There are two new polls on the EU referendum today. While the YouGov and ComRes polls conducted after the draft renegotiation showed a sharp movement towards LEAVE, these two paint a far steadier picture (though given one is online and one was conducted by phone, their overall figures contrast with each other!). ICM’s last poll had shown LEAVE nudging ahead, today’s new online figures are back to REMAIN 43%, LEAVE 39% (tabs here). Ipsos MORI’s latest telephone figures are REMAIN 54%, LEAVE 36% – virtually unchanged from their previous poll (tabs here).

MORI also released their monthly voting intention figures, which stand at CON 39%, LAB 33%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 12%, GRN 3%


353 Responses to “Latest MORI and ICM referendum polling”

1 2 3 4 5 8
  1. @ Alec

    The Office of Social Security has a study on East European immigration using their own internal data. If you have the access, you can read it. It is based on monthly movements, so you have the seasonality too.

    The most important in it is: since the beginning of 2014 East European immigration has grown enormously, back to the pre-recession level.

    By the way, that Hungarian figure is 12% of the population. For the Baltics the Soc’s estimate is close to 30%.

  2. @ Alec

    Sorry for missing the joke. Perhaps being involved in the issue a bit too much didn’t help – I’m actually doing a project on checking ONS figures on intra-EU migration against other sources, which is quite boring, yet very involved.

    So – sorry for not spotting the gig.

  3. ALEC
    BBC reporting Gove will campiagn for out.
    Ouch!

    Which side do you expect it to hurt?

  4. Reading the “live” updates on the media, these negotiations seem to be surprisingly similar to Major’s opting out ones back in 1992 which I witnessed.

    Not a good sign.

  5. I think the pollsters are about to get more egg on their faces. I know it’s anecdotal, so huge caviats required. But I haven’t yet met a person who openly backs staying in the EU, other than Polish, Hungarian and Greek folk who I know. Maybe we have a quiet Remainian factor. Maybe the pollsters are getting quite a few who aren’t eligable to vote?

  6. @Anthony Webb

    I suspect there is large chunk of folk who don’t like the EU much, but in the end will play safe in the ballot box by taking the ‘better the devil you know’ option.

    I think the biggest weakness in the ‘Leave’ campaign is (IMO) their inability to dispel conclusively the economic risk aspect of Brexit. The truth we don’t really know what would to trade etc, if we leave.

    I think this will be the message that ‘Remain’ camp really forces home.

  7. @Anthony Webb

    I back staying!

  8. Looks like we have a deal.

    On child benefit, the text looks as though the rate for exported child benefit is set at the rate of the country of residence of the child.

    So it is not being eliminated and creates an incentive to children to the UK.

    The “ever closer union” looks like an agreement to try to come up with a way of doing it.

  9. @Catmanjeff

    “The truth we don’t really know what would to trade etc, if we leave.”

    Given that with one action we would have managed to simultaneously piss off three of our most influential trading partners (EU, USA, China) who we need more than they need us, I think we can make an educated guess as to how it would pan out

  10. @Hawthorn

    A deal of the European Council. The fun and games will start when the text comes to be fleshed out and proposed revisions made by the EP.

  11. I have just done a bit of research.

    In the UK, child benefit is £82/month (105€) for the first child, then £54.20/month (70€) for subsequent children. Higher rate taxpayers have it removed of course.

    My understanding is that first children in Poland get the equivalent of about £20/month, but Law and Justice have just introduced a new rate of about £90 for the second child or above. UK Polish residents with Polish resident children by my reading would be paid this rate by the UK exchequer.

  12. It seems as if the UK persuaded the other EU members that a 7 year emergency brake applying to the UK only would not be discriminatory as the others had already previously restricted their employment markets to E European workers following the accession to the EU of E European countries for the same period.

    While politically expedient this logic is very shaky legally.

  13. This means that most Poles would lose little money on this, and those who pay the higher rate of income tax would be substantially better off.

    I personally have no problem with paying in-work benefits to immigrants, but I suspect I would be a minority.

  14. @Anarchists Unite

    I’m sure plenty will agree with you, and just as many will disagree :-)

  15. @Hawthorn

    “I personally have no problem with paying in-work benefits to immigrants, but I suspect I would be a minority.”

    I personally feel someone doing the same job as you, paying the same tax and national insurance as you, in the same country as you, should receive the same benefits as you.

