Tory lead up to 10% as Labour collapses to 29%

"Support for Labour has dropped to its lowest level for almost 20 years, according to an opinion poll.  The ICM poll for Wednesday's edition of The Guardian puts Labour on 29%, 10 points behind the Tories on 39%, with the Liberal Democrats on 22%.  Labour's support equals a previous record low for the party in an ICM/Guardian poll recorded in May 1987." - Sky News

1am, 25/10 update:

The new Guardian/ ICM numbers have been put into CH's poll of polls (and MORI's numbers have been dropped because of their volatility) and they produce a Tory average lead of 5.2%.  This lead is consistent with yesterday's Communicate Research poll for The Independent which recorded a 6% lead.   Communicate Research is also excluded from the CH Poll of Polls but because of its irregularity rather than its volatility.

Comments

[Ben Redsell]

Amazing. I should think all those who accused DC and GO of losing their marbles over tax must be choking on their cocoa right now.

Fantastic news, the only thing that can have affected this poll during the field work is the Tax commission - so the line we presented is clearly the right one to use...

...we would like to reduce the tax burden, but we'll make no promises now, we don't know what the situation will be in the nations finances when the General Election comes.

Well done David and George, yet more return to winning ways!!!

[malcolm]

Delighted to hear the news but the polls are all over the place at the moment.Any ideas as to why anyone?

[Ben Redsell]

malcolm you can't compare different polling companies with each other. MORI is simple. They are the only polling company that employ face to face interviews, and they don't sift their data by past vote weighting. ICM, YouGov and Populous are far more accurate and usually fairly steady. I think I'm right in saying that Tim doesn't include Mori in the Poll of Polls for this reason.

There is a second reason, which is put forward by Mike Smithson on Political Betting.com which is that we do better when we get the media coverage, be it good or not. This also seems to have some credibility when you look at the stats.

I suggest if you want to know more, you contact Anthony Wells. He will tell you more than you knew you wanted to know!!!

[James Maskell]

Indeed, weve heard that line before from a certain Mr Brown...

The poll lead is due to a Labour collapse, not a Tory fightback. Our 'fightback' has been to be a fresh version of Labour, not because of being anything particularly distinctive. I really think its a soft poll. When we put meat on the bones, I do fear that we will be caught out. I know Labour are in trouble but under 30 per cent I dont buy.

[Annabel Herriott]

So are we going to stop getting our knickers in a twist about opinion polls?????
Our local paper, notoriously lib dem, was praising DC's statesman ship today, over those wretched veils. Which by the way, have a BIG political agenda to them.
So lets just get behind DC and let him do his job, shall we? Stop letting ourselves get wound up by Trolls. Keep the blood pressure down.

[malcolm]

Thanks Ben. I do remember ICM being criticised on this blog in the past but can't remember why.I hope on this ocassion that they're accurate! I had thought we had fallen back a little from the early summer despite the absolutely torrid time Labour had been having.

[michael]

Great news, will wipe the smile of those over at labourhome after the post, 'Gloom for Cameron as Labour pulls ahead in latest poll'!!!!!!!!!! (that was the rubbish MORI poll)

[John Wright]

This is all good stuff, but let's keep our feet on the ground. Wasn't there another poll yesterday which showed a 2-point Labour lead for those certain to vote?

We should be as sceptical of those polls which show an unusually large lead as those which aren't as favourable as we might hope and expect.

[Ben Redsell]

Mr Maskell, I'm confused. ICM are one of the most respected polling companies, and have polling data going back many many years. They say that Labour haven't been this bad in the polls since 1987. That has to be bad for them.

However I don't see what happened in particular that showed the Government's many failings more than anything else. The only political story of note during the time of the fieldwork was the Tax Commission. There is clear correlation between this and the lead in the polls.

BTW for future reference. I hope no-one who attacked DC after the MORI poll will now say polls are irrelevant...

[James Maskell]

The only poll you can completely trust is the General Election. A poll of around a 1000 people isnt the same as millions of people voting.

[Ben Redsell]

James I hope you said that about MORI...

I agree. However they give a good indication on how things are going.

John Wright at 2259, yes the MORI poll showed a Labour lead. However MORI are fairly discredited as they show very wild fluctuations.

