Ipsos MORI have released their monthly political monitor. It’s their first poll since Theresa May became Prime Minister, so the changes since last month show the same honeymoon boost we’ve seen in other companies’ figures. Topline figures are CON 45%(+9), LAB 34%(-1), LDEM 7%(-4), UKIP 6%(-2), GRN 4%(nc). The Conservative figure of 45% is the highest MORI have shown since back in 2009 (and note how low UKIP is – MORI tend to show some of the lower figures for UKIP and other recent polls haven’t shown them nearly as low, but it’s hardly positive). Full tabs are here.

Yesterday ICM also put out their latest voting intention polling. Topline figures were CON 40%(-3), LAB 28%(+1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 14%(+1), GRN 4%(nc). Still a very robust twelve point Conservative lead, but down from the sixteen point peak in ICM’s last poll. Tabs are here.


348 Responses to “Latest MORI and ICM polling”

1 3 4 5 6 7
  1. Just noticed this:

    “Crimea voted to get away from the fascists in Kiev.”

    !!!!!!

    That beats most things I have read said on this site in all sincerity (it seems you mean it).

    I rest my case if you truly believe that Crimea voted of their own free will, in a free and fair election, to leave Ukraine – and that’s even if you believe it was OK for them to break the law and hold the plebiscite, if that’s what you can call that farce of a referendum under the watch of Russian/Russian-backed soldiers.

    Therefore, good evening.

  2. BT SAYS

    I really don’t share your views on Russia at all and what anti American stuff is there in our media? I wish there was more scrutiny over their foreign policy and if Crimea was such a bad stunt from the Russian’s then why hasn’t there been unrest? All we’ve seen is acts of terror from Ukraine in Crimea but no we won’t find that in the BBC.

    Anyway closer to home.
    Latest voting intention (16-17 Aug)
    CON 38
    LAB 30
    LD 9
    UKIP 13
    OTH 11
    Conservative lead of 8

    Lib/dem surge?

  3. ALLAN CHRISTIE
    Latest voting intention (16-17 Aug)

    Pollster? URL?

  4. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    Is it too early to start the “Labour looks a little high” jokes?

  5. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    @”why hasn’t there been unrest?”

    Fear of compulsory injections ?

    http://unpo.org/article/19378

  6. BT

    You are of course right that the Crimea vote was really dodgy, but considering that Russia has its major warm water naval base there hardly surprising. Of course the events in the Ukraine leading up to that were also really dodgy. The obvious involvement of John McCain acting on behalf of the US State Department and Catherine Ashton for the EU in the deposing of an elected president and setting up the new Ukrainian govt shows that our hands are hardly clean.

    Putin is a nasty piece of work but then so are our people

  7. Colin & Candy

    Thanks for the links – fascinating articles.

    Both, in different ways, deal with the difficulties of categorising groups of people – especially “others” – on the basis of limited data, especially if it is based on data collected some time ago, and not updated with the inevitable changes (as Colin’s link shows).

    On the Brexit vote, I found the authors’ judgement on NI (based on his final map) very odd indeed.

    “Northern Ireland is a mixed bag indeed”

    In fact, there is a very clear geographical division within NI (other than a cluster within the capital city), which reflects the historical, current political, and religious divides there.

    Indeed, within his “new nations”, only Antrim and northern Down and Armagh would be left tagging along with the North of England.

    Did the author consider those in NI as “other” and not give the conclusions from his data there, equal consideration to GB?

    Even the best of articles can betray an unconscious bias.

  8. Alec – ” I will be interested to see any forthcoming polls on this view of the NATO treaty obligations,”

    It depends on what was asked.

    If you asked people, would you be willing to go to war with Russia if the Eastern Europeans were attacked, I suspect the answer would be a quiet No.

    If you asked, would you be willing to go to war with Russia if Turkey was attacked, the answer would be Hell No.

    The attacked countries are all in NATO. But Russia is a nuclear one, and we don’t want to cross swords with them (see deterrence works!)

    The only countries we’d go to war to protect are the ones we share a Head of State with – the crown dependencies, (Falklands, Gibraltar, Jersey, Virgin Islands, Cayman islands, the Bahamas, etc) plus Canada, Australia and NZ. They are “Family”.

