Today’s Times has some fresh polling of Labour party members. It was conducted between Tuesday and Thursday this week in the wake of the anti-Semitism row, though is also the first opportunity we’ve seen since the general election to take the general political temperature among Labour party members.

On that second point, the first thing to notice is the major shift in the level of support Jeremy Corbyn has among Labour party members. Two years ago this was still a party divided on the leadership and unsure of his future. Now they are solidly behind him. 80% of Labour members think Corbyn is doing well as leader, just 19% badly. 74% of Labour members think that Jeremy Corbyn should lead the party into the next general, and 64% of members think it is likely that Jeremy Corbyn will become Prime Minister in the future.

This is a complete transformation of attitudes since 2016 – back then, Labour members were split on Corbyn’s performance, didn’t think he could ever win, most didn’t want him to fight the next election. Now, following Corbyn’s victory against Owen Smith and the party’s revivial at the election, Corbyn’s support in the party looks absolutely solid.

Looking briefly at two of the other recent decisions Jeremy Corbyn has made, his members also back him over both his handling of the Salisbury poisonings and his sacking of Owen Smith. 69% think that Corbyn has responded well to the poisonings, and by 50% to 37% they think sacking Smith was the right decision.

Now, moving on to the anti-semitism row that Labour have found themselves in.

19% of Labour members think that anti-semitism in the party is a serious and genuine problem that needs addressing. A further 47% of Labour members agree that there is a serious and genuine problem, but think that is has been exaggerated for political reasons. Finally, 30% think that there is not a serious problem of anti-semitism at all. Broadly speaking, two-thirds of members think there is a problem (though many of those think it is being exaggerated for political effect), just under a third think there is not.

In terms of Jeremy Corbyn’s own handling of the row, most of his members think he has dealt with it well. 61% say he has responded very or fairly well, 33% think he has responded fairly or very badly. It’s less good than his approval overall (implying there are some Labour members who approve of Corbyn’s leadership in general, but think he’s dropped the ball here) but there is still clear majority approval.

Finally, the poll asked whether Labour party members wanted to see Ken Livingstone readmitted to the party or not. 33% wanted to see him return, 41% did not.

I’ll put a link up to the full tabs when they are released.


928 Responses to “YouGov polling of Labour members”

1 16 17 18 19
  1. Crossbat @ 8.01 pm:

    I share your beliefs, and feel Sea Change has been too harsh in his condemnation of New Labour.

    Alec @ 10.42 pm;

    I cannot agree that farmers are “the most featherbedded group” in the UK. You simply cannot average the top quartile doing pretty well with the lowest third that meantime are struggling on tiny incomes.

    And from my travels today up to near Banff, there are some shocking sights of livestock in grazed-down fields largely mud; much snow still lying, fences down because of drifts and sheep escaping. It really has been a harsh winter in the NE, and even the price of straw bales has shot up.

    So much so that a car racing meet has had to be cancelled at a nearby castle to us because the owners can`t afford to buy the bales to line the route and protect spectators.

  2. @Sea Change

    Well, yes, it’s tricky to defend PFI. I tend to see it more as a political move. If the Tories are going to sell off Public sector assets, and use the money to buy votes, why not shoot that fox by simply giving it to the private sector to begin with.

    I’m not in any hurry to defend free movement either, particularly the way it was done.

    You’re erecting a bit of a straw man though, because you can’t say all the deficit went into PFI. It went into all sorts of things, including wages, school, resources etc. etc.

    And even the PFI stuff, can serve as a stimulus. This stuff can be very powerful.

    Just look at the way that we went from seven percent hit to the economy, more than twice a typical recession, to over two percent growth inside two years!

    Bear in mind, most of that post-Crunch deficit, though large, most wasn’t new stimulus. Ghe greater part of it was just replacing lost tax revenues and paying for more welfare to cover job losses. Maybe quarter was new money.

    Then look what happened to tax revenues, wwelfare costs and business investment and growth when we stared making cuts.

    *That said, it was also supplemented by sizeable amounts of magic money in QE, Brown’s innovation.

