ICM have again conducted two parallel polls for the Guardian, one online, one by telephone (tabs). The pattern is the same as last month, on Westminster voting intention the two ICM polls show the same two point lead, although the ICM online poll has a higher level of UKIP support:

ICM Online – CON 34%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 17%, GRN 4%
ICM Phone – CON 36%, LAB 34%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 4%

For the EU referendum ICM have the typical phone vs online contrast. They have a eight point lead for Remain by phone, a four point lead for leave online… a twelve point gap (the average gap between online and telephone polls since the start of April is about 10 points, so ICM is a little larger, but nothing to write home about).

ICM Online – Remain 43%, Leave 47%, Don’t know 10%
ICM Phone – Remain 47%, Leave 39%, Don’t know 14%

Martin Boon’s own take over on the ICM website is, as usual, both honest and somewhat bemused: “The narrative that phone polls are more likely to be right ignores some fundamental flaws in phone methods. Labour supporters are continually oversampled by phone, and that may matter more than those same phone polls missing out on supposedly pro-Remain types, who are disproportionately less likely to turn out to vote. Similarly, what’s lurking under online covers could be equally nasty, and we should not ignore that the fact the UKIP voters are again, as they have long since been, higher in online polls than phone (or indeed at recent elections).”

Incidentally, it’s probably worth flagging up that there are house effects beyond just the phone/online difference. There are differences between different online pollsters too. This is ICM’s sixth online poll in a row to show Leave ahead, and they are clearly showing a small Leave lead. In contrast the majority of online polls conducted by YouGov and TNS over the last six weeks have had Remain very narrowly ahead, it’s not a big gap, but it’s starting to look consistent. When it actually comes to learning lessons from the EU referendum, these smaller differences may end up being the more valuable: without much fuss, pollsters are taking quite different approaches to correcting their methods after last year and the referendum may teach us something useful about what corrections are (or are not) working for online; what corrections are (or are not) working for telephone.

Methodological concerns aside, what does ICM tell us about the state of public opinion? Well both their phone and online polls have the gap between Tory and Labour narrowing, down from five point leads a month ago. In the referendum race the four point leave lead in the online poll is ICM’s largest this year… but that trend isn’t echoed in the phone poll. We shall see if other EU polling this week shows any coherent trend.

There was also a new ComRes online poll at the weekend for the Indy and Sunday Mirror. This had topline figures of CON 36%(+1), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 17%(+1), GRN 4%(nc). On the face of it this is a stronger poll for the Tories, but this is largely methodological – ComRes’s online polls tend to produce the most positive results for the Tories of any company because of their demographic based turnout model. Full tabs are here.


109 Responses to “ICM parallel phone and online polls”

1 2 3
  1. Alun009

    Re:direction of movement of Sterling on 23rd-24th June.

    Here’s a link to what was reported in March on this. It’s a bit speculative, but there can’t be much doubt about the likely volatility of the currency markets.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-35902028

  2. The tables for the ORB poll[1] are here:

    http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/daily-telegraph-poll-11th-15th-may.pdf

    It’s actually a small sample even for a phone poll (800). They also asked a rather strange question before they ask how people will vote in the EU referendum Thinking about the UK as a whole, do you believe the country is generally heading in the right direction, or seriously heading in the wrong direction?. Even ignoring the odd wording (what if you think the UK is going slightly in the wrong direction?) asking something before the main purpose of a poll can skew it.

    It does throw up one interesting fact though. While the population is roughly even split, how people voted makes surprisingly little difference. For example 50% of both Labour and Tory voters think the country is in the right direct and, allowing for small sample size, Lib Dems, Green and SNP are similar.

    Not so UKIP voters. Only 9%[2] think the UK is going in the right direction, 82% in the wrong. This shows the strength and the weakness of UKIP – it’s not really a Political Party with practical policies that people want to see implemented; it’s about how its supporters feel.

