There are two new polls tonight – a new ComRes telephone poll for the Independent has topline figures of CON 37%(+3), LAB 37%(nc), LDEM 12%(-3), Others 14%(nc). Changes are from the last ComRes poll conducted by telephone a month ago, rather than their parallel online polls for the Independent on Sunday. It’s the first time this year that ComRes have produced a poll without a Labour lead.

Meanwhile YouGov’s daily poll in the Sun has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. YouGov had also been showing a narrowing Labour lead earlier in May, but it seems to have disappeared over the last few polls.

(I do not have regular internet access this week, so updates will be few and far between, and I will not be monitoring comments)


396 Responses to “New ComRes and YouGov polls”

1 2 3 4 8
  1. Not even selective hindsight, really. Tad young to actually selectively remember anything of Thatcher. I guess history just blurs over the indecisions and the like.

  2. @ Old Nat

    “Absolutely right. However, that is not what comes through in the subtext in the media. There the story runs along the lines of “Scots law is flawed. It needs to be kept on track by outsiders,””

    Well then, the media is full of it. Because, the issue is not that Scots law is flawed. The issue is that the interpretation of UK wide law by that court was incorrect. And that’s not to say that Scots judges are incapable of interpreting the law either. Even the best judges get it wrong sometimes.

    Now there have been times in the U.S., especially during the civil rights era, where it was clear that state courts were not doing their jobs properly and were ignoring constitutional law or federal law. Like in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court was pretty ticked off. They were having to step in to protect people from a racist court system. There was one case in the 60’s where they had to reverse the Alabama Supreme Court 8 different times because after each remand, the Alabama court continued to ignore the SCOTUS ruling. But interestingly enough, some of the more egregious lower court decisions weren’t evenly divided. Take Loving v. Virginia, the Virginia Supreme Court was unanimous that it was perfectly constitutional for the state to prohibit interracial marriages.

    Those are rare circumstances. I don’t think anyone could make that claim of the Scottish high court.

    “Now ultimately, that may be true for any legal system in any jurisdiction, which is what the European Court of Human Rights is there to address in HR cases.

    The judges in the High Court were concerned with wider aspects of the law and justice than just the appellant’s rights. The same is true in other systems.

    The Supreme Court were focused on only one matter – had the appellant’s rights been breached.

    A Scottish HRCourt would likely have come to the same conclusion as the UK Supreme Court, and such a system would obviate the need for appeals outwith Scotland – with Strasbourg as the final court of appeal.”

    Here’s where I do have to respectfully disagree with you. Obviously, as someone who wants full independence from Scotland, it’s perfectly reasonable for you (and your party) to take the position that Scottish court should not be second guessed by a court of another country. I wouldn’t want any decision in the U.S. second guessed by a foreign court (I’m even with Nino Scalia on not citing foreign law). But seeing that you guys are not yet independent and still tied, politically, to the rest of Britain, it makes little sense for a UK court to have its jurisdiction stripped to hear claims of violations of UK rights. Now, I would agree with you if the UK court was stepping in to decide matters of Scots law.

    But if the law decided by the UK Supreme Court is applicable to all citizens of the current UK, it makes little sense to say they can’t hear claims out of Scotland that they could hear from any other part of the country.

    “This is where the politics comes in.

    Those who are happy with the constitutional status quo won’t care where the Human Rights appeals are heard.

    Those who are politically active in opposing Scottish autonomy find it useful to suggest that the law is yet another area where Scots can’t do things properly for themselves and that we need the UK to keep us in check.

    Those who want to maximise Scottish autonomy need to keep on countering the argument that we aren’t fit to run our own affairs.”

    I think that’s unfortunate but can be chalked up to overall ignorance.

  3. @As a new kid on the block, may I, in the interests of friendship and the spirit of the comments policy say this;
    If some people paid less attention to a Tory politician who has been out of power for over 20 years, and more attention to the popularity rating of Ed Miliband, their polling results might improve.

  4. LordTory
    “If some people paid less attention to a Tory politician who has been out of power for over 20 years, and more attention to the popularity rating of Ed Miliband, their polling results might improve”

    Why?

