Angus Reid have published a new voting intention poll, carried out at the end of last week. Topline voting intentions with changes from their last poll in July are CON 33%(-1), LAB 39%(-2), LDEM 11%(+1). No obvious sign of a Conservative boost from them.

Meanwhile yesterday’s YouGov poll for the Sun continued to show a significantly narrower Labour lead than last month, with figures of CON 38%, LAB 40%, LD 9%.

On the boundary changes (which as you’ll have probably picked up, are a particular interest of mine that I’ll be boring on at length about next week) here are are interesting articles by Lewis Baston and Mark Pack on the new consultation process.


317 Responses to “Angus Reid – CON 33, LAB 39, LDEM 11”

1 5 6 7
  1. Billy Bob

    “I do like artist’s impressions of what new developements will be like… the kind of thing Prince Charles would approve.”

    Strange that the reality is always totally different! :-)

  2. OLDNAT

    Found this :-

    h ttp://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/economics/comments/uk-economy-nominal-and-real-interest-rates/

    After the 70s disaster for savers, the return of real positive interest rates was both dramatic & sustained.

  3. AmberStar @ Old Nat

    “I was never in the anti-Iain camp. I think it is stupid not to let basically sound people learn from their & our collective experience. It was a team failure for Labour & I still don’t really understand why Iain had to take the fall for it.”

    That’s because you are looking for a rational explanation. King of misrule.

  4. Social Liberal.

    Disraeli’s father took the apostrophe out of the family surname, it had been D’Israeli. Dizzy was MP for Beaconsfield, where in 1983 a good looking young Labour candidate lost his deposit, and Michael Foot forecast a great future for him.
    (He had a wife who was tipped to become an MP, Cherie Booth, the one time organiser of the Bennite London Labour Briefing)

    On the God issue: a quote you may know. He did not mind it if Gladstone won at cards. He did not mind if Gladstone put the cards up his sleeves. He DID mind when Gladstone claimed that God had put the cards there!

    And; If Gladstone fell into the Thames it would be a calamity.. If he was rescued from the Thames it would be a disaster.

    And on the same era: Lord Rosebery paid for the Cromwell Statue outside the House, to celebrate Gladstone’s passing and the end of Home Rule for Ireland (he thought, lol).

    A ‘defender of the Faith and the Empire’ was the tribute from Lord Rosbery, friend, allegedly of the friend of Oscar Wilde- prosecuted, of course, by the young Carson

  5. Colin

    Thanks for that. Glad that I bought my first house in 1973.

  6. @Old Nat – All those lovely flowers in the foreground!

    A patch of mud, an abandoned shopping trolley, and some other detritus would have added a touch of verisimilitude.

  7. YouGov/Sun results 8th Sept CON 36%, LAB 42%, LD 10%; APPROVAL -26 http://y-g.co/q38wft

    Regards, Martyn

  8. OLDNAT

    Ours was 1965 & I now remember why I spent my fourties desperately trying to pay down my mortgage quickly.

  9. “YouGov/Sun results 8th Sept CON 36%, LAB 42%, LD 10%; APPROVAL -26”

    Two 6% Labour leads in succession which, if to be believed, suggests that the recent narrowing trend may have abated for now; well at least until the weekend poll for the Sunday Times!

    Maybe Miliband can sleep a little more soundly as he prepares for the forthcoming conference season. His period of political somnambulism appears to have done him no lasting damage at all!

  10. RiN

    RE: Ron Paul

    “He is probably the best republican candidate all the others were as fake as they come but I’m not American so my view will be different”

    As the Independent put it his mantra can be summed up as “every man for himself”.

    He is a libertarian who is against abortion. A presidential candidate who implores Obama to “not bomb Iran” (wtf- as if the current President has ever considered that let alone is likely to do it).

    Naive people seem to be unable to see past the legalisation of drugs, simplistic anti-bailout rhetoric (the western economic system would have collapsed without it) let alone the ‘don’t bomb Iran’ mantras to his main platform: no unemployment insurance/ no social security/ a wealthy elite conniving ‘flat tax’/ no public health care/ no public education: everything supposedly achieved at the local level via a mixture of local taxes and charity/ volunteerism. If I was a religious person I’d call him ‘evil’

    In short he is an absolute barking mad grade one nutter.

    Of course his poll ratings and the amount of space given to him (by both mainstream and faux news media in USA) reflect the fact that he is so far both “out there” and utterly inconsistent in his views.His son is no better: two people who history are leaving behind :D

  11. Rob

    His poll ratings are through the roof I just been checking, the post debate poll has him at 54%. But his media exposure is almost non existent. I know I wouldn’t vote for him but the other contenders are even more scary. I thought in the comments section it was telling that when asked who had won the debate. Ron came first and Obama came second, which just shows what republicans think of their candidates.

    On the subject of bailouts, are you sure that they saved the world economy, if so why are we still bailing, why are we rapidly heading for a new crash. We keep getting told that if we don’t save the bankers ärse’s that it will be worse for us. Maybe so but they would say that wouldn’t they.

  12. @ Old Nat

    “I detect a marginal difference in language usage.

    As a noun, “sovereign” here normally refers to the monarch, and “sovereignty” commonly used for the principle of where ultimate authority lies.

    Neither term, of course, has an absolute meaning.”

    Then Pete B’s description of “governors” vs. the “president” really makes sense. Because from an English perspective, that’s where the sovereign lies. As it so happens, in the U.S., the sovereign rests with the people….both sovereigns actually.