  3. CROSSBAT

    Sorry I cannot agree. The New Labour years were timid. Labour held huge majorities but changed very little. There were minor successes in bringing in the minimum wage and abolishing fox hunting. Blair could take some credit for the Northern Ireland peace process although Major had already set up the process.Devolving powers to Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly was more substantive.

    Blair was incredibly lucky on the domestic front. As Seachange correctly points out he came to power when the economy was on the up. His administration correctly invested in the Health Service and education but in doing so some poor PFI deals were struck burdening the taxpayer with poor value for money.
    In the end after a full 13 years in power Labour hadn’t achieved a great deal and will always be remembered for Iraq. That is and will always be Blair’s legacy.

    Then there was the financial collapse a decade ago. It destroyed the party’s credibility. Labour is still in recovery mode all these years later. Factor in the destructive tendency of Blair and his acolytes towards the current leadership and one wonders whether those years in power were really worth it.

    History will not be kind to Blair. In the end his personal vanity got the better of him.

  4. @Mike Pearce @Crossbat11

    Don’t forget that Labour also benefited from a woeful Opposition for two full terms.

  5. SEA CHANGE
    Pleased to hear it !
    He is a Lord-so is “entitled” :-)

    Valerie

    No gender based insult intended.

  6. Some very slanted analysis of NewLab years. The economy was managed very effectively and – to coin a phrase – prudently and the real financial profligates are the Tories, as Richard Murphy has demonstrated. Of course, deregulation of finance and the city, whose dominance over the economy is a cancer which continues to destroy us, was an unforgivable mistake.
    I agree with Mike Pearce they were far too timid and they could have done much more to mend equality whilst the sun was shining (the roof was OK apart from the death watch bankers eating the beams from the inside, where nobody except Vince Cable noticed them).
    PFI was idiotic (mainly the way it is financed through terror about the level of government debt) but as I pointed out to a Momentumite who was using it to beat Labour, even if the new facilities provided for the NHS were utterly useless, providing zero value, the whole of gross PFI costs amount to less than 2% of NHS spending, dwarfed by underinvestment since 2010.

  7. MIKE PEARCE

    @”In the end his personal vanity got the better of him.”

    I agree.

    I soon formed the opinion that politics was just a vehicle for the TB Show.

    The ( still) appalling Alastair Campbell , and Browns heavy mob-Whelan & McBride epitomised those administrations for me in the end.

  8. William Hague put up a pretty good fight as I recall, but the Conservatives were never going to win in 2001.

    We’re still a bit too close to that time, but my general memory of those years is too much presentation as against substance, but on the other hand a bit of healing for the country.

  9. Hireton

    “One thing which seems common to nearly every Brexiter is there unwillingness to engage with facts.”

    Funniest thing on here for some time.

    What you mean of course is that you prefer your “facts” to our “facts”.

  10. @Alister1948

    After 18 years the public were so fed up of the Tories, they were not prepared to listen to them seriously until after 2005.

    I rather like William Hague (he’s a fellow Yorkshireman), and he was way better than than IDS (a real wrong turn for the Tories).

    Sadly, the first Leader than follows after being kicked out of Government is always on a sticky wicket, trying to talk to a public who just aren’t listening.

    The TB’s and DC’s of this world are lucky – taking over leadership of the opposition when the Government they face are on their last legs.

    Hague and Miliband were always on a hiding to nothing.

  11. @Davwell – “I cannot agree that farmers are “the most featherbedded group” in the UK. You simply cannot average the top quartile doing pretty well with the lowest third that meantime are struggling on tiny incomes.”

    Firstly, even if they were poor, they are still featherbedded. In any other industry they would go bankrupt, without the taxpayer bailing them out. Whether that would be a good thing is debatable, but another point entirely.

    Secondly, much of the debate over ‘poor’ farmers misses the point. In most areas (England here, don’t think this applies in Scotland) upland farms were always part time, with farmers doing other jobs. Today. the NFU cite farm incomes only, whereas now and historically these were just part of the household income and it’s unreasonable to think the taxpayer should subsidise one group of workers choosing to work part time only.

  12. @CMJ

    Exactly.

