Ipsos-MORI’s monthly political monitor is out, and has topline figures of CON 32%(-5), LAB 39%(nc), LDEM 11%(nc), Others 18%. Changes are from last month’s poll, and clearly show a significant drop for the Conservatives and a boost for minor parties.

On leader ratings David Cameron’s net approval stands at minus 15, a signifcant drop from last month’s minus 2. Ed Miliband’s rating is minus 7, up from minus 15 last month and, I think, the first time a poll has shown him with an approval rating above David Cameron’s. Scrap that bit – Miliband certainly had more positive ratings when he first became leader and it’s actually been quite common for Miliband to have better net ratings than Cameron in MORI’s version of the question

One caveat about this though, it has a slightly odd sample. MORI’s sample contained significantly fewer people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than it usually does, in fact the weighted sample still had more people who claimed they voted Labour in 2010 than claimed they voted Tory. Regular readers will know that ICM, Populus and YouGov all use political weighting to make sure how people in their sample claim they voted at the last election roughly reflects what actually happened (with some variation due to assumptions about false recall). MORI do not (for reasons which I’ll come to below), therefore the political make-up of their sample can be significantly different from one month to the next.

Looking at the polls over the last few days and based on the information available from each company’s tables (only ICM gave full details in their tabs, so the others make some assumptions about the proportion of 2010 “others”):

In the last ICM poll, people’s recalled 2010 vote was CON 37%, LAB 30%, LDEM 24%
In the last Populus poll, people’s recalled 2010 vote was roughly CON 37%, LAB 30%, LDEM 24%
In the last YouGov poll, people’s recalled 2010 vote was roughly CON 36%, LAB 31%, LDEM 25%
In the last Ipsos-MORI poll, people’s recalled 2010 vote was roughly CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 23%

The reason MORI do not weight by party recall or past vote is because they are concerned that people’s past recall of how they voted could change rapidly, and therefore weighting by it risks dampening out genuine volatility in public opinion. ICM and Populus also think that levels of false recall can move, but think it changes only slowly over time, something which their model takes into account. YouGov are panel based, so store respondents’ answer to how they voted in 2010 and don’t need to worry about false recall changing.

These are legitimate differences of opinion, and obviously the different companies each believe that they are doing what is correct… but we shouldn’t be surprised if they result in different answers, and if a poll that has far more 2010 Labour voters in it is better for Labour and Ed Miliband than a poll with more 2010 Conservative voters in it.


147 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Reuters – CON 32, LAB 39, LDEM 11”

1 2 3
  1. Well, it’s good to know 2010 Labour voters are remaining loyal & coming round to Ed M; useful poll for that, if nothing else.
    8-)

  2. Amber

    No need to be pessimistic. I’m sure that Labour and Ed will have more than 2010 loyal supporters. :-)

  3. Nice – Cameron must be worried now. The only thing he could rely on was being more popular than Miliband. If he was making U-turns before, he’s going to be absolutely useless now.

  4. IpsosMORI Scottish split:

    Westminster voting intention – Scotland
    Sub-sample size = 102
    Fieldwork: 16-18 July 2011
    (+/- change from UK GE 2010)

    SNP 45% (+25)
    Lab 38% (-4)
    Con 6% (-11)
    LD 6% (-13)
    UKIP 3% (+2)
    Grn 0 (-1)
    BNP 0 (n/c)
    oth 3%

    http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/jul2011polweb.pdf

    ht tp://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2828/ReutersIpsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-July-2011.aspx

  5. Stuart

    Any idea how those numbers translate into seats gained by the SNP from Labour?

  6. Ed M is questioning not only Camerons judgement but his integrity. I think Ed is hoping that either mud will stick or that evidence will emerge that ends in Cameron going.

  7. Useless, totally useless. Why bother polling if your sample is as out as line as that. This poll has to be totally disregarded

  8. Sergio

    On the basis of a sample size of 100 it would probably be meaningless to extrapolate these percentage to a national level.

  9. If we adjust this sample -6 for Lab +3 for Con to take it to an equal 2010 vote to reality we get 35 Con 33 Lab 11 Lib, which seems pretty ridicolous anyway, with an other score of 21.

