It is the eve of the election and I’ll be rounding up the final call polls here as they come in.

YouGov already released their final call prediction last night in the form of their updated MRP projection. The voting intentions in the model were CON 43%, LAB 34%, LDEM 12%, BREX 3%, GRN 3%. As an MRP, it also included projected numbers of seats, with the Conservatives winning 339, Labour 231, SNP 41, Liberal Democrats 15, Plaid 4 and the Greens 1. Fieldwork was the 4th to the 10th, but the model gives more weight to the more recent data. The full details of the model are here.

ICM also released their final poll yesterday, with topline figures of CON 42%, LAB 36%, LDEM 12%, BREX 3%. Fieldwork was conducted Sunday to monday, and full tables are here.

Opinium‘s final voting intention figures are CON 45%, LAB 33%, LDEM 12%, BREX 2%, GRN 2%. The Conservatives have a twelve point lead (though in their write up Opinium point out that this is because the Tory shares has been rounded up and Labour’s share rounded down, so before rounding it was actually an 11 point lead). In recent weeks Opinium have tended to show the biggest leads for the Conservatives, so this reflects a slight narrowing since their previous poll. Fieldwork was Tuesday and Wednesday, so would have been wholly after the Leeds NHS story on Monday. Full tables are here

BMG‘s final figures are CON 41%, LAB 32%, LDEM 14%. Fieldwork was between Friday and today, and doesn’t show any change since BMG’s figures last week.

Panelbase‘s final poll has topline figures of CON 43%, LAB 34%, LDEM 11%, BREX 4%, GRN 3%. Fieldwork was Tuesday and Wednesday so, like Opinium, would have been wholly after the Leeds NHS story (though unlike Opinium, Panelbase don’t show any tightening since their previous poll). Full tables are here.

Matt Singh’s NCPolitics have conducted a final poll on behalf of Bloomberg. That has final figures of CON 43%, LAB 33%, LDEM 12%, BREX 3%, GRN 3%. Their full tables are here.

There was also a poll by Qriously (a company that does polls in smartphone adverts, who is a member of the BPC). Fieldwork for that was conducted Thursday to Sunday, and had topline figures of CON 43%, LAB 30%, LDEM 12%, BREX 3%, GRN 4%. Details are here

SavantaComRes have final figures of CON 41%, LAB 36%, LDEM 12%. Fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday. The five point lead is the lowest any company has given the Conservatives during the campaign, and would likely be in hung Parliament territory (though ComRes have typically given some of the lower Tory leads). Full tables are here.

Kantar‘s final poll has topline figures of CON 44%, LAB 32%, LDEM 13%, BREX 3%. Fieldwork was Monday to Wednesday. The twelve point lead is unchanged from Kantar’s last poll, though the Lib Dems have fallen a little. Full results are here.

Deltapoll‘s final poll CON 45%, LAB 35%, LDEM 10%, BREX 3%. Fieldwork was also Monday to Wednesday. Full results are here.

Survation published their final call overnight. Topline figures there are CON 44.5%, LAB 33.7%, LDEM 9.3%, BREX 3.1%. Their poll also included an oversized sample for Scotland, to provide seperate Scottish figures – they were SNP 43.2%, CON 27.9%, LAB 19.8%, LDEM 7.3%. Full details are here.

Finally, Ipsos MORI published their final call in this morning’s Standard. Their final figures are CON 44%, LAB 33%, LDEM 12%, GRN 3%, BREX 2%. Full tables are here. (And, since people always ask – Ipsos MORI publish on election day because they partner with the Evening Standard, who publish at lunchtime. As you’ll know, it’s illegal to publish an exit poll until after voting stops at 10pm. However, it’s perfectly legal to publish a poll that was conducted before voting began)

3,032 Responses to “Final call election polls”

1 59 60 61
  1. Meanwhile, whilst everyone concentrates upon the Labour leadership, some interesting odds for the LDs:

    Ed Davey 10/11 favourite
    Layla Moran 5/2
    Daisy Cooper 5/1
    Christine Jardine 28/1

    So a three horse race, although it surprises me that Christine Jardine has not received more support. Tom Brake might well have won, if he had survived.

    Daisy Cooper has only just entered Parliament.

    And Change UK has disbanded, having failed to get anyone elected. What an extraordinary story it has been: there was support for a Centre Party out there, I suspect, and some polling at the time indicated thus, but what an almighty pig’s ear they made of it.