    The full sample figures for the Referendum were:

    Remain 53%, Leave 39%, DK 9%

    which a squeeze question moves to:

    Remain 55%, leave 40%, DK 5% (58/42)

    However looking at only those who said they were 10/10 certain to vote gives:

    Remain 51%, Leave 45%, DK 4%.

    There needs to be some caution however. The certain to vote only made up 56% of a sample of whom 87% claimed to have voted last May[3] (actual turnout was 66.4%). So either most of those who answered 8 or 9 are going to vote as well (they were more pro-Remain) or overall turnout will be so low that the outcome may be disputed.

    [1] All 150 pages, you get every cross-tab imaginable.

    [2] Based only on 46 respondents, but the difference is still dramatic enough to be valid. As with other phone polls they had a problem getting enough UKIP voters – they just don’t like answering phone polls. This explains why phone underestimated UKIP before the GE, but have improved since when they have something to weight past UKIP voters to.

    [3] As you would expect, people who don’t vote are less likely take part in a political poll.

  3. In Scotland there is zero campaigning\leafleting etc. I had loads of leaflets to deliver before the Scottish Election but now NONE. Also no canvassing has been done to my knowledge. Is there any leafleting & canvassing going on elsewhere?

    I cant imagine there will be any effort to ‘get out the vote’ as no canvassing has been done.

    So it will be a very odd situation.

    I think turnout in Scotland will be horribly low sub-50s definitely maybe sub-40.

  4. Channel 4 headline on British Election Study survey on EU – “EU poll – ethnic minorities hold the balance of power”

    http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/eu-poll-ethnic-minorities-hold-balance-power/32800

    The trouble with that kind of reporting is that in a close contest, any group that you care to select can be labelled as “having the balance of power”!

  5. “I made my mine up quite a while back and it’s mostly based on accountability and sovereignty. I can’t see why a county such as the UK has to be part of some grand French and German project to fully integrate us all into one big super state and hand more and more powers over to a European capital named after a tasteless vegetable.”

    Well I rather like that particular vegetable, and if it’s tasteless, it’s probably that you’re not cooking them correctly. Have a look at the BBC recipe pages for some tips. Oh no! They’ve been spiked by market forces. Dam!

    Seriously, I’m only partially decided (which probably mans I’m undecided – I’m not quite sure).

    Like @AC, the superstate idea isn’t for me. Equally, Brexit would undoubtedly cause short term problems, and also probably see a reduction of standards in areas like workers protection, H&S (health and safety would probably become just mildly anxious, instead of outright mad) and the environment. It could logically be argued that even if standards were lowered, that is a UK choice and something we could fight for at home, however.

    The question is how much the EU really has ambitions to be a superstate. Many of those involved in the EU at national level deny this is the case, but the treaties are pretty clear, and so far it’s the treaties that have guided the show.

    What frustrates me is that Cameron’s reforms were pitiable, and a missed opportunity. Had he done this properly, we may have been able to get some agreement of defining limits to the EU’s ambitions, both philosophically and territorially (is Turkey really European? If yes, where does Europe stop?).

    This didn’t happen, so I’m left with my dilemma of voting for something that is likely to morph and expand again in the future, possibly in directions I don’t like. Tough call.

  6. JAMES E:
    Interesting! That story completely passed me by, thanks.
    I will be watching the money markets with interest now. Perhaps the betting exchanges to, since this idea won’t have passed the sharks there by.

  7. One interesting angle on the EU sovereignty debate and standards was pointed out to me a week or so back. On animal welfare, UK governments, pushed largely by UK consumers, has led the EU movement to improve standards. Without the EU, animal welfare standards across would be much worse, and we have ‘restricted’ other nations sovereignty in this area.

  8. @ Carfew

    ‘They don’t seem to realise that as you hand more power to the “market”, the corporates Hoover up and fill the power vacuum, and keep a state going anyway, but bent more to their will, whether it’s stopping regulations to ensure safety, or ensuring there is more immigration, and much else besides…’

    Ver true and that’s why Neoliberalism has been so successful …

  9. @ Alec

    Hmmm.. well there is a double edged sword on your point about animal welfare standards. Not strictly EU related as perhaps WTO rules would be the same.

