Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor has a much closer race than ICM’s last poll. Topline figures are CON 36%, LAB 35%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 8%, GRN 4% (full tabs are here.)

The poll was conducted over the weekend before Theresa May became Prime Minister, though did include a question on whether people thought she had what it took to be a good Prime Minister (55% of people though she did, 27% did not).

Given it is being rampantly misrepresented on social media, I should also explain about MORI’s turnout filter and how they present their figures (and why, therefore, some people are tweeting entirely different MORI figures!). These days the overwhelming majority of opinion polls contain some sort of adjustment for how likely people are to vote. The general pattern is that older people and middle class people are more likely to vote than younger people and working class people; older people and middle class people are also more likely to vote Conservative, younger people and working class people more likely to vote Labour. This means if a poll just included everyone, with no reference to how likely or unlikely they actually are to vote, then it would overstate Labour when compared to actual election results.

Polling companies account for this by weighting by likelihood to vote (the more likely you are to vote, the more your answer is counted) or filtering by likelihood to vote (only taking people who say they are likely to vote), based either on how likely people say they are to vote, or on demographic modelling. In the case of MORI, their topline figures are based only on people who say they are at least 9/10 likely to vote AND that they always, usually or have sometimes voted in the past. This makes a substantial difference to their topline figures – without this adjustment they would have been showing a five point Labour lead.

MORI’s headline figure is the one that is adjusted for turnout – the one point Conservative lead – which they regard as a better indicator of actual voting intention. However, because MORI’s political monitor has been going since the 1970s they still publish the figures without the turnout adjustment to preserve the data trend, even if they don’t feel it paints an accurate picture in an era of lower turnouts.

In short, if you are looking at Ipsos MORI figures with a view to seeing how well the parties might do in a general election tomorrow, you need to look at the figures that account for how likely people actually are to vote, not take false solace from figures that don’t take turnout into account.


842 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 36, LAB 35, LD 11, UKIP 8”

1 13 14 15 16 17
  1. Prof howard

    Yes he did give up his job to become an MP but theres no way of knowing if he’s still connected to pfizer, if he will still be representing their interests and whether he will get a massive payoff once he leaves office.

    Its scary how many ex new labour politicians have received cushy and lucrative jobs in the finance industry considering how lax they were with regulation pre crash. A quid pro quo? Probably not but the suspicion is there, the revolingbdoor between politics, business and big media does not inspire confidence.

  2. revolingbdoor = revolving door

    Or revolving bloody door!

  3. Ludlow New Boy

    Owen Smith has put forward some interesting ideas. For instance he promotes the idea of a huge public investment programme, and, on constitutional matters, a second referendum on whether to accept the new arrangements. I am not in favour of Labour being a pressure group, that is going to lead to no change of government. That said I think Ed Miliband showed how good ideas can influence politics.

    I am sure Owen can do a wide range of things in his career but he has shown an interest in Labour politics and the ambition and success that he has should be admired, a good thing.

  4. Cambridge Rachel

    I think its good to worry about revolving doors (both literal and figurative!) but at the same time the present bunch of people running the country for the last 20 years (in opposition and in government) have been largely “professional career politicians” or journalists-turned-politician and I am not sure they have been an unqualified success!

  5. @RICH

    Le Pen will never get in – the centre-left and the centre-right will gang up against the NF and keep them out.

  6. @NICKP

    “It really was a criminally negligent referendum. Negligence in holding it all, negligent in explaining what the choices were really about and most negligent of all, the criminal stupidity of the voters themselves!”

    Absolutely true. You’ve hit it on the head.

  7. @JONESINBANGOR

    “We (the British) were never going to buy into a Federal EU “Superstate””

    You forget that Cameron had obtained some key opt outs for Britain before the referendum, including ‘ever closer union’, which means that British participation in a ‘superstate’ was never on the cards in the first place.

  8. @PROFHOWARD

    “Following on from your post about treaties, did you perchance read the article by David Davis in yesterday’s The Sun? He says that bilateral trade deals are so very much quicker than multilateral ones and that it should be a swift matter for Britain to negotiate these with all the main parties, making trade deals that are a lot more suited to the UK than any the EU could ever muster and in much quicker order too. I voted Remain but this did sound encouraging.”

