The weekly YouGov poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 11%. Most of the rest of the poll asked about the “plebgate” row.

As various questions about Plebgate have continued to surface public opinion has moved in favour of Andrew Mitchell, albeit, not by that much. Back in December 2012 people were pretty evenly split over whether they believed Mitchell (31%) or the police (28%), now Mitchell is clearly more widely believed (37%) than the police are (27%). Back in December 43% thought Mitchell probably did call the officer a “pleb”, 34% thought he probably didn’t. The figures are now 40% think he did, 38% think he did not. On every question there are lots of don’t knows: remember most ordinary people will not be following the detailed ins and outs of the story!

30% of people think that there was probably a deliberate attempt by police to stitch up Mitchell, 21% think he was probably wrongly accused but through a genuine misunderstanding rather than a conspiracy, 24% that he was rightly accused and the police were just telling the truth. Despite the growing doubts about what he said, still only 29% of people think he should be offered a new government job (perhaps because many people think swearing at police officers should prevent him being re-instated even if he didn’t say “pleb”!)

22% of people say that “plebgate” has made them trust the police less, though the tracking questions don’t really tell the same story. 66% of people say they trust ordinary police officers (14% a great deal, 52% a fair amount), 48% say they trust senior police officers. Both are significantly lower than when YouGov started asking the questions back in 2003 (when 82% trusted normal officers and 72% senior officers), but not significantly lower than we’ve seen for the last year or two – the real damage appears to have been done before plebgate.


192 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 33, LAB 39, LD 10, UKIP 11”

1 2 3 4
  1. First, again, on another quick new thread. Morning All, thank you Anthony.

  2. The more polls I see, the more it seems to me that the crucial chunk of the electorate in 2015 will be 2010 Lib Dem voters and the crucial question their feelings about the coalition. The number who stay Lib Dem and the number who switch to Labour is about the same in most polls (mid-30%). If the 2010 Lib Dem vote continues to haemorrhage in this fashion, and if, as seems likely, the largest number switch to Labour, then Labour must have a good chance of at least a slim majority in 2015.

    It helps that, despite their pretty awful 2010 election campaign, and unlike in 1997, the vote of the outgoing government held up pretty well, so Labour don’t have too high a mountain to climb.

  3. Does this show politicians even if in the right are just not liked.Out of all people politicians are held in disdain roughly at the bottom of the pile of all professional people.Wasn’t there a poll on it somewhere.

  4. Interesting to see such diversity of approval ratings:
    YouGov has Cameron on -15 with Miliband still trailing on -26 (still, far better than he was doing pre-conference, as low as -48), while the other pollsters have both of them much closer together.

    Also interesting piece in the DM from Lord Saatchi –
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2468255/Soaring-power-bills–slavish-devotion-old-capitalism-Tories-hand-Ed-keys-No10.html
    The message seems a little mixed at time, but I agree completely with his general point – the Conservatives can’t just spend their whole time attacking Miliband’s reformist agenda without supplying their alternative reformist agenda and focusing on that completely.
    We probably disagree on which alternative future the Conservatives should promote in order to win (he seems to advocate a focus on neoliberalism, whereas I would advocate more toward a coalition[1] of small-c conservatives).

    It does seem like we’re approaching the big ideological realignments that happen approx every 40-years (or 80 years, depending on what sort of cycle you’re looking at) and whoever offers the most compelling realignment will set the establishment agenda for the next cycle.
    I’m hoping it’ll be a libertarian left-wing vision which wins out, but I’m resigned to the reality that it’ll most likely be a small-c conservative one (as opposed to left-right).
    Whoever advocates that small-c conservative vision will, in my opinion, win out – as much as it’s the ideological opposite of the outcome I want.

    [1] Not literally a coalition between parties, but a coalition of the voting groups.

  5. @ Robin

    Agreed with the LD 2010 being the crucial decider.

    In the polls we see a solid 6% chunk (33% of the total) of their 23% moved to Lab and staying there. However with them currently on 10% that leaves another 7% that could end up anywhere including back in the fold, not voting or being shared out among other parties including UKIP. This 7% seems to swing around a bit and where they end up is going to decide the next election.

  6. Another bunch of polls that are at odds with one another.

    I had Talksport on earlier and they reported the Labour lead had narrowed. Selective reporting indeed.

