I've moved here! Please update your links.

Moving away from immigration, there is an interesting YouGov poll (part 1)(part 2) in the Economist on Health and Education policy, asking the public whether they would rather see more choice or higher spending in public services and their perceptions of the policies of the two main parties.

When it comes to increasing choice in the NHS, 26% of people think Labour would do this after the next election; 37% think the Conservatives would increase choice, an 11% difference. The difference on choice in education is more obvious, only 19% of people think Labour will increase choice in schools, but 41% of people think a Conservative government would.

In terms of spending the situation is, predictably, the other way round. On health, 55% of people think Labour would spend more, while only 33% of people think the Conservatives would. On education 49% think Labour would increase spending, while 32% think the Conservatives would.

This suggests that the Conservative pledge to increase spending on health and education has either bypassed or not been believed by a large chunk of the public - on both questions 40% of people thought a Conservative Government would not increase spending on health/education. Having said that, 23% of people continue to believe that Labour would not increase spending on the NHS, despite them throwing cash at it willy-nilly for two terms of Government and showing every sign of continuing likewise. I suspect some people's answers to both questions were either opponents of the party determined to give the most negative answer possible, or people interpreting the question to exclude spending they saw as ineffective.

The poll also suggests that despite the often heard mantra that all the parties are the same, the public are beginning to percieve that there is a difference between the two main parties' beliefs on how best to run public services. People are beginning to see an actual choice - vote Labour for higher spending or Conservative for more choice. The question is, which will they chose?

Sadly, but perhaps not unsurprisingly, there are no firm answers. Given the choice of two solutions to the NHS's problems, 50% preferred giving patients more choice over 37% who thought more money was the solution (10% believe there aren't any serious problems to solve). When asked about the effect of providing more choice, 44% think it would have a positive impact while 13% think it would damage the NHS. 38% think more choice would improve schools, 15% think it would lower standards.

This suggests that people prefer more choice to more spending, BUT asked if the Government should spend money on increasing choice or just spend it on schools and hospitals in general, about 75% of people want it given directly to schools and hopsitals. It suggests that people only want increased choice if it doesn't cost anything.

[In passing there are also some striking variations in opinion. I was surprised to find that on the NHS, the South outside London - theoretically the Tory heartland - was the area with the least support for reform of the NHS and the only area where just spending more money on the NHS was the preferred option. In contrast Northern England - where you would expect to find Labour opinions - produced the most support for reform and the least faith in more money solving anything. Differences in option in schools were more predictable - more choice in schools was very important for noticeably more people in London than any other region, but in the leafy suburbs of the South outside London more people were unconcerned about choice in schools than anywhere else (18% of parents with children at state schools didn't think it was important at all - in London the figure was 3%!)]

Populus have published a new poll today CON 34%, LAB 34%, LIBD 22%, OTH 10%. This is only the second time that Populus have reported the Conservative Party matching the Labour Party in support (the last time being March 2003) and shows the Labour party's support dropping by 2 points since last month.

Notably the drop in Labour support is matched by an increase in support for "Others" - up to 10%, an unusually high figure for an opinion poll. Populus do not provide any clue as to exactly how this 10% is made up.

On leader's ratings there is a sizeable boost for Michael Howard who for the first time is rated higher than Charles Kennedy (Populus ask how good a leader the party leaders each are, rather than who would make thes best Prime Minister). Charles Kennedy's figures have also improved, suggesting that recent questions over his health, ability and sobriety haven't hurt him in the eyes of the public.

Finally there are two questions on immigration policy. The first asks which party's policy people prefer from the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the BNP (while Populus don't make this clear, the Times article this morning implies that all four parties were actually mentioned in the question). Gratifyingly only 4% of people say the BNP (although surprisingly 6% of Liberal Democrat supporters do, presumably because of the Lib Dems nature as a catch all party for protest votes). The Conservative Party comes out top, but with only 24%. 27% percent of people simply don't know.

The second immigration question asks about people's favoured policy from a choice of four - a complete open door policy, an open door to immigrants who can support themselves, limited immigration of skilled workers or a complete stop to all immigration. The two "moderate" policies - skilled workers only or only immigrants who can support themselves - are the overwhelming preferences and support is split quite evenly between them (37% and 36% respectively). Considering that other polls in recent days have shown that people overwhelmingly think that immigration policy is not tough enough, it implies that the public perception of immigration policy is that it is more liberal than it is in reality. An open door policy recieves little support, while a complete ban is supported by 18%.

