Ipsos MORI have published their monthly political monitor and it shows another towering lead for the Conservatives. Topline voting intentions are CON 47%(+7), LAB 29%(-5), LDEM 7%(+1), UKIP 6%(-3). The eighteen point Conservative lead is the highest they’ve managed in any poll since 2009, and the highest lead for a party in government since 2002. Usual caveats apply about any poll showing such a large shift in support over a month, but in terms of direction this does echo the ICM and YouGov polls earlier this month that also showed shifts towards the Conservatives. Full details are here.

A quick word about that UKIP score of just 6%. While it is obviously very bad, it’s not the sudden collapse one might assume. For whatever methodological reason, MORI do tend to show significantly worse scores for UKIP than polls from other companies. It is NOT a case of UKIP support being at 11% with ICM and YouGov last week, their MEPs getting into a fist fight and their support collapsing (however tempting such a narrative is!). MORI has been showing them at significantly lower levels of support for several months anyway – 9% last month, 6% in August, 8% in July. Nevertheless, it does appear as if the Tories are beginning to claw back support they’d previously lost to UKIP.

693 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 47, LAB 29, LD 7, UKIP 6”

1 2 3 4 5 14
  1. This is the Scotland map version.



  2. Pete B

    Took me forever to recall the title but “The Winnowing” by Asimov is an interesting take on population control. Was in “The Bicentennial Man” collection.

  3. “…It’s arguably more fair and moral than cutting health care and leaving people to suffer the lottery of when ill health takes them.”
    @Alan October 19th, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    A couple of points to bear in mind. Why will tomorrow’s elderly be as frail and weak as those of today? One massive trend in employment has been the reduction in physical effort needed to perform most jobs. Machines have often replaced human muscles for so very many activities.

    Our ageing revolution is in no small part to the improvement in sanitation, meaning life expectancy is a mathematical artifact that has risen as fewer babies have died. But it is also a reflection of better health care for the elderly. Cancer treatment is getting better, especially as systems are put in place to help diagnose issues earlier. With the rise in technology those outcomes will only improve. As we get more elderly, their diseases are becomimg more common, and so demanding solutions. Dementia is one. Effort is going in to tackle this (not least because the elderly have pots of cash; lots of incentives to help them out).

    Finally, and I think this is the most interesting point, we have not yet seen many elderly who have lived their entire lives under the NHS. As the age of the NHS is 68, we just don’t know how that will affect life expectancy. The trend has been for ‘rectanguarisation’ (lol, statisticians, eh?) where more and more people tend to live until right to the very end of the life curve, thus pushing it to a rectangle. Is that because the NHS has had an effect on all those who have lived under it these last 68 years? What will the curve look like in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, when the NHS is 98?

    So that’s life expectancy. Now about global population growth… (no, I think that’s enough for now. :-)

  4. “I think nature will deal with the population explosion as politicians will just dither. My own bet is a new mega plague.p probably like a new and deadly strain of influenza.”
    @The Other Howard October 19th, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    From page 21 of this:

    Chain of SARS Transmission at Hong Kong Hotel, 2003

    The 8500 cases and 850 deaths worldwide were related to one case. A physician from southern China who checked into a hotel in Hong Kong was ill with pneumonia and infected 13 other people, probably through airborne transmission.

    The 13 infected persons were on their way to other countries and introduced the epidemic to others upon arrival at their destinations.

    ? Canada
    ? United States
    ? Ireland
    ? Thailand
    ? Singapore
    ? Vietnam

  5. Peter Cairns,
    The study I mentioned before explained that ‘urban’ areas are typically about half green/ natural space, which while it may be in parks and gardens still gets used by wildlife. Given that farmed land is frequently a regularly ploughed monoculture, they may even be better habitats.


    Many thanks for the transcript links – now bookmarked as a good starting point.

    Sorry not to respond sooner but I had a very early night so as to watch the US debate and follow-up live, where luckily Trump seems to have done himself no favours.

  7. @Peter Cairns
    Those of us who live in south east England have a somewhat different view of land use, it being over 6% urban here. There are national parks and AoNB, but in the south east areas that are not in either are being built over at an increasing pace.

    The statistics I’d like to see are the land use statistics of south east England in non National Park or AoNB areas. Living here the population density argument does appear more of an issue than it might in the rest of England. UK statistics are really not helpful at all in this respect.