  5. @John Murphy

    “The result is that the elderly and those with moderate learning difficulties or worse are left to their own devices and often develop complex social behaviours from the lack of stimulation. As a society we’ve forgotten that making people do things for 20 minutes isn’t providing them with stimulation or fulfilment let alone giving them a little love and kindness. It’s spending valuable time with the lonely and depressed that gives them back a sense of worth”

    I used to work in care.And one of the main reason’s as to why i left was the lack of care i seemed to be able to provide.

    The problem being that i believe the amount of patients per care worker was legally 5.In truth it was often more like 10+.Which of course limited the amount of time per person that i could give.

    And to also flip it onto the family side of things,I always found that the patients who seemed the happiest were of course the ones who had relatives visit often.Though not many families did do so,in fact i can only remember a handful ever doing so,which only ever added to the patients depression.

  6. @mike n
    Are you asking why Ed’s image will ever improve ?
    I don’t know, I did not vote for him.

  7. LordTory
    You said ““If some people paid…more attention to the popularity rating of Ed Miliband, their polling results might improve”

    How would paying more attention to EM’s popularity rating improve their polling results?

    You obviously have something in mind?

  8. @ Old Nat

    And just to clarify my points. If the same law applies to all people in the UK, there should be uniformity in the interpretation and application of that law. If you strip the UK Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases concerning law applicable to all of the UK, you clearly run the risk of different interpretations of that law where citizens of England and Scotland and Wales invoke the same law but it results in different rights and privileges. As long as you’re still within the union, that is problematic.

    As for those who want to use a single court case to say that Scotland can’t run its own affairs, they need to STFU. Courts don’t exist for that purpose. Nor do single court decisions indicate whether a court is competent.

  9. I think he’s trying to imply that by looking at Ed Miliband’s popularity ratings, we would notice they are not positive, and thus we should embark on a coup d’etat, in favour of a more popular leader, thus improving our policy results.

  10. ‘@TOP HAT & MIKE N
    Yes Top Hat, you are right enough. The other point is this, if I had a child that had serious problems at school, (as an example,) talking about my grandfather at the battle of the Somme would not help.

    I love history and it can obviously come into play to some extent on this board. However, the “Maggies a cow, Browns a cretin” arguments become so tiresome and break the rules.

  11. @ Virgilio

    “To corroborate your position, let us look what happened in recent mayoral election in Milan. When the most left-winger of all candidates won the center-left open primary, everyone was surprised and said he would be an easy prey for Berlusconi’s alliance, yet it was him, a former MP of Communist Refoundation Party, who dealt the most serious blow ever to the center-right in its own political and financial capital.”

    I think that sometimes in politics, we can all get caught up with labels, ideologies, and intracasies that don’t matter much to the voters. Hence, you can have a former Communist MP win in a traditional right wing stronghold when voters decided to take out their anger against Berlusconi.

  12. LordTory

    As a newbie us oldies should welcome you.

    But I have this strange feeling you are a(nother) reincarnation of a previous poster.

  13. @ Top Hat

    “Under the later Blair years, without the direction that the party base provides, I think Labour became very “managerial” – it didn’t seem to provide anything other than a woolly bureaucratic attempt to be as vague as possible in the hope no-one would desert.”

    Your comment got me to thinking about why so many of us on the left who favor Keynsian economics have lost the battle on budgeting. We’ve rushed out and condemned austerity and presented facts, figures, historical data, and intellectual arguments. It’s really managerial though. It doesn’t matter that it’s right because it doesn’t do anything to convince the electorate. Rather than focusing on the fundamental unfairness of conservative economic policy and focus on what people are being asked to give up and for what reasons, we focus on intricate details. In contras, conservatives worldwide can spout off easy talking points that resonate with voters. I don’t think Labour is the only party that suffers from being too “managerial.”

  14. @MIKE N
    I am not a reincarnation of anybody. My previous sites have been Guardian, Telegraph and Speccie. I have not set foot on this board until about 4 days ago. What makes you say so.

    ps I am not a Lord, but I am a Tory, is that the connection to the previous poster?

