The monthly Ipsos MORI political monitor for Reuters has been published. Topline figures are CON 34%(+2), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 15%(+4). All the main parties are up, and other parties sharply down, but this will be largely a reversion to the mean after a rather odd MORI poll with a unusual sample last month. The Lib Dems are up to 15% – whereas we expect high Lib Dems from ICM, this is unusual for MORI, who for the last five months have had them between 9% and 11%. I’ll add my usual caveat about any unusual shifts in the polls – it may be the sign of something, or may just be a blip. Wait and see if it is reflected in other polling. Full tabs are here.

Incidentally, given I’m normally so ready to be rude about poor newspaper reporting of polls, I should give credit where it is due to the measured and reasonable reporting of the poll by Reuters, which correctly says that the figures are broadly unchanged and that it is too early to say whether the Lib Dem increase indicates a sustained shift in attitude. Entirely correct!

The YouGov/Sun daily polling results yesterday are here. Topline results are CON 36%, LAB 43%, LDEM 9%. On Libya, the proportion of people thinking the intervention is going well has crept further up: 54% think it is going well, 25% badly. However, suport for the intervention has returned to being pretty evenly split – 39% think it is right, 40% think it is wrong.


251 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Reuters – CON 34, LAB 40, LDEM 15”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. Talking of Scottish independence, have we had any recent polls on this? Last time I saw a poll on Scottish independence, it was fairly tight, with the ‘no’ vote just winning. Has this changed?

  2. Colin

    We’re always happy to have support – just as the suffragettes were happy to have men advocating their point.

    No need to do much – a large cheque sent to SNP HQ will be enough. :-)

  3. AmbivalentSupporter

    Nope. At the moment, there probably isn’t a lot of point as we await the Scottish Government’s choice of question(s).

    It would be nice, however, to get some polling on Scottish VI. Ipsos-MORI normally provide a quarterly poll in August, but nothing has appeared yet.

  4. @Oldnat,

    Thanks. Yeah, hopefully something will turn up soon.

  5. I thought John Simpson’s report from Tripoli on tonight’s BBC 10 o’clock bulletin was both interesting and highly disturbing. Unlike his earlier, rather insouciant, reports suggesting that a sort of order was descending on the city and fighting was light and sporadic, his latest summary likened Tripoli to Baghdad shortly after the fall of Saddam. I think his visit to the hospital and the appalling carnage he saw there has understandably altered his view somewhat. His considered opinion now is that the NTC need to assert control over the city very quickly and reinstate some form of authority and administration before anarchy takes hold. I fear our armchair cheer-leading from afar, and the long distance bombing from undefended airspace, may be giving us a warped view of what is the brutal, chaotic and highly dangerous reality on the ground.

    By the way, can I put on record my admiration for the superb BBC coverage of the Libyan conflict, typified by Simpson’s measured and cerebral reporting from inside the strife-torn city. Not to mention also the many brave and intrepid reporters, dodging bullets and bombs in the streets, giving us their usual balanced and objective accounts. A news organisation, respected worldwide, doing what it does best; a credit to their trade and our country, as always.

  6. @ Colin

    Amber
    I’ll let the Libyan people decide what they want in their upcoming elections.
    I ‘m glad they didn’t have to rely on you for their freedom.
    —————————————-
    Which elections would these be, Colin?
    8-)

  7. Oldnat – MORI had a tweet or something the other day saying they were starting fieldwork on the Scottish monitor, so I’d imagine it will turn up soon.

  8. I feel somewhat smug, if a little depressed, after reading this in the Economist;

    “…….there is no boldness…… There is no co-ordination. And, to the extent that policies have a common theme, it is the wrong one: politicians across the rich world are taking too short-term a view of fiscal austerity—a bout of budget-cutting which will only increase the risk of another recession.It does not have to be this way. Echoing the spirit of 2008, policymakers could adopt a co-ordinated strategy to boost growth.”

    Since the middle of last year I’ve been saying on here that coordinated austerity was a terrible idea, and I’m pleased to see the Economist has joined me in saying that growth, not short term austerity is the answer.

