There were four voting intention polls yesterday – an unusual flurry, largely it appears because of the military action in Syria. YouGov and Opinium were their regular polls, but ComRes seems to be asked on Wed & Thurs in order to measure support for an attack beforehand, Survation was conducted on Saturday to measure support afterwards.

YouGov‘s voting intention figures for the Times yesterday were CON 40%(-2), LAB 40%(-1), LDEM 9%(+2). Fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday and changes are from the previous week. We’ve already seen YouGov polling on Syria earlier in the week, which asked specifically about missile attacks and found 22% support, 43% opposed. Tabs for the voting intention poll are here.

Opinium for the Observer had topline figures of CON 40%(-2), LAB 40%(nc), LDEM 7%(+1). Fieldwork was Tuesday to Thursday. It included only the briefest of questions on Syria; asked which leader people would trust the most to respond to the situation 35% said Theresa May, 20% said Jeremy Corbyn. The full details of the poll are here.

ComRes for the Sunday Express is the first voting intention poll the company have produced since the general election (I was beginning to ponder whether they’d given it up!). Looking at methodology changes, ComRes appear to have dropped the socio-economic turnout model that resulted in such problems at the last election and returned to essentially the methodology they used at the 2015 election, weighting by just standard demogs and past vote, and weighting by self-assessed likelihood to vote. This produced topline figures very much in line with everyone else – CON 40%, LAB 41%, LDEM 7%.

On Syria, ComRes asked about whether people agreed Britain should join the US and France in taking “military action against President Assad in Syria”. 29% of people agreed, 36% disagreed, and 35% didn’t know… another poll showing the balance of opinion opposed to strikes. Full tabs are here.

Survation for the Mail on Sunday is the only poll conducted after the missile attacks, with fieldwork wholly conducted during the day on Saturday. As regular readers will know, Survation typically show the largest Labour leads in their polling, but today’s figures are very much in line with everyone else – CON 40%(+2), LAB 40%(-5), LDEM 9%(nc).

Survation asked about whether people supported the “missile strikes on Syrian government facilities overnight in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack”. 36% of people said they supported it, 40% said they were opposed – a closer division than in some of the pre-strike polling, which may be because the question specifically linked it to the chemical attack, or may be because people just become more supportive once it has actually happened.

Survation also found 54% of people thought May should have sought Parliamentary support beforehand (30% did not), but on balance tend to approve of how she has handled the situation. 37% think she has dealt with it well, 29% badly. In contrast 19% think that Jeremy Corbyn has handled it well, 36% badly. Full tables are here.

Looking at the situation overall, headline voting intention polls continue to show Labour and Conservative neck-and-neck on average. On Syria, differently worded questions produced results that vary from clear opposition to just slightly more opposition than support, but it’s clear the public did not whole-heartedly support military action in Syria.

732 Responses to “Survation, ComRes, Survation and YouGov polls on voting intention and Syria”

1 12 13 14 15
  1. @Turk

    Well we don’t know for sure how many in your line of work might be sociopathic and a few bricks short, so following your reasoning do you recommend we hound all farmers just make sure, and start with a presumption of guilt?

  2. COLIN

    “I wish these people would just say-Look I don’t agree with any border controls for people at all. I want to see unfettered immigration.”

    These people, Colin? I am not sure if you would include me – but to address a source of confusion, or of intentional misinformation on the part of those who have responsibility for policy and practice: illegal migration, as discussed in statements, regrettably by both party spokesmen, includes everyone who does not have formal registration and paperwork. This includes people a majority of whom have come here to work, have gone through great difficulties and sometimes dangers to do so, and who did not have the good fortune of passing through the immigration system.
    They are a bit like people who respond to the temptation of going into a poorly guarded or fenced industirial site, full of marketable stuff to pinch, or of dangerous materials and places.
    My position – and if you look at it – the whole of the EU Agenda programme, and that of German state policy, which offered entry to hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants/economic migrants, was (a) that the reason for doing so was for the benefit of the domestic economy and for the demograpic balance which would ensure the future pensions and care of an ageing population, and (b) that it is the responsibility of the country and continent which has created the imbalance of development which attracts unlicenced migration to provide the means of licencing and legitimacy,; and that where that responsibility has failed, regardless of reason, it has the responsibility to behave with humanity, and recognition of the cause of a lack legality. and with competence in responding to it.
    In that regard, your quoted Der Spiegel article appeared to be describing incompetence in the management of specific immigrant groups, a failure in the task which the German local authorities and government set themselves, rather than an inherently hostile society.

