Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor came out today. Topline voting intention figures were CON 41%(-2), LAB 40%(-2), LDEM 10%(+4). Fieldwork was the 20th to 24th April (that is, last weekend, just as the Windrush scandal was getting going) and changes are since last month. The ten point score for the Liberal Democrats is unusually high, the largest share they’ve recorded since the election, though the four point increase in a month is probably exaggerated by an unusually low score a month ago.

Jeremy Corbyn’s personal ratings have fallen noticably. 59% of people now say they are disatisfied with his leadership (up 7), 32% are satisifed (down 5), giving him a net rating of minus 27. This is his lowest rating since his ratings rose so dramatically during the election campaign. In comparison Theresa May’s approval rating was minus 17, the government’s minus 33. The rest of the poll had some more in depth questions on leadership qualities. May scored better than Corbyn on being patriotic (by 29 points), on being good in a crisis (by 18), being a capable leader (by 14) and having sound judgement (by 10). Jeremy Corbyn lead May on personallity (by 23 points), on honesty (by 7 points), and was far less likely to be seen as out of touch (by 25 points).

By 47% to 44% people narrowly disagreed that Theresa May had what it takes to be a good Prime Minister. In comparison, 30% think that Jeremy Corbyn has what it takes, 58% do not. Looking at some potential alternative Tory leaders, by 60% to 12% people think that Michael Gove does not and by 34% to 6% they think Gaving Williamson does not (though note the very high don’t knows). Boris Johnson – once the Tory who could reach parts others could not – has lost his magic: 72% of people think he doesn’t have what it takes to be a good Prime Minister, only 17% do. The best net score was for Ruth Davidson – 29% think she has what it takes to be a good PM, 29% do not.

The full data for the MORI poll is here.

Also out today were the tables for YouGov’s poll last week, which came out in the Times over the weekend but got rather overlooked. Topline figures there were unchanged from the previous week, CON 43%(nc), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc). The fieldwork was on Tuesday and Wednesday, so like MORI, before the Windrush scandal had really played out. We will have to wait for the next round of polling to see if that has had any impact. The full YouGov tables are here


149 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 41, LAB 40, LDEM 10”

1 2 3
  1. Crossbat11,
    “Wouldn’t it be nice to get a juicy by-election too in a Tory seat with a small majority”

    If anything, I’d suggest Rudd is seeking to save her seat by dissociating herself from the government.

    The Other Howard,
    “The un-elected Lords continues to defy the will of the people. The sooner we get rid of that chamber the better.”

    I have supported reform of the lords for ages. But as you say a reformed house would have to be elected, and on a different basis to the commons. And then it would compete with the commons for power because it would also have a formal mandate, which being elected on a different basis and time would very likely conflict with the commons. And that is why it hasnt been reformed.

    Would you prefer to be opposed by the curent lords, or a similar one which contained elected members opposed to Brexit?

    RJW,
    “Thursday will give us real votes to compare and contrast to opinion polls”

    I’d agree with Howard yet again, that it will be hard to compare to polls because it will be treated differently by voters. We had a yougov recently which tried to do some local vs national polling and didnt find a huge difference, but without lots of polls concentrated on local elections, it is difficult to use the upcoming result to validate polling concentrated on a national result.

    But also, the lesson of the last election must be the huge number of people who made up their minds during the campaign, which swamped an apparent unassailable tory lead. I’d suggest that right now labour is lagging a bit because it is not being very remainish. If a campaign was called, this would be simple to rectify.

    Depending on timing, they might come out for clear remain, or they might stand on a final review of whatever deal.

  2. I see the Electoral Reform Society is setting up a one-year research post and is looking for candidates.

    Anyone interested in politics and elections, but not necessarily with appropriate qualifications. They even say they are looking for someone ‘down on their luck’.

    Any age acceptable.

    Surely there are a few suitable applicants on UKPR…

  3. The Windrush scandal now seems to be tipping over into other areas and has started to lap at the door of No 10 directly, according to a story in the Evening Standard that No 10 has refused to contradict.

