ComRes have released their first voting intention poll since the election, and have topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 29%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%, GRN 5%. Full details are here.

The ComRes poll also had the first attempt at a methodology change to address the failings of the polls at the 2015 general election – though as ComRes make clear in their explanation this is not ComRes’s final word on the topic, they are continuing their internal review and may make extra changes too.

As with all the pollsters who use political weighting, the initial change is to move from past vote weighting using the 2010 election to past vote weighting using the 2015 election, something that would have been done anyway. The second change is a new model of turnout weighting. This is based on the theory that a cause of the error was people overestimating their likelihood to vote in an uneven way – that is, we all know people overestimate their vote, but ComRes suggest they overestimate it unevenly, that people in some social groups (who happened to support Labour this time) overestimated their likelihood to vote more than other groups, thus skewing the polls.

In the past almost all the pollsters accounted for likelihood to vote using a straightforward system of asking people to rate their likelihood to vote on a scale of 0 to 10, and then either filtering out those people who gave a low score, weighting people according to how likely they said they were to vote, or a combination of the two. ComRes’s new method still filters out people who say they are less than 5/10 likely to vote, but after that bases likelihood to vote weighting on demographics, based upon patterns of turnout at the general election, specifically that there tends to be lower turnout in areas of social deprivation and in areas with a high proportion of social classes DE and low proportions of ABs.

The mechanics of this aren’t completely clear yet (I’ve asked ComRes for some more details which I’ll update later), but essentially it looks as if younger and more working class respondents are assumed to be less likely to vote than they claim they are and weighted downwards accordingly. It means, in effect, that the final headline voting intention figures are made up of 41% AB, 31% C1s, 19% C2, and just 9% DEs, so the effective sample once it’s modelled for the sort of people who actually turn out to vote is far more middle class than the pre-election samples that got it wrong.

The impact of the change is, as you might expect, to produce significantly more Conservative figures. In this particular poll it increased the Conservative lead from eight points to twelve points. In ComRes’s final pre-election poll it would have changed the result from a one point Tory lead to a five point Tory lead, significantly nearer what actually happened.

UPDATE: ComRes have got back to me with some more details of their turnout model. In my original version of this post I’d assumed ComRes were still weighting people according to their 0-10 score, but were adjusting this score based on demographics too. In fact ComRes are now only using the 0-10 score to filter out people who say they are less than 5/10 likely, otherwise the turnout weights are all based on demographics.


401 Responses to “ComRes/Daily Mail – CON 41, LAB 29, LD 8, UKIP 10, GRN 5”

1 6 7 8 9
  1. @PeteB

    I know it’s a bit heretical, but political parties don’t really believe in distinct groups of beliefs, they more represent distinct groups of people, thus

    Conservatives: up until the 19th century the party of large landowners. As industrialisation took off and the importance of large landholding decreased, they expanded their appeal sideways to large businesses and downwards to small landholders (houseowners) and small businesses.

    Labour: up until the 21st century the party of the unions. As the importance of organised labour decreased, it expanded its appeal to minorities, women and benefit claimants

    Liberals and predecessors: up until the 19th century the party of traders. Was squeezed by the rise of Labour and expansion of the Conservatives. Retained its position as second party in areas with no major industrialisation (West Country) or historical antipathy to the Conservatives (Highland Clearances). Now squeezed further by Cameron expanding Conservative support.

    The beliefs a given party professes at a given moment will represent those of its voters today, and may contradict those it held previously. A party that forgets this dies.

  2. Martyn

    An alternative way of explaining that is that political parties still represent “interests” (in the 18th/early 19th century sense of the word) – not people.

    As economic/social circumstances change, so does the composition of electorally useful “interests”.