  3. @John

    I’m not sure that’s at all clear.

    Do you support laws that restrict the right to live and work in the UK?

    Do you support efforts to prevent people entering the UK to live and work who are not entitled to do so?

    Do you support efforts to identify and remove people who have already entered the UK to live and work who are not entitled to do so?

    Most citizens would answer an emphatic “Yes” to all three, and only then start to attach conditions and caveats.

    I get the impression that some people commenting here barely agree with the first proposition and perhaps not at all with the other two.

  4. @Neil A

    “Do you support efforts to prevent people entering the UK to live and work who are not entitled to do so?”


    Thus is very one-dimensional. Not many campaign for illegal immigration. The issue is about whether the severity of the measures are justified.

    There’s lots of restrictions on all kinds of things we could implement on the basis that harm might result otherwise.

    We might implement draconian measures on driving, alcohol, many things, if we don’t care about other aspects, knock-on effects, fairness to the innocent dragged through the mire etc.

  5. Joseph1832,
    ” To a lot of Leavers (myself included) the EU has been trying to teach us a lesson, and has never negotiated on the basis of establishing a lasting international relationship with the EU.”

    I have never understood why the EU would negotiate a special deal with the UK. Why would it? It doesnt have such deals with anyone else. The whole principle of the thing is that it is a special deal between members, and we have said we dont want to be a member. What else has there ever been to say on their part: the choice is on the table, take it or leave it because there isnt any other -for anyone.

  6. NeilA
    No, I think you’re way off the mark.
    The criticisms of the present Government are to do with their knowing treatment of people who had a complete right to live in this country.
    Some of the details of individual cases that are emerging are grotesque,for example, the chap who’d worked on the Railway for decades who came out of hospital after a five week stay to find he had been evicted and his possessions destroyed!

  7. RJW

    I absolutely agree. It’s disgusting. The Tories have allowed an atmosphere of blame and hostility towards immigrants to flourish. May was the Home Secretary at the time this mess happened. She should resign p.

  8. Carfrew

    “The issue is about whether the severity of the measures are justified.”

    Precisely. You have that point exactly right.

    There are general principles of the organisation of a state that few would quibble with, but most would have strong objections to their enforcement in what they see as an extreme manner.

    If you look at the manifesto published by a party elsewhere in Europe almost 100 years ago, and update some of the references, putting them in a 21st century UK context, there are principles there that almost everyone could agree with like “All citizens must have equal rights and obligations” : “Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in the UK only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.”

    Many, on both right and left, would find general statements that seem reasonable to them.

    No one on UKPR (and only a tiny minority in the country) would go along with the whole programme, and only the likes of the EDL would actively support it. Even they might recoil from the methods used to rigidly enforce the principles.

    For those that haven’t read it, the document I refer to is here

  9. @colin

    No the letters are part and parcel of the “hostile environment” policy instigated by Ministers which they have been comfortable with from the outset. You can either support it or not but trying to deflect blame on to civil servants is simply ignoring reality.


    Thanks .

    I think we both know that our basic approach to the whole question of control of immigration differs fundamentally.


    I will wait for Yvette Coopers Select Committee to examine the issue before I make my mind up about responsibility.

    I expect to be told it lies with politicians and officials, but will await the facts.

    The emerging cases are heartrending.

  12. Windrush. Two things really puzzle me about the politics and perception of this. Would be interested to know what others think.

    Firstly, some of these cases have been making appearances in papers and even parliamentary questions for a few weeks/months now. Why did it suddenly all kick off this week in particular? Press finally ran with it? Commonwealth meeting?

    Secondly, given that those in power must have been aware of some of this before now (see above), and are now falling over themselves to apologize, what was their thinking before this week? Sweep it under the carpet and hope no-one notices? Something else (though I can’t think what)?

  13. Trigguy

    “what was their thinking before this week?”


