We’ve had three voting intention polls in the last couple of days:

  • Ipsos MORI‘s monthly political monitor had topline figures of CON 43%(+4), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 6%(-3). Fieldwork was over last weekend (Fri-Wed), and changes are from January. Tabs are here.
  • YouGov/Times on Friday has toplines of CON 41%(nc), LAB 43%(+1), LDEM 7%(nc). Fieldwork was Mon-Tues and changes are from last week. Tabs are here.
  • Survation/GMB, reported in the Sunday Mirror, has CON 37%(-3), LAB 44%(+1), LDEM 9%(+1). Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday, and changes are from the tail end of January. No tabs yet.

There is no clear trend – Labour is steady across the board, Survation have the Tories falling, MORI have them rising. MORI and YouGov show the two main parties neck-and-neck, Survation have a clear Labour lead.

The better Labour position in Survation is typical, but it’s not really clear why. As regular readers will know, Survation do both online and telephone voting intention polls. Their phone polls really do have a significantly different methodology – rather than random digit dialling, they randomly select phone numbers from consumer databases and ring those specific people. That would be an obvious possible explanation for a difference between Survation phone polls and polls from other companies. However, this poll wasn’t conducted by telephone, it was conducted online, and Survation’s online method is pretty similar to everyone else’s.

Survation’s online samples at the general election were much the same as everyone elses. The differences were down to other companies experimenting with things like demographic turnout modelling in order to solve the problems of 2015, approaches that ultimately ended up backfiring. However, polling companies that got it wrong have now dropped the innovations that didn’t work and largely gone back to simpler methods on turnout, meaning there is now no obvious reason for the difference.

Meanwhile, looking at the other questions in the surveys the YouGov poll also included their all their regular EU trackers, following Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn’s speeches. Neither, unsusprisingly, seem to have made much difference. 29% of people think that the Conservative party’s policy on Brexit is clear, up on a week ago (25%) but still significantly down from January (37%). 36% of people say they support May’s approach to Brexit, barely changed from a week ago (35%). For Labour, just 18% of people now think their Brexit policy is clear (down from 22% straight after Corbyn’s speech), 21% of people say they support the approach that Jeremy Corbyn is taking towards Brexit.

640 Responses to “Latest voting intention polls”

1 10 11 12 13
  1. @Sam

    Apparently the government are doing a U-turn and sending the samples to the OPCW. Which is the very thing Corbyn was slated for suggestung in all the media yesterday.

    The bias of the British media is beyond a joke.

  2. I am shocked at the far too hasty reaction to the Salisbury poisoning by the Tory government, the Labour row, and the SNP support for TM.

    Jeremy Corbyn`s HoC speech seemed right to me – we ought to have absolute evidence before condemning the Kremlin and/or Putin. Normally I prefer the Centrist/Blair Labour lines against the further-Left Corbynistas, but not on the poisoning response.

    I have come to this view partly from the messages posted here, especially Sam`s on how the nerve agent was being manufactured outside Russia. But also I noted TM`s inadequate response to JC`s questions.

    Now today I find Theresa May visiting Salisbury to milk the situation for political advantage. And clearly to take the electorate`s attention away from the grim financial news contained in the Spring Statement.

  3. OK, personally when I listened to the hysterical response of our so-called parliamentarians to may’s speech and Corbyn’s response I was ashamed of my country yesterday

    What happened to the Rule of Law? What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? What happened to presenting actual evidence.

    As far as I can see the only evidence presented so far is that the Russians are known to have once made Novichok, so they must be guilty. Where they made it is controversial, but many experts including the former British ambassador to Uzbekhistan say it was made there, and that the safety both of the compound (and perhaps the formula) could easily have been compromised after the fall of the Soviet Union and before the Americans destroyed the plant. Then I just heard Ralph Trapp on R4 world at 1, who worked for the OPCW for years, refusing to rule out the fact that other labs outside Russia could have made it. He did confirm that tracers such as isotopes might identify the source lab more clearly, the question JC asked yesterday (as a geochemist I can also say that you would be lucky to get unequivocal evidence without a lot of sampling in the areas of the laboratories however).
    This substance is apparently similar to VX, developed in our very own Porton Down lab. That was actually then synthesised and used by the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinriko in the 1990’s (we did not get the blame, surprising as it may seem..). Skripal must have made many enemies besides Putin in his double agent career, some of whom might well be rich enough to fund an illegal laboratory…

