This week’s YouGov results for the Sunday Times are up online here. Topline voting intention is CON 30%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 14%, so no obvious effect on voting intention from the Woolwich murder. Economic optimism (the proportion of people expecting their financial situation to get better in the next year, minus those who expect it to get worse) is minus 30. This is still very negative, but is once again the least negative it has been since May 2010.

Turning to the Conservative party and their “modernisation”, 61% of people think David Cameron is not in control of his party, compared to only 24% who think he is. Only 16% of people think David Cameron got modernisation right – 33% think he did not go far enough (including most Labour and Lib Dem voters), 32% think he went too far and abandoned too many traditional Tory subjects (including three-quarters of UKIP supporters).

Asked about the famous description of the Tories as the “nasty party”, 18% reject the whole idea and think the Tories were never seen as the nasty party anyway, 14% think David Cameron has manage to make the Conservatives less of the “nasty party” but the largest group – almost half of respondents – think Cameron has failed and the Tories are still seen as the “nasty party”. YouGov asked the same question in 2011 when 23% of people thought Cameron had managed to detoxify the Conservatives, suggesting a gradual reversal of the progress he had once made.

Moving on to the Woolwich murder, 41% of people think the government are tackling extremism and terrorism effectively, 47% ineffectively. Asked about people’s own fear of being involved in a terrorist attack, overall 10% of people think that there is a very or fairly high chance of them, a friend of member of their family being killed in a terrorist attack. As one might expect this is marginally up on before this week’s attack, but less than it was at the time of the 7/7 attacks in 2005 when YouGov asked exactly the same question. Whether or not they agree with British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of people (70%) think that it has increased the risk of terrorist attacks against Britain.

Asked about attitudes to British Muslims, 60% of people believe that there is a dangerous minority of British Muslims who feel no identity to the country and would condone terror, 14% think that a large proportion of British Muslims have no loyalty to the country and would condone terrorism. The question was again a repeat of a question YouGov asked straight after 7/7, comparing these results they are marginally worse than 7/7, but the change is hardly significant.

There was a second batch of YouGov polling conducted for Dr Matt Goodwin at Nottingham University, who specialises in studying extremism (of the EDL & BNP sort), and reported in the Observer. Full tables for that are here. Again the questions are mostly repeats from earlier, in this cast from October-November last year (originally done for Matt’s work on the EDL here). This makes it a slightly different comparison to the 7/7 questions, comparing results of questions asked during a normal period to the same questions asked just after an emotive event. One might have expected an increase in Islamophobia and anti-Islam opinions. The actual picture that Matt’s research finds is more nuanced.

On a few fronts opinion has moved in a negative direction, with an increase in the proportion of people who think that conflict between different groups is inevitable and an increase in those who think there will be a “clash of civilizations” between British Muslims and native white Britons (though worth noting there were similar shifts when asked about different religions and ethnicities too).

However on other figures there has been no movement, or even positive movement – 63% of people agree with a statement that “The vast majority of Muslims are good British citizens”, by 40% to 23% people agree that “Muslims make an important contribution to British society” – both questions essentially unchanged from last year. The proportion of people agreeing that “Muslims are compatible with the British way of life” is up from 24% last year to 33% now.

I suspect the contradicting trends in the figures is a case of the Woolwich murder reinforcing people’s existing attitudes. For those people who were suspicious, hostile or prejudiced towards British Muslims to begin with it has strengthened those negative feelings. For those with more positive opinions towards British Muslims it has strengthened their resolve not to stereotype British Muslims and not to let terrorism divide communities.

Matt’s poll also asked about the EDL and BNP anti-Muslim demonstrations, using a split sample. Half the sample were asked about their opinion of demonstrations against what the organisers call “Muslim terror” and whether they had a positive or negative opinion of such demonstrations – a majority (51%) said they had a negative opinion, 20% a positive opinion. The other half of the sample had the same question, but with the demonstrators of the demos identified as the EDL and BNP – that knocked support for such demos down to 17%, and opposition to them up to 60%.

There was also a Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday, which had topline figures of CON 24%(nc), LAB 35%(nc), LDEM 10%(-1), UKIP 22%(nc). It shows the very high UKIP score we associate with Survation, but again no obvious impact on voting intention from the Woolwich murder.


