Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor for the Standard has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. This is MORI’s first poll since the general election, and like other companies now shows Labour with a small lead over the Conservatives. Fieldwork was Friday to Tuesday. As far as I can tell, the methodology is back to MORI’s usual methods, as they were using before the election campaign. Full details are here.

To update on other voting intention polls earlier this week, ICM for the Guardian on Tuesday had voting intentions of CON 42%(+1), LAB 43%(nc), LDEM 7%(nc), UKIP 3%(nc). Fieldwork was over the weekend, and changes were from a fortnight ago. Full tabs for that are here.

Finally YouGov for the Times, which was released on Monday but conducted last week, had topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 45%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 2%. Tabs for that are here.


1,533 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 41, LAB 42, LD 9, UKIP 3”

1 28 29 30 31
  1. @COLIN

    ‘PASSTHEROCKPLEASE might call a politically unsophisticated failure to understand the facts.’

    can you elaborate on that please, as I have pointed out I have seen dictatorship and civil war in Sierra Leone, My uncle was killed by child soldiers, My uncle was Army major fighting the rebels.

  2. US media reporting that Scaramucci has already been removed as WH communications chief.

    Last year, in Italy, it was being noted that at least Trump made Berlusconi look good by comparison.

    Increasingly Trump is making the UK Government look competent by comparison.

    Trump, therefore, provides a valuable service to Western governments.

  3. Laszlo.

    I agree. That Obama just kept locking up those kids.Let us hope Trump stops that Democratic madness.
    I am sure that he can see that it would be cheaper to put them up at Trump towers.

  4. Colin

    I didn’t narrow the ground to “hate welfare”. And PTRP has moved away from “hate”.

    The book, “Poverty, Welfare and the disciplinary State” has this to say towards the close.

    There is no longer much sense that the welfare state is there to help in periods of crisis, or that governments through macro-economic management will seek to intervene to create new employment opportunities. On the contrary, the welfare state has through a torrent of measures been fundamentally recast and its ‘caring’ functions have been increasingly superseded by its regulatory and surveillance functions. The consequences for both the workers and users of the welfare system have been bewildering as they have been bombarded by legislation in a context of unrelenting cuts, year on year. It would be possible to fill this book with similar examples from nurses, doctors, probation officers, lecturers in higher and further education, indeed any user or worker in the public sector.”

    Or one might look at this research. It samples US, UK and Swedish and Danish newspapers.

    “Stories and pictures in the mass media form an important basis for creating opinions of ‘the poor’ and welfare recipients. The media content influences who we think these people are, how we think they behave and what we think should be done to either help or punish them. In The Rise and Fall of Social Cohesion, Christian Albrekt Larsen illustrates how the US and UK are caught in a vicious circle. High levels of poverty and a targeted welfare system produce a large volume of newsworthy negative stories, which make further punishment the most likely political response. Who would want to help scroungers and spongers? …..

    There is, however, little doubt among public opinion researchers that these stereotypes, when established, are highly significant in influencing mass opinion and therefore also for politicians trying to get elected or re-elected. And the implications go even further. In my recent book, I demonstrate how these stereotypes also influence overall trust levels in society, which social science has pinpointed as crucial for the functioning of democracy, economic growth and general wellbeing. Therefore, the UK and the US seem to be caught in a vicious circle that is difficult to break. Sweden and Denmark are caught in a virtuous circle from which they constantly benefit. One of the crucial questions is whether increased ethnicdiversity will break the Nordic circle. In my opinion, the ethnic diversity is indeed a challenge for the Nordic countries, at least in the short run.”

  5. ‘PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    It was a reference to your views on electorates making the “wrong decision”.

    In light of your personal history this particular context was badly chosen. I meant no offence & hope that you felt none.

  6. SAM

    Thanks. I’m sure that the definition of State Welfare , and the criteria for its disposition is a matter of international debate-certainly in the developed economies.

    If you don’t mind I will pass up on the invitation to join it here.

  7. Colin

    The Guardian has this to say about the numbers in the UK in poverty.

    “The upward trend in child poverty in the UK has continued for the third year running, with the percentage of children classed as poor at its highest level since the start of the decade, latest official figures show.