    After all, May demonstrated in the Brexit negotiations (I mean her stance before and after) that she is very close to the person who would kill her parents so she could be a guest at the Dinner of Orphans.

  14. TrigGuy

    “Why did it suddenly all kick off this week in particular?”

    I’ve been wondering the same thing.

    Another possibility is that it is designed to pressure the UK Government into not making similar “errors of judgment” in the next Immigration Bill.

    The policy document was expected to be published last autumn, but was “delayed” and now might appear “in the coming months”.

    Ms Rudd told the home affairs committee in March that the bill would be published “early next year” to establish new rules for 2021 – arguing that the agreement reached with the EU on citizens’ rights had “to a certain extent” had removed the urgency.
    The Home Office said the transition period agreement meant that the immigration bill “will not be needed until after this period ends in December 2020. The bills will be brought forward when Parliamentary time allows”.

    Insiders will presumably know what the current draft proposals are, and if the thinking so far points to a repetition of current practice.

    If so, demonstrating to Government how badly people will react to more of the same, might be a factor in the current publicity.

  15. @Davwell – “The last paragraph of the link is the interesting one, but why is a mammologist heading this, not a toxicologist?”

    Doh! Because he is DEFRA’s chief scientific advisor – it’s his job. That’s why Sir David King, physical chemist, was on the TV explaining the government’s approach to foot and mouth disease in 2001 instead of an epidemiologist – he was the chief scientific advisor at that time, so he got on the telly.

    I’m remain somewhat stunned by your intense fascination with some great UK conspiracy/cover up over the Salisbury poisonings. Do you not understand that Russia is in all practical senses, a rogue state? They want people like you to ut two and two together and make seventeen, which is why they place such a huge amount of emphasis on spreading completely false information and divisive rumour.

    These are the people who used their secret service to dig a tunnel into the Olympic drug testing lab at the Moscow olympics so they could switch contaminated samples from their athletes to avoid detection. All that effort merely for a few sporting medals!

    Have you googled recently ‘Russian reporter dies’? Oh I say – yet another Russian reporter falls to his death this week after publishing a story that embarasses the Kremlin.

    [Question: when was the last time a British journalist fell to their death in highly odd circumstances after publishing something the UK government didn’t like?].

    Perhaps you could have a look at this – – it might help you grasp what Russia does with the news.

    You’re being played here. Think about the fact that the last thing May wanted right now was a scrap with Russia – she’s got enough on her plate.

  16. Yougov/the times

    CON 43(+3)
    LAB 38(-2)
    LIBD 8%(-1)

  17. Fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday so after last weekend’s bombs but before Windrush really developed.

  18. Actually it had developed fairly well by late Tuesday i think but a lot of the replies might have been sent by then.

  19. @Triguy – “Why did it suddenly all kick off this week in particular? Press finally ran with it? Commonwealth meeting?”

    Pretty obvious really – see here –

    The leaders of 12 Caribbean countries asked May to put the issue on the formal agenda at the Commonwealth summit but were rebuffed. This brought the issue into the limelight, as it became clear to the press that it was becoming an international incident, rather than just another Guardian campaign.

    To my mind, it’s yet another example of a supremely dozy British press (with some exceptions) finally waking up to what goes on in their own country.

    A great example – tonight’s BBC website has the lead story of the death of 28 year old Swedish dance music DJ Avicci (who, he?) with the second story the resignation after 22 years of a foreign bloke who has managed a group of other (mainly foreign) blokes who spend their time kicking a ball around a field in exchange for lots of cash.

    I mean, legal UK citizens being refused cancer treatment has nothing on those stories, does it?

  20. It looks to me like the emergence of the story into media consciousness is down to the good work of Amelia Gentleman at the Grauniad, rather than any conspiracy over the timing of any event.

  21. @ Alec

    “I mean, legal UK citizens being refused cancer treatment has nothing on those stories, does it?”

    Good point. I did note that even at the height of the Windrush business, about half the papers ran with the drink-driving antics of a certain celebrity instead.

  22. @Carfrew/Oldnat,

    But what exactly constitutes the “severity of the measures”?

    Demanding proof of right to reside, and instigating removal proceedings against those who cannot demonstrate a right to reside, seem to me a fundamental part of an immigration system. You can’t really do without them, if you believe that there should be an immigration system.

