Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor is out, with topline figures of CON 27%(-3), LAB 40%(-2), LDEM 11%(+4), UKIP 13%(+4). It suggests a boost for the Lib Dems and UKIP in the aftermath of Eastleigh, but little difference in the Labour lead (most of MORI’s polls in the last few months have shown this degree of lead).

MORI also have some economic questions in advance of the budget. George Osborne’s approval rating remains strongly negative – 60% are dissatisfied with how he is doing compared to only 27% who approve. As with most recent polls, MORI show Labour and the Conservatives pretty much neck-and-neck on the economy. 26% think that Labour have the best policies, 27% the Conservatives. Asked if a Labour government under Miliband and Balls would do better or worse than the current government at running the economy 26% think they’d do a better job, 31% a worse job and 38% think they’d do much the same.

Full tabs are here.


286 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 27, LAB 40, LD 11, UKIP 13”

1 3 4 5 6
  1. COLIN
    “Ah yes-that’s the really worrying bit for ordinary citizens like me -the prospect of having to be “informed” by the Approved Intellingentsia.”

    You are a one for imputing meanings that are not there.
    I agree about a free press. I find the false reporting with which the Sun attacked Gordon Brown, repeatedly covering its wrong doing with evasive apologies, and then again repeating them, deserving of what I believe they call the full vigour of the law.
    No offence, butI do wonder whether you have read the Labour party blog for Amber posted, and I repeated the website. Without that we are not talking about the same matter.

  2. Re:Bedroom Tax

    Was looking through the Ipsos-Mori archive the other day at the effect of the Poll Tax (err…sorry… Community Charge) on Thatcher’s poll ratings.

    Causation and correlation and all that accepted, but it is fascinating viewing.

    It was a slow burner – little effect over the year it was being debated in Parliament. Then, after the legislation was passed, things got interesting.

    Between Apr 89 and Mar 90 (when it was introduced in England) the percentage of people citing the PT as an important issue went from 10 to 49. And Thacher’s net approval rating went from -2 to -56.

  3. Colin

    The internet is not uncontrolable, many bloggers have had to remove truthful and accurate posts because of threats of lible actions which they could not afford to defend against

  4. @Richard,

    Well those would be the bloggers who don’t understand how to mask their IP or use servers in “untouchable” countries. After all, despite a decade long coordinated assault by international law enforcement, purveyors of Indecent Photographs of Children still manage to use the internet. Determined libellers have nothing to fear.

    Read up a little about “ask.fm” for example, if you want to know how you can bully a child to death with complete impunity.

  5. @Colin and Tinged Fringe

    You may be right that nothing can be done about the internet (Colin) and nothing should be done about it (Tinged).

    That said it would be wrong to think that there is no problem (think of Lord McCalpine, cyber bullying etc). I am not sure that we should be glad that the average age of accessing hard core pornography is supposed to be around 10 (unreferenced ‘fact’ I should say) or that those addicted to gambling are never more than a click away from satisfying their craving.

    It seems to me that in the previous world we did have ways of dealing with these things and that many of these now don’t work. Clearly the internet has brought wonderful benefits but discussion of how to minimise its downsides are probably not helped by blanket libertarian assertions that any control is wrong or alternatively by Chinese authoritarianism.

    To seek some agreement with Tinged i find some of the articles in Wikipedia superb while others are to my limited knowledge partial and selective in the facts they quote. That said, I think on the whole that Wikipedia is a stirring example of the power of a heterodox community to be self-correcting.

  6. @Colin –

    The Guardian: “Our error – as we acknowledged and corrected last December – was to have written about the cause of the deletions as a fact rather than as the belief of several people [multiple sources] involved in the case. We regret that.”

    Setting that against the damage to thousands of peoples lives from phonehacking is clutching at straws somewhat, and fwiw the Met still contend that two missing messages were deleted, not as a result of the automatic time delay following two recorded downloads by the police.

  7. Lefty
    I doubt that the spare room subsidy will have anywhere near the same impact as the poll tax did, but that is an interesting collapse in support.

    I do have a query over your figures though –
    April 89 Net Approval -13
    Mar 90 Net Approval -56

    Jan 89 Net Approval for Thatcher was -2. Perhaps your post was just unclear on that point?

  8. AW

    THanks -that’s really helpful.