Breaking down people's opinion by party there is marginally more support for a closed door policy amongst Labour and swing voters and significantly less amongst Lib Dem voters (a confusing contrast with the support for BNP policies from Lib Dems voters). Support for only allowing skilled workers into the country is significantly higher amongst Tory and Liberal voters than Labour. The most significant trend though is based on class. Amongst AB's there is only 8% support for a ban on immigration, gradually rising to 25% amongst DE voters. There is a corresponding drop in support for allowing all immigratants capable of supporting themselves.

The Populus poll again confirms that concern over immigration seems to be strongest amongst Labour's core vote - the "traditional poor", but also reflects that people really don't know much about it.

First off a brief comment on voting intention figures. In an interview with Liam Fox in the Telegraph today it is mentioned that the Conservative Party's latest private polling figures give us a 4% lead over Labour. As you will probably know, the Party no longer has a contract with YouGov. If the poll refered to in the Telegraph is a YouGov one from before the break then it is obviously in line with YouGov's published polling figures. If, on the other hand, it is a poll commissioned by the new regime (ICM apparantly) it would be a significant increase in support. For what it's worth, I'm assuming it is the former until I hear differently.

Attracting more attention over the weekend were two polls on immigration. Both showed that immigration had become a highly resonate issue with the public, and while such things are a matter of opinion, Blair's pollster, Philip Gould, has apparantly been warning him that it is the sort of issue upon which people actually decide their votes.

If these figures were unusual they would be essentially worthless - the major news story for the last week has been immigration, it should come as a surprise to no one that it is in the forefront of the public's mind when asked what the major issues facing the country are. They are important because they are not unusual - these figures reflect the figures seen month-in, month-out in recent opinion polls. Here you can find the trend over recent years in the public's response to questions about the main issues facing the country.

Looking at MORI polls over recent decades it is firstly abundantly clear that immigration is not normally a major concern. From 1982 until 1998 it barely registered with the public. In most cases only 3% or 4% considered it a major issue, occassionally rising to highs of 6%. There was one previous peak in the late 1970s when the National Front reached their peak and public concerns over immigration reached a peak of 27%, behind unemployment (55%) and inflation (63%!). While the figures on MORI's site are rather irregular at this point, public concern seems to have abated somewhere around 1981 (when, probably not co-incidentally, the British Nationality Act 1981 was passed).

The current public concern over immigration seems to have begun in 1999, when there was a slight rise. In 2000 when William Hague made his Common Sense on Immigration speech and was accused of playing the race card, public concern over immigration peaked at 19% in April. IF one is pondering the possible electoral effects of the issue it is, perhaps, worth noting that the Conservative Party made large local election gains the same year, but failed to capitalise on the issue in the 2001 General Election when concern over immigration had again risen to 17%.

Since the 2001 election public concern over immigration has never fallen below 10% - it is worth dwelling on this, as it is a major development. Between 1982 and 1999 issues of race and immigration never once concerned more than 10% of the public. Since 2001 there has not been a single month when they concerned less than 12% of the public. It appears to be a genuine sea-change in public opinion, and concerns does not seem to be abating either - through 2002 the figure was normally somewhere in the teens, apart from a peak during the Summer. Throughout 2003 the figure never fell below 25%. Again, it is worth stressing that this, an issue which has registered with only a piddling 3 or 4 percent of the population for the last twenty years has, over the course of an entire year, concerned over a quarter of the electorate. This does not, sadly, appear to be a transitory issue.

In terms of which issues are resonating with the public the figures published at the weekend were not a result of the Beverley Hughes story, they reflect the figures in recent months - the only difference is that the media have suddently noticed. In February 35% considered it a major issue, second only to the NHS; in January & December it came third behind the NHS and Terrorism.

The weekend polls obviously express the opinion that the Labour GOvernment are not handling immigration well, given the news over the last few weeks it would be a surprise if they found differently. There are some interesting little bits and bobs however in the YouGov poll. As usual, a caveat is necessary. Many people have raised questions about how useful online polling is in regard of social issues, although the suspicion amongst pollsters is that online polls are likely to produce more liberal responses than in the electorate as a whole. It is also worth considering the order of the questions - if you ask someone what they think of the BNP after you've asked them questions about immigration for ten minutes you are likely to get a different answer than ifyou asked the same question first.

