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 3 4 5 6 7 22
  1. Are any opinion polls due to be released today? Ditto re tomorrow.
    Many thanks

  2. I note that Andrew, Earl of Inverness is to “step back” from doing any of the duties that the UK Parliament reckoned were worth paying him £250k pa from doing. Naturally, there is no suggestion that he will decline to take that bundle of cash.
    Additionally, he will co-operate with law enforcement agencies! How gracious of him!

    The “royal watcher” journo on the Beeb said that this was on the instructions of the heir to the throne, the Duke of Rothesay.

    Choreographed royal events are said to benefit the Tories among the fawning elements of the electorate, but I doubt that those willing to swallow Johnson will be put off by a wayward Earl.

  3. Oldnat

    Not sure but I think if Prince Andrew is not doing his duties then he would then not be paid.

  4. GRAHAM and Jim Jam. Thanks; I wrote in error, I should have written that modern Labour is well to the ;left of 1970 and 1983.
    I am
    Foot did not associate himself with some of the causes and platforms supported by Corbyn and Mcluskey, and there were influential centrists like Healey, Kaufman, Hattersley, Golding at the top of the party then. Two young MP’s were elected that year, I seem to remember. Anthony Lynton Blair and Gordon Brown were their names. I am old now, nearly 65 and nearing being eased out of teaching at last but I seem to remember Neil Kinnock and John Smith spotting them as future stars.

  5. @OldNat

    Earl of Inverness! I didn’t know that. He has to be as popular in the Highlands as the first Duke of Sutherland.

    Fortunately for Andrew, no one in Inverness has considered him of any particular significance, else he could have been approaching this stage:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-15924649

  6. I think the country finally gone mad. The hashtag #boycottmorrisons trending on twitter. Apparently Brexit Party Candidate (Or supporter) handing out leaflets inside a Morrison Supermarket in Bolton was ejected after customers complained . I’m sure all political campaigning is not allowed inside supermarkets.

  7. @ JJ – “However, the harder the leave option in the ref the more likely remain would win?”

    IMO it would be the opposite. IE the “Softer” the leave option in the ref the more likely Remain would win.

    Plenty of polling that shows Leavers didn’t like May’s deal (the “backstop” being a trap to staying in CU) and were moving strongly towards “No deal” and then more recently accepting Boris’s deal (not perfect but it’ll do)

    There’s a “goldilocks” spot for sure but that’s on the “Cleaner” end of the spectrum[1] (“harder” in remainer speak, “rarer” in terms of steak).

    Hence, if you put up a 2nd ref which is basically:

    1/ Remain with NO SAY (veggie-burger)

    2/ Remain with a SAY (very expensive vegan-burger)

    Then IMO you’d get a lot of abstain or spoiled papers from Leavers and a decent % win for #2 (on lower turnout) – I ordered a steak not a veggie or vegan burger

    I’m obviously not a Remainer but this is the absurdity with Corbyn’s policy.

    Leavers know it’s b*llox and would just drag out more uncertainty before we end up Remaining anyway (probably with a say, but maybe not). We’d then demand a best of 3 as it would be 1-1. Wasting more time and dragging out more uncertainty for everyone.

    Remainers also might think WTF. Why waste more time, just Revoke now. OK I accept “straight revoke” would them permit “straight re-trigger A50” but why not just put May’s “bad deal” up against Remain and drop the totally unnecessary need to pretend a “3rd way” is different to the “1st way”.

    LAB might well do OK in the GE, possibly even push the result into a hung parliament but IMO that is only coz LDEM can’t win very many seats so Remain folks have no choice but to vote LAB in most seats and via “cognitive consistency” have talked themselves into thinking LAB’s Brexit policy is wise and sensible approach (probably since they, correctly, know Leaver’s will h8te Corbyn’s deal – coz it will be May’s deal sans lipstick! Veggie burger – YUCK!)

