Yesterday’s Observer had a new YouGov poll of London, commissioned by Queen Mary University London. Full tables for the poll are here.

Labour performed very strongly in London at the general election this year. There was six point swing to Labour compared to a two pooint swing in Britain as a whole, presumably related to London being younger and more pro-European than the rest of England. The first post-election poll of London shows Labour holding on to that dominant position – topline figures with changes since the general election are CON 30%(-3), LAB 55%(nc), LDEM 8%(-1).

Sadiq Khan also continues to enjoy strong support. 58% of Londoners think he is doing well as mayor, and asked a comparative question he rates more positively than either of his predecessors. 58% think Khan is doing a good good, compared to 47% who thought Ken Livingstone did and 46% who think Boris Johnson did.

The poll also asked about TfL declining Uber’s application for a licence renewal. When this was first announced there was a very negative reaction on social media… but of course, that over-represents exactly the sort of people who regularly use Uber. The poll finds that people who regularly use Uber do indeed think it was the wrong decision (by 63% to 27%)… but the majority of Londoners use Uber rarely or never and they approve of the decision. Overall 43% of people think it was right to take away Uber’s licence, 31% think it was wrong. Even among those regular Uber users there’s no obvious sign of a backlash against Khan or Labour. 66% of them still say Khan is doing a good job, 63% say they would vote Labour in an election tomorrow. Personally I’d be extremely surprised if the whole thing didn’t end up with a compromise between TfL and Uber allowing them to renew their licence, but for the moment the polling suggests that the public back Sadiq Khan on the issue.


629 Responses to “YouGov/QMUL poll of London”

1 9 10 11 12 13
  1. @Princess R – there is an interesting article by Larry Elliot in today’s Grungiad.

    He makes the point that of the three huge economic shocks in the last 100 years (the Great Depression, the oil crisis and collapse of social democracy in the 1970’s and the 2008 financial crash) the first two both led in due course to complete change in public perception of politics. Ten years on from the financial crash, we are now seemingly witnessing something similar in terms of shifting public mood.

    He also suggests that Brexit has in effect cleared the decks, and allowed Labour space to be radical.

    The fact of the matter was that 1997 didn’t really change anything fundamental, because the fundamental views of the public had remained intact.

    I was having an interesting natter with someone at work this morning about politics, and we both agreed we have had a lost decade since the crash.

    Most people aren’t much better off, public services have become more and more strained and our political and economic system hasn’t seemingly recovered or adjusted from the knock.

    It does take a while to work through the awkward adjustment to something else. In way, while Brexit has been and will remain tough for a while, perhaps the system required a shock to renew itself.

    Human history is littered with examples only acting or changing when a metaphorical car crash has occured, even though it was predicted well before it happened.

  2. I should add that you can’t automatically equate being elected with agreement with all policies. Thatcher’s economic policy had her pulling badly, but then Falklands happened and trumped it.

    People might like certain policies, but if press make them doubt the competence of those avowing those policies they may not vote for those people. Competence trumps the policies in those cases.

    That doesn’t mean the POLICIES have been rejected though. Many people were always on board with Corbyn’s policies before he became leader. The media managed to put the stigma of the competence question on him till the election.

  3. @COLIN

    Ok I will bite:

    150K houses per parliament of consisting of 5 years comes to 30K house per year

    We have 25M dwelling in the UK to replace each of them in say 200 years would 125K houses per year on average. That does not include the fact that we have more people living alone family break up and the like.

    I am saddened by the fact that she will spend £10B on help to buy and yet less on social housing and given the numbers of people on waiting list for social housing

    https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/may/12/council-waiting-lists-shrinking-more-need-homes

    OK my view is independent of which party pushes this forward we need more houses built than in Labours plan of which I am critical it will build 100K houses over the life time of parliament which is essentially not going to cut it at all so 5K extra would not be seen in my view an improvement.

    I believe you will need 100K council houses per year for life time of parliament to get back to something that will be reasonable after the end of parliament. There is no interest in building social housing it just does not make enough profit. I would put the help to buy money and the extra funding and build more social housing this should help with people spending huge amounts of money on rent allowing them to save deposits and should save on housing benefit too. Indeed anyone on housing benefit should be in social housing in my view the tax payer should not be paying for a lack of housing by boosting private companies portfolios when they could build and keep assets for themselves at cheaper rates than private companies can. It is just not even fiscally responsible.