  10. Sergio,

    According to Baxter:

    SNP 34 seats (+28)
    Lab 24 seats (-17)
    LD 1 seat (-11)
    Con 0 seats (-1)

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll_scot.html

    Note: yesterday’s Populus Scottish split was SNP 40%, Lab 37%, Con 11%, LD 5%

  11. @ Sergio

    Stuart

    Any idea how those numbers translate into seats gained by the SNP from Labour?
    —————————————————
    I’m not Stuart but I’d say, none. The switch is from Con & Lib so Labour will likely hold ground, albeit with reduced majorities. Consider Inverclyde by-election as possibly representative of the impact.
    8-)

  12. correction: LD 1 seat (-10)

  13. Stuart – thank you.

    Alan – good point.

    As for the UK wide Ipsos Mori, it does indeed look like an iffy sample, but these things happen.

  14. Interesting point by Ben Foley regard LDs on previous thread. I’d imagine if they hadn’t entered a formal coalition, Clegg and Cable could have used this to attack both parties and pick up a significant share of VI. They must be kicking themselves.

  15. Sergio

    the issue isn’t if the sample lies outside the 95% confidence level “an outlier” but the fact that with a sample of just 100, the margin of error is probably around 15% making reading any seats into such a tiny sample is pointless.

    As a counter note Yougovs poll yesterday based on a sample of over twice the size (but still too small for any relevance) SNP polled at 28%, I suspect Stuart Dickson is trying to highlight only the favourable splits in a massively volatile environment.

  16. @PABLO420
    Interesting to see questions from LDs that are pretty tough for the Govt.
    Meanwhile, each time Cameron is asked about informal contacts about the NewsCorp bid for the rest of BSkyB, he gives exactly the same answer, referring to RB’s answer yesterday and saying he never had an ‘inappropriate conversation’. Presumably, he had a conversation he claims is ‘appropriate’.

  17. Strange questions about bugging senior civil servants. Are they trying to suggest Coulson was bugging while at no 10?

    Mysterious.

  18. Alan,

    – “I suspect Stuart Dickson is trying to highlight only the favourable splits in a massively volatile environment.”

    Yawn.

    The plain fact of the matter is that YouGov polls are ten a penny, whereas Populus, ComRes and Ipsos MORI polls (the only other ones with Scottish breakdowns) are much rarer beasts.

    By the way, YouGov had by far the worst record in the pre-May Scottish polling, compared to the actual result. Ipsos MORI were much, much closer

  19. Re recent Scottish crossbreaks

    YouGov is out on a limb with its figures (which won’t surprise those of us who have been critical of its methodology).

    The other 4 (total polled 337 between them) obviously suffer from all the usual problems of not being matched to the Scottish demographic, but are nevertheless intriguing.

    ICM, Com Res, Populus, MORI, 4 polls, Pollster
    53%, 42%, 39%, 39%, 42%, SNP
    29%, 35%, 37%, 31%, 34%, Lab
    9%, 18%, 11%, 12%, 14%, Con
    9%, 4%, 5%, 8%, 6%, L_D
    0%, 1%, 8%, 9%, 4%, Oth

    In terms of Westminster seat changes (if these numbers were actually representative of Scots opinion), I’d be minded to veer towards Amber’s estimate. Though Ochil (or equivalent) would probably be an SNP gain.

  20. AmberStar @ John B Dick

    “I’ll work for another review & try to persuade people to agree with my point of view.”
    ——————————————————

    That’s fair enough on a matter of administrative organisation, but you acknowledge below that there is a line not to be crossed with policy and values.

    I don’t share your view that NewLabour is dead and buried. I’d love to be proved wrong.
    —————————————————————-

    “I don’t agree with breaking up the UK. I consider devolved parliaments to be an unrequired tier of government that wouldn’t have been needed if local government had been strengthened & encouraged to work together more.”
    ———————————————————–
    Devolution – far less independence – would not have been necessary if we could have had a parliament and government that was fit for the 20th Century.

    I used to argue with Donald Dewar that Westminster needed to be reformed, and that devolution was an unnecessary extra tier.

    I was wrong.

    My mistake was to fail to understand Donald’s answer to all my complaints about Westminster that the Home Rule parliament was to be the model for reform where if a solution didn’t work, another could be tried.

    His plan hasn’t worked yet, and Phase 1 took 44 years to come to fruition with no sign that Phase 2 will be any quicker. So I’ll have independence now though if I was writing a constitution for the UK it wouldn’t feature in that.

    It’s inherently unlikely that the Westminster culture, will be changed by those who have prospered in it as it is.
    ————————————————————
    “Regarding marketing techniques, … if the message is driven by the marketing technique then don’t use it.”

    ———————————————————————-
    I couldn’t agree more. There are highly paid numpties
    in influential places that havn’t grasped that idea or who would have less power, influence and money if that principle was generally accepted.