  15. I agree with SocialLiberal. I think that Pisapia’s “win” is more accurately Berlusconi’s loss.

    Incidentally, I don’t think Tony Blair was needed for 1997. I think Labour could have used a donkey on a stick as their premier and still won in ’97. People had tired of the Conservatives. Saying “we MUST be Blairite at all costs to win”, I think, is seeing correlation and then assuming it must be causation.

    In a tight-fought battle, like 1992 was, a leader like Blair may have made a difference. In 1997 I don’t think it mattered in the slightest. For the vast, vast majority of elections, oppositions do not “win”, governments simply lose.

    Of course Ed Miliband’s ratings are low. He has received a large savaging in the media, and despite the wails from the left, Cameron is performing well. It’s easy to say “Cameron is Prime Ministerial” – he IS the Prime Minister. Ed Miliband, not so. However, I suspect the two will have inverse popularity. As Cameron’s popularity begins to wane, as all Prime Minister’s popularity ratings do, and if Labour keeps up the lead, then people will begin to think ahead to what Miliband would be like in power. The minute they do that, is the minute they associate him with “Prime Ministerialness”, and his ratings will increase.

    For the most part, he needs to keep doing what he’s doing now. Really, what happens at the next election is out of his hands, it’s down to how well Cameron does or does not do.

  16. LordTory
    Anyway, welcome.

    Are you a refugee from those other sites?

  17. @ Robert C

    “A merger is not going to be talked about, no matter how much Labour supporters would wish it. It’s just not going to happen.”

    The Coalition is like the best thing that’s happened to Labour in nearly a decade. Labour may not realize it but they probably don’t want the Coalition to end. They also don’t want a merger (but again, as you point out, it’s not going to happen).

  18. @Mike N
    Not a refugee as such. The Telegraph means we all agree, the Guardian means I am in a serious minority and the Speccie puts me in the one nation liberal/tory defend Dave camp. Don’t look for Lordtory there, I work under different nom de plumes.

  19. @SOCALIBERAL
    Whilst we may be miles apart politically, I very much agree with your point regarding the difficulty of selling Keynes to the average person. Particularly at a time like this in a place like this. The conservative narrative “they spent our money, now we all have to suffer” is so simple and resonates throughout society. However, Tory government hurts and for the tribalists and those who don’t care one way or another, hurting is not attractive. I think the score is even.

  20. @ John Murphy

    “It is one of our most enduring hypocrisies to pretend care of the vulnerable can be provided by cutting spending and removing waste. In the end the waste we really wish to remove are the costs the vulnerable impose upon us. We should ashamed of what we’ve allowed to happen in our name. We should be even more ashamed for what we’re about to do to those who never bought a share; ran up a debt on a credit card or took an bonus…because they are the ones we are letting pay for the follies of those whose gospel of greed has anesthetised us from our moral conscience.”

    There’s more to it I think. Think about the whole current push for austerity. We currently have huge deficits (in both the U.S. and the UK) that are not the result of out of control spending but simply a result of the Great Recession and the 08′ global financial crisis which triggered it. So we’ve now been told that we need austerity to combat deficits that are the great evil apparently. But why is that? Well, because long term, high deficits will raise interest rates and this will harm the economy.

    So putting aside economic arguments, let’s review the situation. We know that spending cuts often harm the poorest and most vulnerable of society. We know that high interest rates are of greatest concern to those who are investors, corporations, big Wall Street banks. These folks tend to be wealthy or at least affluent. These are the type of people who are the least reliant on government services (except when they face collapse due to their own bad decisions) and are affected the least by cuts.

    So what it comes down to with austerity and budget cutting is that we are asking the poor to suffer and sacrifice so that the wealthy can have just a little bit more.

    As Earl Warren used to ask litigators before him (and used to frustrate the crap out of them), is this fair?

