DOCSLIB.ORG

IPSOS MORI PRIME MINISTERS POLLING March 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IPSOS MORI PRIME MINISTERS POLLING March 2021 IPSOS MORI PRIME MINISTERS POLLING March 2021 © Ipsos | Doc Name | Month Year | Version # | Public | Internal/Client Use Only | Strictly Confidential How did these Ranked by % saying “good job” Ranked by % saying “bad job” former Prime 1 Winston Churchill 63% 1 Theresa May 45% Ministers do in 2 Margaret Thatcher 44% 2 David Cameron 44% office? 3 Tony Blair 36% 3 Gordon Brown 37% 4 Harold Wilson 30% 4 Tony Blair 36% Based on what you 5 David Cameron 27% 5 Margaret Thatcher 35% know, would you say that the following 6 John Major 25% 6 John Major 30% Prime Ministers did a 7 Gordon Brown 24% 7 Edward Heath 21% good job or a bad job 8 Harold Macmillan 24% 8 James Callaghan 14% as Prime Minister, or Clement Attlee 24% Harold Wilson 14% neither? 9 9 10 Theresa May 22% 10 Anthony Eden 14% Ipsos MORI asked about 11 Edward Heath 19% 11 Alec Douglas-Home 12% Prime Ministers who have left office since 1945. 12 James Callaghan 17% 12 Harold Macmillan 10% Former Conservative PMs are 13 Anthony Eden 16% 13 Winston Churchill 8% blue; Labour PMs are red. 14 Alec Douglas-Home 13% 14 Clement Attlee 8% Source: Ipsos MORI Base: 1,124 Online British adults aged 18+, 19-22 February 2021 2 © Ipsos | Public How did these Ranked by % saying “good job” Ranked by % saying “bad job” former Prime 1 Winston Churchill 83% 1 Gordon Brown 53% Ministers do in 2 Margaret Thatcher 74% 2 Tony Blair 53% office? Among 3 David Cameron 38% 3 Theresa May 37% 2019 Conservative 4 John Major 32% 4 David Cameron 34% voters 5 Harold Macmillan 30% 5 John Major 31% 6 Theresa May 29% 6 Edward Heath 25% Based on what you know, would you say that the 7 Harold Wilson 27% 7 Harold Wilson 25% following Prime Ministers 8 Tony Blair 26% 8 James Callaghan 23% did a good job or a bad job as Prime Minister, or 9 Anthony Eden 24% 9 Anthony Eden 14% neither? 10 Clement Attlee 23% 10 Margaret Thatcher 13% 11 Edward Heath 22% 11 Harold Macmillan 12% Ipsos MORI asked about Prime Ministers who have left 12 Alec Douglas-Home 17% 12 Clement Attlee 12% office since 1945. 13 James Callaghan 15% 13 Alec Douglas-Home 11% Former Conservative PMs are Gordon Brown 13% Winston Churchill 2% blue; Labour PMs are red. 14 14 Source: Ipsos MORI Base: 1,124 Online British adults aged 18+, including 358 Conservative voters, 19-22 February 2021 3 © Ipsos | Public How did these Ranked by % saying “good job” Ranked by % saying “bad job” former Prime 1 Tony Blair 51% 1 David Cameron 61% Ministers do in 2 Winston Churchill 50% 2 Margaret Thatcher 60% office? 3 Harold Wilson 39% 3 Theresa May 60% Among 2019 4 Gordon Brown 38% 4 John Major 33% Labour voters 5 Clement Attlee 29% 5 Gordon Brown 30% 6 John Major 24% 6 Tony Blair 22% Based on what you know, would you say that the 7 Margaret Thatcher 23% 7 Edward Heath 22% following Prime Ministers 8 James Callaghan 22% 8 Anthony Eden 19% did a good job or a bad job as Prime Minister, or 9 Harold Macmillan 22% 9 Alec Douglas-Home 16% neither? 10 David Cameron 20% 10 Winston Churchill 14% 11 Edward Heath 20% 11 Harold Macmillan 13% Ipsos MORI asked about Prime Ministers who have left 12 Anthony Eden 15% 12 James Callaghan 10% office since 1945. 13 Theresa May 13% 13 Harold Wilson 8% Former Conservative PMs are Alec Douglas-Home 12% Clement Attlee 8% blue; Labour PMs are red. 14 14 Source: Ipsos MORI Base: 1,124 Online British adults aged 18+, including 307 2019 Labour voters,19-22 February 2021 4 © Ipsos | Public % saying “neither good nor bad”/“don’t know”/“never heard of them” Which Prime Ministers do Clement Attlee (1945-51) 68% we not have an Winston Churchill (1951-55) 28% opinion on? Anthony Eden (1955-57) 69% Harold Macmillan (1957-63) 66% Based on what you Alec Douglas-Home (1963-64) 74% know, would you say Harold Wilson (1964-70, 74-76) 56% that the following Prime Ministers did a Edward Heath (1970-74) 60% good job or a bad job James Callaghan (1976-79) 68% as Prime Minister, or Margaret Thatcher (1979-90) 21% neither? John Major (1990-97) 45% Ipsos MORI asked about Tony Blair (1997-2007) 28% Prime Ministers who have left office since 1945. Gordon Brown (2007-10) 39% David Cameron (2010-16) 28% Former Conservative PMs are blue; Labour PMs are red. Theresa May (2016-19) 33% Source: Ipsos MORI Base: 1,124 Online British adults aged 18+, 19-22 February 2021 5 © Ipsos | Public How did these Good job Neither good nor bad Bad job Don’t know Never heard of them former Prime 1 Winston Churchill 63% 15% 8% 12% Ministers do in 2 Margaret Thatcher 44% 14% 35% 6% office? 