  7. The views in the honesty of newspaper journalists are, if anything, better than they deserve. Have a look at this gem from the DM last week.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2457349/600-000-unemployed-EU-citizens-living-Britain-cost-1-5billion-NHS.html

    Spot the mendacity.

    They equate “economically inactive” with “unemployed”. So, for example, they include EU students who are paying a couple of billion quid a year net into our economy as among the unemployed. The actual figure of unemployed EU nationals in the UK apparently is 38,000.

    I’m not sure whether this reporting reflects incompetence or something more sinister, but it certainly justifies the public not trusting newspapers.

  8. @ TINGEDFRINGE

    I also read the Saatchi article which was very though provoking. It confirms my view that British people much like most of the world are pretty confused about where they stand in regard to state versus the private individual. People want to live free lifes without state interference, but they also have demands of what the state should provide. There is then the argument about the size of the state, what it does and how much it costs to run.

    My own opinion is that actually when you analyse it, we are all socialists with a small ‘s’. It is not possible for society to function without a reasonable amount of state involvement. You can get private companies to run various essential services, but you cannot do this without political controls being exercised using regulators and ministerial/parliamentary accountability. If private companies fail, the state always needs to be able to step in to take appropriate action.

    It would be interesting what polling would reveal, if people were asked whether they would trust various private companies compared to state providers. e.g BUPA hospitals compared with NHS. Most people will not have used both BUPA and NHS, but they will have an opinion. I suspect that some people will say that they trusted BUPA more than NHS, because there was a perception that private treatment was better. i.e you get what you pay for. But ask people whether they would privatise the NHS, they would reject this by a large margin.

    We are a fickle bunch, with contradictory views that confuse the hell out of politicians.

  9. @R Huckle

    I think the dream for English socialists, middle-class women in particular, is to have a nice secure state job and pension and to have a nice buy-to-let house as well, income guaranteed by Housing Benefit.

  10. @Lefty

    Very true. Have you seen this article? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/benefit-tourism-facts-european-commission-report

    P.S. Douglas Carswell is my MP….

  11. Norbold

    I hadn’t seen that article but it tells the same story, albeit with probably more accurate figures for the actual number of unemoyed than I quoted. Apologies if I misled anyone (fat chance of the DM/DT saying the same, eh?)

    Portes has been leading a crusade against cavalier treatment of stats by Govt Depts and other commentators (where I grew up, we used to call that ly!ng…) I wish him the very best of luck. As someone who makes his living drawing together numbers which are as accurate as I can manage to find, and drawing honest conclusions from them, I have nothing but contempt for people who knowingly or ignorantly twist numbers to paint a partisan picture.

  12. @ Wolf

    I bet if you did a survey of public sector workers, you will find an even split Labour and Tory. I think it is probably a myth that public servants are mainly Labour supporters.

  13. “I think the dream for English socialists, middle-class women in particular, is to have a nice secure state job and pension and to have a nice buy-to-let house as well, income guaranteed by Housing Benefit.”

    “Middle class women, socialists…nice secure state job and pension…nice buy-to-let house…housing benefit”

    Fascinating attempt to bind many of your dslikes into a political theory. Does it really need unpicking? Or do you really believe in these “middle class women” that have a collective fantasy which is the antithesis of yours?

  14. The Archbishop condemns the energy price rises. That may well have an effect on VI; I think.

    The other day I posted on an earlier thread in a way, I said openly, was going to sound like an idealistic teenager talking. No one responded. Maybe teenager-thinking deserves no more. But the facts remain. High energy prices will this winter take lives. People are so poor they can’t take food from foodbanks because they can’t afford to cook it.

    Now, parties aside, at what point do people find it intolerable that their fellow citizens are in such a plight? Can anyone, left, centre or right, write a simple paragraph explaining, as to an idealistic teenager why such a situation must not stop at once?

    ”Ah, but the world is the world is the world etc. etc.” is not an answer, seeing as we all know that the resources exist in the UK to prevent this. ”Ah, but there is even worse poverty in the world beyond our shores and we can’t stop that;” is not an answer either, because two wrongs can’t make a right, and we all know there are sufficient resources in the world to solve that problem many times over as well.

    ‘Practical issues’ are a big umbella, and will constitute most people’s responses, fair enough. But I didn’t ask about practical issues. I asked, ”At what point will people find this intolerable…” I need to know if anyone can suggest a reason why this situation should not be thought to be intolerable now.