    In the UK we have brought in laws on animal testing for cosmetics, banning of fur production, banning of production of Foie Gras etc., but this is meaningless without being able to control the supply from other countries which we do not (can not?) do.

    Indeed in some ways the animal cosmetics testing ban can be counterproductive. Most people seem to assume any product (from washing powder to smellies) that they buy now will not be animal tested when it is 99% certain that every big brand name on sale in your supermarket still is, if only on the excuse that they need to do this where laws in other countries insist on it.

    My personal view is that the trade off with minimally improved animal welfare legislation on things like size of hens’ cages does not balance with the inability for us not to set standards on imports. Indeed such a ban might even make global corporations consider what markets they chose to trade in or at least take serious steps to lobby countries to change their laws.

  10. @ Couper2802

    About 65% of people polled are saying they’re certain to vote. This compares to around 85% at this stage in the Scottish referendum – which of course proved to be fairly accurate.

    I’d be surprised if the actual turnout wasn’t near to that figure, and particularly so if it fell below 50% anywhere.

  11. @ Roger Mexico

    Like you, I’d wondered about that question used by ORB “Thinking about the UK as a whole, do you believe the country is generally heading in the right direction, or seriously heading in the wrong direction?”

    It’s the same question asked in all their phone polls. In their first of these about 2 months ago it was noticeable that it produced a more negative response – and a small Leave lead. That being so, it could be that this sample is simply better for Remain that that in their previous phone polls.

    What reason might there be to ask this question before the actual Referendum question? When the same thing was done in the Scottish referendum, it was widely criticised.

  12. James E

    “I’d be surprised if the actual turnout wasn’t near to that figure, and particularly so if it fell below 50% anywhere.”

    What will be interesting will be to see whether party activity (as Couper points out, virtually zero in Scotland [1]) has much of an effect on turnout.

    Will there be a difference between those bits of the UK where there is campaigning going on, and those where it is absent?

    [1] Is it the same in Wales, Northern Ireland and London?

  13. In General Elections, I don’t think I’ve ever received any leaflets until the last 3 weeks before polling day. There have only been a few times when I’ve had anyone knocking on my door to canvass.

    By that yardstick, the lack of party activity in most places at this stage is completely unsurprising.

  14. I bet a psychologist (a proper one, not a quack) has a field day about the Brexit debate. How emotions are covered up apparently logical arguments on both sides, and how the overblown rationality and emotionality of the human beings create Hamletian (not really if you read rather than watch the play) dilemma.

    I give you another dilemma: the EÜ is not democratic enough. Fine, but it accepts the “democratic outcomes of the will of the people” in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be a member of a club where these can sit in their armchairs … But this is nowhere in the argument.

    Sorry, but I can’t make the parallel clearer: both the Leave and Remain talk about the UK (in a very abstract way, or over-concretised way), and not about the EÜ (including Labour). So, the referendum is not really about the EÜ membership in the debates, but about the way the UK “should be”. So the remain: “it’s ok, predictable, we can live with it, it’s a price worth paying”, while the Leave: “can we dig out Lord Palmerston to have an icon to legitimise whatever we want (actually rather diverse), which we don’t actually tell you.

    So we have the thesis and the antithesis, but no synthesis. Not too surprising, just very saddening.

  15. “…the EÜ…”

    So it really is a vehicle for German takeover, umlauts and all….

  16. @ Alec

    It’s Apple’s attempt to take over the EU (and probably the world) :-)

  17. Good to see Ch4 News also investigating Labour’s battle bus campaign.

    That both two big parties in England have “pushed the limits” of the RPA is hardly surprising (nor would it be if other parties had done the same anywhere else).