    I would take anything from David Davies with a massive pinch of salt. What his aspirations are and what is technically possible are two different things. We had a very good thing going as part of the EU and have chosen to throw it all away in a fit of self-righteous protest. Negotiating trade deals, even bilaterally, is a very complex and lengthy activity which can take years.

  9. @VALERIE

    “When article 50 is invoked who will have the final say on whether the deal cobbled together by the Brexiteers is acceptable? Will it be purely an executive decision or will Parliament decide? Bearing in mind the Tories only have a majority of 12?”

    Well, I’m still hoping that the Mischon de Reya lawsuit will bear fruit and the government will have to resort to a parliamentary vote for approval to invoke article 50 in the first place. It’s a slim hope but it is there. As for the approval of any Brexit deal, I would think that not only should there be parliamentary approval, but a new referendum should be held as well. Of course, May could use the Royal Prerogative but it won’t make her many friends. If she has any sense she will call a vote in parliament as a minimum.

  10. @NICKP

    “The current Government doesn’t believe in the Civil Service. Now they will either suffer a road to Damascus conversion or fail massively.”

    Well, proof of that is that they have frozen civil service pay since 2010, as well as ejected thousands of employees. Recruiting managers are having to come up with ever more creative ways of recruiting and retaining key staff, but it’s getting harder and harder.

  11. Looks like Erdogan is purging the judiciary.

  12. @ Ludlownewboy

    ‘It seems to me that wholesale replacement of the PLP is more likely to win Labour the next GE than replacing its leader.’

    What wonderful heresy! Well done.

    The big problem for Owen Smith and his New Deal offer of £200bn investment (which I would support – although other guestimates reckon 75bn would be sufficient), is that I have completely lost faith in most of the 172+ rebel MPs to do what they say because of the way that they have behaved, and the undemocratic devices that they have, and are supporting.

    I doubt that I am alone. The advantage for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell is that they have a long history which is consistent with their current policies. Unfortunately, a majority of the 172 have a history of voting for tuition fees, cuts to benefits, bombing other countries and being unable to step outside the TINA mainstream economics (in spite of Owen Smith’s latest announcement) etc etc. As Cambridge Rachel says people are sick of the triangulation, and want some leadership with integrity.

    Tom Baldwin, an Ed Miliband advisor writes in Labour List that the PLP should be concentrating on promoting their own programme of policies and drumming up mass support for such, instead of attempting to remove Corbyn by eliminating his supporters from the membership. One can only ask why the 172 haven’t thought of that?

    It is also unfortunate that Owen Smith has in any way been linked to Pfizer. Pfizer is well known as a funder of many politically disparate Think Tanks and organisations like Progress, the blairite group within the LP. Few see their participation in funding such groups as purely philanthropic.

  13. At the time of militant I believed that they were a dangerous undemocratic bunch of bully boys, but we didn’t have social media then, I had to trust what the media was telling me. With all the stuff that is being said about momentum I’m starting to wonder if militant were similarly maligned

  14. ProfHoward

    I thought Corbyn was also in favour of public investment, so it doesn’t strike me as being different while the second referendum idea doesn’t grab me at all.

    If we have it and accept the new arrangements, we carry on as is presently expected and exit. If we don’t accept it, what then? The government goes back and tries for something better which gets voted on again and so on, or we carry on with something the electorate has already rejected? Neither is acceptable. It is likely that the 2020GE will in effect be a referendum on the government’s efforts anyway.

    I don’t want Labour to become a pressure group either but until 2020, that is all they can be. And TM is likely to be more amenable to change if she gets a consistent message from a unified opposition that believes in what it is saying. That is more likely to win them the 2020GE as well but putting Owen Smith in charge of a party with a large section of the membership feeling betrayed by the PLP will not present as a unified opposition. They should both stand down now with dignity, like AL did for the Tories. OS can stand again in 2020 if Labour loses and with more credibility.

  15. Dave: “If you really believe in the benefits of free trade, “Yes” is the answer.”

    Thanks, Assiduosity for addressing this point in my absence in the garden on weeding duty.

    One guy who does “really believe in the benefits of free trade” is Patrick Minford, both in his previous role as Margaret Thatcher’s economic guru and his current Economists for Brexit reincarnation. In both cases, he has been intensely relaxed about the disappearance of British industry (and latterly, agriculture too), arguing that we should rely on where our comparative advantage lies, in services.