    For me the turning point was the welcome given to Soubry, who then immediately and unsurprisingly became their self-appointed media spokesperson. As someone said to me at the time, ‘Soubry is marmite: 99% of people think she is awful ,and 1% think she is okay’.

    Just for a brief moment, the prospect of a new Centre Party seemed real. It is now much diminished, because the Lab PLP is more left-wing than it was a year go.

  2. @NeilJ

    Indeed. Compared to most large organisations and companies the NHS is remarkably efficient. The idea that there are gains to be had from privatisation simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    There will certainly be cases of inefficiencies in the NHS, I challenge people to point to a large company that doesn’t have any.

    The fully privatised system of the US provides a far worse service for over double the cost. There’s not even much evidence that the semi privatised bismarck model is any better, German healthcare is better, I’m not sure it’s 40% better. One thing the semi competitive nature of the bismarck model can do is bias services to the profitable areas i.e., the cities, personally I’d be fine with that but I’m not sure it’s something that would help the current rural/urban divide.

    The simple fact is that its primary problem is that funding isn’t increasing in line with demand due to an ageing population and this is exacerbated by local authority cuts dumping adult social care issues on the NHS as well.

  3. @Millie

    “Just for a brief moment, the prospect of a new Centre Party seemed real”

    Did it? Never expected ChangeUK to go anywhere, they were simply fighting for space with the LDs and in a FPTP system where any centre party is already hugely disadvantaged that space is not very big at all.


    “At the end of the day, it’s the patient experience that’s important, not preserving outdated or inefficient NHS operating models in aspic.”

    Indeed it is the patient experience report that’s important, but it’s not the only metric, and we ought to look very carefully at how the patient experience reports are generated before putting too much stock in them. If someone is refused treatment, they do not become a patient, and are not recorded as an unsatisfied patient. Should they die as a result of their condition, it wasn’t as a patient under an NHS roof, so NHS statistics look better.

    Then there’s the collection of data for said systems. Take this report as an example –

    “This dataset is used to look at patterns in reporting, such as frequency and timeliness. It contains incidents reported to the NRLS within a specified period. It will include incidents that were reported up to December 2017. This dataset will reflect seasonality in when incidents are reported to the NRLS.”

    So in essence, it can show year on year seasonal statistical fluctuations in incident reporting, assuming the incidents are being reported. Presumably this is ideally used to monitor and plan for capacity management, but is probably more used by politicians and media types for NHS scare stories (without appreciating whether the data is complete).

    Notice the chart on page 8, showing the number of incidents reported over time. And now read the pertinent info from the final remarks:

    “The NRLS is a system designed to support learning. The incidents collected reflect what is reported to us and reporting culture. The system is not designed to count the actual number of incidents occurring in the NHS. Therefore the continual increase in incidents reported to the NRLS over time indicates a constantly improving reporting culture, providing more opportunity for us to learn and reduce
    the risk of harm to patients.”

    “We are currently developing a new data collection system to replace the NRLS. The system will affect the exact type of data we collect, which will result in changes being made to our statistics outputs.”

    So now that they seem to be getting a handle on the reporting system, it gets replaced by something which will make the old data largely useless as a comparison to the new.

    So lies, damned lies, and statistics, and adding a new culture of profit and loss will only create an added pressure to those working within it. Instead of the bureaucrats and management bores that populate the NHS, we would have accountants and bean counters (imho).

    Inefficiency is subjective, and I don’t care for the word as a catch all for far too many systems to count. Is the Ambulance service inefficient, given that they mainly use road vehicles with a high cost and depreciation, and which generate less cures than people who walk into the hospital?

    In short, it’s too easy to use the word inefficient and declare it so on an organisational level, without knowledge or understanding of the systems and people within.

    One thing that is constant. For an organisation with supposedly poor reporting, supposedly poor systems, and supposedly poor efficiency, etc, there’s no lack of belief that said negative reports are inaccurate, regardless of how complete they are.

    The only way to make them truly efficient is to introduce a 100% reliable reporting system, that 100% of staff use, and then work to address the issues reported. That’s assuming every NHS manager, every GP, every nurse, and every politician is 100% for a given system, and their successors are too.

    For what it’s worth, putting patient care ahead of efficiency isn’t outdated. It’s to be applauded.