    I see it as a failure of management to listen to these people – or to self-interest generally – and take people at their own perception of their self-worth.

    Do you remember Beattie Media? Shortly after that debacle I happened to see an old newspaper with a “A day in the life of ….” series. Nobody fit for public office at any level would have put work in their direction. With the benefit of hindsight, it would make you squirm with embarrassment.

    ————————————————————-
    I … gave up being a Labour activist & member during the New Labour era.
    ———————————————————————-
    The New Labour era changed me from an anticon to an anticon/lab and the further decline of the Cons and the disgraceful negativity and opposition for oppositions sake on Megrahi and Minimum pricing changed me into an antilab/con. There are Cons I could vote for on the constituency vote (but never on the list) Lord James Douglas Hamilton and Mary Scanlon, and there are Labs close to you whom I would certainly vote for on the constituency, but Con and Lab would be at least 5th and 6th choice for the list or on AV.

    Diane Abbot was asked what she thought should be the future for NewLabour “Last year’s marketing strategy” she said. It’s been done, and worked for a while but it’s time to move on.

    Lessons have not been learned.

  21. NI announce they have stopped paying Mulcaire’s legal costs.
    Having criticised the CMS Committee -this is one up to them.

    I don’t know how the polls will reflect this afternoons proceedings in HoC-perhaps not much.

    But I think DC has dealt with things effectively-he did what I wanted of him anyway-he can do no more.

    As I write Labour are still pounding away at you know what-I counted three Labour questions on Police / Media factors.

    I think Labour now have this seriously wrong.

    That very sensible lady Jo Swinson summed it up-all the appropriate reviews & enquiries are now ( at long long last) in place . Let them get on with it & let Parliament turn to matters which may effect every one of us.

  22. Some of Cameron’ s responses:

    Spoke to Yates *predominantly* about counter-terrorism (did not deny that they discussed phone hacking).

    She denied that yesterday (did not put on the record his own denial that Coulon was hired in place of Guto Harri after an intervention from Brooks).

    The inquiry has to make progress (deflects a question about the pressure placed on Sean Hoare with confusing comments about David Kelly… but the impression he gives is that Sean Hoare’s death will not be a part of the enquiry).

    Repeatedly refuses to answer questions about the vetting process for Coulson.

    To the ‘best of his knowledge’ he did not know of the role played by Wallis before last weekend.

  23. OldNat,

    When did ICM start publishing Scottish breaks? I missed that development! They always used to lump us in with (ahem) “North” :D

    This talk of Jo Swinson MP reminded me of this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/constituency/html/36136.stm

    … I do hope that the “very sensible” (sic) lady is brushing up her CV as we speak. Wouldn’t like her to be unemployed for too long, although i dare say that she is more employable than your average ex-MP.

  24. So, DC has finally admitted it…According to the Guradian:

    “Asked seven times about his involvement in the bid – which needed regulatory approval initially from business secretary Vince Cable and later culture secretary Jeremy Hunt – the prime minister cracked, indicating that he had one or more conversations with individuals at Murdoch’s News International who he would not name.”

  25. And also from the Guardian:

    “Cameron says: “As someone once said, I’m enjoying this.” Famously, it was Margaret Thatcher – in the no confidence debate on the day she resigned.”

  26. On this poll – it is helpful to confirm the rough trend of what is happening (increased Lab support, increased ratings for EM, slight decreased ratings for Cameron), but I think the actual numbers are not that reliable.

    On yesterday – I was astounded that anyone felt Brooks aquitted herself well. I can’t believe anyone takes anything she says seriously. She has already admitted to a committee that she paid the police for information (before she realised she’d just admitted to illegal practises and then corrected herself), and we have her own ex-journalists telling us she encouraged illegal practises when she was editor at NotW.

    Whether she actually sanctioned specific incidents of phone-hacking is irrelevant. The person at the head of any organisation creates the culture in that organisation. That was why it was right that Andy Coulson and Brooks resigned – admitting that they were responsible. Whether they have committed a criminal offence is a separate matter.

  27. @Sergio

    On the previous thread you said it was your intention that your children would go to grammar school.

    Won’t they have to pass the 11+ or have you found a way round that?
    It always makes me smile – the people who support grammar schools always assume their children will be able to attend them.
    FWIW I went to a grammar school. Believe me, it had many shortcomings.

  28. Colin

    That very sensible lady Jo Swinson summed it up-all the appropriate reviews & enquiries are now ( at long long last) in place . Let them get on with it & let Parliament turn to matters which may effect every one of us.