  16. @Hawthorn

    The total money involved is tiny in the grand scale.

    It’s symbolic and no more than a gesture.

    The real big issues in the EU haven’t even been touched by this renegotiation, for example, how the EU Parliament works, the machinery of the Monetary Union and so on.

  17. @CMJ

    Well that’s not a surprise is it? The purpose of this exercise for DC appears to have been to win a referendum he hastily called to win the GE (by directing Kipper minded folk over onto Labour’s lawn).

  18. RAF

    I personally feel someone doing the same job as you, paying the same tax and national insurance as you, in the same country as you, should receive the same benefits as you.

    Exactly. Fully agree.

  19. CatManJeff – “I think the biggest weakness in the ‘Leave’ campaign is (IMO) their inability to dispel conclusively the economic risk aspect of Brexit. The truth we don’t really know what would to trade etc, if we leave.”

    Yup. It will get decided on the economy, not what this or that celeb says or the rather trivial details of this Deal.

    That said, if the eurozone economy blows up, Leave is a dead cert. Deutche Bank has liabilities that are 16 times German GDP. Though the Germans have been lecturing everyone that bail-ins rather than bail-outs are the order of the day, they’ll change their minds in a hurry when they are in the hot seat and will be asking other govts to help with the bail-out which will be too large for them to handle on their own. Deutche Bank lends to the small businesses that export machinery etc to China, and Chinese imports were down 18.8% in Jan.

    Cameron will be holding his breath that nothing goes wrong till after the referendum…

  20. Really? Even if they’ve got £1m in the bank and you haven’t?

    Our benefit system has never really been about the tax you pay, it’s been about providing a minimum standard of living.

  21. The problem with the EZ/non EZ countries isn’t resolved by this deal, as it couldn’t be. The UK cannot prevent EZ rules being passed than are to our disadvantage – these can only be flagged up for wider E debate, so delayed, not stopped.

    There remains no resolution as to the inherent tensions between the currency bloc and the other 9 nations.

  22. Neil A

    That situation can be sorted by the tax system. A lot more elegant for starters than having telephone directory sized benefit legislation.

  23. @Neil A

    Well maybe I could have put that better. I don’t like the idea of setting different eligibility criteria for benefits for two people doing the same job and paying the same tax.

  24. “I personally feel someone doing the same job as you, paying the same tax and national insurance as you, in the same country as you, should receive the same benefits as you.”

    Interesting one for me, this one. I’ve long held that there needs to be a sense of earned entitlement, which is largely absent from the current UK benefits system. Long term working residents should, in my view, be in a position to secure better benefits than those who haven’t worked or who haven’t lived here as long.

    In principle, I don’t see it as wrong to require those migrating to your country to work for an agreed period before they could claim full and comparable levels of benefits, and if I were to emigrate to someone else’s country, I would expect to have to do this myself.

  25. @RAF

    I’m not sure if you’re aware but we already discriminate massively based on age.

    My stepdaughter aged 23 is not entitled to tax credits. You are only entitled to them at age 25 or above (unless you have children – creating a perverse incentive to get pregnant young).

    She’s been in work of one sort or another since 18. You could argue that for UK citizens there is already a 7 year break on those benefits, so why not for everyone?

    I see your point, and I’m ambivalent about the changes myself, but I think to imagine we currently live with a non-discriminatory welfare system is dreamland.

  26. @Neil A

    I don’t support intra UK national youth tax credit discrimination either. And you are right that intra UK national discrimination exists in many other areas.

    In a EU context, however, non-discrimination between EU nationals is a fundamental principle.

    That said, I wish DC every success in the Referendum. For once, I’m on his side!

  27. @Anthony Webb

    Ah, the joys of one’s personal filter bubble. Leaving the EU is seen as lunacy on legs in my own circle.

    Amongst the people I know who’ve openly expressed an opinion – maybe a few dozen – a considerable majority favour remaining in the EU, with only 3 people I know favouring ‘out’ (Two of whom are in their 70’s, one in his 20’s).

    And I live in UKIP central (South Thanet).

  28. I think the biggest weakness in the ‘Remain’ campaign will be any attempt to portray this as a vote of confidence in David Cameron. I can almost hear the BBC repeating this phrase over and again in the coming months.

    I see a lot of BTL commenters proclaiming they’ll vote Leave because it will be a way of toppling Cameron.