    And losing PMs almost always resign as party leaders nowadays as well, leaving a new opposition challenger.

    Churchill and Wilson did survive and make comebacks into government. Perhaps Edward Heath always thought he could have done…

  13. GUYMONDE

    @”The economy was managed very effectively and – to coin a phrase – prudently.”

    :-) :-) :-)

    Ed Ball’s infamous speech at the 2006 City of London Corporation Dinner bragging about the increasing role UK Financial Services played in the Economy assured the bankers that :-

    ” Our regulatory approach is risk-based which allows it to be lighter touch when appropriate.
    Risk-based regulation means tailoring regulation to fit the circumstances, the actual risks and the real needs of investors.
    The fact is that London is doing well and attracting business and listings because we have a proportionate, risk-based approach to regulation which is flexible and adapts to change. That is why 120 international companies were admitted to AIM in 2005 and a further 90 in the first nine months of 2006.
    To revert to more heavy-handed, detailed or mechanistic regulation which put process before substance would divert us from proper risk-assessment and stifle innovation. We do not intend to fall into that trap.”

    That speech was given one year before Northern Rock asked BoE for support following a run on the bank, and just three years before a House of Lords Committee concluded that Gordon Brown’s Tripartite Regulation system :-

    ” failed to maintain financial stability, in part because it was not clear who was in charge in a crisis and because not enough attention was paid to macro-prudential supervision – oversight of the aggregate effect of the actions of individual banks – in the period when ‘boom and bust’ was mistakenly assigned to history.”

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2009/06/02/the-tripartite-system-was-responsible-for-the

    The Financial Service Act 2012 swept it away creating three new regulatory bodies . The Financial Policy Committee (FPC), within the Bank of England , responsible for protecting and improving financial stability, The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), regulating firms that manage complex risks on their balance sheets, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) scrutinising business conduct.

  14. @ HIRETON
    “You think UK farmers have been ” sold out by the metropolitan technocratic elite” to the tune of about £4bn a year? One thing which seems common to nearly every Brexiter is there unwillingness to engage with facts.”

    The fact for me is that CAP won’t change, and that £4bn will be doled out as 2money for old rope” – massive payments to the very large owners, ineffective payments to small farmers.

    Here with Brexit, we have now an opportunity to completely reinvent the system to benefit the farmers, rural areas and the environment and wildlife. Fact.

  15. Another canary ( whip-poor-will actually :-) ) in the coal mine of our destruction of other species on our planet:-

    http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/03/running-out-of-bugs/

  16. CMJ

    Yep and he benefitted from an incredibly benign press for a good number of years.

    It’s also easy to forget how much goodwill there was towards Blair too. Not just in this country but overseas. I’m sure that his charisma helped smooth over the Northern Ireland peace process. He was a politician other politicians wanted to be seen with. He was young and charismatic. Hell we even won Eurovision within weeks of him coming to power.

    The Tories also paid him the ultimate complement in appointing Blair Mark two when Cameron became leader. By then though Blair was damaged goods.

  17. @Alister1948 – on that point I am surprised that Kinnock didn’t resign in 1987 following a defeat to the Tories, who returned with a 100 seat majority.

  18. Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 42% (-1)
    LAB: 41% (+2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)

    via @YouGov, 04 – 05 Apr

  19. All within MOE but yet another poll showing Tories ahead. I need to go back and check previous parliaments, but apart from the aftermath of Blair’s two landslides this must be unprecedented.

  20. That was a short term, modest blip.

  21. MIKE PEARCE, Cameron was no Blair mark 2. Once the crash happened he and his right wing chums saw a way to attack the poor and disadvantaged as much as they could, and they took it. The city caused the crash and the poor paid for it. Some of the good things under Blair.

