A brief election post-mortem before I get some rest – hopefully we will have an actual London result by the time I finish writing! It is almost exactly a year since the polling error at the last general election. Yesterday’s elections were the first real test of the polls since then (there was accurate polling for the Labour leadership election, but polling party members really is a completely different exercise).

Scotland

Taking Scotland first, all the polls obviously had the SNP winning, but that was hardly a challenge. Perhaps the bigger challenge was second place. In the event Labour narrowly held onto second place in the constituency vote but were pushed into third in the regional vote – the polls conducted in the last few days of the campaign did get this right, but all the Scottish polls did underestimate the level of Conservative support, and apart from YouGov’s final poll there was an overestimate of SNP support in the regional vote (though many of the polls finished some time before the election – the TNS face-to-face poll in particular – so it may be that SNP regional support dropped in the final week.)

Constituency . Regional
Pollster CON LAB LD SNP CON LAB LD SNP GRN
FINAL RESULT (5th May) 22 23 8 47 23 19 5 42 7
YouGov (2nd-4th May) 19 22 7 48 20 19 6 41 9
Survation (1st-2nd May) 19 21 7 49 20 19 6 44 7
Panelbase (23rd-28th Apr) 17 23 6 49 19 22 4 44 6
Ipsos MORI (18th-25th Apr) 18 19 6 51 19 17 7 45 10
TNS (1st-24th Apr) 17 22 7 52 18 22 5 45 8

Wales

YouGov was the only company to poll in Wales, and thei final poll held up very well, with Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and Plaid all well within the margin of error. The only fault was an overstatement of UKIP support.

London

As I write, the mayoral results STILL haven’t been announced, and given how late they were in 2012 I’m not waiting up to write about them. Based on the live count of the first 90% of ballots the polls seem to be roughly in line with the expected result, and projections of the second round score suggest the polls are going to be close to it. You’ll apparently find out around midnight so you can compare to the polls below… but I intend to be asleep.

First round . Second Round
Pollster Goldsmith Khan Pidgeon Whittle Berry Others Goldsmith Khan
YouGov (2nd-4th May) 32 43 6 7 7 5 43 57
ComRes (28th Apr-3rd May) 36 45 6 4 6 3 44 56
TNS (26th Apr-3rd May) 33 45 7 5 4 5 43 57
Opinium (26th Apr-1st May) 35 48 4 5 5 3 43 57
Survation (21st-25th Apr) 34 49 3 5 3 6 40 60

All in all, the performance of the polls was far more credible than last year, though it looks like there may still have been some issues with the Tories in Scotland (and to be fair, most of the polling companies have been very explicit in saying they are still addressing their issues and developing their methods – the problems of last year are not going to be addressed overnight).

On a personal note – I’m most relieved the broad narrative was right. After the general election there were plenty of people saying how they knew the Tories would win, their instincts told them they would, how could those silly pollsters not spot it? Well, many of us silly pollsters thought the Tories would end ahead of Labour too: questions on leadership and the economy favoured them, we expected the polls to move towards the Tories… but the data just kept on showing the parties neck-and-neck, and ultimately a pollster’s job is to measure the answers the public give us, not report what we think they should say. We trusted the data, but it turned out to be wrong.

This time round it was the other way round. I never quite believed that the Conservatives could come second in Scotland. Yes, Scottish Labour was a mess, but Scotland would surely never vote for the hated Tories. My instincts said it wouldn’t happen in the end. A few months ago when YouGov were the only company showing Labour and the Tories neck and neck in Scotland I worried whether we’d get egg on our faces, but the data said it was happening, and I had to have confidence in the methodology corrections we’d made and in what the data was telling me… and this time, the data was telling the right story and the Tories really did come in second. Phew!


741 Responses to “Election polling post-mortem”

1 12 13 14 15
  1. Alun009

    I realised after my last post that I’d misremembered the timing of all the various parties’ various promises on EU referenda. Brexit not as foreseeable a possibility at the time of the referendum as I’d thought, my mistake.

    Still can’t find myself agreeing that Brexit would render the result of the referendum essentially void though. For one thing there were far more factors involved in voters’ choice about independence than the possibility of a UK exit from the EU.