  8. Regarding population growth, its really all about public realm. Britain’s infrastructure and institutions have developed gradually over centuries, through incremental investment. We have a little spare every year, and we invest it in long term facilities and structures.

    Problems arise when population growth overwhelms capacity.Those promoting inward migration claim, rightly or wrongly, that immigrants pay more than their fair share of taxes, but they fail to recognise that they must do more than that: they have to make a contribution to public realm.

    Neil A is right: a slightly falling population would probably be ideal. But a slightly rising population is also acceptable.

    The big concern is the prospect of 5 million+ more residents in Britain ( probably almost all in England and mostly in the South ) over the next ten years.

    It is quite alarming that the new Government has adopted a ‘build everywhere regardless of the consequences’ approach. The impact upon the environment and quality of life in Southern England is going to be pretty catastrophic.

  9. Re land us, I just read this in the Shropshire Star:

    “A change-of-use application has been submitted to Shropshire Council for the first and second floors of Agriculture House, in Barker Street, Shrewsbury. The application includes plans to extend the third floor of the building to allow for 10 apartments to be built in the currently unused office space.

    ““The use of redundant space above existing commercial and retail uses in the town centre represent a good and sustainable use of these buildings adding to the vitality of the town.”


    So there will be 10 additional flats with no loss of land, green, brown or grey. Moreover, people living in town centres have lower levels of car use, while ‘lived in’ town centres arguably have social advantages.

    There must be enormous scope throughout the country to create additional housing on existing building footprints, while concentrating office accommodation in high rise (or better still, virtual offices).

  10. ALAN

    “I suspect if the courts do eventually rule she has to put it before parliament, she will. Going to the country won’t supersede that requirement anyway, ”

    I don’t agree, but of course you may be right in which case I suspect she would make honouring the referendum by triggering Art 50 a confidence motion, so she would either trigger Art 50 if she won or have an election if she lost.

  11. Interesting poll.

    Polls can make the political weather.

    Such big Tory leads at this point in the electoral cycle are bound to make members of the other parties very uncomfortable. There will be heightened talk of electoral pacts, PR, leadership challenges, realignments, splits, etc.

    Labour are taking a huge gamble: Corbyn and his supporters are relying upon a combination of ‘events’ and the hope that their left-wing stance can take root and prosper in the minds of Middle England. It seems unlikely.

    More probable is a decline in support, as traditional centre-left adherents drift away in frustration. In normal times, these would be hoovered up by the Lib Dems, but these are not normal times. It might be time to expect the unexpected.

  12. @Alan – I remember that story, basically attacking certain gene types by poisoning the poorer populations through the food chain.

    @MIllie – Agree with you completely. But what’s even more insane is the capital cost required to build the infrastructure, let alone funding the services. And a large proportion of the people coming in are not earning anything like the necessary salary to be making a positive net benefit to the exchequer taking the above costs into account.

    Worse we are having to borrow close to 100 Billion a year just to fund our current level of services. Where is this extra money going to come from to increase services and finance the capital costs? We must curtail immigration now and only let in those who are going to be a positive net benefit to the country. I’d set the work permit minimum salary at something like 40K-50K at a minimum. Critical service positions like nurses etc could be exempted.

  13. @Somerjohn

    Quite right.

    There are many opportunities for what is loosely called ‘brownfield’ development. We hear very little of urban renewal these days, or improving the housing stock. It is all about the number of units built. No doubt this reflects rapid population growth, which places such strain upon provision.

    So we have endless discussion of how many we are building rather than where we are putting them, or their quality. Local opinion is almost completely ignored, and strategic planning policy has become, well, constipated.

    The disappointment of TM’s leadership is that she hasn’t taken the opportunity to abandon some of the sacred cows, like HS2, Hinckley Point and a third runway at Heathrow, and use the money to make our towns and cities pleasant places to live again.

  14. I suspect that some of those who supported Blair have gone straight to the Tories. They might not like Brexit or many Tory policies, but they find more agreement with Tory policies under May, than those of Labour under Corbyn.

    It will be interesting what happens with Labour. Another leaders contest within 12 months or a split. I think it is quite possible that Corbyn really wants a permanent split with Blarite MP’s leaving.

  15. Somewhat tiresome debate again about land use. The idea of measuring development by the simple metric of the proportion of total land area covered in concrete or tarmac is completely facile and childlike in its simplistic ignorance. Human impacts on the environment extend way beyond the built environment.