    So, yes, one can go down that road, but it is fraught with difficulties. First, we already have a massive BoP deficit and importing virtually all the goods and food we need would require a staggering increase in services exports. Second, a hard Brexit means losing membership of the single market in services, undermining exactly those services exports where we do best.

    Finally, Dave’s suggestion of tax rebates for local suppliers is a classic non-tariff barrier to trade, so no different from aiming to exclude some areas from a free trade deal.

    However, in the unlikely event that I were a Brexiter, I would be looking with interest at NAFTA. With a bit of nifty renaming to North Atlantic FTA, it could provide a quick solution for those Leavers who at heart don’t trust non-Anglophone foreigners. However, it seems that for the section of society in the USA with the same grievances as many Brexit voters here, NAFTA provides exactly the same hate-object function as the EU does here. So frying pan and fire come to mind. See:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36752237

  16. This article captures my concerns about Corbynism rather well:
    https://medium.com/@matatatatat/the-terrifying-hubris-of-corbynism-6590054a9b57#.ar5exd1h9

  17. A polite but interesting and possibly instructive little exchange took place in the HoC last Tuesday in Hammond’s final FCO Q&A Session[1]

    Alex Salmond: The whole of Scotland is deeply concerned about the personal future of the Foreign Secretary, given his apocalyptic statements during the recent referendum. For example, he told Chatham House on 2 March that leaving would take longer to negotiate “than the second world war.”

    Will it take longer to negotiate Brexit than the second world war? How would any future Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with such uncertainty?

    Mr Hammond: I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the concern is this: if a future treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union 27 is deemed to be a mixed competence, it will have to be ratified by 27 national Parliaments. I believe I am right in saying that the shortest time in which that has been done in respect of any EU treaty is just under four years—that is after taking into account the time it takes to negotiate.

    Alex Salmond: That is a yes then. Did the Foreign Secretary see the poll at the weekend carried out by YouGov across European countries? It showed two things: first, that the UK Government were deeply unpopular in every other European country; and, secondly, that massive majorities of the public in every country surveyed were looking forward to an independent Scotland within Europe. Why are the UK Government so unpopular, and why is Scotland so popular in Europe?

    Mr Hammond: I would have thought if there was one lesson to take from the events of the past three weeks, it was, “Do not read polls”.

    Both made valid points, but one cannot help wondering not only how BoJo would have responded had the query been made at the next FCO Q&A session [after the Summer recess] but also what Hammond’s response would have been at the next Treasury Q&A session [due next Tuesday].

    [1] See Hansard here.

  18. “At the time of militant I believed that they were a dangerous undemocratic bunch of bully boys, but we didn’t have social media then, I had to trust what the media was telling me. With all the stuff that is being said about momentum I’m starting to wonder if militant were similarly maligned”

    Rachel, that’s exactly what I’ve been wondering. Just how many of these old political truisms are media created narratives?

    I always rather liked the hat tons and Livingstones. Maybe a bit less Kinnock and Blair and a bit more of them might have kept some of the sold off businesses in public ownership and we wouldn’t be in such a globalist mess now.

  19. @NickP
    @CambridgeRachel

    Exactly how I started thinking post-indyref. I see what the MSM & establishment is doing to Corbyn, they never gave him a chance & now they are pulling the old indyref tricks regarding the abusive & intimidating tactics of Momentum.

    We were talking about John McTernan today, and my friend was amazed that the media go to him fo quotes & comments. It’s because the media have a narrative and they have folk that will reinforce that narrative, people like John McT.

    What angers me is journalists lacking integrity, why do they play along.

  20. “What angers me is journalists lacking integrity, why do they play along.”

    I think the independent journalist with integrity is another one of the myths, sadly.

  21. @ Guymonde

    ‘This article captures my concerns about Corbynism rather well:
    https://medium.com/@matatatatat/the-terrifying-hubris-of-corbynism-6590054a9b57#.ar5exd1h9

    You and Owen Jones both, it seems. I struggled to see the Marxist analysis personally but essentially, I did not accept a number of his original assumptions.

  22. @ Syzygy

    “I struggled to see the Marxist analysis personally”

    As there was none. It is actually (intentionally or not) based on a particular marketing concept of instant gratification, and projects it onto politics. Whether it’s right or not (or to what degree) is a different matter.

    In any case, the complete absence of evidence, suggests that it is another narrative for which one pick and choose the anecdotes.