    To be clear, they are not suggesting endless bouts of stimulus spending, but they do suggest a strategy to encourage investment in the UK (see earlier post) and they agree that markets are as bothered about growth in countries like Spain and Italy as they are about spending cuts. They even agree that the ECB needs to look at growth and not just inflation and that a little price inflation is useful at this time.

    Sadly, my fear is that it is too late, but I am pleased that the world of the Economist is catching up with the stuff I’ve been saying for the last fourteen months or so. Perhaps I’ll send them my CV…

  9. @ Alec,

    Sadly, aside from ruling out bouts of spending, the Economist has nothing to say except: We’d like to see some growth, please; which is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard but not as sweet…
    8-)

  10. Anthony

    Thanks. Whether their poll turns out good for my side or not, it’ll be good to have polling evidence from Scotland!

  11. Andy C:
    “well Mr Buffet if you so principled, get your cheque book out, sign your name and you know where to post it and same goes to the rest of you.”

    That’s a ridiculous argument, Buffet is arguing for a sea-change in public policy, even if he wrote a cheque for every penny he owned that’d be a drop in the bucket compared to what he’s calling for. Might as well argue “if you think we should spend more on International Aid why don’t you send the hungry in Africa your Fray Bentos meal and shut up already”.

    Unless of course the imagined Republican candidate was arguing a pure libertarian/anarco-capitalist society where tax is completely voluntary. But good luck collecting donations from Randian supermen who feel poverty is the natural result of a bad character and every man is an island.

  12. Berious

    You have a delightful line in logical reductionism. Loved your post.

  13. oldnat @ Colin

    “No need to do much – a large cheque sent to SNP HQ will be enough.”

    The SNP does not need money. it will continue in this session and the next to do its best to impress voters, rural ones especially (because that’s where the opportunities are) by the cumulatie number of individually unexciting initiatives.

    Early indications are that SLAB, led by London and bereft of talent, will not be taking Denis Healey’s advice “When you are in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging”.

    If you were in the SNP’s position, what do you think would be the ideal circumstances regarding your opponents stance and the general economic and political environment.?

    It’s all there isn’t it, except a sex & drugs scandal in SLAB?

  14. John B Dick

    “The SNP does not need money.” Probably not. It’s individual comntributors seem to be doing the business. Mind you, if we can get some cash off Colin, I can reduce my contribution. ;-)

    I find Labour’s apparent complacency about their situation in Scotland quite staggering. If they are actually having a serious debate with their supporters, then they have been missing out all the Lab voters that I know.

    While redefinition of a party can be damaging in the short yerm (I’m thinking of the massive row and redefining of its purpose and tactics by the SNP in the 80s) it is hugely re-invigorating.

    If SLAB fail to find a common purpose (other than Amber and Barney’s Britishness) to define themselves as being a vibrant party in Scotland then they really have little to offer.

    Apart from the triflimng aspect of the fate of nations! :-) I find very little to disagree with Amber’s position.

    if I was in marketing, and had to select her stance or mine (both fairly moderate on the constitutional question), I reckon mine would be the easier sell.

  15. Alec

    I thought your party believes in no growth anyway.

  16. Joe James B

    “I thought your party believes in no growth anyway.”

    That has to be the ultimate in low blows – quoting someone’s party line against them! :-)

  17. @ Old Nat & John B Dick

    I find Labour’s apparent complacency about their situation in Scotland quite staggering. If they are actually having a serious debate with their supporters, then they have been missing out all the Lab voters that I know.
    —————————————————–
    How many SNP policies, apart from independence, do Labour supporters viscerally disagree with? How many SNP policies fill your Labour voting friends with rage & dismay? With what degree of competence do your Labour voting friends think the SNP manages the devolved remit?

    Answer those questions & then ask yourselves, could it be possible that most of the Labour Party in Scotland do not see removing the SNP from power in Holyrood as their number one priority? Indeed, how many times does it need to be said – even by yourselves, actually – that the SNP enjoy a great deal of support from Scotland’s Labour identifiers.

    And yet, from some strange place, comes these jibes against a Labour team who have their faults but are basically good people who, for the most part, try to fight decent, issues based campaigns.