  3. Yes I know it’s a Self Selecting Sample but it’s intriguing that 66 year old committed socialist Jeremy Corbyn is now at 50% in the Mirror’s Labour Leadership poll, more than 30% ahead of his nearest challenger (Burnham). It’s a big lead even after allowing for the SSS. Could this be because he doesn’t regard the election as a competition to see who can adopt the maximum number of Conservative policies before nominations close ? Personally I would like to see him as Deputy Leader but he will get my vote.

  4. I don’t imagine many will be interested in a 40 minute non-partisan discussion of Scottish politics with Peter Lynch of Stirling University, but for severe political geeks it can be accessed here –

    http://newsnet.scot/2015/06/making-sense-of-election-results-and-what-they-mean-for-scotland-and-the-uk/

  5. @Welsh Borderer

    That isn’t a surprise. There’s a market in the UK for a left wing anti austerity, anti authoritarian, sceptical about the EU party leader.

    In fact such a leader could steal the thunder of Ukip and the Greens and win some ground on the SNP.

  6. RAF

    “There’s a market in the UK for a left wing anti austerity, anti authoritarian, sceptical about the EU party leader. ”

    I’m sure there is. But how big is that market in England?

    Carwyn Jones and Nicola Sturgeon “have issued a joint statement saying it would be “unacceptable” for the UK to leave the EU against the wishes of people in Scotland and Wales.”

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sturgeon-and-welsh-first-minister-carwyn-jones-in-joint-call-over-eu-vote.1433350886

    We don’t have much of a clue about the attitude of the DUP on the EU but a “left-wing” agenda would seem to be relatively unpopular – even if such a party stood in Northern Ireland.

    The SGP is pro-EU (though like most people they would like to see reform). I thought the E&W Greens took a similar stance?

    The “UK market” may be smaller than you would like.

  7. Pete B/Anarchist

    Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia must have been the source of the Monty Python sketch. I never could quite get my head around the different between the POUM, the PSOE, the PCE, the PSUE, the UCT and the CGT-FAI.

  8. But of course there are also the British equivalents

    The Communist Party
    The Communist Party of Great Britain
    The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
    The Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
    The Revolutionary Communist Party
    The Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist)
    The New Communist Party of Britain.

    etc, etc, and so forth.

  9. Lefty

    To be fair, all these parties operate within a fully democratic structure – One Member, One Vote.

    The only problems arise when they have more than one member.

  10. @Old Nat – yours of 9.28 yesterday evening

    “John B @ Allen
    “Given that this must be the SNP’s high water mark – at least this time round – you could quite safely now start taking the SNP to pieces. Personally I hope we get out of one-party-rule as soon as possible!”

    You guys are well behind the pace!
    I’ve been saying for ages that I’ll vote Green on the List – as the party that (a) I agree with more and (b) most likely to stir up the SNP into more socially progressive actions.
    I’ll still vote SNP in the constituency – an excellent current MSP and the best tactical vote too.” (end quote)

    I had already posted earlier, maybe a couple of days ago, that I thought the Greens were going to do rather well next May at the Scottish GE – if only to keep the SNP on track, as you yourself indicate.

    One of the problems I face on this site – and in wider UK discussion – is that people assume that the SNP is the only party looking for independence and that, by extension, all nationalists must therefore be in 100% accord with whatever the SNP says. Neither are true, of course.

    Having said that, I’m quite favourably disposed to the ‘tough little cookie’ as Mrs. B describes Nicola, and our local MSP is fairly active, when she can get away from her ministerial duties!

    As for next year’s vote: too early to tell. List Green very likely; constituency Green? Not so sure. Might even vote Labour (!!!)……. who knows? By that time the SNP will have been in govt for how many years?

  11. Old Nat et al

    The Peter Lynch interview is first class. Ought to be prescribed listening for anyone wishing to understand Scottish political scene as it now is. Not that it covers all aspects: no discussion of the Greens, and nothing on how the inevitable changes to the oil industry over the coming years will impact, but nonetheless an excellent discussion. Thanks for the link!

  12. Can’t listen to that Peter Lynch link posted by @Oldnat due to technical problems with my speakers, but it looks interesting.