    As a member of the con/lib she would say that.

  29. @Old Nat

    Isnt your Leader an ex-MP?

  30. Stuart

    ICM “delumped” us from the North sometime after the Holyrood election – I don’t know exactly when.

    Maybe they realised that something significant had happened, and that voters “up there” could no longer be relied on to “lie back and think of England”. :-)

  31. @ Colin,

    Of course Cameron has done all YOU’VE asked for but he has certainly not done all he should have done. He is, only now, beginning to admit that he had conversations with News Corp executives about the BSkyB bid. This is his achilles heal and it is completely exposed.

    I agree with posters who say that, on the whole, Cameron is unlikely to be forced to resign over this BUT in the current climate if it comes out that he had specific conversations about BSkyB with News Corp that potentially affected the process he would be in trouble.

    Likewise if it was discovered that Coulson, Brooks or anyone else who is facing charges tried to exert influence on Cameron and the BSkyB process he would be in trouble.

    So Labour is playing it exactly the right way (and for the record the polls continue to show that people feel EM has handled the issue well, much better than Cameron).

    It doesn’t matter at all who seems more confident today answering questions, it will be if if previous answers were shown to be wrong, lies or parliament was misled.

    Remember, Blair was praised to the rafters immediately after his famous “45mins” speech.

    (And saying all this, I’m well aware that Blair never had to resign, but trust in him never recovered).

  32. Valerie

    Since you already know that Alex Salmond was an MP, and you know that I know that you know that too, there must be a reason for asking me that question.

    For the life of me, however, I cannot work out what that reason might be.

    Is it a reference to some point I made on a separate thread at some point? Please elucidate.

  33. In many ways this is the British Watergate – not in the sense that it will lead to Cameron resigning, but in the sense that there is no telling where the story will go next, what revelations will come out and who will be exposed next and forced to resign.

    This time last week Paul Stevens wasn’t in any sort of trouble and then the Neil Wallis link emerged. Now there’s a link with Wallis with Downing Street. Ed Llewelyn is suddenly looking in danger (and is now getting the fullsome praise previously DC reserved for Coulson), and Cameron is admitting to “appropriate conversations” with News Corp about the BSkyB bid.

    Like Watergate, everyone is getting lawyers, everyone is protecting themselves, and they may soon start ratting on each other. Like Watergate, the right-wingers are saying “it’s all a plot and there are more important things to focus on”. Unlike Watergate, Cameron is unlikely to have to resign.

  34. And frther from the Guardian:

    “No 10 also refused to state the identity of the vetting agency that was responsible for vetting Andy Coulson, before he became director of communications at Downing Street; the spokesman was unable to give any reason why he was unwilling to identify the firm. There has been a suspicion that the firm may have had contact with the News of the World.

    No 10 officials also said for the first time that they believed Coulson met the former deputy editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis, inside Downing Street during his period as spokesman to the prime minister, saying the two men had been close friends. But they said they were still trying to get to the bottom of what work Wallis had undertaken for Coulson during his period as Conservative party spokesman.

    Conservative officials said it was difficult to find out precisely since it was not possible for the party to contact either of the two men since they had both been arrested. “

  35. @Mike N – “Asked seven times about his involvement in the bid… ”

    In the answer I heard, he declined the invitation to deny that he had conversations with NI personel about the bid, instead saying that he never had “an inappropriate conversation”.

  36. Just returning briefly to the discussion on the last thread, Rob Sheffield wrote this:

    *******
    “robin hood… You start off by saying that the matter will not make much difference but then end up by saying if the PM can survive then its curtains for Labour !!!!! Er, what about poor economic performance, falling household income, deteriorating quality of public services , unemployment… growing inequality…Aren’t these going to eat into tat lead you cheerfully ascribe to DC if he can ride out the hackgate that you tee up as irrelevant ??!! I am wondering about the colour backdrop you have chosen”
    *******

    Sorry, Rob, but I’ve been active in the Labour Party since 1988 and what I want doesn’t matter – what counts are the hard facts. That’s what this blog is supposed to be about – impartial commentary on the parties’ electoral prospects.

    There is no contradication between me saying that Hackgate won’t make much long term difference and me saying that if DC survives it then Labour are unlikely to win. In fact, it’s entirely consistent.

    The relative underlying strengths of the two main parties currently favours the Tories, and this is because (a) we’ve just had thirteen years of Labour government, and (b) DC comes across as being more prime ministerial than EM.