    [1] Most Leavers probably understand the concept of “agency theory” where by we’re not super bovvered about the micro details or micro managing the “agents” (MPs said they’d respect the ref so we trusted them to deliver Brexit).

    So if it looks like Brexit and smells like Brexit then we’ll accept it as Brexit (ie out of CU+SM) – “take back control of our money, our borders and our trade policy”

    I respect vegetarians don’t eat steak but even though I prefer my steak blue then I’m OK with rare or even medium-rare. However, I’m not eating an over cooked steak or a veggie/vegan burger – I’d give those to the dog and never go to that restaurant every again. May was very close to seeing the Tory party close down from trying to sell a veggie burger as a steak, luckily new management team and head chef saved it just in time.

    PS Farage wants me to eat cow and although I like it Blue, I’d prefer my local butcher cut me a nice inch thick cut of locally sourced sirloin and then I can add a bit of seasoning and give it 30secs on each side (6+6mths in “future relationship” deal terms = MRA+ (aka WTO+)). 3 guesses what I had for dinner ;)

  8. “OLDNAT

    @”Of course I don’t worry about an anagram that is grammatically wrong.”

    I was responding to your advice to us all that you are ” not convinced that anyone should be offended by varying letter order.”

    You didn’t mention grammar.”
    @colin November 20th, 2019 at 9:14 am

    Judging from OldNat’s name I don’t think his grammar can vote any more.

  9. @ MATT126 – ” I’m sure all political campaigning is not allowed inside supermarkets”

    You’ll usually find LDEM campaigning inside Waitrose, M&S and Harrods Food Hall.

    The MANY shop in places like Morrisons, Tescos, etc but the “Elite” FEW don’t.

  10. Ed Davey is trending on twitter for all the wrong reasons, he told AN that they would demand a 2nd ref from a minority boris govt, libdems will be polling in single figures soon? Bigger problem for them is their activists are already agitated, will they go on strike?

  11. Ed Davey is trending on twitter for all the wrong reasons, he told AN that they would demand a 2nd ref from a minority boris govt, libdems will be polling in single figures soon? Bigger problem for them is their activists are already agitated, will they go on strike?

  12. Sorry about double post

  13. Princess Rachel

    I think the Lib Dems are chasing the Tory vote.

  14. Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 42% (+1)
    LAB: 31% (-2)
    LDM: 15% (+1)
    BXP: 5% (=)

    Via
    @SavantaComRes
    , 18-19 Nov.
    Changes w/ 13-14 Nov.

  15. Prof Howard

    I think I’d like to see confirmation that Brenda has cut the Earl out of the Civil List, as it seems unlikely.

    If the Chookie Rothesay has any sense, when he eventually ascends the throne, he should cut out all those dependent relatives of his from the benefits trough they feed from.

    The monarchy is usually absolutely ruthless in protecting itself, so I suspect he might.

  16. Lib Dem manifesto:

    – penny on everyone’s income tax to pay for health
    – legalize cannabis
    – personal flight tax, increases for people who fly a lot (will affect people who live in NI where ferry/train is not a very viable option)
    – federal UK

  17. Prof Howard

    There was a great appetite for cooperation among labour and libdem activists/supporters, many feeling that the respective leaderships were being needlessly stubborn. The latest libdem statements will be seen as a vindication of the labour leadership by labour supporters and as a slap in the face by many libdem supporters. At least that’s what I would expect

    Also nailed on tory win I’m afraid. So that’s me dead within 5 years

  18. JiB & Graham

    Yep agree with you both.

    The current bunch are a second rate crew.

  19. Stephen Coleman at The Conversation on last night’s debate:

    https://theconversation.com/i-watched-johnson-and-corbyns-debate-with-100-undecided-voters-heres-how-they-reacted-127271

    Actually, he doesn’t really tell us much, but it is likely that we will hear more over the next few weeks when the data is analysed.

