ICM have resumed polling for the Guardian. Topline figures for their first post-election poll are CON 41%(-3), LAB 43%(+2), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 3%(+1) – changes are from the election result.

In terms of methodology, ICM have dropped the turnout model that produced such large, but ultimately incorrect, Tory leads as well as their political interest weighting. This isn’t going all the way back to their 2015 methodology (ICM also made a change to how they reallocated don’t knows who refused to give a past vote and, of course, switched from telephone to online), but it’s a long way in that direction.


310 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 41, LAB 43, LDEM 7, UKIP 3”

1 2 3 7
  1. Who was leading at raw data stage, I wonder?

  2. As I said, better to keep same methodology and let us see direction of travel. No idea how accurate the polls will be as regards actual turnout/outcome.

  3. Am I out of purdah now, then?

  4. It also appears that quite a chunk of people really do finally decide who to vote for on the day.

  5. Or how not to vote…

  6. @Cambridge Rach

    “Looks very much like Cable is positioning the dems to do that. They are saying they will vote with the Tories, but only on popular things lol.

    But you can definitely see they are positioning themselves as a soft right anti Brexit party. They are also sensing that the labour vote is rock solid and their best hope for gains is peeling off soft remain Tory voters. They realize that they made a bad mistake trying to hover up labour votes at the last election.”

    ————–

    Yes, interesting point. In the past, Labour positioning in Seventies and Eighties left room for the libs to hoover up the soft left, and then later as Blair shifted the party, libs moved to the left of Labour and hoovered up there also.

    Corbyn’s current positioning is well calibrated to keep a good deal of the soft left rather than scaring them off, so Lib Dems either move further to the left at the margins or else compete with Tories.

  7. “NICKP
    Am I out of purdah now, then?”

    Not only out of purdah but the new, Noofred monitor Nick.

    Congrats. It has all the prestige of being Speaker but none of the privileges or salary.

  8. @Ssimon

    I’m not denying these are good numbers for Labour – clearly, they’re among the best the party has enjoyed since 2002, and progress since April is perhaps record-breaking.

    Still, this time the Lib Dems aren’t sucking up dissatisfied Tory VI% as in most of the last few decades, leaving just a slender lead for Corbyn.

    Absolutely – the return of two party politics has made it much harder for both to sail away. The Tories are detoxified and the Lib Dems are no match like they were through the New Labour period, in the same way the Left has been detoxified and there is no SDP to siphon off disaffected social democrats like they did throughout Thatcher’s tenure.

    This can obviously change, especially given the deeply divisive Brexit on the horizon, but it is where we are as it stands.

  9. Evening All.
    CRAIG.
    Hello to you.
    How does Labour’s figure compare with Labour’s figure in 1996 when they were in opposition under TB. Badly I think. However, they are, as you say vg in comparison with how they looked twelve months ago.

    On another topic Sam Coates is tweeting that Lib Dems may ally in some form with Tories again.

  10. @Chrislane

    Labour had big leads over the Tories well before Blair, following the Black Wednesday affair. His supposed eminence is a myth, he just piggy-backed…

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997

  11. Now a majority in favour of left of centre politics ?

    People now seem to want better state services and might be willing to pay higher taxes.

    Austerity has arguably not really worked, as debt has increased by about £700 billion since 2010. The deficit is not expected to be eliminated before 2025, which is 10 years later than Osborne originally wanted. That means a debt of over £2000 billion by 2025 and interest of over £70 billion a year.

    Unless GDP increases significantly, which will be very difficult with Brexit expected fo hurt the economy, then i would expect that taxes will have to be increased. This is something that Tories have always found difficult and their favourite VAT cannot really be increased more. I suspect corporation tax will not be reduced as previously promised and business will be asked to pay more.

  12. Time the voting intentions on this site were updated?

    There have been a few polls now since the GE…

    (Might be time to remove UKIP from them too. Always said that they were ‘the dog that wouldn’t bark’).

  13. The LibDems would be best positioning to Centre slightly to right like they are in Scotland. They have always campaigned in elections giving impression of being Left of Centre when they are not.
    Most the seats they hold are now Scotland (where they are seen more to centre/ right with 2 or 3 left Parties) and wealthy remain areas in sububan London. They never made much progress in strong remain areas outside London like Winchester.