    The Commonwealth + USA are Friends. We’re willing to do small scale interventions like sending troops to Sierra Leone to protect them from Liberia. But if India and Pakistan faced off, we’d intervene diplomatically only. We wouldn’t get involved militarily because we don’t want to get between two nuclear powers. If India and China faced off, we’d come down on India’s side with sanctions against China, plus UN stuff. But we wouldn’t intervene militarily because again we don’t want to get between two nuclear powers.

    And then there is the rest of the world. We don’t really give a toss about them. Our relationship with them is transactional only – we trade, and we visit, but that’s it. Part of our indifference to Syria is because it is a former French colony. Middle east + former French = nothing to do with us. Our problem with the EU was that it came into the rest of the world category and we wanted a transactional relationship and they wanted something more. It’s true that lots of those EU countries are also in NATO – and it’s problematic because in our gut we don’t really care enough to bother with them, and they have broken their side of the treaty anyway (the defence spending), so is the treaty even valid? The whole thing is a bit of a farce.

  9. Oldnat

    Re northern Ireland, the same thought occurred to me. Following the writers logic a new partition would be the answer

  10. Candy

    You confuse me when you say something sensible, but I suspect you are making mostly right about public attitudes to the outside world

  11. BT says …

    You are right in the pointing out my prejudices about the governments of the three countries.

    I think my labelling was driven by the vocabulary of both the Hungarian and the Slovakian government parties, and these are truly the echo of the second half of the 1930s (I don’t speak Polish, so I’m reliant on translations).

    I suppose you are right, and one could call them autocratic, nationalist elit driven rulers (also reliant on various mass movements that have started to melt) who have managed to consolidate their power after 20 years of the mayhem of the transition. Just – their transition to further to the right would be easy. They won’t, by the way (and it’s another point against my labelling), as they are very reliant on Germany, and Western multinational companies treat the region as a single entity in terms of the workforce.

  12. ALAN
    ALLAN CHRISTIE
    “Is it too early to start the “Labour looks a little high” jokes?”
    _______

    Well it depends…The latest VI for Labour is obviously for one Labour party but we need to see how the party holds up after the split post Corby win.

  13. COLIN

    You’re picking at crumbs with the Crimean Tatar’s. That like England breaking away from rUK to join France and the Cornish being upset and being egged on by Scotland’s Gealic speakers to make a nuisance of themselves Hardly the masses in revolt.
    …………………..
    CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    The rest of your post I’m sort of 70% agreeing with you…

    “Putin is a nasty piece of work but then so are our people”
    _____

    Spot on but just a small fact. Putin is far more popular in Russia than any Western leader is in the West. We have form on this. Putin won about 60% of the votes in his last election for president and the West scoffed at his apparent unpopularity yet back in the UK we can elect a leader to run the country on as little as 35% of the vote.

    If that was to happen in Russian then the likes of the BBC would be screeching with headlines like “Putin the dictator grabs power from the people despite being rejected by the majority”

    It’s not so much about Putin being a bad guy (in some ways he is) but more to do with the inconsistency and brass necks of the West.

  14. ALLAN

    Don’t recall any Cornish folk being sent to a psychiatric unit for cussing about English Tourists.
    Most of them would be in there.

    More seriously Putin’s treatment of Crimea’s Tatars -as is your reaction to it.

    I think Putin is a very nasty piece of work. Yes he is massively popular in his country-which tells you a lot about Russians I think.

  15. My final bit to nuclear arms, Russian threat, and alike. It is just for background, for context and not for any kind of evidence or argument.

    In the beginning of the 1980s I had the misfortune of being a conscript. It was a hard time due to the Polish situation (there were rumours that we would invade Poland). I also had the misfortune of participating in two large-scale military exercises.

    All these exercises started with increased tension – Austria losing its neutral status, Italian, German and US forces moving in.

    It was followed by a short strike by these forces over the border (so NATO was the agressor :-)). Both sides were supposed to use battlefield nuclear weapons (!). NATO forces would have rolled up the Hungarian forces west of the Danube in 48 hours (they were right – we had to study the capabilities of the then opposition armies, so we knew that it was highly likely), but it would have been sufficient time for the soviet forces to come up, and in about 5 days Vienna would have fallen to them.