    That is, however, why I don’t think anything other than “slaps on the wrist” will happen. Just like MP expenses, the last thing that MPs want is for transparency to occur!

  18. “It’s Apple’s attempt to take over the EU (and probably the world) :-)”

    ———

    About time too!!…

  19. @Carfew

    Cough! Cough! Open source

    ;-)

  20. Re Phone Polls and Online Polls

    I’ve managed to find what AW wrote in April 2015 regarding UKIP’s performance per the two modes of polling in the months leading up to last year’s General Election. The UKIP-support graph can be found if you scroll down a bit on this link:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9350

    Using the data on this graph, it looks like the Online Pollsters had UKIP at around 15.5% on average and the phone pollsters at 11.75%. So they were either side of UKIP’s actual vote share, with online about 2.5% too high, and phone 1.25% too low.

    But what struck me in particular is that the size of the difference – comparing the average online poll with the average phone poll – isn’t much less than we’re seeing in the EU Referendum. It was 3.75 percentage points in early 2015, as opposed to 5 points in the EU polls. It’s just that in a binary choice that 5 point difference becomes a 10 point gap in the overall outcome.

  21. Good evening all from a damp Hampshire.
    ALEC

    “Well I rather like that particular vegetable, and if it’s tasteless, it’s probably that you’re not cooking them correctly. Have a look at the BBC recipe pages for some tips. Oh no! They’ve been spiked by market forces. Dam”
    …..
    I usually just smother the buggers in gravy whenever someone puts them on my plate. Yeah shame about the BBC food website, so much so I didn’t even know that it existed ;-)
    ______

    ” Brexit would undoubtedly cause short term problems, and also probably see a reduction of standards in areas like workers protection, H&S (health and safety would probably become just mildly anxious, instead of outright mad) and the environment. It could logically be argued that even if standards were lowered, that is a UK choice and something we could fight for at home, however.
    The question is how much the EU really has ambitions to be a superstate. Many of those involved in the EU at national level deny this is the case, but the treaties are pretty clear, and so far it’s the treaties that have guided the show”

    “What frustrates me is that Cameron’s reforms were pitiable, and a missed opportunity. Had he done this properly, we may have been able to get some agreement of defining limits to the EU’s ambitions, both philosophically and territorially (is Turkey really European? If yes, where does Europe stop?)”

    “This didn’t happen, so I’m left with my dilemma of voting for something that is likely to morph and expand again in the future, possibly in directions I don’t like. Tough call”
    _____

    Some interesting points there. As I said in my post there are some good things the EU has done and workers rights and H&S are just a few of them but if employment law was to change post Brexit to the detriment of workers then that government of the day will be held accountable by the British people.

    Surely we are grown up enough to make our own laws and make our own mistakes and hold our own “elected” representatives to account without being tied to the EU apron strings!!

    Onto the EU superstate…That’s what it is morphing into, a single superstate with its own currency and EU rapid response military force. Across the EU governments are elected on a minority of the public vote but are signing up to giving their sovereignty away with treaty after treaty after treaty.

    And finally, David Cameron and his epic EU failed negotiations. If he really went hard ball with the EU on getting some very tangible results then the guy probably wouldn’t be staring at the real prospect of a Brexit. He came back with nothing. Even if he managed to win an exemption for the UK on further EU integration and what sort of final destination the EU is looking for then he might had something more palatable for us back home.

    He came back with mince.

  22. OLDNAT
    “Good to see Ch4 News also investigating Labour’s battle bus campaign”
    ______

    Yeah this sort of news tends to grow arms and legs.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TRXSFr0fQAI/UCDdIohE5OI/AAAAAAAAF4U/IPP7e9pSGrw/s1600/_MG_2989-Edit-Edit__web.jpg

  23. Allan Christie

    Sadly, such behaviours by parties aren’t ‘armless – no matter how legless those getting the free booze might have been. :-)

  24. @CATMANJEFF

    “Cough! Cough! Open source”

    ————

    Hmm. Government under the GPL, think it could work?…

  25. @Carfrew

    Could it be any worse?