    On the subject of the environment, XR founder Roger Hallam comes out as a Holocaust denier:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/extinction-rebellion-founders-holocaust-remarks-spark-fury

    This is apparently quite similar to the extreme right-wing AfD’s position.

    It’s sad, in the envronmental movement for every Greta Thunberg you get a Roger Hallam as well.

  20. Pro Howard

    Lib Dem manifesto:

    – penny on everyone’s income tax to pay for health

    Not Scotland, of course, where income tax is a devolved power

    – legalize cannabis

    A UK wide policy, as this is a reserved issue, but do they intend to keep that as a Federal responsibility?

    – personal flight tax, increases for people who fly a lot (will affect people who live in NI where ferry/train is not a very viable option)

    APD is a partially devolved function for NI and fully for Scotland. Are they planning to overthrow that?

    – federal UK

    Aye, right!

  21. Watched Jo Coburn with a Labour MP from Brighton & Andrew Neil with Brandon Lewis & Ed Davey .

    All three were exposed as shamelessly dishonest

  22. Just for clarity, The Duke of York is not on the civil list. He is funded directly by the Queen from her personal fortune.

  23. The Trevors,
    “I’m obviously not a Remainer but this is the absurdity with Corbyn’s policy.”

    I really dont see your point. Yes, I can perfectly see that a supporter of hard leave would be disappointed with a soft leave of the sort labour is likely to negotiate. Maybe to the point they would in fact prefer remain. But all you are saying is that leavers are split on what sort of leave they want, and therefore it is not possible to find any form of leaving which would satisfy all.

    It is perfectly legitimate for labour to propose a soft leave, which is indeed what they placed in their manifesto last time. It is quite clear many MPs think this is the only viable version of leave, and a proportion of the public has always agreed it is preferable to a hard leave. If everyone agreed a hard leave was preferable the whole issue would have been over years ago.

    Labour’s position isnt absurd at all. They will negotiate a deal they believe is workable – which they think Johnson’s version is not. I rather agree that Johnson’s deal is not in fact viable, and even if we left on those terms, inevitably it would be rowed back to a soft leave in trade negotiations. It is frankly a scam, which has only obtained as much parliamentary support as it has by striking out areas where matters had been settled in the May deal and deferring decisions yet again.

    The bottom line is that parliament cannot pass a hard leave brexit because it believes it would have a very bad impact on the economy. This election might produce more hard leave MPs willing to do so, but again I think we will still end up with a parliament which will refuse to accept a hard brexit. We might leave with this WA, but then the crisis is simply deferred to the ongoing negotiations which have to be settled before the expiry of the transition period.

    The current deal is a fudge which lays the ground for a political crisis next year. if con win, they doom themselves to a couple of years of Brexit fiasco, and probably a repeat of the situation we have now with tory MPs in open revolt.

  24. All three were exposed as shamelessly partisan politicians

  25. All three were exposed as shamelessly partisan politicians

  26. Nearly French

    “He is funded directly by the Queen from her personal fortune.”

    Thanks. Wil that will be the personal fortune given to her by the UK taxpayers, or has she sold off a bit of the Balmoral Estate?

  27. Not sure if anyone has picked this up yet (it is a polling site, after all) but Ipsos Mori earlier today released some polling data about issues of concern.

    Amongst Lab 2017 voters, big increases in NHS (top issue by a long way) and housing (3rd) and a fall in Brexit. Tory 2017 voters still have Brexit in front, but the NHS as 2nd issue saw an increase of 3%. Among all voters, with a 6% rise to 60%, the NHS has overtaken Brexit to become the no. 1 issue on voters minds, Brexit at 56% (+1) and interesting care for the elderly third, on 32%.

    These are interesting numbers, and theoretically helpful to Labour. In most people’s minds, the election is more about the NHS than Brexit, and Labour 2017 voters in particular seem to be warming to this theme.

  28. @Oldnat – you should know by now. ‘Her personal fortune’ means you and me!