James I've just been back and checked. You said yesterday at 1549 that you 'do worry about these polls. We should have a higher lead than this'

Well now you have higher leads than this, yet you still aren't happy. Are there any circumstances that you would support the Conservative leadership on any issue?

[Matt Wright]

As I have been saying consistently I believe that DCs general approach is the right one. He is trying to change the image of the party as well as shift it onto sensible middle ground territory where most voters are. Yes of course he doesn't get it all right every time but its the first time we are doing something different since we lost power. Labour's problems certainly have helped us but our sensible approach is helping us to look electable amongst ordinary people. Those that are so wrist slashingly negative on this site need to think again BUT equally we have a job now as a party to solidify this lead and increase it by shifting towards some practical positions that illustrate the social responsibility platform that has correctly been set out as what we stand for in the 21st Century,

Matt Wright

[James Maskell]

"Are there any circumstances that you would support the Conservative leadership on any issue?"

At this moment in time and after all thats happened since Cameron came to power, I wouldnt bet on it.

[Matt Wright]

Also just a note for James as mirrored by Ben above - James you seeem to be disappointed we are doing well!! You seem to reflect a minority element of idealogues that are willing the party to fail in order that you can say we told you so. Possibly we haven't got everything right but all I know is that I am working my guts out for the party and that we would be better than this sham of a Govt. I am pleased we are doing well,

Matt

[Ian Lewis, Wallasey, Wirral]

I think NuLab has finally reached the 'tipping point' predicted by IDS. To misquote GB, nothing they say or do again can be believed.

I'd be interested to see how NuLab supporters who voted in for them in 2005 are saying they will vote next time...

[James Maskell]

Ah, the old arguments against the traditional members of the Party...if you arent supporting the leadership you want it to fail. A poor argument but you are well within your rights to use it.

As for being an ideologue, yep, guilty as charged. My beliefs are based more on intellectual basis and conservative ideology rather than pragmatism. Its a pretty sizable minority though and Cameron shouldnt take it for granted...

I dont want the Party to fail, nor am I diosappointed in their successes. I want it to form the next Government. The upcoming elections will be the fourth elections Ive been involved in. My support of the Party cannot be questioned. However I am concerned about the direction this Party is going in and I doubt Im the only one.

[Andrew Woodman]

Not sure what I make of this. On the face of it, it's great news, but the 10% is due to a Lib Dem gain which I don't really believe, and if sustained will block us from winning many of the southern seats we need to gain. We seem to be steady at the 36-39% mark which is encouraging but not yet enough. To quote a certain Mr Blair, a lot done, a lot still to do.

[Matt Wright]

Andrew, I agree, we are heading in the right direction and need to firm up the social responsibility platform with practical positions and local action. We all have a part to play. The party is a big machine and if we all act in concert anything can be achieved. Remember we were known as, and still can be, the most powerful political machine in the world,

Matt

[Rob B]

I am confused by all these polls. HAve they ever shown such a disparity before? They really do seem to be all over the place. I want to celebrate but something just tells me the polls cannot be trusted.

Frankly, i have no idea how popular anyone is at the moment. The Lib Dem figures seems to fluctuate from 14% to 22%. At 22% in this poll we still have a problem winning council seats next year and parliamentary seats off them in future years.

[Northerntory]

"Ah, the old arguments against the traditional members of the Party...if you arent supporting the leadership you want it to fail. A poor argument but you are well within your rights to use it."
Sorry James, you are not the anointed "traditional" group in the conservative party
any more than any other group.
"Its a pretty sizable minority though and Cameron shouldnt take it for granted..."
I am interested to know why you should think that your views should be any more important than other people's within the party or the swing voter's who might be tempted to vote conservative at the next election.
This is not an exclusive club which will survive as a major political force if we keep thinking that we must cater for a noisy minority within the party which might flounce off. When did it become more important to appease people within the party instead of trying to attract more voter's to join us?
Appealing to floating voter's is how you maintain and increase a poll lead with the ultimate aim of wining a GE.

[Chris Whiteside]

Opinion polls are useful as long as you remember the margin of error and don't read too much into any single poll - if you panic every time there is a bad one, or become ecstatic at every good one, you'll get yourself into a frazzle.

