We have two new voting intention polls today. First is a telephone poll from ComRes for the Daily Mail – topline figures are CON 38%(-1), LAB 33%(+3), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 10%(-2), GRN 3%(-1). Since introducing their new turnout model based on socio-economic factors ComRes have tended to show the biggest leads for the Conservative party, typically around twelve points, so while this poll is pretty similar to the sort of Conservative leads that MORI, ICM, YouGov and Opinium have recorded over the last month, compared to previous ComRes polls it represents a narrowing of the Conservative lead. Full tabs are here.

The second new poll is from BMG research, a company that conducted a couple of voting intention polls just before the general election for the May2015 website, but hasn’t released any voting intention figures since then. Their topline figures are CON 37%, LAB 31%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%. BMG have also adopted a methodology including socio-economic factors – specifically, people who don’t give a firm voting intention but who say they are leaning towards voting for a party (a “squeeze question”) or who do say how they voted last time are included in the final figures, but weighted according to age, with younger people being weighted harshly downwards. Full tabs are here.

BMG also asked voting intention in the European refrendum, with headline figures of Remain 52%, Leave 48%. ICM also released their regular EU referedum tracker earlier in the week, which had toplines of Remain 54%, Leave 46%. A third EU referendum poll from YouGov found it 50%-50% – though note that poll did not use the actual referendum question (YouGov conduct a monthly poll across all seven European countries they have panels in, asking the same questions to all seven countries and including a generic question on whether people would like their own country to remain in the EU – this is that question, rather than a specific British EU referendum poll, where YouGov do use the referendum question).


240 Responses to “New ComRes and BMG voting intentions”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. Good morning all from Westminster North.

    Yesterday was my first ever visit to Stamford Bridge and what a welcome i received thanks to the mighty REDS, Even though I was sitting in the corporate area or Bonetti Suite to be exact (thanks to my free ticket) it never stopped me from standing up 3 times to salute and cheer on the mighty ones and not to be out done the mighty Hoops won by same score line against Aberdeen..Hail Hail YNWA.

    Anyway back on topic of sorts..

    MILLIE

    “Can I make a point about Scotland, and ask our Scottish experts for a response?

    I hear that Scottish politics has been energised by the Referendum, leading to greater participation, etc.
    Is it not the case that voter interest at the time of the Referendum was increased largely by the fact that people felt that their vote might make a difference? In FPTP elections, voter interest and turnout is low because so often their vote is irrelevant ”
    ________

    Turn out for the indy ref was high because what was at stake and yes every vote really did count regardless of how you voted however the political feelgood factor from the indy ref in Scotland spilled over into the GE much to the benefit of the SNP.

    Voter turnout in Scotland was higher than across the UK.
    I’m sure voter turn out in England and as a whole across the UK will be higher than the GE turnout for the EU referendum because what is at stake.

  2. Good Morning All, from a sunny Bournemouth, with a properly working lap top handed-down-by a prosperous elder daughter.
    CROSSBAT11.
    May may become new manager at Villa Park perhaps.
    The EU Referendum is the only problem I can see in the Tory sky at the moment.

  3. On Theresa May, this story about the new security bill’s powers is interesting:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956

    Perhaps they have realised that trying to bring in laws to control monitor more and more internet activity is practically very difficult to achieve, as well as the civil liberties and freedom issues involved.

    The use of anonymous proxy servers (TOR for example) and encryption is so global and widespread, that trying to clampdown on them is like trying to pass a UK to change the tides.

    Like many things, such technologies are neutral and are capable of good and bad things. For example, the group Anonymous stepped into the Arab spring. When Governments shut down national internet structures, Anonymous helped people set up bypass systems by using proxy servers, that allowed the world to continue to see what was going on.

  4. Correction

    On Theresa May, this story about the new security bill’s powers is interesting:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956

    Perhaps they have realised that trying to bring in laws to control and monitor more and more internet activity is practically very difficult to achieve, as well as the civil liberties and freedom issues involved.

    The use of anonymous proxy servers (TOR for example) and encryption is so global and widespread, that trying to clampdown on them is like trying to pass a UK law to change the tides.

    Like many things, such technologies are neutral and are capable of good and bad things. For example, the group Anonymous stepped into the Arab spring. When Governments shut down national internet structures, Anonymous helped people set up bypass systems by using proxy servers, that allowed the world to continue to see what was going on.