    Anyway, I am no fan of Putin. The evidence trail including CCTV and a trail of Polonium decay products led straight to Moscow in the case of Litvinenko. On the other hand, tradition in the KGB and other agencies is NEVER to go after an exchanged agent because then you never get another exchange. That did not apply to Litvinenko. The motive is not so clear this time. So I definitely put Putin on the suspect list but I think much firmer evidence is needed to convict him, especially in such confrontational terms..

  4. Sorry, Ralf, not Ralph


  5. “Apparently the government are doing a U-turn and sending the samples to the OPCW. Which is the very thing Corbyn was slated for suggesting in all the media yesterday. ”

    Perhaps they read CMJ’s post on here and realised their legal obligations?

  6. Allan Christie

    “Ol Corby has it right on Russia.”

    Well you might think so, but many of his MP’s don’t. Personally I think he has made it even more difficult for him to become Prime Minister, something I for one am very happy about.


    “……………..then you must be prepared for your family and every other British subject to become poorer if or when your predictions fail.”

    I think the chance of me being wrong is quite small but if I am proved to be so it will still be a price worth paying. So far since the referendum result my wealth has continued to grow at a very reasonable rate. Indeed the initial effects of the referendum on the markets enabled me to make a nice profit.

    As to Brexit causing a Corbyn government then I think that unlikely as well, as I have said. If I am wrong on that, then yes, most in Britain will suffer economically as it would have a disastrous effect on the nations finances. However after 5 years they would be voted out and the Tories would begin rebuilding the economy as usual and Brexit will give us great opportunities to rebuild faster.

    No doubt you totally disagree, as I posted before there is no meeting of minds at all.

  7. The idea that the UK can provide definitive evidence of Russian government involvement at the highest level, perhaps with helpful video footage of Putin giving out the orders is risible.

    Anybody who cannot see that it just can’t work like that is being deliberately obtuse.

    We seem to be replacing the awful, “my country, right or wrong”, with its opposite.

  8. @ToH
    I agree about the commonality of far-right and far-left dictatorships.

    Conceptually fascists make activity subservient to the interests of the ‘nation’ or ‘volk’ defined in an ethnic /nationalist form, whereas communists make activity subservient to the interests of the ‘people’, specifically the working class.
    In practice both enforce the primacy of the interests of the ‘party’, and specifically the leadership of the ruling group, over the interests of ordinary people.

    Regards the Salisbury event, the focus appears to be almost exclusively on means, whereas – as we know form Miss Marple – we have to consider means, motive and opportunity.

    We need someone with access nerve agents, access to people willing to take the risks involved in administering them, able to track the whereabouts of individuals to some level of detail, and who will benefit from the noisy and demonstrative murder of the victims.

    That list means we are almost certainly limited to government agencies, and realistically probably only to the US, Russia, N Korea and Israel.

    You can construct a rather twisted case for the US to have such a motivation, I agree. However there is a very clear and direct motivation for Russia, which also has a proven capability to deliver the nerve agent, and has previously publically assassinated someone using a radioactive agent in London through an individual who is now sitting as an MP in the Duma.

    I totally accept that there needs to be continuing investigation, and that samples should be sent to the appropriate international agencies as required in the treaties.

    However I would argue that there is enough concurrent evidence to draw a preliminary conclusion on culpability.

    And when it comes to whether to trust the UK Secret Service, well, yes, they haven’t covered themselves in glory always in recent years, although much of their most successful work is necessarily secret – we tend to hear only about the cock-ups.

    But let’s not draw some equivalence between Russia and the UK on this stuff – the Russians lie whenever it suits them, totally regardless of the evidence; whether it’s about shooting down airliners, putting special forces into the Crimea, rigging elections, interfering in foreign votes, they can be caught red-handed and they will simply flat-out deny the truth.