    They are reporting that in recent months, May was pressed by Hunt, Rudd and Clarke to lift the cap on skilled migrants, specifically to assist NHS trust recruit critically needed overseas doctors. despite being warned that the cap was risking patient safety, she refused point blank to budge.

    The entire immigration mess seems to have ‘Theresa May’ written throughout it like a stick of seaside rock.

  4. Danny
    Don’t mind you agreeing with ToH, cos you’re both spinning IMO, the idea that one cannot extrapolate accurately from a substantial number of LE votes to a national figure is eccentric to say the least.
    My guess is that ToH as a Tory and you as a LD are both preparing the ground to mitigate the damage, should the Red Steamroller do its stuff on Thursday.

  5. @Alec – It seems to me that reducing immigration is the one area in which Mrs May is a conviction politician and one on the Brexit side. For the rest of Brexit, I think she is prepared to draw red lines to keep the Tories together but will not cry into her beer if she is overruled.

    Personally I don’t understand her immigrant obsession. I don’t see her as an inherently nasty person but she has implemented a policy that is not only nasty but actually against the national interest. Why? Perhaps it was her successful effort to deport the man with a hook that somehow got to her, like a drug addict with a first shot of smack, or Tony Blair with his first successful war,

  6. POLLTROLL

    Useful reading on how local election results play out:

    https://medium.com/@theobertram/they-didnt-win-bury-d603abe083b0

    He takes the example of the 2007 locals, which was fairly crushing for the Tories, but Labour managed to win the spin war regardless. I think the roles may be reversed this time round. It’s all about expectation management, and it must be said Labour have gotten a bit carried away. I was expecting Westminster to fall about a month ago – but now, I’m not so sure.

    I don’t really think that Labour have really been punting victory that much. Westminster was always going to be a very difficult target because of the way the ward boundaries are[1], Kensington and Chelsea even more so. I’ve mentioned before the historic political stasis on the Council. At every election from 1982 to 1998 inclusive, through Thatcher triumph and Labour landslide, K&C returned 39 Con and 15 Lab councillors – it’s a very divided borough socially.

    What is happening rather is the media talking up Labour’s chances, partly to make things more exciting but also to set Corbyn up to fail. A lot of this is partisan of course – most of the media is Conservative-inclined – but some is also the communal fury at Corbyn for not being one of them and for repeatedly proving them wrong. Every time they fail to get him, the Wile E Coyotes of the commentariat redouble their efforts, convinced that doing the same thing over and over again will magically work next time.

    Of course spinning local election results to give a false impression from a few exceptions is not new – a famous one was in 1990 – involving (again) Westminster and Wandsworth:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/londons-local-elections-beware-of-spin.html

    successful not least because of the parochialism of the Westminster Bubble.

    But one thing that should be remembered is that despite the declared victories for spin for the ruling Party in both 1990 and 2007, the PM was out of office by the end of the year.

    [1] One thing to look at might be whether Labour win more votes across Westminster Council in total, as the safe Tory wards tend to have smaller electorates. London LA boundaries are to be redrawn before 2022, but the massive demographic changes of the last decades aren’t always reflected in councillor representation.

  7. Credit where it’s due: The government have finally accepted the need for public registers of beneficial owners in UK overseas territories.

    Quite why HMG was against such a measure, which only benefits money launderers and criminals, was quite beyond any sensible person, but they have at least seen the light.

  8. ALEC

    Such a register would probably be required under the new EU money laundering regulations

  9. … at least until whenever the transition end, if ever, of course.

  10. The ICM poll is the one I was expect to have been done the previous weekend rather than the last one. Not quite sure what ICM are playing at, as the new pattern would mean both May’s polls will be over bank holiday weekends. Tables are here:

    https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Voting-30thApr18_pv-only-BPC.pdf

    As with many current polls, Labour actually have a slight lead in the basic figures which is switched to a Con lead by LTV. The endless (and mostly ridiculous) attacks on Corbyn and Labour have reduced enthusiasm, but haven’t switched allegience and it looks rather as if the current situation is still the two Parties at about the same level.

