YouGov released a new Scottish poll last night, their first poll on Scottish Independence since the EU referendum. Voting intention in another Independence referendum stands at YES 47%(+1), NO 53%(-1). Changes are from May and don’t suggest any significant difference from before the EU referendum (tabs here).

There were several polls before the European referendum suggesting that a Brexit vote would push a majority of Scots towards supporting independence, but people are not necessarily good judges of how they would respond to hypothetical situations.

On the weekend straight after after the EU referendum there were snap Scottish polls from Panelbase and Survation that had suggested a majority in favour of independence. That may be down to methodological differences, or may simply be down to timing – one can easily imagine that a poll taken in the immediate aftermath of the unexpected EU result would produce different results to one taken a month later when the news has sunk in (and indeed, that we might well see different results once British exit has been negotiated and its full impact is clear to the Scottish electorate)


610 Responses to “YouGov Scottish Independence poll”

1 7 8 9 10 11 13
  1. @ Old Nat

    I hope your weeding was worth it – you missed yourself.

    There was someone with a clicker at the Botanics, so the numbers were well-established at that point (unless s/he had a twitchy thumb!) – 5,300 was reported – and there were more people waiting at the square.

  2. VALERIE

    @”Presumably there were people handing out loaves and fishes at JC’s rally?”

    Very funny :-)

    @”Is that Eoin Clarke, late of this parish?”

    The same-Doctor, & Statistician allegedly :-)

  3. @”The situation in Venezuela is complicated by its history, its never been a properly stable democracy with the rule of law.”

    Wonderful.

    Absolutely nothing to do with its Government’s policies then :-)

  4. @Tancred

    ”There is no evidence that there would automatically be another 5 million people here in 10 years’ time. Besides, much population growth is natural, not due to immigration”

    The ONS predicted in 2015 that population growth 2014-24 would be 4.4 million. Which was an upward revision of their 2012 estimate.
    Subsequently MigrationWatch published figures indicating that the ONS had underestimated net immigration quite significantly.

    Of course population growth is not just a factor of immigration. Birth rates are also a factor, as is the age distribution of the population, and improving life expectancy.

    But 5 million in the next 10 years is pretty much the way it is. I was careful not to say that Brexit would necessarily change this, but we have to recognise that 5 million is a lot to absorb, especially as it is almost all going to occur in already-crowded England.

    The media and government have concentrated too much upon the problems of integrating immigrants, and the impact upon wages, when the real problem is just simply the numbers.

    The task is to bring those numbers down, but do so gently. There are numerous ways of doing this: restricting free movement within the EU is just one of many available.

  5. @Lazslo – “Merseyside police put the size of the rally between 7-10,000. So, there you are. Still no SWP or any other non-Labour plackards.”

    Excellent. As I stated last night, I couldn’t guarantee to have a full view of all parts of the crowd, so my effort of 3,000 – 5,000 wasn’t too far off the police estimates. all things considered. There were not 15,000 people there, of that we can now be sure.

    Effectively a crowd of !5,000 is a third of a large premiership football ground, and it’s clear that the crowd wasn’t of that scale. Police tend to come out with smaller crowd estimates becasue – weel they count them, and they have a good idea of how to count crowds. It’s similar in bird watching. You can see a large flock of birds and think it is thousands, but when you actually [count!] them the numbers usually come in a lot smaller.

  6. test

  7. @Lazslo – “Merseyside police put the size of the rally between 7-10,000. So, there you are. Still no SWP or any other non-Labour plackards.”

    Excellent. As I stated last night, I couldn’t guarantee to have a full view of all parts of the crowd, so my effort of 3,000 – 5,000 wasn’t too far off the police estimates. all things considered. There were not 15,000 people there, of that we can now be sure.

    Effectively a crowd of !5,000 is a third of a large premiership football ground, and it’s clear that the crowd wasn’t of that scale. Police tend to come out with smaller crowd estimates becasue – weel they count them, and they have a good idea of how to count crowds. It’s similar in bird watching. You can see a large flock of birds and think it is thousands, but when you actually count them the numbers usually come in a lot smaller.

  8. The Corbyn rally was huge, in the context of modern UK politics. We don’t do this kind of thing, so clearly Corbyn is touching something in a particular group of the population.

    The real question is why this isn’t reflected in the polls.