    Most governments are at least embarrassed to be caught lying – the Russian government just doesn’t care. It’s all about sowing doubt and discord. If we believe otherwise, we are just daft…

  9. Having said that, some shock and outrage about this death seems conspicuous by its absence.


  10. Princess Rachel,

    ” taking the Mick out of May for promising to be tough and doing very little”

    Yes, but she is pretty teflon too, like corbyn. This is not a usual situation, because apart from tribal lab/con voting for any stuffed dummy, we similarly have leave remain doing the same. Between them, the two forces have swept most voters into one or other camp.

    Neil A,
    ” I absolutely believe that there shouldn’t be a rush to judgement”

    I think what there should be is considered action. If this was done by Russia, they intended it to become an enormous international diplomatic row. And we have obliged. The likely long term outcome is the Uk looking impotent and Putin getting an extended career.

    “it (re)opens the door to the Conservatives criticising Corbyn as being someone who simply cannot be trusted when the security and national interest is at stake ”

    I think this row will be seen differently by the two sides and not sway much. But if as I imagine the UK ends up making lots of noise but achieving nothing against Russia, then May will look foolish for having promised it.


    As Corbyn was the only MP who made any sense yesterday, we’ll have to agree to disagree as usual. Do try at least to recall that he was one of the few brave MPs who were right over the WMD issue, which lead to the disastrous 2nd Gulf War which lead to the rise of the terrorists still active today.

  12. danny

    ” If this was done by Russia, they intended it to become an enormous international diplomatic row. And we have obliged. ”

    Are you suggesting we would have looked better by doing nothing?

    And if you think we should do something, then what?

    Clearly we are not in a very strong position either way.

  13. @Danny
    The Russians feel the can do things like this in the UK because they believe we are too weak to respond – the response to Litvinenko was pathetic.

    The Russians believe in and respect strength ruthlessly applied – ignoring them and hoping they go away just invites a kicking…

  14. I posted yesterday that the Uzbek scientist concerned with the development of Novichok, Vil Mirzayanov reportedly said in 1999 in the New York Times that Novichok was made in Uzbekistan – the Nukus Institute.

    This week, also in the NYT, Mr Mirzayanov said that Novichok was made in Russia – tons of it. He is 83 which may or not be relevant.

  15. @TOH – “I think the chance of me being wrong is quite small…”

    I’m quite surprised that you say this, as you have already admitted to being wrong on one very significant part of the Brexit process.

    Most people would take a slightly humbler approach, once they’ve slipped up particularly, but humility and self awareness doesn’t seem to be something that passes you mind that often.

    As to your personal wealth, I too have grown substantially wealthier since the Brexit vote, but I take my own wealth to be of secondary importance to the wellbeing of my country and my compatriots.

    Perhaps we just make our judgements based on different moral values.

  16. BZ

    As you say as usual we disagree.

    Your view on Corbyn yesterday is very much in the minority on this occasion I think,. polling might show us, we shall see.

    On the WMD issue i did not believe Blair at the time, so Corbyn and I have that one thing in common. Where he and I disagree is that I was in favour of the war, but very critical of how it was followed up. How to deal with Iraq after we had won was one of the greatest botched issues of our time.

  17. Alec

    “Most people would take a slightly humbler approach, once they’ve slipped up particularly, but humility and self awareness doesn’t seem to be something that passes you mind that often.”

    You may be surprised, but whats new. As to the score on Brexit, it stands at 1-1 at the moment so I suggest that the above equally applies to you.

    “As to your personal wealth, I too have grown substantially wealthier since the Brexit vote, but I take my own wealth to be of secondary importance to the wellbeing of my country and my compatriots.”

    As do, i it’s one of the very many reasons i voted to leave the EU. I think the nation will be far better off in so many ways.

    “Perhaps we just make our judgements based on different moral values.”

    What pompous codswallop. I consider myself a very moral person and I am very self aware thank you.

    I really think that is one of your most bizarre posts. We fundamentally disagree why don’t you just accept that.