    The poll was taken before Rudd’s resignation and they asked There has been a lot of media coverage recently about the problems faced by the Windrush-generation of migrants who came to the UK legally between 1948 and 1971.
    Some of them have lost jobs, benefits or access to the NHS because they do not have the right paperwork. Who do you think is most to blame for the problems they face?

    Amber Rudd, the current Home Secretary 6%

    Theresa May, the former Home Secretary and current Prime Minister 23%

    Home Office and UK Border Agency staff 17%

    Successive Labour and Conservative governments 30%

    Other 3%

    Don’t know 22%

    Option 4 is a bit of a cop-out (though New Labour certainly shares some blame) but otherwise these figures are very similar to the YouGov ones I linked to in the previous thread (and also to a Sky Data poll). Despite some of this being partisan, May clearly isn’t off the hook yet.

  11. Alec

    It sounds as if the government tried to head off that amendment with amendments of it’s own and having submitted them too late felt they had to roll over on the one which was on the table.

    I’m not sure what the difference in wording was but it sounds like the principles of a “good” amendment were accepted and it was more of a question about details rather than objecting to the principles.

    Overall parliament worked.

  12. @Alan and @Barbazenzero – this has been something that Cameron promised and then reneged on, and HMG has been vigorously fighting to avoid a public register.

    The EU will be adopting this, and I think it’s likely to become a new global standard, so events were moving against HMG anyway.

    Their argument was that law officers and tax authorities would still have access to the registers as and when required, but they resisted a public register.

  13. CHARLES

    “Personally I don’t understand her immigrant obsession. ”

    Might this be an explanation?

    There are similarities in the government’s approach to welfare reform and immigration.
    These policy areas were seen by Conservatives as likely to be of party political advantage. The discriminatory policies were also followed by the Lib Dems in coalition and by Labour until Corbyn arrived.

    Immigrants and the disabled were made alien first by government and then by the media.

    The use of targets acted as a signal to those involved in carrying out policy that most means of achieving targets would be tolerated.

    Neither policy is likely to change until this government is turned out.

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/

  14. Guymonde.

    I like ”These older ones are not Ooh Jeremy Corbyn as much as Yuk David Miliband/Chuka Umunna/Liz Kendall”

    going to plagiarise shamelessly.

  15. I should have realised there is not a Labour policy on immigration, post Corbyn.

    It is unlikely that EU citizens will draw any comfort from the Windrush affair. They do not have the advantage of British citizenship.There was little outcry over the spike in racist treatment of EU nationals after the referendum result. It seems likely that the EU will seek protection for the rights of EU nationals by way of the ECJ

  16. Sam,

    My son asked me explain the difference between left and right beyond the Economic policy differences.

    The best I could think of was that the left accept that a less rigorous regime allows some people to benefit that should not but that this is the cost of ensuring that those who are deserving are not excluded. The right, it seems to me, would rather aim to ensure those who should not benefit are excluded and will tolerate some deserving missing out as well.
    Welfare policy and immigration are 2 areas where this philosophical difference is apparent imo, although arguably some of the Blair/Brown years rhetoric if not actions doffed it’s cap to the stricter regime approach.

  17. Danny

    “But as you say a reformed house would have to be elected, and on a different basis to the commons. And then it would compete with the commons for power because it would also have a formal mandate, which being elected on a different basis and time would very likely conflict with the commons. And that is why it hasnt been reformed.”

    My choices would be either a House elected by proportional representation using the party shares of the General Election with a 5% floor – very much a creature of the political parties but of lesser power (I would have thought) than the HoC, and a need for consensus building unless a party takes 50%+ at a GE;

    or more radically (to my mind), a jury system of selection for all UK citizens over the age of 18 (or 16?). Pay would x times (to be decided) the minimum wage; selection would be rolling over three years (so a member of the House would have to sit for three years); there would be very limited opt outs and stringent anti-corruption laws.