For a well conducted poll with a sample of about a thousand the margin of error is + or - three percentage points for each party, which means that there is a 95% chance that any party is within that range. So if a poll says that the Conservatives are on 39% support and Labour on 29% that means that there is a 95% chance that we are between 42% and 36% and a 95% chance that Labour is between 32% and 26%. On it's own the poll could be consistent with anything from a real but narrow Tory lead to a complete Labour meltdown of 1983 proportions. Put it in the context of the other polls by reputable organisations and they are all consistent with a Tory lead of 5% to 6%.

Looking at the length of time the polls have been in this area, and the good but not superlative results we have been getting in local by-elections, and I don't see how any reasonable person can avoid the conclusions that, first, the Conservatives are doing better in the opinion polls under David Cameron than we have at any time since Black Wednesday, but also second, that we are not doing well enough to be able to afford an atom of complacency.

In the spirit of Ronald Reagan's advice which was quoted recently on this blog, to never speak ill of a fellow Conservative: we need to appeal to the middle ground to win power but we need to remember our principles to have any change of doing something worth when we get there.

Admittedly, you could make a good case that the present government have been in office so long, and become so arrogant, that throwing them out would be a good thing on principle even if we were not much better. But I hope we aspire to more than merely being better than the present lot.

I do think, however that we might find it worth while to remember those on the far left who were sometimes called "revolutionary defeatists" - people like Tony Benn who argued that the electorate voted for Margaret Thatcher because Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock weren't left wing enough. Let's try to avoid the equivalent mistake.

[Matt Wright]

Well said Chris,

Matt

[Northerntory]

RobB, This monthly ICM/Guardian poll seems the most respected among people like Mike Smithson from PB.com.
Another great site is Anthony Well's UKpolling report which has details of the various polls and you can monitor the progress of parties with different pollster's on a regular basis.

[Opinicus]

The Conservatives need 43% to win the next general election. This is a one off poll significantly at odds with several others and higher than the PoP above.
I ask again what is the strategy to get from here to 43%

[Henry Cook]

Just remember, MORI = the 'random number generator'. Let's see which story the Yougov poll confirms...

[greg]

"Not sure what I make of this. On the face of it, it's great news, but the 10% is due to a Lib Dem gain which I don't really believe..."

That's: Conservatives +3 (+6 since the election), Libdems +1 (-1 since the election)

"The Conservatives need 43% to win the next general election

No, they need a c. 10% lead (although possibly lower if the main shifts in supports are in "marginal" seats). Saying they need 43% is to misunderstood the way political support has altered in recent years - with the LibDems having a very sizeable chunk of 'core support' and the numbers voting for smaller parties at all time highs. In fact the Conservatives getting 43% would probably represent a Labour meltdown of unprecedented scale, losing many voters that the Conservatives would normally have no ability to influence.

[SimonNewman]

Any poll putting their vote in the 20s% has got to be bad news for Labour.

[Gwendolyn]

Yesterday, Jenny thingy on the Politics Show, opined, as an aside, that DC was on the slide, and later Andrew Neil announced that Lord Tebbit would be on the programme today, presumably booked to deliver the coup de gråce. Egg on their faces or what?

[Mark Senior]

Strange that the reason for excluding Mori from the poll of polls is their volatility . The last 4 Mori polls have been remarkably unvolatile . 2 showing Con support at 35% and 2 at 36% . Other pollsters have been much more volatile over the same period ICM 35 -41% for example . Yes Mori do give higher ratings for Labour than the other pollsters so that must be the real reason for excluding them from the poll of polls .

[Gareth]

Stuart Raven wrote:

"Oh it's only MORI blah! blah! blah!

Bob Worcester hasnt a clue blah! blah! blah!

Not saying what we want to hear therefore it can't possibly be true blah! blah! blah!

Our resident Cameroonies can take today off. I've made their arguments for them already."

Have you noticed, there are an awful lot of people with egg on their faces around here today?

[eugene]

ICM is good. However, I remember they once put the Tories 5 % in front in the weeks before the 1997 election!!

So, while this is good news, be on our guard. only two things are going to help save our country- 1) Labour messes it up even more short term (hard to do); 2) We get winning policies that cannot be copied (very hard to do).

Hard work and work hard so we win the REAL poll.

[houndtang]

You could win an election with 25% of the vote provided all your rivals scored only 15%. It is the gap that is signicant not the headline figure.

[William Norton]

Gareth: Have you noticed, there are an awful lot of people with egg on their faces around here today?

