The Poliblogs Blog of The Week

I am going to be posting intermittently from Thursday onwards for a couple of weeks as I take a hard earned break. I will try and get things up every other day, but the roundups and blog of the week award will be on hold after Wednesday. Therefore, this week's winner will be up for two weeks!

Now, cries of cronyism are sure to fly at this week's winner, but it's my blog and I don't care! This week (and for the next two!) The Poliblog's most favourite is The Wardman Wire!

OK, so I write a column at the Wardman Wire every Tuesday so of course I am going to back it - but I only do it because I think Matt has great blog. The Wardman Wire is probably the most complete political blog there is at the moment, covering a range of topics (though mainly focused on politics and current affairs) from all angles of the spectrum. Matt gets a regular host of guest columnists which provides a great range across the political spectrum. The most recent of which has been following the MPs allowances scandal - which has not only provided some excellent and and at time heated debate, but also some great ideas of what Parliamentary procedures should follow in the future.

In the coming weeks Matt will also be focusing on the Mayoral elections, with another host of supporters and opponants of the main candiates putting their case forward. It will be an asolute must read to anyone with an interest in the Mayoral elections on 1st May.

In short, you get brillaint insight from Matt Wardman, guests posts from blogger such as The ThunderDragon, Mike Rouse, Dave Cole, David Keen and of course, myself. What more could you want?

The Poliblogs 18 February 2008

Return to the 'N' word

Imagine, just for a second if you had suggested to Gordon Brown, before he became prime minister, that he would nationalise a bank in his first year in No 10. He would have laughed, then snorted but, if you'd persisted, you might have seen the colour drain from his face. The N word - nationalisation - is so toxic to Brown's generation that they never wanted it to be heard in the same sentence as the Labour Party again. That is, no doubt, one reason he has delayed so long before taking this decision.

Nick Robinson

Crock- Three Questions From Taxpayers

Now that our dithering "government" has finally pulled the trigger on nationalising Northern Rock, taxpayers are formally and irrevocably on the hook for up to £110bn (we don't know how much because we haven't seen any proper accounts for months). For taxpayers, there are three key questions.

Burning Our Money

Where are we with Northern Rock?

It seems to me that the fundamentals of this problem have left policy makers with few sensible choices. The Government was right to step in last autumn to save Northern Rock - protecting depositors and stopping its problems spreading to other parts of the banking system. Alastair Darling was right to properly test all options for the future of the bank. The Treasury had two detailed proposals on the table and they are now taking a hard-headed choice in the best interests of the tax payer. The Chancellor has clearly decided that under current market conditions the private equity options failed to deliver sufficient value for money for the tax-payer. So bringing forward legislation to take Northern Rock into a period of temporary public ownership is the right decision.

Tom Watson

Darling and Brown go mad; Northern Rock Nationalised

Well it is all over the news and I am quite shocked that it has come to this. Sadly, I have to eat my hat (hat-tip istockphoto) as I was sure that Virgin would win the bid. Instead, the Government has decided it knows how to run a bank better than private sector bankers. The decision really beggars belief and although I will post on this later this week, but here are 5 key points to remember:

Capitalists@Work

Sifting through the Northern Wreckage

Perhaps, the greatest political danger for the government from yesterday’s nationalisation of Northern Rock is that it fits so neatly into the narrative of a government that is incapable of making a decision. On The Today Programme this morning, Alistair Darling was repeatedly pressed on the question of why this step was not taken earlier and had no adequate answer.

Coffee House

Vince Cable was right - Lib Dems show better understanding of Northern Rock issue than the government

Vince Cable was right after all. Despite government dithering and trying to avoid the inevitable, it has been announced that the Northern Rock will be nationalised after all. Despite Tory claims that this shows a catastrophic failure on the government's part, at least the government have finally made a decision on this. Remember, the Tories have absolutely no stated policy in this topic and whilst opposing nationalisation have produced no alternative policy with which to lead on.

Norfolk Blogger

Northern Rock nationalised

Cranmer is not going to bore his readers and communicants with allusions to the wise man who built his bank on a rock and the unwise man who built his bank on sand, but the decision to nationalise Northern Rock does demand a little analysis beyond that presently being served up by the mainstream media. This is, after all, the first nationalisation of an industry since the 1970s, since those heady days when the likes of British Leyland, British Aerospace, or Rolls Royce were in public ownership so that profits may be shared ‘for the benefit of all’.