    Minimum Wage
    Devolution for Scotland & Wales
    Good Friday agreement & peace in Northern Ireland, started by Thatcher, Major (no idea why she gets forgotten in all of this) and finished by Blair.
    Freedom of Information Act
    Human Rights Act
    Independent Bank of England
    Civil partnerships (although he wimped on full ‘marriage’ this was progress)
    Progress in reducing Child Poverty, sure starts, family credits (could be argued Tory business’ used this to lower wages).
    Huge investment in education
    Huge investment in NHS (+25% increase in real terms) – taking it to record high customer satisfaction, shortest ever waiting lists – very different to previous or subsequent governments who under funded and want to privatise NHS, but obviously lie and deny it.
    Longest period of uninterrupted growth in UK history
    Lowest unemployment for 50 years
    Lowest inflation in decades
    Lowest debt in decades (in 2007 debt was 2nd lowest in G8).
    ‘Banning fox-hunting’. Nope, only a fool thinks its banned.
    Positive & constructive relations with EU
    Kosovo & Sierra Leone. Wasn’t it Blair who pushed for interventions?

    COLIN, you must’ve been really annoyed with the Tories calling for even more banking deregulation then?
    https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/14006/economics/can-labour-be-blamed-for-the-economic-crisis/

  22. I would question the Human Rights Act, which only seems to be there to protect ISIS types’ rights.

  23. If we’re picking holes in the argument, then I’d question Bank of England independence. Having monetary policy accountable to an uninformed electorate is very far from perfect, but it is better than having that monetary policy accountable to literally nobody.

  24. Oh, dear, what have I done? I’ve only gone and started the Tony Blair debate again. Usual arguments paraded by the usual suspects, I see, rehearsed and honed over the years. Absolutely no illumination shed either. Same volleys from the same trenches. Groundhog Day. We must move on and let history be the judge, I think. I was a fan, but it matters not a jot in the great scheme of things.

    Suspending my poll scepticism for a while longer, though, that YouGov is a surprise, isn’t it? I expected Labour to take a short term hit from recent events, but they’ve rallied instead.

    My gosh, these are interesting times as we head into the local elections. Some real votes in real ballot boxes to come. Love it.

    A weekend’s football to enjoy, particularly after last night’s game at Cardiff. Mr Warnock, Colin to his friends (and anagram aficionados – :-) – go work it out. ) didn’t look at all happy.

    Wish dear old Howard was still around. Went to Kiddy Harriers last weekend. Fine game, the soup still delicious and the 3.23 steam train to Bridgnorth still giving its friendly hoot as it it steams on by. In my element, especially after a pint of Bathams pre match.

    England my England.

  25. @Crossbat11

    Mentioning TB sets rabbits loose every time, as does Mrs T.

    Still, nothing to compare to mentioning veganism on a Green forum!

  26. +2 for Labour after all those attacks on Corbyn .

  27. Not really unusual in the first year after a GE Andrew.

    I think, though, this being the first sustained period since just after the Lib Dems creation that there is no significant third force in English politics in vote share terms makes it hard to judge what is a decent showing for the opposition.

    My take is that Labour should be 3-5% ahead by now rather than perhaps 1-2% behind but the view that they should be 10% ahead minimum is based on an old set of no longer applicable notions.

  28. @Crossbat

    “Oh, dear, what have I done? I’ve only gone and started the Tony Blair debate again. Usual arguments paraded by the usual suspects, I see, rehearsed and honed over the years. Absolutely no illumination shed either. Same volleys from the same trenches. Groundhog Day. We must move on and let history be the judge, I think. I was a fan, but it matters not a jot in the great scheme of things.”

    ——-

    What a load of dismissive guff. Telling yourself we’re all irredeemably biased won’t disguise the fact you’re refusing to engage with the flaws in your position, Crossbat. And it’s no surprise there’s some repetition if you guys keep repeating your claims ignoring the counters to your position, but there’s new stuff too, if you don’t ignore it!

  29. @Pete

    “Some of the good things under Blair…”

    ——–

    Claiming all the economic stuff is a bit tenuous when a lot of it was worldwide, availability of cheap Chinese credit etc.

    Stuff where Blair/Brown may have specifically acted, e.g. to stave off dot com crash etc., fair enough

  30. With regards to Cameron being Blair mark 2:

    1) Cameron’s early huskies and hoodie-hugging was very different from what had previously been seen in the opposition leader’s dispatch box. Just as Blair had painted himself as a more modern Labour leader, who spoke the language of aspiration and not class action, so Cameron was trying to shake off the climate change deniers and the section 28-ers. (And if you think such people are still an issue for the Tories now, it was much worse in 2005.)

