The full tables for YouGov’s weekly Sunday Times poll are now online here. There are a couple of questions on the Boris bandwagon, but mostly it deals with the Olympics.

Taking Boris first 39% of people think that David Cameron should remain Tory leader at the next election, 37% think he should step down. As might be expected the largely majority of those wanting David Cameron to go are supporters of opposing parties – the overwhelming majority of Tory supporters (79%) want him to stay, with only 14% thinking he should stand down. Were Cameron to go, Boris Johnson would be the most popular replacement, but is only picked by 24% of people and a third of Tory supporters, so it hardly suggests a great groundswell of support. William Hague is second on 14%, 34% of people say don’t know and 16% say “somebody else”.

The Olympic questions were almost a pleasure to receive on Friday. Most polls of the British public are a litany of grumble and complaint (partly, of course, because of what papers ask about – people being happy with things doesn’t normally make good news). People’s opinion on the Olympics is almost unremittingly positive. People now think hosting the Olympics was the right thing to do by 57% to 29% (compared to 53% to 35% before the Games started), 71% of people now think the Games will be a success, compared to 60% before they began.

74% of people think the Olympics so far have been well organised, and 69% think they are lifting people’s spirits. 11% of people say it has made them more likely to take up sport themselves, though of course, it is one thing to tell a pollster this and a different thing to actually put it into action!

There was also an overwhelmingly positive reception for the opening ceremony. Amongst those people who watched at least some of the opening ceremony, 60% said it was very good, 29% good. Only 10% had a negative opinion of it. 68% said it made them feel proud to be British. Asked to pick their favourite parts of the ceremony the Queen’s appearance with James Bond came top on 29%, followed by the lighting of the cauldron and the opening sequence showing the industrial revolution of British social history (both on 18%).

There was very little sympathy for Aiden Burley’s comments about the ceremony, only 15% said his description of it as “leftie multicultural crap” was fair. Despite the positive reviews for the ceremony people still though too much was spent on it, though there has been a significant shift since July – 52% of people still thought £27m was too much to spend on it (down from 67% in July), 32% thought it was about the right amount to spend (up from 16%).

There are very positive reviews of the BBC’s coverage of the Games. 87% of people who are watching at least some of the Games say the BBC has done a good job in covering it, 82% think the commentators have been well informed. So far respondents say they have most enjoyed watching the swimming (19%) and cycling (17%).

On Ye Shiwen, 46% of respondents think she is probably not using drugs compared to only 15% who think she is. 52% think it was wrong of John Leonard to voice his suspicions.

On Olympic sport, Squash – the only sport asked about that is not an existing Olympic sport or planned to become one – actually had the highest proportion of people thinking it should be. 64% of people thought Squash should be contested at the Olympics, with only 18% saying it shouldn’t be. There was also high (63%) support for trampoline gymnastics remaining an Olympic sport. People thought beach volleyball should be an Olympic sport by 49% to 32%, BMX cycling by 45% to 36% and rugby sevens by 45% to 36%. Golf, due to be introduced at the 2016 Olympic games, was only seen as something that should be an Olympic sport by 21% of people, with 62% thinking it should not be.

Finally Michael Phelps was seen as the greatest Olympian by 20% (of course the survey was conducted on Thursday to Friday, and Phelps has won several more medals since then!), with Steve Redgrave in second place on 17%.


238 Responses to “YouGov on the Olympics so far”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. “If DC has dropped the HOL reforms it would be intresting to see EdM offer to revise the current bill and introduce it from the opposition bench.”

    Good thinking, DaveM.

    And yes, abandoning HOL reform in the middle of holidays/OLympics can only mean they are hoping most people wont notice.

    Most people probably don’t care but those that do care probably will notice!

  2. Mr Clegg…

    when in doubt blame Labour… smiles

  3. Over on LibDemVoice people are already justifying continuing to support the boundary changes because Clegg is on record saying they’re a good thing, or because they’re not that big a deal and that voting them down would just look petty. There’s more dispute over the reduction in number of seats which, in the absence of AV/PR and an elected second chamber, is a move away from democratic representation.