With that in mind, the first thing that struck me from the YouGov poll is he question of trust - only 21% of people actually believe the Government's asylum figures, as opposed to 73% who don't. This is going to make it exceptionally difficult for the Government to show that anything they have done has had any positive effect. Only 22% believe what the Government says about asylum - an astounding 75% do not believe them. That said, there is not a huge difference between them and the Conservative Party - where the figures are 32% and 60%. Following on from that, the person most trusted to deal with the issue is Michael Howard - however he scores only 25%, worryingly (considering the alternatives) 31% of people do not trust any of the main political leaders to deal with immigration.

A earlier question askes if people would ever consider voting BNP. While the question needs to be seen in the light of the fact that it's in the middle of a survey about immigration, and it is thankfully not a voting intention question, it still shows 16% of people would consider voting for the BNP and that the recent fuss has made 14% of people more likely to do so. At some point in the coming weeks I intend to do a series of pieces looking at the electoral prospects of the main parties in the Euro-elections. Until now I was pretty certain that, despite the fuss, the BNP in reality had very little chance of getting any MEPs. I am now wavering over the issue, although it has to be said that the House of Lords's decision to allow all-postal balloting in the North-West probably makes this less likely.

Finally, there is a question on the "anti-race card" - are the Conservative Party being racist in questioning the Government over immigration. 17% said yes, 61% no. I don't have any figures to put that in context, but it is interesting nonetheless. It suggests that the Labour response of implying that anyone who criticises immigration policy has questionable motives may not be particularly successful. Then again, if that 17% is all swing voters...without more imformation it is difficult to draw conclusions.

How the issue of immigration pans out in the run up to the Euro Elections and, after that, the General Election itself remains to be seen. It cannot be good news for the Government though that an issue where they are deeply distrusted, where they are being seen to have failed and where the opposing party is preferred is becoming firmly entrenched as a major issue in the public consciousness.

I missed this last week, but it seems that there was alternate history article by Simon Heffer in the Guardian last week on what might have happened had the blessed Margaret been killed in the Brighton bomb.

Heffer's POD is a slightly larger bomb. Norman Tebbit is still injured in the blast, so is unavailable to succeed Thatcher (it is questionable whether he would anyway because he would obviously have wished to spend time looking after his wife regardless of his own injury. We will never know whether an uninjured Tebbit would have chosen to look after his wife or take on the role of Prime Minister under those circumstances. If the clear alternative had been Heseltine as PM I suspect it would have been a heartbreaking decision for him) and in his absence there is no figure on the right able to defeat Heseltine.

In Heffer's timeline Heseltine pursues a corporatist agenda and takes Britain into the ERM earlier, with a consequential earlier "Black Wednesday" and an earlier Conservative defeat in 1992. Without holding on through the Major Government less damage is done to the Conservative Party and with Kinnock taking power in 1992 the Labour Party are never fully transformed into New Labour. The Conservative Party is back in Government in 1997 under (surprise, surprise) Michael Portillo.

One common theme amongst most alternate political histories of the 1980s and 1990s is that it would have been a damn site better for the Conservative Party had we lost in 1992, a theme that, it has to be said, is probably very true.

UPDATE: I suppose I should add that Heffer's article is extracted from Andrew Robert's new alternate history book.

Beverley Hughes has resigned.

Just a quicky to link to Phil "revolts.co.uk" Cowley's slightly less academic new site Votes For Adults, campaigning against giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote. Phil provides a list of arguments against reducing the age of the franchise here. Personally I believe, to misquote Churchill, the best argument against lowering the voting age to 16 is a five minute conversation with the average 16 year old.

On Wednesday the Higher Education Bill returns to the Commons and will almost certainly be the subject of another large scale Labour rebellion. This time it isn't playing warm up to the Hutton Report and hence hasn't received the same media spotlight, but if anything that makes it all the more likely that Labour will lose on Wednesday.

The main rebellion will likely centre around Amendment 125 tabled by Ian Gibson MP. The amendment would remove variability from the bill, but the Government have said they drop the bill entirely rather than continue with a hollowed out version. The major issue for many of the rebels last time was variability. If they are brave enough to call the Government's bluff then Gibson's amendment allows them to vote against variability but retain the other reforms contained in the bill. This amendment may attract more opposition than the last rebellion as MPs who opposed variability but didn't want to kill the whole bill reconsider their options - the question is will the Government really abandon the bill if defeated? Currently it is impossible to say.