    NC in the Times this morning is very much in line with your last para.

  9. Neil A

    Yes indeed. But you really prefer a blogger to stand behind their posts, however current lible laws make that very difficult. One of my favourite financial blogs is totally anonymous but they say that’s to protect their professional lifes and to avoid the temptation of bribery

  10. “All in all, there is nothing at all that strikes me as beyond the whit of man to negotiate and compromise over, hence I’m assuming most of the political argument is just posturing.”

    Which really rather begs the question as to what on earth Cameron is doing here?

    It sounds as if he may well lose the vote, which is always bad for any government. It also looks as if he has turned his back on the Dowlers and McCanns and suchlike, and he has been taking a good deal of flak on that score also.

    Other than currying favour with the disgraced (but still rather powerful) sector of the print media that insists any form of statutory regulation is taboo, I really can’t see what Cameron has to gain from isolating himself in such a way.

    Also interesting is that the Guardian is reporting another 600 cases of phone hacking are going to emerge in court on Monday, after examination of phone records from a suspect who is now a witness for the prosecution. Awkward timing for Cameron, but also suggests a difficult twist for some of the defendants also.

  11. Charles
    There’s software for responsible parents to block access to sites that they don’t wish their children to see.
    “Won’t someone think of the childrens!” hysteria probably isn’t helpful – again, this is another place that education and not state control is the best solution.

    “those addicted to gambling are never more than a click away from satisfying their craving”
    Nor are they that far from satisfying their craving elsewhere.
    Exactly the same with any other addictions, whether socially approved or not – alcohol, drugs, sugar (the root cause of our obesity epidemic).

    I don’t see how government controls (which have always failed and always managed to push addicts in to the hands of organised criminals) help in those situations – the root problem is the addiction and that needs to be solved with the funding of rehabilitation.
    If you banned online gambling sites in the UK, people would just interact with sites outside of the UK. If you got ISPs to block certain sites, those addicts would use proxies to get around it.

  12. Is a free press actually vital to a democracy. I trust the BBC more than news paper at it is regulated.

    If the quality and accuracy of UK TV news from the BBC to CH4 is better than what you get in print isn’t all this wailing from the press just special pleading.

    I just don’t find the argument that the choice is the Daily Sport or Pravda convincing.

    It’s just special pleading. If you want to sell a newspaper it should be licensed under rules like broadcast news or a pub….break the rules and lose your licence.

    Peter.

  13. WE aren’t talking about “the news”.

    We are talking about investigative journalism.

  14. AW

    @”There are also differences in the statutory underpinning, where we haven’t had any details yet, but as far as I can tell both sides want the minimum needed to get the stuff on libel costs to work.”

    I wonder how & when that detail will emerge ?

    Is Monday’s debate to be about the differing principles of proposed Press regulation-or a detailed Bill?

  15. “We are talking about investigative journalism.”
    Panorama? Dispatches? Exposure?
    BBC, C4, ITV never do investigative journalism.

  16. My response was to PC’s use of “the news” to define the subject under discussion.

    News per se-
    THe Government says this.
    The Opposition says that.
    THis ship sank.
    THat plane crashed
    This Royal is wearing these clothes.
    It’s raining.
    It’s snowing
    …….
    is easy-it doesn’t need “journalists”. Reporters & Newsreaders-but not journalists.

    Yes those three carry out investigative journalism-as does the written Press.

  17. @TF,

    If you think it’s as simple as installing parental controls software, then you don’t understand the depth or breadth of the problem.

    Try researching Ask.fm, Kik, Omegle etc. Never heard of them? Your kids have. So have thousands of perverts.

    I am not suggesting that that it is possible to regulate and/or defeat the dodgier sides of the internet. I am just pointing out that if someone wants to gather sleaze about you and propagate it to the general public (whether it’s your sex life, your drug habits or what happened to your missing child) then abolishing the red tops is not going to stop them.

    Abolish ahead, however – I can’t stand the things.

  18. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldcomuni/256/25605.htm
    See 50-58

    Actually the whole Lords report is quite good on the issues surrounding investigative journalism.

  19. I agree with Tinged Fringe that one of the problems with our print press is overbearing proprietors with their political and commercial interests to promote and the narrowness of ownership with some of these proprietors controlling a multiplicity of titles. Our man Mr Murdoch springs to mind and then there are also editors like Paul Dacre who run their newspapers as if they were personal newsletters, conduits for the airing of their many foibles and multi-grievances.

