote over the last decade was in large part due to abstention”

    Thanks for your posts on this thread- very interesting.

    If you know your political and electoral history it tells you that abstentions are lower than average and turnout is higher than average in elections that matter i.e. elections that are about very different conceptions of how society and economy should move forward coupled with moments when it is widely felt he country is on the wrong track. ‘64/ ‘74(i)/ ‘79 and ‘92 spring to mind.

    1) That clearly applies to this parliament- I don’t think anyone would disagree with that even at this early stage of the Labour policy review/ early stage of the current government- the battle lines are quite stark (starker than they have been for 20 years);

    2) This clear-cut dividing line is firstly about having greater voluntarism, diversity and marketisation of public provision (the Blue/Yellow view) versus retaining and improving a strategic equalised provision model with a clear safety net (the red view and – over there on the left somewhere- the Green position which is actually genuine localism i.e. the devolution and decentralisation but backed up by significant state support and funding);

    3) On top of that you also have the deficit challenge: here we now have two clearly different mainstream philosophies there as well: fast and deep (Blue/Yellow) versus slow and careful (red)- notwithstanding the dark green ‘deficit denying’ fringe position;

    4) There is only one centre left party now which is likely- overall- to be a tiny bit further to the left than it is now (but still centrist) come the next election as long as that is 2013 onwards. Furthermore the “illiberal B- liar administration” impression will have been overtaken by the more immediate ‘inegalitarian Conservative-led government” perception in the minds (and probably hearts) of voters to the left of centre by the next election. If it has not already been.

    Given (1-4) I would expect that both lib Dem SDP’ers and the more leftist Lib Dem voters (along with light green voters) will be firmly in the Labour column come that election. In fact most of them (as in the social and Beveridge Lib Dem centre-leftist) as we know, already *are*.

    On the other hand the UKIP-leaning Conservative voters will have more impetus and motivation than ever before to make the switch from Blue-to-Purple. So I personally would hesitate before so swiftly brushing aside predictions that this Blue to Purple exodus might happen at the next election as some have done.

    It really appears to be quite a pincer movement building up on the Conservative-led government. Why oh why did Dave not go for minority administration and focus purely on the deficit and leave all the ‘Maoist’ reforms till later????

    It is an honest question…..where are all the blue posters when you really need them :-)

  9. Martyn,

    The idea that AV makes coalitions more likely is one of the biggest misconceptions perpetuated by the No campaign. (The biggest misconception perpetuated by the Yes campaign, in case you were wondering, is the idea that winning candidates will need 50% of votes cast – this is only true if every voter lists all their preferences).

    And, in fact, that’s one way of stating the reason why I’m not convinced by AV – it isn’t proportional (a proportional system being more likely to produce coalitions, for obvious reasons). Unfortunately the Yes campaign isn’t doing enough to win over PR-supporters like me, who don’t understand why the electoral reform movement has gone crazy over this “miserable little compromise” and suddenly abandoned the idea of pushing for meaningful reform.

  10. @Rob,

    I think the effect of the UKIP vote on the Tory share will 100% completely depend on whether AV is adopted in the referendum. In an AV system, I would expect three things to happen to right-wing voters.

    1) Eurosceptic right-wing voters who want to leave the EU altogether will vote UKIP first, but the majority will give their second preference (which in almost all cases will count as their first) to the Tories.

    2) Eurosceptic right-wing voters who want to stay in the EU will give the Tories their vote but put their second preference (which in almost all cases won’t be counted at all) to UKIP.

    3) A minority of Eurosceptic right-wing voters, who actively support the Tories, will put UKIP first and Tory second in order to ensure a nice, big “headline” score for UKIP and “keep the Tories honest” on Europe. I myself did this once, in the first London Mayoral Election.

    None of this is likely to harm the overall Tory performance.

    However if there is no AV then there will probably be some additional damage to Tory chances caused by UKIP vote growth. Remember though that in all likelihood Tory and LibDem will fight each other at the next GE and Europe is likely to be one area where they put on a good gladitorial contest to impress the crowd. That may keep some potential UKippers with the Tories.

  11. @Martyn
    Despite not replying to your essay on AV a few weeks ago, I will briefly do so now. In answer to your question, I see coalition/minority governments as being a quite likely future outcome in the UK under AV, subject to there being a small recovery in the fortunes of the Lib Dems. In all circumstances, coalitions are much less likely under FPTP. (Whether or not that meets your criterion of “synonymous” I leave up to you.)

    I do not regard the Curtice study as a guide to the future.