  4. Warm, Polling, not pulling.

  5. carfrew

    I have my own views on things but am not a committed believer in the concept of “right” or “wrong”. I prefer to allow for something called “opinion” which, generally, I feel people are entitled to.

    That’s not to say that I wouldn’t regard American gun laws, for example, as objectively wrong and I am sad that Howard can regard a country that kills people – often thirty years after they locked them up for crimes committed as uneducated, poverty stricken adolescents – in the most dreadfully cruel manner.

    And that is one of many areas in which I believe that most people would agree that our values are for more akin to European ones than those of the USA. [Bizarrely I’ve never met an American who would disagree with that view but, of course, they are the ones who travel in Europe and – in my case – also tend to be part of the arts/musical world.]]

    Re polling “proving” that Alec is wrong – maybe you can point to that evidence, as I don’t know which polling you mean – though I assume you must mean polling from 1997?

    For what it’s worth many of your posts/views seem to be “right”. Or, to put it another way, they chime with my own world view.

    [So I suppose they might be wrong come to think about it….]

  6. @CATMANJEFF

    The lost decade was predicted as a consequence of the amount of debt that is in the system and the fact that globalisation allows capital to orientate to where the gains look biggest and safest. it meant that the US will always be a safe place for buying bonds especially when the GOP own all branches of government because they will let the debt balloon since they love tax cuts and believe they pay for themselves.

    They love asia because they can make good cheaply, capital loves free markets because it allow capital freedom to move wherever it wants to easily.

  7. “The lost decade….”

    What we lost in the last decade was time. The reaction to 2008 has taken time to work through, but then it always does.

    After 1929, it took a depression and world war to see the sands of opinion decisively shift.The war introduced the idea that anything could be done if it was justified.

    This time round, maybe it really is the combination of the huge financial embarrassment of ‘the system’, followed by the revolution of Brexit, that is telling voters that we can do what the hell we like.

  8. I think even people who wished Corbyn well in his first year were dismayed by his performances – by which I mean the rare speeches or interviews he gave, the way he treated reporters who doorstepped him and so on and so on.

    Whilst some of that could clearly be down to the prism of an unfriendly media it’s silly to pretend that absolutely none of it was down to him and/or his advisers.

    Later, he clearly found a way to campaign in the country with the same effortless brilliance and authenticity that was in evidence when he campaigned for the leadership. “Later” is the critical word.

    BUT ….. talking of “re-writing history” ….. why don’t we just wind briefly back to the local council elections that preceded the GE and ask anyone who didn’t know what happened next:

    “What happens next?”

    Because Corbyn’s brilliance only came to light in that very brief time span. It simply can’t be regarded as something that everybody should have been aware of from the beginning. And it still left Labour losing critical traditional seats and 60 seats behind Mrs May!!

    [And, as Howard would say, all the above is IMO so I can’t be “wrong” about – no matter how often someone tells me I am.]

  9. “I think even people who wished Corbyn well in his first year were dismayed by his performances – by which I mean the rare speeches or interviews he gave, the way he treated reporters who doorstepped him and so on and so on.”

    Not me, or many people I know. The members supported him. I think many appreciated his lack of deference.

    JCs ratings fell drastically after the failed coup as the party was seen as falling apart and shot up when he was forced to be given fairer reporting in the election period.

  10. @Paul

    Honestly, you and your straw men. I haven’t disputed anyone’s right to have an opinion. But some things are not just mere opinion.

    Regarding nationalisation I know the data shows the public on board with it for really quite a while, but how far back I’m not sure. I’ve debated this sort of thing elsewhere… I shall have to dig around unless someone has a source to hand. If there isn’t data it doesn’t mean it isn’t true of course and Blair fans would have to allow for it.

    But in any event it is not wrong to point to the flaws in assuming things have changed. It is entirely ok for me to point out a mechanism by which the electoral outcomes change while opinion on particular issues may not. E.g. split votes.

    In order to substantiate the claim that Blair’s policies were necessary you rather have to deal with that, and that isn’t just opinion.

  11. I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying that all through Thatcher’s reign the public remained against privatisation of key utilities and beloved institutions like Royal Mail and Post Offices. Just because they got voted in, and did those things and got voted in, doesn’t really mean they had a mandate to do them.

    With a 2(.5) party system FPTP you can’t really claim that getting into power means everything in your manifesto is popular.