    Now, obviously the generals would have had a different exercise, still, it seems they were prepared for a limited nuclear exchange in the battlefield rather than intercontinental ballistic missiles (although they would have played a role probably. There were also panic situations, but in military terms the use of missiles was discounted).

  16. Colin

    “which tells you a lot about Russians I think.”

    In many ways it does – though not necessarily that they [1]prefer nasty leaders (as some might take your comment to imply).

    Populations of countries are influenced by their history – and more importantly, by the history that the state chose for them to be taught at various times.

    [1] Only 81% of those in the Russian Federation are defined as “ethnic” Russians. I have no idea whether there is a variation in support for Putin between “Russians” and others in the Federation. The borders established at the collapse of the USSR were very random as to which peoples were included/excluded.

  17. @Laszlo
    Thank you – I’ve learned a lot about Hungary that I didn’t know from your posts; it is a country I know too little about, and your summary doesn’t sound encouraging.

    @AC
    I’ve not learned much from the BBC – I’ve worked in Russia though, so I do have some basis for what I am suggesting…

    Honestly, I think if you substitute ‘Hitler’ for ‘Putin’ and ‘Sudentenland, Rhineland and Austria’ for ‘Crimea, Transnistria and Ossetia’ in your comments it would be like sitting in the House of Commons in 1938…

    This is a person who orchestrated the blowing up of (occupied) blocks of flats in regional cities in his own country, killing 300 people, so that he could blame it on separatists and have an excuse for a war… do you REALLY think any UK Prime Minster in the last hundred years would have done that?

    I think you are very, very naive…

  18. Bigfatron

    “This is a person who orchestrated the blowing up of (occupied) blocks of flats in regional cities in his own country, killing 300 people, so that he could blame it on separatists and have an excuse for a war… do you REALLY think any UK Prime Minster in the last hundred years would have done that?”

    Well, the UK PM in 1920 allowed “the Black and Tans burned and sacked many small towns and villages in Ireland, beginning with Tuam in County Galway in July 1920 and also including Trim, Balbriggan, Knockcroghery, Thurles and Templemore amongst many others. In November 1920, the Tans “besieged” Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town, let no food in for a week and shot dead three local civilians. …. From October 1920 to July 1921, the Galway region was “remarkable in many ways”, most notably the level of police brutality towards suspected IRA members, which was far above the norm in the rest of Ireland. On the night of 11 December 1920, they sacked Cork, destroying a large part of the city centre.” (Wiki)

    You suggested the “last hundred years” rule. :-)

  19. Bigfatron

    “This is a person who orchestrated the blowing up of (occupied) blocks of flats in regional cities in his own country, killing 300 people, so that he could blame it on separatists and have an excuse for a war… do you REALLY think any UK Prime Minster in the last hundred years would have done that?”

    Seems like only yesterday that we had the chilcot report, true blair didn’t blow up an apartment building but I’m sure he would have been prepared to do so!

  20. Also while here its common knowledge that Putin had a block of flats blown up, in Russia its common knowledge that Bush had planes flown into buildings so he could start a war!

    Whats common knowledge here is conspiracy theory in Russia and whats common knowledge in Russia is conspiracy theory here

  21. Re polling on NATO defending allies –

    Eoin has tweeted a YG poll from 1 Aug 2014.

    https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/766650589178716164

  22. CR

    Or, as Bob Marley put it “Before you start pointing fingers… make sure your hands are clean!”

  23. Heidi Alexander piece in the Guardian.

    One is in despair about Labour (i mean if one cares), and is incomprehension how it is possible that they are only 8% behind the Tories (moe).

  24. @Laszlo

    Labour seem currently to have a floor of about 30%, which is what they polled in 2010 and 2015. The trouble is currently about 37/38.

    Labour need to firm up a few % point and for the LDs to challenge the Tories strongly in Southern England.