    As a matter of principle, I dislike electoral systems that would be quite likely to produce coalitions where the form of the potential coalition is not clear at the time when votes are cast. Such outcomes leave the choice of government after an election in the hands of political elites. The system that most clearly avoids this is the sort in place in Italy, where coalitions have to be formed prior to the election due to the system of bonus seats that creates a majority after initial seat allocations based on PR. This is good and democratic. Sometimes the form of the post-election coalition is clear prior to voting under PR, too – Germany is a case in point – but often it is not.

  12. Rob Sheffield

    I was impressed with a radio interview with a Tory small businesswoman who said diesel was £1.65 a litre in Chelsea and why hadn’t Cameron cut the price as small businesses grew the golden eggs of recovery.

  13. @Phil,

    Go Berlusconi?!

    Surely in Germany the form of the coalition isn’t at all certain pre-election? In the old days, it was always an FDP government with either CDP or SDP (depending on seat shares). For a while it was CDP/FDP vs SDP/Green, but the growth of fringe parties have left it as a bit of a becalmed ship with the big parties unable to form a proper government with anyone except each other.

  14. @Wolf,

    People in Chelsea shouldn’t drive. And if they do drive, they have to pay so much for parking and congestion charge that a little thing like fuel costs shouldn’t bother them.

    If they drive so they can visit relatives who don’t live in Chelsea… they should fill up somewhere other than Chelsea…

  15. Anthony – back to your original comments. Looking at the big picture, I don’t think this is a significant shift in Con support – at least not yet. Plotting all the poll data since the GE, it just looks like another bobble in the (rolling average) line. More significant, I think, is the gradual decline in Con support since they peaked in late June 2010. Since then, they’ve steadily lost about 1 point every two months. At this rate, by the 2015 GE, they’ll be on about 14% (that’s wishful thinking on my (leftie) part, not a forecast)

  16. Cheers for that Neil- very interesting.

    Yes I think the AV scenario will confuse predictions quite a lot (despite being only a modest reform- I would still far prefer STV myself).

    For example- as long as there is no pact with Blue and a ‘real’ yellow manifesto rather than an ‘orange’ one- I will be a red who gives yellow my second preference.

    Because like Howard I think you should use it and because mainstream yellow (not orange bookism) is still closer to my view than green for example.

    Whereas other reds on here will go for green and some- astonishingly (to me)- any trot party that might be standing in their constituency.

    Though I do wonder whether an AV electoral system might actually make purple-inclined 2010 Blues *more* likely to switch their first preferences.

    They will be aware that purple won’t win so are safe in the knowledge that all their Blue second preferences will be allocated to the Conservative candidate.

  17. I think Ed’s rapprochement with the Lib Dems is a good move.

    It increases the chances of the coalition splitting.

    It increases the number of 2nd place votes in the event of AV.

    It makes him look reasonable to the electorate (especially if Cameron continues his name calling and blame Labour approach at question time).

    I think I got moderated away but I predicted that the NHS reforms will give Labour a 10 point lead by next Monday. But once again, that might be me super-imposing my views on the electorate. But the NHS is well loved and has been performing well…I don’t think many people wanted these changes especially as they seem to actually cost more, not less, especially up front.

  18. @Neil A
    You’re right to take me to task about Germany. I suppose that if the coalition of the CDU/CSU and FDP between them get a majority, then the outcome (centre-right government) is clear enough. But there is uncertainty over what will happen otherwise.

  19. @Phil

    If the Curtice models and the Australian experience don’t convince you that coalitions aren’t as likely under AV as you think…what will? (I’m going to have to go thru Fiji, aren’t I?… :-) )

    @Rob S

    Hmmm. Purple’s support is concentrated in the South East, which is already a Blue lake. If Blue can swap Purple votes in SE (where he doesn’t need them) in exchange for Yellow votes in both Midlandses (where he does), then Blue’s won. I remarked a few weeks back about Blue’s surprising strength in Wales (Blue second? In Wales?). Blue may (I emphasise may) be advancing where they are weak, whereas Red are advancing where they are strong. Unfortunately, winning a seat with a massive majority doesn’t get Red two seats.

    As for your second point (“…Why oh why did Dave not go for minority administration and focus purely on the deficit and leave all the ‘Maoist’ reforms till later????…”) – I can’t speak for Yellow or Blue (I’m not some kind of cerise Metatron), but the answer to that is simple: he thought that they should be done and a coalition gave him his best chance of doing so. The lifetimes of minority administrations are measured in months.

    @Andy

    Miserable little compromises is what we do best, surely… :-) More prosaically, a) AV affords the voter greater choice and renders tactical voting unnecessary, and b) a “No” vote will kill electoral reform for a generation if not longer. I appreciate it’s a forced choice, and I’m genuinely sorry PR/STV wasn’t on the menu, but them’s the breaks.