    Some tory MPs are a bit worried individually about losing or changing their seats, even if they love the idea of the party as a whole losing fewer seats proportionally than Labour and LD.

    My guess is that the compromise will be a bit of boundary tweaking but keeping most of the 650 MPs. Clegg will claim to be exercising LD influence, it will suit the tories to blame the Lib Dems for being awkward while seeing Labour lose a few safe seats, Labour will lose fewer seats and get to portray the LDs as weak and the tories as undemocratic. Prizes for all.

  4. @ Roger Mexico

    ‘The irony here is that the processes that made the media more elitist are due to structural changes that were supposed to open out the media to ‘competition’. As so often relying on the market to provide diversity or choice or even better value did the exact opposite’

    I heard the same programme and was yet again struck by the unforeseen consequences of the Thatcher government’s policies.

    According to Prof. Bill Mitchell, older workers are being re-employed rather than jobs going to the under 25s because of lack of skills/apprenticeships/training. This is setting up enormous problems for the future… just as we had a shortage of doctors, plumbers and electricians in the 90s.

  5. @Peewee

    Trouble is, it will be very difficult to have a fresh round of boundary changes in time for the next election. Unlike AV, which could be introduced in weeks if that was ever decided, the process of redrawing boundaries is long and arduous.

    It’s either the current proposal or no change. Not sure where you saw the comment about Lib Dems trying to defand the boundary changes – I’m seeing a lot more comments calling on the Lib Dems to end the coalition now.

  6. Paul Croft wrote

    “Have you ever considered that what the “non-working classes” may actually be wanting is the chance to work?

    I ask in case your reply gives me another verse for my great song.”

    Alex wrote:

    “There are lots of logical reasons why polls show Labour on 44%.”

    Of course, there are plenty of unemployed people that are trying hard to get a job- there are rather a lot of unemployed people during and following a recession. But even before the Great Economic Crash of 2008 there were an awful lot of folk on state benefits- who could have (if they really wanted to) found a job- even if it had to be working as a Washer-upper in a local hotel.

    And even during the economic crisis i know of several folk who intentionally made themselves unempolyed at work- one young lady just didn’t like the job so she left, another (a housekeeper) a few years ago was hacked off at the hard work she had to do and after working out she would be better on tax credits and staying at home- she too left.

    The truth is, if all unemployment benefits were withdrawn tomorrow the unemployed would look for work much more earnestly, and if they didn’t find work fast they would start their own little enterprises. In January last year (2011) I went to Belém, in Brazil because my brother married a nice Brazilian lady. Now Brazil does not have a generous Welfare State like Britain, and whilst I was in a car going to meet my new Brazilian in-laws I saw all this people on the street corners, wandering across the roads with all kinds of little knick-knacks and wares- who constantly went up to shoppers trying to sell them.

    I enquired as to how Brazil had so many beggars- and the lady in the car with me explained that it was because these were very poor folk without a conventional job- and that is how they earned their keep. I mention this because it demonstrates a point that people would not just curl up in a heap and starve to death or indeed end up on the streets- if you took away unemployment benefits, they would do everything possible to earn some money -even if it meant going round door-to-door selling wooden spoons for 50 p each.

    The fact is- most of the electorate get some kind of state subsidy to top up their income- whether it be Tax Credits, Child Benefits, Income Support, Married Couples’ Allowance or indeed those on the State Pension. Its not that I despise all these people- I support pensioners getting a lot more money than they currently do (though I do think there is a case for cutting unemployment benefits, and benefits to people whose irresponsibility causes them to end up getting State benefits- like young ladies getting pregnant and requiring a Council house).

    It is just a plain fact of life that with so much of the population on various kinds of benefits- they are not going to take kindly to anyone who might try to reduce them. Such large numbers of folk are in this boat nowadays, that it clearly shows up in a time of economic difficulty when the Government has to impose austerity to reduce debt- there is a move towards the Political Party that promises to protect their benefits come-what-may; and the Parties of the Government implementing the benefit cuts (or even looking like it would) tends to suffer.