Cranmer

How Mr Darling lost the government’s economic reputation

The Northern Rock crisis has undermined this government’s economic reputation, and deservedly so. They have made mistake after mistake in responding the Credit Crunch and the run on the bank. I have put the main blog entries on Northern Rock from this site together so people can remind themselves of the way the crisis unfolded from last summer. The main errors (highlighted at the time on this site) were:

John Redwood

Punters unmoved by the Northern Rock announcement

Is nationalisation really going to have no electoral impact? Even though some are calling it “Labour’s Black Wednesday” there has been very little movement in the general election most seats betting following yesterday’s announcement by Alistair Darling that Northern Rock. The chart showing betting prices as implied probabilities has hardly changed on the past week. It’s the same with the spread betting markets where punters buy and sell the number of seats the parties will get at the election as though they were stocks and shares. There was a minuscule move to the Tories yesterday but that was prompted more by the latest YouGov poll showing Labour 9% behind rather than Northern Rock.

Political Betting

Are the Tories doing well enough?

Even David Cameron’s most enthusiastic backers in the 2005 leadership contest might have thought it unrealistic to imagine that after a little over two years in the job he would have opened up a nine point lead over Labour. But despite having done this, Cameron is still plagued by the question of whether the Tories should be further ahead.

Coffee House

Lib Dem nasties challenge Clegg

"It's delicious to watch another party suffering European difficulties," writes ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie. He's referring of course to David Heath's threat to defy the Lib Dem Whip over the revised EU constitution - a "u-turn on policy that has never been debated at conference," according to Linda Jack.

The Daily Pundit

Children with fathers do better

On 21 January Peers voted in favour of a change in the law which undermines the importance of the father to a child born after in-vitro fertilisation. The law currently refers explicitly to a child's 'need for a father', which doctors must consider before providing fertility treatment. But the Government proposes to replace this with a reference to 'the need for supportive parenting' in order to give lesbians and single women easier access to IVF.

Cranmer

The latest moral corruption of society is mineral water?

Jesus wept. That is all you can say when you hear that the Environment Minister, Phil Woolas, has said that the amount of money that people spend on bottled water "borders on being morally unacceptable". What a complete idiot. All those people that go a long journey and find themselves thirsty are now it seems morally reprehensible. Why.. doesn't anyone know they should be drinking coca cola? Diet of course so that we can stave off the obesity epidemic, and caffeine free too so that you don't have a heart attack and cost the state lots of money as well.

Dizzy Thinks

How Goes The War On Ken? (Part 2)

Friday’s decision by Ken Livingstone to suspend his equalities adviser Lee Jasper and invite the police to investigate the many claims made against him by the Evening Standard was a calculated gamble at the end of another awkward week for the London mayor. His and Jasper’s wish must be that the move will persuade the capital’s voters that there is nothing to hide and result in Jasper’s exoneration. Livingstone will also be hoping that some of the heat will now go out of the story and that the media will talk instead about the issues he would prefer to debate.

Liberal Conspiracy

In defence of supermarkets

Jay Rayner argues in The Observer that supermarkets have made our lives better. It is a odd thing to say, but I think he has a point. Politaholic is no spring chicken. I can remember a time when most shopping was done, certainly in the working-class area in the city where I grew up, in corner shops. This was before the rise of the super and mega markets. In those days if you asked the corner shopkeeper for parmeson cheese he would have looked at you as if you were mad. An avocado? I didn't know what one looked like until I was in my 20's. Wine was for posh people; and was expensive (now one can buy a reasonably quaffable bottle for around a fiver).

Politaholic

Kosovo's giant mosh pit

Mother Teresa Street in central Pristina has turned into a giant mosh pit. The crowd surges one way and then twists back the other and, for a while, you have to give up all hope of independent movement. From time to time people will clear a small circular space for a spot of traditional dancing to the sinuous local pop music, as the crowd flows either side of them.

Mark Mardell

YouGov reports nine point Tory lead

A new YouGov Poll for the Sunday Times tomorrow, according to the Press Association has some good news for the Tories. “…Questioned on their voting intentions, some 41% of those taking part said they would back the Tories (down two points on a similar poll last month), 32% Labour (down one) and 16% the Liberal Democrats (up two). The overall Conservative lead was down marginally from 10 points to nine compared to the last comparable poll.”