Different day, different poll = different faces, different eggs.

Another poll comes out showing the gap narrowing and Group X claims it as proof that DC is rubbish while Group Y dismisses it as a rogue result. Next week everyone changes round.

It's a mug's game propounding vast universal wisdom on each of these things - until there is a consistent run showing the Tories at 43-45% or above and Labour on below 35%, at which point we will all discover that each of us was right all along.

What we could do with is not a Poll of Polls but a Trend of Polls - some sort of chart giving the shifting positions over the last 3 months.

[Max]

Eugene – IIRC they put the Tories behind by 5% in the weeks before the 1997 election but didn’t put us ahead of Labour anytime after 1993.

As for Bob Worcester I would think a man who came out with the gem – “and I am calling it - it's PRESIDENT KERRY!'?” should clearly never be subject to any form of scepticism.

The ICM poll is good news for us. The Lib Dem share is a bit of a double edged sword. It may prevent us picking up a few Tory/Lib marginals but OTOH it may split the left-wing vote in the more numerous Tory/Labour marginals.

[RobD]

I wouldn't get too excited by this poll, especially as the Lib Dems went up without doing anything of any significance (or insignificance for that matter) over the last few weeks. However, the fact that our figure has remained high hopefully indicates that the tricky tax issue last week was dealt with in the right way and the public still trust us with their public services.

[eugene]

Thanks Max...I had it wrong...5 % behind (best poll for us in 1997)- my memory failed me.

I see the Lib Dems council in Richmond have just decided to hand Richmond Park to us next time ( a typical middle class family have 3 kids in that constituency have to have a higher emmisions car- you can hardly take the faily to Waitrose in a Smart car)- so local factors will also come into play. Conservatives will also have to come up with environmental policies that are sensible- something the LibDems do not do.

[michael]

According to the Guardian ICM now take into account the shy Labour voter. The Raw figures were:

41% Conservative
27% Labour

So is it even better than we think??

[Andrew Woodman]

"Not sure what I make of this. On the face of it, it's great news, but the 10% is due to a Lib Dem gain which I don't really believe..."

That's: Conservatives +3 (+6 since the election), Libdems +1 (-1 since the election)

Greg, don't take things out of contaxt to make your point. I never said that the Tory lead was non existent. I said I think we are 36-39%. The point I was making is the degree of the lead is due to the Lib Dems polling in the early twenties which if true, will make Southern marginals difficult. Not sure I believe they are that high.

P.S Before we start rejoicing at a Tory gain in Richmond, we better see if the leadership agree with what the Lib Dems are doing.

[david]

There is a comment on the poll in the G2 section of the paper that might be worth reading, as there may be some amongst you who do not read the Guardian, unlikely I know.
1987 was the year that Labour was last on 29%:-
Yet there is another side to the story. For a start, just a year and a half before she won her third election in 1987, it was Thatcher who was in the doldrums, on 29% and in third place behind the Alliance. She bounced back and so could Labour......

Just a caution!

[lucy74]

"Are there any circumstances that you would support the Conservative leadership on any issue?"

At this moment in time and after all thats happened since Cameron came to power, I wouldnt bet on it. - James Maskell

James

Aren't you hoping to stand as a Conservative council candidate in a North Thanet ward? Do your local association know that you do not support Cameron? Will you even be voting Conservative?

[Old Hack]

Well during the conference season I posted that it was not right to asess the standing of the parties until at least two weeks after the season ended, which it now has.

We appear to be still stuck firmly in a hung Parliament scenario. This is not, nor will ever be, good news.

There is still a hell of a lot of ground to make up - and like dieters who find their weight plateaus after a while of eating the latest fad so the 'change' regime has, I suspect, produced about as much of an upturn in support as we are likely to see from it.

To get above say 42-43% and in to working majority territory we do need to move to the next level. That means clearer policies and a more assertive opposition.

[Richard Weatherill]

Thank heavens for some sanity from William Norton (9:30).

In response to lucy74, I wasn't aware that our local government candidates now had to be signed-up Cameron supporters. Isn't being a Conservative good enough? My main worry is that James Maskell will be next on the CH banned list (and I wish I could be certain I was joking).