  29. Lurkinggherkin

    “I think the biggest weakness in the ‘Remain’ campaign will be any attempt to portray this as a vote of confidence in David Cameron.”

    I presume you are referring to an English (and part of Wales) dimension? However, recent polling there suggests that Cameron’s view will be of critical importance to far more voters than any other English politicians.

    Few will be surprised if the BBC orientate their coverage more closely to that of the UK Government of the day, than any other.

    In NI, I presume many votes will be influenced by their own political leaders. In Scotland, Sturgeon’s stance is by far the most influential. It seems unlikely that votes here will be affected by anti-Cameron stances (and there are few pro-Cameron ones :-) ).

    Still. if 53% of voters in England vote to Leave or Remain, then it really doesn’t matter what anyone else in the other three political systems think.

    With Cameron’s “best of both worlds” soundbite the similarity index of indyref and euroref increases.

    It will be interesting to see whether the need to emphasise “pooling and sharing” (haven’t heard that one deployed yet) will influence the UK stance on the fiscal framework negotiations, which are still going on.

    If voters decide that a complex issue is worthy of their attention, then some will decide it’s too complex for them and follow the lead of someone they trust. Others will do their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on that.

    Ultimately. those factors that matter most to individuals will determine how (or if) they vote.

  30. Looking at these two polls, I agree that Cameron is going to have huge influence over those who are only loosely interested in the issue of the EU.

    Looking at the demographics it appears to me that there is a huge generational split at play.

    Last year I listened to my great niece discuss the issue of immigration with her Conservative father. She at 12 being a Labour supporter.

    Having lived in both Budapest and Warsaw, she likened restrictions on Eastern Europeans coming to the UK, to her own family not being able to live in either Budapest or Warsaw.

    My brother at 73 will opt to leave, to which I’ll observe that the “Empire” is gone and the economic significance of the “commonwealth” is lessening.

    Ironically the US wants the UK to stay in, as the UK is the country through which US goods and services can be passed through to Europe.

    The notion of “national sovereignty” as I knew it pre-1970, before I left for Canada, no longer exists and the EU as a “trading block” will be a good balance to China, who have yet to flex their muscles in this century.

    Unless Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, there is a good chance that Trump will be President after November.

    The US reminds me of the post-colonial era that emerged after WWII, and so ironically a “United Europe” will be needed as socio-economic counterbalance, as the US continues to decline in global significance.

    Watching Trump on the hustings, reminds me of the song “send in the clowns”.

    It would be useful if the 35-64 age group was broken down into smaller cohorts, as I suspect the desire to remain reaches well above 35.

    In Canada last year the younger cohort of voters came out because they wanted to get rid of Harper as Prime Minister.

    So the question I am asking is will the younger UK voters feel compelled enough to turn out to vote to remain?

    Otherwise I suspect that it will be a very close run thing in England.

  31. My feeling is that remain will easily win as the campaign consists of those from the central ground of politics. The unknowns of leave will outweigh the dislike of various elements of the status quo.

    While those on the left will dislike the endorsements of the FTSE companies and ‘big business’ those on the centre-right will dislike the way that the laws of the country are formulated from the EU. But both sections will, with some reluctance, vote to remain and so remain will win. The “leave” campaign will seem to consist of the more extreme and the less trustworthy.

    I’ve worked in both Norway and Switzerland and I think a “leave” vote will actually change very little for the UK; in the end a very similar arrangement to today will end up being agreed anyway and free movement would continue. And I do feel the emotional pull of the “leave” campaign, even if I don’t think it always makes much sense.

    I’d quite like to see a close result, so if one side is far ahead in the polls (which is why I come here, to understand what the polls actually say) I’ll probably vote for the other. If the vote looks like being close I might have to make up my own mind.

  32. Lots of interesting stuff, but now for the nonsense. As with the Scottish referendum, I expect mountains of tosh from both sides, amid tales of epic disaster if we vote for the other option.

    Pollingwise, I suspect Cameron will get a short term personal boost from this, purely down to the theatre of it all. It’s been clear since he produced his list of demands that there would be a deal, and that the deal would appear to be hard won, as everyone wants to keep the UK in the EU and so was happy to maintain the impression of tough negotiations over tiny changes. The referendum vote will, I suspect, be completely unswayed by the deal and the changes, but by much deeper and long term impressions.