Political Betting

Parties steady in latest YouGov poll

After almost a fortnight without any voting intention polls there is a new poll from YouGov in the Sunday Times. The topline voting intention figures, with changes from YouGov’s last poll back in January, are CON 41%(nc), LAB 32%(-1), LDEM 16%(nc). The poll was conducted between the 14th and 15th of February and clearly shows no significant change in party support over the past two weeks.

Polling Report

PMQs Gold

There was no PMQs this week, hence no roundup. Given the lack of quality of late in the chamber, it is probably just as well. Take a look at this clip from PMQs back in the days when they knew how to perform for the crowds...

Iain Dale's Boris article

Iain Dale has a piece in today's Telegraph about Boris Johnson's chances of winning the Mayoral election on 1st May. Below I have added my own comments to key sections of the article. I implore you to read the whole thing however over at the Telegraph website so as to get the full story too...

Iain's words are in black, my fisking is in red:

Instead of ignoring his opponent, as most incumbents would, Ken talks about Boris all the time. He launched personal attacks on him from the off. As an electoral strategy, it was bizarre. He dubbed Boris a racist, yet the charge failed to stick. Why? Because no one who has ever met Boris, seen him on TV or read his books would ever believe him to be one.

Iain is absolutely right on this point in my opinion – why is Ken so obsessed with the Boris campaign? The “Look at him” strategy designed to make everyone look at the opponent and see how terrible they are usually only results in everyone looking at the opponent and ignoring the incumbent. This has been Livingstone’s biggest mistake so far – and also the attempts to paint Boris as a racist are simply unpalatable and patently untrue.

Ken failed to understand that, in Boris, he had met the Right-wing equivalent of himself - a politician seen by the electorate as independent of party politics and with a Teflon-type ability to deflect attacks.

Boris independent of party politics? More on this further down...

But there the similarity ends. Boris unites people, whereas Ken revels in division. His political strategy is based on class, and setting people against each other.

Greatly simplified – while many of us do love Boris, there is a significant number out there who do not like him. Worse of all, the biggest uniting factor behind Boris is a belief that while he is a nice chap, he is not necessarily up to the job of running the world’s premier city.

Since then Boris has started to develop some clear thinking in several policy areas, not least crime. But it still doesn't amount to a vision.

This is the catch 22. If Boris focuses on policy he loses what is his greatest selling point – his personality. If he focuses on his personality is will not be seen as a credible candidate. In a straight contest between Ken and Boris on policy and vision for London, Ken will win hands down. What is Boris’s policy on crime exactly? What will he do about transport except get rid of bendy buses? What impact will he have on business in London where Ken is seen as having such success? What will he do for poverty? We know where Ken stands on these issues, whether we like where he stands or not. While Boris can “out-personality” Ken (which is no mean feat), he has yet to show that he can “out-vision” him. I doubt he can and even trying may well have a detrimental effect on his campaign.

Ken did this in 2000 - less so in 2004 - but his ability to appeal to non-Labour voters has now been dented, not least by the scandals that emerge from City Hall.

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever for this. In fact, the immediate poll after the Channel 4 programme went out showed Ken had stretched his lead.

Mobilising the Tory vote is incredibly important. In 2004, turnout was 70 per cent in parts of Labour-dominated Lewisham, while in parts of Kensington & Chelsea it was little more than 20 per cent. Steve Norris lost by only 100,000 votes. That's why Boris's "get out the vote" operation will be crucial to his success. Boris's success is also crucial to David Cameron. If Boris wins, Cameron will be seen to have passed his second big electoral test - and, more important, Gordon Brown will have failed his first.

This works both ways. If Boris cannot even win in the Tory’s back yard, what hope have they got in the rest of the country? The Tories should be cleaning up in the South East by now and Cameron knows if he associates himself with a loser here, then it will discredit the Tories.

I also disagree that Boris is seen in similar terms as Ken, i.e. not partisan. Ken left the Labour party; he is often seen as a thorn in New Labour’s side. Boris is seen as Cameron’s old pal from school intrinsically linked with Cameron’s attempts to modernise the party.