[James Maskell]

lucy74, You can support the Party whilst not supporting the Party leadership. I want the Party to do well and achieve, thus why I help the local Association as much as I can but I dont like the way the Party leadership is doing it. I object to the majority of what Cameron and co have come up with.

My local Association knows very well of my views regarding this Party leadership. As I said when I rejoined the Party, I rejoined for the local Association, not for Cameron.

[Andrew Woodman]

'Aren't you hoping to stand as a Conservative council candidate in a North Thanet ward? Do your local association know that you do not support Cameron?'

What a strange assertion that you must support the leadership to stand for council. If that were true in the Labour party, they would lose over half their candidates.

[hf]

Mark Senior has pointed out on Vote 2006 that the next Yougov is due out in a few days and that could give us a clearer picture.

If we could hold ratings in the high 30's going into next May's elections, then we will strengthen our base and weaken our opponents.

[James Maskell]

Just noticed I missed a question about voting...if Im standing in the elections, how would voting for the opposition help my campaign?

[TimberWolf]

Conservatives on 39% - must be true
Liberal Democrats on 22% - can't be true

Typical Tory wishful thinking!

[JimJam]

Is PB.com down ?

[Sean Fear]

I can't see any good reason to exclude MORI from a poll of polls, simply because they don't weight by past vote. IMO, any member of the British Polling Council should be included.

The most recent polls show Conservative leads of 10% (ICM), 6% (CR), 1% (Populus and Yougov) and -2% (MORI). This gives an average Conservative lead of 3.2%.

[George Hinton]

These figures would be even more pronounced if Dave had taken all the oppotunities handed to him, on a plate, by NuLab with the scandals and mistakes that they have made this year.
If anything it shows that NuLab are teflon coated and have not lost the level of support that one would have expected. With the problems experienced, including the unpopular war in Iraq, B-Liar should be the most unpopular PM in history, but he's not.

[Peter]

The only thing that matters about polls is that wether people have a good view on a party or not. With that the present polls are good as it shows that people actually know think we can govern. Yes its not perfect but at least we going in the right direction.

[Mike Smithson]

Just to say sorry that due to technical difficulties Politicalbetting.com is down at the moment. The site is actually running - the difficulty is with Register.com which “points” traffic to our UK server.

I do not think the polls are “all over the place. Both surveys carried out over the weekend - ICM and Communicate Research - have come up with a similar picture. The Mori poll, although published on Monday, actually related to field-work finished almost a week beforehand.

The Tories got a great media boost from their tax plans last week and this helped.

[TimberWolf]

Where did the figures of Con +3%, Lab -2%, LD +1% come from?

According to YouGov the changes since the last ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph are Con +1%, Lab -3%, LD +2%

[Richard Weatherill]

"The Tories got a great media boost from their tax plans last week and this helped."

It would be interesting to know whether the boost arose from:

1. The Forsyth Commission's report on possibilities for reducing taxation, or

2. GO's response to it (repeating the "sharing the proceeds of growth" formula and, apparently, envisaging no immediate reduction in the overall tax burden because of 'balancing' green taxes).

Of course, we may have got the best of both worlds where half the boost was due to the report itself and half due to the Shadow Chancellor's rsponse!

[Afleitch]

I am beginning to believe that Labour’s ‘dog-whistle’ politics this past fortnight regarding the veil and integration has backfired- it helps portray the Conservatives as the ‘moderate’ party as Labour veers into right-wing populist territory which alienates not just swing voters, but hard core Labour voters too.

[Peter]

On the commission report I've calculated that 20 of the proposals are revenue neutral and a further 9 would actually increase the tax take and pay for 8 out the 11 that would reduce the the tax take. With that the debate has to be do we support the 3 most costly proposals or not?

[David Belchamber]

Annabel @ 22.56 gives good advice:
"So lets just get behind DC and let him do his job, shall we? Stop letting ourselves get wound up by Trolls. Keep the blood pressure down".
I would suggest that all doubters have a look at Ed Balls' hysterical attack on "tory tax policies" on LabourHome.
Just as his boss did, he states that the the Forsyth Report is tory policy, that the cuts are unfunded, that they will harm education, health and the police, that they will favour the rich and destabilise the economy.
The fact that DC and GO have declined to endorse the Report in full at this stage is not allowed to get in the way of a hysterical (and very worried?) rant.

[EML]

Good news!

