Here are the mid-week polls so far:

Kantar – CON 45%(+8), LAB 27%(nc), LDEM 16%(-1), BREX 2%(-7)
YouGov/Times/Sky – CON 42%(-3), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 15%(nc), BREX 4%(nc)
ICM/Reuters – CON 42%(+3), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 13%(-2), BREX 5%(-3)
Survation/GMB – CON 42%, LAB 28%, LDEM 13%, BREX 5%

A few things to note. Kantar and ICM have now removed the Brexit party as an option in the seats where they are not standing, which will have contributed to the increase in Conservative support and decrease in Brexit party support (YouGov had already introduced this change last week).

The Survation poll is the first telephone poll that they’ve conducted in this election campaign (all their other recent polls have been conducted online), hence they’ve recommended against drawing direct comparisons with their previous poll. The fourteen point Tory lead in this poll is substantially larger than in Survation’s previous poll, which had a lead of only six points, but it’s impossible to tell whether that’s down to an increase in Conservative support or the different methodology. At the last election their two approaches produced similar results, with their final poll being conducted by phone.

Finally, Kantar’s polling has received some criticism on social media for their approach to turnout weighting, with “re-weighted” versions of their figures doing the rounds. The details of this criticism are wrong on almost every single measure. It’s very easy for people to retweet figures claiming they show the turnout figures from Kantar, but it takes rather longer to explain why the sums are wrong Matt Singh did a thread on it here, and RSS Statistical Ambassador, Anthony Masters, has done a lengthier post on it here.

In short, the claims confuse normal demographic weights (the ones Kantar use to ensure the proportion of young and old people in the samples matches the figures the ONS publish for the British population as a whole) with their turnout model. Secondly, they compare youth turnout to early estimates straight after the 2017 election, when there have been subsequent measures from the British Election Study that were actually checked against the marked electoral register, so are almost certainly more accurate. Compared to those figures, Kantar’s turnout levels look far more sensible. The figures do imply a small increase in turnout among older voters, a small drop amongst younger votes, but nowhere near the level that has been bandied about on social media.

However, if we leave aside the specific criticisms, it is true to say that turnout has different impacts on different pollsters. In the 2017 election many pollsters adopted elaborate turnout models based on demographic factors. These models largely backfired, so pollsters dropped them. Most polling companies are now using much simpler turnout models, that have much less of an impact, and which are based primarily on how likely respondents to the poll say they will vote.

Kantar is the exception – in 2017 they used a model that predicted people’s likelihood to vote based on both how likely they said they were to vote, but also their past voting and how old they are. Unlike many other companies this worked well for them and they were one of the more accurate polling companies, so they kept it. That does mean that Kantar now have a turnout model that makes more difference than most.

Looking at the polls at the top of this post, factoring in turnout made no difference to the lead in YouGov’s poll (it was a 12 point Tory lead before turnout weighting, a 12 point Tory lead afterwards). The same is true of Survation – their poll would have had a 14 point lead before turnout was factored in, and a 14 point lead afterwards. In ICM’s poll, without turnout the lead would have been 7 points, with turnout it grows to 10 points. With Kantar’s latest poll, the tables suggest that the turnout weighting increased the Tory lead from 10 points to 18 points.

Hence, while the specific claims about Kantar are nonsense, it is true to say their turnout model has more impact than that of some other companies. That does not, of course, mean it is wrong (turnout is obviously a significant factor in elections). However, before going off on one about how important turnout weighting is to the current polls, it’s rather important to note that for many companies it is contributing little or nothing to the size of the Tory lead.

1,091 Responses to “Latest voting intention and the impact of turnout”

1 17 18 19 20 21 22
  1. Colin

    The Labour manifesto is a classic Keynesian thing.

    Y=C+I where Y is national income, C is consumption, and I is investment.

    They want to make it (well, heighten it) to: Y=C+I+G, where G is government expenditure (and in this case both current consumption and investment).

    It had a justification in 1932, when the devaluation, inflation policy in the US fan out of steam, and the administration took over the investment.

    So, essentially, the unspoken argument of Labour is that private investment is not high enough (without much attribution really).

    My concern is the investment side – it is mainly because of the length of the investment period and also that almost all would go to unproductive assets.