I think the damage would be greater to the Tories if they lose in London than to Labour if Ken was to lose. The SE is just a corner of Britain, albeit an important one. But we all know the Tories have this area sewn up – what does the North care about a Mayoral election?

If Ken loses it will be seen more as his loss than Labour's and Labour shouldn't be winning in London anyway given the larger Tory numbers in the SE right now. On the other hand - if Ken does win it will be seen as a Ken win rather than a Gordon Brown and Labour win.

This election will not be won on first preferences. A key part of the Johnson campaign strategy will be to love-bomb Lib Dem voters into giving Boris their second preferences. It will be tough, as London Lib Dems are a little more Left-leaning than their country counterparts. But if anyone knows the way to attract second preferences, it's Boris's newly imported Australian campaign manager, Lynton Crosby. His appointment signalled the seriousness of the campaign.

Spot on – and the key reason why Boris will lose. Paddick supporters are far more likely to go with Ken that Boris.

His campaign managers have resisted the temptation to de-Boris Boris. Any attempt to turn him into a robot politician will end in him losing.

The catch 22 point. Either he is Boris with no policies or he is the robot with policies that cannot compete with Ken. Unless he can find a third way he has a fundamental problem that he cannot overcome. I don’t see how he can overcome this. Iain is calling for Boris to focus more on policy and vision, but he himself recognises that the biggest mistake would be to move away from Boris's biggest strength - his personality.

The Great Archbishop Debate

Are you Backing The Bishop or Bashing The Bishop?

The Poliblogs 14 February 2008

Why isn't Michael Fallon in the Shadow Cabinet?

Has anyone - apart from ConservativeHome - noticed that the Member for Sevenoaks is pound for pound one of the most effective operators on the Tory benches? He offers a consistently robust Thatcherite critique of Labour's economic failings. As vice-chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, where he plays a nifty bad cop to John McFall's good cop, he has repeatedly skewered Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, most recently on Northern Rock. Mr Fallon is a canny media operator who manages to generate more coverage than half the Shadow Cabinet.

Ben Brogan

Northern Rock: Spin cycle begins

Late last night, (ignoring traditional rules about making announcements prior to the stock exchange opening, but who in the Treasury cares about that) the Government announced that unless Virgin and the Northern Rock management improved their bids, then Northern Rock will be nationalised. Given that the Rock is already on the public accounts, this is a mis-statement at best. The Rock is already nationalised, all the government are saying is that they will exclude private sector intervention from the future unless the terms are improved.

Capitalist@Work

The case for a written constitution

Does Britain need a written constitution? Traditionally, this isn’t an issue to which the left has paid much attention. Either it has been written off as being of little importance, or else the very concept has been seen as favouring conservative forces in a society. As a result, the ruling class has essentially been able to make up the rules of the political game as it goes along. But with the latest hint from justice secretary Jack Straw that such a development is likely over the next decade or two, it is clearly time to sharpen up our ideas on this one.

Dave’s Part

The government tears up the Bill of Rights

It is typical of this government that Parliament should not be meeting on this day of all days. On 13th February 1689 “the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster” presented a declaration to the new sovereigns, King William and Queen Mary. This declaration, known as the Bill of Rights, established Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown in important areas, and guaranteed Parliament’s freedoms .It did so that the people could practise the religion of their choice, avoid arbitrary manipulation of their laws and require redress of ills before they had to pay taxes.

John Redwood

What's driving Ken?

Ken Livingstone's congestion charge policy was established to reduce congestion; now it seems it's about what car you own

Daniel Moylan

This is Gordon Brown's mistake

The chancellor is taking the heat for a U-turn on tax-avoidance by non-doms: but it is the prime minister who should have resisted City bullying

Will Hutton

Spin is alive and kicking at the Treasury

The Treasury spin machine went into overdrive yesterday afternoon to try and water down the significance of Alistair Darling’s u-turn on the taxation of non-doms. Throughout the afternoon, journalists were subject to a range of explanations from supposedly impartial civil servants. First the rules to gain access to offshore trusts and the other assets of non-doms were drawn up by an overeager official who had gone too far. Then, in another call, we were told to believe that there was, in fact, no change to what was originally proposed and yesterday’s announcement was “just a clarification” of what had been said all along.