206 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 30, LAB 40, LD 10, UKIP 14”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. “Catmufflicker”

    Do grow up Dan. This is a space where polling & the effect of current affairs on public opinion are discussed in an adult manner, not one where childish name calling is appropriate.

  2. Colin

    The 1999 Russian apartments was done be the Russian security agency and blamed on the chechens, Putin needed a good reason for renewing the war in Chechnya. This is not a conspiracy theory anymore it’s fact

  3. Neil A

    Well Israel does like to attack it’s allies as well

  4. Fiona – do you have evidence that the country has shifted to the right? I would be grateful if you could point me the right direction.

  5. @ Fiona,

    I am also extremely curious in what set of circumstances you envision Ed Miliband being replaced before 2015.

    I can see how Cameron might go, although I think it’s more likely that if there’s a leadership challenge he’ll survive and limp on fatally weakened until election day. I can see how Clegg might go, although I’m inclined to trust Howard’s hunch that the Lib Dems wil keep him.

    But why on Earth would the Labour Party replace Miliband at this stage? And who with? Ed Balls is even less popular than he is, Cooper’s interviews are worse than Miliband’s, Burnham is too green and anyway he got clobbered in the last leadership election, Darling is both busy and boring, Alan Johnson is distracted by his home life and shows no interest in the leadership, and David Miliband has fled the country.

    Besides which Labour have had a 10 point poll lead for over a year and they couldn’t muster the will to replace Miliband even when they were trailing. Plus any replacement would have only two years to get name recognition. And the party is broadly sane these days. Why would they do this?

  6. Neil A

    You confused the hell out of me with that ‘allies’ mistake in your contribution. Then Colin had me boggling with his ‘well said’. I assume Colin is psychic and knew what you meant to write, (which indeed you later clarified), wow, respect Colin!

    Actually, is not the point that whilst indeed there are those who wish to achieve what you opined, there are, very fortunately, very few of them?

    I would imagine we would be coping with the occasional outrage for decades to come.

  7. RinN
    Are you referring to British soldiers being hanged, or did i mess an outrage since?

  8. Miss not mess (although).

  9. HOWARD.

    There don’t need to be many of them. That is irrelevant.

    It is what they can do & have done which matters.

  10. @ Fiona

    I am more interested in the future make-up of British political parties, so am simply arguing along both strategic and academic fronts (i.e. the sustained bias implicit in current polling methodology).
    —————
    No you’re not. You’re just harping on about UKIP.

  11. @ Colin and Neil A

    In my earlier post I said that I agree: the invasion and the war are not related to terrorism, although might increase the number of recruits, but it’s not the point at all.

    Colin’s list is, however, problematic. 1968 wasn’t a Muslim terrorist act as such. Many of the others are simply terrorist attacks against the US – ideology might have been relevant for the recruits, but not for the principle. The Chechen terrorism is different again – not religion based.

    It is not a war between religions or civilisations – that’s the narrative of the terrorist leaders to recruit, the neocons and the Dalai Lama. Fabrication in essence utilising unrelated events.

  12. @Howard,

    I agree that there aren’t “that many of them”, although that probably still means there are several tens of thousands of them.

    And of course there are several layers of ‘support’ beneath actual active participation in terrorism. I expect there will have been millions of muslims who felt a sense of exhilaration at each attack on westerners, although (I hope) they are outnumbered 100:1 by those who feel only horror.

  13. @ Neil A

    It is not war on the West.

  14. I do find it fascinating (and sad) when people willingly adopt the framing of the terrorists.

  15. “Catmufflicker”

    Do grow up Dan. This is a space where polling & the effect of current affairs on public opinion are discussed in an adult manner, not one where childish name calling is appropriate.

    Thank you Chordata.

    You are right, but I will not waste a syllable arguing with rude, unpleasant folk so I will let Dan’s comment slide and ignore it and him.

  16. Howard

    I was referring to the near sinking of an American warship in the red sea, amongst other things, there was also the botched Islamic terror attack in eygpt, where the eygptian authorities caught the mosard agents red handed

  17. I am interested in the debate a ‘snooper’s charter’ would start.

    It seems to me that at one end, no laws or enforcement and just anarchy would be the most free society to live in. It would be dangerous too, and the freedom would come at a price (a risk of death and chaos etc.)

    On the other end is a complete police state, that would hypothetically be safe in terms of the risk of harm, but again something few would want (I hope).