    @Neil A

    People in Chelsea shouldn’t drive? How do you envisage framing that legislation?… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

  20. The crocodilian question at least demonstrates one thing –

    that NHS England isn’t very clever about the nature of the country it serves! :-)

  21. @Martyn,

    I shall commence work on the Chelsea Tractor Whingeing Prohibition Bill forthwith…..

  22. ComRes poll for #itvnews [tonight @ 10pm] finds a whopping 50 percent more worried than they were 3 months ago about personal finances

  23. Eoin, how do you know abiut ComRes if it’s not out until 10?

  24. Getting a bit nervous. Goldman Sachs have just released a warning about China and India, suggesting investors switch to western stocks. China is in the grip of a desperate battle with a credit and property explosion, with the government trying to deflate without a crash landing, with India in an even worse state.

    These are the people who are bailing us out. On the bright side, oil might get a bit cheaper.

  25. @Alec – “Cameron did very well [today] in presentational terms… ”

    Thought you might appreciate this comment from another site:

    I wonder why he felt the need to say……”It’s not about theory or ideology”. He’s getting worried now that we’ve seen through the ruse.

  26. @ Alec

    Although your post sounds a little bit alarmist, but I think you are right – the question is though how the Chinese government responds. The Indian government does not have much control on any economic matter, so that is more alarming.

    If China gets into trouble (and there has not been a capitalist economy that has not got recession), then the oil price would be our smallest headache I suppose… Then it’s really survival of the fittest….

    If India – more marginal effects (textile industry and some of the computer industry as well as some contract biotech research) and no more annoying phonecalls (until relocated to South Africa).

  27. hmmm

    Not the time to putting any faith in private companies.

    I fear that things are about to get rocky. Polls might be the least of our worries.

  28. Rumours growing that Santander might be in trouble.
    I think that the Goverment may have bitten off more than
    they can chew with the NHS.If these ideas were so long
    in the making why were they not mentioned in the General
    Election campaign?By putting himself in front of Andrew
    Lansley in this(Daily Telegraph,Cameron needs to sell this well) he has made himself very vulnerable here.The
    Tory grey vote use the NHS more than any other group.
    I feel that the Coalition will really start to suffer in the polls now.

  29. @Neil A, Phil
    Re Germany
    It is true that the form of the gvt coalition has become a little tricky after the transformation of German political makeup into a 5-party system. The existence of the Left Party (Die Linke) leads to the possibility that neither CDU+FDP nor SPD+Greens have OM. This has already happened in 2005, and the SPD chose to ally itself with CDU, which was catastrophic for the party. Now what is crystal clear from all polls and state elections is that the incumbent CDU+FDP majority will not be reelected because of FDP collapse. So there are the following options: 1. SDP+Green OM. 2. SPD+Green with no OM, supported externally by the LInke. 3. Another great coalition CDU+SPD. 4. A CDU+Green coalition. Actually the polls seem to point to 1, but the other solutions must not be excluded. Solution 2 is already happening in North Rhine-Westfalia, solution 3 in 4 ex-East Germany states and solution 3 used to exist in Hamburg, but it recently collapsed, leading to snap election when a SPD+Green OM is now predicted.

  30. @ Alec

    Goldman Sachs was a bit more reserved. But there could be problems.

  31. One of the things I intensely dislike about the current debate is its polarisation (and yes, I’m just as bad as anybody).

    Surely there is some consensus that could lead to retaining as many jobs as possible, saving money in the short term, income tax rises and pay freezes ALL ROUND (and sod the threats from high earners).

    If we really were all in it together we get out of it together. A national government with moderate thinkers in it.

    Then we get out of the woods we can play left v right again, with relish. People can vote for more state or less.

    The way things are going we’ll have no public or private sector very soon.

  32. @Martyn

    “I remarked a few weeks back about Blue’s surprising strength in Wales (Blue second? In Wales?)”/
    “Hmmm. Purple’s support is concentrated in the South East, which is already a Blue lake”

    Precisely!

    IMO Purple inclined Blues would be safe in the knowledge that they can give their first preferences to Purple (and raise UKIPs overall vote result/ make their protest known and crystal clear to the Cameroonians) whilst knowing it won’t lose Blue any seats….probably. Because I don’t think the SE is going to be as much a “Blue lake” after the next election as it kind of was after the 2010 election. That’s just a subjective theory of mine akin to yours that red are merely piling up votes in their existing seats ;-) We shall see in the May elections about both propositions as the May’s are always in effect a national election….

    BTW you said “the Blues…second in Wales….?” as if this were some kind of shock and we should be impressed. Well here are the historical votes for Wales going back *thirty two* years (GE vote and NAW const vote).