    A good example of this is palm oil plantations in rainforest areas. Palm plantations represent ‘green spaces’, so presumably would not be counted as developed areas, yet their impact on the tropical environment is devastating.

    UK suffers from very similar impacts. Much of UK farmland is ecologically bereft of interest, and hidden aspects of human impacts such as soil erosion, loss of carbon storage through degraded soil structure and nitrification of watercourses have become much more prevalent with the intensification of agriculture.

    It’s also worth considering the concept of carrying capacity. The UK (and England in particular) lost the ability to feed it’s own populace decades ago. Even in net terms, we cannot feed ourselves without extensive imports (around 50% of our total food consumption). So on that simple, basic score, the UK is grossly overpopulated. If the world ran on a similar deficit, we would starve.

    Another way to view development is not to focus on the concrete, but to look at the net effects of development in terms of disturbance. ‘Tranquility’ is a useful concept here, and this link – http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/countryside/tranquil-places provides a useful starting point.

    There is a shrinking area of England where we can say the light, noise and visual intrusion is sufficiently minor to term these places tranquil. Tranquility is something that humans generally value, and its loss is a significant factor in determining how ‘crowded’ people feel.

    I’ll end by going back to a few basic facts that were dredged through endlessly in the immigration debate. England is now the most densely populated population in the EU. It is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, if you exclude the city states. The population density of the southern half of England would be (from memory) the second most densely populated major population area on earth (counting populations over 30m was my measure, I think) and simply dismissing this because there remains 94% of the UK that could be concreted over is a pretty puerile level of debate, in my view.

    England is a very crowded country that cannot ecologically support itself and where many people feel ‘people pressure’ in many different forms. Of course it is technically possible that we could all live in minuscule pods and cram ever more people into the available space, but really – why would we want to?

  16. Does anyone have any idea why homophobic hate crimes have risen 147% since the brexit vote, its very puzzling

  17. sorrell,
    “The statistics I’d like to see are the land use statistics of south east England in non National Park or AoNB areas. Living here the population density argument does appear more of an issue than it might in the rest of England.”
    So would I. However, the reality is still massive areas of open countryside with towns dotted about. Certainly I would prefer a national policy to spread the urban areas more evenly, but if everyone wants to live in the south east, so be it. There is plenty of space. Put in a few more train lines for commuters.

  18. millie,
    “It is quite alarming that the new Government has adopted a ‘build everywhere regardless of the consequences’ approach.”
    But is hasnt…there are no plans for significant building and have not been from either party for a very long time.

    “There must be enormous scope throughout the country to create additional housing on existing building footprints,”
    No. There is always turnover of buildings coming empty and being redeveloped, but frequently a new housing estate is built upon a demolished one so makes little net gain.

  19. Alec

    ‘Tiresome’ and ‘facile’ are rather pejorative words for what has been to me quite an interesting discussion, kicked off by Neil A’s prioritisation of green space, with immigration control as what he sees as the essential requirement for its preservation.

    That is an unusual viewpoint and it is for me always interesting to try to see the world from another person’s perspective. Yes, of course there are much more sophisticated approaches to land use and development, and in the UK the developed/natural dichotomy is unrealistic. But we have what we have, and how we manage our housing, development, population and land use from now on will have a profound impact on what sort of country this is in future.

    My short, simple point about providing housing within existing building footprints could only ever be a small part of the jigsaw, but in this area – as in so many others – we seem to have a lack of original, constructive thinking and a lively national debate about where we want to go. Instead, we seem to concentrate on battles over a few high-profile projects, failing to see the bigger picture.

  20. Danny: “No. There is always turnover of buildings coming empty and being redeveloped, but frequently a new housing estate is built upon a demolished one so makes little net gain.”

    You have dismissed a proposed new policy approach by referring to the existing situation.

    There may well be no net housing gain from redevelopment at present. You cite demolishing one housing estate and replacing it with another: not a very common form of building, in my experience.

    But suppose there were strong incentives to create additional housing within existing building footprints. To the extent that there was take-up of the scheme, that would surely crete additional housing with no additional land use.

  21. Hypothetical: if Scotland had voted leave would the rUK have voted Remain?

  22. Somerjohn

    “But suppose there were strong incentives to create additional housing within existing building footprints. To the extent that there was take-up of the scheme, that would surely crete additional housing with no additional land use.”