    The issue in this case is about the government not recognising (through rank stupidity, or more likely bloody-mindedness) that they hadn’t taken the steps necessary to equip many thousands of long-term legal residents with the ability to prove their right to reside. It is also about the deaf ear that was turned to the mounting evidence that this was causing legal residents to be wrongly accused of being illegal immigrants (one thing I find strange is that from the Guardian’s casework, it seems like quite a few of these cases had been recognised and resolved long, long before the furore arose in the past week – which paints the Home Office in an event worse light, really. They’d already discovered cases where they’d persecuted people only to eventually discover they were wrong. Just one such case should have triggered an urgent review, but it seems there may have been dozens or even hundreds).

    For me, requiring proof of entitlement before allowing people to access services is perfectly sensible – but it requires a system where that proof of entitlment is readily available, and where if establishing it is difficult, officials are helpful and constructive not closed-minded and officious.

    So, for me it is not about the “harshness of the measures” but about the lack of consideration for those whose circumstances weren’t given proper consideration.

  23. @Alec/Trigguy,

    I commented yesterday how the sad death of Mr Winton promptly displaced the Windrush story from the top spot on the BBC website.

    I get that most of the papers are mostly read by morons, or have agendas that take priority over the strict importance of the news they carry. But the BBC? They should do better.

  24. ALEC

    A noble attempt but I think you will be doomed to failure.

    Some people really have inverted the awful mantra “my country right or wrong” – and it hasn’t made it any better.

  25. @Frosty

    Despite generally preferring Tory leads to Labour ones, I have to confess I was a little disappointed by that YouGov poll. It’s probably just random oscillation, most changes are, but it seems only just that the government should take a hit at the moment.

  26. @Alec/Crofty

    Telegraph reporting sources saying that police have identified names suspects for the attack, who are now back in Russia.

    It is all following a fairly Litvinenko course so far.

    I am sure the named suspects will be thrilled, as they are pretty much guaranteed to be successful politicians or TV presenters within a few months of their names being released.

  27. Neil A

    “Demanding proof of right to reside, and instigating removal proceedings against those who cannot demonstrate a right to reside, seem to me a fundamental part of an immigration system. You can’t really do without them, if you believe that there should be an immigration system.”

    We agree about the crass incompetence of successive governments in creating the rules on immigration, and even worse is the removal of discretion on the part of officials in applying those rules.

    The “severity of the measures” depends, not just on the sanctions that are applied to those who haven’t complied with the rules, but the extent to which officials are compelled to apply them rigidly, regardless of circumstances (DWP sanctions are a good example).

    A less severe regime applies in police practice (here, and I presume elsewhere too).

    For example, the Forth Road Bridge is now a “green corridor”, and it is illegal to drive a private car over it. Some drivers are still doing so – some will have done so because they are ignorant of that law, while some will be deliberately breaking it. Police have been stopping cars, and warning them that it is illegal to do so, and letting them proceed. At the same time, they note the registration, and drivers repeating the offence will be charged.

    That’s a rational practice, which appropriately addresses the extent of the problem. If the police had been instructed by government to charge every offender, the PF instructed to seek the maximum penalty from the court, and the law phrased such that the court had to impose the maximum penalty, that would be overly severe (and totally ridiculous), yet immigration officers and others have no discretion in individual cases.

    I’m not suggesting that no one should be deported for not having the right to remain – just that deporting everyone (eg those illegally trafficked into the UK) is unjust, inhumane, and foolish.

    The extent of severity is, of course, a matter of judgment. There are some who want officialdom to exercise the maximum sanctions on offenders, (though not themselves, of course!). Others take a less severe position.

    On the many cases you have dealt with in your career, I would think that you have sensibly exercised discretion.

  28. Neil A/Oldnat

    This is a reply to a discussion last night about people not getting driving licences, which was doubted by you. Sorry about the delay, but I don’t live on this site like some.

    From which I quote:
    “The largest increases in the number of defendants prosecuted were seen in ‘Vehicle excise
    and excise license offences’ (a 21% increase; from 64,000 in 2015 to 77,000 in 2016) and
    Failing to supply information as to identity of driver when required (a 5% increase; from
    85,000 to 89,000, the highest total over the last decade).”