  25. Ok, lots of Russia speculation on here. I will just interpose one or two easily verifiable facts..

    1) The Baltic states and Poland have ALL recently committed to increasing defence spending to 2% or more.. If we did fail to defend them we would be breaking our treaties in a big way…. That has generally proved unwise…
    2) A good friend of mine has recently returned from 3 weeks visiting family in Volgograd… There are no shortages in food or anything else (other than French cheese) in Russia, and no signs of any imminent economic collapse, or collapse of the health service such as we are seeing here. Not even the cuts in social services etc, that we have had in the last nine years (Russian social services and provision of nurseries etc are in fact much better than here in most cases, although wages are not so high. Most Russian families were given the house or apartment they lived in at the fall of the Soviet Union, so they are not prey to the high rents that cause so many problems for the young in Britain…. Moscow does have usual capital city problems though..). Putin is so popular in Russia largely because he has delivered economic prosperity, in huge contrast to Yeltsin, who was a disaster….
    3) Although the annexation of Crimea was illegal in international law, people who think the vast majority of residents did not want it are living in cloud cuckoo land!
    4) To the largely sensible comments of CR and AC I would add that the Ukrainian regime certainly does have neo-fascist militia groups fighting for it. Here is a view on EuroMaidan from just before the deposing of Yanukovitch from another friend of mine, David Marples, who happens to be one of the leading western experts on Ukraine, and certainly no apologist for Putin. https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/david-marples/ukraine-view-from-west
    Although the civil war in Ukraine has largely escaped Bosnia-style atrocities on both sides, the Ukrainian government has killed more civilians than the separatists, while almost completely avoiding criticsim in the west! However I do blame Putin for encouraging the separatists unnecessarily (and then ironically not actually coming to their aid in the way they expected after Crimea…).

    As for the pattern of breakup of the USSR – actually it was not so random. The Soviet Republics including Russia itself all became independent without much choice in the matter (there was a referendum with an extremely ambiguous question!). But confusingly, semi-autonomous provinces of Russia like Chechnya-Ingushetia were also called republics. They remained officially part of the Russian Federation (but unlike Crimea did not get to decide their own future…)

  26. Andrew111

    Agreed that the break-up of the USSR into component states wasn’t random. It was based on the boundaries of the former constituent republics of the USSR – it was the random effect of rather arbitrary parcelling out of pieces from and to these republics that I suggested resulted in a random distribution of “non-Russians”.

    Wasn’t Chechnya-Ingushetia one of the 16 republics within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and not a constituent member of the USSR itself?

  27. @ RAF

    Yes, it is around 28-32%, but the Conservatives essentially added on or at least didn’t lose VI.

    LibDems are very important, and I came to appreciate it (in the current settings) only very recently.

    I still think the real targets for the LP are UKIP, non-voters, and Greens (in some constituencies) and not the Conservatives. If they can manage those targets (big asking), then they can attract some of the floating Conservative votes.

  28. Think everyone is rather missing the point in the debate about Corbyn’s comments on NATO.

    Firstly, it’s nothing to do with whether Putin is good, bad or indifferent, and it’s also nothing to do with nuclear deterrent. It also hasn’t really got anything to do with whether or not the British public would support a war and in what circumstances.

    It’s actually only really about projecting the threat of a combined conventional response to an incursion, attack or invasion on one of our allies, or even us. By declining to do so, Corbyn would make such a threat more likely, and so therefore bring that choice of which countries we would support going to war for closer.

    This is the critical point that AC keeps missing – if the British public is unlikely to support a war to defend Estonia, then Corbyn’s comments are a mistake, as they make the situation of an invasion of Estonia more likely.

    Still, Putin is clearly a decent and honourable person, looking to live in peace with his neighbours and deeply respectful of international law and a real lover of peace. May be he and Corbyn could exchange flowers and chat about how to make a world without war, and sugar and spice and all things nice.

  29. @Laszlo

    I still think the real targets for the LP are UKIP, non-voters, and Greens (in some constituencies) and not the Conservatives. If they can manage those targets (big asking), then they can attract some of the floating Conservative votes.

    A big ask doesn’t do justice to the scale of that ambition.

    With regards to UKIP voters, Labour’s positioning regarding the referendum is the antithesis of UKIP’s values. The difference between the PLP and UKIP voters is even starker.