The Government are behaving as if they are worried. Blair and the cabinet are already ringing round backbenchers trying to rally support. Charles Clarke has been accusing rebels of colluding with the enemy, warning them of backlashes amongst the grass roots and Labour being left with no education policy. A few extra concessions, such as making it more difficult for future governments to increase the £3,000 limit have already been announced, but there is precious little left for Clarke to sacrifice without giving way on the major planks of the policy. I certainly cannot envisage the Government willingly sacrificing variability.

At the time of the last rebellion Labour MPs were wary of giving the new Tory leader a victory - now Michael Howard has settled in, the polls have generally settled down and this may not be such a fear for them. A new leader hasn't seen us storm into a huge lead, perhaps Labour MPs will think it safe to rebel again. Equally, there is no looming threat of Hutton. At the time of the last rebellion I am sure many MPs held their noses and voted for the bill despite their opposition, simply because they didn't want to undermine Blair when he faced Hutton the next day. The last vote happened amist a media circus, questioning whether Blair himself could survive the next 48 hours. That crisis has now passed.

As a general rule, once an individual MP has rebelled once it becomes easier and easier to do so again; now MPs seem to have got the taste of rebellion they may find all the easier to rebel against Blair again. Last time the majority was 5. I guess we will see over the coming days which way the wind is blowing. Thus far the only declaration of intent I have seen from any potential rebel is from Brian Iddon MP - he abstained at second reading, hoping for amendments at Committee stage that never came. He will vote against the Government this time round. That leaves a majority of 4. This could be tight....

UPDATE: Brian Iddon is to be joined in voting against the government by David Drew, who also abstained last time. According to the FT there are at least three MPs who abstained last time who will vote against this time. Frank Cook, who voted with the Government last time is now going to vote against. On the other hand, there are rumoured to be others who abstained last time who will back the Government this time. While it still looks close, no one seems to be predicting a defeat.

UPDATE2: According to the Scotsman the rebels are now predicting that the Government will win by 12 votes. Anne Campbell, who abstained last time, has said she will not be backing the Gibson amendment.

Via Chris Brooke I have discovered Political Betting, a blog style resource for political punters by Mike Smithson.

When Tim Ireland sees this he's going to do his nut. According to the Independent, "the format for the show was devised by Trish Kinane and Stephen Leahy, of the independent production company Ludus Entertainment."

I sit back and await fireworks.

A pretty short update this month. Here are the latest polls from the main companies:

                  CON      LAB      LIBD
MORI(16th March)  35(nc)   35(-1)   23(+2)
YovGov(Mar 15)    39(nc)   34(nc)   20(nc)
ICM (Mar 11)      35(+1)   37(+1)   21(nc)
Poplulus(Mar 7)   34(+3)   36(nc)   22(-3)

I've been discussing with Chris Lightfoot what might happen if Britain suffered a terrorist atrocity in the run up to the next election similar to that upon Madrid. I shall leave the political ramifications for another time, but what would the constitutional position be?

If it was a terrorist attack on the same sort of scale as Madrid, a horrific incident but one that did pose an immediate risk to the continuation of normal governance then the election would presumably go ahead like it did in Spain. If an election campaign is already underway there is little that can be done to delay it - polling takes play on the 17th day after the proclamation (excluding weekends and bank holidays) like it or not.

There are two main exceptions. Firstly, the upon the demise of the Monarch polling day is delayed by two weeks. Secondly, under the Representation of the People Act 1983 any days of "public mourning" are not counted in the electoral timetable. So if, for example, following a huge bomb in the midst of an election campaign Tony Blair announced two days of "public mourning", the election itself would also be delayed by two days.

If, on the other hand, Britain suffered a far more serious terrorist attack than that upon Madrid, normal civil society broke down and a state of emergency was declared then the provisions under the Civil Contingencies Bill that is currently passing through Parliament would come into effect. These essentially allow the Government to pass any regulations it sees fit to deal with the emergency at hand, presumably including delaying a General Election. If Parliament is adjourned or proroged it will be recalled, and any regulations passed under the new law would need to be approved by Parliament or would lapse 7 days later.