    I’m intrigued by the fact that the UK is now absolved from ‘ever closer union’, which looks great on paper, but unless this is backed up by a legal right to opt out of unifying legislation from the EU, doesn’t sound like it will have much practical effect. I await the text with interest.

    One certainty however, is that if there is a leave vote, there will be another intense negotiation, whatever the text of this deal claims. While the changes granted are relatively minor and unimportant, as with the Danes ability to restrict homeownership to Danish citizens and residents (a flagrant breach of all the EU principles if ever there was one) should the UK vote to leave, the EU will suddenly find the ability to be flexible and renegotiate.

    This deal makes that process much easier, as all 28 have already agreed that one country should be granted special status. As with everything EU, central tenets and principles survive only until they get in the way of workable solutions, and now the principle is established of differential law making for different member states, a UK PM going to Brussels with a leave vote in his or her pocket would wield very considerable influence.

    It’s also a lesson for the doommongers saying Brexit would be a disaster. It would cause some disruption, and some pain, but all parties would want to come to a working accomodation quickly. Comparisons with Norway are Switzerland are valid, but only up to a point. They aren’t the second biggest net contributor to the EU and the 5th largest world economy.

    Parallels will be drawn with the Scottish referendum, but here, whatever the Yes side claimed, Scotland’s negotiating position was terribly weak (somewhat perversely, in large part because of the ability of the UK to veto EU membership for iScotland). In post Brexit negotiations with Brussels, the UK has relatively speaking far greater power.

    Personally, I expect a remain vote, and would be relatively happy with that, but equally not altogether unhappy with a leave result.

  33. Alec
    I’m in almost complete agreement with those comments. Although I’m still undecided, I lean towards voting out, despite the fact that I live part of the time in France. You are right, these negotiations will probably have little effect on the actual vote, although they push me more to voting out because even the little bit that Cameron has got, has been grudgingly given. He should have been much more bold in his demands – supremacy for Uk laws over European, free movement only to those who fit within an Australian type points system, etc. And he should not have declared which way he would advise the vote till after the negotiations. He would be a rubbish poker player.

    But overall, nothing will change. It will still be a wholly undemocratic set up. The endemic corruption which has led to the accounts not being signed off for 20 years, will remain. Whistleblowers will be fired instead of rewarded. And France will still ignore the rules it doesn’t like, whilst UK civil servants will gold plate every rule and regulation, rather than ignore or water them down. The legendary waste of money will continue and politicians of all hues will make their fortunes.

    The eu is now too big, too unwieldy and has too many disparate countries in it. It should have remained a free trade block and should never have expanded as it was allowed to.

  34. @Barbazenzero

    Ta very much!

    I spent ages searching on-line for general info too. That’s specific and current. Excellent.

  35. I’m really conflicted now. In general I buy the arguments of common purpose in areas like Foreign policy, Security , & Environmental protections . I did buy , and still do, the idea of reduced trade barriers inherent in the Single Market.
    But the Single Market is still unfinished business , particularly in Services which is so important for UK. And it is countries like France who have been the roadblock, preaching EU wide unity, whilst practicing French national interest.

    And that cynicism has been all too apparent in the last few days. The spectacle of 27 heads of state , in the middle of the greatest migration crisis in living memory , whilst a proxy global war is fought over the entrails of the Syrian people ; squabbling over child benefit rules , just about sums up this organisation for me.

    Monetary union without fiscal union has been a disaster. The belated efforts to achieve the latter whilst pretending that a degree of sovereignty with any meaning can still exist with member states is just another typical EU fudge. It cannot last. There are only two countries who won’t be in the Euro-us & Denmark. The rest will-so the two Outs will never ever avoid the effects of inexorable political union & pooled fiscal governance.-whatever Cameron thinks he has achieved .

    That Cameron’s efforts have resulted in yet more burdensome rules & regulations , and procedures which are probably unworkable in practice is totally unsurprising. This is the way this organisation operates as its 27 members write more & more byzantine rules with which to retain national interest whilst pretending to espouse common purpose.

    The Syrian exodus has tested Shengen to destruction-internal freedom of movement , attached to uncontrolled external maritime borders . A typical EU structure & a metaphor for its economic & fiscal structures.

    Why do we need to be part of this shambles? I am really looking for a reason.