    Accordingly, it’s a misnomer in many ways to describe this as a free press in any really meaningful sense of that term and although there are many fine journalists working in newspapers, I think, having travelled fairly widely, that we have a uniquely malign and mendacious tabloid segment that is particularly good at driving the news agenda across other branches of the media. Daily Mail lead story becomes Radio 4 Today programme’s theme. Marr’s programme begins with a 20 minute discussion on what the Sunday newspapers are writing about etc etc. Their influence and ability to form opinion is grossly disproportionate to the journalistic veracity of their content.

    I’ve no problem with politically biased comment that is confined to comment sections of a newspaper, but when “news” stories are slanted and presented as if they were factual and editorial choice skews the content, then we’re not really talking about people being “informed”; we’re probably talking propaganda.

  20. Parents always have a choice, there has been monitoring software about for a long time, 10 minutes to find, buy and setup.(there is even quite good freeware if you look)

    There is security built in to most browsers/antivirus/firewall software that can block unwelcome sites, or ads being shown on web pages even sites such as UKPR, it takes less than 10 minutes to search and find answers and activate. (Without resorting to buying additional software it’s already built in)

    But people are lazy or unaware of the risks of allowing children unmonitored internet access, yet I find this excuse troubling.

    I believe it would be good to sell computers with all this pre activated so the user has to learn how to turn these items off which in turn means the user will learn to turn them on, it is not hard nor is it rocket science… and the simplist solution

    But as I said people are just lazy… I see occasional posts on here moaning about ads…smiles

    Why should ISPs be forced block sites, because people are too lazy to do this for themselves?

    As for gambling, try watching late night tv…

  21. @Crossbat,

    But if I want to write a propaganda newsletter, and you want to buy it from me, should we not be free to do that?

    I suppose the argument, and the fear, being expressed is that bad follows good. Once you stop people publishing things you don’t like for good reason (smutty, salacious, biased, insulting etc) then you open the door to stopping people publishing things you don’t like for bad reason (critical of the government, exposing wrongdoing, satirical etc).

    As I say, I think it’s pretty irrelevant anyway, as noone buys these papers for their actual real news content anyway.

    I would also say that although the press is tilted firmly rightwards, it is not exclusively a problem on the right. The Mirror is pretty awful too, and now (inevitably) implicated in phone hacking alongside the NI titles.

  22. NEILA

    I worry about my younger grandchildren & online social media all the time.

    You have just turned that into near paranoia.

  23. “Investigative journalism” is where somebody finds out something against somebody’s consent and then disseminates it

    “Commentating” is where somebody is told something freely by somebody and then disseminates it

    I would humbly submit that:most of the professionals against Leveson who call themselves “journalists” are, in fact “commentators”

    rgdsm

  24. Neil A
    I’m not for abolishing the red tops – I’m only for the decentralisation of control of the media. We need more competition, especially of viewpoints, not necessarily direct government regulation.
    It’s a problem of ownership.

    And as far as online bullying/grooming goes – that again is an issue of internal moderation.
    Websites need active moderation and controls to report inappropriate behaviour – and if that involves grooming or harassment beyond internal blocking procedures, it needs to be passed on to the police, which we already have laws for dealing with, if that communication were by phone or post.
    But you can’t solve those problems with government observation – which the state doesn’t have the resources to cope with – or with a Chinese-style internet ‘firewall’, which wouldn’t help defend against malicious communications.
    So the state needs to work in conjunction with providers, not thinking that legislation can solve all problems.

    It also needs to educate parents and children on the dangers of the internet and how to deal with problems.

  25. Neil A
    My reply to you is stuck in auto-mod.

  26. @Tojim,

    That’s very true, but the level of expertise required to own and use a computer is far, far below that required to understand and counteract some of the “bad things” that are out there.

    There are sources of information out there, like the Hightechdad blog, but most parents have no clue there is even a problem (beyond a sort of early 80s style “Don’t Die Of Ignorance” sense of dread) let alone where to look for the solution.

    Most computers have parental controls on them that predate the existence of some popular online applications. You would have to use the customisation options to block them. Not all that hard to you and I, maybe – but extremely unlikely to be done by 90% of supervising adults.