  23. Guymonde

    Nothing in that link was backed up by evidence. Also I’m surprised that it didn’t mention intersectional feminism which recognizes the links between various forms of oppression. In the same way single issue campaigners have become aware of the links between them and that whatever the focus of their particular campaign the central problem is the increasing integration of the political economic and media elite. The only way to challenge that is through the political process. We have seen that 3 million people marches are not effective

  24. Broken window debunked

    https://youtu.be/ppnKHmuVA1s

  25. @ CambridgeRachel

    Whether the Militant was painted as evil bullies and the truth … I can only comment on the HO and Liverpool.

    Firstly, in the mid third of 1980s was a very different world, much harsher, and much more far reaching consequences challenged people.

    Secondly, Militant largely used tactics of the then Labour Party: aiming at positions who controlled the agenda of a meeting, or other kinds of decisions. It also used the tactic that the PLP uses – pre distributed roles of the members during a deciscussion, which gave the appearance of spontaneous propositions, and the formation of the consensus. It also crippled the development of an alternative proposition.

    Thirdly, many of the Militant people in Liverpool came from the unions, and those times union debates held no punches, so it was just transferred to the party meetings. There were in-timi-dations – nothing really compares to them today in harshness (not physical) but these were justified by simply declaring the strike breakers (this is the origin of this) and those who were against the broad left – they were the traitors. Waking up such people every night did happen.

    Fourth, at least in Liverpool, people who then made up the Militant revitalised a half-dead party, and broke through the religious divisions.

    Fifth, most members had no idea that they were members of a Trotskyst organisation – they just simply wanted to do something, have an organisation that worked for them (Labour was anti-working class then). The simple slogans were appealing and there was no need for discussion about them as people actually experienced the validity of the slogans every day (and referring to Lenin separated them from others, and not referring to Stalin avoided awkward questions to which they had no answer.

    Sixth – the HO of the tendency was very mild mannered, but had no capability of going beyond a fairly decent analysis. It is surprising how big the gap between this analysis and the proposed policies was, and that nobody cared. They also distrusted the workers as such. It is one of the reasons why the main targets were the civil service and the UN- and semiskilled workers.

    Seventh, they had no resources to be active in both the LP and the unions, which had repercussions.

    So, overall, it was the time that antagonised groups and people, not the Militant, but at the same time these antagonisms allowed (it had to be – when comparing the times of Blair and today in the LP is just difference in manners) certain behaviours – on all sides. However, the narrative wrongly focuses on this, and wrongly claims that it was only Militant.

    The problem with Militant wasn’t the inti-midation, but the lack of competence, and a realistic future.

  26. I received an email this weekend from my MP explaining his position re-the Labour leadership contest.
    He thought the vote of no-confidence in Corbyn was badly timed, but voted for it precisely because he did not have any confidence in Corbyn’s ability to win the next GE.
    He had been told countless times, when canvassing, by voters that they would not vote Labour, while Corbyn was leader.
    I replied offering my MP my full support.

  27. Tancred

    “Le Pen will never get in – the centre-left and the centre-right will gang up against the NF and keep them out.”

    At last, something on which we can agree!

  28. Which probably means that Sarkozy is the next President.

  29. @CAMBRIDGERACHEL
    At the time of militant I believed that they were a dangerous undemocratic bunch of bully boys,

    This was always a popular caricature of Militant which misunderstands the point of the entryist tactic. The aim was to take over the Labour Party machinery from the “reformists”. Mostly the Militant folks were model party members – especially in moribund CLPs – very active in campaigning and willing volunteers for committees and admin. And very well-organised in party meetings, always arguing the same party line and voting the same way. Militant members who crossed the line into individual aggression were generally disciplined or expelled for breaches of revolutionary discipline.

    Obviously they presented a fiery left-wing presence on picket lines and demos, but in party activity they went out of their way not to draw attention to themselves or invite expulsion from the Labour party.

    It was being a party within a party, not indiscipline, that underpinned the Pinnock era expulsions. And they were. With their own administrative and political structures. The Labour Party was just a vehicle for extending their influence over the wider left. When that failed they left the host body. Their still there as the Socialist Party/TUSC and other revolutionary left groups (Socialist Action, SWP etc) which form a hard core of the inner Momentum organisation. Like Militant in the 70s and 80s, they’ve built a broad left movement of all sorts of people with different views and behaviours. No doubt it has accumulated a few thugs and nutters along the way, because there really is quite a lot of bullying and thuggery out there at the moment. But I doubt it’s the core Momentum group doing it.