  5. @JAMESB
    Indeed. Compared to most large organisations and companies the NHS is remarkably efficient. The idea that there are gains to be had from privatisation simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…..


  6. Chris,

    Owen Smith, who may have been a decent candidate at the right time but stood at the wrong time imo, achieved 40% of the vote.

    I am not so sure that Corbyn would win now if he stood as the sole torch bearer of the unequivical left which is why I think Rebecca Long-Bailey is not as big a favourite as some believe.

    Re PR – my branch discussed a few months ago and the ignorance about what PR options are available was widespread. I advocated STV in Multi-member seats, like in Ireland, and it is not for me to say how compelling I was but the best arguments from the rest of those present imo were from those backing FPTP. They understood the pros and cons of the various options in a way most of those casually attracted to ‘PR’ frankly didn’t.
    Achieving any consensus on what a more proportionate voting system for Westminster (and Council’s perhaps) Elections may look like with within the Labour Party will be a challenge to say the least.

  7. @JamesB / Millie

    Like James, I never expected the independents to fly. The day they formed, I said as much to Mrs Git.

    Two primary reasons:

    – I well remember the SDP breakaway, which was much larger (about 30, if I remember right). This also failed to fly, though it did stay a couple of feet off the ground for a few years.

    – Unlike the SDP, which was overwhelmingly from one party, this breakaway was fairly evenly split between Labour and Tory deserters. It was therefore intrinsically fissiparous, and this was sealed when – early on – Soubry praised austerity, which was guaranteed to upset the Labourites.

    As long as we have FPTP – a winner-take-all system – we will never have more than two major parties. When is the last time you saw three fighters in a boxing ring?

  8. MOG,

    I recall discussing Change with my son and comparing the Labour figures who left with the Gang of 4. Had Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper plus a load of figures from the past jumped who knows but Soubrey and Umunna’s egos where never going to big enough to carry the project.

    I had genuine respect for Woolaston and Berger (a tad for Allen and maybe Gapes) but the rest, nah.

    It is not a left/right thing but Smith/Ryan and Shuker have values which I questioned while Leslie and Umunna’s economic views had shifted so much as to make a centre party the right place for them. I know little about Coffey except she was one of the worse offenders with expense claims IIRC.

  9. @PTRP

    Just a bit of catchup, neglected to reply to a couple of your posts, been setting up a new studio and stuff.

    But regarding Cumming’s idea concerning more stats on the curriculum, while you’re right that a lack of sufficient info. might limit the payoff for learning more stats, that isn’t really an argument for ditching stats, but for acquiring more info.

    Regarding Labour’s privatisations policy overall not being that ordoliberal, sure, but I wasn’t saying it was. I was just noting how some different kinds of liberalism have privatisation in common. (This does not mean I’m saying that all aspects of the privatisations are the same, or are ordoliberal in total).

    As it happens, there are other aspects of Labour under Blair that had stuff in common with ordoliberalism, e.g. the Independent Central Bank and 2% inflation target, but even that doesn’t mean they were properly ordoliberal.

  10. @JamesB et al

    Regarding Change UK, I did say ‘for a brief moment’. They never gained any momentum, and I agree with @MOG that drafting in Con defectors, especially Soubry, was a mistake. Allen and Wollaston probably ok.

    But the real problem is that they simply had no idea what to do next. They refused to say they were a party, and didn’t stand at the next by-election, which I think was Newport West.

    Basically, they were disorganised and inept, and the one thing you need as a prospective Centre Party is a reputation for down-to-earth efficiency and decision-making.

    They needed some big hitters like Cooper to have any chance of ‘flying’, I think we are all agreed.


    I agree under the current system we will always have two principal contestants. The objective of Change UK should have been openly and unashamedly the replacement of Lab as the major party of the Centre Left.

    They might have been better to have just joined the LDs en bloc from the outset. In fact, in hindsight that is obvious.

  11. In the context of whether private or public sector doesn’t matter, how do people feel about any impact of the profit motive on hospital cleaning and MRSA?

  12. @JiB – “At the end of the day, it’s the patient experience that’s important, not preserving outdated or inefficient NHS operating models in aspic.”

    That, I think hits the nail on the head, but as implied with @carfrew’s point above, there is a dangerous assumption inherent in the statement that modern, competitive private contract based delivery methods are somehow inherently more efficient. This is an assumption not fully tested.