  27. @Colin,

    Sorry about that. If it helps, my own paranoia has been stoked by a specific case that has, over the past week, led me to research a whole lot of things that even I as an experienced child protection officer with training in online offending had no idea about.

    I didn’t even know what Kik was until this morning. I looked it up after reading a reference to it on a chatlog from a young girl’s Ask.fm account, and I didn’t know what Ask.fm was until about a fortnight ago.

    There was me checking on my stepdaughter’s Facebook usage and feeling all smug and protective. I expect she has been thinking “Ignorant tw*t thinks I talk to my friends on Facebook! What a loser!”

  28. NEILA

    No problem-part of my education.

    RE :”There was me checking on my stepdaughter’s Facebook usage and feeling all smug and protective. I expect she has been thinking “Ignorant tw*t thinks I talk to my friends on Facebook! What a loser!”

    This resonates with me very much. I joined Facebook to keep in touch with what family members are doing & exchange messages.
    Exposure to some rather unexpected teenage postings was a shaker -but still at least I’m aware, I thought.

    The other day I asked a grandaughter why she doesn’t say much on Facebook these days-oh I don’t use it now was the reply.

    They move on to new resources so quickly. It is frightening what they may be exposed to.

    The Internet has changed “childhood” forever.

  29. @petercairns – “Is a free press actually vital to a democracy. I trust the BBC more than news paper at it is regulated.”

    This is something I’ve been banging on about from the start of this whole debate.

    There is absolutely noting to stop good quality investigative journalism under a statutorily regulated press, just as there isn’t under the current UK broadcast media system.

    I suspect that far more than worrying about some terribly minor amendments to how the press is regulated, the key issues are much more to do with sorting out the rights and responsibilities in the areas like whistle blowing, commercial confidence in government contracts and FoI, and ensuring that there is adequate protection within the criminal code for media investigators to break laws where there is a clear public interest.

    What I do find highly entertaining is that we have a Tory party in power whining about protecting press freedoms, to keep the right wing part of the print media happy, while at the same time they are fighting trench warfare against all manner of FoI requests and trying to hide all sorts of government information from view.

    I genuinely believe there is nothing here to see but self interest, and it is demeaning to once again have to watch such a distorted and frightened body politic cower before media owners they think have power over them.

  30. I never buy newspapers now. I get all my news from TV and the internet. The Guardian and Independent are particularly good and on many news pages it is possible to comment on the story, this often causes the story to be amended when “facts” are shown to be wrong.

  31. “The Archbishop of Durban in South Africa, Wilfrid Fox Napier, one of the cardinals who took part in the conclave to elect Pope Francis, has told Stephen Nolan on BBC Radio 5 live that paedophilia should be considered a psychological illness rather than a criminal condition.

    Cardinal Wilfrid Napier said that people who were themselves abused as a child and then went on to abuse others needed to be examined by doctors to judge if they were criminally responsible.”

    BBC

  32. @Tinged

    You may well be right on the substantive issue, particularly in the light of your points about the dangers of a stifling and complacent consensus.

    That said, you should not overstate your argument. Neil A is absolutely right on the dangers of the internet IMHO and the difficulties of exercising effective supervision. Similarly your argument that gamblers will be gamblers irrespective of the circumstances are very similar to those used by the American gun lobby and in my view flawed. In practice very small barriers do put blocks on behaviour. Suicides dropped with the introduction of coal gas and also with the introduction of blister packs. Even the very small effort involved in getting out the pills seemed to affect suicidal behaviour.

    I don’t have a problem with gambling myself but should I do so and should I happen to wake depressed in the night, I guess that the temptation to go on line and make some money would be almost superhuman. The temptation to go and read UKPR is getting bad enough!

  33. EU bailout to Cyprus includes all Cypriot bank depositors losing 10% of their deposits.

    Some very upset savers there-and a lot of upset Russians. !