    And that’s partly why I’m unconvinced that a UK exit will produce a big shift in opinion on Scottish independence. My guess is that in the immediate aftermath we’d probably see some volatility in polling on Indy VI and I’d be against holding a second Indy ref until the polling stabilises and/or the new constitutional situation is clearer (although expecting the EU to give guarantees about how it would deal with an independent Scotland is probably unrealistic) because I think voters ought to have as clear a picture as possible of what they’re voting for or against.

    I suppose I take a pragmatic view. There was a referendum recently. The referendum campaign was good in that there was very high engagement and a pretty thorough airing of the issues, including the ifs and buts of the EU issue. In the event there was a clear enough victory for No (although WB has suggested that in the current climate more decisive results are needed to put issues to bed ‘for a generation’ – what does that say about the health of our democracy?). I don’t see much point in holding another referendum unless there is evidence that the result would be different. You seem to put rather more emphasis on revisiting the issue on a point of principle (that Brexit would constitute a broken promise – on something of critical relevance to the independence question – on the part of the Better Together campaign), if I’ve understood correctly?

  2. Mike N
    ‘So, ” found guilty of election offences” seem to be the key words. So, MPs being prosecuted remain in office – which could be until GE 2020. ‘

    It would be unlikely to take as long as that. If charges are brought against the MPs concerned I would expect to see court cases sometime in 2017. The Oldham East & Saddleworth affair was dealt with within seven months of the 2010 election to which it related.

  3. CARFREW
    You’re not denying it might be a condition of being in the EU, you’re just hoping in practice they might not be in a hurry to enforce it in practice.

    It’s not a question of enforcement but of members having to demonstrate that they have met conditions before they’re allowed to adopt the euro.

    For somebody who is anti-EU you seem to know very little about it.

  4. Good evening all from a sunny but quite cool Stevenage.

    ASSIDUOSITY
    “A fairly minor point – which may well change if we get a glut of new data this weekend”

    “But it’s now (at five days) the longest period we’ve been without a new poll on the referendum since February.
    It’s also by far the longest period since January we’ve been without a telephone poll on the subject (at 17 days since the ICM that closed on 26 April)”
    ______

    The pollsters/clients themselves may have got wind of the two big announcements from the BOE and the upcoming IMF report and as such have decided to poll after the announcements to give a more up to date indication on VI on the EU but it has been a wee while since we’ve had an EU poll.

  5. Re Lagarde’s warning on Brexit; real life falls into line with the cover of Private Eye:

    http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-1418

  6. @Barba

    I’m not anti-EU. Where the hell have I suggested I’m anti-EU? Both my parents were from the Continent. I think there are issues with the EU… but much to be positive about also.

    And for a Scot you seemed none too clear on whether there had been a promise by Scots to stay in the EU.

  7. Promise by No campaign, of course…

  8. Quite a few Indy peeps didn’t seem to think oil price could go down a lot as well as up. Did you warn peeps of that Barba?…

  9. PETE B
    Carfrew
    “The fact that it’s SNP policy to consider a referendum on Circe like Brexit, is to be ignored, then you can claim it’s a straw man.”
    ……
    For clarification, does Circe mean ‘circumstances’? I don’t want to get involved in any convoluted debate, just trying to understand
    ______

    This might help you out when reading CARFREW’S posts. ;-)
    http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/textmessageabbreviations.asp

    HTH @TEOTD or is it 2MI? ;-)

  10. HAWTHORN
    Re Lagarde’s warning on Brexit; real life falls into line with the cover of Private Eye:
    http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-1418
    __________

    lol next it will be Martian’s withdrawing their investments from the city of London..

    PETE B lol = laughing out loud :-)

  11. A expert on election law on R4 this morning indicated that a sitting MP who is found guilty has to go.

    I would expect while awaiting trial, such an MP would have the whip removed.

  12. I see quite a few peeps are posting on Scottish independence.

    All I would say is this.. .If for whatever reason the Scots do decide to bolt then it will have to work. 800,000 + jobs in Scotland depend on rUK and over 2 million jobs in rUK depend on Scotland so there is a lot at stake so all them little negotiating peeps from rUK and Scotland had better pull them little socks up or its doom & gloom for us all.
    http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/labour-market/

  13. CARFREW
    you seemed none too clear on whether there had been a promise by [the No campaign] to stay in the EU

    So what? Both Yes and No campaigns spent much time on the EU, with Yes stressing the possibilities and No doing their utmost to convince Scots that they would be out without caveat to continued UK membership of the EU.