    Also interesting are the EU machinations. Cameron has got himself into his first big mess, with likely many more to follow. The SNP/Plaid reaction is perfectly justified, in my view, and I suspect this assent of all four nations to major constitutional and international decisions is going to become a developing theme, with federalism by the back door, if not the front door.

    Interestingly, I suspect one of the key pro EU referendum messages may well now be redundant thanks to the SNP. I’m fairly sure that pre GE, pro EU campaigners would have been saying that leaving the EU will mean the break up of the UK – probably quite justifiably.

    This could have been a major selling point, but now, I rather think it will fall on deaf ears, as those out voters likely to be swayed by it will probably now care less if Scotland does leave, while also seeing the UK break up as being far more likely anyway, in or out of the EU.

    One big risk on the EU vote that few seem to have addressed is what happens after an in vote with an unsatisfactory renegotiation. That’s the end of reform, in many ways.

  13. Love the arrogance of Oldnat. He should do a double act with Ben Elton.

  14. @wolf

    Some arrogance may be justified…

    TNS Scottish Parliament poll out today, according to various folks on twitter:

    SNP 60%
    Lab 19%
    Con 15%
    Lib 3%

    (presumably that is for the constituency vote)

  15. Watched a chunk of the debate on the Scotland Bill yesterday. The opening skirmishes make the prospects for fun & games during the 4 day line-by-line examination of the Bill, considerable.

    I particularly enjoyed the Speakers interventions on SNP MPs. He certainly has the measure of what he described , through fixed grin & clenched teeth ,as Salmond’s “cheeky chappy” act.

    The confrontational sniping of SNP contributors added some weight to the observation in a Holyrood.com article about ” falling literacy and numeracy levels in a country with a reputation for verbosity ” (1)

    I heard GO respond to SNP interventions during his contribution to the Queen’s Speech debate by telling them it was time to “put up or shut up”. Reports that Swinney is considering raising taxes in Scotland might indicate that they are considering that advice-though I doubt they will ever “shut up” :-)

    (1)”What can be done to fix Scottish education?”
    Holyrood.com
    8 June 2015.

  16. Regional numbers:

    SNP 50%
    LAB 19%
    CON 14%
    GRN 10%
    LD 5%
    UKIP 2%

    Those numbers would give the SNP a bigger majority and it would also mean a significant chunk of (pro-independence) Greens.

  17. @Alec

    I totally disagree that the SNP/Plaid/SDLP position is justified. Scotland voted to remain part of the union and that means that, on non-devolved matters, each Scottish voter counts the same as each English, Welsh and Northern Irish elector (and indeed each Gibraltarian elector in the case of the EU Referendum). If Scotland votes differently from the rest of the UK that should matter no more than if London, Cornwall or Kent does. If you said that each part of the UK had a veto you would, as you rightly say, have federalism (and with it a massive escalation of English nationalism and all the other problems I referred to in a post about a week ago). Obviously if Scotland did vote to stay and the UK as a whole to leave that would be problematic for the union, almost certainly leading to a snap independence referendum, but that is not a good reason for bringing the whole exercise of a national referendum on Europe into disrepute. I maintain my belief that Yes will win comfortably and so this problem won’t occur.

    Keeping the union together will, I think, still be a campaign message used by Yes and could be more effective than you imagine – I still feel there is wide support for the union in Britain as a whole; opinions of Scotland must not be confused with opinions of the SNP or to be more precise of the prospect of the SNP becoming influential outside Scotland.

  18. JACK SHELDON

    @”opinions of Scotland must not be confused with opinions of the SNP”

    A very important observation.

    It is very difficult to comply with though, if one comes to this place-or watches debates in HoC :-)

  19. @Colin

    Indeed. Already many Tory and Labour MPs have fallen into casually conflating the two :)

  20. “Scottish politics is at risk of becoming bogged down in a UK debate about the constitution, federalism, and varying levels of devolution…”

    Well, sometimes no change is the right amount of change…

  21. JACK

    In the HoC it must be difficult for them to avoid. The SNP yesterday didn’t cease going on about their “mandate”.