    It will be inflationary (the biggest example of it is actually the perestroika launched in 1987 and has a life span of 18 months. After the failure of “acceleration” announced in 1985, perestroika announced huge investment in infrastructure – social houong, health service, social meeting places, etc, so the unfinished productive investments coupled with the new social investment for our of hand and economically led to the fall of the SU, alienated senior management, trade unions, professional bodies, etc.) and at a suggested scale massively. To counterbalance it, the government would have to take over the productive investments from the private sector which then would reduce the resources for consumption.

    So, Labour’s economic plans cannot work, and it is unlikely that they intend to introduce it as promised, but could be done let’s say over 15 years, and it would be beneficial, but who knows who is in power over those years).

    [As always the Soviet economic history is the best benchmark for such things (after all, they were the ones who really developed these input output models – Gosplan debate of 1930). They knew exactly the sacrifice and hence stepping back twice in the 1920s until 1929, when the decision was made for the five-year plan. It meant some reduction in living standarss, but a massive step ahead, yet a large increase in repercussions – not really available for Labour). It was so clear that when the planning of the second five year plan started Stalin made it very clear that consumption had to be preferred to investment and inflation must be controlled (compulsory price reductions). “The life has became better, the life became happier.” Which then was annulled by the preparation of WW2) .]

  2. @Trevor “Anyone that knows Greek will know “Hope” can be translated differently…”

    The usual Greek word for ‘hope’ actually means something more like ‘expectation’ and thus can be expectation for good or bad. I went to university on a classics scholarship and although i did not study classics as such there I can still remember enough to read the stuff, and even so I had to look that up. So your point is correct but my guess is few on UKPR will have a lexicon available to check your point. I often find the same with many of your jokes, allusions, acronyms and so on. They assume a level of knowledge i don’t have, and this means I don’t get as much out of your posts as i might.

  3. Re the latest yougov poll
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 42% (-)
    LAB: 30% (-)
    LDEM: 16% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (-)
    BREX: 3% (-1)

    Interesting to compare it to the Yougov one about the same time before the 2017 election (18th may 2017)
    CON 45, LAB 32%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 6%.

  4. @Danny

    We are probably testing the patience of others in continuing this discussion, but we can perhaps defend it because of the political dimension of ‘regulatory capture’ where big business interests manage to take over or at least unduly influence the regulators who are supposed to control the wilder excesses of monopoly (or duopoly/oligopoly) capitalism. That is of relevance both to the merits or otherwise of collective EU regulation, and to the TOH-type belief in ‘minimal state’. In a nutshell, what light does the 737 MAX debacle shed on the debate over whether we need better regulation or less regulation?

    As to the point you raise: an alarm warning that the angle-of-attack sensor was giving erroneous readings would certainly in isolation have helped them understand what was going on. But they were fighting for their (and their passengers’) lives while operating under enormous pressure in a bedlam of different aural and stick-shaker warnings: in that environment would one more have made any difference?

    The training of 737 MAX pilots and the Boeing manuals gave them no knowledge of what MCAS was or how it worked, nor what to do if the unknown system went haywire. To all intents and purposes, they were faced with a computer-gone-mad that was intent on flying the plane into the ground.

    What Boeing relied upon was the pilots identifying it as a runaway stabiliser trim, for which the solution would be to cut out the automatic trim and trim manually. The problem was, that wouldn’t work at high speed (from memory, over about 250 knots) because the air pressure on the elevators was too great. And the only way to get power assistance for that was to switch the automatic trim back on, which immediately fired up MCAS to dive again. A real Catch 22.

    It appears there was a solution available: to slow back down to below 250 knots, and then extend the flaps which would switch off MCAS. But nobody had told them that, and to slow down when stall warnings are sounding goes against everything a pilot is taught.

    I think the fact that the grounding has now gone on for over 8 months, with the FAA refusing to give any timeframe for recertifying the plane, gives a clear indication of just how extensive and deep-seated the problems are. And just how egregious the original failure of regulatory oversight (much of which was delegated to Boeing) was. There are political lessons to be learnt.

  5. I see that the BBC have confirmed that the audience to the debate last night was stacked to reflect the current number of MPs in parliament. Just two lib dems in the audience apparently, which certainly explaines the hostile atmosphere Swinson faced.

    Seems quite an odd way to select an audience for such a debate if you want all of those speaking to have a fair hearing.

  6. So 12% lead is a 5% swing sine the last GE and perhaps 3-4% notionally where BXP are standing.

    Getting close tp no OM territory now.

  7. BBC are now saying the QT audience was weighted to reflect ‘a mix’ of the number of MPs of each party and their vote share at the last election.