    My own experience within the Greens is that their is little trust in Labour at the moment. At a GP branch meeting this week someone mentioned that Owen Smith had said he basically wanted to cooperate with Greens by getting them to vote Labour (or something to that effect). To say that was treated with scorn and coldness would be an understatement. Whether this extrapolates to Green voters and not members, I don’t know.

    I think Labour need to really work out clearly what it stands for before anything else. While they are fighting an internal civil war they will appeal very little to others.

  30. GB gold in the hockey, after penalties.

    Interesting addition to yesterday’s discussion about medals etc, but apparently Team GB’s 24 gold medals have come from 14 separate sports, which is 5 more than the nearest countries US and Germany. It shows strength across a much wider range than anyone else.

  31. CMJ

    “I think Labour need to really work out clearly what it stands for before anything else.”

    Isn’t that what Lab in E&W (and in Scotland too – though on different issues) trying to do at the moment?

    Whether those who lose the argument (whatever it actually is, and many outwith Labour are probably bemused by that), are willing to rally behind the brand name and articulate an agreed stance (whether they agree with it or not) will be the next question.

  32. BIGFATRON

    Please don’t feel the need to educate me on Russia. Like you I’m no expert on Russia or Putin but personally I do have a keen interest in Russian politics and Russia as a country.
    ………

    “I think you are very, very naive”
    ______

    Really? I personally think you have your back to the wall and are so doped up on western propaganda you would probably believe Putin sank the Mary Celeste if it was on page 4 of the Daily Mail.

    And so what if you have been to Russia, I’ve been to Russia on several occasions and about 2 years ago I was in the USA for nearly 6 months visiting family in Astoria Oregon but that in no way makes me an expert on Russia or the USA,

    Some of the things you have said regarding Putin and Russia is like reading the history of Great Britain when we went round the globe plundering and raping poor defenseless regions and half of our museums are stuffed with artifacts and treasures stolen from countless cultures so please take a look in our own back yard before writing baseless facts on Russia.

    We still cling onto obscure outposts such as Gibraltar and the Falklands yet moan if Russia want’s to protect her interests near her borders!! Who moved the rock?

  33. @Alec

    Some top Olympics trivia from the BBC Sport website. Nick Skelton because the second oldest Olympic gold medalist when winning the show jumping at 58.

    The record holder was 64. He won gold in the Running Deer (!) team shooting in Stockholm in 1912

  34. ALEC

    I’m not missing any point. The point I’m making is that NATO expansionism is actually having an adverse effect on our security and that our nuclear (wink wink) deterrent is actually little more than a vanity project. How can you have a nuclear deterrent against a country like Russia without MAD? Only Russia and the USA have MAD.

    And on our adversaries, who are we deterring with our nukes? Godzilla and Megalon?

    As I said before, we shouldn’t turn our backs on our allies but we can’t simply have a hawkish attitude against a country like Russia and try to isolate them. Right now China is pondering over the real prospect of sending its military into Syria and Iran has opened up an airbase to the Russians. Meanwhile Turkey is lurching towards Moscow and Israel is saying if you want anything done in the middle east then all roads lead to Moscow,

    That’s what happens when you have a hawkish alliance like NATO, it forces unlikely alliances between other nations.

  35. ALEC
    “GB gold in the hockey, after penalties.
    Interesting addition to yesterday’s discussion about medals etc, but apparently Team GB’s 24 gold medals have come from 14 separate sports, which is 5 more than the nearest countries US and Germany. It shows strength across a much wider range than anyone else”
    ______

    Yes we are doing well but I would rather our sporting success be measured in the state of the nations health along with the medals. The exposure to team GB”s success at the Olympics may well encourage more peeps to take up minority sports which is good but I still feel we are not doing enough as a nation to get slim down the fatty boom booms.

    I still think spending over £30 million on cycling is obscene, even if it was part funded by the lotto.

  36. I’m not even going to engage.

    Useful idiots have always been a thing. They clearly still are.

  37. Allan Christie

    Then there are the reports that the USA is moving nuclear missiles from Turkey to Rumania.