    When you consider what brought about this situation, it becomes even more unfair. Big banks acted with reckless stupidity (some possibly criminally). Subprime lenders in the U.S. acted with extreme greed and selfishness. These people, who care the most about high interest rates, got their bailouts from the government. I don’t disagree with the bailouts btw but point them out to bring up the fact that their necks were saved by massive government spending. Now, they’re doing fine but complaining that interest rates could go too high with the deficits (that they’re largely responsible for) and must be brought down. And at who’s expense? Well everyone else’s but really harming the poor. The people who rely on government services for their basic neccessities of life and their quality of life. The wealthy, by and large, do not.

    So not only do we have the poor suffering for the benefit of the wealthy. But we have them suffering for the benefit of the wealthy largely because of a situation created by the wealthy. I’m not a communist, I’m not in favor of protectionism, I’m pro business, I don’t want to punish Wall Street, and I certainly don’t hate wealthy people. But there’s something just unseemly about that and grossly unfair.

    You can boil it down to this. Should the poor man have to give up his cherished weekly meal at MickeyD’s just so that the wealthy man can continue to enjoy expensive meals at Gordon Ramsey’s latest creation? Again, to quote Chief Justice Warren, is that fair?

  21. @ Top Hat

    “I agree with SocialLiberal. I think that Pisapia’s “win” is more accurately Berlusconi’s loss.

    Incidentally, I don’t think Tony Blair was needed for 1997. I think Labour could have used a donkey on a stick as their premier and still won in ’97. People had tired of the Conservatives. Saying “we MUST be Blairite at all costs to win”, I think, is seeing correlation and then assuming it must be causation.”

    See now, I still like Tony Blair. I know he screwed up on Iraq but I don’t think that one mistake should tarnish his entire record and political career.

    Labour probably would have won no matter what in 1997 but would not have done as well without Blair. And I don’t think would have won a repeat landslide in 2001 without Blair. And those large landslides allowed Labour to accomplish a lot of good things in power.

    In terms of Blairism, I would argue that New Labour should be looked at as a good thing but shouldn’t be relied on as a safety blanket. It modernized Labour on the economy, made Labour look credible on economic issues, and it allowed Labour to bring new voters into their fold. It also allowed Labour to have far broader appeal to voters who traditionally never considered voting Labour. That’s important. On the other hand, you can’t get stuck in the past and adhere to things that have little meaning in today’s world. The world has changed a great deal since 1997. The issues are different. The problems are different. The solutions offered have to be different.

  22. @socaliberal
    I think your comment to John Murphy tells the difference between people like you and people like me.

    The prairie dog was eaten by the coyote, the coyote was eaten by the wolf and the wolf was eaten by the mountain lion. We both think mankind should rise above this behaviour, but your faith is much stronger than mine.
    At risk of becoming “political”, I should add that the prairie dogs “friends” are just as capable of selling the poor little guy short as any fat big cat.

  23. @ Lord Tory

    “Whilst we may be miles apart politically, I very much agree with your point regarding the difficulty of selling Keynes to the average person. Particularly at a time like this in a place like this. The conservative narrative “they spent our money, now we all have to suffer” is so simple and resonates throughout society. However, Tory government hurts and for the tribalists and those who don’t care one way or another, hurting is not attractive. I think the score is even.”

    I think that’s all very true. Obama and Nancy Pelosi made the mistake of talking in professorial terms about the economy and allowing the narrative to shift away from them. The conservative narrative of “we must cut” has resonated far more with the economy. It happens in politics. Of course, the tide may be shifting with the realization that severe budget cuts actually get rid of or severely diminish entitlements that they took for granted.

    While we may be miles apart politically, I’m glad over the fact that here we can have good discussions with each other nevertheless.

  24. @Socalliberal
    Depends what you mean by “done well”; Attlee done more in his first term than Blair done all premiership. I’d rather a short, but effective leftist government than a emasculated centrist that stays in power for a decade and a half and doesn’t/can’t significantly change anything.

    As one person brilliant described Blair’s rule at the time of the 2001 G/E landslide (which coincidentally had by far the worst voter turnout ever – especially so in heartland Labour seats) – spending all the time neutralising the opposition and doing nothing to inspire the supporters.