  18. @WB

    “In general all authoritarianism stems from the wish of one individual or small group to be in charge and developing the notion that not to be in agreement with that individual or group is is not to be a citizen of that nation.”

    Sounds suspiciously like some attitudes to politics on here…

  19. BFR

    Many thanks for your interesting post to me. I find that there is little if anything for me to disagree with. An excellent post of the subject if i may say so.

  20. Alec

    Typing and posting too fast should read

    As I do,it’s one of the many…………………

  21. @Andrew111

    “This substance is apparently similar to VX,”

    No. Apparently it acts to block the same biological function, but chemically it is very different.

    The point about Corbyn isn’t whether he was right or wrong, it is that he displayed not one ounce of political sense.It would have been very easy to make his point and still sound supportive of the government, but instead he allowed himself to be painted in a negative light.

  22. @TOH

    “So far since the referendum result my wealth has continued to grow at a very reasonable rate. Indeed the initial effects of the referendum on the markets enabled me to make a nice profit.”

    This for me is the crux of why I have never been able to understand the right wing mentality, no matter how hard I try. You will note that the nation has not got significantly richer since Brexit was announced, so if you have then it has been at the expense of your fellow countrymen. That you are proud of this I find baffling and repugnant. You no doubt also consider yourself a patriot. How do you square these circles in your mind? I would dearly love to understand.

  23. @Robin

    Why on earth would we want to sound supportive of the government?

    We don’t support the government, we want rid of them.

    Liberals and Fascist are two sides of the same coin


    I made money investing which is good for the UK economy although of course by no means all my investments are in the UK, and yes I have invested new money since the referendum since my income is greater than my expenditure. So clearly I am helping the economy and not at the expense of others in the UK. Why wouldn’t I be proud of that?

    “You will note that the nation has not got significantly richer since Brexit was announced”

    I guess I cannot understand the left wing mentality, not that I try very hard since it seems so negative.

  25. Alienated Labour

    “Liberals and Fascist are two sides of the same coin”

    What absolute nonsense.

  26. Alberto

    I should have added that since the referendum the economy has continued to grow each year. It has slowed a little as one would expect from the very high levels of personal debt in the UK. I have also made it clear many times that i expect some short lived negative effect from brexit as we leave the EU but this will be more than offset by much faster growth as we seize new opportunities.

  27. @Robin

    The folk painting Jeremy Corbyn in a poor light included 2 Tories who in their reasons for deciding the poisoning was ordered by the Kremlin/Putin, said that they had annexed Crimea.

    Supporting the overwhelming view in a polity for independence is taken as a crime, it seems. The Crimea population is 65% ethnic Russian, and in their referendum 97% voted to be independent of Ukraine on an 83% turn-out.

    Clearly we can expect these same hard Tory MPs to ignore any majority vote in Scotland for independence. Yet they think a 52/48 vote in a non-binding referendum gives absolute power when their view wins.

    The rash statements being made about how to react to the Salisbury poisoning reflect very badly on the calibre of many MPs and commentators, and have quite split the parties. For example Con Coughlin in the DTel was complaining bitterly about how Tory cutbacks had exposed the UK to such attacks.

  28. @Alienated Labour
    Factually it would seem strange to conflate a philosophy (liberalism) which is rooted in the belief that the most moral and beneficial outcome arises from the conjunction of individual freedom with responsibility for the welfare of others, with a political philosophy (fascism) which is rooted in the belief that the freedom of the individual and the welfare of the people is totally subservient to the needs of the nation.

    Philosophically they are fundamentally opposed to each other…

    Unless you really mean libertarianism?

  29. @Davywel
    There is a legitimate argument to be made that the Crimea would have sought to rejoin Russia if freely allowed to choose – I fully agree.

    However the use of special forces as agent provocateurs, then blatant and massive intimidation of non ethnic Russians, and finally vote rigging in the actual election, all make it harder to be comfortable with, don’t you think?

    The legitimacy of the claim doesn’t automatically justify the means IMHO…

  30. BFR

    Two more very nice posts. You have much more patience than i have.