    In the US, Trump gets huge rallies of adoring followers, but he barely got a majority of republicans to back him and at present it seems unlikely he will win the country. Even now, he has suggested that the presidential poll will be ‘rigged’.

    It’s a similar dynamic to populist movements over here; Yes camp[aigners came up with claims of corruption at the indyref count, Corbyn supporters believe the etsblishment will not let them win, etc, etc.

    But with Corbyn, we have already had nearly a year to make sound judgements based on the polls. I don’t accept that his leadership has been terminally undermined by the PLP for all of this time. Even his own staff admit that the shadow cabinet worked with him and recognised the need for change. The number and range of parlimentary and external people who agreed to serve him and now express their concerns is just too big and too varied to be ignored.

    So we go back to the question of why Labour has fallen back in the polls since Corbyn became leader, why it has consistently polled at dire levels, have decline even further in Scotland, gone backwards in Wales, and generally failed to make any significant breakthroughs?

    We know Corbyn can attract big crowds, and we know he is not popular among voters. Trying to square this conundrum is labour’s problem.

  9. In a discussion of a) attendance figures at the JC rally and b) the AIA, perhaps I could point out that 250,000 people attended a rally in Belfast in protest against the AIA – that was ~ 1 in 6 of the entire population at the time. It didn’t stop the agreement or have any significant long term consequence (nor did the million anti-Iraq war demonstrators in London – other than to elevate JC). Whether JC got 5,000 or 50,000 Liverpudlians out on the street is redundant (let me rephrase that) .. is irrelevant. Unless he can also get significant numbers of floating / Tory voters from the surrounding areas of Cheshire and Lancashire to join him then this will all end very badly for Labour. For that we need opinion polls and the current ones look very bad indeed. That his supporters cannot even concede that indicates the scale of Labour’s peril.

    Returning to Scotland, is there polling on demand for the Scottish Six? Do the SNP just want it as a parochial RT or would it genuinely be allowed to “Andrew Neil” the Scottish government?

  10. I see that the LibDems have had a number of successes in local government by-elections, and also seem to be finding candidates more easily. A recovery under way, it would appear. Yet in the national polls they still seem to languish.

    Are they repeating their old tactic of concentrating upon building local representation, and expecting national progress to follow through?

    With Labour in disarray, and seemingly committed to a fundamental shift to the left, there is plenty of room in the centre ground.

    I wonder whether the leaking of left-leaning Greens to Corbyn, has left an ‘environmental’ small liberal rump within the Green Party that would see advantage in merging with the LDs, to form a centre-left, environmentally conscious, liberal-leaning, anti-establishment new political force.

    More importantly, can such a party acquire the seriousness and credibility, especially economic, to develop a wider appeal?

  11. The new PM is putting her tanks on Labour’s lawn today with the launch of this new industrial strategy.
    She’s not daft – with the Reds fighting like ferrets in a sack, she sees an opportunity to show the voters that she’s in charge and getting on with the job.
    Truly, she is making hay whilst the sun shines.
    Come on Labour, sort yourselves out !

  12. ALEC

    @”The real question is why this isn’t reflected in the polls.”

    I don’t think this is the “real ” question. At least not for Corbyn & McDonnell.

    It IS the crowds that are important-and that they appear to stand in contrast to the voters IS the point for them.

    Read the first line of the text in this extraordinary interview.

    Note the date of it. Reading this interview , in light of subsequent events , is , I think, very illuminating.

    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/jeremy-corbyn-john-mcdonnell-interview-election-2015-labour-party-674

  13. @MILLIE

    There is certainly room in the centre of British politics, but the Lib-Dems alone cannot fill it. I would like to see a split in Labour – not because I have a grudge against that party, but because it makes no sense for a party to have such extremely divergent views within it. A party can be a broad church but it needs unity around certain unchanging principles – and Labour no longer has this unity. An SDP like split is the only option, and then a coalition with the LDs and SNP, with a commitment to PR and putting Britain back into the EU. I don’t see any other option.

  14. @MILLIE

    “But 5 million in the next 10 years is pretty much the way it is. I was careful not to say that Brexit would necessarily change this, but we have to recognise that 5 million is a lot to absorb, especially as it is almost all going to occur in already-crowded England.”