  5. She’s certainly remarkably long-lived as a Home Secretary – normally a graveyard of careers.

  6. @john pilgrim

    “This is to ignore the present net 330,000 immigration form both Europe and the rest of the world all of which is assimilated into our economy, not largely at the cost of Government but by the communities and industries which absorb them and offset by the benefits they bring.”

    Almost entirely at the cost of the government via housing benefit and tax credits.

    By holding down wages and increasing housing costs oligarchs get to off load their wage bill onto the welfare system.

    The oligarchs make so much money from doing this they can afford to pay millions to lobbyists to keep the borders open.

    .

    “These should not be contentious issues. They do require that the public get the information on which support or otherwise for government and opposition policies are based.”

    You’re right about one thing. If people got honest information that wasn’t paid for by oligarch lobbyists then this wouldn’t be contentious at all.

    Quite obviously if you have mass immigration without building the housing first then the downward pressure on wages combined with the upward pressure on housing costs will squeeze discretionary income and lead to a deflationary spiral – as shown by the entire western world over the last 20 or so years.

    It shouldn’t be contentious at all given how obvious it is and given how a large majority have direct experience of the increase in housing costs out stripping income leading to less spending money.

    .

    Someone mentioned the Cameroons being stubbornly unloved. The reason is they are a globalist party pretending to be a conservative party.

  7. Neil A
    I’d heard that about Home Secretaries before, but wasn’t sure why people said it, so I looked it up. Callaghan was the last HS to become PM, and before him Churchill (in his case nearly 30 years before he became PM!), though there have been several who became leaders of their parties in opposition, most recently Michael Howard.

  8. Millie

    I suspect “better informed” may be more accurate than “energised” as a description of the referendum consequence.

    You are right, of course, that the high turnout was the result of both sides realising that this was a hugely important issue, and that every vote counted.

    Allan Christie may be right that, once the campaigning starts in earnest, many more voters will self-educate about the issues involved, though in Scotland many did that on EU issues, as part of the indyref. That may be why Scots have shown such a consistent “Remain” majority.

  9. It seems that pollsters didn’t excel in Turkey either. A vaccination programme is needed perhaps?

    Actually it’s pretty worrying. Quite a bit of EU programmes are based on polling evidence …

  10. Laszlo

    “Quite a bit of EU programmes are based on polling evidence …”

    And, as we discovered during the indyref, the UK and Scottish Governments also poll when looking at policy options, so it seems likely that lots of other Governments will do the same.

  11. Turkey isn’t Britain (thank goodness). Polling as we all should know suffers from both information and salience problems. If people don’t know/care about something they normally just punt out conventional wisdom, but have no emotional commitment to this, and it doesn’t affect their political views.

  12. Good evening all.

    Labour appear to be in a bit of a mess. The Scottish bit of the party have voted to scrap Trident but their leader is for retaining it.

    Meanwhile the UK party is for retaining Trident but their leader is opposed to it so I’m thinking maybe Keeza and ole Corby should swap places. Both appear to be leading parts of the party who don’t agree with their views.

    And the Scottish Labour party conference in Perth looked half empty.

    It’s not looking good for them and the party appears to be fragmenting into different splinters across the UK.

  13. Turkey!! Who mentioned them?

    What a basket case for democracy. Stir up resentment against the Kurds to get re-elected Bomb and silence your opponents and for a country which is against IS, bomb the very people who are fighting them right next to Turkey’s borders….yes it’s them again, the Kurds.

    So we now have the Americans helping the Syrian Kurds fight IS and Turkey bombing and shelling the Syrian Kurds.

    It’s almost as messy and confusing as Labour’s policy on Trident.

  14. @”Quite a bit of EU programmes are based on polling evidence ”

    The unproductive in pursuit of the unreliable-as Oscar Wilde so very nearly said.

  15. Allan Christie

    Starting with UKIP in September, I think the LiS Conference finally brings the Autumn Conference season to an end!

    Setting aside the question of whether an anti-Trident vote is good or bad in itself [1], the question for this site is how that decision will play with the electorate.