    I will jump the gun and predict that any responses I receive (and I know I may sell receive none) will be of an ‘ends and means’ nature. But can anyone clearly state understandable ‘ends’ that can outweigh a society permitting this level of misery for certain of its members, in a modern state where resources are available to prevent it?

    This is a sophisticated site. People argue cogently about issues that are complex and nuaunced. But forcing oneself to answer the questions a child will ask has always (since the emperor went out without any clothes on) been a very valuable exercise, so I don’t apologise for asking.

  15. @ Shevii

    Agreed, though with LD vote especially we need to be careful of inferring uniform national swings. They are bound to pick up more seats than their overall vote implies because of regional strengths, e.g southwest England.

    Can people post comments about POLLS and not rant on in a party-political way, please?

  16. Shaun

    Does this show politicians even if in the right are just not liked.Out of all people politicians are held in disdain roughly at the bottom of the pile of all professional people.Wasn’t there a poll on it somewhere.

    You’re in luck because YouGov asked those questions again in this very poll. As Anthony forgot to link to his own tables (this is what happens when you post before the second cup of coffee) they are here:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/97oer2oipq/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-181013.pdf
    (p 4-7)

    The question asked is “How much do you trust the following to tell the truth?” and in the following league table[1] the first figure is for those who trusted that group “A great deal” or “A fair amount” and the second “Not much” or “Not at all”. The difference gives a nett score (Don’t knows were 4-10% depending on the group).

    Family doctors 83 – 13 = +70

    School teachers 73 – 21 = +52

    Judges 69 – 25 = +44

    Local police officers on the beat in my area 66 – 26 = +40

    Senior police officers 48 – 46 = +2

    My local MP 37 – 52 = -15

    Journalists on “upmarket” newspapers (e.g. Times, Telegraph, Guardian) 36 – 58 = -22

    Trade Union leaders 26 – 64 = -38

    Leading Labour politicians[2] 23 – 70 = -47

    Leading Conservative politicians[2] 20 – 73 = -53

    Leading Liberal Democrat politicians[2] 19 – 74 = -55

    Journalists on “mid-market” newspapers (e.g. Mail, Express) 19 – 75 = -56

    Estate agents 15 – 79 = -64

    Journalists on red-top tabloid newspapers (e.g. Sun, Mirror) 12 – 83 = -71

    You will notice that much of what passes for political discourse nowadays consists of those in the bottom half of the list attacking those in the top half.

    [1] Politicians are very keen on those – at least for other people.

    [2] For some reason YouGov put these below the Mail in order of popularity. They also didn’t ask, as they usually do, about “BBC News journalists” or “ITV News journalists” no doubt because of the contrast between the high ratings that these usually get and the falling ones for their “upmarket” client.

  17. Colin You may well be right
    Justin Welby has more credibility than most church leaders when talking about economic matters from a Conservative Voter point of view as a relative of Senior Conservatives, an Old Etonian and an Ex City CEO it is difficult to portray Him as a Sandal Wearing Guardian Reader

  18. Labour’s had a 35, a 38, a 41, a 39. The average hardly wavers from around 38. It rose in the Spring, but it’s where it was over a year ago. The message is pretty well ‘loud and clear’, I suggest.

    Tories take some from UKIP, but can they make 40, i.e. take a big chunk from UKIP and slice into the Labout VI as well? Saatchi says they need to find a narrative to counter Miliband’s. But Lab had this 38 before Miliband put out his energy message. Only Miliband’s silence had seemed (briefly) to be denting the Labour score. So what kind of story do the Tories need? One, I suggest, that does more than tackle the ‘cost of living is now painful’ message. One, maybe, that addresses the need to spread the pain of hard times more fairly?

  19. Wrongly posted this in the last thread, as was catching up on Saturday’s posts.

    Can one be ‘anti-partisan’ in nature when looking at polling?

    I’m looking at excel charts hoping that party ‘x’ gets less over time, and that party ‘y’ also gets less over time.

    That way the charts’ vertical axis (would ‘axes’ be more grammatically correct?) flatten and the charts are easier to look at.

    So, here’s to Con 20%, Lab 20%, Lib 20%, UKIP 20% and Green 20%. :))

  20. P.S. About the post a little way up from my last, I’m not going to keep on asking my question, and I don’t want to thump tubs if it bores everyone. But checking back with the principles on which we have, all of us, formed our opinions, is always useful. It very often helps us take an honest look at whether we are actually campaigning for things we believe, or just sticking up for our own team, like footie fans.