    Add in the fact that Britain is in recession- and people blame the Government for this- and the fact that people now see the Tories as incompetent after a series of blunders- you have the perfect setting for Labour getting ahead in the polls. People are not fooled by the Olympics- they may give credit to the Olympic organisers and the participants if they win medals, but they care foremost about their finances and how much money is in their pockets.

    Even if the Tories try to take credit for the fine performances in London, people will still think the Conservative Coalition is incompetent and “unfair”- and they will blame the Government more if the recession continues and they fear for their job prospects. this is bound to be reflected in voting intentions.

  7. Okay, forget that speculation, Clegg’s announced the Lib Dems voting down the boundary changes straight away.

    The Tory Right could be kicking themselves over this by 2015.

  8. OldNat

    It could be that Clegg wants the announcement made during the Olympics, when there isn’t much public attention on politics.

    Not sure that works – though you could also say that they are using Ms Mensch’s wishing to “spend more time with her family” as a distraction as well. The problem is that while the news is dominated by the Olympics[1], the rest of the news agenda has been scaled down as well. So anything political will tend to show up because ther’s so little around.

    [1] Or London Sports Fortnight as I recent saw someone describe it. There’s also the problem that the second week looks less likely to be headline-grabbing than the first.

  9. I do wonder actually whether people when asked in polls, will see Cameron as weaker, than before he dropped HOL reforms, because he could not lead a third of his MP’s to support a bill.

    There will be many Tory MP’s, as well as many from other other parties who will be delighted that boundary changes might not now happen until 2020. If Cameron wants to whip a vote on boundary changes, I anticipate another rebellion.

  10. @ IAN PENNELL

    I would really like to respond to your post’s but this is not the forum to do so as it would soon have AW sorting moderation.

    you need to step back and look for the proper forum to debate those issues you seem to have…

    J

  11. @Ian Pennel

    Are you seriously suggesting Brazil is a nation we should model ourselves after, and that vast numbers of homeless beggars in the streets would be a good thing? Think about the implications of what you are saying. Think about “doing what it takes to survive” means. Do you really think that people would just go around doing odd jobs, and inoffensively offering to sell wooden spoons door to door? As if there’s even a place for that in modern life? The Welfare state is around because we explicitly don’t want to become like Brazil, because when you force vast swathes of people to “do what it takes to survive”, then the crime rate rockets, particularly when the “roaming itinerant unskilled worker” hasn’t had a place in society since the *19th century*.

    Incidentally, we tend to frown upon presentation of Anecdotal evidence as if it is ‘data’ here. Your two examples sound like cherry picked edge cases, or your own interpretation of what happened. “one young lady just didn’t like the job so she left”, could mean anything from ‘Not receiving enough hours of work to get a wage she can live on’ to ‘Suffered sexual intimidation in the work place’.

  12. @ Anthony

    We need your expertise, please. Do you think there would still be time to have boundary changes based on 650 equal(ish) seats in time for 2015?
    8-)

  13. Amber Star wrote:

    “Labour already has a Corby candidate, Andy Sawyer.

    So, will Boris put up or shut up? Mensch’s majority is small but a celebrity Mayor like Boris should have no worries standing a constituency this close to London.”

    I think this could be David Cameron’s first big by-election defeat and a prelude to many more along the road to finally losing power in 2015. This would have parallels with Newbury for John Major’s Government in 1993 (although that went to the Lib Dems). Following Newbury there were a string of by-election defeats with Labour taking Tory seats through 1994-7;- and it finally culminated in the Labour landslide of 1997.

    The firmly-decided mass of selfish “Me And My Benefits, Her and Nowist” voters will see to this development.

    By the way, I am not a fan of David Cameron- I support UKIP. I want a Government that is much braver and willing to take a principled stand to properly cut back the size of the State, cut debt and reduce business taxes (as well as leaving the economically-destructive EU).

    But given the total disenfranchisement of the strivers, the hard-workers who pay tax that support everything, and everybody else- I am beginning to fear that a military coup might be the only way we could see that happening in a timeframe that would really stand a chance of saving Britain from- itself!!