  29. Get Brexit Undone!

    @ Valerie
    “I thought his consistent refusal to shut up, when Julie Etchingham politely asked him to desist, was MOUTHY and ill-mannered.”

    Shame on you. It was decided by one of the site regulars that “mouthy” was a deplorable, sexist adjective only ever applied by unreconstructed males to assertive women, with special ref to Jesse Phillips.

    Some mouthy columnist in the Guardian implored Corbyn to be more aggressive. I didn’t watch the Debate but maybe some punters prefer a quieter approach. Who knows/

  30. Just watched Tv documentary on the recent boeing airline crashes.

    According to the documentary (and wikipedia seems to agree), the problem stems from Boeing seeking to keep their new airline sufficiently compatible with its predecessor that pilots do not need retraining. If this plane is forced to be classed as a different plane, it adds costs for airlines, and makes it less competitive agains airbus alternatives.

    In order to accomplish this, boeing seems to have turned handstands to not change anything in the cockpit and keep procedures exactly the same. The trouble is, the plane is different and does need different procedures in certain situations. They had the bonkers situation where they seem to have added a manual trim control in the cockpit, which was never mentioned in the flight instructions for pilots, and which it transpires it is physicall impossible for pilots to use in an emergency because it needs more physical effort than they could manage in the limited time during an emergency.

    They seem to have tried to certify the plane using grandfathered accreditations both for its predecessor model, which however has important physical differences, plus grandfathered accreditation for the automated stabiliser system which had been used on a different military aircraft. In trying to shoehorn the two together, they failed to make sensible changes to the systems…which would have prevented their goal of not needing to retrain pilots about the changes.

    In particular, they made a safety check using redundant censors an option rather than mandatory equipment, and failed to change flight training simulators to behave as the real plane would in the crash situations. They failed to separate overrides on computer control of trim and power assist for pilots using the controls, so it was either crank it by hand (physically impossible) or let the computer do what it wanted. The second plane finally crashed because the pilots in desperation switched the computer back on after being unable to fly it manually, and the computer flew it straight into the ground.

    The rationale for having no effective manual control seems to be, that without the computer the plane cannot be regarded as a slight modification of its predecessor – which is essential if pilots are not to receive additonal training.

    So what? Its a classic example of what goes wrong if private industry has a monoply. In this case, not a world monopoly but a US monopoly, so Boeing had massive influence on the US regulatory system. Safety was ignored because risking another plane crash was seen as less harmfull to the company than grounding planes after the first one.

    I suspect the company made the correct decision from its own perspective, because the cost of the second crash is likely less than the cost had all the planes been grounded earlier. Boeing bought time with those lives to work on a solution to save it from bankruptcy (or at least to keep its share price up).

    Its a classic example of how private industry fails.

  31. Canvassing in a tower block this evening. Mostly predictable but one bit of fun: a pensioner came to the door dressed in his shirt and underpants (if I was feeling generous I might describe them as shorts but it wasn’t really a shorts sort of day).
    The pants were pure white with a red cross of St George.
    It didn’t surprise me that he had abandoned a lifelong affinity to Labour but it would have been nice if he could have recalled the name of his new political squeeze. When prompted, he confirmed it was Brexit.

  32. Guymonde

    ” I might describe them as shorts but it wasn’t really a shorts sort of day”

    I’m regularly surprised by the sight of men wearing shorts in the Baltic temperatures recently. Presumably, this is to demonstrate their manly resistance to the environment.

    Perhaps the gentleman was displaying the cross of St George across his nether regions to proclaim that the rampant dragon within had been slain?

  33. Prof Howard,
    “Lib Dem manifesto…”

    All the points you list are fine with me. Trouble is, they arent going to get a majority of seats and its not too likely they will be in a position to leverage what they want in a hung parliament.

    FPP means parties which might have very attractive manifestos will not get the votes of people who like those policies. The system is currently tearing itself to pieces because voters see that it is blatantly undemocratic. Throwing in the occasional referendum to an unrepresentative parliament has only made matters worse.