    G’night all.

  29. @Pete

    Vehicle excise offences relate to car tax, and the rise is directly attributable to the decision to abolish the “tax disc” and rely on technology alone. I suspect that the rise will correct itself to some extent as people get used to the change – but I think there is also a “nudge” factor involved. Not paying your car tax used to be a very visible “crime”, whereas now it is invisible. There are all sorts of social reasons why a person wouldn’t want others to know they had an untaxed car.

    This is not really anything to do with car insurance [1] or driving licence offences, for which no figures are provided in the your link to show the direction of travel.

    [1] Other than the requirement for a car to be insured before it can be taxed. But I don’t believe this is the driver behind the increase in excise offences, which is squarely on the shoulders of the tax disc change. I frequently see cars that are insured but not taxed.

  30. Pete B

    Thanks for the figures for E&W motoring offences.

    I didn’t suggest that you were necessarily wrong in your assertion, just that generalised comments about things being “worse nowadays” which aren’t supported by data must be treated with suspicion.

    As to the increase in convictions for failure to have insurance, I presume that the high cost of motor insurance (and the virtual disappearance of TP,F&T options) will have contributed, as well as the increased ease with which the police can identify them (which is what Neil A and I were commenting on).

    I’d guess that the higher level of convictions will have a strong correlation with the number of people charged, so (as always with crime stats) an increased number of convictions may relate as much or more to the efficiency of the constabulary in detection, as opposed to an increase in the proportion of drivers who are uninsured.

    Of course, uninsured drivers are a scourge – endangering innocent citizens, so the Home Office should clearly introduce new legislation in E&W specifying life sentences for such villains! :-)

  31. Pete B

    That’s not really what NeilA was talking about which was people not having personal driving licences and insurance. The rise in vehicle excise offences is linked to the abolition of the paper car tax disc which started in October 2014 (hence the rise from 2015 to 16):

    This was introduced so as to save £10 million a year and it looks like costing around ten times that in lost revenue. I suspect they had the same consultant who advised getting rid of the landing cards.

  32. @Oldnat

    Firstly I don’t think the police are a very good example to anyone, as we routinely ignore evidence of crimes. Most of those crimes have victims, and/or most of those criminals will go on to commit more crimes, so this isn’t really about “fairness”.

    As to “discretion” on the part of immigration processes, isn’t that what immigration appeals are for? Anyone who does not have the “right” to reside but believes they have a good case to remain in the UK is entitled to appeal against their removal, and that is where discretion should be exercised. I quite frankly wouldn’t want immigration officials to just give the nod to illegal immigrants because they took a shine to them, or personally sympathised with their situation.

    As to the bridge issue, I am not sure that’s a very good analogy. You can’t exactly “warn” someone for being an illegal immigrant and then deport them if they ignore the warning. They either are or they aren’t.

    And immigration action isn’t really a “sanction”, is it? Perhaps if you seized all of an illegal immigrants possessions, that would be a sanction. But removing someone from the country who doesn’t have the right to be here is simply returning the situation to what it “should” be, rather than a punishment.

  33. Roger Scully has a new book – “The End of British Party Politics?”

    Electoral choices across Britain became increasingly differentiated along national lines over much of the last half-century. In 2017, for the second general election in a row, four different parties came first in the UK’s four nations.

    UK voters are increasingly faced with general election campaigns that are largely disconnected from each other. At the same time, voters acquire much of their information about the election from news-media based in London that display little understanding of these national distinctions.

    The UK continues to elect representatives to a single parliament. But the shared debates and sets of choices that tie a political community together are increasingly absent. Separate national political arenas and agendas still have to interact but in some respects the House of Commons increasingly resembles the European Parliament – whose members are democratically chosen but from a disconnected series of separate national electoral contests. This is deeply problematic for the long-term unity and integrity of the UK.