Of course, in our scenario Parliament isn't adjourned or proroged, it has been dissolved. This isn't directly mentioned in the Civil Contingencies Bill but was raised by the Joint Committee examining the draft version of the bill. The Government replied that:

"It is not possible to 'undissolve' Parliament. If Parliament stands dissolved then there is no Parliament to recall/reinstate. Under clause 24(6), the Secretary of State must as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay any regulations made under clause 21, before Parliament. As during a dissolution there is no Parliament, it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to wait for the new Parliament to be convened. In the meantime, the regulations would still carry legal force."

So in effect, the election could be postponed and the Government could rule through Orders in Council until such time as it was safe to hold an election.

As it happens, it doesn't take much to issue a state of emergency, so if you're of that bent I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of bizarre paranoid fantasies about how the evil Blair can use the CCB to grasp dictatorial power. Alternatively you can be reassured that there is provision for the continuance of constitutional Government under the most extreme circumstance - take your pick.

Following on from my recent ponderings over the most rebellious Labour MPs, Phil Cowley has published a (pdf) paper with an updated table of Labour rebels along with analysis how many of the rebels are new MPs, how many are bitter and twisted former ministers, how many are once loyal backbenchers and how many are the same old faces. I'll leave you to read the whole thing if you want to know the answers.

Nick Barlow is almost certainly right when he dismisses the weekend's rumours over an early election as being pulled out of a journalist's arse. I remember hearing similar rumours earlier this year - so what's the likelihood? What's in it for Blair from an early election?

1) Go to the country before you have to pay for anything. Gordon's spent the money - now quickly, call and election before you have to pay for it. Not particularly convincing, since Gordon can just run up a deficit for a year or two, but the recent budget was a shamelessly political one - it is certainly what one would expect prior to an election.

2) Quickly! Before they have to pay top-up fees! In Summer 2005 students (and more to the point, middle class parents) will have to pay top-up fees, which will almost certainly result in a lot of people who are rather unlikely to vote Labour, especially since the opposition would promise to repeal them and save them all that money. This argument cuts all ways, perhaps it's better to wait until Autumn 2005 when the fees are a fait accomplice and an opposition cannot promise to use emergency legislation to immediately repeal them, perhaps it better to go in Spring 2005 before people have actually paid them. Perhaps Autumn 2004 would, ironically, be the worst option - since then it would be genuinely practical for a new government to repeal top up fees.

3) Now, while the going is good. At the moment everything is going quite well for Blair. He cannot depend upon this staying the case in the future, so why not go as soon as as is practically possible? The downside is, of course, that in October things may not be going well - Labour will almost certainly have a thorough trouncing in the Euro-elections and will be on a back foot. There is also the question of how soon can one call an election without looking weak? Three and a half years (i.e. this Autumn) is pretty much the practical minimum without it looking bad, but certainly four years is preferable.

4) Oh dear, no time to introduce those new Scottish boundaries. Whoops-a-daisy! You're due to introduce new Scottish boundaries. They'll cost your party around ten seats. Wouldn't it be a shame if an early election meant you had to fight on the old boundaries? Then again, if Blair wished to he could delay the new Scottish boundaries until the review of English boundaries is complete, which will almost certainly be after the next election anyway.

5) Don't get dragged down with the President. If George Bush loses in November Tony Blair's position is going to be spectularly awkward and it certainly won't do his re-election chances any favours. Waiting until November 2005 would help distance Blair from Bush's re-election, indeed waiting until after November gives Blair the chance to change his plans depending upon Bush's fate. Would a better way of avoiding such a fate be to go to the country before Bush does? It has its pluses, but if the elections were within a month or two of each other would it focus attention more closely than Blair would wish upon Iraq and his relationship with President Bush, and does Blair want to have the worry of what is going on in the US Presidential election in the background? I'm sure it's a hostage to fortune he can do without.

6) What EU Constitution? The Spanish election may have vastly increased the likelihood of an EU Constitution being negotiated. If a consitution is agreed upon, then Blair will not want to go to the country with it signed but not ratified - it gives the other parties too much of an opportunity to demand referenda. If it hasn't been negotiated then it becomes less of an issue, if it's been ratified it is a fait accomplice - if October isn't already too late Blair may want to get in prior to the Constitution. Otherwise he may wish to leave it until it is ratified.