    Enjoy the rest of the day all.

  31. @BF:

    Fair comment.

    But I have not seen reports of substantial resistance in Crimea to autonomy. So I think any shift in the result caused by intimidation and vote rigging is minor.

    Hopefully there is peace now, though with fighting still going on in eastern Ukraine there could be sparks to cause fire.

    If Putin now expels UK diplomats from Russia, I do hope TM will not escalate further.

  32. @Davwel

    You leave me speechless.

  33. @bigfatron

    No I mean liberalism, and that’s not a definition of liberalism I would accept, and it’s not consistent with the practice of liberalism through the ages – for instance it’s hard to square this “individual freedom” and “concern for the welfare of society” with things such as the slave trade, to pick one particularly egregious historical example. Slavery reached its zenith under liberalism, indeed the founding fathers of liberal thought (John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, De Tocqueville et al) were enthusiastic proponents of slavery and rationalised their support by utilising liberal ideology. Same logic applies to workhouses, indentured servitude, transport to Australia for workers who went on strike, expansion of the British Empire and all the rest.

    From my perspective liberals are just fascists with manners.

    Both support the continued rule of the capital-owning few over the property-less many, they both regard themselves as non-ideological reflections of innate human nature, and therefore anything beyond their own narrow as extremist and un-natural – both claim to be “beyond left and right” and indeed this popular centrist slogan has its first recorded usage in European politics in Mussolini’s Italy – which is why theorists of fascism often use to phrase “the extremism of the centre” to describe fascist politics in action. Both support private property, the nation-state system, a rigid and heircahical social order, both are suspicious and actively hostile to democracy, whilst venerating war and militarism at every opportunity.

    They often work hand in hand against the left – Nazi Germany being the most well known example, but for a more pertinent recent example would be Brazil, where only yesterday the free-market liberals who rule the country under Temer recently murdered a socialist politician named Marielle Franco who had been criticising police brutality in the favelas. This is what liberalism does.

    You have to understand that liberalism looks from where I am sitting every bit as extreme and ridiculous as socialism looks to you. I’ve been on entirely peaceful demonstrations and been charged at by police on horseback, watched children little older than 14 being battered by police truncheons for having the temerity to exercise their rights, civil liberties being stripped to the bone etc, behaviour never considered authoritarian when it happens here at home. That’s what liberalism means. Whenever I think of Western Values or Liberal Democracy the first thought that pops into my head is Abu Ghraib.

  34. I see why you’re alienated from Labour…

  35. I always that Ukraine was a singularly bad example of the idea of the West as champions of democracy.

    During its uneasy but almost democratic period, there was a rough balance between an Eastern looking block and a Western looking block. Some of the split was regional and ethnic so Easterners and ethnic Russians predominated in the first group, and a Westerners and ethnic Ukrainians in the second. And some was political.

    Twice the first block narrowly prevailed in elections. Twice the second block used its predominance in the Western area where the capital was located to overthrow it. Egged on if not actively fomented in this by the US and EU.

    I’d give up on democracy too in such a case I reckon.

  36. AL

    Those paragons of socialism Stalin and Mao Zedong would be proud of you.

  37. Turk

    While AL’s view is nonsense, Stalin had pretty good opinion of liberals (for example his long interview with HG Wells.

  38. @TOH – “As to the score on Brexit, it stands at 1-1 at the moment so I suggest that the above equally applies to you.”

    Perhaps you’ve missed the point, but I’m not the one claiming near certainty in my views. I’m also a bit lost on the 1-1 bit. Are you able to say where the other score comes from, as I have no recollection of this?

  39. Apologies if this link has already been posted but I haven’t time to read all the posts and there is only so much I can take from the Putin apologists on here anyway. And from the Guardian, Who would have thunk it?


  40. Conservativism, liberalism, social democracy and communism as political philosophies are rather close relatives (descendents of the Enlightenment).

    In political practice, they all committed crimes and worse. These are time and geography defined (both include economy, social history and so on).

    Mussolini started off as socialist, the national question shifted him to chauvinism for which the political alliance was the middle classes, and required the resources of the landlords and industrialists. In France even relatively high level communist party members managed to become fascists on the basis of chauvinism.