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/us-moves-nuclear-weapons-from-turkey-to-romania/

    Under the circumstances in Turkey, that doesn’t seem an unlikely scenario, but such a move is unlikely to be seen as other than threatening by Russia.

    Those of us who wondered whether we would ever grow to adulthood during the Cuban Missile Crisis, won’t be surprised that states can be somewhat concerned about hostile nukes being deployed on their borders.

    Just think how Michael Heseltine thought it would be really dangerous for the UK to have no nukes, while the French had them! :-)

  38. Neil A

    “I’m not even going to engage.”

    I should hope not. You are already married! :-)

  39. Oldnat

    Thats slightly ironic. The deal that the USSR offered the Americans in 62 was withdrawing their missiles if the Americans would withdraw their weapons from Turkey. But seriously moving them to Romania is unlikely to fill the russians with joy. They could well see it as bear baiting

  40. CMJ

    Yes, I reversed the logic.

    I studied the tables of the last few polls, and found a flying pig, which I put down as going after the UKIP vote, the non-voters, and the Greens in some constituencies,

    So the question is how to clip those wings, so that the piggy runs around in a coherent manner rather than flying about randomly.

    The precondition of all these targets is flexibility allowed by a general control on the party machine while autonomy of the local organisations (after making the necessary changes in personnel in some cases) is provided.

    This eliminates the problem of some rigidly maintained national policies that could be deemed irrelevant in particular local circumstances, and it allows for a better proposition to the electorate locally.

    These can be formulated in a general framework of clearly defined objectives of the citizens with the associated costs. It is really a buying in process for the individual voter that allows them to drop out at any stage of the decision making process yet they can engage with the process. Empowerment really. It is pretty concrete: “no we are not kicking out the 500 Poles, but we are providing you with X amount to deal with the problem locally. If you don’t vote for us, the Poles will be still here, and you won’t have the funding”. Kind of mafia offer really. I think it would work, if it doesn’t, nothing else would, so it here is no risk.

    Or “there are massive overlaps in our aspirations. You are right to complain about selling off the green spaces for building flats [not true as such], but this was the cost to maintain local services Y and Z. We hated it. However, if in government, as you can see in our manifesto, we will provide a guarantee for services Y and Z and hence there would be no reason for selling off green spaces in the city. It is our commitment to you, and you can call out on us.”

    And “look, we understand that politics and politicians did nothing for you decades, and the only people who spoke to you meaningfully are those who would have never got close to decision making. We understand and regret it. However, in September 2015 we drew a new line and now that the saboteurs of this are defeated (September 2016), we can deliver it. If you are registered to vote, it will help everyone. Even if you don’t agree with us on policy A and B, but you agree with Party P, you can at least vote. We will do everything in the next three years to convince you that we can do better than Party P.”

    I don’t think Labour is ready for this, and I don’t think they have the administrative resources to implement it.

    The beauty of this is that you are measured against your words only, not some abstract stuff (yes I also looked at SNP). As long as you don’t lie, it may even work. I couldn’t see anything else promising for Labour.

  41. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    @”We still cling onto obscure outposts such as Gibraltar and the Falklands ”

    My understanding is that their residents are doing the clinging.

    You would prefer to “give” them to the Spanish & Argentinians would you ?

  42. LASZLO

    @”These can be formulated in a general framework of clearly defined objectives of the citizens with the associated costs. It is really a buying in process for the individual voter that allows them to drop out at any stage of the decision making process yet they can engage with the process. Empowerment really. It is pretty concrete: “no we are not kicking out the 500 Poles, but we are providing you with X amount to deal with the problem locally. If you don’t vote for us, the Poles will be still here, and you won’t have the funding”. Kind of mafia offer really. I think it would work, if it doesn’t, nothing else would, so it here is no risk.”

    so:- We will NOT control immigration-but we will spend more money on services for immigrants.

    @” You are right to complain about selling off the green spaces for building flats [not true as such], but this was the cost to maintain local services Y and Z. We hated it. However, if in government, as you can see in our manifesto, we will provide a guarantee for services Y and Z and hence there would be no reason for selling off green spaces in the city. It is our commitment to you, and you can call out on us.”

    so-There will never be a shortage of money with us.