    Oldnat,
    “will that be the personal fortune given to her by the UK taxpayers, or has she sold off a bit of the Balmoral Estate?”

    Technically, surely, some Norman chap called Will the bastard raised an army and ocupied England. He then used force to control it and 1000 years later, the house of windsor has the residue of his fortune. The ultimate privatisation of state assets.

  34. A rather appropriate version of the Lib-Dem logo – given Swinson’s willingness to obliterate the planet.

    https://twitter.com/beaubodor/status/1197284812568051713/photo/1te

  35. @OldNat

    The link didn’t work.

  36. It works for me.

  37. Maybe only works if one has a twitter account (which I don’t and won’t).

  38. @princess Rachel

    “Ed Davey is trending on twitter for all the wrong reasons, he told AN that they would demand a 2nd ref from a minority boris govt, libdems will be polling in single figures soon?”

    Not quite sure I see the issue here, this the Twitter bubble having an outrage over the wrong end of a stick as usual?

    There was no indication of any support for a conservative government from what I can see, simply that, in the event of the outcome being a minority Tory government (which is default in the case of a hunt parliament) they’d consider voting for the deal if it had a public vote attached which is no change from pre election policy

  39. OLDNAT et al
    You should know – and you probably do – that the crown has forgone the income from the crown estates since the eighteenth century, in exchange for an allowance to run the royal estates and royal household. This grant used to be called the civil list , but has another name now which I forget. The crown estates are held in trust for the nation and the monarch cannot sell them.
    The Queen also owns Balmoral, Sandringham and the Duchy of Lancaster – which generates the income to run them – in the same way as anyone else owns property. She pays tax on this income and is free to use any surplus as she wishes.

  40. @Robbiealive – re ‘mouthy’ – OK – take your point….:) (already apologised for this one).

    @nearlyfrench – “The Queen also owns Balmoral, Sandringham and the Duchy of Lancaster – which generates the income to run them – in the same way as anyone else owns property.”

    Technically, the Queen owns all land. In fact, super technically, she owns around 1/6th of the world’s land surface area, with much of the former Empire also included in her holdings.

    Freehold – what we consider to be ownership – is not actually ownership, but is instead a right to use land, and the right to sell those rights. In law, freehold means nothing more than ‘an interest in an estate in land, fee simple’.

    The Crown has what is known as ‘Eminent Domain’, which is the basis for compulsory purchase. For all our talk of rights and democracy, interestingly, in communist China, the government does not have the power to subvert property rights in such a way because their law does not confer ownership of everything to the state, like ours does.

    This is why you get these vaguely comical situations as described here – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236746/Road-built-building-couple-refuse-China.html where homeowners refuse to sell up and find a motorway is build around their house. In the UK, they have no legal right to their land and anything on it, so this would not happen.

  41. @DANNY

    Boeing decision on 737 max versus Challenger Shuttle

    As and engineer and a manager I find the decision making processes fascinating. The reality of the boeing situation was that Airbus had developed a aircraft from the ground up to suit a market and had such a family of aircraft that Boeing was being left behind.

    The airline’s approach is to minimise training and more importantly because of the lck of pilots is to have more politos trained on a particular aircraft

    The MAX was supposed to solve these issues. The problem was threefold the placement of the engines essentially meant that the trim of the aircraft in certain regimes would lead to stalling basically the worst sort of thing for a passenger aircraft was that it unstable with full engine thrust and the counter to this was MCAS which was a system that overrode pilot inputs

    The point was that the grandfathering of the certification is often done with changes of engines addition of winglets and other aerodynamic features changes of materials (such as form metals to composites) and electronic aids such as adding GPS it was never meant for flight controls and the porblem was not grandfathering per se but self certification as we are seeing with the fires form grenfell and the several other that have occured since. The regulations are in place there is no independent enforcement