    Yes, I’ve been in many a Labour Party meeting where people like you have questioned my loyalty to the party simply because I have not agreed with the conventional (and highly deluded) tub-thumping view that we are bound to win.

    In the run-up to the 2006 Croydon borough elections, I absolutely begged the party’s local leadership to adjust their strategy of throwing everything at one marginal ward, because I was concerned that the national bad news stories that were hitting the headlines in the final ten days of the short campaign were putting at risk the second tier of our ward defences.

    I and other activists were not listened to, and consequently several of those ‘second tier’ wards went down and we needlessley lost seats. (Their sitting councillors were not even allowed to campaign in their own wards, in many cases).

    Returning to the present, my view is that EM has performed well during this affair, but if he is seen to be pushing the issue for partisan reasons then it threatens to backfire: all that is needed is for the Dowler family to cry foul. I hope that won’t happen and that EM will quit while he’s ahead.

    Incidentally, rob, you list growing inequality as a reason why the government will lose support. There’s no evidence to suggest that this is so: there was a massive increase in inequality under Thatcher, but she still won three general election victories (because she did just enough to keep 44% of the electorate happy).

    Both you and I know that the Tory line on the recession is codswallop: they blame the last government for the state of the economy and yet they supported all of Labour’s spending commitments right up until 2008. So we can see from this that they are being two-faced.

    But the question is, what proportion of the electorate has successfully evaluated this fact? At the moment, the government has largely succeeded in selling its interpretation to the electorate (i.e. that it’s all the fault of Gordon Brown).

    Unfortunately, a 9% opposition lead in mid-term does not spell disaster for the incumbent government. That said, there is still time and a lot of things could happen to alter the current likely projectory.

  37. Billy Bob
    I picked up the ‘revelation’ from the Guardian news blog. A little later this appeared:

    “Government officials said during the statement that the prime minister did not recall any specific conversations with News International about the BSkyB bid, but said he could not stop News Corporation officials from lobbying him about the bid during meetings. The officials stressed that the decision was for the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on his own, and he at no point discussed the bid with Cameron. The spokesman said the conversations were “completely appropriate”.”

    Perhaps the Guardian have it wrong?

  38. Cameron is not declaring his social contacts with News International people but people I come across who inhabit the msterious ‘Chipping Norton triangle’ at weekends have plenty of evidence that social contacts were quite common though the pattern has changed now.

    One of the favourite watering holes is the Royal Oak in Ramsden but these days it is best to look out for Cameron’s brother having a chat with best friend Charlie Brooks. Contacts between Cameron and Rebekah Brooks can be easily facilitated therefore without face to face meetings or of course over the phone as they probably feel safe from phone hacking at the moment.

  39. AmberStar @ Sergio

    “The switch is from Con & Lib so Labour will likely hold ground, albeit with reduced majorities.”

    The net effect may be for the Labour vote to hold up in total but 2011 churn will be repeated and this has the effect of Labour increasing their 3rd or 4th party vote share in former LibDem strongholds (which won’t elect Lab MP’s) and reducing the Lab safe seats to (usually SNP) winnable marginals.

    The latter effect could result in changes where local factors (including candidates) are important. Changes may well be few, and only affect the central belt, but they are difficult or impossible to pinpoint until the campaign is well under way and local knowledge is a prerequisite.

    Looking at current local issues and recent historical movements in my own constituency, it is safe to predict an SNP gain from LibDem in Argyll and Bute

    We know that in 2011, (and in the North in 2010 also) ex-LibDem votes broke in favour of the SNP, and that about the same number as Labour gained from LibDems overall, they lost to SNP. Labour had safe constituency seats but now all their 15 constituency seats are marginals.

    It is possible to calculate now, what percentage leakage of Labour votes direct to SNP in each Labour constituency would be necessary for Labour to lose the seat as well as to identify proportionate LibDem losses in these seats (assuming LibDems can’t or won’t do anyting to redeem themselves in the opinion of anti-cons).

    At some point the SNP would pass the FPTP tipping point, which I wrongly predicted would happen last time. I’ll keep predicting that and maybe one day I’ll be right. It’s more likely rather than less likely as time goes on, but they’ve still got quitea bit to go and it isn’t in the bag yet though it could be by election day.

    The broad picture has reversed.

    In the past, Labour had its vote concentrated in the central belt (and the Libdems in the highlands) while the SNP were dispersed. Now, The SNP are concentrated in the North, and Labour are more dispersed than they were, not only because they lost votes in the central belt, but also because they gained them elsewhere.