Now, we need the next two Yougov polls, and the next ICM poll, to show an average Tory lead of at least 6%, then i'll be very happy.

[Ben Redsell]

David at 1248 I have to agree. But I'd say balls to Balls.

[hf]

On the Daily Politics show their perception panel feedback reacted badly in the 35-65 year olds when Blair attacked us.

Maybe Balls really made a balls up and boosted our poll figures.

It will certainly make Labour think carefully before attacking us in the future.

[TimberWolf]

The public are getting confused. The Forsyth Report is presented and then we are told it is not Conservative Party Policy, and that the Conservative Party does not have any policies. Then Dave appears on TV and makes various pledges. But we are told they are not policies.
Eventually a voice will pipe up "The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes", and a lot of people will feel very foolish for having been taken in.

[Graeme Archer]

What this site needs is a statistician. If only there were a statistician among the regular readership!

[TomTom]

NO Graeme - statisticians don't get worked up on percentages. That's what we learn in primary school - and politicians only have primary school education so they manipulate percentages like kiddies in the sandpit................statisticians are more concerned with how they fiddle the ONS data as is the Bank of England

[ratbag]

Bloggers have gone beserk over a single poll when they have been repeatedly warned here that inter-election polls are no more than today's gut reaction to the news. Mori -2% ICM +10%. Do get all the facts before pontificating please. And why the editor should fiddle the pollofpolls beats me. It breaks the Trades Description Act to do that.

The ICM sample size was one of the lowest - 1019 - I have seen recently. The Tory lead was based on the full sample but ONLY 581 respondents gave an opinion. So it's anybody's guess what this means. The "Don't Knows aren't there.

ICM derives vote intentions from 2 questions.

First of all respondents are asked how likely it is that they would be to go and vote in a new election.

Those who say they will vote are asked to say which party they would support in a new election. Respondents are then asked whether they voted in 2005 and which party they voted for in that election. The vote figures shown in the table are calculated after ICM has excluded those who say they will not vote, refuse to answer the question or don’t know who they would vote for. The figures are adjusted for turnout calculated accordingly to their stated intentions to vote.

In a further step, ICM add 50% of those who refuse to answer the vote intention question or say they don’t know to the party they voted for in 2005

Certain to vote 50%
- - - - - - - - - -
James was quizzed here about his support of the party. Well I support the party but not as long as it has Cameron as leader. What we'd get then would be Blair Mark 2. with the same addiction to spinning and photo-ops and untruths and the ruin of both our country and party.

Brown will leave a mess and it would not be a good idea for the Tory Party to have to try and clear it up. Let Brown clear up his own mess; then we can get a Conservative to lead us and we can then make waves.

[Umbongo]

Hooray!

One swallow makes a summer!!

[Nicoli]

Hi everyone, have never blogged before and to be perfectly honest, not even sure what its all about but I was just wondering about whether or not the general population are concerned about the number of Scottish people not just in top political jobs but in the media in general, i mean everywhere i listen or watch there is a Scot. I dont dislike Scots, one of my closest friends is a Scot but they are absolutely everywhere. Was just wondering what everyone else thought.

[Paul]

"Hi everyone, have never blogged before and to be perfectly honest, not even sure what its all about but I was just wondering about whether or not the general population are concerned about the number of Scottish people not just in top political jobs but in the media in general, i mean everywhere i listen or watch there is a Scot. I dont dislike Scots, one of my closest friends is a Scot but they are absolutely everywhere. Was just wondering what everyone else thought."
-----------

Glad to see people becoming aware of this, England has been "Hojocked" by non English people who hate it - a Scottish Raj.

http://www.google.com/search?q=march+of+the+mcmafia
-------------

Thursday, June 22, 2006
Who calls the shots?

The Daily Mail has helpfully provided a list of prominent North Britons in the UK government.