    So I can only imagine Labour must have about twice as many seats in parliament as the Conservatives and about five times as many people voted SNP at the last election as voted LibDem.

  8. The new YouGov is really strange, with a massive sample size and unusual breakdowns.

    Preparatory for MRP I wonder?

  9. Getting away from our own problems, here is Der Spiegel on Germany’s failure to play its role in the EU.

    With Angela Merkel very much a lame duck leader and her replacement AKK losing support, it looks like Germany could be turning more inwards as support for extremists like AfD rises.

  10. The Trevors,
    “As £ collapses …”

    Pound was $1.6 before brexit cased it to collapse to $1.3.

    Presumably if labour are elected we can expect the pound to rise again because of the implication brexit will be cancelled. A labour government would have a head start as the economy rebounds from brexit depression.

  11. Thanks to those who helped explain the rules of the EU about nationalisation.

  12. As the explanations differed my take is that it is a complex area that Labour would be able to find loopholes in, even if we Remain.

  13. How Labour managed to manoeuvre a well known professional actress into the audience last night is a bit of a mystery. Be interested to know the backdrop to this.

  14. We`ve just had a CON leaflet hand-delivered in the WAK gathering gloom.

    It has more about Andrew Bowie`s activities than our previous leaflets for this GE, and I accept that he is an energetic MP and has been fighting for many constituents.

    But the stand-out nonsense claim is:- “SWINSON, I could prop up a new Labour leader, even with Indyref2.”

    Somehow, the LDem leader has managed to say some words that the Scotsman newspaper could spin into this phrase, and the Cons here are happy to use a newspaper source despite it being out-of-step with the general tenor of JS`s statements.

  15. Telegraph journalist spells out the picture ahead in terms of EU negotiations if Tories win; worth a read.

  16. In sum explains why “prospects for phase two are so bleak” if Tories returned.

  17. JJ @ 2.50 pm

    Yes, a slight shift in tone by the SNP into giving more prominence to Remain and wanting another EU referendum would shift a few more Unionist votes to them.

    But they also need to consider that having some Lab MPs from Scotland could have more effect in December and January than a near-total SNP majority in the 59.

  18. DAVWEL

    Do you agree with the claims that Tories are doing well in Scotland and should hold 9 or 10 seats?

  19. ‘Conservatives to ban all-out rail strikes’

    Nazi Germany here we come!

  20. @ CMJ – The massive sample size in the YG article and the range of the fieldwork dates suggests it’s another of the “grouped” polls (ie several previous polls combined). It does not cover their latest poll for tomorrow’s ST.

    They’ve previously “grouped” polls to show the regional breakdowns and my guess is this one was to show the age demographic issues.

    I think they like 50,000+ for a full MRP analysis and they might be waiting until after the final “event risk” event tomorrow (CON manifesto)

    However, the would certainly have enough data to give a “sneaky peaky” first look and besides the small move towards the two main parties the polls have been fairly stable

    NB The BXP pulled candidates issue can be easily taken care of by MRP and most models and we know that made a big difference to the headline VI which is fairly easy to “back out”

  21. @TW

    I checked if it was grouped data, and I don’t think it is.

    The fieldwork is noted as 12th – 20th Nov, but the other YG polls collected over that period don’t add up to the sample size.

    I guess we will see…

  22. Looks like a score draw in the professional actor stakes with roughly equal numbers for the tories and labour. I don’t much like loading the audience with partisan plants but unfortunately it’s become part of the political process. Complaining when the opposition plants are more effective than your own is a bit snowflaky. Although tbh I thought the tory plants were more effective but couldn’t make up for the difference in performance between Corbyn and Johnson

  23. ProfHoward:

    No. I don`t think the Tories are doing well in Scotland, but we lack good evidence.

  24. Cambridge Coll/ P Rachel

    If you go to the above link you can see how the BBC edited out the audience’s negative reaction to Mr Johnson to make his answer seem a lot better.

  25. Hello from a cold and wet Bournemouth East.
    GRAHAM. Your joke about Nazi Germany is in bad taste and a great surprise when it comes from you,
    I think the way Ruth Smeeth was treatec and the way the Labour leader chatted and laughed with the person who vilified the MP is more like a Nazi-type of behaviour.

  26. CMJ

    “Them vegnas are really wierd !”

    Do they do Monologues?