    Yes, sometimes we’ll be awkward & appear to vote against something you’d expect us to support – but that keeps the SNP reasonably honest & on their toes – they’re not going to be allowed to treat our team as a row of nodding dogs… So why not applaud our calm & considered response to seeing a fellow left-wing Party making a fairly decent job of running the devolved parliament?

    John B, you consistently say that the Scottish Parliament & its supporting electoral system was intended to show a more gentle, consensus style of politics – yet you damn as complacency, Scottish Labour’s lack of aggression & failure to panic at the sight of a democratically elected, left of center government, running the Scottish parliament!
    I find that disappointing…
    8-)

  18. @ Old Nat

    I hadn’t seen your 12:40 when I wrote my 1:30, sometimes it takes a while for the comments to update. I’m LOL :-) at how closely aligned our opinions are on almost everything except independence.
    8-)

  19. Amber

    “jibes against a Labour team who have their faults but are basically good people who, for the most part, try to fight decent, issues based campaigns.”

    Other than the racists, I think all the parties in Scotland try to fight decent campaigns.

    However, it remains reasonable to raise questions about the organizational competence of any party, in the context that they find themselves in.

    It isn’t a “jibe” to wonder why SLAB haven’t talked to any of my Labour supporting friends as part of what is supposed to be a thorough review of what SLAB is, and what it represents. It’s astonishment!

    You won’t be surprised that my Labour voting friends are on the DevoMax wing of your party, but share your and my views on left/right issues.

    There is a fundamental fault line in Scottish politics between those of us who want to restore Scottish sovereignty, and those who want to preserve Britishness.

    The actual constitutional arrangements that might satisfy both strands of opinion might actually be quite similar, but that divide can’t be closed while extreme positions are taken.

    In the same way, there have been many similarities between the New Labour and Tory approaches to the governance of England.

    Parties, however, feel the need to posture in order to create perceptions of difference. That is always unfortunate, and usually has unforseen (or ignored) consequences – trams, minimum alcohol pricing etc.

    “a fellow left-wing Party making a fairly decent job of running the devolved parliament?” is actually a reasonable description of how the SNP saw SLAB during the first 10 years of devolution (despite SNP oppositionalism).

    But we always come back to the constitutional fault line! Is that real for Labour? Why has the Labour of Keir Hardie become the ultra British party? Or is it just an attempt to keep political control of Scotland in the way that it did for 50 years?

    Those are the sort of questions that SLAB should be asking itself, in the same way that the SNP undertook a root and branch analysis of what they were about in the 1980s.

  20. @Andy C

    “well Mr Buffet if you so principaled, get your cheaque book out, sign your name and you know where to post it and same goes to the rest of you.”

    I’m rather annoyed at this statement.

    Both in it’s dismissal of the argument that higher tax ballancing based on the high end is in the rich’s best interest since it keeps the economy filled with people able to buy stuff, by countering it with something that does not follow the principles of the argument and goes against it since Buffet think there needs to be taxation to over-ride the short-termist greed that compels people to avoid taxes when they can. Or lobby for such things as the higher rates of corporate taxation and capital gains actually being smaller percentages in the US. Warren Buffet has been very clear that he thinks that US corporate culture is choking it’s self by ensuring that the majority of people in the US won’t be able to afford to buy anything they produce.

    But your comments are also galling in the apparent entire ignorance of Warren Buffet’s high profile donations to causes he thinks should have been funded. Which are counted in the billions. $30.7 Billion to the Gates foundation for a start!

  21. @ Old Nat

    Or is it just an attempt to keep political control of Scotland in the way that it did for 50 years?
    ———————————————-
    See, that’s what I mean about jibes… Labour did not ‘keep political control of Scotland’. There were wee things called “elections” every few years, at which the people of Scotland voted for Labour.
    8-)

  22. “I thought your party believes in no growth anyway.”
    Have I time-travelled? Perhaps I’ve gone in to the past, because I’ve seen this talking point used against Alec time and again.
    Apart from the fact that it’s a blatant partisan snark, it’s a farcical misrepresentation of the Green Party.

    The Greens believe in *sustainable* growth and that the current “infinite growth” capitalist model is incompatible with the reality of finite resources.
    They also believe that growth is not the sole indicator of a healthy economy – but that making sure that the economy is balanced across the nation, that it’s more local and consideration of ‘other’ economic indicators such as wage levels and unemployment.