    Maybe so, but it’s wrong to point solely at EU immigrants as causing this increase. Giving automatic British citizenship to the wife/husband of a UK citizen is one of the main problems – this is particularly an issue within the Asian community, as there is a tradition of ‘importing’ suitable partners from sub-continent. This should stop. Also, May herself has been guilty of allowing British businesses to import cheap IT staff from India, undercutting UK based staff. To say that EU immigrants are the main cause of the population increase is utterly wrong; the picture is a lot more complicated.

  15. @TANCRED
    “… with a commitment to PR and putting Britain back into the EU”

    On both of those issues, Parliament decided to put the question to the electorate, and the voters answered the question.

    While I disagreed with the PR referendum result, I accept it as the democratic decision of the people, and the EUref result should now be accepted by all whether in favour or not.

    Any party, or coalition of parties, which sets out to oppose the views of the majority of those who elected them, has no legitimacy. Even Kim Il Corbyn knows that.

  16. David Carrod

    Spot on.

    AV – rejected by the people

    EU – rejected by the people.

    Let’s deal with the problems in front of us, not those we have passed by.

  17. THOMAS
    Returning to Scotland, is there polling on demand for the Scottish Six? Do the SNP just want it as a parochial RT or would it genuinely be allowed to “Andrew Neil” the Scottish government?

    YouGov asked one question on it in a pre-GE poll in March [PDF here].

    What’s an RT?

    BBC Scotland have a number of interviewers at least as “robust” as Andrew Neil. It has been a live issue for many years. The BBC’s own article on the “Scotland Politics” [sic] section of their website reports:
    Damian Collins, acting chair of the committee, said: “The six o’clock news in Scotland is currently split into two.

    “The main news stories, whether international or relating to the UK [in whole or in part], are presented from London while Scottish news is presented from Glasgow.

    “In the post-devolution era, this can lead to network news programmes transmitted from London leading on several purely English stories – for instance on health, justice or education.

    That is accurate. They don’t link to the report itself on the Parliament site, though. The full report is available at http://www.parliament.uk/cmscom

  18. @DAVID CARROD

    “Any party, or coalition of parties, which sets out to oppose the views of the majority of those who elected them, has no legitimacy. Even Kim Il Corbyn knows that.”

    Do I always have to keep reminding you that we live in a parliamentary system? You may want direct democracy, but this is not how the country works.
    Parliament makes the final decisions, irrespective of what the public wants. During the 1970s and ’80s and into the ’90s most people wanted the restoration of the death penalty; there were several votes in parliament and every time it was voted down. There were calls for a referendum but it was never approved. Such a referendum would certainly have produced a ‘yes’ vote to the restoration of the death penalty, given the substantial poll leads that the pro-death penalty lobby had. It never happened? Why? Because it would have damaged Britain’s international reputation, let alone made miscarriages of justice more severe, with the likelihood of innocent lives being lost.
    The fact is that the general public is ALWAYS more radical and extreme than parliament – and that is why we need parliament. Parliament acts as chamber where issues are discussed and debated in a reasonable and thoughtful manner without the hysteria and fanaticism that is an unfortunate aspect of populism. Dictators hate parliaments; they prefer to rely on the emotive response of the masses as they are more easily influenced by propaganda and simple slogans. Parliament needs to be there to provide that moderating influence – without it we would see the country explode into violence.

  19. DAVID CARROD @TANCRED
    While I disagreed with the PR referendum result

    The UK has never had a referendum on PR, so I can only presume you’re referring to the referendum on AV in 2011.

    The main reason it failed was that the LDs were very unpopular at the time, but many claimed [unwisely, IMO] that it should be rejected as a miserable little compromise and that only real PR is worth voting for.

  20. @JASPER22

    So, who are ‘the people’? And why should they be so well qualified to make decisions on such complex issues?

    Referenda are the tools of manipulative politicians who prefer to abdicate responsibility when faced with difficult issues. They are not needed, are not constitutionally valid and do not form part of the political tradition of this country.

  21. Jasper & David Carrod

    As I posted yesterday, your wasting your time. Some people cannot and will not accept the result of the referendum. In my view they should be ignored.

    The thread is supposed to be about the YouGov Scottish Independence poll which was interesting in that it showed that the Scots polled wished to remain in the UK even if it meant leaving the EU, a change from the immediate polling post Brexit. It will be interesting to see what happens in subsequent polls as Brexit happens.

  22. @TANCRED
    “Do I always have to keep reminding you that we live in a parliamentary system? You may want direct democracy, but this is not how the country works.”