  12. @PAUL CROFT

    I think the narrative that the media had and have about Corbyn was actually a reflection of firstly the fact of his surprise at getting elected.
    he was in the early days you could get very good odds on him being Labour leader. The media tends to find a narrative and indeed the PLP did it’s best to cement that narrative in order to get him out

    it meant that there was lots of briefing against him and lots of negativity around him strictly from his own side. The optics looked bad and was bad. I think the doorstepping and the other thing the media does to provoke then tended to make thing worse. For example you would rarely get to be able to doorstep any other leader in that manner which pretty much said that he and his team went through a learning curve of being a leader.

    What is different now is that he has won something, Nothing succeeds like success, and in many ways the general election campaign was a success. The PLP stayed quiet thinking that they would get another opportunity after the expected failure and they would be able to continue their narrative and give the BBC more scoops and mor resignations on air.

    The election changed the narrative. Firstly he was unelectable. Second he did not have policies that people would vote for. The media in many ways were wrong on both counts. he also is good at campaigning and like trump speaking to an audience of his supporters is seen as much more eye catching than watching May

    What has happened since is that he has been in campaign mode in a manner of speaking he has sharpened up his act but were are also now not treated to pieces about whether he bowed low enough at the cenotaph for example. The media itself have shifted more than I believe he has they now treat him seriously and we now treat May with a level of disdain which is caused again in part by division within her party.

    Unity and authority are huge pointers to how the media treats someone in politics. May was seen as someone whom had authority, remember in 2016 conference she was belligerent “citizens of nowhere” played very well. We were sticking it to the EU and the Tories felt good about themselves

    Now we have seen a slow crawl back in sentiment if not substance with respect to the EU negotiation.We have seen the Tories adopting labour lite policies after saying they were stupid and marxist etc. it is hard to not see those contradictions but more important than policy it is optics. The media loves battles of personality BoJo versus May makes for a brilliant media 3 minute segment. media loves something to talk about so her trifeca of coughing, prankster and stage malfunction will basically overshadow what she said. We have no idea what BoJo really stands for and we have no idea what his policy differences are and why.

    We have seen a reversal of fortunes not because of any changes in personality or style. The election result said the media narrative was wrong and therefore we need a new one.

    What is missing in the media narrative is that if May was such a disaster how come she got 42.4% of the vote.

    The media narrative on Corbyn reflect the fact that he got 40% of them vote.

    In truth they both won their constituents I personally believe it will be a close run thing until brexit is over and then I feel there could be a real break to labour but I feel the media narrative at the moment does not reflect the reality of the situation

    More importantly I do not think the media narrative has served us well.

    Is May in trouble? undoubtedly but I would wager that the reasons that May is in trouble is nothing to do with May per se and everything to do with policy and in my view what the media is missing is that brexit is her safety net at the moment and that is never reflected in the media. Would BoJo make a difference I don’t think so this is not a leadership issue it is a policy issue in my mind

    Ever since Corbyn came to the labour leadership most people whom talked about him never talked about policy they often talked about electability you cannot prove electability without having an election. We had and election. he is now electable and thus PLP cannot say argue against him excepting the issue of brexit. Where there is a clear majority of voters supporting remaining in the EU and this was before the shift that undoubtedly occurred during the election.

    [And, as Howard would say, all the above is IMO so I can’t be “wrong” about – no matter how often someone tells me I am.]

  13. NickP,

    “Doesn’t really mean they had a mandate to do them.”

    Unfortunately I think it does.

    I am with you in that it is probably the norm that when a Party forms a Government and carries forward it’s manifesto, not everything in it will have popular or majority support, some might not even have majority support from those that voted for them.

    As an example i wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of tory voters let alone members supported a cut in Overseas aid.

    But you vote for a whole number of reasons and at the end you endorse the whole overall package even if it is a mixed bag.

    Now I think most here will agree that politicians of all Parties like to claim their mandate do do this or that has the backing of “The People” and is being done because thats’s what they voted for when in reality it’s more complex and nuanced than that.

    If anything we should be more concerned about a PM like May dumping her promises after the election that one like Thatcher actually carrying hers out.

    In a sense Parties don’t just have a right to carry through on their agenda, they could be viewed as having a duty.

    Having stood for election on a platform, they should be obliged to at least carry through on it if they win. Things like introducing tuition Fees out of the blue should be more of an issue than bringing in the minimum wage that was campaigned on.