3 Tony Blair 36% 22% 36% 5% 4 Harold Wilson 30% 23% 14% 23% 10% Based on what you 5 David Cameron 27% 24% 44% 4% know, would you say that the following 6 John Major 25% 33% 30% 8% Prime Ministers did a 7 Gordon Brown 24% 30% 37% 7% good job or a bad job 8 Harold Macmillan 24% 24% 10% 28% 14% as Prime Minister, or 9 Clement Attlee 24% 19% 8% 32% 17% neither? 10 Theresa May 22% 29% 45% 3% Ipsos MORI asked about 11 Edward Heath 19% 26% 21% 23% 11% Prime Ministers who have left office since 1945. 12 James Callaghan 17% 30% 14% 25% 13% 13 Anthony Eden 16% 21% 14% 31% 17% 14 Alec Douglas-Home 13% 25% 12% 31% 18% Source: Ipsos MORI Base: 1,124 Online British adults aged 18+, 19-22 February 2021 6 © Ipsos | Public Boris Johnson vs Keir Starmer And based on his performance to-date, would you say Boris Johnson has done a good job or a bad job as Prime Minister, or neither? And based on your impressions, do you think that Labour leader Keir Starmer would do a good job or a bad job as Prime Minister, or neither? Bad job Good job Neither a good nor bad job Boris Johnson 37% 20% 40% Keir Starmer 29% 27% 31% Base: 1,124 Online British adults aged 18+, 19-22 February 2021 7 © Ipsos | Public Ipsos MORI March 2021 For more information Keiran Pedley Cameron Garrett Research Director Senior Research Executive [email protected] [email protected] Gideon Skinner Research Director [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harold Macmillan's Resignation in 1963 Plunged the Conservative
    FEATURE A conference rememberto he 83rd annual Conservative Harold Macmillan’s resignation in 1963 plunged Party Conference opened in Blackpool on Wednesday, 9th the Conservative conference into chaos, as rivals October 1963. Unionists from Scotland and Northern Ireland scrambled for supremacy and old alliances broke mingledT happily with Conservatives from England and Wales, their fellow party down. By the end of the week, one man was left members, in a gathering of some 3,000. A convivial informality prevailed: Cabinet standing. Lord Lexden looks back on a dramatic ministers who wanted to make confidential telephone calls had to use the scrambler few days of Tory party history phone placed in the television room at the main conference hotel. There were no pushy lobbyists, no public relations executives, no trade stands. 36 | THE HOUSE MAGAZINE | 11 OCTOBER 2013 WWW.POLITICSHOME.COM Alec Douglas-Home leaves Buckingham Palace after being invited to form a government folowing the resignation of Harold Macmillan They had not yet traditional stage arrive to be greeted as a conquering hero been invented. Hours of rumour and management of and bring the conference to a conclusion. Almost the only speculation were followed by the conference His mastery of platform oratory could be outsiders were the remarkable scenes of drama, proceedings relied on to send the party faithful back representatives was undertaken to their constituencies with words of of the media, when the hall fell silent to with particular inspiration ringing in their ears. who were always hear the Prime Minister’s care to prevent Rarely have carefully laid conference admitted in the resignation letter public expression plans been more spectacularly upset.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Corners' Bluff: Pre-War Europe's Most Dangerous Game
    Pre-war Europe’s Most Dangerous Game Emily Falconer Major: History The U.K. Advisor: Professor William Fowler Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain The year 1938 was a turning point for international relations in pre-war Europe. While the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were previously able to keep their aggressive German enemy Sir Neville Henderson at bay, 1938 marked a dramatic shift in foreign policy for all three nations. For Germany, under the command of Adolf Hitler, it marked the start of his hostile expansion into British or Soviet territory. For British Ambassador to Germany “allies” the UK and the USSR, respectively led by Sir Neville Chamberlain and Josef Stalin, it forced each of them to make cut-throat decisions in regards to their long-time alliance, and to come to agreeable terms with their