    I found the whole dynamic in yesterday’s debate fascinating. The inclination of Labour MPs to disagree with both SNP & Tory MPs was clearly being tested in a debate where the “greater enemy” had , on occasion, to be identified.

    There seemed much more discomfort on Labour benches than on the Tory ones ( which were strangely empty)

  22. Interesting to read the new Highland Council chairman – an ex tax inspector – imply compulsory redundancies at that council are on the table now. Bit of a correction to the idea that all Scots are raving socialists now

  23. @Colin

    My thought was that Labour’s whips had perhaps instructed their MPs to show up so as to create the impression they still care about Scotland.

    Yes, it was an odd dynamic to the debate. Having 56 SNP MPs clearly made a big difference – if this bill had come forward in the last Parliament it would have been a low key occasion with the two front benches largely agreeing. That CON/LAB consensus still exists to an extent – though it sounds like LAB will try to outflank the Tories with some amendments – but they are now speaking with what is very visually a tiny mandate on Scottish issues. It was highlighted by neither party having a second Scottish spokesperson for the wrap-ups – Labour resorted to Wayne David and the Tories to David Gauke. The SNP are keen to magnify every little division (really there isn’t that much on this bill – mainly just the detail of the drafting which may be changed in committee with government support anyway) and to make clear that they speak for the Scottish people. It will be interesting to see how far CON and LAB are prepared to go to satisfy SNP demands at committee – my guess is they’ll go some way.

  24. JACK

    It will be interesting to see what the “SNP demands” are-there was a clear implication from Con & Lab front benches that SNP are simply blustering about more powers which they don’t really want.

  25. @COLIN

    The biggest thing that the SNP have a complaint about is that there is an apparent veto for the UK Government in many of these new “devolved” powers. Mundell repeatedly denied this yesterday, yet the bill says in instances that the Scottish Government must have “consulted the Secretary of State about the proposed regulations,” and “the Secretary of State has agreed to the regulations being made.”

    http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/davie-get-your-veto.html

  26. JAMES

    Yes- I remember the exchanges on that point.

    Throughout the whole debate my over-riding thought was that the never ending “grievances” of the SNP will come to dominate this Parliament & that Independence for Scotland would be a most desirable state of affairs .

  27. Eye candy – https://twitter.com/StatgeekUK/status/608225368248442880

    Also seat changes – h ttps://twitter.com/StatgeekUK/status/608225732192534528

  28. “Carwyn Jones and Nicola Sturgeon “have issued a joint statement saying it would be “unacceptable” for the UK to leave the EU against the wishes of people in Scotland and Wales.””

    ————-

    Ooooookay. Let’s get this straight.

    The Scots and Welsh represent a minority of the UK population.

    And Sturgeon is saying that if this minority don’t want to leave the European Union, we shouldn’t. Even if the majority wish to leave.

    OK, well in that case, by her reasoning, so long as there’s a minority in Scotland who don’t want Scotland to leave the UK, Scotland shouldn’t leave. Even if the majority wish to.

  29. Are you pitching for an Orkney & Shetland veto in the next IndyRef? ;-)

  30. @Exile

    Lol, Well I’m not, but as for Sturgeon…

  31. Zac Goldsmith looks like he may run for London Mayor. Probably because of reasons of my own prejudice (multi millionaire inherited wealth, public school, privlleged etc) I should not want him to win, but what I have heard from him and his principled stand on issues makes him appealing to him.
    The purpose of this post is not just about the London Mayoral election, but a wider point. Certain politicians in my opinion are attractive across the political spectrum because of the feeling they are genuine in that they appear to want the best for their constituents.