    My own view is that we have an okay balance. We are mostly free, and the state can only intrude into our personal lives if it can demonstrate a significant reason to do so.

    Sadly, occasionally things like the murder in Woolwich can occur, but the are thankfully exceptionally rare, although no comfort to the poor chap’s nearest and dearest.

    I think that we should go no further, and the automatic collection of a persons ‘transactions’ is a step too far. I worry about the creep that would happen – if the Government can find out about who I email, eventually they will want more or the information for wider purposes.

    While I am dreadfully sad for what happened to Drummer Lee Rigby and am appalled that any human being could do that to another. This incident should not lead us further down the path of surveillance deeper into people’s private lives, or hinder the freedom of speech. I accept that there is a need for surveillance should there be sufficient grounds, but I think this must remain in the hands of judges on a case to case basis.

    Who will argue this case in Parliament?

  18. @Laszlo,

    I don’t think there’s any doubt in my mind that it is a war on the West.

    Where I part from a lot of knee-jerk western responses is that I do not believe that it is a war on the West by Islam. I believe that war was fought to a standstill hundreds of years ago.

    It is a war on the non-Islamic world, particularly the West (and western ideas) by a small faction of Islamist extremists claiming the support of the Umma, which they don’t in my opinion have or deserve.

    In this context, the definition of

  19. @ Fiona

    What is exactly the theoretical (academic) you have?

  20. Left out the word “problem”…

  21. @Catmanjeff,

    What has been characterised as a “Snooper’s Charter” is really just an attempt to apply the same sort of regulation to internet data as is already applies to telephone data.

    For over a decade you have lived in a country where the police, without authority from a judge, can look at lists of all of your phone calls.

    In theory the police can also look at lists of all of your emails and web traffic, again without the authority of a judge.

    All of that is included in the current powers under RIPA. The difficulty is that a lot of the ISPs do not keep the data, or keep it in a form that is difficult and expensive to access. The purpose of new legislation is to force the ISPs to operate their systems so that this information is retrievable. The “best” way to do this is to load it into a single database accessible by properly authorised police personnel, cutting out the need for time-consuming and expensive paperwork exchanges between police and ISPs.

    Without this tightening up, all that will happen is that criminals will migrate wholesale from communication methods that can currently be tracked, to those that can’t.

    There is an argument that authorisations under RIPA should be heard by a judge, rather than by a police Superintendent, but that’s a criticism of the original (Labour written) Act.

    Personally, having been immersed in RIPA processes for several years I think the checks and balances are perfectly adequate. We are a very, very long way from a police state and the “Snooper’s Charter” won’t take us anywhere near it.

  22. @ Neil A

    Thanks for the clarification.

    I think it is much more complex as certain acts are not linked. Bringing it under the umbrella of extreme Islam is wrong and ineffective. I really think it should start from the goal – not of particular acts, but that of the organisers. You will find some religious ones, some anti-Western ones, but the vast majority will be more prosaic.

  23. @ CatmanJeff

    Neil A is right. Anyway MI5 has had no such constraints.

    One of the main problems with the Act is the number of agencies who would have access to the data and the current act only refers to the previous acts, so you have to look up that to fully appreciate the scale of it.

  24. Laszlo,

    People do make the mistake of falling into the trap of the ideologues narrative.
    Whether we have been wise in the conflicts we have entered (or indeed avoided) we have do so for clearly political reasons not religious ones, we have in revered in countries where the population is predominantly Muslim but that wasn’t the reason for intervention.

    You can probably make a good case that we didn’t pay enough attention to the potential religious and tonic dimensions to these conflicts and as such made the basic and in to an extent serious mistake of not seeing the conflict as others might.

    Bush and Blair (and to be fair many others) saw conflicts in terms of right and wrong, black and white and good and evil and seem not to have even asked;

    ” How do they see the world”

    A bit more a tension to the perspective of others point of view might have lead us to at least consider that the Iraqi people weren’t going to garland us as liberators.

    What we need to do now is focus on a political narrative that minimises the potential for people to see these as conflicts aimed at Muslims

    In a sense we could argue that many of the worlds Muslims are victims of uneven development, for which the west is partly if unintentionally to blame.

    Europe and North America are highly developed and since the fall of the wall and even before there is a fair level of development and progress in the former communist countries, Eastern Europe, Russia and China.