common enemy, Adolf Hitler. In 1938, the world was unclear; anything could happen, and “[Henderson] Had almost become Hitler’s all was fair game. Only one outcome was imminent: Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich were ready for war. The only question was: Who would he fight first? ambassador to us, rather than our ambassador to Hitler.” On one hand, the UK and the USSR were steadfast allies, committed to defeating fascism in Europe at all costs, and in thorough agreement to defend one another should one find themselves attacked by Germany. On the other hand, both the UK and the USSR feared each other just as much, if not more, “The personal representative of the prime than they feared Hitler’s Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by Hugh Gaitskell Against UK Membership of the Common Market (3 October 1962)
    Speech by Hugh Gaitskell against UK membership of the Common Market (3 October 1962) Caption: On 3 October 1962, Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour Party, delivers a speech at the annual Labour Party Conference in which he lists the reasons for which opposes the United Kingdom's accession to the European Economic Community (EEC). Source: Britain and the Common Market, Texts of speeches made at the 1962 Labour Party Conference by the Rt. Hon Hugh Gaitskell M.P. and the Rt. Hon. George Brown M.P. together with the policy statement accepted by Conference. London: Labour Party, 1962. 40 p. p. 3-23. Copyright: (c) Labour Party URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/speech_by_hugh_gaitskell_against_uk_membership_of_the _common_market_3_october_1962-en-05f2996b-000b-4576-8b42- 8069033a16f9.html Last updated: 01/03/2017 1/15 Speech by Hugh Gaitskell (3 October 1962) I present to Conference the document Labour and the Common Market, and ask you to give it your whole- hearted support. I ask this not only because I believe that this document will commend itself to the large majority of delegates, but because its compelling logic makes it a fine statement of the Party’s point of view on this immense problem. We can all agree on the tremendous significance of this debate. We can also agree that it is already warm in this hall, and likely to become much hotter as the day goes on. Do not therefore, let us get over-heated. I plead at the start for tolerance, tolerance in particular between those who hold the more extreme views in this controversy – those who, on the one hand would like to see Britain enter Europe whatever the conditions, and those who, on the other hand, are opposed to Britain entering Europe on any conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • David Cameron's Speech Was About As Pro-European As Can Be Expected of a British Conservative Prime Minister in the Current Co
    blo gs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/30204 David Cameron’s speech was about as pro-European as can be expected of a British Conservative Prime Minister in the current context On Wednesday, David Cameron delivered his long awaited speech on the UK’s relationship with Europe, guaranteeing a referendum on the country’s EU membership should his party win the next election. Simon Hix gives a critical reading of the speech, noting that the content was far more pro-European than might have been expected. He argues that there are strong reasons to support a renegotiation of the UK’s position inside the EU and that a referendum on this new agreement could re-engage British citizens with the European project. This article was first published on LSE’s EUROPP blog I read the complete text of David Cameron’s speech bef ore reading any of the commentary in newspapers, on the various blogs or f rom the usual twitterati. And I’m so glad I did. I came away f rom an unadulterated reading of the speech pleasantly surprised. This surprise in part ref lects my prior f ears that Cameron would deliver the most anti-European speech of any British Prime Minister. Instead, the speech is remarkably pro-European given current domestic circumstances – especially the shrillness of the anti-European tabloids, the Europhobia of some Tory backbenchers, and the rising UKIP tide. The Prime Minister made the case f or Europe, f or the EU single market, f or Britain as a European power, and even f or deeper integration in the Eurozone.
    [Show full text]
  • Going, Going, Gone: How Safe Is David Cameron?