  32. Ok, I’ve had time to look at the Holyrood polling. Very interesting. The Lib Dems down a bit (MOE stuff and only on the constituency poll) the Tories up a bit (again MOE stuff) and a huge swing from Labour to the SNP/Greens. Great for the SNP, but also the Greens should be optimistic, because the regional list system offers them some really good opportunities, and I can see a lot folk on the left in Scotland splitting their vote, especially if an SNP majority looks guaranteed.

    I would suggest the possibility that the Scottish Tories could do better than Labour on the popular vote, but quite apart from being conjectural it would just invite the observation that ‘popular’ is not quite an apposite term in this context.

  33. Statgeek,

    Thanks for the graphics. So the SNP, Tories and Greens would probably increase their seats, with the Greens doing best, and Labour would have another bad night but more of a 2011-type fall in their vote rather than a 2015-type near-wipeout.

    I don’t recall UKIP standing many if any candidates on the constituency ballot in 2011, and I wonder if they’ll do so next year. 3% would be quite a decent performance, but would require a lot of lost deposits which I doubt they can afford.

  34. NeilJ,

    My hypothesis is that it’s that belief above all else that is the SNP’s big asset, and the Scottish unionist parties’ biggest problem.

  35. @Bill

    I noticed that the Conservatives got 2 seats in the constituency side of the Scotland Votes seat calc (Labour none, Lib Dems one).

    If we factor in recent electoral FPTP results, and Carmichael’s shenanigans, we might be looking at SNP with 100% of constituency seats, which would negate the Con gains at the list level.

    I’ll pop in a very early prediction of Con / Lib combined seats of no more than 20, and probably less than 15. It will depend on if the traditional Libs of Scotland opt for Green on the list, rather than SNP (the latter will probably mean for more Con / Lab / Lib list seats).

  36. Statgeek,

    It’s certainly possible. The SNP’s failure in Edinburgh South was also in part due to one-off factors.

  37. Good afternoon all from an incredible hot Mount Florida. When I left the house this morning which is only about 3 miles away from where I work it was freezing and even some ground frost.

    Okay on the Scottish TNS poll. What it shows is that the SNP is in competition with itself.

    The Holyrood SNP MSP’s saying to the SNP’s Westminster lot “anything you can do we can do better”

    I’m all for healthy competition in our politics. It’s healthy for our democracy and a wee shout out for the Greens!! They would be on 10 seats based on the poll.

    According to the map (if I’ve put the numbers in correctly) Labour would still hold Eastwood (East Ren to foreigners).

    That has to be sorted.

  38. Nope sorry correction. Eeastwood would in fact fall to the Tories. Hard to tell these days between blue and red Tories.

  39. @NeilJ

    Goldsmith is seen as a good candidate for the SV electoral system – he jumps across the political spectrum in unusual ways that could lead him to pick up Green (he’s an environmentalist), Lib Dem (his work on recall and support for political/electoral reform) and UKIP (he’s anti-EU) second preferences. The fact that his backstory echoes Boris’s in some ways probably also gives Tories some hope. I must say I’m not entirely convinced but then Boris cannot have convinced many when he was initially selected and he proved to be a triumph. If Labour pick the wrong person (Sadiq Khan) then this mayoral election perhaps isn’t such a foregone conclusion as has often been assumed.

  40. Just popping in from Canada and see you are still discussing Scotland and Scottish politics, but I thought I would leave you with two interesting pieces of data on voter turnout in British Columbia:

    Voters divided into age groups:
    http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/voter-participation-by-age-group-2013.pdf

    A more in depth study of voter demographics:
    http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/Who-heads-to-the-polls.pdf

    What the latter shows is that who votes varies from election to election, so that someone who voted in 2001 and 2005 may not necessarily vote in 2009 or vice versa.

    So as I said previously weighting according to how people voted in 2010 is not a good methodological idea.

    You can all go back to talking about Scotland now.

  41. @Oldnat

    “To be fair, all these parties operate within a fully democratic structure – One Member, One Vote.