    But that’s exactly the point, we can only have a referendum on a particular issue if it’s mandated by an Act of Parliament, which generally only happens when a potential change to the constitution is proposed.

    A referendum on the death penalty has never been mandated by Parliament, because of the likely constitutional crisis that a Yes vote would cause – we’d have been kicked out of the EU long ago, and we’d be in breach of the ECHR and unable to pass the Human Rights Act 1998.

    And yes, I know it was an AV referendum in 2011, one of the arguably less than ideal forms of PR, but other options weren’t on the ballot paper.

  23. Quite disturbingly I seem to have agreed with Tancred twice in two days.

    We elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf using their judgement as to what is in the best interests of the people and Country. Often that judgement is to do something unpopular.

    When politicians make unpopular decisions that most people don’t like then they tend to say theirs No democracy, but they are of course wrong, what they want isn’t democracy it’s decisions they like.

    The pension triple lock might be an example of a popular but unsustainable policy which if stopped would have many complaining about a betrayal by an out of touch political elite.

    What would matter to those disappointed would be not getting an ever increasing pension even if it was economic madness to continue with it.

    I once saw a candidate come unstuck at an SNP hustings when he told the audience;

    “If elected I’ll always do what my Constituents want!”

    Someone at the back then asked;

    “What if they want to get rid of the Jews!”

    Most people support the NHS but the two things they don’t want from it are a;

    “Post Code Lottery!” or “One Sizes Fits All!”

    Two mutually contradictory positions…

    Peter.

  24. Good morning all from central London.

    It’s always good to start the day on some good news..

    “South West Trains to build 60 more parking spaces at Winchester Station”
    ……………………and about time.

    On PR for Westminster, I’m in favour of it but how would it work? The current Commons chamber is too small to seat all MP’s as it is and with PR you need additional members to make up the percentage proportion to reflect on each of the parties vote share so where would they all sit?

    The Scottish parliament (not including the two law officers) has 129 seats, 73 FPTP..roughly (56.% of seats) and 56 via the top list system roughly (44% of seats) . so would that mean under PR Westminster would have 650 FPTP seats (56% of seats) and an additional 286 top up seats (44% of seats) taking the total to 936 MP’s?

    It’s gonna be very over crowded!!

  25. @DAVID CARROD

    “But that’s exactly the point, we can only have a referendum on a particular issue if it’s mandated by an Act of Parliament, which generally only happens when a potential change to the constitution is proposed.”

    True, but the act of parliament came about because the PM wanted it and he requested his MPs to approve it.
    No other major politician wanted the referendum – Cameron made it a manifesto commitment in the hope that it would help him win the election. Whether it made a difference is a matter of debate.

  26. Millie
    The EC 2015 Ageing Report which provides projections for all 28 member countries (http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/ageing_report_2015_en.pdf) give a balanced account of migration and other demographic change, valuably relating labour force trends to dependency and to economic growth, in which the UK projections are based on Treasury and ONS figures.
    It is interesting to see the comparison with Germany (and others) in the “country fiches” which see the UK exceeding Germany in population and economic growth and with a population of 80 million by 2060 – put that way immigration and population growth look a lot less scary, and might even seem attractive

  27. @JOHN PILGRIM

    All I can say is that in my estate practially every house has kids/babies. And these are mainly white English families, not immigrants. People are having children, and that is where much of the growth is, not EU immigrants.
    Germany has had a dead natural growth rate since 1945 – partly due to ‘war guilt’ and self-hatred, but also due to a reaction against ingrained conservatism within German society.

  28. THE OTHER HOWARD

    “The thread is supposed to be about the YouGov Scottish Independence poll which was interesting in that it showed that the Scots polled wished to remain in the UK even if it meant leaving the EU, a change from the immediate polling post Brexit. It will be interesting to see what happens in subsequent polls as Brexit happens”
    ________

    I’ve said on a few occasions I don’t think the Scots love affair with the EU is that strong they would simply dump the Union to rejoin the EU. If in a few years time Scotland appears to be disadvantaged by Brexit economically then the polls may well turn in favour of leaving the Union.

    I certainly don’t think leaving the UK to join the EU is a good enough or credible reason for Scottish independence and I’m in favour of Scottish independence.