    One of the few places Congress has plenary power is legislating over the affairs of the District of Columbia. This is why I feel that D.C. Statehooders are the most ideologically similar to the Scots Nats (and Welsh Nats) of any American Party.

    @ Pete B

    “Thanks for that explanation. it’s pretty much what I thought, but thanks for the detail. It reminds me a bit of feudalism, where barons were semi-independent of the monarch (but with added democracy of course :)”

    You’re welcome. I’m not sure I would go as far as the feudalism suggestion. It’s basically a system born out of neccessity. The Founding Fathers (well many of them anyway) recognized the disruptive path being taken by the 13 colonies as independent states within a broader league (many couldn’t pay their debts, many actually fought wars with each other, many enacted laws that took away rights from individuals, ignored court judgments from other states, and ignored treaty obligations with the British).

    But most people really don’t like to give up power and that was true of the state governments of the time. So the founders had to come up with a way that took away power from the states that the states would accept. And the vaguely worded Constitution and the doctrine of dual sovereigns is what they came up with. And of course, this is what we still have today.

    @ Alisdair

    “Indeed, if you believe what Gore Vidal writes about the American ruling class, a good number of them are Christians in name only, and this has been the case for quite some time.

    As for PMs, Gordon Brown is probably atheist, or at least agnostic — he’s solidly refused to talk about his own religious beliefs, just saying that he was inspired by his upbringing in the Church of Scotland. Both from that posture, and his character in general, he strikes me as someone who might agree with the Callaghan quote that AW gave above: “Believe in the ethics of Christianity. Can’t believe the mumbo jumbo”.”

    I think it depends on your definition of being a Christian. There are many obviously. Not everyone prays at the same church or prays in the same way….even among the same sects of the same religion. And people are impacted by different events that make them either non-believers or believers.

    I think we all have faith in certain things even if we’re not religious. And that’s why I’ve come to just sort of respect people’s religious beliefs and not feel the need to challenge them or interfere with them.

    And mixing religion into politics drives me nuts. Do people really think god is an election junkie? I’m sure he or she has better things to do with their time than worry over outcomes of individual election races (or football games).

    So I applaud Brown for not going heavy into religion. Obama may or may not be an atheist. He doesn’t go to regular church services, his last church he went to (the one with the crazy reverend) was solely for political reasons, he wasn’t brought up with religion, and when he swore in for the second time (after John Roberts screwed up at the inauguration), he did not swear in on the bible or any other religious documents. This makes me think he’s probably not very religious.

  13. @ Chris Lane

    “Disraeli’s father took the apostrophe out of the family surname, it had been D’Israeli. Dizzy was MP for Beaconsfield, where in 1983 a good looking young Labour candidate lost his deposit, and Michael Foot forecast a great future for him.
    (He had a wife who was tipped to become an MP, Cherie Booth, the one time organiser of the Bennite London Labour Briefing)

    On the God issue: a quote you may know. He did not mind it if Gladstone won at cards. He did not mind if Gladstone put the cards up his sleeves. He DID mind when Gladstone claimed that God had put the cards there!

    And; If Gladstone fell into the Thames it would be a calamity.. If he was rescued from the Thames it would be a disaster.

    And on the same era: Lord Rosebery paid for the Cromwell Statue outside the House, to celebrate Gladstone’s passing and the end of Home Rule for Ireland (he thought, lol).

    A ‘defender of the Faith and the Empire’ was the tribute from Lord Rosbery, friend, allegedly of the friend of Oscar Wilde- prosecuted, of course, by the young Carson”

    And can you believe, I know of this candidate in Beaconsfield that you speak of! I did not know that Disraeli represented that constituency. Like the Gladstone quote.

  14. @ Old Nat

    “My US relatives would agree with that assessment, but didn’t he get 47% in the MSNBC post debate poll? (I have no idea whether that poll is valid – I presume it can’t be “voodoo” unless the US is embracing a very wide range of religions. )”

    Post-debate polls are useless and they are mostly voodoo.

    @ Iceman

    “Yes I have heard the Obama atheist rumours too. This might explain the apparent botch up of his oath of allegiance on his inauguration and subsequent taking of it in private. ( My son has always subscribed to this theory)”

    No. He was fine. It was John Roberts who made the mistake because he didn’t adequately prepare for the oath.

  15. Good Morning from a windy Bournemouth beach.

    An argument for the positive contribution of religion in the public square. ( I declare an interest here) I believe that many of the social reformers and radicals over the generations have been church men and church women – of all denominations, whose beliefs have motivated them to campaign against injustice- Matthew 5 and Matthew 25 say it all.
    Some examples.
    i. The Society of Friends in the ‘Great Hunger’ in Ireland.
    ii. Wilberforce, Fry and Shaftesbury.
    iii. Octavia Hill. Hannah More and Sarah Trimmer
    iv. Camara and Romero- Latin America.
    v. Rowntree and the Booths.
    vi. Pope Leo X111 and Pope John Paul 11
    vii. Archhishop Temple (Canterbury)
    viii. CAFOD and Christian Aid.

  16. Postscript on religion and society
    Ian Duncan Smith is genuinely driven by the passion for social justice, derived from Faith

  17. socalliberal
    “And the vaguely worded Constitution and the doctrine of dual sovereigns is what they came up with. And of course, this is what we still have today. ”

    Good to know that your constitution is as much the result of historical accidents as ours is.

    “And can you believe, I know of this candidate in Beaconsfield that you speak of! I did not know that Disraeli represented that constituency. Like the Gladstone quote.”

    He also didn’t know that we’d had several previous invasions of Afghanistan with extremely limited success. (And in at least one case, total disaster)

1 5 6 7