    “The only problems arise when they have more than one member.”

    That reminds me, back in the 1960s, when I was young I used to know an old style Trotskyist well into his 70s, called Arnold Ridley who had written many books and pamphlets on Trotskyism and the Utopia to come. When he was a young man he had actually met Trotsky himself.

    In spite of common mythology concerning Trots, he had a very self-deprecating sense of humour. Getting to the point, with regard to your comment, he once said to me, “Where you have two Trotskyists you have a battle for power.”

  42. @Carfrew and @Jack S – I think the position of Scotland and Wales in the event of an out vote is an interesting display of the joys of have an ‘unwritten’ constitution.

    De facto, events of the ground mean that we are moving towards a federal system. I think we are in many ways beyond a simple majority deciding such issues now, as we have 4 separate polities, each capable of having different relationships with the EU, and each needing to be listened to.

    One of the critical issues about the recent events in Scotland is precisely about the majority issue. It’s likely Scots will often be in a minority within the UK, given the disparity between the populations of the 4 nations, so if we want a UK system to work, this needs to be recognised.

    Different constitutions do this in different ways. Some recognise that major constitutional changes need to be backed by 2/3rds or 3/4 of the voters, others that two parliamentary houses need to back it, or an enhanced majority is required. Some accept regional assemblies need to all vote in favour of changes.

    It’s such a big change that I personally think a straightforward majority of those voting across the UK is insufficient, if separate parts of the UK vote differently.

  43. CHRISLANE1945
    ALLAN CHRISTIE.

    “Hello Again. My name is 1945, not 1925, and AFC B will do ok; they are going for the core points strategy of 35 points, winning against the bottom six teams, home and away”
    ______

    Sorry about that it was a genuine mistake.

    I hope AFC B do stay up and your key player last season Matt Ritchie will relish at playing the the Premiership.

    He reminds me of ,eh, me! born in England but eligible to play for Scotland via his Scottish father. Look after him because he will need to be in fine form when Scotland plays Ireland.

  44. CARFREW
    @AC
    “Speaking of Labour leadership candidates…Anyone seen AMBER?”
    —————
    Not seen her much since the election. She may have done a “Crossbat”, along with other Labour board notables?
    Still, hopefully she’ll return. If not, I’ll post stuff on Public Schools, that’ll bring her back
    ______

    I think AMBER might be too busy taking on Ken Mac for the Labour leadership in Scotland.

    Or, she might come back as AMBER-KAZ ;-)

  45. @Alec

    I just don’t think a Scottish (or Welsh, Northern Irish or Gibraltarian) veto would be a credible way to go about a national referendum. There may be a stronger case for super-majorities but IMO that would simply result in a referendum that was not credible and stoke English nationalism. As you well know in practice 2/3 or 3/4 voting ‘No’ is hugely unlikely so the super-majority rule would, in effect, be the same as a veto. The fact is that Scotland makes up well under a tenth of the UK+Gibraltar population and so has less than one tenth of the votes. As long as we have a union that is how it should be.

  46. Hello,
    Warning- An incoherent ramble about the Lib Dems follows. I advise ignoring and skipping to the next post where that might be something interesting about Scotland and/or storage.

    There was some discussion here a while back about how the Lib Dems should position themselves in order to rebuild.

    A lot of people seem to think they will drift back towards the left (under Tim Farron presumably) and occupy a position somewhere to the left of wherever the Labour party end up. Of course if that’s a position that Lib Dems feel comfortable in and they want to campaign from the left they should do so but I’m not convinced it’s the best place for them to carve out a niche in the current political climate.

    IMO the most likely path for them to rebuild support is as a genuine free-market party. This might seem a bit counterintuitive given the shellacking that Orange Bookism has just received but I do think there is room that type of ‘movement’ in British politics. I actually think that Clegg was moving along the right lines but his problem was that most voters and barely more within his own party agreed with where he was going.