    Also they would be well placed to receive potential Tory defectors if it came to it.

  14. If I’m the new thread monitor, can I shut this one as soon as Rich shows up?

  15. I suspect Labour supporters would rather the Lib Dems park to the right, while Tories would prefer they shift off to the left – can’t think why ;-)

  16. I wouldn’t discount the possibility of Vince, assuming he gets the LD leadership, doing a Corbyn.

    At least some of the LDs’ current single-figure VI (that’s single figure percentage, not number of votes…) is down to the unpopularity and lack of gravitas of Tim Farron. I’d expect Vince to add at least 5% to LD VI very quickly, with the potential to grow a lot more by attracting disgruntled Tory and Labour remainers.

    To do that, I think he will need to maintain a mildly left-of-centre position, but actually emphasising rather more the distinctive aspects of LD philosophy – social liberalism, localism/decentralisation and an internationalist outlook.

    After the tuition fees debâcle it will be tough to make LDs once again the party of choice for the young and well-educated, but that surely has to be the aim. I don’t think two-party hegemony in E&W will last long.

  17. NICK P

    Don’t mention the ‘R’ word

  18. test

  19. @SSimon

    Well it’s the Tories turn. :) Farron positioned himself on the centre-left against the supposed extremes, although it did little to no damage to Labour.

    @CHRISLANE1945

    I’m not sure how useful a comparison that is, when we were talking about Tory detoxifying themselves. Blair was up against a very weak and toxic Tory party at that time. Corbyn is up against a Tory party that is in many ways surpassing Thatcher’s votes, hence why his own Blair-like vote still fell short of a winning.

  20. Just to add a polling note to my last post, I’ll hazard a guess that by the autumn – say, the first national poll in November – VIs will be around: Lab 38%, Con 36%, LD 16%, Others 10%.

  21. NICK P

    Those posts are the highlight of UKPR for me, so no.

    Accidental satire is great in my view.

  22. @R Huckle
    “Austerity has arguably not really worked, as debt has increased by about £700 billion since 2010. The deficit is not expected to be eliminated before 2025, which is 10 years later than Osborne originally wanted.”

    Since there is still an extremely substantial budget deficit, “Austerity” is really not actually “Austerity” but more of a left wing label for restrained public spending. For what real “Austerity” looks like see Greece.

    Of course there are plenty of Keynesian advocates who still claim that running an even larger budget deficit is the solution and would ultimately solve the deficit. This clearly is not true in the modern age of globalism which is very different to the period where Keynes developed his excellent theories which were very relevant to his own time. The main problem with Keynesian theory in today’s global economy us that money no longer tends to infinitely recirculate within the modern domestic economy and hence does not create Keynes’s much desired “multiplier effect”. Money instead leaches away from the domestic economy on every cycle to buy iphones, samsungs, overseas holidays. etc and hence increased unfunded public spending ultimately leads us closer to the situation in Greece.

    Back to the polls and conservatives are doing well to maintain VI share with all that has been going on IMV. I suspect the ongoing weekly far left protests are probably helping the Conservatives more than Labour.

  23. Dave in france

    “(Might be time to remove UKIP from them too. Always said that they were ‘the dog that wouldn’t bark’).”

    They didn’t just bark they completely overturned the status quo. Whatever happens next UKIP’s influence will be felt for generations.

  24. Martin L

    Real hourly incomes have fallen almost as much as in Greece, no other country in the EU apart from Greece has seen a bigger fall in real hourly income. In fact only Greece, UK and Portugal have seen real hourly wages fall.

  25. @Cambridge Rach
    “Looks very much like Cable is positioning the dems to do that. They are saying they will vote with the Tories, but only on popular things lol.

    But you can definitely see they are positioning themselves as a soft right anti Brexit party. They are also sensing that the labour vote is rock solid and their best hope for gains is peeling off soft remain Tory voters. They realize that they made a bad mistake trying to hover up labour votes at the last election.”

    ————–

    I think that risks making the same mistake albeit with a different group of voters. I think one reason (the main reason) they failed to make a pitch for Remainers was that they wholly failed to attack Labour on Europe. Personally, I see Labour in the context of the negotiations only ever cheering the EU and booing the government, so I think the hardcore Remainers who backed the Starmer long-game got it spot on – but the contradictions in the headline policy gave the LibDems are a lot to go on.

