So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?


9:05 am - June 11th 2010

by John B    


      Share on Tumblr

There seems to be a fair amount of grumpiness and sarcasm going on around the Labour party leadership election.

Much of this is for sensible reasons (broadly “the only one of the candidates who isn’t a dull clone has no experience of managing anything ever, and David Miliband is a war criminal”).

However, there’s also a fair amount that’s come for the stupidest reason possible: “they all went to Oxbridge, so they aren’t representative”.

If you replace “Oxbridge” with “public school”, and “the Labour party” with “the Tory party”, this is definitely a fair point: you get to public school solely by having relatives who have large quantities of disposable cash, and therefore anyone who has been to public school has had at the very least an upper-middle-class upbringing*.

For reasons to do both with a lack of state-school applications and variations in actual acceptance rates, Oxbridge still has a private school bias in its admissions. So it’s fair to say that a randomly picked Oxbridge person is probably from a privileged background, and is not particularly likely to be a good person to represent the working class.

But that isn’t what we’re being faced with here.

We know that Diane Abbott’s parents were working-class immigrants, and that she grew up as a black working-class girl in 1950s and 1960s London. We know that Andy Burnham’s parents were working-class Scousers, and that (while he doubtless faced less adversity than Abbott while growing up) he also had a working-class upbringing in 1970s and 1980s Warrington.

In other words, we know that two of the candidates for the Labour leadership are people who come from unequivocally working-class families and areas, and who – despite the fact that Oxbridge admissions tilt towards the middle- and upper-middle-classes – were good enough to beat the bias in the system and get in anyway.

Isn’t the correct response to that fact “it’s fantastic that two of the candidates for the Labour leadership are people who are that academically able and motivated whilst at the same time having a very strong understanding of what growing up without a silver spoon is like – this is exactly what we want from our political leaders”, rather than “meh, Oxbridge wankers, unrepresentative, blah blah”?

Well, unless you’re a jealous petulant inverse snob, that is.

[*] before we get any bleeding heart middle-class sob stories, yes, many parents spend a huge proportion of their disposable incomes on school fees and go without holidays, ponies, etc – but in order to for their disposable income to cover a couple of kids’ school fees they still need to be reliably making a lot more than the median wage, which makes them upper-middle-class.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
John Band is a journalist, editor and market analyst, depending on who's asking and how much they're paying. He's also been a content director at a publishing company and a strategy consultant. He is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy and also blogs at Banditry.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Education ,Labour party ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


This anti-Oxbridge prejudice is baseless.

More pertinently, after 30 years of Thatcherite and Thatcherlite doctrine, could the Milibands, Abbot and Burnham do the same today?

Actually, it is a big deal (and I say this having done a masters at Cambridge).
It is indicative of a weakening of representation in the Labour elite of non-university-educated skilled workers. It basically means you’ve never done a shit job in your life – as all the candidates’ CVs testify.
You might retain an understanding and empathy with the struggle of people from your neighbourhood, family and friends, and built up a resentment of the privilege you see around you at Oxbridge, but it is different from going through it yourself.

The kind of person who wants to become a politician is also the kind of person who likely will want to go to Oxbridge.
And inasmuch as you need to be “brighter” and “more articulate” than average to get in, or trained to be, then politics is likely to be dominated by such people.

Of course the problem is that people make such decisions as undergraduates, or even at school, and so we have seen the emergence and now dominance of the “career” politician.
So long as we we permit/encourage career politicians, it is inevitable that they will disproportionately come from Oxbridge.

The only way we currently get (some) people who have actually done something into parliament is via the Lords.
Of course once that becomes an elected chamber we’ll have the same kind of person there too. God help us.

4. Dontmindme

“If you replace “Oxbridge” with “public school”, and “the Labour party” with “the Tory party”, this is definitely a fair point:”

Oh crap. For a brief moment I thought based on the article title this was going to be a refreshing change from the usual.

Instead its the usual envy story.

Of course it is an achievement that Diane Abbott went to Oxford. Her father was a penniless immigrant. He also is a self made millionaire as I understand it. Good for him, lucky for Diane. She is the beneficiary of wealth and the advantages it brings, albeit it new money not old. She of course being well educated sees the advantage of a good education and sends her child to public school. Why does any of that matter as to whether she can lead the Labour Party?

Should there be a maximum educaton qualification, Dirt poor, truanted from the local comp and and dropped out of the LSE?

Or should the Labour party pick the best leader of the party it can, the one most likely to win elections?