  36. @ROBERT NEWARK
    “But overall, nothing will change. It will still be a wholly undemocratic set up. The endemic corruption which has led to the accounts not being signed off for 20 years, will remain. Whistleblowers will be fired instead of rewarded. And France will still ignore the rules it doesn’t like, whilst UK civil servants will gold plate every rule and regulation, rather than ignore or water them down. The legendary waste of money will continue and politicians of all hues will make their fortunes. The eu is now too big, too unwieldy and has too many disparate countries in it. It should have remained a free trade block and should never have expanded as it was allowed to.”

    And you are ‘still undecided’? Are you just avoiding being moderated for expressing a definite view?! Or do the economic benefits from being a member of the corrupt organisation you describe outweigh the downside?

  37. Robert Newark

    Nicely put, says all there needs to be said about the EU. However unlike you both my wife and i are quite clear how we will vote.

  38. Interesting, but distressing, that no one has suggested that our sense of belonging to a common civilization with roots going back 2500 years will have any effect on voting intentions.

    Putin, Farage and Galloway all hope we’ll leave. What does that tell us?

  39. ROBERT NEWARK…….I agree with your comments justifying an out vote, since I am certainly of that persuasion, however, you omitted one, IMO, key issue from your narrative argument, that is, we are not, and never will be, European. Our neighbours in Europe understand that, why don’t we, I wonder.
    On a positive note, I am feeling cautiously optimistic about our future outside the EU, should we decide to escape, fortune favours the brave, and to cast off the burden will, I feel, give us a sense of renewal.
    Exciting times for a revitalised UK, at last holding the keys to its own destiny, roll on June.

  40. RICHARDW

    So far as I am aware “Do you want to leave the Human Race” is not a question on the Ballot Paper.

  41. Putin, Farage and Galloway all hope we’ll leave. What does that tell us?

    Roughly absolutely nothing?

  42. RichardW
    I don’t think there is any proposal to tow the UK out into the Atlantic.

    Yes Dave, I am undecided. I want to vote to stay in but no one will make any effort fix all all the problems which are there for all to see, to enable me to do so. Cameron set himself up as Champion, then ducked out of the difficult demands. He is no Thatcher and the disappointment is that I hoped against hope, that he was going to be in this instance.

    I certainly don’t believe that an exit is the end of the world. it is just as likely to be a new age of enlightenment.

    I don’t know what being European means. I am English, born in England. I support England at Football, rugby & cricket I am no more or less European than I was Australian or Indian, when we had an Empire. (actually before my time but you know what I mean).

  43. Robert Newark

    “The endemic corruption which has led to the accounts not being signed off for 20 years”

    As Alec wisely said, “I expect mountains of tosh from both sides”

    If “endemic corruption” is the reason for errors picked up by the European Court of Auditors, then Brexit should remove a source of corruption from the EU. For example, the EU clawed back 300 million Euros from the UK, due to overclaiming and/or errors in the UK.

    Of course, during those (and most years) the auditors did sign off the EU accounts – at the same time pointing out errors made by states such as the ‘endemically corrupt’ UK.

  44. @COLIN

    RICHARDW
    So far as I am aware “Do you want to leave the Human Race” is not a question on the Ballot Paper.

    There is quite a difference between sharing a culture and being a human being.

  45. RICHARDW

    Of course-I was being sarcastic.

    Do I feel as though I “share a culture” with the inhabitants of 27 disparate countries?. Not sure. Actually it depends what you mean by “culture”.

    But even if I decided the answer is Yes, would I want UK to pool Monetary Sovereignty, followed inexorably by Fiscal Sovereignty, on the road to Political Union?

    I don’t think it follows with any logic to be honest. I can visit the Art Galleries of Europe & its historic cities any time I like ; read European Literature, watch European TV & Film etc etc to bask in our shared “culture”.

    But that doesn’t make me want to share their governance-and the
    spectacle of 27 heads of state , in the middle of the greatest migration crisis in living memory , whilst a proxy global war is fought over the entrails of the Syrian people ; squabbling over child benefit rules ,doesn’t persuade me otherwise.

  46. To win Cameron is going to have to chase after Labour supporters. This will not improve his chances of relying on Tory backbenchers to pass any contentious legislation.

  47. OLDNAT

    @”Of course, during those (and most years) the auditors did sign off the EU accounts – at the same time pointing out errors made by states such as the ‘endemically corrupt’ UK.”