  29. Allen Christie

    One Hundred constituencies with 5 members each elected by STV

  30. PETER CAIRNS (SNP)
    “Quite disturbingly I seem to have agreed with Tancred twice in two days”
    _______

    In that case you really should drop the (SNP) from the side of your name before you ruin the reputation of your party. )-:

  31. CAMBRIDGERACHEL
    Allen Christie
    One Hundred constituencies with 5 members each elected by STV
    ______

    Thanks for that…So 500 seats in total. It lot more logical than the waffling in my post. :-)

  32. @ALLAN CHRISTIE
    “It’s gonna be very over crowded!!”

    Not necessarily. If the 2015 GE had been run on fully PR lines, with the same 650 seats available, the make up of the Commons would now be:

    Con 242
    Lab 200
    UKIP 83
    LibDem 52
    SNP 31
    Green 25
    DUP 4
    Plaid Cymru 4
    Sinn Fein 4
    UUP 2
    SDLP 2

    So all sorts of coalitions possible there.

  33. @CR

    I know STV is hailed by some as the be-all and end-all, but it creates several weird distortions of the electoral process.

    In particular, it doesn’t give the electorate much of a choice of candidate from within parties (supposedly one of its benefits), because there is a strong practical reason for parties to only put up as many candidates as they think they can get elected. Putting up a full slate tends to dilute the party vote, and because of voter “drop-off” (a given percentage will fail to give their next preference at each recount) the overall party vote is smaller than if they had put up the “right” number of candidates. So a party that is going to win either 2 or 3 seats in a 5-seat constituency will (if it has any sense) only put up 3 candidates, not 5.

    STV also mitigates against the realignment you have argued for, because a party needs to have approaching 15-20% of the vote in order to get many seats at all.

  34. DAVID CARROD

    Ironically just after the 2015 GE results came in I posted a comment on UKPR with your exact figures by allocating each party their percentage of 650 and then giving their seat total. The UKIP result is startling..

    However I think CAMBRIDGERACHEL’S post “One Hundred constituencies with 5 members each elected by STV” is far more plausible and workable and would actually save the taxpayers a packet.

  35. While is undoubtedly true that MPs have a duty to do whats right rather than just whats popular, getting rid of the jews being a good example, they should do the public’s bidding at least some of the time!

    Things might not be as bad as America, we still don’t have the sheer volume of money in politics that they have, and our public service ethos hasn’t eroded entirely. I haven’t seen any studies on the relationship between public opinion and decisions in parliament for this country but a study done in the states showed that the mismatch was 97%.

    Thats not democracy! A common refrain is “they are all the same” etc etc . in my view the brexit vote, the rise of ukip, the rise of the SNP and the popularity of corbyn are to some extent due to this current in society.

  36. @David Carrod

    Under “full PR” the electorate may have voted very differently, so it’s not possible to say what would have been the result.

  37. @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    I don’t see any reason to reduce the number of MPs to 500. It seems a dilution of democracy – bigger constituencies mean less representation.
    I would prefer STV with 200 constituencies of 4 members each.

  38. Robin

    And your suggestion is?

  39. Sorry – I meant 200 constituencies with three members each, not four!

  40. ~300 seats elected by AV
    similar number of Add Members from regional lists

    Reformed HoL (with defined powers) elected by thirds every 5 years on national or regional lists. Each member elected for a single 15 year term (not so vulnerable to party patronage). Perhaps with 10% (no more) of a new intake being nominated by a cross-party panel of MPs.

  41. Robin

    I haven’t seen that HoL suggestion before, its the best I’ve seen, particularly avoiding party patronage which i think is important in the HoL as a revising chamber.

    Im going to have to think about your HoC suggestion, first instinct is “dogs dinner”. Would your system require two votes, one for the AV portion and one for the list?

  42. @ Robin

    I quite like your suggestion about the HoL.

    Lord Lawrence of Catflap from the leaked honours list (services to rodent issues in downtown London) may think that 15 years are a bit long.

  43. @CR, Laszlo

    All attempts at PR have issues. either they are messy, or there is no strong constituency tie (how big would a 5-member STV seat in the Highland be?), or not sufficiently proportional, or too vulnerable to patronage (lists).

    I guess the HoL could be by halves, with a single 10-year term.

  44. @ Robin

    Judging from the Japanese experience STV is far too open to party patronage as a model for a relatively popuolous and diverse country.