    About 100,000 children fell into relative poverty in 2015-16, a year on year increase of one percentage point, according to household data published by the government on Thursday. About 4 million, or around 30%, are now classed as poor.

    The latest annual rise was relatively modest, but analysts said planned cuts to working-age benefits were likely to dramatically increase poverty rates over the next three years.

    Campbell Robb, the chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said: “These troubling figures are warning signs we could be at the beginning of a sharp rise in poverty, with forecasts suggesting child poverty could rise further by 2021.”

    It is well known that poverty and poor health go together. It is also well known that the richer you are, the longer you will live. Research points to the redistribution of wealth, income and power as the remedy.

  8. SAM

    Thanks

    Defining Poverty in a Developed economy is , as I’m sure you will agree, a complex issue.

    You might be interested in Full Fact on the topic :-

    https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

  9. Colin

    This also appeared in the Guardian

    ““No one can starve in Britain” goes the familiar below-the-line response to news of hunger in this country. It is unsurprising, perhaps, considering it is the line our own government takes. Nearly a million people received food parcels from Trussell Trust food banks alone last year, but listening to ministers and peers – both the silence and the active denials – it is as if none of it is happening.

    It seems a particular level of sadism to remove the money people need to eat and act surprised when they are hungry. A new report is just another excuse for those in power to shirk responsibility, to blame the people they have already degraded once and who cannot defend themselves. A general election is coming. Its citizens are starving, and this government’s priority is denial.”

    The final sentence is perhaps the important one in our little debate. Despite premature, unjust deaths arising out of health inequalities and increasing poverty in the UK adding to those numbers and despite many having to use food banks as a result of sanctions the voters put in the party doing this to the people. One might think the electorate does hate welfare.

  10. An interntational lawyers individual take on the current EU negotiations news.liverpool.ac.uk/2017/07/31/watch-project-fear-to-project-reality-prof-michael-dougan-one-year-on-from-eu-referendum/

  11. S Thomas – I cant recall one single poster saying Scotland would vote for independence by the end of 2018.

    A couple thought there maybe a ref but none IIRC predicted a Yes.

  12. sam

    They said cutting the welfare state and police numbers hadn’t affected crime rates. And for a while they looked right.

    Look again.

    Dismantling the welfare state dismantles any consent about being ruled, or policed.

    Your ideas are pure poison.

  13. I quite like the reasoning in this article in the Irish Times

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/britain-is-better-off-with-a-weak-theresa-may-1.3172609

    This diffusion of power to the cabinet and to the Treasury, whose technical expertise weighs more than the trade secretary’s epic visions, has wafted outwards to business, which struggled for an audience in the highest office before the election. Executives who employ people by the thousand no longer enter Downing Street braced for brusque treatment by functionaries whose career records range all the way from the media side of politics to the lobbying side of politics……

    There is a lot to be said for the caress of weak government. As long as the state itself is secure and functional, the politicians who populate its offices can be divided against each other. Better that than unity behind a bad cause or misguided prime minister. This is not a libertarian case for nihilism but a practical argument: that Britain has the least bad of all its plausible governing options.”

  14. Sam

    Sorry, not your ideas. Obviously. The dismantlers’ ideas.

  15. @PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    I’m not suggesting no control, I’m suggesting that we’ll have EU visa free tourist travel anyway, so arriving at Cork is no different than a person arriving at Dover.

    Work permits give the control people want, and will automatically reduce immigration which people seem to also want.

  16. @BARNEY

    That give the UK no control at all we therefore do not even count people coming in via Ireland…..

    Again I presumed this was about control of our borders it clearly not control, I will accept that as a solution but for example nothing can stop anyone staying in the Uk for as long as they like doing causal work ‘undercutting’ the locals If we are to accept part of the narrative to want control of our borders

    I had envisioned a self certifying system similar to the US where you had a 3 month visa waiver form. I think it is crap personally but I voted remain and I am fine with FoM since I use it in my job

  17. @COLIN

    none taken and thanks for explaining the context

    I forgot to respond to the point that elections would decide what happens to our attitude to Brexit. Again I find that amusing in terms of youtube video I showed you essentially aspiring to tribalism would make impossible as in many cases the EU referendum was not seen as central to peoples political thoughts until the referendum Lord Ashcroft a (Leave supporter) wrote about it in his book

    whatever was printed on the ballot paper the question large numbers of voters heard and the answer they gave had nothing much to do with the European Union … ultimately, the question many saw was: ‘Are you happy with the way things are and the way they seem to be going?’