    Yes, I kid you not, thats how badly the electoral numbers stack up against a truly radical Right Wing Party in Britain- one that would get Britain out of the EU, really slash benefits and cut wasteful bureaucracy, cut debt and really slash business and income taxes- and build lots of nuclear power stations (the only way of averting serious power blackouts in years to come!).

    Its the only medicine that will cure Britain’s economy and save us from bankruptcy- but the Voters wont buy it! No, the electorate as a ehole are determined to demand that their Government is one which will see Britain downgraded by Credit Ratings Agencies, they are determined that we rely on little windmills so that they will need to rely on candles in future (and so they wont be able to use their computer or look at “UK Polling Report”!), and they are determined that we drive away to foreign shores our most talented and successful businessmen and entrepreneurs through whacking-great Income Tax rises.

    Scary, isn’t it?!

  14. Amberstar

    According to Clegg, if the vote on boundary changes is not accepted, the boundary changes will come in with effect from 2020. So I can’t see how the Tories will get boundary changes any earlier.

  15. @Ian Pennell – there’s only one thing scary about your posts and that is that you appear to actually believe the drivel you come out with.

  16. @ Alec

    “What we want is private schools, who are registered charities, to talk their charitable objectives seriously and open their facilites to a wider range of people.

    The Master of Wellington College (top private school) was brought in by the government to encourage this, and he recently launch an utterly devastating attack on his own colleagues in the private school sector, saying they had shown absolutely no interest in taking on a wider social role. He was extremely scathing of them, and blamed them for insularity and defensiveness. They get significant tax perks as charities.

    BTW – we have already had good levels of investment in state school sports facilities – its one of the reasons why we are doing so well at the Olympics.”

    I think you and I are sympatico on this.

    @ Amber Star

    “I’d never have guessed she had a family from the amount of time she spent twittering, appearing on TV etc.

    David Cameron’s ship really is sinking, when his erstwhile supporters resign ‘to spend more time with their families’ just when Boris might be looking for a seat.”

    It’s kinda odd. Did her family live in New York when she decided to run for Parliament? And if so, shouldn’t she have figured that becoming an MP would cause some difficulties for family unity, what with 2000-3000 miles of distance between them?

  17. according to the Telegraph, NC has blocked the boundary changes in retaliation for the dropping of Lords reform. we were warned this might happen.

  18. @R Huckle

    The bill to reform the Lords has been dropped. The other constitutional bill (reducing the number of MPs to 600 +/- AV) also looks to have been dropped. The Boundary Commission’s likely next task will be to review the 650 constituencies – possibly on the old basis, where equalising the electorate is balanced with consideration of other factors such as county/local government/geographical integrity.

  19. As you were, Anthony ;-) Crisis over.

  20. Amber – No, definitely not.

    The Boundary Commissions are running ahead of schedule and likely to finish by spring 2013, but even then the process would have taken two years.

    Starting right now would take us to Autumn 2014, perilously close to an election and leaving very little time for the practicalities of selecting candidates, returning officers getting things organised, etc.

    And that would assume an immediate start. Changing to 650 seats would require primary legislation which, given the difficulties it faced last time, would not be easy to get through the Lords swiftly… especially since Labour would be well aware that a delay of 6 months would render it impossible to do.

    In practice it is impossible.

    I would wait and see what happens. Note what Clegg said about David Cameron saying he preferred to allow the Commission to continue their work and bring the new boundaries to a vote at the appropriate time. There is more to come here…

  21. The Corby by-election is the first real “Test of Government” by-election we’ve had, being a seat that switched hands at the last election. I think we should expect it to revert to Labour considering that Mensch had moderately slim majority.