    Equally although it has been a long hard road dogged by dictatorship and there is still far to go, Latin America is developing steadily.

    That leaves most of Africa and much of Asia except the gulf as the main areas of poverty, slow development and poor government and corruption. This is also the part of the world where most of the worlds billion Muslims live.

    So be it due to neglect or just the uneven nature of development it is the Muslim world where most needs to be done to raise people from poverty and a new “Marshal Plan” for Islamic nations would be a better way forward than a “War on Terror”

    Peter.

  25. Neil A and Colin
    Help me out here. Is your view that we are under serious threat as a state (or collection thereof, e.g. EU) or are we just dealing with a (sadly permanent) bunch of nutters, who, unlike, say, the IRA, are prepared to die as well as kill? It is this latter feature that defeats our snoops.

    My judgement is that, even taken into account, say, the jubilant reaction filmed in Arabian and other eastern poverty stricken city centres after ‘911’, (not many actually, I think only Palestinian, and understandable), the essential growth of the movement into a state that will threaten international security is not evident, not even Iran.

    I do not identify an eastern state that requires ‘lebensraum’, at least from us. Hope I did not get too near Godwin there. :-)

  26. Osama Bin Laden issued two fatwa -1996 & 1998.

    THe first was entitled ” “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”.

    The second was signed by a group identified as the “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders”. It complained of American military presence in the Arabian Peninsula, and American support for Israel and purported to provide religious authorization for indiscriminate killing of Americans and Jews everywhere. It appeared in February 1998 and the embassy bombings followed in August.

  27. @ Peter

    I agree with most of it and especially with the conclusion.

    One exception Blair is sometimes portrayed as a master of Realpolitik, sometimes (as you did) a moralist. It is a problem with the analysis. I don’t think it is particularly relevant anymore, but dissolving this dichotomy would be nice.

  28. Q/Ali
    “CON 30%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 14%
    Seems remarkably stable. identical poll to a couple of weeks back.”
    Yes, the real breaking new is the unbrokenness of these VI over the past 12 months, and their meaning. For me, the solidity of the central social-democratic middle, traceable in the movement, not of purpose but of party affiliation of LD in response to their leadership’s willingness to sup at the Tory governmental table and dine off fare bought at the cost of their supporters’ electoral intent.

  29. HOWARD

    What constitutes a threat to international security?

    A Nuclear Plant hit by an aircraft or bomb?

    An oil pipeline constantly disrupted.?

    Airliners full of passengers blown out of the sky?

    Trains & buses full of people blown up?

    A dirty bomb in a large city?

    “Western” holiday makers blown up in foreign night clubs ?

    The constant threat to innocent civilians of random attack as they go about their daily lives.

    If you think nothing short of WW3 counts-I guess you think those things aren’t too much of a problem.

  30. @Fiona
    What is ‘Middle England’?
    back in ’82 when the SDP were winning by-elections in hostile territory and polling fifty percent in the polls pretty much everyone who was not a died-inn-the-wool Tory or committed socialist was prepared to contemplate supporting the SDP. I recall polling that suggested around 60% of the electorate was seriously considering voting SDP.

    UKIP’s attraction is more restricted, in my opinion: none who has liberal, socialist, green or even centrist tendencies can sensibly be attracted by their policies.

    The idea that there is some polling ‘bias’ against UKIP reminds me too much of the Tea Party Republican assertions in 2012 that polls were biased against Romney – it turned out that they were pretty accurate.

  31. Las zoo,

    My own theory about Blair was that he was neither.

    Much of his reputation in terms of Realpolitik and presentation was based on the idea that he could understand and communicate with “The Man in the Street”.his ability to get his ideas across and convince ordinary people something many associate with his training as a barrister.

    On his moral certainties, there is little doubt of that.

    However I neither see him as a master strategist, great communicator or for that matter moral crusader, for me he is far more Britain’s Ronald Reagan.

    Like Reagan it wasn’t that he could communicate his world view ideas to the people of Middle England or Middle America but that he actually saw the world as they did.

    He wasn’t a great statesman who distiller a complex world in a simple way to everyday folk but rather in a real sense one of the everyday folk who took a simplistic view to a complex world. That’s why he panicked with the public after 9/11 and didn’t see the pitfalls in Iraq.