  34. “It’s a problem of ownership.”
    To expand on my point here – this is the problem with so many of the large-scale issues we’ve had with corporate misbehaviour.
    Centralisation of control of the press has led to ineffective competition (even though there’s no monopoly, there’s clearly an oligopoly).
    Centralisation of the ownership of meat suppliers has led to the recent horse-meat scandal being so widespread.
    Centralisation of the ownership of banks and credit rating agencies led largely to the banking crisis – although this is a special case because fractional reserve banking should lead to these crises.
    Centralisation of the ownership of the food supply, TV networks, film studios, utilities, etc have all led to similar problems.
    etc, etc

    So many of our problems are caused by oligopolies of ownership and often the solution to these problems is described as the need for more direct regulation rather than anti-trust and competition regulation.
    “Free markets”/”Free press” often lead to a lack of competition that they purport to defend.

  35. Charles
    But the government can’t solve the problem of a lack of effective supervision or communication – except through education of parents.
    Any other solution is a sledgehammer approach that doesn’t actually solve the underlying problems.

    “used by the American gun lobby”
    Except that, from a practical perspective, the state can largely regulate the sale and ownership of guns.
    It cannot effectively regulate addiction – because those who have addictions with gambling and find themselves completely blocked from gambling will likely find addictions elsewhere.
    Addiction is a behavioural (and sometimes neurochemical) problem that can only be solved through behavioural rehabilitation (and sometimes through the use of psychiatric medication).

  36. @Colin,

    I think there is definitely a debate to be had about what “p*dophilia” is – I just think the Archbishop blew it a bit when he conflated it with actual sexual offences.

    I don’t think an individual can help the fact that they are sexually attracted to people with whom they are prohibited by law from acting on that attraction. I do think they can decide whether to ignore that prohibition.

    I also think we really don’t understand the mechanisms by which people’s sexuality is arrived at. There is an assumption that “abuse begets abuse”, and I am very suspicious of it for two reasons.

    Firstly, pretty much the only people who ever talk about their p*dophilia are people who have been caught, and are in the process of trying to persuade a court or a parole board to treat them leniently. They have a vested interest in portraying themselves as a victim of circumstance.

    Secondly, child sexual abuse is so common that a fair cross sample of pretty much any category of person would reveal many victims of it.

  37. Neil A etc
    “There was me checking on my stepdaughter’s Facebook usage and feeling all smug and protective.”

    This “worry” about children and the internet seems to reflect a desire on the part of adults to intrude into, & control, the lives of their children. Kids have to find their own way and usually do. Kids have always engaged in illicit activities of which their parents would disapprove & always will.
    As for porn etc on the internet: the tabloids, who forever try to scare parents re the dangers of the internet, put porn in the mainstream in the first place; when attempts are made to control their corruption and sleaze they whine about press freedom.

  38. NEILA

    Thanks.

    I agree with your second para.

    You would think that the Catholic Church would understand by now , that finding excuses for the behaviour of some of their priests , just makes their culpability the worse, and their tenuous grip on moral authority the weaker.

  39. TF

    You are quite right. I was confusing Jan and April 89 figures.

    And I fully agree that the Bedroom Tax will not be as toxic as the Poll Tax. It will hit only the isolated and pre-vilified minority of “skivers” where the Poll Tax hit people who considered themselves to be part if the “striver” bedrock of society. Looking back, the Poll Tax decision seems even more crazily suicidal than it did at the time. I guess Thatcher convinced herself that the country was so firmly and truly behind a swing to the Right that they would welcome a sharply regressive tax that left the great majority worse off and benefitted a small, mostly wealthy minority. It’s telling that the Republicans in the USA have just lost badly two elections on a very similar platform. And it is a platform that UKIP is wedded to in this country.

    Lefty’s Version of History is that the Poll Tax marked the line in the sand beyond which the country was not prepared to move further Right. If we were a genuinely right-leaning electorate, we would accept a flat-rate tax as fundamentally fair, even if we personally suffered from it. But we were and are not that way inclined.

    If I were Cameron, I’d be forcefully making this case against UKIP right now. Turn a spotlight on their tax policies and see their working and middle class support evaporate.

    Errr…except that he can’t

  40. TF

    You are quite right. I was confusing Jan and April 89 figures.

    And I fully agree that the Bedroom Tax will not be as toxic as the Poll Tax. It will hit only the isolated and pre-vilified minority of “skivers” where the Poll Tax hit people who considered themselves to be part if the “striver” bedrock of society. Looking back, the Poll Tax decision seems even more crazily suicidal than it did at the time. I guess Thatcher convinced herself that the country was so firmly and truly behind a swing to the Right that they would welcome a sharply regressive tax that left the great majority worse off and benefitted a small, mostly wealthy minority. It’s telling that the Republicans in the USA have just lost badly two elections on a very similar platform. And it is a platform that UKIP is wedded to in this country.