    2010 GE
    Lab 36.2
    Con 26.1 (SECOND)
    LD 20.1
    PC 11.3

    2007 NAW
    Lab 30.9
    Con 21.9 (SECOND)
    LD 13.3
    PC 21.7

    2005 GE
    Lab 42.7
    Con 21.4 (SECOND)
    LD 18.4
    PC 12.6

    2003 NAW
    Lab 38.3
    Con 19.5 (THIRD)
    LD 13.4
    PC 20.5

    2001 GE
    Lab 48.6
    Con 21.0 (SECOND)
    LD 13.8
    PC 14.3

    1999 NAW
    Lab 37.6
    Con 15.8 (THIRD)
    LD 13.5
    PC 28.4

    1997 GE
    Lab 54.7
    Con 19.6 (SECOND)
    LD 12.3
    PC 9.9

    1992 GE
    Lab 49.5
    Con 28.6 (SECOND)
    LD 12.4
    PC 8.9

    1987 GE
    Lab 45.1
    Con 29.5 (SECOND)
    LD 17.9
    PC 7.3

    1983 GE
    Lab 37.5
    Con 31 (SECOND)
    LD 23.2
    PC 7.8

    1979 GE
    Lab 47
    Con 32.2 (SECOND)
    LD 10.6
    PC 8.1

    Source for all this data is House of Commons research reports on election results 1945-2000 and 2001, 2005 and 22007 individual reports. Ditto NAW research reports summarising the elections.

    As you can clearly see…..the Conservatives have been *second in Wales* in nine of the eleven national/ assembly elections of the last 32 years (and four out of the five elections of the last ten years).

    Their absolute historical position in Wales is as second behind Labour…..!!!

    Incidentally the most recent NAW constituency poll was 23 December 2010

    (with change on 2007 result)

    Lab 44 (+13.1)
    Con 23 (+1.1)
    LD 6 (-7.3)
    PC 21 (0.7)

    So that was another great poll result for Labour.

    Cheers.

  33. the golden investment rule is to listen to Goldman and do something completely different

    but not opposite cos the sly buggers might have made a bet on that

  34. Is there a ComRes poll tonight?

  35. @RobS

    I was referring to NAW.

    Regards, Martyn

  36. if we see these leads in the polls for labour and the small lib dem support could we actually see by the next election Lib dems becoming the fourth party in parliament with greens becoming third?

  37. @Virgilio,

    Yes german politics has become very interesting with the remarkable rise of the greens and the surprising collapse of the FDP. Even the botched Hamburg coalition hasn’t damaged the greens.

  38. @Martyn

    So was I !

    cheers

  39. @Rob Sheffield – “I don’t think the SE is going to be as much a “Blue lake” after the next election”

    Btw, in Rochester Strood I think UKIP stood stood aside because Mark Reckless (already a serial rebel) was the Tory candidate.

    Even with the major boundary changes, there was a large swing to the Tories throughout the Medway Towns.

    In common with other areas of high social deprivation in the SE, they recieved consistent investment under Labour, and from anecdotal accounts, it very soon became apparent that the expirience of Tory govt would be a stark change.

  40. Amazing how short some people’s memories are.

  41. I also suspect the LDs have probably hit their lowest poll rating (in England at least) and might start to recover a few points at the expecnse of the tories because Cameron might be beginning to have PR problems with Coulson etc.

  42. But have the LD hit bottom because Labour has re-aimed its guns? Or is that the core Lib Dem vote?

  43. we could start to see a kind of see-saw thing happening with blues and yellows after a whlle

  44. NickP,

    I did wonder on election night if a National Unity Government might be the best solution. I don’t suppose for a second thha it was offered, but if it had been do you think Labour would have accepted it? It would have meant serving under Cameron after all.

    I am generally supportive of the measures the government’s taken to cut spending, but I do think there is scope for pay reductions to soften the job losses. Better to have 5% less public servants on 5% less money than 10% less on the same money. But the Unions would have frenzied over it, even with Labour in government (perhaps especially so).

  45. Grahambc
    I posted a message to you on the Scottish thread immediately previous
    Roger Mexico
    It is my north-east calvinism that keeps me grey. You should read the Wee Book of Calvin: Air Kissing in the Norh East
    “Our favourite month is november; our favourite colour combination is black and white, unless we can have black and black”
    I have nothing against the rose; in fact an advert for me on my desk has an attractive version (with a black background)
    The colours here seem a bit too showy. I think it also leads us to think as posts have suggested, exactly how red is X? However I will comply in time, no doubt

  46. @Alec

    I’ve always voted Green but I live a pretty safe Labour constituency. Under AV I would certainly vote Green as first choice/Labour second and would campaign locally to convince Labour voters to do the same.

1 2 3