    So to go after Tory voters by being a bit more cosy with the Tories threatens the same mistake. If you want to take votes off a party, you have to attack the party. You have to dent its image.

    You might say that the Tories hardly need any image denting, but the LibDems giving them the occasional thumbs up will flatten out those dents.

    Like they say to teenagers who can’t get a date – just be yourself, as it really doesn’t work trying to be someone else. A little less orientation, a little more pol-I-cy, might assist the LibDems.

  26. current positions.

    a. the tories are not in as weak a position as some here suggest. they are polling about 41% and held together by fear which is a very strong glue indeed.They may well hate each other but they hate losing power more.there will be no leadership challenge to TM because no one wants to take the blame for Brexit.They want her to own it and come in fresh for 2022 as new leader.I think that they will go the distance. the only people who can force the tories from power are the tories themselves.

    b. David Davis is a sh**.He is already laying the groundwork of blame for his own lack of abilities.In any government ofreal ability he would be making the tea.

    c. Chuka Umuna is not thick. He was clearly chosen by the new to be phoenix labour party as the new Macron.The plan was that following the humiliation of Corbyn he would lead a new party and would be joined by some tories and liberals together with Blair, Major, Brown, Darling and Osborne in a remain party.Sadly or not depending on your point of view this plan has collapsed. Of everybody they have been the main losers of the election.
    d. OOOOhh Jeremy Corbyn.It may be that there is a delicious irony here. It has been assumed that Jezza is a remainer who has had to pander to the labour working class leavers . But there is a body of evidence that the reverse is true. Jezza could be the biggest brexiteer of them all and is in fact pandering to the remain inclined middle class. His USP is that he is a conviction politician who has not changed his views since the 70’s. If true then he has and remains anti-europe. In both article 50 and the Chuka amendment he has whipped his party to support the reality of brexit. It would be a delight tif the ardent remain posters on this site who seem to have come late to loving Jezza now find themselves supporting the man who may desire TM to push a tough brexit deal through parliament n 2019.

    e. Another delight is to see those remain posters who say they oppose brexit because of the economic consequences, now supporting the economic strategy, if that is the right word, of Corbonomics oblivious to the far greater damage that his policies might cause.It must be alright in some eyes to ruin an economy provided we remain in the EU that is

  27. Difficult to know if this poll is any more accurate than the terrible ICM election polls even after adjustments.

    For a polling company to weight the votes of young people for the 2017 election as they did for the 2015 election was bonkers and I stated that many times on here pre election. They have zero credibility with me until they show some accuracy over a number of years.

  28. @Martin L – “Of course there are plenty of Keynesian advocates who still claim that running an even larger budget deficit is the solution and would ultimately solve the deficit. This clearly is not true in the modern age of globalism which is very different to the period where Keynes developed his excellent theories which were very relevant to his own time. The main problem with Keynesian theory in today’s global economy us that money no longer tends to infinitely recirculate within the modern domestic economy and hence does not create Keynes’s much desired “multiplier effect”. Money instead leaches away from the domestic economy on every cycle to buy iphones, samsungs, overseas holidays. etc and hence increased unfunded public spending ultimately leads us closer to the situation in Greece.”

    Hello to you, and what an interesting observation. I understand the general point, but I think it misses the point of what has actually just happened.

    Post crash, banks needed liquidity or the economy would face melt down. The government ultimately provided this by creating money (£375bn I seem to recall, in the end) and injected this into the banks by buying government bonds, with the idea that banks would then be able to create more loans to boost the economy, while QE still kept interest rates low.

    Unfortunately, the leaching out from the domestic economy did occur, as you suggest, but not from consumers – from the banks. Those new loans were made in China, stoking inflation over there, increasing stock prices globally and not doing a great deal for the UK economy.

    A more Keynsian approach to QE might have been in order. Creating electronic money to fund infrastructure, or keeping QE largely the same except using it to buy out consumer debts, rather than bonds, from the banks might have also been very effective. Doing this would still have recapitalised the banks by injecting liquidity into the system, and could also have eliminated lots of bad debts. For consumers, less debt means more spending.

    I don’t think critics of Keysianism have really nailed the argument, largely because what we had was a badly designed and poorly delivered Keysian stimulus.