  18. As far as I can see the latest polls from 6 companies over the last couple of weeks shows
    Con 41.0
    Lab 39.7
    LD 8.2
    With a slight steady decline for Lab over the time covered by the polls (first being 41, then some 40s and last two 38 and 39) and a slight upward tick for LD (first two being 7 and last 3 being 10,8,8). Neither of these trends is yet significant and could be due to methodology.

    As I understand it, the “national share” from the locals is calculated by comparing a representative sample of constituencies where major parties are contesting all the wards with the general election result there and applying the changes to the GE national share. Am I right with this?

  19. RJW

    “Thursday will give us real votes to compare and contrast to opinion polls, a bit like finding a friendly rock with one’s foot whilst doing a bit of sea swimming”

    Yes, you might be correct, although as i say the Locals tend to go against the governing party as it is a chance for voters to kick the government. I actually think the OP’s are a slightly better guide to what might happen if there were an election on the day they were samples.

    If you don’t mind me asking, how are you, from memory yo have the same problem i have. I hope you are keeping OK.

  20. Alan

    “Perhaps we can find you a really big hat and let you run things. That sounds a much more sensible system.”

    Whilst that has it’s attractions, and certainly there would be no pussyfooting around, clear decisions would be made, we would leave the EU and the economy would go from strength to strength, a lot of people would be unhappy so not really a good idea.

    My answer to you question re the Common’s is no. I am a democrat.

  21. Trigguy

    Thanks for posting the ICM Poll. Yes it is following a trend of Tories about 2% ahead in the polls at the moment.

  22. @Guymonde/RJW

    “@Colin
    I wonder how many of these there are?”

    I know it’s tempting, but I’d resist the tit-for-tat. Colin regularly goes off and brings back a bone, his tail wagging vigorously, and drops it randomly into the UKPR discussion, whatever the topic. This is nearly always either something derogatory about Labour, or flattering to the Tories, and he probably spend hours of his time trawling for such bones. The flattering ones for the Tories are probably difficult to find at present, but there’s plenty of juicy stuff about Labour in the hostile MSM. It’s partisan nonsense, of course, and I’d rise above it if I were you.

  23. Re my post above I should have mentioned that the decline in Labour is matched by a corresponding rise for Conservative. The switch from Lab to Con is real.

  24. Danny

    “Would you prefer to be opposed by the curent lords, or a similar one which contained elected members opposed to Brexit?”

    I would much prefer no second chamber. A number of governments work perfectly well this way, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, and New Zealand to name a few.

    Roger Mexico

    “……. and it looks rather as if the current situation is still the two Parties at about the same level.”

    It actually looks as though the Tories are about 2% ahead, see last 16 polls and graph in Wilki.

  25. ALEC

    I presume that the EC press release of 2018-04-19, which confirms

  26. ToH
    Thanks for asking, I’m now classed as a ‘NED’ ( no evidence of disease) although they still scan me, MRI and CT every six months. Thanks to the wizzy targeted radiotherapy (SABR) I had on two metastases in the spine and pelvis, I now have a crumbling vertebrae problem, BUT that’s a lot better than active Metz. ( A small wedge in the heel of my left shoe keeps me on an even keel).
    I am very happy with my entirely NHS sourced treatment, although it did help that although advanced my cancer was initially contained in the prostate capsule and when it did go on walkabout was spotted and hammered tout suite.
    I hope you’re doing fine as well.

  27. See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-3429_en.htm

    Sorry about the split posts. Away from base and using a tablet with which I’m not yet familiar.

  28. BAZINWALES

    As I understand it, the “national share” from the locals is calculated by comparing a representative sample of constituencies where major parties are contesting all the wards with the general election result there and applying the changes to the GE national share. Am I right with this?