    It’s a bit like Thatcher and running the economy like a housewife budgets a home,it wasn’t an analogy that helped to explain the situation to people, she actually beloved that is how it was done.

    We tend to laud Thatcher and Blair as great leaders because they could identify with the key parts of the electorate and se that as a great skill.

    Me I see them both as leaders who shared the views and beliefs of the middle classes and who applied those views with success until the complexities of the real world caught up with their simple common sense approach.

    For me a lesson for all leaders.

    Peter.

  32. What is so sad about the yearning for Islamic domination & a return of the Caliphate is that it is reminds us of the flowering of knowledge & intellect-science, medicine, the arts which was such a magnificent feature of Arab culture then.

    Today the Islamic world seems to have lost that enlightenment , & it’s darker manifestations seem to crave mere power -at any price.

  33. Sorry, folks,

    Using the iPad again tonight and forgot to spell check the spell checker!!!

    Peter.

  34. Peter
    “So be it due to neglect or just the uneven nature of development it is the Muslim world where most needs to be done to raise people from poverty and a new “Marshal Plan” for Islamic nations would be a better way forward than a “War on Terror”
    If you look more closely at the record, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia have not done badly in terms of either aid or commercial development, and these are not the states where the greates poverty exists. If you look at the origins of Islamist terrorism, it lies heavily in Pakistan, where there have also been the greatest benefits from a diaspora and remittances. For the very small minority engaged actively or supporting terrorism Iraq, Libya,
    Afghanistn are causus belli, part of the ideology, and their engagement with the West is an extension of domestic sectarian conflict, mainly Sunni v. Shia, willingly carried over not just in the West but also against Christian communities in Egypt, Northern Nigeria and the Maghreb, where lebenraum does play a part, and where the conflicts have been a great deal more bloody.
    IMV, it is in combating the related cause of inequality of education and employment among immigrant or native born UK Muslim communities in realtion to mainstream society that the long-term solution should be sought; and in dealing with the relativey low incidence of terrorist action – though horrific in itself – it’s a job for the police.

  35. Colin
    No, those are irritant, to a state, but not strategic threats to a state. Those examples quoted vary from operational to tactical issues but not strategic ones. The country is not permanently brought to a halt, nor its population destroyed, most cited not even capable of being described as severe blows.

    Threats to a state of strategic nature are clearly in the realm of WMD (and I don’t of course mean gas bombs that wipe out a town of a few thousand, obscene violence though that is).

    To perhaps make it clear, even executing any alleged perpetrators of the outrage in Woolwich will not make a jot of difference (could actually encourage others).

    What other measures would one support (‘expulsion’ for people who visit mosques?) I can’t think of any that would not be counter-productive. I am sure DC will be all ears for any useful suggestions.

  36. After the hiatus, normal service is resumed…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/26/cameron-leadership-tories-european-election
    I’ve not heard of Ruffley before. Does he have swivel eyes?

    I suppose it’s not unusual or significant that the guardian prints a critical story about DC, but he has had some dreadful headlines today and tomorrow from sources that would normally support a tory PM. It can’t do anything but damage Con support.

    I don’t understand the strategy of the so-called tory press. Is it to so damage DC he is replaced or to force him into policies he would otherwise not pursue? It just seems they are making a Labour government in 2015 more likely.

  37. Cloud spotter

    Or maybe they’re criticising him because he’s doing badly?

  38. Meanwhile here is realpolitiek.

    http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/china/chinas-premier-li-keqiang-in-berlin-30561750.bild.html

    Perhaps he is to visit us, but she doesn’t let the grass grow under her feet does she?

  39. Howard

    Sorry but the jubilant reaction of the Palestinians was a con job, it was footage from another demo totally unrelated to 911, the western press were duped by the Israelis again

  40. Howard

    Sorry but the jubilant reaction of the Palestinians was a con job, it was footage from another demo totally unrelated to 911, the western press were duped by the Israelis again

  41. RinN
    Blimey, i’d forgotten that, So they win sometimes, even with me. Well, not really, as I think the tone of my response indicated.

    ‘You can fool some of the people…….’

  42. @ Big Fat Ron,

    “UKIP’s attraction is more restricted, in my opinion: none who has liberal, socialist, green or even centrist tendencies can sensibly be attracted by their policies.”