    But perhaps that was too complex to fit in to a one-line partisan snark that was used to defer from actually responding properly?
    I’m probably guilty of it in the past, but it’s also the fallacy of ‘you too!’, which is used by all parties as a way of dismissing arguments by arguing the other person is a hypocrite.

    “Your cuts are harming the social fabric of the nation”, “Labour would have made cuts worse than Thatcher!”
    “Labour had the PFI funding!”, “But the Tories started it!”
    etc

    So anyway…

    OldNat,
    Perhaps SLabour has become ultra-British solely for practical purposes? If Scotland leaves the union, it becomes that much harder for them to gain power and to keep the Tories out of power.
    Although it’s a case of a party not being brave enough (as all parties do – look how much effort it takes to change a party’s direction) to face the future and work on a better strategy (adoption of PR, etc) to deal with the possible problems.

  23. I depressed me when every Government spokesman parroted the Brown’s debt lines for six months after the election and it depresses me even more to hear all the Labour crew spout “too far and too fast” in every comment they make about anything.

    Politicians think the public are stupid and that repetition and cynicism are the only tools a politician has.

    How about resorting to integrity, belief and sound arguments in something you believe in.

    A pox on party lines.

  24. One thing that I have found interesting on the debate over the immigration figures is that there is unity both left and right, that Cameron’s promise over net migration figures were foolish (due to the effects of emigration) and that he should make a new promise on immigration solely.

    If there is political consensus (which is fairly rare), perhaps Cameron should take the opportunity to re-word his promise and not take the risk of looking foolish in 2015, when his ‘tens of thousands’ figure fails to materialise?

    It would be an interesting tactic and one that would have both short-term and long-term value to Tory electoral chances.

  25. “How about resorting to integrity, belief and sound arguments in something you believe in.”
    It sounds like a good idea, and one that most politically interested people, I think, would prefer.

    But the problem is the effect of political darwinism.
    Making promises that you can’t keep is a more effective way of getting elected.*

    Example – two candidates.
    One promises that by cutting the deficit/borrowing to spend, by the end of their term there will be economic rainbows and unicorns. Everybody will have a job. Healthcare will be perfect. Nobody will suffer.
    The other candidate argues that while his policies will help, there will be terrible suffering as the nation has to slowly grow itself back to it’s former position – with high risk of a double-dip recession.

    The second candidate would lose – by far.
    So the second candidate waters down his reality-based prognosis.
    This leads to an increased likelyhood of being elected.

    So given another election, between a ‘rainbows and unicorns’ candidate and a ‘moderate liar’ candidate, the rainbows and unicorns one still is more likely to win.
    So the second candidate waters down his reality…

    It also works the opposite way – the rainbows and unicorns candidate can’t promise something that is ridiculously impossible, free planes for everybody!
    So the ridiculous candidate and ‘rainbows and unicorns’ has the R&U candidate more likely to win.

    So an optimal level of partisanship and dishonest emerges through a natural feedback loop.

    So the old saying is true- You deserve who you vote for. ;)

    *Initially

  26. ^ I should note, due to the problem of the is/ought issue, I’m not saying political darwinism is morally superior.

    I’m only arguing what *is* the case – since we’re humans with the benefit of self-reflection, we can always design systems (the ought) which successfully go against the ‘natural order of things’.

    So in free-market capitalism, you naturally end up with those who hold monopoly status (even though free-marketeers like to claim monopoly is impossible without government) – so anti-trust and pro-competition (the ought) legislation moves us away from the ‘natural’ position.

  27. Tinged Fringe

    ‘But the problem is the effect of political darwinism.
    Making promises that you can’t keep is a more effective way of getting elected’.

    However, people have a second chance in 5 years, and have an opportunity, which they may or may not take, to judge the elected party both on fulfillment of its promises and on also on its oversall performance given the circumstances faced. The Party can promise anything but should also be judged on what it has already achieved (or not achieved).

    Tony Blair promised much in 97 and satisfied enough people to be-elected twice, and MT had a similar experience from 79, although the Party was elected for one further term under JM.