    No obviously you may disagree, but when I was campaigning I found on the whole this represented a good portion of leavers and remainers.

    It is worth another read, so I will get it for my kindle
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01KN5B99W/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

  18. Colin,
    “@”take immigration if the government’s answer is that we need to reduce immigration down to less than 100K then what about the immigration we control why has that gone up.”

    Non-EU immigration has been falling since 2004 actually ( Full-Fact). We might not “need ” to make that reduction. It was always silly to target Net Migration because that is a function, in part, of Emigration-which we cannot control.
    So I’m pleased that this number is now just a general aspiration. My belief is that Leave voters did want net immigration reduced. To do that you first have to gain control of all of it. I believe that doing so will meet the Leave vote requirement & that no-one will complain when a UK Government , with total control over who comes settles into periodic public assessments of economic need , which include work permits for key workers .The net migration trend which emerges from that will have received democratic acceptance. ”

    Full fact report something which I also noticed in a government report on immigration. That there does indeed seem to have been an attempt to reduce non EU migration which succeeded, but that this coincided with a rise in EU migration. This could be coincidence, but potentially what we saw is a reaction by industry to meet its workforce needs by actively recruiting from the EU. The implication of this is that the choice is between immigrants doing the work and no one.

    The further implication is that this is not swarms of EU migrants invading the Uk, but suction from the Uk deliberately drawing them in. Obviously, we can do something about that suction by deliberately reducing demand for labour within the Uk. We might as well, if we are going to ban those people coming anyway.

    If the government plans to introduce some migration scheme where there has to be a demonstrable need for these people and then they will receive visas, then there will be no reduction in migration, and indeed everything said so far suggests this will be the outcome.

    The system of free movement currently in place effectively meets unmet demand for workers in the Uk with minimum beurocratic overhead and negligible oversupply. Government after government has recognised this, which is why they have supported it. If government actually wants to reduce immigration, then it needs to discuss how it will reduce demand for workers (deliberate industry closures), or meet that demand from home resources.

    Leaving the EU is not a solution to this problem, and I am sure the current government knows that perfectly. Hence their predicament.

  19. @Passtherock – FTAs not being the be all and end all.

    Colin’s replies to you on this point, I completely agree with. I would point out that having our seat back on the WTO and being able to agree our own trade deals is just one facet of Brexit.

    The cry from the Remain lobby has always focussed almost entirely on the economics, from Project Fear to the present arguments of ever extended transition, EEA membership etc. Indeed that argument was the very foundation of joining the EEC and the 1975 Referendum. The issue goes beyond economics and to the heart of our attitude and culture as an island people with a long history of independence, common law and as a trading nation.

    Hugh Gaitskill’s “The End of 1,000 years of history” speech in 1962 to the Labour Party Conference raised these issues in detail and was perceptive.
    https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/05f2996b-000b-4576-8b42-8069033a16f9/publishable_en.pdf

  20. NEILJ
    ” we’ve always had the power to end unlimited free movement”

    No, we’ve always had powers to do so, which is not the same thing. Free movement is driven,,like all migration, by push factors, such as unemployment, poverty and demographic pressure in countries of origin, and pull factors like industrial need and employment opportunity and a caring and democratic society in countries of destination. “Power” or powers to control it through border controls visas and work permits orregulation of the student intake is seen in the experience of non-EU net migration in the past decade to be ineffective in any attempts seriously to affect numbers, and will continue to be so under any strengthened system brought into play with Brexit.
    Reducing total numbers of net migration to “tens of thousands: or less than 100,000 is pure pie in the sky and potentially disastrous to the economy and to social welfare if attempted. It is, even as “an ambition”, pure demagogy, or, even worse and more proabable as demagogy runs out of reason , evidence of incompetence and illiteracy among politicians and in government..