    Not quite. There are actually two different estimates as described in this article from 2013:

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/measures-that-estimate-how-local-election-results-translate-into-general-support-do-not-always-track-opinion-polls-closely/

    […] perhaps the best indicators for what the local elections tell us about how the parties are faring generally are what the BBC calls the Projected National Share of the vote (PNS) and what Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher in The Sunday Times call the National Equivalent share of the Vote (NEV). Both of these essentially aim to be the same thing, an estimate of what the share of the vote would have been if (1) all parts of Great Britain had local elections and (2) the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats fielded candidates in all wards/divisions.

    So not trying to project what the share would be in a General Election, just for that local election would show if extend for all of GB including the parts with no elections that year and allowing for not all Parties putting up candidates everywhere, even where there are elections.

  29. … the register requirements had something to do with the announcement.

    See here.

    Sorry about the interrupted posts. Away from base and using a tablet with which I’m not yet familiar.

  30. RJW

    Good to hear, although sorry about the crumbling vertebrae problem. The NHS seems to have done you proud. I am very well although my PSA continues to rise slowly (doubling every 2.5 years). The gallium 68 PSMA scan (not yet available on NHS) I had in February showed no spread of the disease, which appears to be confined to a very small area in the prostate bed. Indeed it was so small they are not actually sure it is active disease. I could have more radiotherapy but it is not advised at the moment due to possible side effects. No treatment required and continuing with 6 monthly checks. Prognosis good, likely to die from something else first!

  31. Crossbat
    I’m not holding my breath ‘til Colin comes back with some scuttlebutt on the red team, although I did enjoy using RT’s compilation, tee-hee!

  32. Sam

    I really liked your point on immigration and welfare.

    In Germany and Eastern Europe things leftist and liberal parties are repeating the mistake of the SPD and the CPD of the early 1930s that the NSDAP was using anti-Semitism only as a distraction from other issues. Well, we know now that they meant it.

    Anti-immigration and (earlier and again) anti-welfare policies in the UK (or England) are not simply distractions or mobilisation of support – but the Tories (or the current ruling faction of the Conservative Party) actually mean it: inhumanity works against illegal immigration, so we introduce inhumane conditions to fight immigration as such; and we introduce measures against the poor under the cover of measures against those who “take advantage of the welfare system” to beat the poor and not poverty.

    They get the support of both Labour and Lib Dems as those have given up any kind of struggle for human emancipation (the argument between them and the Tories are temporal and only about the benevolence of the state).

  33. Some more economic straws in the wind suggesting that the weakening of the UK economy in Q1 is continuing into Q2:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/01/bank-of-england-under-pressure-to-delay-interest-rate-rise

  34. I am not sure whether in the continuing back and forth on anti-semitism this Ch4 Factcheck has been posted which draws on two polls and raises seem important questions.

    I find the level of some anti-semitism in all parties found by YouGov worrying.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-antisemitism-political-parties

  35. @Sam Jim Jam Laszlo I guess that most politicians believe that the legitimacy of the welfare state and a liberal immigration policy depends on a willingness to crack down on those who are seen as exploiting either. I agree with Jim Jam that the left are more likely to prefer that some some ‘scoungers’ get away with things than that some deserving should suffer. Ironically in my experience, it is the poor who are most likely to be aware of ‘scrounging’, resent it deeply and exaggerate its frequency (Although the latter exaggeration is also common among the true blue).

    Other politicians go further than seeking that the law be upheld. They make speeches about scroungers lying in bed behind closed curtains or planes flying in EU citizens to get free treatment on our NHS. Some of these are opportunist. And yet others are genuinely convinced about the way in which ‘dependency’, ‘prolific muslims’ or some other alien vice or culture are a threat to civilization as we know it. The thing that puzzles me about May is that on immigration she seems to fall into the last category but this does not fit her stance on stop and search or the impression I have of her personality.

  36. ToH
    Very glad to hear your news, I’m about 20 years younger than you and I was told initially when I was diagnosed that “if you were 5 years older then we would only offer palliative care”. I was 49 at the time!