    Going, Going, Gone: How Safe is David Cameron? democraticaudit.com /2016/06/03/going-going-gone-how-safe-is-david-cameron/ By Democratic Audit UK 2016-6-3 Last weekend, rumors were once again abound of plots to remove David Cameron as leader. Ben Worthy assesses the Prime Minister’s position in light of the latest threat, and writes that although it appears probable he will survive attempts to topple him in the short-term, the plots, rumours and rebellion will continue. David Cameron at first Cabinet meeting in 2010. Credit: Crown Copyright The UK’s EU referendum has turned into a series of threats against Cameron himself. The weekend was dominated by swirling rumours about Conservative MPs plotting to remove their leader with talk of plots of 50 MPs, (metaphorical) ‘stabbing in the front’ and letters to the 1922 committee. This isn’t the first time Cameron has faced challenges to his position. So how safe is he now? The rules for triggering an election for a Conservative party leader are clear. To ‘secure a confidence vote, 15% of Conservative Members of Parliament (“in receipt of the Conservative Whip”) must submit a request for such a vote, in writing, to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee’. This means 50 MPs need to sign a letter. There are 330 Conservative whipped MPs in the House of Commons. It is estimated that around 110 are definitely Brexit versus 128 MPs for Remain with the rest unknown. There are likely enough unhappy MPs to get 50 signatures on a letter. How these numbers may translate into a leadership election is less clear.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Nostalgia, Progressive Patriotism and Labour's 'English Problem'
    Radical nostalgia, progressive patriotism and Labour©s ©English problem© Article (Accepted Version) Robinson, Emily (2016) Radical nostalgia, progressive patriotism and Labour's 'English problem'. Political Studies Review, 14 (3). pp. 378-387. ISSN 1478-9299 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/61679/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Author’s Post-Print Copy Radical nostalgia, progressive patriotism and Labour's 'English problem' Emily Robinson, University of Sussex ABSTRACT ‘Progressive patriots’ have long argued that Englishness can form the basis of a transformative political project, whether based on an historic tradition of resistance to state power or an open and cosmopolitan identity.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • Thatcher's Legacy from 1979 Into the 21St Century: Work Sheet
    Thatcher’s Legacy from 1979 into the 21st Century: Work Sheet 1. Introduction This worksheet supports discussion of the film ‘Society Politics and Change: Exploring the Legacy of Thatcherism’. Reading is not essential, but it may aid understanding of the issues raised. Who was Margaret Thatcher? Margaret Thatcher came into power in 1979 as the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. By the 1980s an ‘ism’ became attached to her name - ‘Thatcherism’. This represented a new branch of Conservative ideology which encompassed the role of competition and a free market, limited government involvement in industry, low taxes and individual responsibility. This framework of economic and social arrangements continued after Thatcher left office in 1991 and was pursued by following Prime Ministers, such as John Major (Conservative) and also Tony Blair (New Labour). Who made this film? A group of academics and a film-maker made this film together. It is based on a long-term study of Thatcherism – and the detailed findings of this research are available to read in online. The academics are Professor Stephen Farrall and Dr. Emily Gray. 2. The economy The graph below depicts unemployment from 1970 to 2010. It had been rising throughout the 1970s as companies began modernising their working practices, but it rose dramatically after the Conservatives took power in 1979, rising to over three million out of work in 1983. Unemployment hit Northern Ireland, along with the industrial areas of northern and central England as well as parts of Scotland. It impacted the working classes first, before a further rise in unemployment in the 1990s, which affected the middle classes and the housing market.
    [Show full text]
  • New Labour, Old Morality
    New Labour, Old Morality. In The IdeasThat Shaped Post-War Britain (1996), David Marquand suggests that a useful way of mapping the „ebbs and flows in the struggle for moral and intellectual hegemony in post-war Britain‟ is to see them as a dialectic not between Left and Right, nor between individualism and collectivism, but between hedonism and moralism which cuts across party boundaries. As Jeffrey Weeks puts it in his contribution to Blairism and the War of Persuasion (2004): „Whatever its progressive pretensions, the Labour Party has rarely been in the vanguard of sexual reform throughout its hundred-year history. Since its formation at the beginning of the twentieth century the Labour Party has always been an uneasy amalgam of the progressive intelligentsia and a largely morally conservative working class, especially as represented through the trade union movement‟ (68-9). In The Future of Socialism (1956) Anthony Crosland wrote that: 'in the blood of the socialist there should always run a trace of the anarchist and the libertarian, and not to much of the prig or the prude‟. And in 1959 Roy Jenkins, in his book The Labour Case, argued that 'there is a need for the state to do less to restrict personal freedom'. And indeed when Jenkins became Home Secretary in 1965 he put in a train a series of reforms which damned him in they eyes of Labour and Tory traditionalists as one of the chief architects of the 'permissive society': the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality, reform of the abortion and obscenity laws, the abolition of theatre censorship, making it slightly easier to get divorced.