    The latter was either cynical of or unknown to the No campaign if indeed some evidence of a Con Brexit strategy exists or existed.

  14. To add further, if an MP is awaiting trial then they must be considered innocent.

    Innocent until proven guilty?

    Anything else would be an injustice surely?

  15. Scottish independence and UK EU membership

    Following comments from BARBAZENZERO and ALUN009 I had a look on What Scotland Thinks for other polls which might cast light on whether Brexit would shift opinion on Scottish independence. Since BZ has already cited the data on versions of the ‘if Brexit’ question I looked for versions of that ‘which issues are most important to your decision’ question* and EU membership seems to have been down at 3% (under ‘Other’) [http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/which-issue-is-most-important-to-you-in-deciding-how-to-vote-in-the-referendum#line]. Doesn’t seem to tally with Alun009’s on-the-ground perception.

    *I’d have to say I’m suspicious of this question. People often lack insight into the real reasons behind their decisions and they’re subject to horrendous social desirability bias. You only have to look at the pile of polls in which people say that (a) the NHS is a very important issue for them (b) they trust Lab more than Con on the NHS, followed shortly afterwards by (c) they vote Con.
    But it seemed likely to be the most directly relevant question.

    Any other data people can find on this? Or insights into what little evidence we’ve got?

  16. @Alun009

    Regarding your long post on the previous page.

    What it boils down to is this: You, a Yes voter, believe that the people who voted No did so because they believed we’d be in the EU for the next thousand years. And you are anxious to have another referendum because you think these No voters will switch because of this.

    No voters can counter that the primary issue for them was the currency issue and after that the economy. That they knew perfectly well that the Conservatives had already said in their manifesto that they’d be having a referendum if they won. That there is always a possibility of Conservatives winning UK general elections (they might even win the Holyrood one in 2021!).

    They can tell you this till they are blue in the face, but you, a Yes voter, don’t want to hear it, and insist that you know best about why they voted No.

    At which point they’ll shrug and say fine, we’ll do what we did last time – stop arguing and simply lower the boom in the privacy of the polling booth. It came as a horrible shock to Yes voters on Sept 15th, did it not? That there was a silent majority implacably against independence? Two No votes in succession should finish the business.

    Regarding your assertion that the SNP doesn’t talk about neverendums – here is Sturgeon saying five days ago that she is launching another independence campaign:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14478720.Nicola_Sturgeon_confirms_intention_to_relaunch_SNP_s_Independence_campaign/

    If she wants to irritate No voters further by refusing to accept the verdict of Sept 14th 2014, she’s going about it the right way. She seems to think No voters are second class citizens and therefore their clear vote in the Sept 2014 ref doesn’t count. It is a point of view that has already cost her her majority…

  17. ROBERT NEWARK

    As often happens I totally agree with your comments on the election expenses issue. I will be very surprised if this goes much further.

  18. On election expenses…..

    This issue needs to be non-partisan, as I think there are many skeletons in many cupboards all round.

    I’ve been watching the big by-elections since the mid-nineties, and it has often crossed my mind how on earth spending limits were stuck to, when you could see the mass of people, leaflets, buses and so on.

    Given there are probably many bodies buried, no one will want to see too much digging…

  19. CANDY
    they knew perfectly well that the Conservatives had already said in their manifesto that they’d be having a referendum if they won

    On 18 September 2014 when the UK GE wasn’t due until May 2015?

    Where did you see it published so early?

  20. Allan C
    ROFLMAO

    Thanks for the information – even ‘peeps’ was on that list. I’m ok with the basics, like lol, tbh, etc but not the more convoluted examples. Tbh I think on a public blog where not all readers will be conversant with these things, it is better to write in plain English, as far as one is capable. It’s the same reason I don’t like some of TS Eliot’s pretentious twaddle where he puts lines in lots of different languages to show off.

  21. For those like me who prefer plain English, AW has provided a simple answer. I look at the name at the top of the post and if it reads ” Carfrew” then I jump immediately to the next post

  22. Michael Crick on Channel 4 last night suggested that senior figures at Tory Central Office are seriously worried re-the Expenses affair and that the guy who gave the Green light to the Battlebuses and the recording of related costs has been off sick for some time.Not sure what to read into that.