  26. And now – the Lib Dems were allegedly bussing in activists to key constituency too!

    http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/17/liberal-democrats-now-face-allegations-electoral-fraud-2015-general-election/

    Don’t constituency parties in England have any members capable of delivering leaflets?

  27. @Catman

    Haha, you have a point!!…

  28. OLDNAT

    Your cousins in Cornwall are also taking a swipe at the big 2¼ parties in England over their election battle buses.

    http://mebyonkernow.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/how-do-we-get-from-battle-buses-to-fair.html

  29. @oldnat

    Well they don’t have summat exciting to campaign for, like Independence…

    But if you read The article Syzygy posted, in some constituencies, they don’t have many activists, no. But even where they do, it still profits them to bus loads in from safe seats, because it’s not just about leaflets any more, it’s about running lengthy surveys on likely switchers, and following up repeatedly with micro-targeted messages.

    fptp rewards such efforts, as Tories showed in 2015…

  30. Carfrew

    Presumably some of these centrally organised volunteers also come from seats where their party hasn’t a hope in hell of winning?

    (Or even standing!) There were press reports in 2011 of NI Labour offering free travel and accommodation to volunteers to campaign for Labour in Scotland.

  31. @oldnat

    Apparently, they were even bussed in from some seats where the swing required was smaller!!* But after they’d crunched the data, they figured that some seats requiring a bigger swing were still better bets, because there were more voters liable to switch…

    * which caused quite some irritation. Imagine being a prospective MP or an activist in a seat where you have to overturn a majority of eight hundred, and being required to campaign instead, along with all your activists, in the seat next door with a majority of 1600 to overturn…

  32. Carfrew

    That sounds like they weren’t so much volunteers as conscripts!

  33. We certainly had loads of activists from neighbouring unwinnable seats coming to our marginal one in the GE. Not centrally organised, just our local organiser putting out feelers to neighbours.
    As to canvassing/ GOTV for the referendum: we all needed a bit of a rest after the mayor but we’ve started again – my first main session is tomorrow. Oh, I mean later today. And out of 20 wards we have only one (Lab) ward organiser who is a Brexiter – all the others are remainers, though some not that enthusiastic.

  34. @oldnat

    I think some may have felt that way. They complained of snotty emails from Schapps. This was an article about Tories, dunno how much of it applies to Labour. Perhaps some, but clearly Tories were ahead of the game on this stuff.

    May see more in the future though, at least some of it, the micro-targeting etc., even if they close down some of the funding shenanigans, as long as we have fptp…

  35. I think activists heading for places where they can help most has always gone on, and it’s perfectly reasonable.

    If they pay their own way, that also seems fine. Even if a task force is sent in, there should be no problem – as long as the spending limits for the constituency are not breached.

    As I read the RPA, parties can even get away even with that, just so long as the candidate knows nothing about the “plot”, and is just the poor sucker who is being manipulated by party HQ – which, on reflection, is probably a fairly accurate description of many MPs! :-)

  36. I think activists heading for places where they can help most has always gone on, and it’s perfectly reasonable.

    If they pay their own way, that seems fine. Even if a task force is sent in, there should be no problem – as long as the spending limits for the constituency are not exceeded.

    As I read the RPA, parties can even do that, just so long as the candidate knows nothing about the “plot”, and is just the puppet being controlled by party HQ – which, on reflection, may be a fairly accurate description of many MPs! :-)

  37. @ OldNat and Carfew

    ‘That sounds like they weren’t so much volunteers as conscripts!’

    Having read a great many of the comments threads to relevant posts, I think that is certainly what many felt it was like. As I understand it, PPCs from non-target seats were sent to help in one of the 80 constituencies where a Conservative campaign was fought… and they had to send an email to CCHQ on a daily basis explaining what they and the local activists had been doing in the 40/40 seat. Many posts had emphasised that they will not be treated like that again.