    To be honest, I’m somewhat amused by the glowing praise being ladled on Mensch now she is leaving, including suggestion she may have been shuffled into a high post on cabinet. Her win in Corby was on a swing *less* than the national swing, suggesting to me that despite claims otherwise she was not particularly successful in her campaign and was carried in on the coat-tails of her party. Mensch’s short political career has been one where she was on the wrong side of the Phone Hacking scandal from the start, and never spotted the time to gracefully switch sides. As for her suggestion that Twitter be ‘switched off’ at times of ‘national crisis’…

    In some ways, this might benefit the Conservatives chances of holding on to some of their vote share gain, by praising Mensch while parachuting in someone with substantially better credentials. I don’t think Boris will make the leap, it’s perhaps a little too soon and might make him look flighty. But Boris has never been easy to predict.

  22. Billy Bob – no, the boundary legislation is already law, it hasn’t changed. Unless the law is changed in the next Parliament the boundary commissions will once again begin the work of drawing up new boundaries for 600 seats on the new rules, ready for the next review date of 2018 (and then so on for 2023, and 2028, etc, etc, etc)

  23. Jay Blanc wrote:

    “Are you seriously suggesting Brazil is a nation we should model ourselves after, and that vast numbers of homeless beggars in the streets would be a good thing? Think about the implications of what you are saying. Think about “doing what it takes to survive” means. Do you really think that people would just go around doing odd jobs, and inoffensively offering to sell wooden spoons door to door? As if there’s even a place for that in modern life? The Welfare state is around because we explicitly don’t want to become like Brazil, because when you force vast swathes of people to “do what it takes to survive”, then the crime rate rockets, particularly when the “roaming itinerant unskilled worker” hasn’t had a place in society since the *19th century*.

    Incidentally, we tend to frown upon presentation of Anecdotal evidence as if it is ‘data’ here. Your two examples sound like cherry picked edge cases, or your own interpretation of what happened. “one young lady just didn’t like the job so she left”, could mean anything from ‘Not receiving enough hours of work to get a wage she can live on’ to ‘Suffered sexual intimidation in the work place’.”

    Jay,

    Don’t knock Brazil- it has one of the fastest-growing economies in the World, whereas we are now stuck in recession. They do have a welfare system “Bolsa Família” which instead of helping unemployed people by giving them a state subsidy- helps poor family units. They also have a state pension system. That said the proportion of the Brazilian economy going on welfare is much less than in Britain- consequently income taxes are much lower in Brazil. They do, however have very high import duties, but it is my contention that their economy would do even better if they removed them.

    The central fact remains that Brazil has lower taxes, and that encourages strong economic growth. They also don’t have large banks with toxic debts- and never did to the extent that either Britain or the US did; so their economic growth was not built so much on unsustainable debt- which is what lead to an inevitable crash in Europe and the US. Brazil’s economy is not fettered by the European Union and its 120,000 directives- which is also helpful as it does not get in the way of growth.

    Brazil also has a wealth of natural resources which the country can export, and a climate conducive to growing a whole range of things that cannot be grown in Britain.

    Incidentally, the people at my work who left (and who now find themselves unemployed) were not bullied, nor harassed. They were chatty women who got on well with the other staff in the small local hotel where I work. They just did not like their jobs, or the idea of hard work. They worked out life would be easier just staying at home and living on benefits- so they left!
    Thats all there was to it.

  24. Additionally, I’d say the Corby By-Election is a good opportunity for UKIP to claim third place. However, they appear to have lost their footing in the area having failed to field a candidate at the last election, and would need to find someone and get them in place quick enough to take advantage.

  25. @ Ian Pennell

    Okay, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as being sincere but you’ve just over-egged the pudding with the military-coup thing. Which of our NATO career generals or MOD civil servants do you think would want to implement the policies you’ve described? You’re winding us up & it was very nearly funny.
    8-)

  26. @ Anthony

    Ooh, so the crisis isn’t over then. Thank you for providing us with some expert answers. :-) I can now go & show off your knowledge all over the internet!

    BTW – I do mention your name & UKPR.

  27. I am not understanding the boundary changes in regard to parliamentary procedure. My understanding is that there has to be a vote to accept or decline the boundary changes.

    If the boundary changes are not accepted, then the 2015 GE will be fought on exisiting boundaries/constituencies with the current 652 MP’s. The legislation that was passed will therefore only enable the new boundaries/constituences to be used from 2020. This is what Clegg said, in response to a question from the media ?