    Indeed, many NHS people I speak to believe that the internal market process of competing for contracts is hugely inefficient in itself, even before bringing in external private sector groups seeking a profit margin.

    The key question is whether a centrally (or at least regionally) organised health infrastructure can deliver good quality services at an efficient price. Dispensing with profit and the administrative burdens brings considerable cost savings, but with the consequent loss of competition.

    The question really is whether that competition delivers sufficient cost saving efficiencies to overtake the benefits of a much more streamlined allocation system.

    @Carfrew points out one of the catastrophic failures of the private sector in recent NHS history, where cleaning – supposedly a service that was ideal for competitive outsourcing – contributed to patient deaths and much higher costs, because driving down price led in many cases to a disastrous loss of standards. It was self defeating, and still stands as an argument against the benefits of privatised service provision.

    I don’t think any politicians have really grasped this fundamental problem, but currently we seem to be stuck with a system which has adopted the most inefficient aspects of private contract supply within a largely state supplied service, and consequently we seem to be wasting administrative resource without any gain.

  13. ALEC

    The question really is whether that competition delivers sufficient cost saving efficiencies to overtake the benefits of a much more streamlined allocation system.

    It’s worth remembering that competition isn’t necessarily just about cost savings, at heart it’s about encouraging innovation. The problem with monolithic organisations, be they public or private, is that they can tend towards intertia and orthodoxies. The NHS has not necessarily got a good track record when it comes to finding or investing in new ways of addressing problems, and is more typically in a permanent state of ‘just about managing’. Part of this may be down to funding, but I’m inclined to think it’s a structural inevitability in such a titanic organisation. Does anyone really think that doctors (or the public) are particularly well-served by their pay and working conditions being decided in Whitehall, rather than being a product of market forces between hospitals competing to employ them? It’s not purely about profit, but also that the healthcare model employed on the continent has a far less centralised approach, with providers (whether they be private, non-profit, or public) operating relatively independently from central government control. Indeed, the role of the government in the French or German system becomes one of raising funds, seting regulations and standards, and agreeing payments for services. The actual management and delivery of healthcare is something that they leave to others, and usually with better results than here.

    It’s also worth bearing in mind that allowing a freer variety of providers to flourish is that it promotes private investment in care facilities, equipment, and training an the basis of the returns which are available. That investment is speculative, and happens on a larger scale than that which fully nationalised healthcare seems to be able to manage. It’s less efficient than the NHS model, but the efficiency the NHS provides comes at the cost of patient choice and healthcare outcomes. It’s also true that the social insurance model is substantially better at maintaining funding at adequate levels, as the state has set out a range of treatments and standards which must be met, and then must raise sufficient funds in order to cover the costs of providing those. Bottom-up funding which has to respond to costs, as it were, which stands in contrast to the top-down funding of the NHS which is decided in round tens of billions by a chancellor hashing out a budget as if it were an essay crisis.

    Essentially, I’m arguing that public/private isn’t what actaully matters, it’s the overcentralisation and political control which are the problem.

  14. @MOG

    “As long as we have FPTP – a winner-take-all system – we will never have more than two major parties.”

    Indeed. I’d be very interested to see the voting habits of the English regions, in a federal system. For example, see the Scottish list votes from 2016:

    Now some might argue that the SNP are sweeping the board here, but for all those votes, they got 4 list seats out of 56 available. Why? Because they got 59 of the 73 constituency seats available, and the list balances the result to reduce the chance of governments having Carte Blanche to rule the roost.

    I wonder how things might look if each region of England had a similar system of 55% constituency / 45% list seats?

    Endless coalitions? Endless compromise? It sounds a little better than endless national division and endless political bitterness.

    I’m sure adding 500-600 more proportional elected representatives to the tally could be a slight improvement on 800+ Lords, selected for ‘services to the nation, as long as they agree with the current government’.


    Good luck with your venture into opera. One piece of advice, make sure you understand what the opera is about. I don’t know if the Rough Guide to opera is still available, but I found it very helpful in my early days as it gives a synopsis of most well known operas with the story line for each act of each opera..


    “Good luck with your venture into opera. One piece of advice, make sure you understand what the opera is about. I don’t know if the Rough Guide to opera is still available, but I found it very helpful in my early days as it gives a synopsis of most well known operas with the story line for each act of each opera…”


    Ooh, good idea Howard. Seems one can get it second hand on Amazon for about a fiver plus postage, so I shall indeed do that. Thanks once again Howard, it’s much appreciated!