    I think they have been using the same principle in chicken farming f or years, thankfully they are moving away from that now

  23. Paul TP: “if Scotland had voted leave would the rUK have voted Remain?”

    I don’t think there’d have been a Euro referendum. The country would have had its hands completely full sorting out Scotsit without adding another layer of complication.

  24. Paul TP

    Are you suggesting the rUK (apart from NI) voted leave to spite Scotland?


    I guess if you really wanted to test that, you could do a time series analysis of Scottish polling and rUK polling (if unbiased polling for each region even exists) to try and prove Granger causality.

    Out of the bizarre hypotheses I see, that one deserves some sort of award.

  25. @Somerjohn – “‘Tiresome’ and ‘facile’ are rather pejorative words for what has been to me quite an interesting discussion…..”

    Yes, quite probably. Apologies to all if I sounded a little grumpy.

    I used ‘tiresome’ as we’ve been through all this before, but then again, if only novelty was the order of the day on UKPR and we never revisited the glorious debates of the past, where would we be?

    ‘Facile’ came to mind specifically in relation to the idea that we have plenty of space because only 6% of land has been built on. I think this is a facile argument, but used in the true dictionary meaning – eg “(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.”

    If anyone is offended by my use of facile, please replace it with ‘superficial’, which probably sounds less abusive.

    To paraphrase The Godfather, ‘It’s not personal, it’s strictly UKPR’.

  26. Thank you Alec,

    You usually post very sensibly on environmental issues – well all issues to be kind.

    I agree completely with Somerjohn. The problem with current housing policy is its utter lack of sophistication and thought. It is presently just a jumble of slogans and statements by vested interests I am becoming particularly fed up with the influence of the biggest building companies, who have taken over the planning industry.

    We once had a quite functional and sensible planning system: cumbersome and slow at times, but local authorities generally speaking allowed development where it was appropriate. The appeal process ironed out some of the anomalies.

    Then central government became obsessed with targets and the manipulation of the market, and it has all become a mess. We have effectively abandoned all local input.

    It is now simply a question of big developers obtaining options on potential greenfield sites, and then trying to unscrupulously exploit the system to their advantage,

  27. RegardIng housing, I would add my support to the comments above regarding repopulating inner city buildings in town centres over commercial and retail properties. This can also be highly relevant in small towns and villages, where housing pressures can be no less acute, but the options for new build are particularly limited or contentious.

    This would increase the population density, of the commercial distrcts, and does need to be managed sensible, particularly in terms of access to transport (more people in areas with no parking means providing some form of car storage, or car sharing, but this can be done and often helps socially revitalise urban centres.

  28. So… Apparently the photos of the ‘aged children immigrants’ were actually of the government employed Interpreters assigned to group. It would be nice to think that those responsible for using these photos to whip up hatred would face consequences, but that doesn’t seem likely.

  29. MILLIE

    @”We have effectively abandoned all local input.”

    Not in my Village, where a Neighbourhood Plan ( Localism Act) has been drawn up to exclude a proposed small development of houses at one end of the village, and build a large number of houses at the other end.
    Some might consider this configuration an example of Local NIMBYism, particularly since the site excluded from the NP housing proposals would be largely gifted to the Parish Council as an amenity space by a successful developer.

    The Planning Application for the excluded site was recently approved by our RDC-despite it not featuring in the NP.

    Our Parish Councillors are incensed & intent on reversing that decision by appealing to the Minister. Their case is that their Neighbourhood Plan is absolutely sacrosanct.

  30. Now for something that Brexiteers should sit up and pay attention to; the latest Markit Household Finance Index report.

    Much has been made of the crash that never was, and while remainers were besdie themselves with joy as the July consumer and industrial surveys showed massive falls, Leavers were having orgasms a month later when the inevitable bounce back occured.

    In truth, all of this was simply froth (can we have a frothy orgasm, or is this somewhere I shouldn’t go?…..) as the surveys were dominated by large swings in measures of confidence, which clearly responded to perceptions rather than hard realities.

    Three months on, and we are now getting into more of the realities. It should be noted that the August bounce back in all the data was, pretty much exclusively, not quite as great as the July tumble, and as far as the HFI goes, September then saw a gentle fall.

    October’s data looks different. The month has seen a fairly sharp fall, with the overall index heading back down towards where is was in the July figures. Normally I would urge a little caution with all of these monthly figures, as the headline index can sometimes be a little misleading, as it combines expectations of the next twelve months on things like inflation and interest rates, with respondents current experience on earnings, work and prices.