  28. According to the Guardian:

    […] the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, announced at 2pm that the government would abandon the bill to reform the House of Lords after it failed to gain support from enough Conservative backbenchers or the Labour Party.

    The decision was taken after the Tory leader and prime minister, David Cameron, had told their coalition partners that he could not persuade enough of his MPs to support the bill in the House of Commons, said Clegg.

    In return, Clegg said he had told the prime minister that the Lib Dems would not support another controversial coalition agreement commitment to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

    This suggests that the boundary changes will still be presented to Parliament (legally they probably have to be without further legislation) but the Lib Dems would oppose them. Or not. Maybe they’d just be turkeys abstaining for Christmas. Alternatively the Conservatives might be able to still get the changes through with minor Party support (DUP?) and luck. Of course the Lib Dems have already voted to ‘cut the number of MPs’ – this would just be them confirming.

    I doubt there would be time to get revised boundaries for 650 seats through. They’d have to start from scratch with new legislation and a completely new round of boundary commissions and the timetable for that was more than 3 years this time (the revised boundaries aren’t due to go before Parliament till Autumn 2013) and they don’t have that left before May 2015.

    There’s also not the need – remember that the current House of Commons was elected on just-revised boundaries and a further full revision wouldn’t have been required till 2025.

    That said, I’m not sure what parts of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 would survive the voting down of the Boundary Commission proposals.

  29. Anthony

    Yep I’m confused too.
    If the boundary changes are now law, how can Mr Clegg instruct his mps to oppose them ?

    :-)

  30. @Roger Mexico

    All of the Act survives, it’s just that the Commission proposals would not be accepted. And they’d have to go back and do a new set. Which wouldn’t be accepted again, because they’re required by the Act to propose 600 seats. So there will need to be, at some point, a new Constituencies Act that will enable the Commission to propose boundaries for 650 seats.

    But it does look like 600 seat boundaries are not going to happen. And a great sigh of relief goes up amongst backbenchers of all parties…

  31. Thanks AW.

    The Guardian is reporting that the government has dropped both Lords reform and changes to the boundaries for MPs’ constituencies.

    I’m wondering if this law will indeed be revisited in time.

    Joshua Rozenberg gave a good write-up back in 2010:

    And why 600 MPs? It seems to have been an arbitrary figure, based on horse-trading between the two coalition partners. The constitution committee concluded that the government had not calculated the number “on the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions of MPs”

    h
    ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/dec/02/electoral-reform-lords-debate

  32. @Andyo

    Boundaries are actually set by Parliament, the Commission makes it’s recommendations. The Constituencies Act says that Parliament will have a vote on setting it’s Boundaries based on the Commission’s recommendation, and defines the terms for what the Commission should recommend. No boundaries can actually change without an active vote by parliament to explicitly accept a full definition of all the new boundaries, so the Constituencies Act becomes dormant if there is no intent to vote through the Commission’s recommendations.

  33. Indie quoting Nick Clegg as saying:

    “Coalition works on mutual respect; it is a reciprocal arrangement, a two-way street. So I have told the Prime Minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them.”

    It seems it won’t be abstention, it’ll be a no vote. Unless Nick Clegg u-turns on this, I’m pretty sure that the Conservatives can’t get the new boundaries ratified.
    8-)

  34. “Coalition works on mutual respect”
    I just had to lol.

    If the boundaries changes are dead, that is good. A ridiculous arbitrary figure plucked out of the air. And of course the size of the UK population is increasing which means IMO there should be greater representation not less. Thus, more MPs, not fewer.

  35. “The thing I care about most – the central purpose of the Liberal Democrats in this Government – is to build a fairer society,” he said.

    “We will continue with that critical work. We will continue to anchor this Government firmly in the centre ground.”

    Clegg again.
    ——————-
    So, the anchor is no longer the economic Plan A either.

  36. He disclosed that he offered a “last ditch” compromise to try to save both parts of the reform programme.

    Under his proposal, there would have been a referendum on Lords reform on general election day in 2015, with both the boundary changes and the first elections to the Lords deferred until 2020.