  29. @ Joseph1832

    I agree on their need to attack and be themselves, though I think flipping sides is part of that. In the South-West, the LibDems have typically attacked the Tories from the left, and in the North they were hitting Labour from the right. Which I suppose – under FPTP – is essentially all they can do.

    However the inherent contradiction in that kind of strategy lends the impression they’re a party that will say anything to get in. And in government, it crashes headlong into reality in a way that upsets both sets of voters.

  30. Regarding the LDs,

    Might be worth pointing out that, at the present moment, there are none, that is, 0, LD-held Lib/Lab marginals. Lib dems were destroyed in the lib/lab marginals completely (e.g. see Clegg), only making gains from the Tories in England and a couple from the SNP in Scotland.

    Surely anyone with any sense at LD HQ will be saying ‘we can’t compete with Corbyn’s labour, and we have far more to gain from the Tories anyway. Why tack left?’

    In LD/CON marginals, many Labour voters will probably tactically vote LD anyway, even if they were a bit more right-wing, because they aren’t the Tories. It makes much, much more electoral sense for them to appeal to Tories than Labour voters. Not to mention, as a figurehead of the coalition, Cable is toxic to Labour voters in a way he perhaps isn’t to Tory voters.

  31. @Analyst:

    “Surely anyone with any sense at LD HQ will be saying ‘we can’t compete with Corbyn’s labour, and we have far more to gain from the Tories anyway. Why tack left?’”

    Up to a point. But there are three complications:

    1. In a Tory-LD marginal, they still often need Labour votes. So it is good not to have Labour voters not thinking that LibDems are Tories in disguise.

    2. Absent a bit of anti-Tory tactical voting, they are liable to lose seats.

    3. It will take some convincing for Tories not to just add LibDem MPs to the Labour column after all this “progressive coalition talk”. So even a soft Tory might worry about putting in Corbyn.

    I think the trouble is that there are no simple answers for the LibDems, and every move is thwart with danger.

    I am not a LibDem – strong pro-Leave – but I do think their best game is to be themselves.

  32. @R HUCKLE

    “People now seem to want better state services and might be willing to pay higher taxes”

    ————

    It’s always been high in the agenda. These things tend to poll well, and if services start messing up, e.g. Winter of Discontent, people can soon turn.

    What happens is that other things are placed temporarily above. Immigration, a need for financial “discipline” following the Crunch, or competence, are all meta-issues that can trump everyday concerns, if maybe only for a while.

    Point is, these are considered somewhat as “emergency” conditions, to be weathered, then we go back to investing in services etc., however some seem to get the idea people will be cool with it not being temporary…

  33. Oh and of course, it’s possible for the emergency conditions to be hyped a bit…

  34. Having not called the last GE right (or the Brexit vote) I have a large degree of uncertainty about my own thoughts for future Election prospects but enjoy speculating.

    I wish I could be as certain about future events as some others who called the recent GE much more inaccurately than I did, actually I am glad I am not that certain.

    SS – perhaps when a poster gives a bold prediction you could reveal their 2017 forecast?

  35. On the present polls… At the start of the election campaign, I repeated the conventional wisdom about opinion polls not changing rapidly. I did hedge slightly by repeating what I remembered from a Matthew Paris column:

    – Why, writing in about 2000, was Blair unscathed by scandals that would have struck Major badly? Because a politician’s reputation is like a lake. You throw in stones and they sink, and it looks like nothing has changed. Until one day the stones break the surface, and nothing will take them away.

    That is what happened to May in the five days between publishing her manifesto and her “nothing’s changed” fiasco.

    The question is what might be the next for such treatment? A sudden collapse in pro-Brexit morale? Corbyn blowing it? Maybe some in Remain caught discussing tactics with Junker? Tories finally asking Starmer, “Okay, what exactly would you do? Here’s what we propose, here’s a red pen, do your corrections…”?

    Personally, although the opinion of the young has come into play much more, what has changed in terms of underlying political and economic views that shape party choices? I appreciate that lots of people vote one way or another out of habit – but a survey into that would be very interesting. I suspect – taking out young people entering the game – there has been little shift in opinions, but a massive shift in voting intentions.

  36. @Martin L
    @Alec

    Yes, money can leech out, but as Alec says, you can invest in things where you at least get some multiplier effect before it leeches, e.g. housing and infrastructure.