    My life was saved by a chance request for a PSA test, I was symptomless at the time and very fit. All of you UKPR blokes around 50 are entitled to a PSA test if you want one. ( it’s a two minute blood test, no finger up the fundament! That comes later and only if you need it). Seriously, Prostate cancer kills around 12000 per annum in the U.K., and is very amenable to treatment if discovered in time.

  37. THEEXTERMINATINGDALEK

    The figures for Boris, in particular, are pretty shocking, if May appointed him to draw attention to his failings it looks like the work is done.

    Amid the general cries of horror and disbelief at his appointment, some of us suggested that was exactly what May had done and that Boris would oblige. Though it has to be said that the polling was even then suggesting that the Johnson brand was tarnishing rapidly, generally and among Party members. Hence his refusal to stand against May when he knew he would lose.

  38. JIMJAM

    Ne0 l1beralism for last 40 years = little difference left / right.

    Why do the main parties not welcome immigration?

    http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

    “We cannot be precise about the size of the losses from restricting immigration following a Brexit. But we can confidently say that the empirical evidence shows that EU immigration has not had significantly negative effects on average employment, wages, inequality or public services at the local level for the UK-born. Nor, it should be said, are there large positive effects. Any adverse experiences of UK-born workers with regard to jobs and wages are more closely associated with the biggest economic crash for more than 80 years.

    At the national level, falls in EU immigration are likely to lead to lower living standards for the UK-born. This is partly because immigrants help to reduce the deficit: they are more likely to work and pay tax and less likely to use public services as they are younger and better educated than the UK-born. It is also partly due to the positive effects of EU immigrants on productivity.

    Our earlier reports reflect a wide consensus that trade and foreign investment will also fall after Brexit, both of which would reduce UK incomes. Lower immigration is a third channel that will push UK living standards even lower. “

  39. Re Johnson, forgive the perhaps partisan comment I am about to post, although I believe it isn’t.

    I am 55 this year and can remember every Foreign Secretary since David Owen including many Conservative ones, Hurd, Howe, Rifkind, Hague so my point is not anti-Conservative whilst my dad is 81 and can go back to the 1950’s.

    Johnson is the first one I, and my dad, are embarrassed about. Many in this country chortle about some of Trumps tweets and rightly condemn him sometimes but people from other countries laugh at our having a (not unintelligent) buffoon as our Foreign Minister. May wants to keep the problem inside the tent understandably but she would get respect across the political spectrum imo if she sacked him.

  40. RM
    I remember it well, I have been lurking here a very long time now :-)

    It always felt like a conspiracy theory too far, since even having him there in the first place reflects on the judgement of the PM. My theory, for what it’s worth, is that she is actually an almost completely blank canvas who goes along with her cabal of advisers without questioning their judgement. The appointment always looked like somebody thought they were being clever without thinking through the inevitable long-term damage.

    I can’t think of a single thing May has ever done where long-term consideration has entered the equation, and when she finally departs I do not think any remaining reputation she may still hang on to will be worth having for long.

  41. Scotland’s government would like to have control of immigration and opposes the UK government stance.

    https://news.gov.scot/news/migrants-welcome

    “The Scottish Government will oppose any changes to UK immigration rules that create barriers to business and industry accessing the talent it needs to grow, Alasdair Allan reinforced today.

    His pledge comes as the Scottish Government submitted its response to the UK Home Affairs Select Committee’s inquiry into immigration policy this week.

    As stated in Scotland’s Place in Europe, published in December, the UK Government has again been urged to deliver an immigration system that meets Scotland’s needs, and to recognise that many sectors of the Scottish economy are reliant on migrant labour.”

    As in other policy areas the actions of UK government have an adverse effect on the interests of Scotland.

    The 2013 Ministerial Review chaired by Dame Sally Mcintyre proposed policy actions to address the fundamental causes of health inequalities.