  23. @Babazenero

    “On 18 September 2014 when the UK GE wasn’t due until May 2015?

    Where did you see it published so early?”

    I’m certainly not a Tory, but it must be clear that their pledge to hold an EU referendum if they won in 2015 predated the Scottish referendum.

    See this, for example, from The Guardian in May 2014:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge

  24. @Peter Bell
    “I look at the name at the top of the post and if it reads ” Carfrew” then I jump immediately to the next post”

    You’ll have people thinking that we’re the same person at this rate.

  25. @Pete B

    Coincidence that my post followed immediately after yours, but he has been frustrating me for some time.

  26. From Wilkipedia
    ‘In January 2013, David Cameron promised that, should the Conservatives win a parliamentary majority at the 2015 general election, the UK Government would negotiate more favourable arrangements for continuing British membership of the EU, before holding a referendum as to whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU.[‘

  27. @Barbazenzero

    Here’s the pledge from May 2014:

    http://www.graun.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge

    (substitute graun for the correct term)

    Quote

    David Cameron has said he would deliver a referendum on Europe if he remains prime minister after 2015, as he urged floating voters not to succumb to Ukip’s belief that “we’re all doomed”.

    … Asked if holding a referendum was a cast-iron pledge, he said: “Absolutely. We will hold that referendum by the end of 2017; it will be a referendum on an in-out basis – do we stay in a reformed European Union or do we leave? And I’ve said very clearly that whatever the outcome of the next general election – and of course I want an overall majority and I’m hoping and believing I can win an overall majority – but people should be in no doubt that I will not become prime minister unless I can guarantee that we can hold that referendum.”

    Quote

    It was signaled well in advance. And has unfolded pretty much as he said it would. There can scarcely be a person in the country who did not realise there would be an EU ref if the Conservatives won.

  28. JAMES E
    I’m certainly not a Tory, but it must be clear that their pledge to hold an EU referendum if they won in 2015 pre-dated the Scottish referendum.

    I can’t locate the 2014 figures immediately, but in March 2015 the grauniad’s circulation in Scotland was down to 9,078 per issue [ABC] and, like the rest of the overwhelmingly unionist press, is still falling, so very few Scots will have seen the article you cite.

    The problem of getting such messages across is that the unionist broadcast and print media are much less trusted nowadays, to the extent that [less stridently unionist] STV news and political coverage was getting higher viewer numbers than the BBC during the 2016 GE.

  29. @Peter Bell
    “I look at the name at the top of the post and if it reads ” Carfrew” then I jump immediately to the next post”

    And, to be fair, the same practice is worth applying to responses. Life’s too short for incomprehensible, inconsequential posturing – and for doomed attempts to respond rationally.

  30. Inconsequential point (except, perhaps, when Ofcom are deciding the status of major/minor parties) from Roger Scully.

    “Across all of Britain’s law-making parliaments, there are now more elected Plaid_Cymru members than Liberal Democrats.”

  31. @ Barbarzenzero

    You’re not seriously suggesting that news of Cameron’s pledge to hold an EU Referendum hadn’t reached people in Scotland, are you?

  32. CANDY

    That’s not a manifesto. Re-read your post which I responded to and my last post to JAMES E.

    But point ping-pong is not going to get us anywhere. Perhaps I spent too much of my life in Switzerland [a nation with a similar population to Scotland] working for a UN agency after the first Gulf War, but I really don’t see why their system of having a referendum at federal level on any topic you choose if 100,000 [1] voters sign it is not universal in so-called democracies. One Sunday each quarter is set aside for voting on federal, cantonal and communal referendums, which doesn’t seem to disrupt anything and it is not compulsory to vote.

    I have no idea what you or anyone else posting here thinks, but I would be most interested to know what they believe the trigger for any referendum should be and why.

    [1] Numbers of signatures required are roughly proportionally lower for cantonal and communal referendums.

  33. @Barbazenzero

    That Guardian article is reporting on an interview on the BBC with Andrew Marr. Pretty sure Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning show is broadcast in Scotland as well. Plus every single news outlet then reported on what he said.

    And that was just in May 2014.

    Here he is in Jan 2013 making a major speech about it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

    That Beeb article has loads of reactions from Europeans to it – so they managed to hear about it.