    “That would have been in keeping with the coalition agreement, in which neither policy had a set timetable. But this offer was not accepted,” he said.

    Clegg again
    ——————————–
    Clegg is not at all happy with Labour because Ed M wouldn’t say how much time Labour wanted to debate the Lords reforms.

    Does anybody think this will see the polls swing back towards the LDs? I mean, Nick has found his backbone & Labour has refused to help the LDs get something which, once the referendum is included, was in the Labour Party’s own manifesto.
    8-)

  37. Boundaries: so thats that then. For the current parliament anyway.

    Labour supporters must be very pleased.

    Their chances of winning the next GE with an outright majority – or even without one and forming a coalition of some kind – have just increased dramatically.

  38. I’m not sure Nick has found anything.
    His opponents will find plenty of quotes, e.g. “by making constituencies more equal in size, the value of your vote will no longer depend on where you live, and with fewer MPs the cost of politics will be cut”, that make his current stance look like an unprincipled u-turn. And in practice, he has incurred the cost of a boundary review which he accepted in principle but will vote against in practice (like the reverse of tuition fees).
    I fear that he will emerge from this looking worse than ever, the only redeeming thing being that most of the electorate are distracted by summer holidays and the Olympics.

  39. “The thing I care about most – the central purpose of the Liberal Democrats in this Government – is to build a fairer society,”

    Lol yet again.

    To be fair to NC at least the LDs have it seems stood by their threat to kill the boundaries changes.

  40. … oh and hasnt Clegg also just saved a score of LibDems from losing their seats?

    They – at least the party itself – will be happier with him. (For once).

  41. Ian: You’ve ruined my song – I can’t compete for ironic silliness

    Re. the “coup”. d’you think that’s why the tories have been hacking away at the amrned serices/

    Do you know the child mortality figures for BrAZIL?

  42. Amberstar

    “Clegg is not at all happy with Labour because Ed M wouldn’t say how much time Labour wanted to debate the Lords reforms.”

    My understanding is that Labour wanted more discussion on the HOL reforms, including a referendum. They are not happy to go ahead and create 450 additional salaried politicians, if the public are against this, especially if they are on 15 year terms.

    So perhaps Nick Clegg is not being fair to Labour. How can he expect their support for his legislation, if he was not prepared to negotiate the terms of the legislation.

    No doubt Labour will reply to what Nick Clegg has said about the discussions on HOL reform, which I think will reveal a different view of them.

  43. So, how does the execution of the threat to kill boundaries changes affect the coalition?

    Will Con and LD MPs be happy? If the effect is to reduce even further the chances of a Con OM, surely Con MPs and in particular DC will be unhappy? There must be more strains in the coalition?

  44. @AW

    Is it time to revert to Old Boundaries when making projections of the number of seats each party gets in 2015?

  45. Anthony

    I think you have answered this question before, but I forget the answer.

    Does Parliament vote on the 4 Boundary Commission reports in a single vote – or in 4 separate votes?

  46. If people can be arrested for tweeting something that is personally offensive how will the law regard recommending a nation-wide miiitary coup?

  47. @Amber Star – “Does anybody think this will see the polls swing back towards the LDs?”

    The LDs, under Clegg or another leader, will always see their modus operandi as being to attempt to outflank Labour both to the left and to the centre depending on local factors… I can’t see that changing. More importantly, Cameron or any subequent leader, will know that any attempt to drag the Tory party to the centre is doomed.

  48. Oldnat – I never answered because I’m not 100% sure. Looking back to the previous boundary review it looks as though separate Orders were used for each review.

    Reading the new legislation, however, the SoS has to wait for all four Commissions to report before tabling the order, and it refers to “an order”, not orders, so it implies a single order. We will find out.

  49. SMukesh – nope, as I never stopped using the old boundaries for projections!

  50. Well seeing this today, and finding out that boundary changes will not go through increases Labour’s chances even more. Think we will see a farely sizeable Labour majority in 2015, maybe back to their 2005 levels?

1 2 3 4 5