    The right need to know whether they are not just protecting their own interests at the expense of the less fortunate. The left need to know whether they are not just trying to unsettle one power base so as to set up another, i.e. their own. And the centre need to be sure they are not just trimming.

  21. Big days next week:-

    Wednesday-assorted “plebgate” coppers up before Vaz.

    Friday GDP Q3

    Both should be interesting.

  22. Here we have another YouGov poll which is exaggerating the support for Labour. How can daily polls because something comes up in the headlines determine the general election result in 2015. Nobody has voted yet in the next election yet and the vast majority of people who are angry at government policies now will use their common sense when it comes to electing the next government.
    Ed Miliband might be getting popular support at the moment as he comes up with single issue policies that sound popular but his whole strategy as Leader of the Opposition has been nothing short of a catastrophe for the Labour Party. We do need an effective opposition in this country but all Ed Miliband has so far offered is left-wing opportunism and it is probably too late to turn the tables now as the majority of voters do not see him as a future Prime Minister.
    As Tony Blair found out, the mainstream parties that occupy the centre ground win elections. It might explain why the Tories are quite relaxed about trailing Labour in the opinion polls as they want Ed Miliband to stay which makes their job easier in eighteen months time.

  23. @ Colin

    You missed another event which stats next week, which I won’t mention, as it would be cut straightaway by AW.

    Lets just say that once it begins, it should go on for a number of weeks and will be subject to much media interest.

  24. Colin Davis – Re: poverty.
    Do most people believe this is happening?
    If it is happening is it the individuals/family fault/responsibility to deal with it?
    A Tory MP said the other day, “people aren’t dying in the streets”.
    When Hunt says we should look after our parents/grandparents he’s really saying, “the state shouldn’t”. When Davey and Cameron say “put on a jumper” they are saying deal with it yourself.
    “why such a situation must not stop at once?” There is obviously a long way to go before we get to that point.

  25. @CD

    “Can anyone, left, centre or right, write a simple paragraph explaining, as to an idealistic teenager why such a situation must not stop at once?”

    ‘When you have had another 20 years of life under your belt, you may realise that ‘society’ as it is, is not interested in your problems, and you need to focus on the needs of your own family and friends, first and foremost.’

    That would be the general theme of my paragraph. Not politically spectrum-specific. I saw members of family become unemployed or die during the Blair years. No one suggested it was Blair’s fault, although it was in a sense, if you wanted to look at a given government’s policy set as being part of the causes of the problems.

    Eddie Izzard said something along the lines of “Princess Diana died and the nation cried. My mother died and no one gave a s***.”

    Look at the miners in the 80s. Look at the public sector in the noughties. Two examples of mismanagement and each party (i.e. each side) not giving a s***, as long as they were ok. Such is life, and such is humanity.

    The irony isn’t lost on me, that over time we become less ‘Christian’, as political parties and the influential of society increasingly squeeze out the religious aspects of the debate. ‘Christians’ are expected to do their bit when a political party thinks it appropriate (e.g. food banks or help for heroes), but are told to shut up when it comes to gay marriage.

    Then people look to their own, as they don’t trust the politicians any more. Not being religious or gay, but being ‘Christian’ in nature, it’s something I find worrying. Give but don’t get, and it’s generally the not-haves that are doing the demanding.

    As for convincing teenagers of serious issues, no chance. Better advice might be, “Enjoy life before it swallows you up.” :))

    (First post moderated – probably the swear words)

  26. @cjb – what makes you say labours support is exagarated? If anything this at the low end of labour figures for a good 2 years.

  27. My thanks to Trots and Statgeek, you have taken the question seriously.

    I asked for people’s viewpoints, so responding from a personal point of view would be entirely inappropriate. However, just for the record, so to speak:

    Trots is saying that (for many people) such a moral issue won’t arise, because (they will say) the facts don’t support the statement that people are starving etc.

    Statgeek is saying, basically, what Mrs Thatcher said. ”There is no such thing as society.” I.e. we simply don’t have a moral responsibility to those alongside whom we live.

    Fair summaries? (Allowing they are just summaries. I’ve got to go out now, but would love to hear people’s responses, if they have time.)

  28. @COLIN DAVIES

    In my opinion: It is a matter of total shame that we should allow this situation of people without warmth and food and what I feel is a great deal of unfairness in society.