  21. @John Pilgrim
    ” we’ve always had the power to end unlimited free movement”
    No, we’ve always had powers to do so, which is not the same thing. Free movement is driven,,like all migration, by push factors, such as unemployment, poverty and demographic pressure in countries of origin, and pull factors like industrial need and employment opportunity and a caring and democratic society in countries of destination. “Power” or powers to control it through border controls visas and work permits orregulation of the student intake is seen in the experience of non-EU net migration in the past decade to be ineffective in any attempts seriously to affect numbers, and will continue to be so under any strengthened system brought into play with Brexit.
    Reducing total numbers of net migration to “tens of thousands: or less than 100,000 is pure pie in the sky and potentially disastrous to the economy and to social welfare if attempted. It is, even as “an ambition”, pure demagogy, or, even worse and more proabable as demagogy runs out of reason , evidence of incompetence and illiteracy among politicians and in government.”

    I agree with that

  22. I found this interesting from the British Election Study about reasons for voting in the 2017 election
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242
    The Conservatives’ position on Brexit, coupled with the absence of Nigel Farage, saw the UKIP vote collapse and the majority of its support go to the Tories.
    More than half of UKIP’s 2015 voters who voted again in 2017 switched to the Conservatives, compared with only 18% to Labour and a further 18% who stayed loyal.
    Labour picked up a few Leave voters, but lost roughly equal numbers to the Conservatives – undoubtedly the party of Leave.
    Despite uncertainty over its position on the single market, Labour was seen as the best bet by those wanting to keep closer ties with Europe.
    Not only did it win over a large number of Remainers from the Conservatives, but also from the pro-EU Greens and Lib Dems.
    Overall, nearly two-thirds of 2015 Greens went to Labour, as well as about a quarter of Liberal Democrats.

  23. British Election survey.

    My conclusion from the survey is that for the Tories to win the next election they need to have concluded a brexit deal,any brexit deal. The better the deal the better for them but even a bad deal from the ardent brexiteer viewpoint, provided it is seen as permanent , would be good electorally. They might lose the UKIP contingent but regain the southern remainer conservatives, provided the issue is seen as resolved.

    That is not to say that they would win but it would give them the best chance of a win.

  24. Danny,
    The problem with only looking at immigration and not net migration is that if you count students as Theresa foolishly insists on doing then you can reduce immigration by targeting people who are virtually certain to emigrate again and are a big gain to the economy in both hard and soft terms.

  25. DANNY

    @”This could be coincidence, but potentially what we saw is a reaction by industry to meet its workforce needs by actively recruiting from the EU.”

    I doubt it -only a quater or so of Non Eu immigrants came to a job-mostly students ( including the fake college scam thing). From memory around half of EU migrants come to a job.

  26. So-after the risk laden sham of non-existent external borders to Schengen -an area of unimpeded travel-we have an attempt to increase security .

    Back to the Future folks :-

    http://atwonline.com/security/a4e-security-measures-causing-flight-delays-european-airports

  27. SEA CHANGE

    “The issue goes beyond economics and to the heart of our attitude and culture as an island people with a long history of independence, common law and as a trading nation.”

    Exactly, for me the referendum was not about immigration, although I want control of our borders, it wasn’t about the economy although I think we will be better off out in the long term, it was about sovereignty. I think many other Leavers voted for similar reasons.

  28. As his South American neighbours queue up to criticize his attempts to stay in power forever Maduro gets support from…………..Ken Livingstone :-)

    Time for JC to revisit that paean to Chavez-“he shows us a different & a better way of doing things”.

    Its certainly different-forming your own Parliament & shooting protesters dead. But is it “better” JC-we need to know :-)

  29. SEA CHANGE & TOH

    I found that stuff on the EU/Africa FTAs really interesting.

    What an awful situation EU created in some of those countries.

    Surely , as Lord Boateng was outlining in the debate I linked to, it doesn’t take much thinking to envisage an agreement which :-

    :-
    * Reduces import tariffs on African agricilutural prtoducts-helping UK Consumers
    * Restricts UK free access to African countries to our Agricultural equipment & knoiwhow
    * Links to Development Aid & partnerships promoting African Agriculture Productivity gains.

    We get cheaper food-they get economic growth.