    I am sure you know that by “not being signed off” , Robert meant that the Audit Report has been qualified for many many years.

    You have responded to this systemic inability of the EU to obtain an unqualified Audit Report before. And your response is always the same-claiming that the responsibility for the errors discovered lies with Member States.

    You might be interested to read the “Overall Results” page from the latest ( 2014) Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors:-

    “The EU accounts for 2014 were correctly prepared in accordance with international standards and present a true and fair view. We were therefore able, once again, to give a clean opinion on their reliability. However,we gave an adverse opinion on the regularity of payments.
    ? The estimated level of error, which measures the level of irregularity, for 2014 payments is 4.4 %, close to that of 2013 (4.5 %) and persistently above the materiality threshold of 2 %.
    ? We found the same estimated level of error (4.6 %), under shared management with the Member States and for expenditure managed directly by the Commission. The highest levels of error were found in spending under ‘economic, social and territorial cohesion’ (5.7 %) and for ‘competitiveness for growth and jobs’ (5.6 %).Administrative expenditure had the lowest estimated level of error (0.5 %).
    ? There is a clear relationship between expenditure types and levels of error. Our estimated level of error for cost reimbursement schemes (5.5 %), where the EU reimburses eligible costs for eligible activities on the basis of cost declarations made by beneficiaries, is double that for entitlement programmes (2.7 %), where payments are made on meeting conditions rather than reimbursing costs.
    ? Corrective action by authorities in the Member States and by the Commission had a positive impact on the estimated level of error. Without this action, our overall estimated level of error would have been 5.5 %. There is further scope for the Commission to improve its assessment of risk and the impact of corrective actions.
    ? If the Commission, authorities in the Member States or independent auditors had made use of all information available to them, they could have prevented, or detected and corrected a significant proportion of the errors before these were made.
    ? Amounts to be paid in the current and future years remain at a very high level. It is essential for the Commission to take measures to deal with this persistent problem. For some Member States the backlog of unused funds represents a significant share of overall government spending.
    ? The periods of the 10-year Europe 2020 strategy and the EU’s 7-year budgetary cycles (2007-2013 and 2014-2020) are not aligned. Member States give inadequate attention to Europe 2020 achievements in partnership agreements and programmes. Both issues limit the Commission’s ability to monitor and report
    on performance and the contribution of the EU budget to Europe 2020.
    ? The upcoming mid-term review of the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework is a key point in the management
    of EU spending. It is important that the Commission analyses the areas of persistently high levels of error as soon as possible and assesses opportunities for reducing this while strengthening the focus on performance in spending”

  48. @RW
    ” I want to vote to stay in …. but no one will make any effort fix all all the problems which are there for all to see”
    So, why stay in?

    @Oldnat
    Unless you are suggesting that the UK is the only source of “endemic corruption” then the fact that the ‘closer together’ EU has totally failed over 20 years to address the corruption produced by its member states is reason for suggesting that we in UK should address our problems on that score individually.
    We are hardly likely to solve any Greek or French or German etc corruption that may exist.
    “the EU clawed back 300 million Euros from the UK, due to overclaiming and/or errors in the UK.” What were the reasons for the ‘overclaiming’ and the ‘errors’?
    Corrupt practices, or overcomplicated rules? What routes are their for ‘underclaiming’ and eliminating ‘errors’? If the 300 million euros were properly ‘clawed back’ why could the accounts not be signed off? Was that an annual or a cumulative figure? Even 300 million euros per annum is only about a fiver each, a small enough error. In my own case, forgetting once in two decades to include a payment for a wayleave to inspect a power line across our garden would produce such “endemic corruption” in my tax return.
    Between our joining the EU (then EEC) and about 1980, I read the titles (and often enough the text) of every new EU Directive. Their general effect was to centralize power with ‘subsidiarity’ limited to who should pursue breaches of rules rather than who might modify rules to suit local circumstances. Frequently their effect was to give one country an advantage over another, with any benefit usually going to the original member states.

  49. Thank you Colin.

  50. O/T

    Really interesting article about the weakened structural state of Democratic Party and why it lost control of the Senate and is getting further behind in the House of Representatives:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-democratic-establishment-fears-bernie-sanders/2016/02/19/2323482e-d70c-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

    Turns out that it’s Obama’s own fault that he is facing a hostile Congress by neglecting the structure of the Democratic party at the lower level.

1 2 3 4 5 8