  25. @ Lord Tory

    “I think your comment to John Murphy tells the difference between people like you and people like me.”

    You’re probably right. I try my best to be non-ideological but at the end of it I’m a liberal and I make no apologies for it.

    “The prairie dog was eaten by the coyote, the coyote was eaten by the wolf and the wolf was eaten by the mountain lion. We both think mankind should rise above this behaviour, but your faith is much stronger than mine.
    At risk of becoming “political”, I should add that the prairie dogs “friends” are just as capable of selling the poor little guy short as any fat big cat.””

    And here’s the thing, I don’t see it as a zero sum game where one group can suffer or not suffer. If those big banks had failed in 08′, everyone would have gone down with them. But I bring up some of the issues to point out what I see as unfair and what’s not really being discussed.

  26. @CRAIG
    I did not expect to defend The Rt Hon A Blair Esq. But I must say that Mr Attlee had much more to go at. So much more needed to be done in 1945 than in 1997. The Land Fit For Hero’s reforms that did not work had been dumped long before Blair and the institutions such as the NHS and Education just needed tinkering with. What I would say is that, had I been a grown man in 1950, I would have shaken Mr Attlee’s hand, (and some of his cabinet,) but had I met Mr Blair in 2006, his body guards would have had to pull me of off him.

  27. I wonder if anybody who is calling for the left to be abandoned has looked at polling for left-right continuum and how people would vote?
    Polling size – 51028

    When Labour were on 29% in the election, yougov has this breakdown-
    Very Left – 54%
    Fairly Left – 53%
    Centre-Left – 44%
    Centre – 28%
    Centre-Right – 8%
    Fairly Right – 5%
    Very Right – 6%
    So it’s clear that those on the left stuck with Labour when the times were hard.
    Something about knowing who your “true” friends are is appropriate.

    In March 2011, Labour were on 43% – you know, massive majority winning vote levels.
    The vote breakdown was –
    Very Left – 73% (19% gain from LibDems)
    Fairly Left – 75% (22% gain from LibDems)
    Centre-Left – 62% (18% gain from LibDems)
    Centre – 38% (10% gain from LibDems)
    Centre-Right – 10% (2% gain)
    Fairly Right – 7% (2% gain)
    Very Right – 4% (2% loss)

    So Labour dominating when the left is broadly unified under a single party.
    Labour virtually neck and neck with Tories over the centre-ground.
    Shame that at this point the right is split between LDs, Tories and UKIP. If the Tories can unite the right, Labour are in serious trouble.

    Admittedly, the centre is a larger group (making up about 25% of total) and very left-wing is a much smaller group (making up about 3% of total) – but every little counts.

    So either the argument is to –
    A) Ignore the left and arrogantly assume they’ll vote Labour anyway.
    B) Abandon the left and arrogantly assume you can win without them.
    Both ignore very recent history and both very presumptive.
    Something about pride coming before the folly and folly coming before the fall comes to mind.

    Worst case scenario for Labour – the economy recovers and a centre-left LibDem party start making centre-left gains at the expense of Labour and a new further-left party take the now marginalised left off Labour’s hands.

    Now, I’m not saying that Labour need to swing to the communist fringes, but if Labour ignore their core they will lose out.
    This is ultimately the problem with two party politics where both parties are scrambling for the same centrist voters – the ‘fringes’ of both parties get completely marginalised and become a frustrated and unrepresented bloc.

    There’s a similar story within the Tory party – only there’s already a party (UKIP) sapping the under-represented Tory-right away.

  28. Virgilio

    Wouldn’t claim to be an expert in Milan politics but I gather the Northern League may have been encouraging tactical voting.

  29. @tinged fringe
    UKIP are our Socialist Workers Party only worse.
    I know the SWP have ideas that someone like me regard as a mixture of treachery and insanity. However, they do cover a range of issues. UKIP are a one trick pony – Europe. I believe they make noises about hanging people also. In the end they will die and their support will come back to the Tories. It has to be said, that having seen some of their people at close hand, its almost worth loosing the few thousand votes.