    ?

  30. @COLIN SEACHANGE TOH

    The UK has a long history of trade but much of that trade was based on empire. The independence we talk about was essentially a captive market we were able to take raw materials and generate wealth. I believe much of our harking back to a bygone era will not replicate without the hard and soft power we used to possess.

    Will we get trade deals obviously yes we are keen on them and others are keen on them and moreover we need them politically will we be able replicate features of our past history I am going to say I remain doubtful will that increase trade and our exports that remains to be seen as aperson involved in technology the real problem has never been exporting stuff it is getting the investment to make the stuff we need that people want to buy I feel that our fixation FTA and trade deal belies the fact that other countries have none of these trade deals and are out selling us in many markets that we would be seen as someone that should be the prime exporter.

    I think what is interesting here when talking to African countries is that we think of them as agrarian Ghana will not be successful on selling cash crops and importing Uk good since commodity cash crops are notoriously difficult to transition into modern economies without investment and protection. I have seen no real change in the fact that reduction of tariffs for such good will change our consumption of such goods as they are already cheap indeed the paper I sent COLIN says that zero tariffs will provision just 1% extra in trade for Ghana

    As with UK technology what Ghana needs is investment and they will only get investment with captive markets and guess what that means for their nascent industries a level of protection. I am not sure Liam Fox is aiming at that since very few dominant countries have done so

    Indeed the history of trade deals for many countries is to force them into very limited markets and therefore no creat a wide base economy. when ytou basically depend on three cash crops for your generating your wealth you are not going to get a balanced economy. What is interesting is the West African Countries are attempting their own EU in order to have more clout in the market place because the issue is not just with EU but with US as well. the agribusiness in the US has huge subsidies indeed they grow so much corn I believe they put the damn thing in everything from paint to petrol and every processed food you can imagine

    I can see an opportunity but as with all thing a breakthrough look much further than I believe people are selling.

  31. Someone floated the idea of Labour u turning to Remain .

    Here is a wistful wish for pro-EU labour harking back to Wilson !

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/29/labour-was-party-saw-folly-leaving-eu-harold-wilson-jeremy-corbyn

    Is JC capable of this ?

  32. @ passtherockplease

    I don’t believe for a second that the deal we cut with the EU won’t include Visa free travel for tourist purposes. The idea of having to apply for a visa (or a waiver) to pop over to France on the Eurotunnel is absurd.

    I don’t need a visa to visit Bosnia, which isn’t in the EU, why should I need one to visit France?

    Once that principle is accepted, it becomes obvious that we will never “control our borders” to that extent anyway; anyone with an EU passport will be let in, so why does it matter if they come in from Dover or Dublin?

    As long as there is a strictly regulated work-permit program, and harsh punishments for employing illegal immigrants, the number will drop drastically. Why would a European come to work for low wages illegally in the UK when they could go anywhere else in the EU and work legally?

    We don’t need an Irish border for people. Goods is another matter.

  33. I filled out a Yougov questionnaire last night. It was political but the questions were quite odd. No direct VI, but several questions about how I would vote in a PR system. My answers felt pretty hypothetical. There was also a strange question about my Brexit preferences “if I had to choose between…” three choices, which were basically: no deal, a negotiated hard Brexit , and a transitional period followed by a hard brexit. There was no EEA type option, nor one for staying in, so I found it a little hard to choose!

    Generally the wording of the questions was poor, imo.

    Any ideas who might have commissioned this poll, or for what purpose? It didn’t feel like a newspaper….

  34. Colin – I am not sure Labour U turning to remain is accurate.

    Labour is a party that was for remain and campaigned (albeit with variable degrees of vigour) for remain.

    Labour is a Remain party.

    It is, though, a party that recognises realities and has to accept the referendum result, to ignore it as it was ‘advisory’ would be electoral suicide and in such circumstances a harder Brexit would likely follow so it is the right philosophical stance as well.

    The notion that the EU may throw some meaningful compromises the UKs way (not just the fig leaves given to Cameron) coupled with a different Electorate in the UK by 2022 or thereabouts could allow a second ref is not a new one.