    I don’t think their policies are the heart of their appeal, as we can see from all the 2010 Lib Dems who have gone over to them. (And also from our visitor Sy, whose actual political stances appeared to be pretty Labour-y.) People vote less on specific policies and on more of a general sense of a party’s vibe. As long as the anti-metropolitan elite, anti-establishment aspect of Ukip trumps the far-right libertarian aspect in the public perception, they’ll be able to attract the disaffected from across the political spectrum.

    I agree that when it comes to replacing one of the two main political parties they have far less chance than the SDP did, but they’re big enough and resilient enough to inflict serious damage on the Tories.

    @ Cloud Spotter,

    “I don’t understand the strategy of the so-called tory press.”

    It’s a combination of a Bennite/Faragist delusion that they speak for a silent majority and the public would rally behind [party of choice] if only [party of choice] was more “sincere” (ie. extreme), and a preference for sincerity over power. If passing austerity means they also have to vote for equal marriage then screw it, let Ed Balls run the economy. No compromise with the electorate!

  43. @PeterCairns – ” …he panicked with the public after 9/11 and didn’t see the pitfalls in Iraq.”

    From the American perspective (and elements of the Tory party) he and the FO were dragging his heels over Iraq, getting bogged down with inspections, the insistence on taking a UN route. Recent revelations about Colin Powell phoning up and pleading for the UK to exert some influence on the State Department’s behalf are quite telling.

    Those who had Bush’s ear included many who were all for picking off Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and N Korea in quick succession or simultaneously, using the full arsenal of weaponry.

    Blair was given leeway to do things his way with Libya; for the FO certain aspects of the strategic alliance are non-negotiable, and waiting for the clock to run down on a two term presidency only takes you so far.

  44. @ Cloud Spotter,

    “I don’t understand the strategy of the so-called tory press.”

    I think the press’s political loyalty only goes so far; given a choice of supporting the Tories or selling more papers – selling more papers wins everytime. UKIP and Tory ‘civil war’ sell papers and use up column inches – so the story will run and run, The fact it is also a narative that the more swivelly of the Journos like is an added bonus.

  45. @Bigfatron
    UKIP liberal?
    I’m extremely liberal, (in the proper, ‘civil liberties’ sense of the word, not the usaican ‘insult’ sense), and fairly labourish in my economics (though not socially, they’re the illiberal party these days) and extremely attracted to UKIP.

    Speaking entirely for myself (and not suggesting for a minute that everyone must be the same as me), the main appeals of UKIP are its’ honesty (a UKIP candidate will actually tell you their views/policies, rather than quoting lines which have no relationship outside pure fluke with what they may or may not actually think…I disagree with (most of) them about gay marriage? So what?….bound to have some disagreements with everyone, just the others won’t tell you.), and (something of a says on the tin) the euroskepticism.

  46. The cross breaks from Yougov don’t suport the idea that UKIP are attracting support ‘across the spectrum ‘ of Britiish politics. The latest poll (above) actually shows shows larger movement from Labour to the Tories than to Ukip (6% to 3% per the poll to 24/5/13).

    Over the past 6 Yougov polls the Lab to Ukip movement in voting intention has only very fractionally exceeded the churn from Labour to the Tories. Meanwhile, Con to Ukip VI continues to outnumber Lab to Ukip by around 4 or 5 to 1.

  47. Fiona

    You make me feel very old. In several different ways.

  48. If Labour weren’t neoliberals themselves, I’d have to pick you up on how ‘Labourish’ economics squares with supporting UKIP – but as it is, it seems fair enough.

    Although I’d have to disagree with their ‘honesty’; trying to nail them down on their flat tax has proven difficult, despite it being in their manifesto. I imagine it’ll be just as difficult when their plans to do away with worker’s rights and privatise the NHS are exposed.

  49. I’m always amused by people who refer to the Tory press that may have been true in the past but ever since the Coalition formed it’s been everything but, DC not winning outright and the Leveson enquiry put pay to that.

    Infact the only paper actively in support of a political party is the Daily Mirror.

    Papers like the Daily Mail have become the ranters daily I wouldn’t be at all suprised if they support Ukip at the next GE no offence to UKip supporters.

    It will be exactly the same if Labour win the next election the British press have fallen out with politicians and apart from the Mirror they will have a rough ride as well with the national press trying to pull them down at every opportunity.

1 2 3 4 5