  30. LordTory –
    Except that unlike SWP, UKIP managed to get almost a million votes in the last election and continue to grow in popularity.

    Which leads exactly in to my point – if the Tories marginalise voters who should belong to their base, they will not hold on to them.
    When elections under FPTP are sometimes decided by such small numbers (IIRC the Tories would have had OM in 2010 if not for UKIP voters), every voter counts.

  31. Lansley out, Lamb in.

    If true, this would certainly boost LD’s position in the coalition, provided they managed to get the NHS bill reforms they want to see. Can’t see some Tory backbenchers being happy about this.

  32. @TINGEFRINGE
    I do not disagree with the points you are making. However, it is very difficult for modern Labour to reintroduce clause 4 and one sided nuclear disarmament. In the same way, how do I sell Toryism to people, who think Cameron should be on the next Ryanair to Brussels and pull out hook, line and sinker from the EU. I mean how does one deal with such people ?

  33. SOCALLIBERAL
    If the same law applies to all people in the UK, there should be uniformity in the interpretation and application of that law. If you strip the UK Supreme Court of jurisdiction…

    That would be fine, if you included uniformity of access to the court, but I think you missed the point oldnat tried to make about using one legal jurisdiction to limit the access of another legal jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

    In this instance, all the people in states which have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (=all EEA member states + other European states from Albania to Ukraine) are agreed in having that jurisdiction with the European Court of Human Rights in Strassburg. The problem is that denizens of the “home” nations of the UK do not have uniformity of access to it.

    What’s different here is that the Scotland and England have different legal systems, enshrined in the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union, plus the UK Supreme Court is not actually a “new kid on the block” but an expansion of the old English House of Lords when sitting as a court, which never did have jurisdiction over Scottish criminal matters.

    What the Blair/Brown government did was simply to rename it for English and Welsh purposes but to insert it as a new layer between the Scottish legal system and the ECHR, with different rights of access to E&W vs Scottish cases. In “normal” countries, this would be seen as fiddling with the constitution, but of course as neither the UK nor its “member” nations have anything approaching a codified constitution, “anything goes” that can command a majority in the House of Commons.

  34. @LordTory
    There are many ways to deal with it – the main one is to become internally democratic – rather than dictatorial and expecting everybody on ‘your side’ to go along with you.

    If the Tories and Labour held open primaries between internally declared factions (Euroskeptic, One-Nation, Thatcherite, Libertarian, etc – Libertarian, NewLabour, Socialist, Social Democrat, etc) then the local party/constituency could decide what sort of ‘flavour’ they would want from each party.
    And both parties would benefit from setting national policy through census politics to find policies that all groups could broadly agree to (low taxes on Tory side, provision of public services on Labour side).

    Or both parties could continue to be top-down and dictatorial.

  35. Tingedfringe

    Alternatively, a system of pre-election coalitions could be created, as in Sweden. That then allows the broad thrust of agreed areas of policy to be implemented, while allowing the final direction of the coalition to be determined by the electoral strength of each party.

    There is then no need to have the enormously broad coalitions of political viewpoints expressed in anodyne manifestos that the parties currently present to the voters as a “choice”.

    FPTP, like party list systems, empowers politicians nit voters.

  36. OldNat,
    Agreed. I’d much prefer pre-election coalitions with parties representing each faction under a PR system.
    But under FPTP, internal democracy is the only real way forward, since FPTP reinforces two party politics.

  37. @Bullman

    Your deeper experience makes the point better than my shallow observation. If we want to be better we must accept that proper care and its equal provision will come neither cheaply nor be meaningfully sustained without adequate financial provision.