    Still I suppose the public reaction will be the same;

    If they like the measure wither it’s in the manifesto or not it will be, “About time too, Finally they are Doing Something!” and if they don’t it will be “There’s No democracy in this Country!!!”

    Peter.

  14. @ PTRP @ COLIN

    The housing problem is easily resolved if there was a real willingness to do what is necessary.

    Why not set up a soveriegn wealth fund, where people with savings but not getting any return, can invest the money to build houses ? The houses would all be on a rent to buy basis. There could be some government incentive offered to both those investing in the wealth fund and those buying the houses.

    Local authorities could also invest in such a soveriegn wealth fund and there would be incentives to work together with national government in delivering the houses needed.

    National Government departments such as MOD were found to be selling land off at half true market rate by an audit report e.g a former MOD site to the north of Bath, which has houses from £500k to £2m, very few affordable houses. Why does the Government not invest available land into a soveriegn wealth fund for use to build houses, rather than hand free money to private developers.

    Some new thinking is required.

  15. A few of my friends grabbed shares during those privitisations, I was horrified at the time.

    They argued it was too good to miss. Those were greedy times and the shares were sold on the cheap.

  16. @PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    I think she will be there until it 2022 since Brexit will not be done until then.

    I could be wrong, but I doubt that, if she does hang on it will be a very bumpy ride with people constantly trying to get her out of the saddle

  17. “What is missing in the media narrative is that if May was such a disaster how come she got 42.4% of the vote.”

    ————

    It once again comes down to the issue of whether there is something to trump all other concerns. Thus, if you are retired and don’t need to commute any more, and now have a house that’s worth over a million, do you care if the trains run on time? Your main worry might be that you don’t let Corbs have a sniff at snaffiling some of those windfall gains.

    Giving people a big unearned asset like that can trump a lot of concerns, from zero hours to tuition fees. Even if offspring are affected, since the house gains are so large.

    This is another reason why it wasn’t entirely a great idea for Nulab to go,with such inflation if house prices etc. Might be ok in the short term…

  18. NickP
    “I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying that all through Thatcher’s reign the public remained against privatisation of key utilities…”

    Were there polls on this? Most people I knew thought it was great because prices fell and we had the opportunity to make some money by buying the shares.

  19. Obviously Brexit was a factor as well…

  20. @Pete B

    “Were there polls on this? Most people I knew thought it was great because prices fell and we had the opportunity to make some money by buying the shares.”

    ——-

    Well, you can be against it but still take the money if it’s going to happen anyway.

  21. @MarkW

    Yes. The rationale (justification) was that it was OUR insitutions that were being sold off on the cheap, and buying shares (and then seeling at a profit) was simply protecting/getting the benefit from one’s own share of that ownership

    Re 1997 election:

    It’s easy to say with hindsight that (nearly) anyone could have won that election for Labour, but we really don’t know. One thing that Blair did was give massive “reassurance” to swing voters, from promising to follow Tory spending plans to reframing the Labour constitution and removing Clause IV as an issue. There was at that tie still very substantial doubt about Labour’s economic competence, and Blair did a lot to negate that. Without that reassurance, another leader might have seen the large polling leads dwindle as the election approached.

    1997-2001 was about entrenching the concept of Labour as the party of economic competence – the view was that too much radicalism might have meant another one-term government. It was after 2001 that Labour had the real opportunity to do something transformative (just as much of Thatcher’s long-term legacy came in her second term), and this is where things started to go wrong.

  22. “It’s easy to say with hindsight that (nearly) anyone could have won that election for Labour, but we really don’t know”

    ———

    Of course it’s easy to say, but no one here is saying it. Except in jest. Apparently persons unspecified elsewhere have said it…

  23. “One thing that Blair did was give massive “reassurance” to swing voters, from promising to follow Tory spending plans to reframing the Labour constitution and removing Clause IV as an issue. There was at that tie still very substantial doubt about Labour’s economic competence, and Blair did a lot to negate that. Without that reassurance, another leader might have seen the large polling leads dwindle as the election approached.”

    ——–

    But they were already well ahead in polling pre-Blair.

    This is something that is being ignored. You can claim whatever you like for Blair, but it doesn’t alter that Tories were in the dumps after Black Wednesday, economic competence trashed.