  17. 2nd reading of withdrawal bill carried with majority of 124 (358 to 234).
    Be interesting to see which opposition MP’s voted for the 2nd reading.

  18. Programme motion carried by 110 so just three days in the new year to scrutinise and attempt amendments.

  19. NEILJ
    Indeed. Compared to most large organisations and companies the NHS is remarkably efficient. The idea that there are gains to be had from privatisation simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…..


    A remarkable statement, and what evidence is there to support this, all the evidence I’ve come across contradicts this.
    Privatisation is not something I would advocate though.

  20. @GARJ,ALEC,

    As someone who has experienced both the French and English healthcare systems far too often in recent years, I hesitate to say that one is superior to the other. It depends on what your objectives are.

    If your interest is in outcomes, low waiting times (in most areas) and patient choice, then France is the answer. If you seek a low cost yet universal system where the patient does not need to make decisions, but must accept what they are given, then England does the job.

    The NHS has saved my life twice, the surgeons were first class, but in both cases the aftercare was abysmal. Also, on the first occasion, the need to save my life could have been avoided by more timely intervention following an accident.
    The French system, having once captured me, has no intention of letting me go because I am a nice little earner for my doctors. For a relatively minor heart condition I get regular monitoring with an annual full checkup by my consultant. That just wouldn’t happen with the NHS. Whether the taxpayer in the UK would be prepared to pay for French levels of service, is another matter. We are not talking buttons.

  21. @Garj – “The problem with monolithic organisations, be they public or private, is that they can tend towards intertia and orthodoxies.”

    The same can also be said of private enterprise also. For example, the obsessio0n with the idea that you have to pay huge wages to get good people – something that creeps into your post.

    But having said that, I’m not in disagreement with your overall point about overcentralization and political control. Both of these problems can be rectified within a state run system, without adding in the excesses of a private for profit motivation. The trouble is that the UK remains obsessed with a Whitehall centred model of how things should run, without understanding that there are many other ways to run public sector bodies.

    New thread, BTW.


    “A quarter of Brits (26%) say that Christmas has a damaging impact on their mental health.”

    It is not just Christmas that can cause mental health problems. One can make a long list of the policies flowing from this government that cause harm. “Austerity” is the word that embraces many harmful policies.

    Mental health has long been underfunded in the UK. The introduction of competition by the 2012 Act and the breaking up of England into competitive regions has caused further harm. Thousands of doctors and nurses are engaged in competitive tendering instead of clinical work.

    Here is a link to a piece on the effect of privatisation on the already weak provision of mental health care. I’ve copied a few paragraphs.

    “…in the most recent year 2017/18, contract awards to provide mental health services were valued at £947 million, and non-NHS organisations were awarded 65% of these valued at £611 million…

    …One major result of years and years of underfunding and increasing demand is that accessing mental health services is becoming harder and harder. The services are associated with long waiting times for appointments, particularly in the area of children and adolescent services. Waits of as long as 18 months have been reported. It has also been reported that the threshold for receiving treatment has increased, with people having to be suicidal before they are referred for treatment…

    …private counselling sessions has increased by 65%, and over three-quarters of patients revealed that they went private because NHS waiting lists are too long….

    ….For years, private companies have made a profit from treating people with addictions, but cuts to NHS services mean that this area is seeing major growth.

    …The growth in private companies can be put down to cuts to local authorities’ public health grant funding; spending on drug and alcohol services has been cut by 25% since 2013….when the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse was abolished and responsibility for these services was placed in the hands of local councils.

  23. There is no evidence that I can see that private medicine does a better job in patient care and much that it does not.

    Hinchinbrooke hospital is one example. The jailing of Ian Paterson, the cancer breast surgeon another. Musgrave Park hospital picking up the pieces of shoddy private work is another. There are more that could be found.

    and here

    This is just in the field of mental health and in one area of that field. So we have without trying hard, just working from my memory, substandard care in mental health, substandard care in oncology, substandard care in eye care and in a private hospital and there will be more in other areas.

    “Over the last two years, the CQC has required 49 providers to make improvements because they had breached regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and failed to meet fundamental standards of care.