    While from 1964 to 1979 no party was in power for more than 6 years. The electorate were not satisifed enough with the ruling party to give it two full terms.

    Reality therefore perhaps a little less depressing than you suggest, and the electorate can revenge unfounded promises at the ballot box.

  28. Tinged Fringe
    ‘If there is political consensus (which is fairly rare), perhaps Cameron should take the opportunity to re-word his promise and not take the risk of looking foolish in 2015, when his ‘tens of thousands’ figure fails to materialise?’

    I think the key here is management of immigration, and if the figure is higher than anticipated, then there could be a range of reasons given. The Tories claimed that under the previous administration immigration was poorly managed; if they can show that appropriate processes are in place to ensure a controlled and fair immigration policy then I think this is what will count with the electorate.

  29. You could argue that it is the Labour party’s job to prevent private monopolies and cartels, and the Tory party’s job to prevent a state monopoly.

    Which overstates the case, but at the moment it is clear that private vested interests have to much power (as well as power blocs like the Met, the Press (which is really the voice of Private Enterprise), the BBC and commercial broadcasters…and of course the City.

    But that is an oversimplification. And as somebody has said somewhere, it is nobody’s interest if a small group gets all the money. Even their own.

  30. Henry,
    I would argue that those re-elections are special cases somewhat.
    Thatcher was against a party that refused to renew and was out of touch with the current Zeitgeist (leading to a split, which formed the SDP, obviously).
    And Labour was against a party that was out of touch with the current Zeitgeist and in the middle of an economic boom – Labour had the money to largely keep their promises. ;)

    That said – End of Boom and Bust, etc
    Labour’s legacy was still a legacy built partially upon lies – lies which were, at the time effective, but eventually came back to bite them (even if it takes more than one term).

    That’s largely my point – politicians lie because being honest does not win elections.

    That’s one thing I find perplexing about Nick Clegg at the moment – sometimes he continues his with coalition loyalism and sometimes the honesty seeps out.
    He has apparently told the Yorkshire Post that private sector jobs won’t be able to be created fast enough to replace the public sector jobs, in the north.
    His argument is perfectly valid – it’ll take much longer to fix the structural economic problems in the north.

    But it is a shift away from coalition-line. ;)

  31. @Joe James B – “I thought your party believes in no growth anyway.”

    As @Tingedfringe eloquently points out, this isn’t factually accurate and is a gross oversimplification of the Greens position.

    More importantly though, I steadfastly refuse to act as a spokesman and mouthpeice for them. This history of this is that I did not display my colours on here for many years as there were no Greens on the board at that time and I knew that the minute I did so, I would get the response you just gave, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with many of my own parties core policies (I favour nuclear power, for example).
    I support the Greens as they are the party I disagree with the least, and I feel that in a democracy you have to put your suport somewhere.

    Of course, the easier and pithier response to your post might have been ‘but Joe – I thought your party does believe in growth….’

  32. “despite the fact that I strongly disagree with many of my own parties core policies (I favour nuclear power, for example).”
    This is one of the issues that keeps me from supporting the Greens (the main one being FPTP..), but their stance on alternative/complementary medicine is one of the biggest no-nos for me.

    I realise that the democratic structure of the green party means that it attracts the eco-partisans (to coin a phrase) – but that lack of scientific vigour puts me off.

    Any party that doesn’t have decent science and technology policy won’t be lasting much longer in the future – and any party that fights it will find themselves locked out.

  33. @Tingedfringe – they are getting much better at dealing with science, and there have also been recent moves on some on the more nonsensical health therapies. I think they also abandoned the policy of placing giant crystals every mile alongside motorways and trunk roads to help reduced stress and improve economic efficiency.

  34. So they are not going to build a giant pyramid over the UK to keep all our razor blades sharp?

  35. Alec
    ‘More importantly though, I steadfastly refuse to act as a spokesman and mouthpeice for them. This history of this is that I did not display my colours on here for many years as there were no Greens on the board at that time and I knew that the minute I did so, I would get the response you just gave, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with many of my own parties core policies (I favour nuclear power, for example)’.