    “Inequalities are caused by a fundamental inequity in the distribution of power, money and resources. This has an impact on the opportunities for good-quality work, education and housing, etc. In turn, these determinants shape individual experiences and health throughout life (Figure 1 below).”

    None of the sensible recommendations (see page 6) made can be implemented by any Scottish government – the powers needed are not devolved. Scotland cannot act most effectively to address the fundamental causes of health inequalities in Scotland.

  42. Link to Sally Mcintyre’s review

    http://www.healthscotland.scot/media/1053/1-healthinequalitiespolicyreview.pdf

    @LASZLO 4.27pm

    Others share your view of the Conservative government. Some views can be found in print.

    https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/nov/23/government-waging-war-against-disabled-people

    “Over the past seven years, the government has not so much increasingly failed to secure disability rights under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities as appeared to attack those very rights.

    Successive governments have denied this, but with suggestions that , or killed or contemplated killing themselves after the withdrawal of welfare benefits, it is difficult to see this as merely a matter of misguided policy or economic exigencies.

    It is becoming increasingly difficult not to associate such catastrophic policies with something deeper, something more visceral. We have to ask why does this government and its recent predecessors seem so bent on harassing disabled people? Is there something about us they just can’t stomach?”

  43. As a site dedicated to proper statistical analysis of all things polling, this should interest – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/01/government-claim-of-voter-surge-misleading-says-watchdog

    The government’s own statistics watchdog has condemned their misleading use of statistics on voter fraud to promote their policy of voter ID.

    It really does look like this is a government policy that is being pushed through in the clear knowledge that it is deliberately discriminating.

  44. Alec

    It does seem like a pretty ridiculous statistic to hide behind.

    Another case of many more false positives than false negatives and with those false positives having particularly favourable characteristics for the government party.

    A more suspicious person might suspect that was the main aim.

  45. JimJam

    For those of us who remember former Foreign Secretary’s the two who stand out as an embarrassment to there country for me ,we’re the habitually drunk George Brown and the very slippery and deceitful Jack Straw.

  46. TOH,

    “A number of governments work perfectly well this way, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, and New Zealand to name a few.”

    All of which unlike the UK use a form of PR not Westminster style FPTP, which I am sure you have always advocated was superior to PR.

    You could of course also have included scotland which because of PR is far less likely to have a Government with a majority that hasn’t also got a majority of the popular vote and so like those you chose to mention doesn’t need a second chamber.

    Peter.

  47. @ToH I am also delighted to hear your news. Long may you continue in doughty good health. It’s hopefully encouraging that when it was thought that I might have troubles of a similar kind my GP told me that I was much more likely to die with them than of them.

  48. CROFTY

    @”Sacrilege – probably ghost written by one of those nasty blairites. [Yuk…]”

    Yes -but I think Len has a Plan for them……to become real ghosts..

    @”Actually, it doesn’t much matter either way to me, as I have nowhere else to go when it comes down to actually voting ”

    Sad-and I don’t think its going to change for you any time soon.

    RJW

    @”I wonder how many of these there are?”

    There are nutters in every Party I expect-interested in your favoured source of News-surprised they didn’t find a lot more-or some who are implicated in the Salisbury poisoning or the Douma White Helmets Theatrical Society.

    CB11

    @” there’s plenty of juicy stuff about Labour in the hostile MSM.”

    So- no chance of a few Corbyn disciples beginning to have doubts then?
    Its OK for Tory voters like me to have second thoughts about the party leader-but not Labour voters?

    And you call me partisan :-)

    I remember your well publicised epiphany over the veracity of Polling as you stalked off into the sunset some while ago. So it is certainly consistent that you don’t believe pages 13 & 14 in this Poll:-

    https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-04/pm-april-2018-slides.pdf

    Perhaps IPSOS should improve the balance of their polling panel by including more regular viewers of RT ?

  49. TOH

    Congratulations on your medical report-good news for you & your family.

1 2 3