  24. Good spot Mark!!

    From the book…

    “Opinion Polls (NOP Feb 1987) showed that the privatisation of British Rail and the electric and water utilities were as, If not more unpopular with the British public than Post Office Privatisation.”

    And as the footnote shows, the trend was toward more hostility to privatisation. 66% against Post Office Privatisation in 1987, 71% against it in June 1994.

  25. carfrew

    “Of course it’s easy to say, but no one here is saying it.”

    I believe it HAS been said here – but I don’t take notes or remember such stuff in detail.

    “Except in jest.”

    Entirely, and obviously, just your interpretation. Not sure how you would know.

    “Apparently persons unspecified elsewhere have said it…”

    I take your dots to mean that I was dissembling. I was not but clearly the way of the internet is that almost everybody is “unknown”.** I certainly didn’t get their name and address.

    ** I am an exception but if I lived in the Sates then I’d go for anonymity.

    As to your your stuff about opinion: you categorically told Alec he was WRONG about acceptance of policies leading up to ’97 and that “polling proved it”.

    Now personally I believe that polling very often actually “proves” bugger all, given how questions are skewed but, leaving that aside, you haven’t produced the polls that would, perhaps, make your case. No doubt you will.

    As to others general points by others about legislation not indicating general approval, that is quite a natural by-product of our stupid FPTP system: most governments – even “landslides” – have around 70% of the country against them, right from the start, so of course they don’t govern with mass approval.

    As I recall Blair was the only one to stay with high approval ratings for a relatively long period – certainly in recent times – and much good that did his long-term reputation, which he trashed in Iraq.

  26. Carfrew, ta.

    I am always disappointed that is quite fiddly to find historic opinion poll data, well I find it hard.

    VI is there but little else.

  27. @MarkW

    Yes. I was struggling to find it which is frustrating when you remember it from at the time. Well done, good sleuthing!

  28. @Paul

    “Entirely, and obviously, just your interpretation. Not sure how you would know”

    ——–

    Well if you’re gonna keep quibbling about it, and your keen on the evidence thing, feel free to show someone here saying it, not in jest!

  29. @Paul

    Regarding Alec’s point my main point is that the reasoning is flawed, you can’t just claim it.

    As for my citing polling data on a polling site, sorry if you have weird issues with that!

  30. Just for clarity, here is what Alec wrote:

    “The fact of the matter was that 1997 didn’t really change anything fundamental, because the fundamental views of the public had remained intact.”

    I think that that is a legitimate viewpoint and, whilst other people will no doubt analyse that period differently it certainly fits in with my memory of the period. We were still largely a small c conservative country at that time and almost everybody on the left was still slightly fearful of a Tory miracle comeback so strongly embedded did they appear at the time.

  31. @Carfrew

    My point was that Blair locked in the polling lead, which might under a different leadership have been clawed back/eliminated by 1997.

    Miliband was ahead by a similar amount to the lead when John Smith died, and still lost. So it’s difficult to argue that Blair simply won on the basis of the existing lead.

  32. @Paul

    “Now personally I believe that polling very often actually “proves” bugger all, given how questions are skewed but, leaving that aside, you haven’t produced the polls that would, perhaps, make your case. No doubt you will.”

    ——–

    Mark’s already provided evidence on nationalisation. I’ve given you additional stuff, from the polling following Black Wednesday to how Tories struggled against Brown. I’ve pointed out the split voting thing etc.

    If that isn’t enough for you that’s up to you because you’ve got sod all.

  33. And – finally – if carfrew can offer polling “evidence” that proves Alec was wrong to say:

    “the fundamental views of the public had remained intact”

    at the time of the 97′ election then, as he says, a polling site is the very place to do so.

    I’d be astonished if such evidence exists. In which case it’s all just opinion.

    I’d go along with Alec’s.

  34. @Robin

    “My point was that Blair locked in the polling lead, which might under a different leadership have been clawed back/eliminated by 1997.”

    ———-

    I don’t dispute it was possible to have a leader that might trash the lead he inherited from Smith and props to Blair for not trashing it.

    Blair was in step with the liberal press however, and it’s easier to get elected if you just do what they want. This doesn’t mean that he had to go down the nationalisation route however, given public hostility,

    By the time of Miliband sections of the press differed over the liberal agenda and with Miliband and Blair over Brexit and you saw how they trashed the Miliband VI by focusing on immigration and then people moved to UKIP. Blair didn’t have that problem back in the day,

  35. @Paul

    I don’t have to. Mark already did it.