    I liken the decision making problem to Iraq and Brexit. A premise is made for a problem that is difficult you can either explore that decision and make an informed choice and that choice being expensive or you can cut corners and come out with a more seductive solution. The scary part of this is that the Ethiopian jet had MCAS but did not have soem of the warning and backup systems since they were an added value extra which most of the US based airlines had which meant that it was easier to diagnose and switch off the MCAS. The most scary thing was that their was no pilot training for the MCAS itself and that most of the training was placed on an Ipad walkthrough

  42. Leftieliberal,

    “On the subject of the environment, XR founder Roger Hallam comes out as a Holocaust denier:”

    No he isn’t, he believes it represents just another example of human excess and links it to other genocides like the Belgian’s in the Congo in the 19th century.

    His argument is that this is what we do as humans, to ourselves other species and the planet and that we need to change to survive.

    He’s not denying it happened, rather he is denying that it is unique.

    I don’t particularly agree with him, but there is at least a logic to it.

    Indeed, if you separate out the Holocaust as a unique event you run the risk that you miss the general lesson that we have done things like this throughout history and will do again if we don’t change.

    Where he differs from the AfD is they use the argument to minimise the importance of the Holocaust while he uses it to illustrate what he sees a greater danger.

    Peter.

  43. Danny,

    Didn’t watch the Boeing documentary, but I’ve read about it and the key seems to be that Boeing put bigger engines on the wing that changed the airflow and stability.

    They could either redesign the entire wing and effectively manufacture new ones, or use the old wing use software to compensate for the altered handling and save billions in development and retooling.

    They went for the software solution.

    There is nothing wrong with that if it works and people are trained on the new system, but it didn’t and they weren’t.

    In marketing it as just an upgrade to make conversion attractive and easy the put to much emphasis on making it feel just like the old one when selling it and didn’t pay enough attention to the complexity and importance of the changes.

    In part that was because of the challenge from the Airbus 320neo (new engine option) which in many ways is the same thing, a new bigger engine on an old plane.

    The Neo & the Max are the two biggest selling aircraft in the world with a combined order backlog of over 10,000!

    Hopefully Airbus didn’t make the same mistakes but I would like to think Tegulators will be going back over its certification with a fine tooth comb!

    Peter.

  44. @ALEC
    You are, of course, correct. (Technically)

  45. @ OLDNAT – As our resident expert on Scottish legal matters I hope you can keep us updated on

    “former (Scottish) first minister Alex Salmond, who faces charges including attempted rape and sexual assault”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50122740

    I understand the court case starts tomorrow and given the wholly justified outrage at Prince Andrew’s behaviour I’m concerned 92% of the UK might not get to hear much about the abuse of power and (alleged) abuse of women that the former King of Holyrood engaged in during his reign.

    I trust you can keep us updated on the case.

  46. TREVOR WARNE,

    “I trust you can keep us updated on the case.”

    You needn’t worry, we can be pretty much guarantee that the tabloids will swarm over the details as they emerge with the same alacrity as they do for any prominent figure!

    Peter.

  47. Latest UKElect forecast has a Conservative majority of 64 (Con 356 Lab 194 SNP 49 LD 26). See UK-Elect Forecast November 20 2019

    I’ve seen a few forecasts now, using various different methods, that produce a similar result. That probably means they are all wrong!

  48. Good morning all from a PSRL that is still very much in the grip of winter (perhaps that will save us from the blue and hordes and Amber gaggle?).

    Well as normally happens at this time in the campaign highly partisan posters reappear in their droves and it starts to drown out any analysis or useful insights on the site.

    I do have a question for our Scottish friends. Like many I have assumed the SNP are fairly likely to wipe the board like 2015, however I heard some (in my view extremely) optimistic views that Labour are doing a lot better than the polls would suggest North of the border. Is the SNP really heading for a landslide in Scotland?

1 3 4 5 6 7 22