  27. Election Maps (nowcast) have updated their seat fore”cast” based on the “now” (ie recent) polls:

    CON: 357 (+11), 42.9% (+1.6)
    LAB: 199 (-12), 29.7% (+0.3)
    SNP: 50 (-1), 3.9% (+0.4)
    LDM: 19 (+1), 14.4% (-0.4)

    See the graphics for full results.
    Changes w/ 17th Nov.

    Polls from 16th-22nd November.

    NB Although into comfortable majority terms a 13% lead is not what it used to be (mostly due to the “Farage factor”) and those numbers will have up to a +/-50 MoE simply from “Tactical Voting” (aka “lumpy” vote) let alone “normal” polling issues.

  28. Not sure what Princess R’s thing is about actors but I believe even some prisoners now have voting rights, so I can’t see why actors shouldn’t express their support for a particular party. If necessary I’d draw the line if they were paid and/or maybe if they weren’t a registered party member of, say, at least 6 months standing.

  29. Chrislane45

    The video appeared to show Marc Wadsworth suggesting Smeeth was working ‘ hand in hand’ with the media, as she attended the meeting on the Chakribati report with a journo from The Telegraph. Her reaction and the confected outrage seemed disproportionate to me.

  30. Prof howard

    Yeah I noticed that last night, it is what it is. Complaining doesn’t achieve anything. We have to work twice as hard, life isn’t fair boo hoo

  31. @ SDA / PR – Re: Using actors.

    We’re used to “fake news” but LAB used a “fake nurse” in recent campaign video.

    Pretty sure all parties are being “naughty” but impossible to say who is worse/worst at getting away with it.

  32. Steam drive

    I was responding to RoC posters complaining about a labour supporting actress being in the audience while conveniently ignoring the plants placed by their own party.

  33. Jim Jam

    “Serious question to our Scottish Posters…… Would not a more sophisticated suggestion that Brexit is more important at this GE than independence and that we will welcome remain unionist voting for us, and not misrepresent what that support means, be more sensible?”

    Serious answer No.

    Any voter who doesn’t already know that this election is about independence, hasn’t seen or heard anything from Tory, Labour or LD candidates who talk of nothing else.

    Indeed, they are probably have such a tiny attention span, that they probably forget that they left the house to find a post box to pop their postal vote in, and it’ll still be in their pocket on Dec 13th.

  34. @chrislane can you give me the youtube url for the video? I put Corbyn and Smeeth into google and could only find references to the attack last night, but none to the original episode.

  35. Actor

    I’m sure there was an episode of The West Wing where the company employed to provide participants to a focus group couldn’t find anyone with the correct demographic so they sent an actor to “act” the required demographic. What could possibly go wrong!

  36. Jim Jam: Serious question to our Scottish Posters.

    Imagine that I am a remain unionist in an SNP/Tory seat who wants to vote ABT but hear SNP politicians say this GE is about independence.

    In other words are some of the SNP leaderships utterances going to help the Tories hold more seats. Would not a more sophisticated suggestion that Brexit is more important at this GE than independence and that we will welcome remain unionist voting for us, and not misrepresent what that support means, be more sensible?

    Remain unionists have put themselves over something of a barrel in 2017.

    If they had not voted in 13 tory MP’s, we would be in a very different place now. Their choice at this election is Remain with the SNP at the cost of a referendum and possibly probably independence or the union and probably possibly leaving the EU in chaos which results in losing the union.

    My own opinion is that the union is terminally fractured, because no one dare do the necessary things to rebalance it and they have not dared for decades. And now it is even harder. But for anyone who wants to give a chance for someone to emerge and for these things to be done, an SNP vote is probably the option which gives most stability and paradoxically gives the best hope of something coming along to save the union.

    And even taking on board that Independence is inevitable on some time scale, a vote now for the SNP is probably the best option for least turmoil on the path to Independence.


    Something like that also happened in “The Thick of It”.

    Anyone remember the Leave-supporting Vicar on Newsnight?

  38. @TCO
    I wrote the other day that Scotland now has Nationalists and Unionists.

    There are probably Remainers and Leavers on both sides, so it’s not so straightforward, but I’d expect the Nationalist vs Unionist consideration to be key.

    There is a similar, but far less pronounced, situation in West Wales where Nationalism is stronger. In East Wales it will be simple Remain or Leave divide.

  39. JiB

    “Scotland now has Nationalists and Unionists.”

    Like most simplifications, that statement is rather misleading.