    In some ideal worlds, delegates at a conference should simply vote for what they believe in – and damn the consequences [1]. However, in the more cynical world of electoral calculations, the question is whether that LiS vote will attract more CND/indy voters, than the “pro-UK as a world power, and we need to defend ourselves against N Korea” faction of the aging LiS voters.

    I suspect that the former will cheer the decision, but note that it is a reserved power, so LiS can say what they like but it will make precisely zero change to how Lab MPs will vote.

    The latter group, on the other hand, may decide that the Tories now represent their views rather better than Lab did, so a Lab -> Con shift wouldn’t be surprising.

    Alternatively, no one will notice, and it will have no effect on polling!

  16. Forgot my footnote again!

    [1] Well done LiS delegates!

  17. OLDNAT

    I don’t think Scottish Labour’s vote to scrap Trident will have an impact on the electorate in Scotland. I can hear it on the door steps “But we are like the SNP and don’t want Trident” …”But your leader is for retaining Trident and so is the UK Labour party”

    I take my hat off to the Scottish party for the way they voted but they are still part of the UK party who are for retaining weapons of mass destruction in Scotland as is their leader in Scotland.

    I can’t see that being too appealing to CND.

  18. Allan Christie

    But what about the impact on doorsteps outwith West Central Scotland? We know from polling that opposition to Trident is much less there [1]

    By the time 2020 comes round, the UK will have long ago taken the decision to renew Trident, so meaningless for Westminster elections.

    For Holyrood, next May, how will that policy play with those LiS voters who still think in Cold War terms, and believe that they are under threat from “dark forces”?

    For them, voting SNP seems unlikely, but voting LiS taking a similar stance may also seem a dangerous position.

    [1] Presumably, they think that Faslane is too far away to affect them!

  19. Article based on Mark Pack’s data (and noting past polling methodology errors) –

    http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/what-are-boundaries-and-limits-of.html?m=1

    Well, that’s it. These are all the indicators we’ve got. And they say this: if history and data are any guide at all, Labour can hope, at best, only to escape from the next General Election having merely been badly defeated. But if the party is unlucky, or things go very badly for them, at one extreme of established precedent they could be facing a historic rout that will reduce them to being the party only of English and Welsh inner cities and radical university towns. At one end of the data’s limits, Labour will have ceased to be a truly national party.

  20. I really don’t think trying to analyse those sort of patterns, given the changing face of both the Labour party and the country, and given the small number of data points available, is a worthwhile use of time. The sort of collapse being forecast would require a massive third party insurgency on the scale of the SDP in 1983 or for the tories to be implausibly, overwhelmingly dominant. Neither the lib dems nor UKIP are capable of drawing that support from Labour, and the tories seem to be at the peak of how many people they can convince to hold their noses long enough to vote for them. There are also two major unknowns that could flip the board entirely between now and 2020 – the EU referendum and the change in tory leadership.

  21. My understanding was that reducing the size of the Commons from 650 to 600 was a hot topic just post the expenses scandal when everyone seemed to resent paying for MPs expenses.

    I always doubted that it was a sound long term constitutional alteration because with only 600 MPs it will create a much larger proportion of the Government benches actually as members of the Government (of whatever hue).

    This surely is an anti-democratic move as it is through the largest number of Government supporting Backbenchers considering whether to vote with the Opposition that a Government is really “held to account” for its proposals.

    Will it not be easier to get bad or dubious legislation through for a Government within a HoC with a smaller number of Backbenchers?

  22. Oldnat,

    My main worry about that post is the small sample size. There have only been 12 elections since 1970. It’s a bit like those “No X has done Y since 1952” you see a lot during the height of US presidential election cycles: they are inferences with what John Maynard Keynes would call low “weight of evidence”.

  23. @ Tony Dean

    ‘Will it not be easier to get bad or dubious legislation through for a Government within a HoC with a smaller number of Backbenchers?’

    I always assumed that the idea of reducing the size of the HoC was about making it easier for Government to get through legislation, whether bad, good or indifferent. According to wikipedia, 600 MPs would make it the smallest HoC since 1800… and the population has doubled since the turn of the last century. I can’t see how that can be argued to be a positive development in terms of democratic representation.

  24. Bill Patrick

    True – but the authors did state that the data was limited, and, therefore, their conclusions were by no means definitive.

    On similar past data, no one would have predicted Scottish results last May! There can be factors which change opinion so significantly that the form book goes out of the window.