    Anyway, here’s my logic. There’s no space for the Lib Dems to go back to being a left of Labour party (i) because harder leftwingers won’t trust them and have other places to go (Green and SNP) (ii) because, slowly, Labour have (and may continue) to lose some of the baggage from the Blair years (e.g. Iraq and ID cards) simply through being out of power. Another point is that even though Lib Dems voters don’t/didn’t like Blair what New Labour did do is occupy the space that the old SDP inhabited making it less obvious why there should be another party on the centre left.

    IMO the most likely position from which the Lib Dems can rebuild is from somewhere on the right. Many have argued that the problem for the Lib Dems in government is that they didn’t really articulate how they were different from the Tories. In part this is due to the Conservative modernizing on social issues. If the Lib Dems are going to follow Tory economic policy and the Tories are going to legislate in favour of same-sex marriage it becomes difficult to distinguish the two. Therefore, I think the Lib Dems (or what remains of the Orange Bookers) could benefit from setting out an agenda of right (ish) economic policies but clearly identify how this agenda differs from the Conservatives. In some respects I think this approach goes back to an earlier form of liberalism and would look a lot more like liberal parties in other EU countries (VVD in the Netherlands).

    The agenda should look like something like this:
    – Social liberalism (e.g. internet privacy etc)
    – Pro Europe (no change obviously)
    – Pro UK Federalism (I think this is pretty much where current Lib Dem thinking is anyway)
    – Pro fiscal conservatism (I don’t personally agree with this but I think it’s popular with the public)
    – Leave the NHS alone (even if the new party does have an instinct to liberalize the provision of healthcare I don’t think there’s any votes in it).
    – Move the burden of taxation away from work on to assets (I think this goes back to that earlier liberalism and ideas like land value tax it would certainly distinguish them from the Tories).
    – Less intervention (I think that the Lib Dems could make a free-market case against the Tories and argue that in many respects they are just as interventionist as Labour (e.g. Help to Buy, Pensioner Bonds etc) only difference being that the interventions on behalf of different interest groups.

    I see this sort of platform as being relatively popular with the following groups: the young, the ‘aspirational’, the middle classes, business. I think it’s a modern form of right wing (ish) politics that would appeal to the Economist and the FT but would horrify the Mail and the Telegraph.

    Of course, FPTP means it probably makes no difference anyway.

  47. @Alec

    One detects a cake-and-eat it scenario developing!!

    So, for a major constitutional matter like leaving the EU, Scots should have an enhanced voice in the matter.

    But, let me guess, for the major constitutional change such as leaving the UK, somehow this magically doesn’t apply, and a two-thirds majority or regional veto won’t be necessary?!! Possibly for some rather comical and tenuous reasons. Good luck with that – good time to nip out for a coffee!!…

  48. @SWAMPMONGREL

    “Warning- An incoherent ramble about the Lib Dems follows.”

    ———–

    That’s OK, we understand: they don’t make a coherent analysis easy…

  49. Good Afternoon All; another fine day in our Premier League sea side town and safe tory land constituencies, so all is right with the world, at the moment.

    LEFTYLAMPTON.
    Those groups in Spain were the Stalinists, the Trotskyists, the Anarchists, the Catalan Separatists and Basque Separatists, in opposition to ‘moderate’ socialists and liberals.
    No wonder Franco won.
    When Orwell wrote ‘Homage’ and ‘Animal Farm’ his friends at home ostracised him; for example Kingsley Martin.

    Labour Hustings seem to have been good for Yvette and Liz. Andy seemed to have stumbled, again.

  50. I’m not entirely sure why the polling companies are continuing to include Scotland in their polls — it became abundantly clear on 7th May that Scottish voters now act completely differently from E&W ones.

    GB-wide polls (not UK-wide ones, given that NI is never included) perhaps made sense in the past, but they can’t be used to predict Scottish seats any longer, and they’re just making the polls less accurate for E&W.

1 6 7 8 9