Three Line Whip

I wish I could fly

This intriguing, if badly-scanned, graph appears in today's Guardian. It's a stark illustration of the pollution caused by the global shipping industry. The darker the area, the more particulate pollution its suffers from - and some of the darker patches overlay major shipping lanes very precisely.

Know Your Place

Archbishop Rowan Firestorm was Started by the BBC before Interview was even Broadcast

Archbishop Rowan Firestorm was Started by the BBC before Interview was even Broadcast

[Update: It appears that this article had a glitch or two in publication, and so there is some undisciplind pinging going on. My apologies.] There’s been a huge media firestorm after the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture to lawyers in London, as we all know - and it’s all been blamed on “Rowan’s naivity” or “Rowan’s bad press team” or “what did he expect, mentioning Sharia” or [insert random Rowan-bashing reason here]. After a bit of digging, it turns out that the Beeb was reporting inaccurate statements about “ABC says Sharia is inevitable” even before the interview was broadcast. Rowan (and a well-tempered debate) never had a chance - whether you agree with his line or not.

The Wardman Wire

Matt Wardman accuses the BBC of stirring

Matt Wardman accuses the BBC, in fairly strident terms, of encouraging an unnecessary storm over the Archbishop of Canterbury's words. His evidence for this is pretty weak. Essentially, he has two points. First, that by publishing the story on their website before the interview they pre-empted his interview and thereby prevented people getting the balanced and nuanced account of his opinions that the interview provided. Second, that the website article was distorting.

Sinclair’s Musings

The Late Lunch Briefing

Darling In Circles

You put your left leg in. Your left leg out. In. Out. In. Out. You shake it all about.

What is going on at the Treasury? Are we witnesses the most incompetent Chancellor this country has ever seen? So Non Doms won’t be taxed to the back teeth on foreign income or gains not sent to the UK. In fact, apparently it never was going to tax these people. Oh no, the only reason we ever thought that the Treasury would is because they said so... but that was only because of “careless drafting” of an HM Revenue & Customs consultation paper. Careless drafting? You are supposed to running the most important department of in the country – we cannot be doing with careless drafting... or even worse: dithering!

It is no surprise that Darling has changed his mind on this one. It is reported that the change of heart came following a call from George Osborne for Labour to adopt the Tory plan. The Tories driving Labour’s economic policy? Surely not.

The Wooden Chancellor

Of course this isn’t the first U-turn of the “Wooden Chancellor”, Alastair Darling. We have had Northern Rock and the “will it or won’t it” be nationalised drama (for clarity, right now it won’t be nationalised, though it is unlikely that they will accept the Virgin deal, so it probably will be nationalised, but actually no-one has a clue). There has been inheritance tax u-turns. We’ve had the about turn on Capital Gains tax. This list goes on. When you add all this in to the boiling pot that is economic recession and falling house prices, you have to question how long this born loser has left at No.11.

The press, the city, parliament, they are all full of gossip about how Darling might be moved in a Spring/Summer reshuffle. It is something I suspected at my New Year predictions. Even the most ardent of New Labour supporters who has any interest in the well being of the British economy as an International super-power must be worried about this buffoon running our economy. But will he go?

Party Politics before Economics

The problem with Darling going is that it will inflict serious damage on the government. It will be seen as a major scalp by George Osborne and the Tories. It will be reported as a failure of Gordon Brown’s premiership. It will be seen as a clear sign that the economy is in trouble and will only make the situation less stable, purely on lack of confidence driven by a perception. I fear that Brown will save this numskull purely for political reasons – i.e. to save his government and his own bacon.

A plea to you all

The truth is, in the short term there will be damage. But in the medium to long term it surely can only be good for the government and the country. Things are only going to get worse economically and with such a halfwit in charge of our money it will only be magnified. We need a tough, iron chancellor at No.11 and we need it before things spiral out of control. The only way this can happen, however, is if we all applaud Brown doing getting rid of darling rather than make political capital out of it.

So I make plea right now: all anti-Browns, all Tories and Lib Dems, all anti-Darlings and people with half a brain: applaud when Brown sacks this man, encourage him to do so in fact. Make him feel like it is the greatest decision made since Henry V made a few expert judgments and gave the French a jolly good hiding at Agincourt.