    However, this month, the underlying figures look menacing. Job security (a current perception measure) fell back below the break even 50 mark, while earnings growth (an actual measure) grew, but only very marginally. Current inflationary pressure jumped significantly to 67.6, which means that households are feeling inflation now. Perceptions of inflation for the next 12 months have shot up to 83.3.

    Overall, the figures suggest that households current finances have taken a hit, which is the first time since Brexit that the HFI has suggested this. The mood for the next twelve months seems very downbeat, which may mean consumers become more defensive in their economic activity.

    Obviously this has potentially major implications. Firstly, people are now reporting feeling worse off. If this deepens, and is linked directly to Brexit, then the HFI becomes political. Although I didn’t go to the trouble of testing this statistically, the decline in the HFI and then subsequent rise towards the 2015 election date did appear to presage changes in Tory fortunes in the VI polls, with a time lag of something like 3 months.

    If consumers are becoming more nervous, this can feed through into confidence, which can then become self feeding if consumer spending is curtailed and the engine of the UK economy starts to falter.

    Overall, my reading of this is the expected and logical response to Brexit is now kicking in, with inflation and uncertainty creating a squeeze, which may become serious. Brexiteers were, I think, lulled into a false sense of security by the August bounce back, and weren’t very sensible in their response to this, but I sense that the time lag since June is sufficient for real impacts to be felt, and I suspect it will get harder to argue that Brexit has had no effect from here on.

  31. Why on earth does the dreadful knockabout of the Referendum Campaign “debate” still persist?

    The Economy will CRASH I tell ya!

    No it WONT !

    Look-the latest data says its GREAT

    No -this data says its a DISASTER.


    Wouldn’t it be surprising if a major move like Brexit-in advance of any indicators about final trading relationships DIDN’T produce uncertainty & some economic slow down???

    As someone observed the other day-we won’t know whether Brexit is an economic Disaster or a Success for some years to come.

  32. Re Witney by-election. Sad to see that the once-great Monster Raving Looney Party has split. Some members have gone to the Eccentric Party.

    IMO some have also gone to Labour, but that’s just me. :-)

  33. @Colin – “Why on earth does the dreadful knockabout of the Referendum Campaign “debate” still persist?”

    I think the answer to that is really very simple – because it is going to exert a substantial influence on public opinion.

    If there are major, measurable adverse impacts on the economy within the next 24 – 30 months, and if these are blamed by sufficient people on Brexit, then there remains a real possibility that we will see the 19 leave voters in every 1,000 that formed the slender leave majority change their minds.

    With a majority of MP’s for remain, if this happens, then all bets are off.

    Equally, if these impacts either don’t happen, or they do happen but are not linked by enough of the public to the the act of Brexit, then we sail on along our present course.

    This debate is going to be as much about economic numbers as about the interpretation of them, and whoever seizes this agenda will control the political direction.

    I would expect the remain side to be vocal in shouting out all the negatives, but the fact that the leave camp are being so bullish about the economic indicators may be a sign that they are concerned to stamp their mark on the debate through fear of the future.

    Indeed, I would argue that the economic debate is now more important politically than it ever was, although I can’t promise that the debate will be of greater quality I’m afraid.

  34. Colin,
    Like Alec said. (quite eloquently). Brexit will be in the news and discussed here until it stops being the most important influence on British politics. Everything depends on how the economy turns out. Analyzing the pollsters post mortems on why people voted, they voted massively for whichever side they believed was best for the economy. If their beliefs turn out to be wrong and they see that they are wrong, then they will change their minds. There was no massive majority to overturn, it was a slender win with almost as many who did not vote at all as voted for the winner. There is huge scope for even a small change in view to change the result. But people who believed remaining helped the economy voted 10:1 to stay and people who believed leaving was better for the economy voted 10:1 to go. All this debate over sovereignty and immigration, that wasnt it at all.

    I am sure the political parties have advisors as good as people here (possibly the same people). They know this is the case and Brexit is walking on eggshells. It is perfectly possible that by the time brexit is signed and sealed, there will be a huge majority not to leave. That is a massive political disaster waiting for someone.

  35. @Colin
    “Why on earth does the dreadful knockabout of the Referendum Campaign “debate” still persist?”

    Because a 51/49 result isn’t a decisive result but a divisive one. Had it gone the other way by a percentage point, you can be certain that there would still be constant calls for a second referendum.