    There have been more recent studies done which show you can still get a significant multiplier effect from things like infrastructure.

    You have to bear in mind, that things like infrastructure and housing can keep on providing productivity and cost benefits after the event.

    A lot of money still gets spent locally anyway, because you don’t conventionally travel to China to get a haircut or even buy a phone. After the Crunch, we saw the value of stimulus even in a globalised world: the economy went from taking a seven percent hit to over two per cent growth in less than two years. Then when we made the cuts growth soon fell back, and with it came the fall in demand and hence business investment Keynes would expect.

    But yes, before we sold stuff off to companies owned by foreign governments it was perhaps a bit easier to keep more of it in circulation for longer, rather than handing it to someone else’s state business…

  37. JIMJAM

    I did actually save a few posts which bragged about taking profits from one bet or another and placing the winnings on Labour sub 150, Tories over 400, Lib Dems under 10 etc etc etc.

    When it came to it I thought it seemed a bit weedy to go over that ground again. [Plus I like Rich.]

    I said at the time and repeat it now: what makes the future interesting is that we don’t know what will happen. Speculating is one thing, predicting with utter certainty – especially given the past few few elections and EU referendum – is another thing altogether.

    I prefer my own “dunno” viewpoint.

    Apropos of which, I dunno, but it is a possibility that this is as good as it gets for Corbyn**. I don’t see the Tories giving up on power easily.

    [** Unless it’s not of course.]

  38. This guy can explain things a bit

    https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8

  39. Vince Cable started in Labour in the 1970s as a Labour councillor in Glasgow. He moved to SDP in 1982 (maybe after the frequent by-election victories which had the SDP-Lib Alliance ahead in the opinion polls). Not an original joiner or Labour leader after Michael Foot was elected leader but clear SDP, rightwing Labour (especially pro what we now call the EU when Foot was anti, ditto nuclear weapons).
    If Ukip just give up on by-elections, simply can not afford the £100k it cost them to fight by-elections as they have been doing from 2012, then the plague on both your houses protest vote once more becomes the LibDems. This garnered between 20 and 26% in its GE heyday but much more in by-elections leading to wins.
    The LibDem are the new SDP pitch would be primarily to Labour MP defectors fearing deselection before the next GE, or deselected Labour councillors. With en masse defectors this could overnight become the Opposition party in Westminster castrating The Labour Parliamentary Party and gain control of many councils.
    This would be a staggering sea change but it must be what Vince Cable is aiming for.
    The Labour voters at the 2017 GE might be pleased or angry at the development depending whether they were voting for Corbyn or voting in spite of Corbyn.
    It will make polling for the next GE even harder if Corbyn is still around and has the union finance and Labour brandname but say only 75 MPs. Whereas the sitting MP elected on a Labour ticket is now running against Corbyn’s Labour.
    The nightmare scenario for Cable is if Labour Parliamentary Party splits but does not join the LibDems aka SDP 2017 tour (the old 80s hits are still the best).
    Polling may get even more interesting.

  40. Chris Lane – no point in comparing current polls to 1996. We’ve only just had a general election, but in 1996 the Tory government was nearing the end of its term.

  41. ” you don’t conventionally travel to China to get a haircut”

    Well, there would be no point when you can get such great styling – and at very affordable prices – in North Korea.

  42. @Joseph

    “Up to a point. But there are three complications:”

    Burst out laughing when I read this, as I’d just been reading Waugh’s “Scoop” – every time a character says “Up to a point” they always mean “No”.

    Anyway, has anyone found the ICM tables yet? Might be interesting to know what else they asked (Brexit etc).

  43. TRIGGUY
    100% of leavers and Remainers can agree ‘Scoop’ by Evelyn Waugh is brilliant.
    Whatever happened to that ‘very promising little war’ which was guaranteed ‘the fullest publicity’ by the British newspaper i.e. in all but name Daily Mail) proprietor ? Waugh worked for the Mail as Foreign Correspondent.
    The Daily Brute in a circulation war with The Daily Beast.
    Great read.

  44. Here’s the problem for the Tories and their allies. The longer they delay the sea change in society which is forming the more violent with a small ‘v’ and long lasting the swing towards a more cooperative society will be. Best thing for the conservative forces is to retreat to fortified positions and regroup.