    A commitment at the 2022 GE to hold a ref on the terms, which would be completed by then but not through Parliament after the interim deal, with a recommendation from Labour to reject, followed by another in out ref should rejection be the verdict from the ref is plausible if still unlikely.

    Even if this is Labours long-term strategy (or more likely one option) they can not possible say so publically as it is way too early.

    Finally, if the parliament lasts 4 or 5 years I doubt it will be JCs decision anyhow (or McDonnell who perhaps makes the key ones now).

  35. Patrickbrian,

    “three choices, which were basically: no deal, a negotiated hard Brexit , and a transitional period followed by a hard brexit. There was no EEA type option, nor one for staying in, so I found it a little hard to choose!”

    Sounds like a Soviet election :D

  36. I’m on the YouGov panel, though I haven’t seen the poll PATRICKBRIAN participated in.
    I do find that about one in 3 YouGov polls has at least one question where none of the multiple choices accords with my opinion. I tend to answer “don’t know” and then send a moanagram in the comments box, but it never changes!

  37. Considering this is a polling site there seems a bit of reluctance to discuss the BES study released today, with just a couple of refs above. Here is the link to the commentary:

    http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-brexit-election-the-2017-general-election-in-ten-charts/#.WYBMs-mQyUk

    My conclusion is that it WAS a Brexit election. By talking exclusively about Brexit Theresa attracted UKIP voters but made many Remain voters very keen to try and stop her vision of Brexit. Meanwhile the media (and the major Parties) made the campaign very presidential.
    Theresa May failed the presidential beauty contest and Jeremy Corbyn passed it. Simultaneously, Labour produced a very attractive (if highly unrealistic) anti-austerity manifesto which helped scoop up Lib Dem and Green votes. I suspect that in places where austerity has bitten harder like the North of England, that outweighed Brexit and rather more UKIP, Lib Dem, Green and Tory voters went Labour than in other places (cf. Huddersfield, for example).

    Anyway, on both Brexit and austerity, it was very much a “stop Theresa” election and she only has herself to blame for that…

  38. What I find most interesting from the BES is that undecideds broke almost entirely for Labour during the campaign.

  39. @colin

    “So-after the risk laden sham of non-existent external borders to Schengen -an area of unimpeded travel-we have an attempt to increase security .”

    Could you link to evidence as to when the external borders of the Schengen area were not controlled?

  40. Just by the way, there was also a question about whether Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. Since the courts have just decided he should not, that seems to me entirely hypothetical. Feels like someone fishing for justification for something – but what?

    I’ve become a good deal more savvy about polls thanks to this forum.

  41. @ John Pilgrim. 30.07.17 4.21am

    Many thanks for replying … I appreciate your knowledge and time. Apologies for late response.

    ‘in endogenous value systems (as Ivan Illich argues) those western institutionally defined goods may not be as important as feasting or ritual to offset witchcraft, other evil or define status, and related traditional medicines or to get drunk and confer with the ancestors – all of which may for the people concerned be part of an enjoyable daily life and add up to a – to them – rational economy and exchange system.’

    That is such a useful insight. I suspect that there are parallels with ordinary everyday life in the UK … but that may well be the subject of the Kinship book that you cite. The exchange system seems to me to be alive and well in friendship groups, communities and even online. The train only has to break down for such a system to quickly evolve amongst strangers. Grenfell was also a salutary example.

    However, it particularly reminded me of a documentary, some years ago, which was about a medical doctor searching for indigenous medicines found in various forests. I believe the episode, I remember, was from Indonesia but it was somewhere in that region. It seemed that laws had been passed to make it illegal to dwell in the forest (the inclosure Act again?) but the doctor found a small community who were living illegally in the old way.

    There were two features that particularly struck me. The 80y old man cut down a tree (Cassava or similar) which fed everyone in the family, including chickens and livestock…. the work of less than an hour.

    The rest of the day (but probably not for the women) was spent in enjoyment and having a wonderful time. The religious belief was that the ancestors were permanently around looking to lure the living over into the after life, by inducing illness. Hence, the imperative was to make life as beautiful and happy as possible. I’d certainly prefer that belief system over brimstone and hellfire….

  42. JIM JAM

    Thanks.