    But these are individual life histories. Even politically it can be ve r strange. Before 1933 every major party in Germany formed regional alliances with the NSDAP – yes the communists too – mainly to defeat the party closes to them (social democrats were the most disadvantaged as both the liberals and the communists pressed them). Of course, 1933 changed all of it (somewhat more gradually for the liberals).

    And so on. Fascism is not a relative to any of these philosophies.

  41. Laszlo

    Well said. Though who use terms for political philosophies as terms of abuse are unlikely to change their practice.

    Meanwhile, all seems to be going according to plan [1] with the WA negotiations, as an updated form of the treaty was tabled by the EU today.


    According to Reuters, the unresolved issues are

    1. The Irish border
    2. The rights of the families of EU citizens moving to the UK during transition
    3. the end date for transition.

    [1] The EU plan, that is

  42. @TOH – I’ve just realised what your ‘1-1’ score relates to.

    You think that you’ve scored by ‘proving’ your assertion that the UK won’t legally commit to the payment schedule agreed in the Joint report unless we get a good trade deal, with your case based on the word of a government minister.

    I’m afraid that isn’t a score – more like it’s a disputed call with the ref unsighted that has gone to the TMO to await a decision.

    I have to say that the slow mo’s on the big screen aren’t looking too good for you and @Trev Warne at the moment. I suspect that unless we get a different angle it’s going to be 2-0 before long.

    Have a look at the link @Oldnat has just posted. This is the legal text (latest draft) published by the EU. It’s long, but it clearly deals with all the money issues as stated in the JR.

    It also deals with the transition agreement, and it makes clear that (obviously) the transition agreement needs to be agreed before we start the transition, and that the purpose of the transition is to negotiate a suitable trade deal. This isn’t a surprise, as this was all in the JR, but read through the 127 pages of legal text and you should start to appreciate that:

    – The UK has agreed in principle to the payments in the JR
    – HMG will need to sign the WA and accept legally binding payments in order to get a transition
    – Once we’ve signed this, we start talking about a trade deal
    – Ergo, we won’t be negotiating the final trade deal until we have accepted the legally binding payments, and we therefore won’t be legally able to threaten to withhold the agreed payments as part of the trade talks.

  43. @AL
    So your view on liberalism is defined by the fact that some people who thought of themselves as liberal more than 200 years ago supported slavery?

    Sure they did, but for their time they were liberal because – shockingly – they believed in individual freedom far more than most. They thought that ordinary men were due a say in running the country, as opposed to the prevailing conservative view that only the king and nobility had a right to a view.

    If you insist on judging modern liberal thought through the lens of nineteenth century liberal views then I guess we are entitled to judge socialism through the views and behaviour of Stalin, or conservatism through the views of the Marquess of Salisbury. Neither are very edifying, but the notion is equally ridiculous IMHO.

    Liberals have been at the forefront of resisting the unjust exercise of force for decades; from the legalisation of homosexuality through to the condemnation of the Iraq war, many movements for freedom have been led by liberals like David Steel and Charles Kennedy.

    So – as a liberal – I am genuinely offended by your characterisation of liberals when you clearly don’t know the first thing about the views and actions of those of us who are actually liberals.

    It’s the same line as Carfrew takes, only more extreme…

  44. As to oppression of opinion in Stalin’s Soviet Union – it is a bit of a myth (obviously the freedom of speech didn’t exist). We have now enough documents that I til 1934 there were open and lovely debates (still not freedom of speech), and as factions existed in its entire history, so opinion differences existed.

    Opinion differences were inevitable as Russia was far from monolithic (ministries fought with each other , companies fought with each other, regions had quite a bit of independence (until 1937, at least).

    Stalin encouraged publication of off-party literature (under certain circumstances) – among them Bulgakov (partly because he thought the Soviet art wasn’t that good, and also because they admitted the defeat). On the other hand it is also true that Zhdanov criticised a poet because of a poem about his gloves being stolen in a Leningrad tram.