    Contrary factors seem unlikely to come into play in the 2016 elections, and (inevitably, I suppose!) it’s hard to see possible grounds for a serious Lab revival in England pre 2020.

    They may come into play, but if they don’t occur, then past performance is our only (if unsatisfactory) guide.

  25. Katy Clark is Jeremy Corbyn’s political secretary. :-)

  26. Amber

    Pity. I’d hoped that she would top the West of Scotland Lab list, and provide LiS with a good MSP.

  27. Alan

    Kez just saw that cartoon you linked to. Allegedly she used a bad word. :-)

  28. @ Old Nat

    I think she’ll be an excellent political secretary.

  29. Amber

    She might well be. What does a “political secretary” do?

  30. Keeps political secrets from being aryed?

  31. Bill Patrick

    :-)

  32. Will Dahlgreen of YouGov seems to delight in “purple prose” and exaggeration of survey results – not the best characteristics for someone employed by a polling company!

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/01/nicola-sturgeon-scotlands-most-popular-person/

    “Nicola Sturgeon is the most beloved person in Scotland” he proclaims – though “love” doesn’t seem to feature in any question that YG asked.

    She is popular – as every poll has shown, but such exaggerated language is only matched by Dahlgreen’s lack of understanding of Scottish politics.

    Even when she told the hall that a resounding win at next year’s Holyrood elections would not be an automatic mandate for a second independence referendum, the crowd withheld [corrected spelling] criticism, trusting the long-term vision of their First Minister he opines.

    More realistically, most SNP members don’t want a rush to a 2nd referendum. Having another one soon, without a realistic prospect of success, would be bloody stupid and Sturgeon was simply in tune with the views of the membership.

    Anthony, can you have a word with your colleague and advise him to write more sensibly – at least until he gets a job with one of the more down-market London papers.

  33. MILLIE

    I hear that Scottish politics has been energised by the Referendum, leading to greater participation, etc.

    Is it not the case that voter interest at the time of the Referendum was increased largely by the fact that people felt that their vote might make a difference? In FPTP elections, voter interest and turnout is low because so often their vote is irrelevant.

    There’s a lot of truth in that but the turnout in the referendum was exceptionally high at 85%, especially when you consider that those entitled to vote also included additional groups (16-18 year-olds, EU citizens) not usually entitled to vote in general elections and less likely to vote even when they can do so (eg in locals or Holyrood). There had also been campaigns to get more people onto/back onto the electoral register, people who, by definition would be regular non-voters[1].

    In the end, 85% was a lot higher than most people would have expected even a few months before. Some of this may have been due to the polls showing the result as close, but it may also have been the importance of the topic to individuals and a general greater awareness of politics. There’s also what you might call social expectation, where voting becomes seen as what one does in all strata of society.

    But this increased level of participation didn’t just affect the referendum because the turnout in Scotland at the general election in May was 71%, up from 64% and only slightly below 1997. So you could say that those other factors continued to make a difference. But one of the effects of the polls was that Scots now knew that every seat was now a potential SNP seat and every vote would matter. So that also could have had an effect on turnout.

    In reality the different factors interact and reinforce each other and are difficult to separate. Certainly some constituencies that had previously been marginal (such as Edinburgh South) already had high turnouts, but while they didn’t go up as much as some, previously safe, seats, the turnout still rose. And with a high turnout already there was less room for improvement.

    [1] It has to be said that this seems to be almost entirely a myth, despite all the stories of people registering for the first time since the poll tax or Culloden or whatever. If you look at the summary figures:

    http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/electoral-stats/2-3-15/15electoral-stats-table1.pdf

    any overall increase appears to vanish once you allow for natural population growth and better registration of 18 year-olds (because 16 and 17 yos also got on with the referendum) and EU nationals.

  34. CROSSBAT11

    I must admit, May’s apparent popularity within the Tory party remains a complete and utter mystery to me.

    I’m not sure that she is that popular. When YouGov polled Conservative members in that big sample in September about how they would vote in a leadership election:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/sb6ms6gh7x/Conservative_Leadership_Website.pdf

    she did OK with 17%, but was only getting half the support of Osborne or Johnson. She doesn’t have activist support of the former or the wider public backing of the latter.