Cabinet Ministers

Tony Blair
Prime Minister, born and educated in Edinburgh

Gordon Brown
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kircaldy

Dr John Reid
Secretary of State for the Home Office, North Lanarkshire (almost entirely an English department)

Lord Falconer of Thornton
Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Edinburgh
Also Lord Chancellor of England but they missed that off

Des Browne
Secretary of State for Defence, Ayrshire

Alistair Darling
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, educated at East Lothian (An English Department)

Douglas Alexander
Secretary of State for Transport and Scotland, Glasgow (An English Department)

Quangocrats

Baroness Ford of Cunningham
Chairman of English Partnerships, Ayrshire (An English Department)

Lord Sandy Leitch
Chairman of the National Employment Panel, Dunfirmline

Louise Martin, CBE
UK Sport board member, Dunblane

Ian Hay, OBE
Low Pay Commission, Aberdeen

Other Senior Politicians

Nigel Griffiths
Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, Glasgow

Ian McCartney
Minister without Portfolio and Party Chair, East Dunbartonshire

Pat McFadden
Junior Minister for Social Exclusion, Paisley

Bridget Prentice
Parliamentary Under Secretary for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, Glasgow

Jim Murphy
Minister of State at the Department of Work and Pensions, Glasgow

Anne McGuire
Minister for Disabled people, Stirling

Adam Ingram
Minister for the Armed Forces, Glasgow

Thomas McAvoy
Government Whip and Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, Lanarkshire

Michael Martin
Speaker of the House of Commons, Glasgow

Lord Irvine
Former Lord Chancellor and Blair ally, Inverness

Jim Fitzpatrick
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, Glasgow (An English Department)

David Cairns
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Scottish Offices, Greenock
Barry Gardiner, Food Minister, Glasgow

THERE ARE AT LEAST 106 SCOTTISH-BORN MPs IN WESTMINSTER

Hmm, 106 Scottish-born MP's in Westminster. Scots make up roughly 8.5% of the population but about 16.5% of the UK government is Scottish.

As well as the list of ministers, the Daily Mail also provided a list of political commentators and media controllers from North Britain.

The Commentariat

Nicky Campbell
Broadcaster, Edinburgh

Charles Allen
ITVs Chief Executive, Lanarkshire

Andrew Neil
Publisher and broadcaster, Paisley

James Naughtie
Today presenter, Aberdeenshire

Andrew Marr
Former BBC political editor and broadcaster, born in Glasgow, educated Dundee

Kirsty Wark
Newsnight presenter, Dumfries

Kirsty Young
Five newsreader, born South Lanarkshire

[malcolm]

I'm wondering if your name is Nicoli or Paul.It's usually a good idea to work out which pseudonym you want to use before posting!!!

[Jack W (Highlands & Islands Branch)]

Nicoli @ 1633 & Paul @ 1643.

Nicoli, welcome to the weird world of blogging !

Perhaps the Daily Mail ought to investigate the proportion of VC holders who are Scottish or the disproportion of the fallen in two world wars who were Scots compared to other parts of the UK.

Further to suggest Blair is a Scot is laughable as to be almost side splitting !!

I'm saddened that the Conservative and Unionist Party now has an element in it that seems to believe that Scots can't bring their abilities to the table to enhance the talents of all the British nation.

[Boy Blue]

Oh no, not more anti-Scottish whingeing. This is all getting very boring.

[Max]

An excellent point Jack. I live near to a village that lost more men per head of population than anywhere else in Britain during WW1.

Perhaps Paul could go and tell them how much dislike he has for Scotland's role in the United Kingdom.

And since when has Nicky Capbell been a commentator!

[Paul]

Dear oh dear me, back to World War Two are we?, well, at least its not back to 'Banockburn', yet.

I dont dislike Scotland, what i dislike is having Scottish MPs with SCOTTISH SEATS, whom nobody in my country England can vote out, ruling over us and telling us what to do.

Another thing, "Britain" is not a "Nation" its a "State", shocking how some people who probably think they are intelligent cant quite grasp that..

And if anybody thinks this is still a "United" Kingdom then they want their head tested.

And to finish off....

"Further to suggest Blair is a Scot is laughable as to be almost side splitting !!"

Bliar was born in Scotland of Scottish parents, i can understand why scots dont wanna own up to Bliar being a Scot but a Scot he is, with Bliar being a very Scottish surname!.

[William Norton]

When I am swept to power in a People's Revolution (which can only be weeks away now) I shall clear out all the Scotch (obviously a gang of evil demonic tyrants) and pack the govmt with solicitors from Worcs. So much more civilised.

[Paul]

That would be preferable as long as their seats are in England! - at lest then they'd be politically accountable to the people they are misruling, unlike now sadly.

[Billy Goats-Gruff III]

This thread isn't about Scotland or paranoid misconceptions about the so-called 'Tartan takeover'.