    He kept talking about it from 2013 onwards – it was hard to miss, it even came up in various PMQs in Parliament.

  34. @ Barbazenzero

    This is what the Scottish Government had to say in 2013 regarding Cameron’s pledge to hold an EU referendum.

    “As we head towards a referendum on the UK?s membership of the EU there is a growing sense, both here and on mainland Europe, the UK?s relationship with the EU is set to change fundamentally. Indeed it is far from inconceivable the UK will leave the EU before the end of this decade. ”

    Para 7.4 (page 27) of The Scottish Government Paper : ‘Scotland in the European Union’

    http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00439166.pdf

  35. @Barbazenzero

    He made a major speech about it pledging it would be in his manifesto. Here is the BBC report from Jan 2013:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

    It got discussed in Parliament during PMQs. Here is the speech, which was delivered on 23 Jan 2013:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg

    The Yes voters are tilting at windmills when they insist they know better than the No voters why the No voters voted the way they did!

    As to what would trigger another referendum – time. It is appropriate to ask once a generation, which for humans is about 20 years. The currency issue is also central to why the No voters wanted to be in the UK. So a threat to the pound would be a trigger – say if we joined the euro or the dollar. But neither is going to happen in the next 20 years.

  36. JAMES E
    You’re not seriously suggesting that news of Cameron’s pledge to hold an EU Referendum hadn’t reached people in Scotland, are you?

    No. What I am saying is that it will have reached a smaller proportion of the population than in England and will have been diluted significantly by all of the local unionist media, most of which supports LiS and which will not have wanted to stress an announcement which would likely have resulted in more voters switching from LiS to SNP.

  37. Barbazenzero

    I’m sure a few people in both England and Scotland didn’t know or care in 2013-14 what David Cameron had pledged regarding his EU referendum. But your idea that news of his proposal for an In-Out EU Referendum didn’t really reach those north of the border is ridiculous.

  38. @Barbazenzero

    There was a manifesto pledge in a major speech in Jan 2013

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg

    And then it got repeated in various interviews – the May 2014 interview was on Andrew Marr – which is shown in Scotland. It wouldn’t have been “diluted significantly by all of the local unionist media” – viewers would have heard the words undiluted straight from Cameron’s mouth!

    In any case you are missing the point – you seem to believe that you know better than the No voters why they voted No. Think how absurd that is!

    The No voters have said repeatedly that the key issues were the currency and the economy – and the SNP has no answer to this. All you are doing is winding them up by saying “I insist you voted No because of the EU, I insist, insist, insist”.

    It is very odd behaviour.

  39. And if there are any examples out there in which his pledge to hold a legally binding In/Out Referendum was “diluted significantly by local the unionist media”, I’d be very interested to see them…..

  40. JAMES E
    This is what the Scottish Government had to say in 2013 regarding Cameron’s pledge to hold an EU referendum.

    OK, so he made pledges in consecutive years, or perhaps the 2014 was just a renewal of the previous one. I hadn’t seen either of them, but we’ve all seen political promises, pledges and even vows honoured more in the breach than the observance.

    Maybe you’re right that a substantial number of people knew of them but absent polling evidence from the time we have no way of knowing what percentage of the people actually believed it even if they did know of it.

    We do know from polling that trust levels of Con politicians was pretty low but that’s about all.

    But I still don’t understand the relevance in relation to a second independence referendum if a significant number of the electorate want one. Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be about?

  41. I haven’t said anything about the possibility of a second Scottish referendum.

    I’ve simply pointed out how David Cameron’s pledge to hold an in/Out EU referendum was clearly known and understood – not least by the Scottish Government – well before Sept 2014.

  42. CANDY
    you seem to believe that you know better than the No voters why they voted No.

    Not at all. I don’t know why they did and neither does anyone else unless the secrecy of the ballot boxes has been violated. What I do know is that I trust and accept the collective will of the people more than I would ever trust any politician.

    What I don’t understand is why anyone should want to deny the electorate the ability to decide what should happen to them in the event of a major constitutional change.

  43. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE:
    “you have arbitrarily decided that we cannot discuss”
    No I didn’t

    “Circe”
    Huh?

    “various peeps [people] on here, discussing the implications of Brexit”
    Yes. Not oild prices, Clydeside jobs. Brexit. Welcome back.