    Scotland has lots of folk who are vaguely Nationalist – both Scottish and British.

    It also has lots of Unionists – some UK, others EU. some both.

    The most significant group, however, are the “Autonomists”, whose preference is for Scotland to have (varying degrees) of sovereignty within a political union of a number of countries.

    The two extreme constitutional stances – Ultra Brit Nats wanting a unitary UK state outside the EU, and Ultra Scot Nats wanting a Scottish state outwith any political union – are very small in number.

  40. Chrislane

    A country that bans strikes in the way proposed is taking a big step in the direction of Totalitarianism. Very dangerous indeed.

  41. @PTRP

    I’ve not been keeping up with the 737 stories. Is this basically all down to auto-trim settings while AP engaged?

    In FS-2004 (FS9), the 737-400 suffered from auto-trim issues. With AP engaged, the trim would align itself in such a way that when the AP was disengaged, the plane would dive. If you manually set it, then engaged AP, it was reset to the unwanted position.

    It was easily recoverable when one knew it was coming, but the first time it happened, it wasn’t. As you can imagine in a perfect scenario (gamer, not pilot, so letting the AP do the boring bits), the AP was disabled on approach:

    – the plane goes into a dive
    – the auto thrust cuts to min to compensate for speed gain (usually already less than 200kts)
    – if you’re too slow to correct, the plane goes into the deck
    – if you correct successfully, your thrust is at min, and you stand a good chance of stalling

    I always thought it to be an FS9 bug. Maybe it was, but it’s a very interesting coincidence. Also interesting is that it might be an old thing that has been taken out of training:

  42. David Colby,
    “….So I can only imagine Labour must have about twice as many seats in parliament as the Conservatives ”

    Or perhaps it simply reiterates a polling finding from the last election, that conservative voters nonetheless liked labour policies.

    “We are probably testing the patience of others in continuing this discussion, but we can perhaps defend it because of the political dimension of ‘regulatory capture’ ”

    Maybe I could with the first post I made, but not really the ensuing technical discussion. But it is probably as usefull in determining the result of the forthcoming election as multiple posts making seat estimates based on current poll results. Anyway, thanks for replying.

    “what light does the 737 MAX debacle shed on the debate over whether we need better regulation or less regulation?”

    Its very analogous with the 2008 bank crash. The mindset is ‘if it isnt outright banned, then it is permitted’. In neither case was safety the real consideration, whether bankrupting people and institutions or crashing planes and killing people.

    What the private sector did was take a calculated risk. In both cases the risk turned out on the bad side for the general public, but it isnt clear it has done so for the individuals or corporations making those decisions. They have different goals to the national interest. They must have different goals, because they are employees of a company and their central job aim is to take the maximum money from the general public in return for the minimum quantity of goods. Whereas a government generally has exactly the opposite goal, to take the minimum in taxation and return the maximum in goods/services.

    While the company seeks to minimise the services it gives to the public, the state frequently minimises its revenues. Neither extreme works well.

  43. Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 47% (+3)
    LAB: 28% (-)
    LDEM: 12% (-2)
    BREX: 3% (-3)

    via @OpiniumResearch
    Chgs. w/ 15 Nov

    NB Opinium are normally one of the highest for CON and at 3% there ain’t much BREX VI left to squeeze!


    1/ Hindsight: Back in Sep they needed to kick Boris out and agree on a new PM whose sole purpose was to get an extension long enough for a ref (or a GE then a ref) – FAILED
    The 21 Tory rebel MP did not want to remove Johnson they wanted to no deal off the table the majority of them wanted to ‘save’ the Tories and thus their primary goal was to go for anything other than a GNU. As you yourself have said several times there isn’t enough Tories that would remove Johnson as PM and thus the rebel alliance had to go the legislative approach. I know what everyone other than the most of the tory 21 wanted to do but none of the alternatives would have worked because simply put they did not have the numbers.
    Your mistake has always been to lump what you call the remainers alliance motivations as a single unit. it would be fairer to say that the 21 tory rebels were “we need closely aligned” dealers essentially soft brexiteers, They were not remainers but they used remainers to extend their influence.

    Remainers had no choice without enough MPs for their own approach it was never going to work. The DUP suffered a similar issue believing that the Johnson Tories were unionists they are not as their voting intention are not that interetsed in unionism per se. Again this mismatch of motivation has been the most interesting part of the whole affair.