Let's not feed the trolls eh?

[Paul]

I simply replied to another post, some people seem to think i posted that post under the guise of "Nocili", a quick check by the site moderator on the IP addresses will dispell that, you can take the moderators silence as proof of that.

It's not a "paranoid misconception", this is all happening! right NOW!, anyway maybe your right, maybe i should go off to get a shovel and dig a hole and bury my head in the sand, if theres room left on the beach that is.

[Jack W (Highlands & Islands Branch)]

Paul @ 1738.

Tony Blairs parents are not Scots as you said. His father Leo was born in Filey, Yorkshire, of English parents with the surname Parsons. Leo was adopted by a Glasgow family called Blair. Tony Blairs mother came from Donegal in Ireland.

Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh whilst his father was studying for a law degree at Edinburgh University.

Both father Leo and son Tony have always regarded themselves as English despite what the Daily Mail spout out.

Best not believe all you read in the tabloid press !!

[Andy Stidwill]

I'm rather confused by all these polls - the Lib Dem vote especially seems to be all over the place, going from 14% yesterday to 22% today.

[ratbag]

Andy Stidwill - You wouldn't be confused if you read the definitive answer in my posting of 1616. The ICM figures are based on EXcluding the Don't Knows and on the basis of 518 people. Of course it's confusing. It's only there to sell newspapers and to let Cameroon bloggers get excited.

[John Moss]

One key factor which recent polls seem to be indicating - and polls are only ever indicators - is the collapse of the left-wing consensus against the Conservatives.

This has distorted results in 97 and 01, though less so in 05 because of the anti-war vote going to the Lib-Dems and causing a whole new distortion.

If this tactical voting is truly unwinding, it heralds a real opportunity in previously long-shot Con/Lab marginals as a more credible (don't laugh) Lib-Dem challenge encourages (again, don't laugh) committed Lib-Dem voters to stick with their party, rather than vote Labout to keep us out.

I suspect it will have less of an impact on Con/LD marginals as they are only in that state because the Labour vote has already collapsed and gone off to the left anyway. There might be some swing back to Labour from LDs in these seats, but I suspect less pronounced.

Who knows, those of us not graced with the blessing of the "A" list might yet spring a surprise or two from 9,000 back?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Without wanting to turn this into some kind of 'I'm Spartacus' parody, would the imposter who posted using my ID for the previous comment please refrain from doing do in future?

Thanks.

[Deputy Editor]

The commenter has been banned Daniel, as per our impersonation policy.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Thank you.

[ratbag]

Mr Deputy Editor - What, please, is the policy on personal 'links' given at the end of each message. Of those I tried today two were bogus, non-existent IPs (names available)

Either they're genuine or they're a 'con' surely???

[Yet Another Anon]

Labour's support equals a previous record low for the party in an ICM/Guardian poll recorded in May 1987
It wasn't a record low for them in the 1980's - in fact they only got 30.5% of the vote in the 1987 General Election and only 27.5% in the 1983 General Election, in fact Labour in 1983 could have got far less and weren't they below 20% of the vote at one point in the 1983 General Election campaign and were only saved from total oblivion because people were worried that there would be hardly any opposition left and few people saw Labour as having any credible chance of winning a General Election.

Opinion Polls, especially after less than 2 years since the previous General Election are very unreliable - even under the margin of error they admit to, that would leave Conservative support in the range 36-42% and Labour support at 26-32%.

[Yet Another Anon]

Tony Blairs parents are not Scots as you said. His father Leo was born in Filey, Yorkshire, of English parents with the surname Parsons. Leo was adopted by a Glasgow family called Blair. Tony Blairs mother came from Donegal in Ireland.
one of his Great Grandmothers is Manx apparently.

[ToMtom]

His father Leo was born in Filey, Yorkshire, of English parents with the surname Parsons.

so they did get married after all ?

[Peter]

Graeme I did stats at Uni if that helps. Tom Tom we don't change facts but we can give different views on things. David, the party should have no problem excepting 37 out of the 40 tax proposals set out by the commission because they pass even the Labour and Liberal Democrat test of not reducing the tax take and with that not effecting this years' budget. Again the question has to be do we support the 3 that don't pass that test(at a cost of over £21 Billion) and I say yes?