  36. @Paul

    Plus, I have ALSO provided evidence if the big polling lead following Black Wednesday, and what happened under Brown.

    You got nowt except trolling the board.

  37. This is getting awks.

  38. ” It was after 2001 that Labour had the real opportunity to do something transformative”

    Blair certainly seized that opportunity to do something transformative. In Iraq.

  39. So how long before a 10 point lead? And will Tory VI start leaking to the lib dems?

  40. Interestingly the conservative campaign for party democracy had a mock election for party chair. The winner of course was moggs

  41. @MARKW

    “This is getting awks.”

    ——–

    Nah it’s just Paul doing he usual. After he has a pop he often tries to rope others in on his side. He used to do it by bringing up his dodgy knee, this time he dredged up the “anti Blair” thing and is labouring the thing with Alec, but I doubt Alec will fall for it!

    Course it could all just be conincidence!

  42. Good afternoon all from a sunny Central London.

    I was an hour late for work this morning and some minion stuck a P45 on my desk. It appears this P45 prank is catching on, well at least I hope it was a prank!!

    Moving snappily onto polls. The only poll that counts is the one that shows the Lib/Dems on double figures. Nothing yet has shown a Vince reboot of the Lib/Dems.

    I’m looking forward to future polling to see what/if any impact TM’s speech has had. I really don’t think it will have a positive impact at all especially after seeing that wee letter fall off behind her. It had tragic written all over it.

  43. Carfrew, I have posted as markw for a couple of years, but before that was a more occasional poster ‘zaspants’ or similar I think.

    I started reading here regularly when there was only one Howard so I am aware the aetiology of the weary histrionics we all occasionally see.

  44. If the speech does affect VI, it’d be good if polling differentiates between impact of the “presentation”… coughing, P45 and Falling letters, West Wing etc., and the actual policy content, stuff on the compassionate etc.

  45. Re 1997,

    My own view was that the 992 GE was the last throw of the dice for meaningful LOC policies and that a Centrist platform with a few left-wing elements was needed to get Elected.

    Black Wednesday eliminated the main Tory advantage of competence and imo John Smith with a moderately more LOC platform than Blair would have won comfortably in 1997 but with less of a land-slide.

    Would a bolder platform have won in 1997, we will never know but I was happy with a steady 1997-2001 approach that established Labour as a credible Government and started to tackle some of the most egregious failings as I would see it of the Tories 17 years.

    Where Nu-Labour lost its’ way imo was in 2001 when with a weak Tory party they could have been much bolder and LOC but in stead started to execute change through imitating the failed (imo) Tory approach of private sector involvement in public services; and, also failed to address the imbalance in the Economy.

    I do think, however, that Alec and Paul are correct that whilst a more LOC programme would have been OK with enough voters a further left programme would not have been until recently.

    It has taken almost 10 years since the crash and the Tories uneven pain distribution approach to tacking the deficit for such an agenda to become possibly electable. Brexit may have brought some youngsters out as well but imo the Crash and Tory/LD responses to it have been the main reason for the possibility of a left-wing programme now having a chance of winning a GE.

  46. CARFREW

    Crikey you’re trying to over engineer polling. Didn’t AW tell us that raw headline VI can cover a multitude of sins…be it falling letter coughing or fake P45’s ;-)

  47. @JimJam

    Well yes, the precise amount of moving left Blair could have gotten away with is up for grabs of course.

    And 1992 certainly affected the party, which is why they accepted the adoption of more liberalism. It wasn’t just that Kinnock failed, but so did the polling.

    So you can understand why they did it. Point is that we can see in hindsight that the polling wasn’t so wrong in 1997 so as to deny victory.

    We also know there is reason to believe the public could have tolerated a move more left, given polling on nationalisation etc.

    There IS a vague on how much, in terms of how much the press would tolerate, and they might then try and hammer away on competence. This would be limited however given the very benign economic conditions.

    Certainly I recall it being touted at the time being that people kinda expected Labour to pretend to be less left wing to get elected, but people expected a shift once elected and priced that in.

  48. I’ve lost count over the amount of Howards on UKPR.

    My guess is there are around 38 of the buggers floating about but one thing is for certain. ..There is only 1 Howard who grows his own vegetables and helps boost the UKs exports.

1 9 10 11 12 13