    I also doubt the aim has changed – to take control of the Labour Party administrative and decision-making structures and move it from reformist to revolutionary socialism.

  30. *Kinnock*, not Pinnock, of course. D’oh.

    Any “they’re”, not their

  31. @ Laszlo

    ‘In any case, the complete absence of evidence, suggests that it is another narrative for which one pick and choose the anecdotes.’

    Nicely summed up – thank you.

  32. I am very struck, having read much of this thread, that the left really do not do, ‘thinking outside the box’, or ‘blue sky thinking’ as trendy corporate types would describe it.

    It’s all, ‘ooh! You can’t do that, it’s against the rules’ and things similar. Frankly, if a country is prepared to talk trade deals with us, we can do what we want. The fact that Junker might not like it is irrelevant, he won’t be around for much longer anyway if Merkel has her way.

    And let’s also not forget that he was quite partial to his own trade/tax deals outside the rules, when he was PM of an insignificant little country.

    David Davis may or may not succeed in his mission but Let’s give the guy the benefit of the doubt and wish him well.

    Some people can and do, others just wring their hands and shake their heads. Problem is there are some just wishing him to fail.

  33. @CAMBRIDGERACHEL
    Broken window debunked
    https://youtu.be/ppnKHmuVA1s

    That is exactly the sort of reason why MPs are losing or have lost the trust.

  34. Valerie, I think the MPs are in a good position to know what goes down well with voters.

    I must write to my local MP to see where he stands.

  35. @ Robert Newark

    I agree, it’s one of the more frustrating things when dealing with some people on part of the left. I find it also expressed in the obsession with saying that some international events are illegal, or “against international law”.

    If something is illegal, it can be prosecuted, whether in the UK or in a multi-national organisation such as the ECHR.

  36. I see that my Labour MP (who is in the “neutral but not hostile” group of MPs)

    1. Signed Corbyn’s nomination last year, even though he supported a different MP for leader, to allow a debate
    2. Did not sign the no-confidence motion, so was one of the 40 that opposed the no confidence vote.
    3. Has called on Corbyn to resign in light of the vote.

  37. Let’s try to avoid automod this time.

    Whether the Militant (MT) and its description in media is true. I can only comment on the HO and Liverpool.

    For the contexts it is important that the second third of 1980s was a very different world, much harsher, and politics had much more far reaching consequences to people’s everyday life in comparison of the last 20 years (except for the last few months).

    MT largely used tactics of the then Labour Party: aiming at positions who controlled the agenda of a meeting, or other kinds of decisions. It also used the tactic that the PLP uses today – pre distributed roles of the members during a discussion, which gave the appearance of spontaneous propositions, and the formation of the consensus. It also obstructed the development of an opposing proposition.

    Many MT people in Liverpool came from the unions, and in those times union debates were harsh, so it was just transferred to the party meetings. There were harassment – and these were justified by branding the opposing views. These were not physical, but psychological (although boundaries are blurred – waking up someone every night for example).
    .
    At least in Liverpool, people who then made up the Militant revitalised a half-dead party, and broke through the religious divisions, and it gained respect. Most members had no idea that they were members of a Trotskyst organisation – they just simply wanted to do something, have an organisation that worked for them (Labour was anti-working class then). The simple slogans were appealing and there was no need for discussion about them as people actually experienced the validity of the slogans every day (and referring to Lenin separated them from others, and not referring to Stalin avoided awkward questions to which they had no answer.

    The MT HO was very mild mannered, but had no capability of going beyond a fairly decent analysis of some aspects of the society. It is surprising how big the gap between this analysis and the proposed policies was, and that nobody cared. They also distrusted the workers as such. It is one of the reasons why the main recruitment targets were the civil service and the UN- and semiskilled workers. However, they had no resources to be active in both the LP and the unions, which had repercussions.

    So, overall, it was the time that antagonised groups and people, not the MT, but at the same time these antagonisms allowed (it had to be – when comparing the times of Blair and today in the LP is just difference in manners) certain behaviours – on all sides. However, the narrative wrongly focuses on these manner issues, and wrongly claims that it was only Militant.

    The problem with Militant wasn’t harassment, but the lack of competence, and outlining a realistic future.

  38. Prof howard

    He might have abstained which is what my MP did

  39. Muddy waters

    Im not sure about revolutionary socialism but I would like labour to be reformist.