    Thus they are more vulnerable to seat losses on the same or even an increased national vote especially if, like the Highland LibDems in 2011, they have retirals of longstanding well respected MP’s

    The Conservatives have so little to lose that any flow to SNP can be safely ignored.

  40. OldNat,

    I quite often lie back and think of England. An independent England. These are, needless to say, happy thoughts.

  41. @ Nick Poole

    “Strange questions about bugging senior civil servants. Are they trying to suggest Coulson was bugging while at no 10?

    Mysterious.”

    No I don’t think it was that, but there is suggestion that senior civil servants and even senior people in the security services had been targeted by media, presumably to gain scoops. If this were the case, I am really surprised that secuity had not been better. But there again it was suggested John Yates phone had been hacked, but he was unaware of this.

    If there is any truth to media being able to gain access to information that was supposed to be secure, it would make the UK a laughing stock. How would the CIA react to such news ? I suspect by being extremely wary about sharing information.

  42. @John B DIck

    Indeed the SNP vs Lab dynamic will be interesting and I no longer think any assumptions can be made because of the potential volaitility in Scotland unlike the regional polarisation which exists in England.

    The surprising thing about the 2010 election was how well Labour held up in their safe seats in Scotland so there’s room for some leakage to the SNP there but how much I have no idea.

    On current boundaries at the moment I can only envisage O and SP Falkirk and possibly Dundee W falling to the SNP.

    I think maybe the Labour vote will be down 4% on 2010 but the SNP could go up to 30%+.

  43. Robin Hood

    “Yes, I’ve been in many a Labour Party meeting where people like you have questioned my loyalty to the party simply because I have not agreed with the conventional (and highly deluded) tub-thumping view that we are bound to win.”

    Loyalty can be a vice, not a virtue.

    Lord Salisbury suggested to an MP that he was mindded to appoint him to some position and enquired whether he could rely on the MP to support him. The MP said he would support him “when he was right” but was told that wasn’t the sort of support that Salisbuy had in mind.

    Loyalty to a leader or a party is something for authoritarian followers. Loyalty to a principle or a set of values is something else.

    Failure to distiguish betwen the two has distanced NewLabour from many former sympathisers

  44. Valerie

    Yes indeed, my kids will take the 11+. Why do you ask?

    I support grammar schools, regardless of whether we go down that route.

    Is that enough for you?

  45. It will be interesting to see how joe public views the performances today, and especially that of the PM, and the effect on VI and persdonal ratings.

    I guess we will need to wait untilt the weekend or early next week to see if there is any notable movement and change in perception.

  46. From today’s online Scotsman re James Murdoch.

    “When he was asked whether or not he was aware of any potential pending HMRC/fraud or other investigation, his blinking rate increased, he began to stutter and there was flushing on his left cheek – clearly he was uncomfortable.

    The combination of these leaks may be a strong indicator that deceit was taking place and that he is indeed aware of potential investigations.

    When asked about whether they intended to launch new a newspaper on a Sunday, both Murdochs said that they did not; however, again the leakage indicates that there is a likelihood that this is inconsistent with their true beliefs.”

    HMRC arn’t the speediest of investigators. Again we find another horse is in this race, maybe this is the one likeliest to come in last.

  47. Form the Guardian:

    “During his statement David Cameron repeatedly refused to identify the company that vetted Andy Coulson before he went to work in Downing Street. In the comments section jcb1973 says s/he has already submitted a Freedom of Information request to get an answer.”

    Good gal/guy.

  48. Unlock democracy is concerned that NoTW isn’t scapegoated for the wider sins of the press which could be left unaddressed.

    http://action.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/investigate-the-press

  49. John B Dick
    “HMRC arn’t the speediest of investigators. Again we find another horse is in this race, maybe this is the one likeliest to come in last.”

    The good thing about this however is that they can access/demand materials that might otherwise be beyond the reach of others. I did wonder too whether the payments to informants was perhaps taxable and that NI should have operated PAYE!

    Just another weapon with which to beat NI.

  50. Mike N – the weekend polls will indeed be our first real chance (tomorrow’s YouGov poll that goes into field this afternoon will be taken after all of this, but many respondents will take it before they’ve seen tonight’s news and tomorrow’s papers, so the YG/ST fieldwork on Thursday night, Friday daytime will really be the first impact, if there is any at all.)

    Personally I wouldn’t expect anything notable – what we’ve seen already may persist, or may fade, or may gradually get worse, but I don’t think we should expect any big sudden impact.

1 2 3