    I decided a while ago that on our own we can do very little. If you feel strongly you should get involved in politics and making policy so I suggest that you join a political party that best refects your views and make your views heard.

  29. @CD

    No, I don’t think I’m saying that at all. I’m saying that politicians are marginalising sections of society so much that they (the sections) look inward, as they can’t trust politicians or society to help them.

    They feel betrayed, and they haven’t actually done anything to warrant it (as did many of the industrial workers of the 80s – the fault lay in governments, mismanagement, and unions, rather than society).

  30. @ROGER MEXICO

    So most newspaper journalists are below politicians. And trade union leaders and labour politicians both easily beat mid-market and red-tops. With only 12% trusting them I think we can rule out the Sun winning it for anyone. It’s not 1992 :-)

  31. CD
    “Statgeek is saying, basically, what Mrs Thatcher said. ”There is no such thing as society.” I.e. we simply don’t have a moral responsibility to those alongside whom we live.”

    I disagree with your second sentence. We do have a moral responsibility to others (but family first obviously), but we shouldn’t rely on ‘society’ to do something about it. do something yourself. Give a beggar a fiver, volunteer at a homeless shelter etc. That’s what Mrs T meant.

  32. Pete B

    Are you sure you want to give a begger a fiver, if so I might just take up begging, lol. But seriously aren’t concerned about what your fiver will be spent on

  33. CD
    @”what Mrs Thatcher said. ”There is no such thing as society.” I.e. we simply don’t have a moral responsibility to those alongside whom we live.”

    On the contrary .

    This is the full quote :-

    “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation”

  34. @CJB

    I hope you are an official advisor to the Conservative Party.

  35. “@ Colin Davis

    Trots is saying that (for many people) such a moral issue won’t arise, because (they will say) the facts don’t support the statement that people are starving etc.

    Statgeek is saying, basically, what Mrs Thatcher said. ”There is no such thing as society.” I.e. we simply don’t have a moral responsibility to those alongside whom we live.

    Fair summaries? (Allowing they are just summaries. I’ve got to go out now, but would love to hear people’s responses, if they have time.) ”

    This is a very difficult issue because what you are asking people to assess, are their moral values and whether this influences their politics. The Tories appear to believe in ‘tough love’, where the state is not going to make it easy for people. Instead they believe that charity is the best way to offer basic help.

    I remember the 1980’s when every major city had a real problem of homeless people living on the streets. Every morning on the way to work, I would be confronted by people asking for money to buy food. I very rarely offered help, not because I was not concerned with their wellbeing, but because there was general advice from local government/charities not to give money, because some of these people had a drug habit. The advice was to instead buy them food and a hot drink or there were vouchers you could buy to give these people, so they could use a local cafe/drop-in centre.

    On the Labour/left side of politics they believe more in state intervention to facilitate a stronger sense of society, where we are all in it together. They don’t believe that most people want to live in a country where greed is pursued to the extent, that people stop caring for others. They don’t believe that the state should back away from its responsibilities for everyone and to let charities shoulder the burden. If this requires a higher level of taxation to pay for a larger state, then this is seen as better, than a form of dysfunctional free market capitalist society where people on average to low incomes suffer.

  36. COLIN DAVIS

    As values differ, so will responses to your question.

    I referred earlier to the research into value groups and their political linkages, The Campaign Company breaks the 3 main groups of Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers into various sub-groups, which are described here.

    http://www.thecampaigncompany.co.uk/why-values-matter/results.php#.UmPSoXCsj5U

  37. Those who fancy trying the TCC test for themselves will find it at

    http://www.thecampaigncompany.co.uk/why-values-matter/values-modes-questionnaire.php#.UmPSlnCsj5U

  38. @cjd

    “his whole strategy as Leader of the Opposition has been nothing short of a catastrophe for the Labour Party”

    In 2010 labour got turfed out with just 29% having lost the trust of most of the electorate. Under Ed M they are consistently polling in the high 30s – more than enough for them to win an Overall Majority. The tories would give their right arm for labours poll rating right now.

    Hardly a ‘catastrophe’.

    By contrast the tories have still not properly recovered from their drubbing in 1997. To win they have to persuade a significant number of voters who didn’t vote for them in 2010 to vote for them in 2015 – there no sign of this happening and to pull that off in the next 18 months would be something of an electoral miracle.