    You famously displayed the Tories flag as an experiment, although I would suggest there is very little politically between your views and those of the left side of Labour.

  36. Tinged Fringe

    ‘That’s one thing I find perplexing about Nick Clegg at the moment – sometimes he continues his with coalition loyalism and sometimes the honesty seeps out’.

    That is not the way I read NC at all. I believe he is 100% committed to the Coalition and backs its policies. However, he has to try and carry his Party with him, some openly opposed to agreed Coalition Policies.

    The problem for those LD MPs forced kicking and screaming into a coalition with the Tories, is that if the policies succeed it will undermine much of their idealogy and if it fails they may well lose their seat.

  37. Getting away from tit for tat party jibes over economic growth, the Economist’s commentary does provide some intriuging ammunition for all the political parties.

    We are now seeing the emergence of a much more mainstream strand of economic thinking that is seeing the state of the European and US economies and beginning to argue that austerity has been overdone and growth is what is required.

    The Economist is arguing for a gentler austerity path alongside greater attention to the growth agenda, which on the face of it would appear to support Labour’s long held ‘too far too fast’ mantra.

    However, they also give plaudits to UK’s credible austerity measures but appear to be setting these within the context of the coordinated austerity taking place across the developed world. Much of the tone of what they say tends to back Osborne, but sees the problems as arising as everyone else is doing the same thing simultaneously. And as @Amberstar points out, they don’t really come forward with any clear policy ideas other than the old favourites of cutting red tape and regulation.

    What is clear is that we are now moving away from the slightly sterile arguments over cuts vs stimulus as a black and white dichotomy. This was always a false choice and the kind of simplification that politicians love, much to the detriment of proper and useful debate.

    It’s abundantly clear that while markets are bothered by sovereign debt levels, in themselves these would generally not be half as much of a problem if they were confident of reasonable growth in the next few years, and the immediate cause of the current bout of blood letting on the trading floors are poor growth signals.

    There is a credible case to say that Osborne did hold the markets off the UK’s back with his austerity plans in mid 2010, but likewise it’s pretty clear that his front loading many of the cuts was almost certainly unnecessary and has had a detrimental impact on confidence and growth. The coalition’s specific growth strategy by contrast is extremely weak (do they have one?) and this is now where the trouble is stemming from.

    Given the reputation they have earned within the markets on spending, the coalition is in a good position to start selective spending in those areas that can boost short term growth and long term productivity without spooking the markets. To do this, they (particularly the Tories) need to move away from the broad philosophical position that state spending is bad and needs to be replaced with private market solutions in every case.

    By contrast, Labour has a decent record on the fiscal stimulus, but needs to convince that it has the appetite to control spending.

  38. @henry – “You famously displayed the Tories flag as an experiment…”

    Yes I did indeed. It was a moment of inebriated madness one evening, which come the cold light of dawn I had to continue with until AW mercifully put me out of my misery.

    I learned one important lesson – don’t drink and think.

  39. “I believe he is 100% committed to the Coalition and backs its policies.”
    Let’s agree to disagree, but I think not. He is opposed to many of Cameron’s announcements (which are de-facto coalition policy) and there’s no way he would be allowed, by his party, to back the policies – kicking, screaming or otherwise.

    I do find your point interesting though.
    If coalition policy, which is largely Tory policy, succeeds, it proves left-LibDem (which has been official policy) wrong – according to you.
    Which means that the LibDems would have to shift-right (and essentially become Liberals, rather than Social Democrats).

    This poses a major problem for both LibDems and Tories, as they’d be competing in the same ‘market’ for votes and it’d leave Labour with a monopoly over the ‘left-wing’ market*.

    *Except in Scotland.

  40. @oldnat

    Actually the SNP has begun to embrace the concept of Britishness

    http://www.betternation.org/2011/07/pete-wishart-mp-proud-to-be-british-in-an-independent-scotland/

    Anyway I think SLAB would at the very least need need to embrace a few extra powers but it’s not so clear that devomax is the answer although it should be considered (indeed it hasn’t been defined or if it’s feasible yet), it’s mainly the case that inspiring policies are required.