    [Show full text]
  • Leadership and Change: Prime Ministers in the Post-War World - Alec Douglas-Home Transcript
    Leadership and Change: Prime Ministers in the Post-War World - Alec Douglas-Home Transcript Date: Thursday, 24 May 2007 - 12:00AM PRIME MINISTERS IN THE POST-WAR WORLD: ALEC DOUGLAS-HOME D.R. Thorpe After Andrew Bonar Law's funeral in Westminster Abbey in November 1923, Herbert Asquith observed, 'It is fitting that we should have buried the Unknown Prime Minister by the side of the Unknown Soldier'. Asquith owed Bonar Law no posthumous favours, and intended no ironic compliment, but the remark was a serious under-estimate. In post-war politics Alec Douglas-Home is often seen as the Bonar Law of his times, bracketed with his fellow Scot as an interim figure in the history of Downing Street between longer serving Premiers; in Bonar Law's case, Lloyd George and Stanley Baldwin, in Home's, Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson. Both Law and Home were certainly 'unexpected' Prime Ministers, but both were also 'under-estimated' and they made lasting beneficial changes to the political system, both on a national and a party level. The unexpectedness of their accessions to the top of the greasy pole, and the brevity of their Premierships (they were the two shortest of the 20th century, Bonar Law's one day short of seven months, Alec Douglas-Home's two days short of a year), are not an accurate indication of their respective significance, even if the precise details of their careers were not always accurately recalled, even by their admirers. The Westminster village is often another world to the general public. Stanley Baldwin was once accosted on a train from Chequers to London, at the height of his fame, by a former school friend.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Note: Former Special Advisers in Cabinet, 1979-2013
    Research Note: Former Special Advisers in Cabinet, 1979-2013 Executive Summary Sixteen special advisers have gone on to become Cabinet Ministers. This means that of the 492 special advisers listed in the Constitution Unit database in the period 1979-2010, only 3% entered Cabinet. Seven Conservative party Cabinet members were formerly special advisers. o Four Conservative special advisers went on to become Cabinet Ministers in the 1979-1997 period of Conservative governments. o Three former Conservative special advisers currently sit in the Coalition Cabinet: David Cameron, George Osborne and Jonathan Hill. Eight Labour Cabinet members between 1997-2010 were former special advisers. o Five of the eight former special advisers brought into the Labour Cabinet between 1997-2010 had been special advisers to Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. o Jack Straw entered Cabinet in 1997 having been a special adviser before 1979. One Liberal Democrat Cabinet member, Vince Cable, was previously a special adviser to a Labour minister. The Coalition Cabinet of January 2013 currently has four members who were once special advisers. o Also attending Cabinet meetings is another former special adviser: Oliver Letwin as Minister of State for Policy. There are traditionally 21 or 22 Ministers who sit in Cabinet. Unsurprisingly, the number and proportion of Cabinet Ministers who were previously special advisers generally increases the longer governments go on. The number of Cabinet Ministers who were formerly special advisers was greatest at the end of the Labour administration (1997-2010) when seven of the Cabinet Ministers were former special advisers. The proportion of Cabinet made up of former special advisers was greatest in Gordon Brown’s Cabinet when almost one-third (30.5%) of the Cabinet were former special advisers.
    [Show full text]
  • Provocation Paper
    Provocation paper Designed to spark discussion and debate across the sector. #NPCprovokes THE ‘SHARED SOCIETY’ NEEDS A STRONG CIVIL SOCIETY A progressive agenda for change April 2017 DAN CORRY GERRY STOKER became Chief is a political scientist, Executive of NPC with current posts as following a varied Centenary Research career in public policy Professor of and economics, Governance at the including as Head of University of Canberra, the Number 10 Policy Australia and Chair in Unit and Senior Governance at the Adviser to the Prime Minister on the Economy from University of Southampton, UK. He has provided 2007 to 2010. He is a member of the Advisory advice to various parts of UK government, to the Boards for Big Society Capital, Impetus – PEF, and governments of several other countries, and was the Centre for Public Scrutiny, and a former member also an expert advisor to the Council of Europe on of the Research Committee of the ESRC and of the local government and participation issues. Gerry Greater Manchester Economic Advisory Panel. has authored or edited 33 books and his work has been translated into numerous languages. @DanRCorry @ProfStoker Our country is divided and there are a multitude of social and economic problems that require urgently to be addressed. We can embrace the Prime Minister’s idea of the ‘Shared Society’ but not if it is just a nice piece of rhetoric. Government must play its part. Business will have a key role. But above all civil society must be seen as the lynchpin. This pamphlet is both an argument drawing on evidence and a call for action.
    [Show full text]