    So, rather complex (without any attempt of making comparison with liberal democracies).

  45. The most recent blog post about Brexit on the RTE website is about David Davis. What he says is mostly Cake.

    Mr Davis was asked questions about the NI / Ireland border. However, everything he said indicated that the negotiating technique is to try to assume that there are no outstanding issues to resolve and the talks can and should move on to conclude a transition / implementation period and discussion can take place about the framework for a new deal.The description of the framework will be vague and broad – no surprise there.

    It seems to me that Mr Davis does not realise perhaps that not all items of phase 1 have been settled and that the matters he talked about in the HoC will not be discussed until the NI / Irish border issue is settled. Davis is clearly trying to take the border problem into the next stage. This will not happen. Negotiations are about to stop suddenly.


  46. Good evening all from a mild but little breezy Winchester.

    Allan Christie

    “Ol Corby has it right on Russia.”

    Well you might think so, but many of his MP’s don’t. Personally I think he has made it even more difficult for him to become Prime Minister, something I for one am very happy about

    The majority of ol Corby’s MPs have never backed him over anything.
    I don’t agree with ol Corby on many things but im right with him on how this nation of ours should act on the World stage.
    I would sooner have Corby as our PM than this current regime under TM.

    On the alleged Russian plot to assassinate an ex traitor, unfortunately two innocent people were cought up in the attack but other than that he got what he deserved and I would hope the same would happen to any British snoops selling out their country to the highest bidder.

    If one of our agents was cought selling state secrets to the Russians then that person should be found in a suitcase in central London.

    Oh hang on!! Cast your mind back. .

  47. @ TOH

    “So clearly I am helping the economy and not at the expense of others in the UK. Why wouldn’t I be proud of that?”

    If your real return on your investment is greater than the productivity gain resulting from the that investment, some of that return must have come from somewhere else. You have gained all of the increased productivity and more personally. Therefore by claiming to have done well in an environment where productivity has flatlined the only source of your increased wealth is the pockets of your fellow currency users, primarily your fellow countrymen. By extension the rest of us were better off before your investment and therefore rather than benefitting the wider society you are making a net withdrawal from it. I don’t see how you can be proud of that.

    Of course, I’m not implying you stole the money, I imagine you comply with the letter of the law. Also you may personally buck the trend, I have no way of knowing. I’m just pointing out that the political, legal and economic system you profited from is unjust. Therefore when you defend that unjust system it seems you are simply defending your own privilege. This I find a selfish act and the antithesis of patriotic virtue.

    I believe we can build a better, fairer and happier society for all. I don’t see how you find that a negative ideology.

  48. It seems that Corbyn’s favourite for General Secretary may not have a chance.

  49. When Carillion collapsed back in January we had assurances here on UKPR that work on their projects such as the Aberdeen WPR would still be delivered by their partners, since contracts demanded it.

    The regular supporters of private enterprise and Tory beliefs put out these messages on the thread started 14 January. Colin was in the lead, and even tried to reassure me with a picture in our local newspaper of work continuing; unfortunately he hadn`t considered it would just be sunrise in Aberdeen, so his pic was clearly old.

    We now know that an extra 3 months delay is likely, but no government or construction person will give a date.


    Some sections of the road do look finished, as in the optimistic pic in the link. But some junctions are nowhere near ready. So our papers are also telling us that a section of the B979 linking the AWPR will be closed from Friday evening till Monday morning with not even walking allowed. But residents stranded in their houses can apply for taxying out for urgent matters.

    Not all Carillion staff got new jobs on the AWPR, and now Balfour Beatty are laying some workers off. Obviously they are cutting their losses.

    For many locals, as well as the construction workers, the chaotic AWPR build has been three years of misery.

  50. @Robert N

    “And from the Guardian, Who would have thunk it?”


    Have you ever actually read the Guardian? It’s a Liberal newspaper. LIBERAL. Hence their maxim “Liberal, but not with the truth”. Hence supporting Liberals, like Blair, or the LDs. It’s hardly a “who would have thunk it” moment if they side against Corbyn.

1 10 11 12 13