    And yes, all systems can be rigged with the exception of pure PR party lists, but then you don’t have connection between constituency links, and the party whips have enormous power.

    Still, something will have to be done because what happened to UKIP and the Greens last year is really not acceptable.

    Creating a new, defined power as you suggested about the HoL would benefit democracy.

  45. Whatever way if at all Westminster is reformed then it has to address the issue that nearly 7.5 million people voted for UKIP, Greens and Lib/Dems and ended up with only 10 MP”S. That’s nearly a quarter of those who voted ending up with just 1.6% of the seats.

    The HoC should be dumped. Most of the electorate don’t understand it and it is extremely undemocratic and just collects dust from all the old wrinklies sitting and farting day in & day out.

  46. #HoL should be dumped

  47. I posted this on another discussion, but it seems relevant here.

    Elect the ‘Lords’ by proportional representation and shift the task of devising government policy there.
    Return the Commons to its original task of restraining the powers and actions of the Executive. That would mean Commons members could genuinely represent their constituencies, without party whips, and without the inducement of becoming ministers. Any member asked to join the government in the ‘Lords’ would need to resign the Commons seat.
    We could even double the size of constituencies and elect two members each. Ultra-safe seats might elect two Tory supporters, or two Labour, but most would elect two members from two different parties. No national party funds to be spent on the election of Commons MPs. No actual members of political parties allowed to sit in the Commons.

    {I didn’t include ideas on frequency of elections, nor on pay and expenses, but these would need review. Implicit in above is that Commons has final control of expenditure}

  48. CAMBRIDGERACHEL @ Robin
    Im going to have to think about your HoC suggestion, first instinct is “dogs dinner”.

    The option Robin suggests is what the Jenkins Commission set up early in the first Blair government recommended. It’s basically the same as was implemented for Holyrood & Cardiff Bay except that the plurality system has always been used for the “constituency” seats. Stormont uses STV with 6 members elected from each of the 18 constituencies, which I think are the 18 Westminster plurality constituencies.

    Personally, I think either system would be appropriate for an English parliament, because I don’t believe the existing devolution “settlement” can long survive without real [con]federalism. That would require a new, much smaller federal assembly with control over foreign affairs and defence and in which England could not outvote the other three nations combined.

    The STV tradition [introduced by the Libs in 1921] would probably be preferred for Stormont but the other nations should be allowed to choose whatever system suits them. I would think that the UK senate [or whatever it gets called] would not need more than the 100 members in total the USA have in their senate.

  49. On both Scotland and PR the issue is in the draft agenda for the SNP conference in October;

    “SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT VOTING SYSTEM”

    Conference notes that having four different electoral systems in use is potentially very confusing
    for voters.

    Conference also notes that Schedule 4 of the 2016 Scotland Act gives the Scottish Government control over all aspects of elections to the Scottish Parliament, including the franchise, the number of MSPs elected, and the voting system used.

    Conference believes that Single Transferable Vote (STV), which is the party’s preferred system and used for local government elections, is accepted and understood by voters.

    Conference resolves that implementing STV in Scottish elections would remove an element of complexity from Scottish elections by reducing the number of different raise turnout and ensure all MSPs must win a personal mandate from voters.”

    With 129 MSP’s a system of STV would need to balance locality with proportionality with the main sticking point the threshold to get a seat.

    The rough rule of thumb is 100/(Elected+1) so if you have 4 member seats to get one you need 20% of the vote (100/(4+1).

    Parties like the Greens and UKIP and indeed currently the LibDems would want a threshold below 10% so to get that you would need somewhere between 13 regions of 10 to 10 regions of 13.

    Unless you change the number of MSP’s you either have a small number of large regions that people might not identify and a range of Parties win Parliament or smaller regions but less small party representation.

    In addition larger open lists where the main parties put up more than one candidate which means the public can choose within Parties which is in some ways a good thing in that it gives choice but conversely can lead to candidate in fighting and carpet bagging.

    I am in favour of it, but no system is perfect.

    Peter.

  50. “Conference notes that having four different electoral systems in use is potentially very confusing for voters.”

    ——————-

    Well it isn’t so confusing for those of us who don’t vote!! Conference, if it werent so self-interested, might note we could do away with the whole sordid malarky by selecting peeps at random, like jury service.

    or we could appoint peeps ar random, like juries…

1 7 8 9 10 11 13