Personally I hope you choose the first path, but whatever you do, look around you and realised the country has moved on.

Interesting to see Labour supporters rushing to put in these defences – they have ben attacking the Tory party on Oxbridge (as well as private school) educations for the last 3 years – and have attacked the coalition on the same points (in this very blog!).

So yes those of us on the right will enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy now and forever more.

@2, I haven’t checked Diane or Andy’s early CVs, but if they didn’t end up having to do absolutely shit jobs pre-graduation then I’d be surprised. Having done several myself, I recognise that that’s different from a shit job with no visible means of escape… but then if you’re doing a shit job with no visible means of escape, how do you end up an MP?

@4, before you make a tit of yourself, I (article author) went to private school and Oxbridge. The article’s not envy based, just a recognition that while I’ve learned a lot by talking to people from wildly different backgrounds over the years and reading a lot about politics and history, I will never have the emotional understanding that comes with growing up poor, and that a left-leaning party needs a fair proportion of people who do.

7. John Meredith

We hear that Diane Abbot is the daughter of ‘a welder’ and ‘of pennniless immigrants’ but also that her father was a millionaire (both could be true, of course, but it rather changes the story if her ‘welder’ dad was loaded, doesn’t it?). Anyone know the truth of the matter?

Personally I find her cynicism and dishonesty unbearable whatever her background, but I would be interested to know.

Personally I find her cynicism and dishonesty unbearable whatever her background

I take it you only support non-cynical politicians who are as honest as the day is long then?

In other news, water is wet…

Did all here watch the start of the leadership debate on YouTube at this link?
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/youtube-channel-debate-160

I was unimpressed. The candidates are all committed to “Labour values”.

Amazing. But there was little illumination on what those are and even less on the policies to fulfil those values. If the candidates are short of ideas, here are a few priority policy issues which the candidates could focus on:

– energy security
– food security
– climate change
– social mobility and what to do about it
– affordable housing
– reform of higher education
– supine v collegiate cabinets
– financial services regulation + asset-price bubbles
– bringing the NHS up to standards in other west European countries
– wars of liberal intervention
– Sorting out the MOD
– productivity and high salaries in the public sector
– the high tax rates in the transition from benefits to work
– airport expansion
– political spin

10. the a&e charge nurse

If Diane Abbott is still in contention for the leadership race it’s only because the likes of Milliband (D) and Harman transfered their nomination to her at the 12th hour – why did they do this since I suspect neither regard DA as a genuine contender.
Perhaps it is an example of tokenism to fend of accusations of the top job being awarded to a candidate from a predictably privileged background?

Burnham’s lack of charisma was all too evident when he faced angry Liverpool fans at a Hillsborough memorial service;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/liverpool/5160448/Liverpool-fans-turn-on-Andy-Burnham-at-Hillsborough-memorial.html

Even so I think I still prefer DA or AB to Ox-bores, or perhaps more importantly, tainted Blairites, like the unscrupulous Millibands;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2807995/If-theres-a-will-theres-a-way.html

Or professional shit stirrers like Ed Balls?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6122756.ece

11. Dontmindme

John B 6 “I will never have the emotional understanding that comes with growing up poor, and that a left-leaning party needs a fair proportion of people who do.”

Alas I am not Oxbridge. More’s the pity. I am from a poor working class council estate background. I went to a Russell Group Uni. I am now by your defintion upper middle class,as if I had children I could afford to send them to public school, which I of course would.

So on your own analysis, I am vastly more qualified to speak on this subject than you, as I have experience over a wider range of life than you.

I voted Tory long before I transitioned from one ‘class’ to another. Believe it or not, many poor people vote Tory as well. Being poor is no qualification or bar to membership of the Tories. The Tories have many many low paid, or poor members. They dont grumble about their leader being weathly or from Eton. Instead the aspire for themselves and the country. To get there, and get there on their own efforts.

So I can assure you that based on experience that vastly outweighs a few cosy chats and political theory text books, “the poor” you are apparently unable to emote with, do not all see it your way.

you get to public school solely by having relatives who have large quantities of disposable cash, and therefore anyone who has been to public school has had at the very least an upper-middle-class upbringing*

You stupid, stupid little man. Before New Labour, the government would provide financial assistance to poor kids who were bright enough to pass entrance exams of public schools, to allow them to go to those schools. It was called the assisted places scheme.

What is even worse is that you somehow excuse grammar schools, which are by your own warped illiberal standards, even worse in their elitism. The only kids that get into grammar schools are bright, rich ones – only parents who can afford tutors or are sufficiently educated to tutor their kids themselves and have the kind of job with sufficient flexibility to give them the time to do so (i.e. upper middle class parents), will be able to get their kids to pass grammar school entrance exams.