    I must be stupid but after these two explanations im having a hard time understanding what the militant problem was. Seems entryism is a posh way of saying people we don’t like, in my case I’d say that blairites are entryists

  40. ROBERT

    I don’t think they have really understood what they are up against.

    The article Syzygy linked to is very interesting-but the bogey man it invokes , waiting in the wings for a Labour split is a “Right Wing” Conservative Party-supported by UKIP !!!

    They don’t seem to realise that it is much worse than that for them now -it is a Theresa May administration hell bent on implementing Nick Timothy ‘s idea of Conservatism.

    They will have to get used to being an opposition from much further Left. Corbyn & his gang will relish this presumably , but the people opposing him in the PLP , who desperately want to present a Centre Left alternative to Cameron/Osborne have a bleak future if Theresa May comes anywhere near implementing the ideas in that Downing Street Speech.

  41. Colin

    The question is whether the Tory party will let her. If she wanted to meld a centrist coalition, perhaps she should have been a bit less brutal to the Cameroons.

    If she doesn’t succeed, a soft-left Labour Party could simply pick up the ball with the Tories having moved the debate leftwards.

    Theresa May has weaknesses such as being bad on the telly. She is also already creating a Cruella de Vil imagine.

    E.g. https://twitter.com/AndyGilder/status/753186508887252993

  42. If were getting to the point were some contributors on this site truly believe that if militant had achieved their adjectives it would have been for the betterment of the labour movement and the country at large and if this view were to be the commonly held by those backing corbyn then i can not see any chance of reconciliation amongst the warring parties. Sadly it seems were heading for a split whatever the outcome of the upcoming contest.

  43. Hawthorn: I am not sure that Mrs May is bad on the telly, there is no polling evidence for that.

    Marc: Labour will not split absent PR. Sooner or later Corbyn will go. Perhaps Mrs May will hold an election in the autumn and if he wins that then he will not have to resign.

  44. @CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    The “Militant problem” was that it was a separate party within a party (actually called the Revolutionary Socialist League by inner party members), taking control of the Labour Party as a vehicle to pursue its own aims – i.e. revolutionary change – rather than those of the Labour Party itself.

    As Lazlo said, the boundaries were blurred of course, from the hard core of the RSL to a much broader base of people who sincerely wanted the party to be more radical but would certainly not see themselves as revolutionary Marxists or even know that Militant was a Trotskyist party; and the LP has always contained factions, organisations and groupings of many flavours of leftishness. But this was about much more than just “people we don’t like” being in the same organisation.

  45. Caroline Lucas is introducing a bill to introduce PR on Wednesday.

    I wonder if any Labour MPs will be supporting it?

  46. @ CMJ

    Let’s hope (just for the hope), though it is unlikely that it would get a majority.

  47. PROFHOWARD

    She speaks too quickly, with mild vocal fluffs. She also has a mild jaw tic. I think the root cause is a introverted nervousness.

    I am sure it is nothing that could not be solved by coaching but that can have unintentionally hilarious results as seen by the Gordon Brown “grinning” video.

    This is a provisional first impression which I am happy to revise.

  48. PROFHOWARD

    It is likely that the economy will be quite bad. I think she may end up rubbing up people up the wrong way if she cannot appear empathetic.

  49. @ Marco Flynn

    Those factions have been present in the LP ever since it was established. So, it is not new.

    It is just at certain times, when (many) people are discontent, it reaches the LP, and the members try to change the social democratic characteristic nature of the party (I think LP is only Western social Democratic Party that has never declared any root in Marxism). In addition, there is no party to the left from the LP (the Greens are a much broader coalition) – the CP when existed was marginal (except for very short periods and for very defined social groups), and the various Trotskyist organisations lack everything really. Which means that entryism is a characteristic of the LP (although then the entryism of the right wing should also be noted – it is also entryism you know).

    The question is not whether Militant, Corbynista, Blairites, etc are good or bad for the LP, but actually the objectives of the LP and if these could be achieved by the means available.

  50. HAWTHORN

    @”I am sure it is nothing that could not be solved by coaching”

    I think the whole point about her is that she doesn’t think there is anything to “solve”-and if she did it wouldn’t involve “coaching”.

    We shall see. But you may have to get used to all those little blemishes Hawthorn :-)

1 13 14 15 16 17