7) Room for manoeuvre. Until you've actually called the election, you can always put it off. If Blair plans an October 2004 election he can always wait until 2005 if a bomb goes off, an unpleasant cattle disease breaks out or there's a fuel strike (and let's be honest, a terrorist attack in the run up to an election is not unlikely) - if, on the other hand, Blair waits until October 2005 he has very little time to further delay an election if things go wrong.

8) The element of surprise. If none of the other parties really expect a general election and Blair's troops are ready to go it would obviously be a huge advantage but, seriously, could you get a party on the footing for a surprise election without other parties noticing? A fantasy.

9) The Conservative party is waking up. Quickly, while it's still groggy. After being all over the place for a decade the Conservative Party is a genuine threat again. The likelihood is that as time passes the Conservative party is going to get stronger and stronger, it may be in Blair's interest to go to the country quickly. Certainly speeches at our Spring Conference implied that we are working on a timetable that envisages us continuing with policy work up until the end of this year at least, so the longer Blair waits, the greater the threat is likely to be.

All three possible election dates (Autumn 2004, Spring 2005, Autumn 2005) have benefits and potential drawbacks. It wouldn't surprise me if Labour were indeed striving to get the party in a position where it could fight an election this Autumn if Blair decided he wanted to, but I would be surprised to say the least if Blair had decided that was his ideal date. My money is still on the rather dull and predictable 5th May 2005.

Today, the Mail's centre pages are given over to a continuation of Sex and the City, illustrated in the style of Private Eye's piss takes of Romantic Novels and written by a "brilliant novelist", but in reality Amanda Platell. Just glancing at it took two points off my IQ.

Stephen Glover, where are you? (Actually, he's here. It may just be a holding page sending you to an ebay advert now, but the whois information is in the name of Vicky Unwin, the managing director of Glover's planned newspaper - so watch that space!)

If this was a Tim Ireland post, it would be called "It's war! And someone's telling porkies!". Anyway...

Intriging story in the Telegraph's diary column today - are mobile phones being jammed in the vicinity of of the Prime Minister?. It's only a diary piece, so all the normal caveats apply, but interesting none the less.

London was particularly buggered up this morning. Parliament Square is closed, Westminster bridge and Lambeth bridge are closed, Milbank, Bridge Street are shut, Victoria Street shut. Initially it was reported that it ws a chemical incident in Parliament Square, which sounded worrying to say the least, but more specifically it seemed to have been a chemical spill from a lorry, rather than an evil terrorist assault. Incidentally, are the web cameras on the BBC London travel site any use at all? As soon as the traffic snarls up they are all (apart from Parliament Square itself) "not available for operational reasons". A less level-headed man than I would smell conspiracy!

David Curry has resigned from the shadow cabinet for personal reasons - he is replaced by Caroline Spelman.

There are several other changes. David Cameron, he of persistant future leader rumours, is promoted to be shadow spokesman under Caroline Spelman, covering local government finance (make of that what you will). Desmond Swayne becomes David Lidington's number two at Northern Ireland, Eleanor Laing becomes shadow minister for women. Richard Ottoway becomes shadow Secretary of State for the Environment outside the shadcab. David Ruffley & Geoffrey Clifton Brown join the whips office.

Still on something of a blogging hiatus, especially since I don't have anything interesting to say about Spain. For the record though there is a new ICM poll in the Guardian today though - C 35%, L 37%, LD 21%. This represents very little change from last month's ICM poll - Labour and the Conservatives are both up one percent, with the Liberals unchanged (the drop presumably comes from the "Others").

UPDATE: There's been a new YouGov poll as well. C 39%, L 34%, LD 20% - so no change YouGov's Conservative lead.

Don't have the time or inclination to blog at the mo - so just a quick mention for two things. Following on from Iain Dale (link on the right) we have another blogging Conservative PPC, Marcus Wood.

Secondly, there was a new poll yesterday from Populus - C 34%, L 36%, LD 22%. Compared to the last Populus poll the Conservatives are up three percent, the Lib Dems down three percent. I'm always rather unsure about Populus polls - they are admirably open about their methodology and in my view it is very impressive, but in practice their poll results have highly erratic figures for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote. I have no adequate explanation as to why. Still, make what you will of it.

I keep meaning to update my blogroll to add a few new people and take away those who are on indefinite leave - this can't wait though. David Boothroyd, Labour Cllr, author of one of the best resources on the web and perennial font of wisdom and electoral statistics on uk.politics.electoral has started a blog.