    “you have decided that not only can we not discuss Currency or Oil prices”
    No, and I know that’s not for me decide. All along I’ve been saying that whataboutery will be righted. And it will.

    As usual, you’re wilfully misreading and claiming outrage. It’s tragic that you spend so long poring over others’ words and still not divine their meaning. Say what you like about whatever you like, but if it’s tangential drivel, expect someone to name it as such. Again.

  44. ….so if you look back to your post of 5:38 this evening (shown below), I think it’s been demonstrated that what you call a “Con Brexit strategy” did indeed exist.

    “Both Yes and No campaigns spent much time on the EU, with Yes stressing the possibilities and No doing their utmost to convince Scots that they would be out without caveat to continued UK membership of the EU.

    The latter was either cynical of or unknown to the No campaign if indeed some evidence of a Con Brexit strategy exists or existed.

    May 13th, 2016 at 5:38 pm”

  45. SORBUS:
    “Doesn’t seem to tally with Alun009’s on-the-ground perception.”

    I would never claim anecdotal evidence as superior to thorough and fair research, and I’m always careful to identify my anecdotal evidence as such.

    The thing that I find interesting is that current polling seems to indicate a (much) higher level of support for EU membership than the proportion who voted to stay in the UK. That means there is a significant population of people who, having been dragged out of the EU, will look again at Scotland in the UK. What conclusion they come to is up for grabs. Clearly some will change to pro-indy and some will not. The circumstance itself will crystallise the proportions, and post-Brexit, should it happen, we’ll all start to get a flavour of how things have changed, if at all. I hope you’d agree that such a curcumstance is very fluid at this stage, especially as many do not believe the circumstances will actually happen. It’ll certainly be interesting to find out, but I hope we don’t get to.

  46. JAMES E
    I haven’t said anything about the possibility of a second Scottish referendum.

    Sorry, I was confusing you with CANDY.

    I’ve simply pointed out how David Cameron’s pledge to hold an in/Out EU referendum was clearly known and understood – not least by the Scottish Government – well before Sept 2014.

    I’d agree that the Scottish Government knew of the Cameron’s statement. The problem for them is that the media, over which they have no control whatsoever, would have given their point of view no coverage unless cleared with LiS.

  47. CANDY:
    “That they knew perfectly well that the Conservatives had already said in their manifesto that they’d be having a referendum if they won.”
    When was the manifesto published, eh?

    “but you, a Yes voter, don’t want to hear it”
    Not only are you wrong, you are not even reading my posts. There’s nothing I can do if you choose not to read my own words.

    “It came as a horrible shock to Yes voters on Sept 15th, did it not?”
    No, it did not. In fact, I was surprised that Yes got as much as 45%. Also, I wasn’t even a member of the SNP back then, and I did not campaign for a Yes vote. So… you’ve failed yet again in your guessing. Happens a lot, doesn’t it?

    “Sturgeon saying five days ago that she is launching another independence campaign:”
    Ahh, yes. Now we’re deep into semantics. “Campaign”. The drive in the summer is to persuade. It is not a referendum campaign. See, we’re actually talking about two different things. Persuading people of the merits of your politics is bread and butter, every day stuff for political parties. Literally every party does this literally every day. But it’s not a campaign for a referendum. If you can explain why the SNP, alone, must never engage in persuading the public of the merits of its politics, I’ll show you a mirror in which you can see a partisan nincompoop

    “She seems to think No voters are second class citizens”
    Yes, yes, and the Tory party should have disbanded in 1997 when it lost an election, etc. They fact that they persevered means they think non-Tories are second-class citizens. Sorry pal, you’re talking claptrap here.

  48. CANDY:
    “And you are anxious to have another referendum”
    I forgot to pick you up on this. Really, honestly, it’s not worth my time speaking to you if you can’t even be bothered to represent my own opinions rightly back to me. I have explicitly and carefully stated the opposite.

    It’s deeply ironic that you moan about ME trying to represent other people’s opinions for them when the only person doing that is you. We’re done here.

  49. Regarding electoral law:

    According to the Daily Politics show today, a candidate has to ‘knowingly’ do something wrong in order to be prosecuted. The bar seems to be impossibly high.

  50. @David

    That amazing.

    So the only law that has genuine defense of ignorance helps MPs??

1 12 13 14 15