    This question won’t be settled with the public for years. And a lot of us expect that a brexit, will be shortly followed by begging for re-entry on what ever terms the EU offer.

  36. It’s really optimists versus pessimists. As such it will never be resolved. Pessimists will always find problems however well things are going, while optimists will do the opposite.

  37. @Colin

    Neighbourhood Plans are interesting. They were introduced as a sop to localism, and were intended to allow communities to choose the colour of their lampposts and not much else.

    However, many local groups have heavily invested in the process, and this has given NPs a lot more weight than expected. It is hard for ministers and inspectors to disregard NPs when so much work has been done, and communities have strongly supported them.

    I wish your village well. Without knowing the village, or any of the circumstances, I have little doubt your Parish Council is on the right side of the argument.

    Are you on the Parish Council? If not, why not?

  38. CR.

    The increase in hate crimes against gay people may be because racists often, in my expirience, also hate gays.

    The intolerant very sadly seem to be emboldened by brexit.

    My bf and I havent noticed a change but we live in a tolerant and diverse area where we all get on well.

    If anything since the ref people have been more likely to say hello to strangers. Its odd, but very welcome.

  39. @pete B – at the moment it is, because no real post Brexit data is available, but in due course it will become less of an ideological split as we gather more of an evidence base. I would still accept that judgement will form part of this. Just how big a part is going to depend on how clear or otherwise the data is.

    For a sensible level of discussion, if ever that is possible, what is going to be required is that people on all sides recognise the factual data as and when it appears. To date we have been dealing with beliefs, with a few perception based surveys thrown in (with the exception of investment data, which been poor and was probably affected by pre vote jitters, hence we are seeing poor numbers here first).

    Finally this month we have the first sets of actual data which could reasonbly be expected to have been influenced by the post Brexit fallout. These have shown us;
    Input inflation is growing sharply
    Output (consumer) inflation is now growing
    Wage growth is slowing
    Employment creation is slowing
    Household finances are deteriorating

    None of this is devastating or confirms Armageddon is underway, and we need a few more months to see if these are the start of trends or just minor wobbles, and even if we are at the start of something more major, we then need to decide if Brexit is the sole or primary cause.

    What I don’t think we can say for very much longer is that this is just optimists against pessimists. Within the next few weeks we will be able to say that this is people who look at data against those who choose to ignore facts. Which way round these labels will be applied will depend on how these facts start to stack up.

    At present, the early indications are that the figures tend to back up remainers claims that there will be an economic impact, but it’s not yet clear to what extent.

  40. @CambridgeRachel

    >Does anyone have any idea why homophobic hate crimes have risen 147% since the brexit vote, its very puzzling

    Apols for the length of this.

    I tried to fact check that the other day and didn’t really get anywhere. The original report by Galop is here, and I cannot find anything that would support the claim.

    The survey done for the report was a sample contacted via LGBT organisations, and obviously not suitable for drawing national conclusions.

    My initial thought is that it is newspapers misunderstanding then misusing a statistic, combined with the usual inflammatory headlines. The newspapers (G + In were my focus) also failed to report official police statements which would tend to question the implications of their articles.

    So this morning I popped an email off to Galop to ask if they can clarify. Text below:
    Can I ask for clarification of the above statistic which has been quoted in the media, in the Guardian and Independent, which explicitly state that Galop made the claim? I have included a second paragraph in the quote from the Guardian below as this may be the source of the numbers used by the journalist.

    I have read the Galop Report “The Hate Crime Report 2016”, which seems to be the source of the claim, and I cannot find any date that related to that kind of increase.


    Rgds and Thanks



    “Hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people increased 147% during July, August and September compared to the same period last year, according to the LGBT anti-violence charity Galop.

    Statistics from the police have already documented a spike of hate crimes against ethnic minorities and foreign nationals. Few analysts predicted a rise in hate crime based on victims’ sexual orientation, however. Galop gave support to 187 LGBT people who had suffered hate crimes in the three months that followed the referendum vote, compared with 72 in the same period in 2015. The rise is proportionately higher than other hate crime rises in the wake of Brexit.”

    and in the Independent


    “Galop, which supports victims of homophobic attacks, said the number of hate crime incidents in the July, August and September following the June EU referendum vote was up 147 per cent on the corresponding three months of 2015.”

  41. @cr

    I agree with Mark W. And thanks for noticing the spike in homophobic attacks.