    As he points out more specifically in a article in the Spectator (plugging his book) –

    The 2017 general election was the second in a row, but also only the second ever, where different parties came first (in both votes and seats) in the UK’s four nations. But, as I document in my new book, less widely noticed was that the election in other ways saw a genuinely British party politics being further hollowed out. Northern Ireland has, of course, long been an electoral place apart. But 2017 saw those Ulster parties with strongest links to the main UK ones lose their last representation in the Commons. Wales witnessed a traditional Conservative election campaign, very much led by Theresa May. But after starting with high hopes of gains there, the Tories ended up losing three seats to a Labour campaign based almost exclusively on the Welsh Labour branding, a separate Welsh Labour manifesto, and the high-profile leadership of Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones (with Jeremy Corbyn being near invisible in Labour campaign materials to the east of Offa’s Dyke). In Scotland, the campaign was almost wholly divorced from the political debate in England – with the Conservatives playing a leading role in helping to make that so.

    Political unions are potentially fragile things: that is something that we, in the first member-state ever to vote to leave the European Union, should understand all too well. They become distinctly more fragile in the absence of a common political debate, and a common set of choices at elections, to draw people together into a shared sense of political community. No one doubts the desire of Ruth Davidson and her party to defend the union. But may they, unwittingly, be helping to undermine it?

  34. Neil A

    Since May’s approach was “deport first, appeal later”, the idea that immigration tribunals solve the problem seems inappropriate.

    Incidentally, are you advocating that the police should have no discretion, and be required to pursue every report of a crime with equal thoroughness?

    In 2011, SLab came up with a proposal for mandatory jail sentences for carrying a knife in a public place [1]. Such populist manifesto proposals are hardly unknown. However, their policy included removing the discretion from police officers, PF, or courts.

    Consequently, if I popped up to the local shop with a pruning knife in my pocket (having been working in the garden) I would have faced a mandatory jail sentence.

    DWP officials are required to sanction claimants who miss an interview, regardless of the reason (eg suffering a miscarriage).

    I’d suggest that there are very good reasons for allowing officials to exercise discretion. To do otherwise creates an authoritarian state whose functionaries perform robotic tasks based on the whims of the politicians of the day.

    I know that you are worried about your green fields, so would appear to prioritise the removal of anyone you can (or refuse entry to like a Gaelic teacher on Mull who could never earn the required salary despite her being “the brightest and the best”).

    [1] You will know that the actual policies on knife crime adopted by Police Scotland, and supported by most political parties here, have been much more effective than the more punitive policies adopted in certain other parts of the UK.

  35. NEIL A
    “…. removing someone from the country who doesn’t have the right to be here is simply returning the situation to what it “should” be, rather than a punishment.”
    Nor, in the meantime denying them treatment by the NHS, or the right to work, and putting them into a detention centre? That is, for not having documentary proof of citizenship, or being the victim of bureaucratic loss of or failure to establish that documentation in the first place of a group which was brought into the country as a matter of policy and legitimacy?.
    “The criticisms of the present Government are to do with their knowing treatment of people who had a complete right to live in this country.”
    Yes, but my point was that while that is the focus of the argument and while both May and Corby define it by reference to the treatment of illegal migrants, meaning migrants who do not have the requisite documentation, we neglect the wider issue, which is that the people in Windrush generation who are victimised by this failure are collateral damage in a wider conflict between inadequate policies, human rights and rationality in human resource management in the economy..
    The setting in which it occurs is that of a failure to establish a policy and an adequate basis for the legitimation of immigration which is driven by two main factors outside the control of governments: the need of migrants in the UK and other European countries to provide labour and skills for which there are shortages in the economy and in services, and to achieve a balance in the relationship of a young active labour force with an ageing dependent population; and the push of a migration movement from Third World countries experiencing massive population increases, unemployment and poverty and recourse to migration as a means of survival and betterment, occurring in massive numbersand. Since in conditions which lack governance and adequate institutions, it occures by means which escape official control, and so offers opportunities of criminal exploitation by traffickers. At the point of origin, migration which is legitimately organised and paid by their households as a long-term livelihoods strategy isnot going to be stopped by either governmental or international action.
    The process lacks the legitimacy or security of support by institutions either in their own countries, or in countries of transit, or in countries of destination, It is this lack which the EU has attempted to address, together with the governments concerned, the UN and international finance institutions, in a programme primariy devoted to creating employment in counties of origin and to which the UK contributes, but also in creating a structure for the management of migration in counties of transit and outside EU borders. .
    Legitimation and documentation are products of putting those processes into being. To attempt to substitute them by control and legal or policing measures solely with the UK or other countries’ borders, and to concentrate policy or bureaucracy on domestic border control and internal policing, is to generate both inadequacy and oppressive behaviour in the assimilation of migrants whoe presence is in response to need for economic and social development and balance. The criminalising and oppression of people, like those of the Windrush generation, whom the system fails, should properly be seen as an institutional failure, a gap between the essentially economic institutions and demand which brings them to the country and a government and its institutions which inescapably has a duty to safeguard them and to do so primarily by assimilation – in which ensuring that they have identification of citizenship is the most basic duty…