    It would seem that the tory strategists realise this as their strategy (inflating house prices, anti immigrant vans, benefit bashing) seems to be based on shoring up their core vote against UKIP in order to prevent disaster in 2015 – rather than reaching out to the centre ground with policies like increasing the minimum wage

  39. @Norbold

    Nah, I reckon it’s Dan Hodges

  40. Alex Salmond’s speech went down well with the media.

    Wonder what impact his conference will have on the opinion polls for the Scots parliament and the referendum.

  41. “30% of people think that there was probably a deliberate attempt by police to stitch up Mitchell, 21% think he was probably wrongly accused but through a genuine misunderstanding rather than a conspiracy, 24% that he was rightly accused and the police were just telling the truth”
    _____________

    It was a total stitch up IMOP..

  42. TROTS57

    @”When Hunt says we should look after our parents/grandparents he’s really saying, “the state shouldn’t””

    No he isn’t -that is to put it in either / or terms -which he didn’t use :-

    http://news.uk.msn.com/hunt-speaks-out-on-care-for-elderly

    As a matter of interest-do you think “The State” should care for all elderly people?

  43. @ Allan Christie

    Mitchell issue is a fuss over nothing. In other countries they will be laughing at British people taking this seriously. Man on bike wanting to ride through big gate and not the small gates, ends up with Police and Parliamentry enquiries costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. That would pay for a lot of MP’s expenses !

  44. OLDNAT

    INterest link.

    I’m not convinced that such few questions, some of which seem odd to me, can divine core characteristics in that way.

    And I suppose the categories they have settled on would be subject to endless dispute by sociologists.

    …….however fwiw-I am a Pioneer – Flexible Individualist it seems.

    Bit late in life to be called a Pioneer I thought-and I struggle with “flexibility” after a day’s hedgecutting these days.

  45. COUPER2802

    -Without commenting on Policies it is worth pointing out that much of the green tax on energy actually goes into an insulation fund as the UK has some of the worst insulated properties in Europe we shouldn’t be looking to cut this budget but increase it.

    It is also worth pointing out that taxes on UK Energy bills are actually amongst the lowest ,if not the lowest in Europe ,assuming that this revenue will need to be raised somehow cutting the tax element on energy bills further is probably a false economy.

    Incidentally if you disregard the tax element on energy bills the claims from various sources that we have amongst the lowest energy bills in Europe become fanciful as they are actually (net of tax) the Second Highest.

    Other countries are perhaps more honest putting energy taxes on energy bills which as I think another contributor pointed out is probably more equitable than applying it to general taxation as it is the largest houses with the highest incomes,irrespective of resident numbers,that normally use the most energy.

  46. R HUCKLE

    Absolutely agree with you, the event itself was a trivial non interesting matter which would had been lucky to even reach the middle pages of a child’s comic but of course it lead to a serious matter where a sitting cabinet minister lost his post….

    That’s the interesting part!!

  47. Robin Harskin and Nick Keene (from a recent thread).

    As an inveterate reader of this site and a reasonably frequent contributor,l have noticed a disturbing similarity in your two comments,they both tell people to confine their views to polling(!) and make unsupported positive comments about the Liberal Democrats( “everyone can agree that Nick Clegg is a decent chap” and “(the Lib Dems) are bound to pick up more seats than their overall vote implies because of regional strengths e,g. South West England”.)
    Now then, both of these statements may contain some merit ,BUT they are not objectively true, are challengeable and are open to accusations of partisanship.
    So ,Messrs.Harskins and Keene,please don’t tell us denizens of this, the most civilised and entertaining political website,what we should be talking about,and don’t try and slip in subliminal partisan comments as objective truth.

  48. OLDNAT

    Just re-ran the TCC test altering two answers slightly-moving one degree from my previous answer.

    The result is to move me to a very different category .

    I think that test is not nuanced enough & will produce rather crude categorisations , which could be quite incorrect.

    I thought their category definitions were interesting & thought provoking though.

  49. “Statgeek is saying, basically, what Mrs Thatcher said. ”There is no such thing as society.” I.e. we simply don’t have a moral responsibility to those alongside whom we live.”

    It’s probably not good to allude to a statement to clarify someone else’s position if you can’t accurately represent that statement.

    If you read it in context, she was saying EXACTLY the opposite of want you think she said. It’s Orwellian how this statement is misrepresented.

  50. Andrew Mitchell did sware at the police – that can’t be ignored – lucky not to have been arrested.

1 2 3 4