    She’s had a fairly charmed life at the Home Office for various reasons and it’s not as toxic a posting as in the past because some of the possibly controversial areas (prisons, courts, the Met) have gone elsewhere. I don’t think she’s done too bad a job in terms of what would expected of a Tory, but the media have gone softer on her than you might have expected on issues such as immigration.

  35. MR JONES
    “Almost entirely at the cost of the government via housing benefit and tax credits.
    By holding down wages and increasing housing costs oligarchs get to off load their wage bill onto the welfare system.
    The oligarchs make so much money from doing this they can afford to pay millions to lobbyists to keep the borders open.”

    Could you let me know where I can contact an oligarch or two?
    My own take on competition of immigrant labour with entrants to the labour market and long-term unemployed has been that of a need to tackle skills shortages in the domestic labour market, since a disproportionate number of immigrants have better experience and qualifications than UK poorlyeeducated labour. That and to advocate removing the constraints on access ,and inflated prices for, building land and the refurbishing of unused capacity in the existing housing stock – even though the construction programme would as things stand depend disproportionately on highly skilled Polish builders.
    One very clear aspect of an unstoppable flow of immigration is that of the need for planning, of the ten to twenty year variety, which this Government for all the rhetoric has not had the stomach or capacity to undertake.

  36. JOHN PILGRIM

    @” a disproportionate number of immigrants have better experience and qualifications than UK poorlyeeducated labour. ”

    Hmmm-the evidence points in a different direction it would appear.

    ” Although foreign-born workers have been and remain employed in a wide range of jobs,the growth in employment shares of foreign-born workers in recent years has been fastest among lower-skilled occupations and sectors. In 2002, there was only one low-skilled occupation (food preparation trades) in the list of
    top ten occupations with the highest shares of foreign-born workers. As shown in Table 1, there are now at least
    five low-skilled occupations on this list (i.e. elementary process plant, cleaning and housekeeping, food preparation
    trade, elementary cleaning, and process operatives).”

    Taken from :-

    http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Migrants%20in%20the%20UK%20Labour%20Market_0.pdf

  37. Good Morning All.
    I think that the Labour Party’s crisis is becoming worse by the week and people in the Blair and Brown factions must be in despair.

  38. COLIN
    Good morning.
    Well spotted, but I think the two pieces of evidence, that of preferential uptake of experienced and qualified immigrants over new entry domestic labour, and that of high immigrant entry to low wage occupations, are not mutually exclusive.

    I’ll check, but think that the apparent contradition does illustrate my wider point, that information about the impact or beneifits of immigration is complex and can be cherry picked; and that there is a serious need for professionall and systained research and planning as against politically driven responses to what is and will continue to be an intractable process.

  39. JOHN

    Describing opposing views on immigration as ” politically driven” doesn’t invalidate them-all views on immigration by politicians are politically driven.

    And of course real people have views on immigration too-particularly where/when they are affected by it.

    I never thought that I would find myself agreeing with Alexis Tsipras-but his corruscating condemnation of the EU & the resultant horror that his eastern most islands are dealing with every day is heartelt & correct.

    This will go down in the annals of the EU’s greatest mistakes. And I am sorry to say that Angela Merkel bears a large part of the responsibility.

  40. @Welsh borderer:

    The vast majority of people look at current polls to get an early idea of which way the 2020 election might go, and to determine the current factors that might persist to that election. This is best aided by trying to relate the current poll to projected turnout (as well as is possible).

    Very few have a genuine interest in an actual current snapshot of how people claim they will vote in an imaginary 2015 election.

    Why on earth would they?

  41. Roger M

    Thanks for those details – as ever.

    It would be interesting to know the relationship between the ‘marginality’ of a seat and turnout. I am rather presuming you will have the answer to that.

    I am wondering whether the increasing amount of polling, and indeed betting information, has made the public more certain of the outcome in their own seat, and therefore discourages them from voting, as they are more likely to know the outcome in advance.

    In my own constituency, a maverick independent secured 25% of the vote, and made a normally safe seat unpredictable. This rare uncertainty ( mine is a very safe Tory seat ) as to the outcome was compounded by considerable publicity with regard to betting: she began at 66/1 and quickly plummeted to 5/1.

    Turnout was up 1.1% compared to an England average of 0.3%. And despite our local council being severely criticised for failing to register voters.