    2) It is notable that, pre-crash, Cameron was rather in agreement with Tony Blair on various spending commitments, just as Blair had largely committed himself to John Major’s spending during 94-97 (and then, at least, for the 97-01 term of his premiership). Had the crash not happened, I suspect a Cameron government would have looked rather different. (Though also, there may well have been a fourth term of Labour government under such circumstances.)

    3) Obviously as it turned out, the crash opened up space on the right… well, in a somewhat confused way. It certainly opened up space for a “something must be done about this” narrative, and Labour didn’t have one at the 2010 election. In hindsight it is easy to say, but they missed a trick by not saying “rich people caused this, rich people should pay”, which would have accorded with most people’s sense of fairness. Instead, they simply committed to more borrowing, which to most people, me included, felt like putting off a problem that couldn’t really be put off.

    4) I think what happened was this. Cameron was never overtly ideological. Rather like Boris Johnson, his overriding belief was that he should be, deserved to be, Prime Minister. Early Cameron was influenced mostly by Steve Hilton (think that SpAd in The Thick of It who talks entirely in trendy buzzwords), who was naturally to his left. Hence the aforementioned huskies and hoodies. After the crash, when it turned out that this would dominate the net election, Steve Hilton, who had been brought in to do quite a different job, was ruthlessly tossed aside, and George Osborne (who was the “brains” behind most of what happened from 2010-16) became the pre-eminent force behind Cameron.

    5) I think, actually, this is the big difference between Blair and Cameron. It wasn’t that there was a huge cavern between them in terms of their placement on the left-right spectrum. It was more a case of how strongly they believed in what they were doing. Blair fervently believed in his Third Way. Cameron never really believed in much of anything – I guess it’s the classic Oxford Union thing, where winning the argument is more important than actually believing in what you say.

  31. @VALERIE CROSSBAT PETE

    Pete’s list of achievements in the Blair/Brown years is pretty impressive. it was hugely progressive and modernising for the UK. Of course, Iraq was a major negative.

    I can only think of one positive achievement in the Cameron/Osborne years, namely, gay marriage. Everything else is negative, including Libya.

    I think the major downer for leftists, is that TB and GB weren’t bold enough with the majorities they had to achieve even more than they did. They did do a lot but it was still disappointing.

    And of course it is traditional for Tory leaders to talk vaguely left (big society, JAMs etc) but do exactly the opposite, e.g. Cameron and May.

  32. @Guymonde

    “Some very slanted analysis of NewLab years. The economy was managed very effectively and – to coin a phrase – prudently.”

    ——–

    If you look at the whole picture, it’s hard to see how you can say it was managed “very effectively”. It was “ok”…

    Failing to see that there might be a banking crash was hard to forgive, because it is obvious that if you deregulate, you are exposing yourself to a crash. Not just the big one between the wars, but when Heath started deregulating in the Seventies we had the Secondary banking crash.

    This is why we regulated in the first place. It’s also not much use saying we couldn’t see it. That’s the point, when they start messing, they disguise it! They don’t tend to announce “guys, we’re going to poison the system with toxic debt to our benefit, no one will spit it till it’s too late, otherwise we wouldn’t get away with it, hope that’s ok?!”

    That’s why you regulate, to stop the stuff you can’t easily see.

    As for other aspects of managing effectively, it was boom time worldwide. Handling dotcom was good, however.

    The biggest question, is over investing in the economy beyond services like education and NHS. Did we make the most of the growth? I would argue we should have invested more in industry etc. which in turn can support more services.

  33. @Tony Ebert

    In terms of the social liberalism, there’s quite a bit.

    In terms of the economy, much of it was worldwide.

    There’s nothing wrong with listing positives, but the people do rarely even pay lip service to the negatives. Like Blair, they love the spin.

  34. @Tony Ebert

    “I can only think of one positive achievement in the Cameron/Osborne years, namely, gay marriage. Everything else is negative, including Libya.”

    ——–

    Yes, you’re not trying very hard to see good stuff here are ya?