    Your final para is interesting :-)

  43. Interesting developments as the Home Secretary meets social media companies.

    Ms Rudd told the BBC that the UK government supported encryption, with caveats.

    “We support its place in making sure that we have secure facilities in our daily lives,” the home secretary said.

    “However, there is a problem in terms of the growth of end-to-end encryption.

    “It’s a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information.

    “We want [technology companies] to work more closely with us on end-to-end encryption, so that where there is particular need, where there is targeted need, under warrant, they share more information with us so that we can access it.”

    In 2015 YouGov did some polling on this:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wt26kxdn72/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-160115.pdf

    It’s one of these issues where the Government and the public may desire certain outcomes, but I’m left with the conclusion the majority of the public have close to zero idea how encryption and the internet works, so probably have no technical understanding of the issues that make simplistic ideas to control matters very difficult to implement.

  44. ANDREW111

    I agree about the BES study. Fascinating. The BBC has what looks to me to be an authoritative article, with good graphics, about it here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242

    (possibly just reiterating the link you gave)

    On the face of it, it certainly seems to put to bed that idea that the election wasn’t, in voters’ minds, very much about BREXIT. I ‘m not expert on this, but would enjoy reading comments from those who are (or just want to comment!).

  45. @ Andrew 111

    ‘Anyway, on both Brexit and austerity, it was very much a “stop Theresa” election and she only has herself to blame for that…’

    Clearly, it was a Brexit election in terms of the huge increase in Conservative votes. However, I think the even bigger increase in the Labour vote was much less so.

    I will ignore your partisan comments about Labour’s manifesto but (as you suggest) I believe that the policies addressed a great many of the national problems that are believed to have contributed to the Leave result in the EU referendum. That 18% of former Ukip voters went to Labour speaks to that… and the lack of increase in the 2017 LD vote from 2015 (apart from some LD/Con marginals) also corroborates the finding that for many Labour voters, it was the manifesto and not Brexit which was important.

  46. SYZYGY
    @Andrew111

    “and the lack of increase in the 2017 LD vote from 2015 (apart from some LD/Con marginals) also corroborates the finding that for many Labour voters, it was the manifesto and not Brexit which was important.”

    Could you explain why?

    The BES study shows an almost equal number of labour voters moving to LD as LD moving to Labour. This suggests to me some attraction by LD as the Remain party, some attraction by Labour for the reasons you mention, and a lot of tactical voting for reasons we can’t be sure about. ie a complex picture.

  47. @Syzygy

    The Lib Dems were polling at 10-11% at the start of the campaign – it seems that a number of remainers were looking to swing to them before Corbyn’s decent performance and the manifesto.

    Labour’s improvement over the campaign became a self-fulfilling prophecy – as parties start to improve the in polls, more people begin to see them as viable. Likely many of those ardent remainers who would have swung to the Lib Dems thought there was no chance of anything but a huge Tory majority, and when it became clear that Labour might actually be able to keep that majority under 100 at least, they swung back.

  48. The Lib Dems also clearly gained a lot more from tactical voting in 2017 as opposed to 2015, while more natural Lib Dem voters voted tactically for Labour as well.

    2015 was an interesting election in that there was very little tactical voting, with the Lib Dem’s unpopularity, the electorally inefficient rise of UKIP, and the inaccurate polling suggesting all parties were equally unpopular. In some ways 2017 was much more a return to previous behaviors, with Labour and Lib Dems exchanging votes where tactically viable.

    I suspect the next election could well follow even more down this path, with the Lib Dems picking up a few more seats while losing votes overall, as they are squeezed by Labour in non Con-LD marginals.

    Scotland, of course, is another story entirely; they still have four way marginals, and a much more complicated tactical voting environment.

  49. On the matter of whether peeps are pro welfare or not.

    I seem to recall Anthony highlighting polling on the matter, in which some questions showed that in principle, many people were happy with the idea of a safety net etc., But in practice aren’t so happy if they feel some are taking the mick and getting benefits they shouldn’t.

    Things then hinge on the question of perceptions as to how much mick-taking was/is going on. And alongside this actions of the press in highlighting, or hyping, the taking advantage of the system, which came alongside the rise in UKIP VI a few years back.

1 28 29 30 31