    @Socalllib
    ‘You can boil it down to this. Should the poor man have to give up his cherished weekly meal at MickeyD’s just so that the wealthy man can continue to enjoy expensive meals at Gordon Ramsey’s latest creation? Again, to quote Chief Justice Warren, is that fair?’
    You have the bones of the argument is that from that reduction we can make a nourishing jelly – but it means we must reject the menu on offer and make our own broth.
    The solutions on offer around the world only ensure a further repetition the mistakes.
    This is the craziness of the 1930s – it’s like giving another sharp knife to the man who’s just cut off your arm in the hope that next time he’ll either cut off someone else’s arm or your leg. Either way it’s crippling….
    @Lord Tory
    ‘At risk of becoming “political”, I should add that the prairie dogs “friends” are just as capable of selling the poor little guy short as any fat big cat.’
    A poor metaphor equates our peculiar evolutionary sentience with the refined hunting skills of simpler predators. The greediest predator will persuade others and himself that feasting alone in plenty is the wisest course. But sharing the plenty amongst the many is what evolved species do and Nature’s wise restraint not only feeds the generations when self-serving greed will serve only a single course but inter-generationally maximises the possibilities of multiple solutions for replenishment by multiplying the opportunity for reflected sentient reaction. Grrrr….eat!

  38. Tingedfringe

    That sad reality of FPTP makes it all the more sad that the only UK party of significant size, that really wanted electoral reform, were so foolish as to go for AV (which they didn’t believe in anway) and losing.

    Thus condemning UK/England to the continued control by the political class, that the political class were so keen to continue, for the foreseeable future.

  39. @john murphy
    Just so John, just so. In short, if one is towards the bottom of the food chain, one is just as likely to get shafted by a bad boss as a bad trade union official.

  40. ‘TINGEDFRINGE
    I wonder if anybody who is calling for the left to be abandoned has looked at polling for left-right continuum and how people would vote?’

    Of course left is anyone to my left and lunatic right is to my right; I am the perfect centre.

    Point? Depends on your country and place; Blair took Labour to right of centre leaving centre and the left to the Liberals who mopped up lots of votes. The tories under Blair were fox hunting reactionaries (and some still are); nasty party slash and burn.

    Now Liberals have lost these votes by becoming Tory supporters.

    In the last election no-one won because no-one whole-heartedly supported the centre (or even left). Ed, if he does his work correctly and drops new Labour with its paranoid police state, illegal and immoral wars and belief that paperwork / targets actually matter can easily win the next election. Why? Tory vision is not working and LDs have committed suicide.

  41. Well,back in the real world,Newport have just joined the
    majority of universities that are charging the full 9000
    pounds tuition fees next year.This is now a major problem
    for all concerned.Was there ever such a stupid policy as
    this.The knock on effects from this are not going away anyehere soon.

  42. @Jack
    I am mortified that you feel that way about us. We are presently spending more money this year than Labour did. This the thanks we get ?

    If Labour do not win the next election with the ease you anticipate, what excuse will you give ?

  43. Jack

    ” Ed, if he does his work correctly and drops new Labour with its paranoid police state, illegal and immoral wars and belief that paperwork / targets actually matter can easily win the next election.”

    No chance of that, then.

    If so are you saying that Con will win OM, or what?

    So far as Scotland is concerned we can see the way things are going sticking with that course. Is the SNP the new UK third party, holding the balance; will there be a LibDm revival or twice as many Green MP’s?

  44. @JOHN B DICK

    I fear you have broken the dream.

  45. Does anyone know why London and the South of England have a higher percentage saying that “I am not aware of significant cuts to services in my area”?

    Is it just that fewer people there actually use council services?

  46. The latest You Gov seems like a bit of an outlier.Meanwhile the scandal over care home provision
    would seem to be rather a looming problem.

  47. Ann (in Wales)

    “The latest You Gov seems like a bit of an outlier.”

    Why?

  48. Old nat,
    Well obviously I do not have your great knowledge in such
    matters,it just seemed to me that labour had been 5 or 6
    points ahead this week.Also I seem to remember AW
    saying that the post election bounce seemed to have faded.Thats all, honest!

  49. Ann (in Wales)

    Asking “Why?” doesn’t imply criticism. It was simply a question. I wanted to find out your reasoning.

    If your first sentence was a compliment (unlikely, I know :-) ) it is misplaced. If sarcasm, it is unwarranted.

1 2 3 4 8