  36. Colin

    “I will wait for Yvette Coopers Select Committee to examine the issue before I make my mind up about responsibility.”

    In stark contrast to Salisbury and Douma, then?

  37. NICKP

    By that remark I mean balance of responsibility-it will be a question of relative responsibvility.

    On Salisbury I waited for the OPCW Report.

    On Douma I am waiting for the OPCW Report, failing which the videos & NGO reports convince me

  38. ALEC

    I have thought of writing something similar to him, but when one realises that his conspiracy theories always apply to the same party , it seemed a waste of time-even Peter Cairns was moved to explain one or two things to him.

    Anyway-good post.

  39. Have not been posting recently, too much to do and weather to good to waste.

    Had a splendid evening with my wife last night listening to two of our favourite string quartets, The Ravel String Quartet in F major and Dvo?ák String Quartet No. 12 in F major, “American”. Sublime music and both of us totally at peace with the World after a hard days toil. Bliss.

    It will be interesting to see if the Windrush affair has any real affect on the polls going forward.

    Have a good day all.

  40. John Pilgrim,
    “…which is that the people in Windrush generation who are victimised by this failure are collateral damage…”

    No, i dont think they are. They are clearly part of the target group, which is anyone who might have difficulty substantiating their legitimate claim.

    The state views anyone who is unable to provide sufficient proof as an illegal who should never have been here, QED. Whereas many regard the windrush people as genuinely legal citizens. There is no category recognised in official statistics for legitimate citizens who have been deported or persuaded to emigrate. Whenever the government talks about successfully deporting illegals, it is including these windrush people.

    ” Why did it suddenly all kick off this week in particular”

    I’d go with commonwealth leaders making a big stink at a high profile meeting, where the government wants to spin how well it is getting on with the commonwealth.

    However, if we assume the governmnet has an aim of stopping Brexit, this whole fiasco discredits harsh immigration policies, and is an opportunity to bring the public round to the idea we should be more generous over migrants. As it will be spun, in particular EU migrants, which is a bit of an irony. So much more generous, in fact, we might even consider giving them essentially unrestricted rights to come and work here?

    U-turn, coming to a government near you.

  41. I really don’t think we have to wait for reports on Salisbury, anyone who is really is grasping at straws. Salisbury has Putin’s dirty evil hands all over it.

    Douma, will probably end up being Assad’s doing. Evil is, evil does.

    The youguv poll is a very good poll for the Tories, really shows how weak and pathetic Corbyn the fraud is, as May is useless and he’s actually losing votes to possibly the worst PM we’ve ever had in my voting life time.

  42. Oh! It’s looking more and more likely that a hard Brexit is coming to an end. We’ll stay in the CU and possibly single market, imo.

  43. TOH, windrush, imo, will have no affect on the polls.

  44. Pete

    Re Brexit I think you are right. It’s a drip drip drip effect.
    As for Corbyn he has performed poorly in recent weeks. As you say May is God awful and is really getting away with it. She is being helped by a highly benevolent media though.

  45. Daily Mail is saying thousands of windrush arrival records have been found, good news all round.

  46. MIKE PEARCE, yes the media is mainly benevolent to the Tory party.

  47. If this YouGov Poll indicates political opinion on “National Security”, it will serve as a useful benchmark for opinions on “Immigration Policy” when the next poll appears-assuming no more significant issues emerge!

  48. PETE

    @” We’ll stay in the CU and possibly single market, imo.”

    Not under TM.

    She would be ditched if there is any sign of her giving in. But I don’t think she will/can.

    Whether Parliament can force it on her is another matter-as would be the consequences.

1 12 13 14 15