  35. SOCIAL HOUSING

    I see someone mentioned that the London murders are being caused by the ‘titanic concentrations of social housing’ in London.

    Wikipedia has some interesting stats on social housing in europe – the UK is average or below average in terms of numbers. The big difference though, is the fact that many european countries have strict rent controls on privately rented housing and long-term tenancies.

    So in Germany, for example, it you go into private renting you get rent-control linked to the rate of inflation and a tenancy for life. In other words German private renting is like UK social renting.

    The UK rental system is capitalism gone mad; benefitting the private owners at the expense of the renters and taxpayers (who have to pick up the housing benefit bill).

  36. @Catman

    “Mentioning TB sets rabbits loose every time, as does Mrs T.”

    ——–

    Yes, in part because people tend to invest in figures like TB, MT and even Corbs, in a way they don’t quite do with Miliband or Cameron.

    But also because it’s complex and hence something to get your teeth into. TB and MT were both in power a long time, so there’s lots to try and evaluate and reconcile.

    The simple stuff, is over quickly, it’s obvious what the answer is. The complex stuff tends to take longer and get revisited.

  37. @CARFREW

    Well, what were the good things then, in the Cameron/Osborne years?

  38. @ Crossbat

    I am very happy to be nuanced about the Blair years. As many people have pointed out services did improve and there were a lot of good initiatives especially in education where slogans like “every child matters” were genuinely put into practice. Plus there was a general updating of social attitudes and equality.

    However, at the risk of sounding like a Tory, it did seem to me that a lot of the improvements were not financially sustainable in the long term. It needed more wealth redistribution tweaks from those who were doing so well out of the boom years and more investment in “working class” jobs. There was no balance to the economy- basically promoting financial services and subsidising everyone else who was losing out. There was a lot of reliance on short term deregulation benefits and house price increases. Also the ways they raised money via PFI etc have caused problems today whereby many schools and hospitals are under intense financial pressure due to those bad PFI contracts and a general involvement of the private sector. Ditto on housing where there was a short term reliance of private sector as the cheaper option rather than building and buying the council housing that would have cost the government and tenants less in the long run.The way the economy was run made it very easy for the people who had benefited most in the boom to not suffer at all during the bust.

    But anyway onto important matters- you seem the sort who might be sticking with the Panini World Cup stickers even at 15p a sticker so how is the collection going? I’ve always felt UKPR would be the perfect forum to trade swaps inbetween posting our feelings about Brexit. Hopefully when we have left the EU we can take back control of football sticker production and get back to sensible pricing although leavers doesn’t seem to have mentioned this as an issue up to now.

  39. Okay, here’s mylist of the good things that came from the CamBorne years. It won’t be nearly as long as Tony Blair’s list, and some of them are quite minor

    Gay marriage
    Personal tax allowance*
    Ringfenced foreign aid*
    Record job-creation/low unemployment (yes they were crap jobs, but better than none at all)
    Controlled deficit (not eliminated but almost certainly lower than it would have been under another Labour government)
    Cancer drugs fund
    Sugar tax (I personally think this is just a tax on the poor but it seems I’m in minority on this one)

    *These were Lib Dem ideas so feel free to discount them

  40. Overall, more bad than good, but certainly not all bad

  41. New Labour just the same as the Tories??

    From the Daily Telegraph

    By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
    1:25PM GMT 16 Nov 2008

    George Osborne has launched a robust defence of his response to the global economic crisis insisting that he was “absolutely sure” that he was “doing the right thing”.
    The shadow Chancellor said that he had a duty to tell the public “the truth” about Britain’s economic problems and denied accusations that he had risked worsening the problem by warning of a run on sterling.

    He refused to back a programme of tax cuts being drawn up by Gordon Brown which is expected to be unveiled in next week’s pre-budget report.

    Mr Osborne has faced criticism from sections of the Conservative Party over his handling of the economic crisis amid claims he has failed to foresee the seriousness of the problem. Some right-wing peers and MPs have called for him to be replaced.

    The party’s opinion poll ratings have fallen sharply and David Cameron has refused to call for big tax cuts – instead focusing on the need to keep Government borrowing under control.