  41. @Amber

    If that’s true that they cannot make donations then that shows whats very wrong about the tax system and really they should be allowed to give more money. But yeah, I really didn’t know that.

    On the other hand though, despite the errors of both my knowledge about giving away money to the IRS it would still work in the Republican’s hands. Why? I dunno, I guess people are fickle and still rely on emotive sentimeants and emotive language. Although if it is true that they cannot donate to the IRS and factually proven wrong then I can still see the Republican bragades still exploiting this. Even if they can’t donate this wont stop Republicans saying well if you don’t want that school to be closed down why don’t you buy it off and let the residents of the school continue to go free with YOUR money or donate etc. etc..

    This does not mean I agree with them. No. I still think the US rich should be taxed a hell of a lot more but that won’t mean Republican’s haven’t got an argument to stand on. I mean, look at me, I’d like to call myself a well informed guy and yet I still believed that the rich could donate to the IRS. Add millions of more people onto that, you can rally some kind of support.

    @Jayblanc

    Considering you had a bone with me ever since I got caught up with that argument about freedom of expression which I’m not going to get into again I’m guessing your choice of emotive language towards me was to get own back. I understand why you’d do that, I was a bit mean to you but I’ve moved on since then and thought you would have as well. I will defend what I said once again though.

    If you actually read my statement this is not what my words are. I don’t agree with that statment. If you read I said this is what the Republicans could say. My own words yes, but not my own thoughts. Do I agree with it. HELL NO. Tax the rich til the pipes burst.

    But until Amber informed me, I thought they could donate to the IRS. But as Amber said they can’t but I, thinking as a well informed person, thought they could. Now you add the whole population of the south, middle-America etc. then you are going to get a following because people are emotive creatures and the Republicans are famious for hitting people’s emotions whether this be petty nationalism, their stupid standing on moral values etc. Republican’s get people going emotionally. You add not very informed people and start saying well Mr Buffet should donate then American’s are at least going to listen to that argument more legitimately then say “well, we can’t tax the rich because they will all go to another country”. Clearly from Mr Buffet’s comments that is not going to rub off, espeically under the backdrop of the credit crunch.

    Again, I’m not having a go at you but you completely misread my point and if you are going to just comment my points just to have a “get one back” at me then I suggest you try to put away your hatred towards me because I’ve come hear to have informed, poliet debate. I have moved away from trying to target people I’m willing to rebuttle my view in a sensiable and poliet manner.

  42. @Jayblanc

    What I’m saying is that you could have picked any quote but because you’ve seen one bit of a quote which does not entirely complete my quote (go back to that quote you will see that I said this is what the Republican’s could use) then you are making other people assume that this is the views I share and is somehow making a partarisan view.

    Personally I think that’s cheating. It’s cheating people on hear (because they’ll take that UNCOMPLETED quote and assume I’m making a partarsian view or that’s my own views which it is not), it’s cheating me (because I know what I wrote and I should not feel that I’ve had to come on hear to defend myself once again) and it’s cheating yourself (because you know what I wrote and you’ve decided oh I will take half a quote and have a go on him).

    I always believe in the best of people so I do hope, really deep down inside hope that you just simply misread my post or got caught up in the moment. But considering you’ve argued with me in the past it’s probably best for me, you and more importantly other’s on hear who are probably so tired of these rebuttals not to exchange posts of each other again. Call it a cold truce or whatever.

  43. Looking at the latest polling averages, if 36% support the Conservatives and 12% support the LDs, does that mean it’s legitimate to say 48% broadly support the Coalition government?

  44. Amber

    It’s a statement of the obvious, but you “keep political control” by winning elections.

    That’s how the Liberals did for many years, until Labour took over (with a wee blip for the Tories inbetween.

    I’m sorry you thought my statement was a jibe.

  45. “Looking at the latest polling averages, if 36% support the Conservatives and 12% support the LDs, does that mean it’s legitimate to say 48% broadly support the Coalition government?”
    It’s a difficult one – many LibDems will be LibDem loyalists who’re reluctantly supporting the coalition – same with the Tories.