The hypocrisy of the likes of Diane Abbott who went to grammar schools to criticise the public school background of Clegg & Cameron, when grammar schools are even more elitist, is disgusting. And if white male politicians are so bad, why is she the only candidate in her own party’s leadership race who isn’t one? And why can she stomach sitting next to one week in, week out, on late night telly to talk inarticulate bollocks in response to softball questions from Brillo Pad?

There is nothing wrong going to Oxbridge, but neither is there anything wrong going to a public school – your parents choose your school, not you, so blaming the kids is like blaming black people for the race of their parentage.

John, completely agree with you, but do think Daniel has a point at 2. Each individual candidate is undoubtedly talented, and cannot be blamed for thier background, however it does slightly worry me that there’s no one that isn’t Oxbridge, just as I was annoyed that my party only nominated two candidates, both Westminster; there were others who could’ve run, but chose not to.

You can’t blame the candidates that others didn’t put themselves forward in the first place, but you can critique the lack.

One little point though.

you get to public school solely by having relatives who have large quantities of disposable cash

Unless, of course, you get a scholarship, some of the “public” schools are very hot on trying to bring in people from very poor backgrounds that are academically very bright.

That’s why they get the charitable status. This doesn’t apply to most Tories, of course, but…

(went to one of the last state grammars, my parents choice, but it was the school at the end of the road, made sense)

14. political_animal

So, the article is suggesting it is wrong to take a view on the candidates based on where they got their education, but then goes on to clarify this by talking about the backgrounds of the candidate’s parents!

Spurious argument.

I confess to being amazed that the higher education institutions attended by the leadership contenders is deemed a more important issue than their respective positions on current policy issues but that can only be because I went to an inferior university – and a long time ago, at that.

16. Mike Killingworth

[4] Diane Abbott is a Light Blue.

17. Dontmindme

16. Many thanks, I stand corrected. Now of course I realise she does not stand a chance.

Light Blue.

Tut.

18. Shatterface

I went a poly, so automatically regard anyone who went to uni, Oxbridge or otherwise, as a chinless twat. 🙂

@13: “went to one of the last state grammars, my parents choice, but it was the school at the end of the road, made sense)”

At the last count, there were 164 maintaind grammar schools altogether. Two are within walking distance of where I sit and these score better average A-level results than Eton.

The continuing local complaint is that only some 38% of the pupils at the five maintained selective schools in London borough in which I live actually live in the borough – the other 62% commute into the borough. The local consensus – which I don’t share – is that places at local selective schools should be largely or wholly reserved for local residents. There seems to be little local pressure to abolish the selection for amounts to a cluster of outstanding maintained schools in the borough.

I mention this to downplay the criticism often heaped on leading politicians who attended fee-paying schools. IMO there are more important issues by which to judge politicians.

Bob @15,

You don’t suppose that the candidates views on the future of the University system (due to be a hot topic in about two-three months) would be more interesting than their own degrees do you?

Mind you, if the competition was entirely Eds and Millibands, I think the criticism of a rather narrow base might have been accurate – the same degree at the same place implies a machine approach to politics.

They should rename PPE at Oxford “Apprenticeship for Politicians”….

“They should rename PPE at Oxford “Apprenticeship for Politicians”….”

Possibly. I think the problem is people are seeing politics as a career and a seperate sphere of activity from everyday life, and the fact that successful politicians tend to come from good schools and good universities can only help that idea develop.

Whereas the idea we should be pushing is that whatever we do is affected by and affects politics. Or, to quote one of my favourite choruses:

Of course it’s f**king political
Everythings political

@22 Skin for Labour leader? She makes Diane Abbot look positively mainstream!

Aye it’s just chippiness by those who could not afford weren’t bright enough to get to Oxbridge.

ALL top jobs should got to Oxbridge graduates!!

Oh.

Curse! The strike out html feature does not function on Lib Con…..

I’m actually shocked that nobody has linked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgXzPfAxjo yet…

27. the a&e charge nurse

[22] “I think the problem is people are seeing politics as a career and a seperate sphere of activity from everyday life” – yet curiously the political elite still think they know better than professionals who have spent a lifetime in a particular sector.

Look at the NHS – literally billions squandered on fancy computers, telephone advice lines, tamiflu, not to mention botched pseudo-privatisation (PFIs, ISTCs and GP out of hours services, etc) – all of this despite an army of demoralised, shaking heads throughout the NHS – but as ever, the powers that be have simply learnt to ignore grunts on the ground.