    ————————————————-
    Well I, for one, am relieved that Cameron and Osborne weren’t in charge

  42. Oh, and I know that many people feel the Cancer Drugs Fund is a bung to pharmaceutical companies in the same Right to Buy is for property developers, but my grandmother benefited immensely from it so I felt compelled to put it on there. Sorry for letting my emotions get in the way of rational evidence. I promise it won’t happen again.

  43. The latest YouGov poll will disappoint those hoping for a Corbyn set-back after his caution on the Russian origin of the Skripal nerve-agent poison.

    There seems lots to be explained yet on the events, and I think the Sunday papers are going to pick up some of the weird theories being floated on the web, e.g.:

    “”Viktoria has repeatedly stated doubts about London’s account of the Skripal poisoning and floated alternative theories, including poisoning by bad fish or an attack by the mother of Yulia Skripal’s boyfriend.””

    http://www.dw.com/en/the-curious-case-of-yulia-skripals-recorded-phone-call/a-43287554

    It looks to me like all three Skripals are being made pawns by both the UK and Russian governments, our Tories having thought the poisoning was a chance to exploit a Corbyn weak point, but have now become apprehensive.

    If the Tory actions are to stay reasonably popular, we need explanations by the Home Office on why Victoria will be denied access to her convalescing relatives.

  44. @Tony Ebert.

    just quickly, some examples…
    – getting rid of some LA jobs that were worse than useless
    – investments in things like graphene and genetics research, things like Tech City
    – rowing back on the examination via coursework in education that lets teachers hide poor teaching and gives advantage to those who can get more help etc.
    – free schools I’m quite keen on, although it depends how you do it
    – he was quite keen on giving democratic choices via referenda. He called THREE referenda while in office
    – overseas aid
    – more health screening
    – Help to Buy. Although of itself, problematic in terms of helping to hike house prices, it shows how you can provide a stimulus without spending much, via guarantees, something that could well get used in other ways in future, if they have enough sense
    – reducing taxes at the low end
    – many approved of his response to things like Hillsborough

    (Many will point to things like reducing unemployment, though there are issues with the nature of the employment. If it continues however, competition for workers may improve pay and conditions).

  45. Anyway, what does polling say about it?!…

    “What do MPs consider to be David Cameron’s governments biggest achievements?

    Conservative MPs consider economic recovery to be the most laudable achievement of David Cameron’s governments, but what do Labour MPs think?

    Q What do you think was the single most laudable achievement of government under David Cameron as Prime Minister?

    Overseeing an economic recovery and introducing same-sex marriage are considered the most laudable achievements of David Cameron’s premiership, according to recent Populus MP Panel research. However, the views of Conservative and Labour MPs differ significantly. When asked to name the single most laudable achievement of government under David Cameron as Prime Minister, half (51%) of Conservative MPs cite the economy. For Labour MPs however, the introduction of same-sex marriage is considered the most laudable achievement of David Cameron’s governments; it is named by nearly half (48%). Amongst MPs overall, the economic recovery is named by 27% and same-sex marriage by a further 27%.

    Calling the EU referendum, winning a Conservative majority in the 2015 election and forming a coalition government in 2010 are also frequently cited achievements. By way of comparison, Populus MP Panel research in 2014 found that MPs considered the most laudable achievements of the previous Labour government to be in the economic sphere, such as introducing the national minimum wage and not joining the Euro.

    Populus interviewed 106 MPs on the Populus MP Panel between 7 October and 21 November 2016. Results are weighted to be representative of the House of Commons”

  46. COLIN
    @ SEA CHANGE
    You are a bubble bursting old spoilsport-ruining all that New Lab hairy chested coming out .
    :-) :-)
    ——————————————————————–
    ‘insult’ , joke, locker room banter?
    I genuinely have no idea what you meant. Can you enlighten me?

  47. @Tony Ebert

    There’s also a category of stuff that some might regard as an achievement, in terms of resisting stuff, e.g, Cameron resisting going down the road of grammar schools etc., in the way that Brown resisted the Euro.

1 16 17 18 19