  42. COLIN

    Re your 1.11 post. I agree with your sentiments it is now one great bore. I really cannot wait for Art 50 to be triggered, all we get day after day is Remainers moaning on. I actually think if the Earth was hit by a Comet they would blame it on Brexit.

    Interestingly this attitude by the Remainers is changing some minds. My son who voted Remain now supports us leaving because he thinks the constant moaning is undemocratic.

    I certainly agree and posted that we would not know if Brexit was a success or otherwise until the period 2025-2035.


    Re you post which got to Colin. I would just point out that the rise inflation was not due to Brexit and the ONS made this clear in the report. Yes, there will be inflation down the line from the drop in the value of the £ but the latest figures are not it.

    I also take some offence when you accuse Brexiters of having orgasms when figures improved after the sharp fall immediately post Brexit. I really don’t remember that at all and certainly I did not celebrate them. Serious Brexiters, and I hope you would agree I am one, have been quite clear that there will be some economic pain in initially as the price for Brexit. We think that is worth it.


    “And a lot of us expect that a brexit, will be shortly followed by begging for re-entry on what ever terms the EU offer.”

    I’ve waited 40+ years to leave the EU, That’s really so funny LOL.

  44. Scottish Boundary Commission proposals published –

    Number Cruncher’s take on them

    New Scottish boundaries – notional 2015 result is:

    SNP 52 (-4)
    LD 1 (=)
    CON 0 (-1)
    LAB 0 (-1)

    (Though one seat would be extremely close)

  45. I’ll post any reply I receive.

    In the Indy article from October 9th I linked they spend 4 paragraphs saying how there was a 57% spike in ‘Race Hate’ in the 4 weeks after the referendum as if it was still continuing. That claim was based on reports made to the True Vision website, rather than any national figures, on an increase from 54 to 87, as reported in a previous Indy article from 27 June:

    “Reports of hate crime have risen 57 per cent in the aftermath of the EU referendum vote, according to the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

    There were 85 reports of hate crimes to True Vision, a police-funded reporting website, between Thursday and Sunday compared with 54 reports over the same period four weeks ago.”

    It is not even clear if the data has been checked for duplicates etc.

    They failed to mention an officlal police press release from early September documenting that it has fallen back to last years level. Nor do they mention that reporting procedures were different for the period.

    “At its peak, these returns showed a 58 per cent increase in the reporting of hate crime in comparison to 2015. This has since subsided and we have now observed four consecutive weeks of reductions in reporting. The latest returns from August 5 – 18 2016 show 2778 hate crimes and incidents. This is a decrease of 479 offences on the previous fortnight but it is a 14 per cent increase on the equivalent period in 2015.

    National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said:

    “We have seen continued decreases in reports of hate crimes to forces and these reports have now returned to formerly seen levels for 2016. For this reason, we will return to our previous reporting procedures and will no longer be requiring weekly updates from forces. ”


    We now have a further official press release from the police explicitly entitled:

    “Increases in hate crime incidents driven by better reporting”


    I’m still interested to see what Galop say.

    Having observed various debacles of crime statistics such as modern slavery, I remain a little sceptical. I think there are also possibly things going on in widening definitions of ‘hate crime’ but that is OT.

  46. TOH

    You are too thin-skinned. Alec was studiously even-handed in his defamation of remainers and brexiters:

    ” … remainers were beside themselves with joy as the July consumer and industrial surveys showed massive falls. Leavers were having orgasms a month later when the inevitable bounce back occurred.”

    You may be bored by the biggest self-imposed peacetime upheaval in this country’s political history, but that’s no reason to disparage those of us who take a continuing interest in it. Perhaps you would find UKAR (UK Allotments Report) more congenial?

  47. DANNY @ Colin,
    That is a massive political disaster waiting for someone.

    Excellent post and a very good reason for May not being allowed to play silly Bs over the FTPA unless she wants Corbyn in #10 for fear of doing a Balfour.

  48. (*) Typo. 87 in para 2 of my previous comment should read 85.

  49. Very unfair to the SNP. They are losing twice as many seats as all the other parties put together…..


    I was hoping for a response from Alec, but since you have addressed me i will respond.

    I agree Alec does try to be even handed, but in this case he got it wrong.

    I am not bored by Brexit, and I also have a continuing interest in Brexit news, but I am bored by constant moaning of those who don’t like the result of the EU referendum and really irritated by those who want to stop us leaving the EU.

1 2 3 4 5 14