    There were also a few rebel PPC who refused but fought their own campaign without any help or finance from the central party. Neil A’s new MP was one such.

    I think that the battle bus itself was declared on the national election expenses, as were the LP and LD buses. The point of contention is that the Road Trip-sters were fed curry and put up in Travel Lodges, and the hotel bills were paid centrally from the private home address of a Conservative party employee. It was these that michael Crick says were not declared either locally or nationally.

    It is perfectly true that Labour people would have gone to help in constituencies other than their own and some may have been taken on the bus but most, like myself, will have gone under their own steam, and paid for their own food/crashed on a fellow supporters’ floor or in a LP building.

    Regardless of whether the expenses were properly declared, I think the 40/40 campaign raises real issues about what we mean by democracy. It is well known that the Conservatives spent many times more than any other party, much of it in the three years before the GE… but this was only in those 80 constituencies. Labour, the LDs, Greens and Ukip each spent much less and spread over 600+ constituencies. This was not a level playing field either in terms of finance or of making information about Conservative party policies clear.

    The full list of those 80 constituencies is still kept from general knowledge which is frustrating because it would be fascinating to determine how much difference that sort of targeting made, over and above the generalised implosion of the LD vote. However, the truth is that only a relatively small number of votes had to be shifted in each constituency in order to produce a success for the Conservative candidate. As I have said before, these are not the techniques of a political campaign, they derive from aggressive advertising companies.

  38. JAMES E
    Re Phone Polls and Online Polls

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9350
    Using the data on this graph, it looks like the Online Pollsters had UKIP at around 15.5% on average and the phone pollsters at 11.75%. So they were either side of UKIP’s actual vote share, with online about 2.5% too high, and phone 1.25% too low.

    Pedantic point, UKIP had 12.6% of the vote in the General Election so the phone vote was 0.85% too low and the on-line vote 2.9% too high. Agree with your wider point about the disparity between the two, but it is remarkable how close the phone polls were to the actual result.

  39. There was actually a TNS online EU poll released yesterday with 41% Leave (+5) and 38% Remain (-1), but I can’t find tables because their site 404s from their link. It all just adds to the confusing picture.

    Meanwhile (and widely unnoticed[1]) Lord Ashcroft has been doing weekly focus groups as in the run up to the referendum. These started out in foreign parts (Athens & Madrid!; Serbia & Switzerland!!) and have now come home (Nottingham, Loughborough and Southampton!!!):

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/05/world-war-three-spooks-churchill-boris-itv-referendum-focus-groups-with-41-days-to-go/

    As before they are intermittently illuminating, though highly skewed as focus groups tend to be. But his Lordship is certainly having fun:

    Bank of England governor Mark Carney was the closest the groups thought they had yet seen to a credible, impartial witness on the economy, and many had heard his warnings of the risks of Brexit.

    “I don’t think anyone is completely independent, but somehow his view is less biased. Maybe it’s because he’s Canadian. He’s not part of the tie boy network.”

    The what??

    “The what is it, the old school tie.”

    Oh, tie.

    I also liked someone’s description of Boris as “a politically correct Donald Trump”.

    [1] I get the distinct impression that the Media Elite/Oxbridge Mafia will never forgive him for telling the world about the pigs’s head and so have decided on a sentence of damnatio memoriae.

  40. I’ve forgiven him!!!

  41. Totally second Syzygy’s comments
    Neatly put
    I feel very strongly about the cheating on electoral spending from whatever quarter and want it stopped before the erosion becomes too great
    But Syzygy makes clear the differences so far evident between using outsiders to help campaign-fine-and paying for the use of these in some way and not including that in local expenditure-not fine
    We will have to see how it pans out but I hope action is taken and publicity is also given to the storey
    Peter Oborne has written complaining about the minimal coverage so far given to this important story
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/britains-double-standards-dealing-political-corruption-allegations-459955740
    its an interesting read

  42. See Alec’s response up thread for my exact feelings on the EU. But Farage’s claim last night about violence if there was a remain vote went too far. Between that and Boris I’m now off the fence.