    In addition, the CQC took enforcement action against eight providers and 41 providers breached two or more regulations and 25 breached three or more.

    In November 2018, The Times published a damning article exposing the companies and charities that make millions by providing substandard care to NHS patients. The article included one case where the directors of a psychiatric hospital that was found to provide substandard care to NHS patients by the CQC, had paid almost £25 million into a secretive trust in Belize. The article noted that the company had received £26.3 million for services over 18 months in 2016-17 from NHS contracts.”

  24. @Carfrew
    As far as MRSA is concerned, although the science isn’t entirely definitive, over-prescription of antibiotics has probably been the biggest factor in the emergence of the problem. And it would be difficult to attribute that to privatisation or the profit motive.
    The key to hygiene in hospitals isn’t whether they are privately or publicly run: it’s allocating sufficient funds from budgets and encouraging responsible practices amongst patients, staff and visitors.

  25. New thread

  26. @JBOYD

    Yes, it may be the case that it wasn’t lack of cleaning that caused MRSA, but misuse of anti-Biotics.

    The point about cleaning is that it is an extra line of defence in case the nasties mutate into something nastier, which can happen without the influence of anti-biotics.

    Increasing budgets won’t automatically stop people cutting corners, it might even incentivise it if there could be more to be made.

    And what’s easier and more reliable? Trying to train all patients and visitors to use correct practices, and hope they don’t forget or… cleaning the place properly?

    And it can be quite hard to observe careful practices when you’re slightly delirious and tripping a bit on pethedine.

  27. Pethidine

  28. @Carfrew
    Yes, but what has changed is medicine, not the way it is delivered: hygiene in the 60s and 70s was a responsibility of nursing (with support from in-house cleaners)

    The 90s and 00s saw a shift in professional roles so that nurses became clinicians (fine in itelf, but with a loss of capacity for patient care as opposed to treatment).

    It also saw a shift away from the idea that traditional cleanliness was necessary; largely because of a view that however efficient someone was in using a mop and bucket, a dispenser for hand sanitiser by the ward door was more effective in stopping the spread of germs.

    I’d agree that clinical settings should be thoroughly cleaned, but it is partly a cosmetic matter, and as with most of the problems the NHS faces, MRSA isn’t a product of structural change and management, but the development of medicine, demographics and biology.

  29. @JBOYD

    “I’d agree that clinical settings should be thoroughly cleaned, but it is partly a cosmetic matter”


    Well it might be partly a cosmetic matter, but one is worried about the part that isn’t cosmetic.

    Sure, handwashing procedures might be very desirable, but the issue is how much extra protection can be afforded by cleaning properly, and how much was this undermined by cutting corners to assist profits.

  30. @Carfrew
    I genuinely don’t think ‘cutting corners to assist profits’ is (or was) a factor.

    The main causes of infection transmission are direct contact between people and airborne germs; non-sterilised surgical equipment is also high risk, and I have never come across a hospital that cut its budgets for surgical gloves etc.

    The big shift has been the switch to bactericidal cleaning. The cleanliness of floors etc. is a lot less important and traditional cleaning methods (i.e. someone with a mop) don’t necessarily do much good.

  31. @JBoyd

    Well, it’s more than just floors, but places where people may put their hands. doors and walls etc. though you may be right, but haven’t substantiated it. I posed the question in case anyone had any data on the matter, but whatevs etc.

  32. Lots of interesting stuff on here about the climate debate today.

    And not a mention of “you know what” for over 8 hours – apart from Pete B, but to be fair, he only mentioned it to comment that no one was talking about it.

    I’m kind of sympathetic to higher fuel taxes but am also aware that it hits rural drivers disproportiontely. Not sure how you get round that. Some kind of rebate system possibly, but difficult and costly to administer.

    Cheaper and more plentiful buses perhaps?

    It should not be the case but where I live it’s still cheaper to drive the 4 miles into Canterbury and pay parking for me, my wife and son than it is to use the bus. Not that I do anymore, we have 3 excellent park and rides which are even cheaper than driving in to town.

    Personally, I love driving. I also own 3 motorcycles. So I’m a bit of a petrol head. However, in my heart I know that the time has come to slowly wean myself off using the car willy nilly.

    Hence the recent purchase just before Christmas of an e-bike. Its brilliant, cycling is no longer a chore as I dont dread the hills anymore.

1 59 60 61