Of course, the Tories are such an excitable lot that they will make Brown look like a complete bonehead if he does sack him – and you can hardly blame the Tories for all this mess anyway. So it looks like Darling is here to stay and free to really mess things up... but we can all still hope.

The Poliblogs 13 February 2008

Darling getting it wrong again

Under Blair, Labour was never so foolish as to come into direct conflict with the City. The government tiptoed around it in an effort to nurture the powerhouse of the British economy. But led by Brown, with Darling as Chancellor, they are now clumsily treading on the collective toes of many in the business community.

Adam Smith

Time to go on the offensive on Europe?

It’s pretty much a given in the Liberal Democrats that the party doesn’t talk about Europe in its leaflets. It’s with good cause too. Firstly, it isn’t actually one of the top concerns of voters when they are asked in opinion polls what their biggest issues are. Just like electoral reform, it comes well down the list after all the big ones like health, education, crime, transport and so on. But also, there is an understandable reluctance for Lib Dems to talk about an issue on which it is perceived that the party is out of touch with the voters.

Anders Hanson

Spreading democracy...

Foreign Secretary David Miliband today makes the argument for military intervention to 'spread democracy'. So, according to The Guardian (although it is less than clear in the text) Britain and its partners have a 'moral imperitive' to use force to 'spread democracy'. Gone is the requirement for some sort of facade, no more humanitarian intervention to defeat tyrants terrorising their own people, not even a 'sexed-up' excuse to wipe out fantasy weapons of mass destruction... no, the moral argument for spreading democracy will be sufficient for us to send our forces off to die, and to kill.

Bob Piper

They really don't want you to have a referendum

Labour is clearly rattled by the row over it reneging on its promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution. Not content with threatening to withdraw the whip from Labour MPs who support honouring this manifesto commitment, Labour is engaged in a desperate attempt to discredit the cross-party ‘I want a referendum campaign’.

Coffee House

Should we subsidise the arts?

Should there really be tax breaks for donations to the arts, as Paul Myners and Nicholas Serota demand here? The Pigovian case for such tax breaks is well-known; without them, there’d be an under-supply of such public goods. However, the egalitarian case for such breaks is very shaky, as this recent paper discusses. It argues that donations to the arts can actually increase inequalities of well-being in two ways - even leaving aside the possibility that such donations are really intended to boost the ego of the donor.

Liberal Conspiracy

Frank Field: Right theory, Wrong practice

Labour MP Frank Field has had to put up with a lot over the years - not least being ousted from Blair's first government for being too radical and since then being treated by his own side as if he's about to defect to the Conservatives. Well, today Frank launched rather interested reform plans that would charge people who earn over £150,000 a year an extra 10% tax which could be offset totally through donations to charity. You can read the BBC report here.

Little’s Log

Foul emission in London

Up in London the Livingstone beast is at it again. He is going to charge the owners of Chelsea Tractors £25 a day for taking their gas guzzlers into “town”. It will not affect me. I have only driven in London twice in the last six months and the Crippen Toyota Previa (four children, Ken, what else can we do?) has relatively modest emissions. As Iain Dale vehemently points out, the charge will not apply in some of the most congested parts of London, such as Crouch End and Willesdon. The people most affected will be voting for Boris anyway.

NHS Blog Doctor

Prime Minister Balls?

In a fascinating post, Robert shows how the Tories are doing Alistair Darling harm by sympathising with him. The Chancellor may be replaced by Ed Balls so they present Darling as a decent man treated awfully by bossy Brown. They want to spread discord and paranoia because it suits their own ends. But at the root of the Balls for Chancellor movement, is a prospect even more worrying for the nation: it is that Ed Balls appears convinced he is the natural next Labour leader. Can I be alone in finding this idea preposterous?

Three Line Whip

Voodoo polling corner

A sudden outbreak of voodoo polling this morning, or more to the point a sudden outbreak of serious newspapers reporting a voodoo poll as being meaningful. What’s a voodoo poll? It’s what Bob Worcester calls the little “press the red button to vote” polls on Sky News, or the little readers’ votes things on the BBC website. They are entertaining enough, but they mean nothing whatsoever, they don’t measure the opinion of a representative group of people, they only measure the opinions of people who wander past that particular website (or are directed to said website by people trying to influence the poll) and care enough about the issue to vote…often several times if they know how to delete cookies from their computer.

Polling Report