    Another example was Ben Bradshaw’s seat Exeter: this is a traditional marginal, but Bradshaw was 19/1 on in advance of the election – so voters knew it was a foregone conclusion.

    Polling can be very anti-democratic…

  42. @ Millie

    But was there polling of those seats? What you are giving as evidence is not polling but betting odds.

  43. Millie – a poor effort by a council to register voters does not depress the turnout figure, it increases it.

    That sounds counter-intuitive, but remember that turnout figures are “number of people who voted” divided by “number of people on the register”, so if people who are unlikely to vote drop off the register the published turnout figures would *increase*.

  44. COLIN
    Two possible amendments to your argument:
    we need to distinguish between policy mistakes and bad or inadequate planning and execution of policy. In that context the effect on the level and origins of migration of EU or German policy, including a willingness to accept migrants, is difficult to gauge. The effect of not adequately undertaking the research and logistical planning to receive and look after them in transit is clear in the situation in Turkey and the Greek islands. The Agenda programme sees this as a transit and holding operation while permanent structures are set in place and while countries such as Germany willingly undertake their absorption. The arrangements made appear to have been inadequate, and we’ll see how well the EC now responds to the difficulties of the transit countries and of migrants in overcoming the present crisis and setting what have to be permanent working structures- which need to be of active and positive benefit to these countries, and not just renewable band-aids.
    Secondly, there’s a difference between party politically driven responses, and responses which are intended to achieve a political solution to the underlying shared problem. In relation to the latter, the demographics which are driving long-term migration from developing countries do seem to me to be better answerable from within the EU, irrespective of its currently poor execution of the Agenda Programme.
    The overall picture is rife with opportunities for misinformation, on which a UK government ought not to be culpable in guiding policy and informing the public within the limits of the long-term problem posed by migration.

  45. JOHN

    @” the effect on the level and origins of migration of EU or German policy, including a willingness to accept migrants, is difficult to gauge”

    There is no difficulty-how many tv interviews do you need to see , of Syrians trudging across the mud of a European Winter, and stating that they want to go to Germany. Have you not seen the aerial shots of those people walking north?. They don’t stay in Greece do they?-They are economic migrants for whom safety was not an issue in Turkey-there is nothing in Greece for them.

    “The Agenda” is a farce-borders are being closed whilst the migrants still put their children in rubber dinghies & head for Lesbos. What has happened since Merkel met the Turks?-nothing…..actually not true-Turkey has increased its financial demands on EU to stop the people traffickers on its beaches from sending children to their deaths.

    There is only one way -if you want to receive all these people-send Cruise Liners & Planes to Turkey and bring them in safety-to let them risk the threats of drowning -and to allow them to WALK to Germany ?-and then say “well done-you made it”-what sort of humanity is that ?

    Everything is “political” in the end John-including your own views.

    The trick is to make political decisions acceptable to voters. I think Merkel is rapidly being made aware of this caveat in Germany.

  46. COLIN
    OK – to sign off this discussion before Anthony does it for me, may I just say that the displacement of people from Syria and the incidence of their going to Turkey and Greece are fact. Hiow our governments or the EU react is policy.
    I personally don’t think the policies which make up the Agenda programme are farcical, but I do think the measures taken to fulfil it are being poorly managed.
    Their management, and our understanding of them, would be improved by better information (and that would be reflected in the polls and in your Tonbridge Wells reaction to the EU’s measures, which I do agree are inadequate.)

  47. @CatManJeff

    However, it appears the bill still contains language banning sale of equipment that enables end-to-end encryption. ie, technology where the device makers and network can’t decrypt the contents of the message, or retrieve the keys used to send it.

    This would include every iPhone made since 2013. The Apple Watch. The Apple TV… Going to be a kick in the teeth for the entertainment, for whom end-to-end encryption is their big defence against casual copyright theft. And that’s before we get to the companies who’s legal privacy protection requirements mandate end-to-end encryption…

    The Government may well pass this. Let’s see them try to enforce it.

  48. JOHN

    @”Tonbridge Wells reaction”

    You can’t help giving signals like this can you :-)

    The iconography of your politics is so interesting.

  49. COLIN
    Iconoclasm, Dear Boy, iconoclasm.

1 2 3 4 5