    Lefty’s Version of History is that the Poll Tax marked the line in the sand beyond which the country was not prepared to move further Right. If we were a genuinely right-leaning electorate, we would accept a flat-rate tax as fundamentally fair, even if we personally suffered from it. But we were and are not that way inclined.

    If I were Cameron, I’d be forcefully making this case against UKIP right now. Turn a spotlight on their tax policies and see their working and middle class support evaporate.

    Errr…except that he can’t of course because his own right wing would like very similar tax policies.

    Goodness. What a bind!

  41. @Tinged

    Lets agree education is a good thing

    “[The state] cannot effectively regulate addiction – because those who have addictions with gambling and find themselves completely blocked from gambling will likely find addictions elsewhere.”

    This not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that you are partially right. If one way of getting drunk becomes difficult, one puts one’s mind to finding other methods (or maybe takes unto oneself seven other devils worse than the first\).

    That said it is not true of everyone or all the time. So an increase in the minimum price of alcohol does appear to produce a decrease in the amount of harmful drinking and not simply to a substitution of industrial alcohol or better quality wines. Nor as far as I know does it lead to increased drug addiction or gambling, although I am not aware that this has been much explored.

  42. @TingedFringe

    Yes the UKIP data is starting to make things interesting (less boring perhaps?)

    I still remain unconvinced that UKIP will do well in 2015. Will voters protest at a General Election, or will UKIP have solidified its voter base by then?

    “Unfortunately I can’t tell you much about the trend for these figures, as I lack the full data and the effort to compile the data (I used to have weighted 30-day and 7-day averages, but I gave up updating my spreadsheet.. toward the end of 2011).”

    http://www.statgeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/approval.xls

    Also got the regional approval from Dec ’11, UK Leadership data from May ’10, and regional leadership data from Apr ’12 if it’s any use.

  43. StatGeek
    The Party VIs would be the most useful, if you wouldn’t mind sharing that.

  44. StatGeek
    I’m also skeptical that the UKIP vote will remain as strong as it has been post-2012 budget, but we’ll have to just wait and see.

  45. While I know and experienced what a non-free press is, I am doubtful about what free press actually means. A reverse falsification problem :-)

  46. The Cypriot bailout deal is a bit scary. Won’t a levy on depositors lead to runs on banks based in other wobbly economies?

  47. StatGeek
    http://25.media.tumblr.com/f5db20c8aab3ba6bd8324b4e94fca33e/tumblr_mjr9f34rxM1ryf5szo1_1280.png
    Light-Blue is raw data, Light-Green is weighted average using 7 days of data, Red is weighted average using 30 days of data.
    Quite clear trend for decline in approval, but it’s not clear whether that trend is slowing down (see 7-day) or if it’s continued.

    Current 7-day is -36.8, current 30-day is -35.8.

  48. The Cypriot deal seems pretty fair to me – The richest will lose the most. We should have done something similar when we bailled out the banks.

    But, I am not sure I understand the reasoning or mechanics – Where does the money the depositors lose go?

  49. Fair, perhaps. But if you had half a million Euros in an Italian bank, what would you be thinking?

  50. Just to be clear, I include investigative journalism as well as news. I see no reason why a licence couldn’t cover it.

    The press has made a case for things like the expenses scandal not coming out, but the real breakthrough their wasn’t made by the press but one women who doggedly pursued an FoI request through the courts.

    The press simply reported it. As to the big scoop in the Telegraph, they paid someone for a leaked copy to get one up on their rivals and did well from it, that wasn’t Investigative Journalism that was Chequebook Journalism.

    The press involvement in expenses wasn’t uncovering it it was suppressing it. For decades every lunchtime journalists had wined and dined MP’s and been wined and dined by them at our expense.

    How many times was a journalist bought diner at our expense and said “No this is wrong”.

    How often did the MP and the journalist both submit expenses for a meal only one paid for.

    How many times did journalists watch an MP, who was a good source of gossip, get up and go back to the House drunk to vote on a vital matter and say nothing.

    Do people really think there should be special rules for these paragons of virtue. I don’t!

    Peter.

1 3 4 5 6