    2/ More recent: Having decided to pin their hopes on Farage splitting the Leave vote they needed:

    – SNP to take X seats from SCON
    – LDEM to take Y seats from CON
    – LAB to only lose Z seats to CON

    This one I have a level of sympathy for this view but again as you pointed out and I have agreed the following: Does Farage want to be responsible for not having brexit done? Of course he does not so he is basically lost in mire of wanting Brexit but also wanting influence he has no control on what Brexit would happen and cannot say he was the architect of it. In that sense Cummings/Johnson had BXP caught in a vice. I am surprised that he has given them a clear run at an overall majority where as I would have picked a set of marginals be they Tory or labour where I could win and cause disruption. if the polls are correct my influence is broken anyway if they are wrong I could hold the balance of power he does not give himself that option and I would have been especially unconvinced having seen the DUP shafted (although I had predicted that was more likely to happen than the Ireland being shafted by the EU)

    Bottomline is that I have said before

    Tory majority is 50%

    Tory minority \
    Labour minority ¦
    } 50%
    Hung parliament ¦
    GNU /

    I would suggest the polls are skewing this 60/40 in favour of a Tory majority. In the end I have pointed to brexit happening it is unstoppable because of the conundrum of remainer/leavers interacting with the dynamic of party politics. if it was a remain leave affair I would put money on UK voting to remain against any deal placed before it.

    My argument has been that all sides have played there respective situation as well as they can given the numbers and the motivations

    As I have said iraq ended up where it was through a series of decision and reactions to those decisions I see brexit doing the same

    If I am honest brexit equivalent of Baghdad is about to fall and people like yourself in terms of brexit will be happy and should be and remainers like myself should be disappointed and I am but your argument was that Labour could have kept their leavers and remainers onside by being more leave orientated is just bull. All the roads lead to this point.

  45. Graham

    As I understand it the Tories proposal is that in the event of a strike by the rail unions they would require a minimum service to be run during the strike.
    Something that is done in many EU countries.

    Hardly the road to Totalitarianism in fact a argument could be made against the use of strike action at all by rail unions seeking to disrupt a main travel artery and making the lives of countless thousands of people a misery and costing the country many millions of pounds in lost work hours.

  46. Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 47% (+3)
    LAB: 28% (-)
    LDEM: 12% (-2)
    BREX: 3% (-3)


    Chgs. w/ 15 Nov

  47. from the Gruan write-up we still see folks not understanding the WHERE issue of votes:

    “a major collapse in the Lib Dem poll ratings is likely to hugely benefit Labour”

    In LAB Remain seats YES – but CON were never going to win those anyway. In LAB Leave heartlands then there was very little LDEM vote to squeeze so although their collapse means they won’t be taking any votes from LAB then it is not “hugely” beneficial where as the collapse of BXP (down to close to UKIP’15 is “hugely” beneficial to CON)

    and then we have CON-LDEM marginals and even perhaps LDEM-CON marginals (eg N.Norfolk, Eastbourne, Carshalton and Wallington). It’s not inconceivable CON make NET gains from LDEM (they will lose Richmond Park, probably Cheltenham and St.Albans but if we start to see AB-Corbyn then that might be it)

  48. BMG poll for the Independent:

    Con 41 (+4)
    Labour 28 (-1)
    Liberal Democrats (18 + 2)
    Geeens 5 (unchanged)
    Brexit Party 3 (-6)

    BMG questioned 1,663 British voters between 19 and 21 November

  49. @Jim Jam

    Here’s what I would say to you as a remain unionist.

    “If Brexit or Indy comes about, there’s not a lot a single voter can do about it, so don’t get too wound up by believing that you can, then being disappointed that you couldn’t.

    When it comes right down to the basic levels, do you want Scotland’s objectives being blocked by Westminster on the whim of 533 English MPs? The EU doesn’t block the UK’s exit, so much as waits for the UK to make up its mind on what kind of Leave it wants.

    One union want us. One union wants to stop us from having the right to decide. Once that issue is sorted, all other issues will pretty much sort themselves.

    Lastly I would encourage them to listen to those talking of potential futures, and not glorying in pasts that are open to interpretation, or written by winners. Our predecessors didn’t fight wars to prop up people like Boris Johnson. If anything, they did it to ensure their own bairns didn’t live under leaders who ignore the people. It’s what happens to us now that counts, not what happened to someone else a while ago.”

1 17 18 19 20 21 22