  43. @Alec

    I’m not sure that should be a tough call. The EU Act 2011 means that the Eu can’t morph significantly without triggering another referendum. That does not apply to expansion (which was deliberately excluded) but would be needed to extend majority voting (which might accompany significant expansion)

  44. @Tully

    Oborne points to another example of how our so called independent press scrutiny is rather selective and tends to apply itself lop-sidedly and subjectively. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that we’re stretching the definition of a genuinely free press in this country with so much of it now in the hands of over-powerful and politically monochrome proprietors. To call these people, and the publications and news channels they own, watchdogs and guardians of our freedom is utterly preposterous. They are no such thing. They scrutinise our public life only where and when it suits their particular political objectives, normally the election and maintenance of Tory Governments, and the irony of their sudden discovery of teeth when it comes to covering the current government is that it has arisen purely from their uniform antipathy to the EU. Nothing else. If they wanted us to stay in the EU they’d be monstering Farage and Johnson and tilting the entire news coverage that way, not just their specified opinion pieces. This is where the dividing line between news reporting and propaganda becomes very blurred. Propaganda has no interest in public scrutiny and the truth. It actually depends on the suppression of truth and the promulgation of lies.

    Somewhere in this unholy mess, as Oborne points out, lie the reasons why the Tory electoral expenses and spending story is being largely ignored. Coverage of it doesn’t suit the people who own and control our press and media. AS simple as that.

    Scary.

  45. Just done a Google News search for ” Tory election expenses scandal” -with these headline results :-

    Explained: The Conservative election expenses saga
    New Statesman-21 hours ago

    Kent police to ask for more time to investigate Tory election spending
    The Guardian-16 May 2016

    Tory MPs fear election spending row could lead to jail
    Financial Times-13 May 2016

    What is the Tory election expenses story and why isn’t it bigger news?
    In-Depth-The Guardian-13 May 2016

    Elections watchdog seeks more time for Tory probe
    BBC News-4 May 2016

    Investigation Over Tory Election Funding Continues As Police To …
    Highly Cited-Huffington Post UK-4 May 2016

    Eight police forces investigating potential election expenses breaches
    Telegraph.co.uk-6 May 2016

    Conservative chiefs personally approved election expenses rules …
    Daily Mail-13 May 2016

    Tory election expenses: police announce investigation
    Channel 4 News-6 May 2016

    ………..you have to larf :-)

  46. @ Crossbat11

    Eloquently put.. and definitely scary.

  47. If any party has broken election rules I’d expect the police to come knocking and re-run of some constituencies. As a certain Scott would say squeaky bum time for some.

  48. “Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016”-Wikipedia:-

    Newspapers & Magazines :-

    Remain:-
    Financial Times[153]
    The Economist[154]
    The National[155]
    Nature[156]
    New Statesman[157]

    Leave:-
    Daily Express[339]
    Daily Mail[340][341]
    Morning Star, also backed a No vote in the 1975 referendum.[342][343]

  49. @ Tully

    Thanks for the link :)

  50. @Colin

    “Just done a Google News search for ” Tory election expenses scandal” -with these headline results :-”

    Hmmm. Not sure a Google Search is quite the best way of determining media coverage of a news story, is it? As Oborne mentioned, the Tory election expenses story has got the odd mention here and there, probably in all news outlets at some time, as Google reveals, but that doesn’t constitute proper scrutiny and coverage of a news item, does it? It just shows that the Telegraph, for example, might have sort of mentioned it a few times.

    I’m now going to go into Google and type in “media coverage of the Loch Ness Monster” just to reassure myself that this ongoing and major news item is getting the press coverage and analysis it fully deserves.

    I will return with my results in due course!

    :-)

1 2 3