    @” “look, we understand that politics and politicians did nothing for you decades, and the only people who spoke to you meaningfully are those who would have never got close to decision making. We understand and regret it. However, in September 2015 we drew a new line and now that the saboteurs of this are defeated (September 2016), we can deliver it. If you are registered to vote, it will help everyone. Even if you don’t agree with us on policy A and B, but you agree with Party P, you can at least vote. We will do everything in the next three years to convince you that we can do better than Party P.”

    so-Trust us-we are the good guys.

    Its really not a matter of how many words one uses to identify flying pigs Laszlo.

  43. This DT piece is behind paywall so have to do with this report of it.

    “https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1531482

    Corbyn’s core USP is “honest politics”.

    The more time passes , and his prevarications in Leadership are compared with his clarity from the backbenches , the more his credibility will be completely destroyed

  44. @ Allan Christie

    “Yes we are doing well but I would rather our sporting success be measured in the state of the nations health along with the medals. The exposure to team GB”s success at the Olympics may well encourage more peeps to take up minority sports which is good but I still feel we are not doing enough as a nation to get slim down the fatty boom booms.”

    Among the important determinants of health are income, employment, housing, transport and so on. Good or bad politics is what matters. When comparing European health inequalities, the last 40 years has seen the UK slip from mid-table to just off bottom place.

  45. @AC – do you not think it possible that ‘all roads lead to Russia’ is not a result of a Russian response to NATO, but simply Rusian expansionism, which creates the necessary conditions for NATO members to feel the need to join a protective alliance?

    I have some sympathy for the idea that NATO needs to think carefully about how we deal with Russia and not be seen as being overly aggressive, but unlike Gibralter, which wishes to be British, Estonia etc do not wish to be Russian and do wish to be protected under NATO.

    If Russia is unwilling to accept that their neighbours have a right of self determination, then that is a problem, but one that is neither caused by NATO or resolved if NATO retreats.

  46. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “We still cling onto obscure outposts such as Gibraltar and the Falklands”

    I think what you mean is that after democratic votes both Gibraltar and the Falklands wish to remain with the UK and that we are happy for them to do so.

  47. OLDNAT

    “Just think how Michael Heseltine thought it would be really dangerous for the UK to have no nukes, while the French had them! :-)

    One of the few occasions when I agreed with Michael Heseltine.

  48. @Colin – you can see DT articles by viewing them in a private window.

    I agree that Corbyn’s two faced attitude on some very major policy areas will add to the sense of distrust in him.
    Indeed, this was the central element in the timing of the coup, with his PLP colleagues witnessing first hand just how shallow his conversion to a pro EU stance really was.

    I would suggest three areas where Corbyn has been fundamentally dishonest, with two of these very significant and major. The EU, of course, is one. Second is NATO, as that very recent clip suggests. As recently as 2014 he was making it clear that he believed there is no role for NATO other than as an oil grabbing racket. Given that NATO has never been operationally active in oil producing states, I find that a bit strange.

    The third area is on the spat with Smith over talks with IS. Corbyn claimed ‘no talks’ whereas Smith made a PR gaffe by saying they would need to get round the table at some point. Given everything we know about Corbyn’s past attitude to terrorist groups, it’s a fair bet that had he been honest he would have agreed with Smith. Corbyn said what he said for no other reason than spin (which is oddly exactly why Smith said the opposite – strange world).

    The common perception among many of the Corbyn leaning Labour posters on here (backed up in part by polling data, I would add) is that Corbyn is honest and has integrity, while Smith may be tacking left for electoral gain.

    There may be some truth in the latter, but it is Corbyn’s ability to get away with some fundamentally dishonest stances that frustrates others.

    ‘You can fool all of the people some of the time….’ comes to mind, but as I have said previously, given the nature of political campaigns and the media pressure, Corbyn simply has far too much radical baggage to survive as an ‘honest’ politician. He has already compromised hugely (l!ed, would be a better description I suppose) on some key areas as leader, and is not an honest person, and these contradictions will become more apparent over time.

1 3 4 5 6 7