    Perhaps other questions would have to be looked at, to put it in to context.
    Asked which government people would prefer, Lab, Con, Lib/Lab, Lib/Con (17/8/11 – DKs removed) –
    Lab – 39, Con – 35.4, Con/Lib coalition – 11%, Lab/Lib coalition – 14.6
    So ‘some form of Lab’ vs ‘some form of Con’ government is at –
    Lab – 53.6, Con – 46.4

    (IIRC, LibDems are split right down the middle, as far as what sort of coalition they’d prefer).
    So they might want to vote LibDem, but would prefer a Labour or Lib/Lab coalition after the election.

    Specifically asked – ‘Do you support the coalition agreement between the LibDems and Conservatives?’ (16/8, DKs removed)
    Approve – 36.3%
    Disapprove – 63.7%

    But that could mean that they support the *coalition* but not the *coalition agreement*.

  46. @ A Cairns

    Will the Euro problems be a thing of the past by the time there is a referendum on Scottish independence? Some members of the SNP apparently think not. Therefore, these SNP MPs & MSPs have begun to postulate independence within Britain – & I said they would on previous threads.

    The currency problem is a whopper for them. Old Nat speaks of Scottish sovereignty but what exactly is that, when Scotland continues to use the sovereign currency of its neighbours? In keeping sterling, considerable economic levers remain with the BoE, a British institution that is within the remit of Westminster.

    Independence within Britain & Devo-Max are virtually identical… I, at least, have never seen anything significant to distinguish one from the other.

    SNP’ difficulty with Devo-Max, is they do not have a convincing plan as to how it will, logistically, be achieved nor any analysis of how people’s lives in Scotland will be any different to the lives they have now.

    Therefore, Scotland gives up its right to participate at Westminster – where economic power via a sovereign currency will continue to reside – & gets pretty much nothing for doing so.

    Old Nat thinks the SNP will have an easy task marketing Devo-max & unionists, like myself, will find it more difficult. He may be correct about that but I think the people of Scotland may be persuaded to look at the more subtle & complex arguments for retaining a future where “within Britain” continues to carry some influence rather than being a marketing ploy.
    8-)

  47. Latchmere Housein Richmond-upon-Thames (a specialist prisoner resettlement centre with a 6% recidivism rate) is to close. Apparently the Treasury are interested in realising its real estate value.

    This is absolutely crazy – we should be opening more such units if we are to cut down our re-offending rates. This is either in or next to Vince’s constitency and I wonder what he thinks about it?

    I always thought that cuts based on percentage targets were bound to result in totally undesirable decisions and there are bound to be many other examples of this sort of thing which the very well informed contributors on this site are probably aware of?

  48. RESULTS courtesy Independent

    Bolsover District – Shirebrook South West: Lab 200, Green 103, C 76, BNP 43. (May 2011 – Ind 403, Lab 249, BNP 74, C 47). Lab gain from Ind. Swing 1.6% C to Lab.

    North Ayrshire Council – Saltcoats and Stevenston: First count Lab 1914, SNP 1306, C 284, All Scotland Pensioners Party 211, Ind 114, Lib Dem 56, Soc Lab 43. (May 2007 – Four seats First count SNP 1629, Ind 1362, Lab 943, 902, SNP 691, Lab 683, C 554, Ind 496. Elected Lab 2, SNP 1, Ind 1). Lab hold. Swing 6.3% SNP to Lab.

  49. In January there was a poll asking specifically about coalition candidates.
    At the time, the headline VI was
    Con 37, Lab 42, Lib 9, Other 11,
    which puts it around where we are now.

    Asked specifically about an electoral pact – where Cons would stand in Con/Lab seats and Libs would stand in Lib/Lab seats, the VI was –
    Coalition – 40%
    Labour – 46%
    Other – 14%
    So +3 to coalition (from Con figure), +4 to Lab, +3 to Other.

    (This doesn’t fully add up, due to rounding – the first VI adds to 99, the second to 100)

    Implying, again, that there isn’t full support toward the coalition specifically.

  50. Andy/TingedFringe – depends what you mean by “support”. It means 48% of people who would vote would vote for a coalition party… but it doesn’t follow that all those people necessarily support those parties being in coalition. It’s also only of those people who give a voting intention – there are also the don’t knows and wouldn’t votes out there.

1 2 3 4 5 6