  45. @ TrigGuy / J S-B

    I grew up in a household where “up to a point, Lord Copper” was a catch-phrase.

    Eventually, I read the book – and was totally unimpressed.
    I hope/am glad that your experience is different.

    (Maybe I would enjoy it more now, but I have too many other new things to read to re-read something I didn’t rate.)

  46. Good link CR, thanks. Mind you I’ve been saying that for 20 years and the Socialist Worker placards have yet to turn into pitchforks (though we may be close to the tipping point).
    I’ve been mulling over our frankly astonishing election results round here and trying to see where they came from. Yes, many were undoubtedly young lefties inspired by JC. But some at least were Tories who flipped Lab. Good candidate, yes. Incumbency dividend, yes. Hacked off with May’s Brexit rhetoric, certainly. But they wouldn’t have voted Labour if there was not a sense that what Hanauer says is correct.

  47. Somerjohn
    ‘I’ll hazard a guess that by the autumn – say, the first national poll in November – VIs will be around: Lab 38%, Con 36%, LD 16%, Others 10%.’

    I will besurprised if the LibDems are anywhere near 16% – indeed they will be doing well to reach 10%.

  48. I don’t think I ever did post up the UKPR predictions winners. FYI:

    The top 10 seat ranking is based on aggregate difference in seats from the final Con/Lab result:

    (1) TonyBTG: 5
    (=2) CambridgeRachel: 7
    (=2) Richard: 7
    (4) Canada: 8
    (5) DM: 13
    (=6) Bill Patrick: 14
    (=6) Chrissy: 14
    (=6) Sam S: 14
    (9) Alex F: 17
    (=10) BrianInSangor: 19
    (=10) Thomaso: 19
    (=10) Wellytab: 19

    Special Mentions:

    * Chrissy was the only person to accurately predict Tory seat total (318). She also got LibDems spot on (12).

    * Lithemind (317) and BrianInSangor (317) were one off.

    * Nobody accurately predicted Labour’s seat total, but CambridgeRachel (261) and Richard (263) were one off.

    * Nobody got SNP correct or even close.

    The top 10 vote-share ranking is based on aggregate difference in % from the final Con/Lab result:

    (=1) Mike: 1
    (=1) Richard: 1
    (=3) Barbazenzero: 2
    (=3) CMJ: 2
    (=3) Daibach: 2
    (=3) Lithemind: 2
    (=3) Mark: 2
    (=3) Petros: 2
    (=3) Steven Wheeler: 2
    (=3) Sven Hassel Schmuck: 2

    Special Mentions:

    * Of these, the foresight gong goes to Mark, whose prediction was the oldest (21/5)

    * Several people got the Con share correct, but only Nick P got the Labour share correct (40%) – he was also only 3 off the Con total, just missing out on the top 10.

    * DrMibbles was also only 3 off the final Con/Lab result (ironically underestimating Labour by 3% :-)

    Final Shoutouts:

    In terms of combined results, Richard fares well on both. Wellytab does too, being 3% off the vote share, 19 off seats, and accurately predicting turnout (69%). And Sam S probably takes bronze, just 14 off on seats and 3% off on vote.

  49. There’s an interesting graph with this tweet

    On the way in which the government is handling the Brexit negotiations

    Approve: 44%
    Disapprove: 56%

    (via @ORB_Int)
    https://t.co/LyoFQ4YW9k https://t.co/WoqoOqV3zE

  50. TRIGGUY

    Anyway, has anyone found the ICM tables yet? Might be interesting to know what else they asked (Brexit etc).

    Nothing on the ICM website as yet. Mind you they still haven’t completed on the ‘Preliminary data’ from their last poll before the election. I assume Martin Boon is still rocking backwards and forwards in a corner somewhere, having terrible flashbacks.

    The only information about the latest ICM comes from the Guardian which tucked all the information away in their Politics Blog:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/04/kensington-mp-joins-calls-for-grenfell-tower-inquiry-chair-to-be-replaced-politics-live?page=with:block-595b76dae4b0cddfab35e767#block-595b76dae4b0cddfab35e767

    and even then used a rather strange headline reporting on a question with truly awfully worded alternatives.

    Naturally all the polls that conventional wisdom declared were so accurate before the election and which proved that Corbyn Must Go, are now not to be trusted when Labour is ahead.

1 2 3 7