This fundamental pattern (which I’m sure applies to other sectors) will NEVER change as long as there is such a vast rift between a tiny cadre of like minded Ox-bores and the rest of us who must learn to jump through hoops every time they devise a new madcap scheme that might look good on paper.

@23

Well, Skin would not only be an excellent example of tokenism (or is that uniquism (sorry that’s a neologism)), but at least has some beliefs. Disagree with a lot of them, but that doesn’t stop me loving the music. And that chorus should be taught in primary school (damn this prudery about swearing).

@27

To be a politician requires a certain amount of arrogance, so of course they generally think they know best. It is the career path which means they have no way of knowing otherwise that concerns me.

But not that many people went to Oxbridge, so why if they are all so bad, do we vote for them? Is it because we are afraid the wrong lizard might get in?

[melaniephillips]@29 ANTISEMITE![/melaniephillips]

@6 john b “I will never have the emotional understanding that comes with growing up poor, and that a left-leaning party needs a fair proportion of people who do.

I salute you for saying that.

Blanco’s comment was made while I was typing mine, and I had to rush off to work afterwards, so I have to respond to this

you somehow excuse grammar schools, which are by your own warped illiberal standards, even worse in their elitism. The only kids that get into grammar schools are bright, rich ones – only parents who can afford tutors or are sufficiently educated to tutor their kids themselves and have the kind of job with sufficient flexibility to give them the time to do so

This is utter bollocks.

a) many public schools are selective, in many cases much more so than state grammars, making them doubly elitist by your weird standards.

b) many people get into grammar schools without any tuition or extra help at all; my father, for a start, and indeed myself, I had no extra tuition, and Dad was a council employee on a mid range salary barely enough to cover the bills at the time. I was never poor, but we weren’t anywhere close to wealthy.

Having gone through a grammar, I object to grammars as implemented because they weref ailing at the job they were supposed to be doing, and in some cases, including mine, had a tendency to sit on laurels as they were the best local school results wise, at least they did before SATs and similar.

But, given the collapse in social mobility, I’ve gone off Comps as well, I think we should go back to look again at what other countries do, especially the other northern European countries that seem to do well on the mobility front.

Regardless, Blanco, you’re talking bollocks. Sure, there were some in my class/year that were tutored through to their 11+, and after a year or so there, that began to show in their lack of attainment compared to the genuinely academically able who’d got there by simply passing the exams without extra help, the overwhelming majority.

It may be true that the majority of grammar school kids today get tutored, it may’ve been true 25+ years ago in other parts of the country, but definitely wasn’t true in Torbay, we didn’t even get a large number from out of area, despite the rest of the county having gone Comp. Possibly because the next towns along all had far superior schools overall.

@21: “They should rename PPE at Oxford ‘Apprenticeship for Politicians’….”

PPE – reportedly the most popular degree course at Oxford in terms of the numbers of undergraduates – is a challenging and thoroughly respectable degree. Under current regs, it is possible to specialise almost entirely in P, P or E or opt for a mix.

Those intending a career as a professional economist can therefore take the PPE degree and select the economics and stats options, dropping other subjects as soon as possible. My son did PPE and took mostly philosophy options with some economics – he took an early strong aversion to Politics options and deliberately minimised his exposure. He has no political ambitions and is developing a career managing computer software development. He tells me that exposure to applications of logic and philosophical analysis was an excellent foundation for his job.

According to press reports, over 70% of applications to read for PPE are rejected.

“you get to public school solely by having relatives who have large quantities of disposable cash, and therefore anyone who has been to public school has had at the very least an upper-middle-class upbringing*.”

Actually, before Labour’s abolition of assisted places this was untrue.

@34: “Actually, before Labour’s abolition of assisted places this was untrue.”

I follow the logic but family and peer group pressures likely discourage many from going to fee-paying schools where they think they will feel out-of-place even if scholarships are available. Besides, the Miliband brothers went to comprehensive schools and, of previous Conservative PMs in recent times, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher went to their respective local grammar schools. Margaret Thatcher read for a science degree at Oxford, not PPE. John Major did go a fee-paying school, King’s College, Wimbledon, but compensated by leaving with only one O-level.

@33

PPE – reportedly the most popular degree course at Oxford in terms of the numbers of undergraduates – is a challenging and thoroughly respectable degree.

Yeah, I was being (mostly) tongue-in-cheek/disingenuous… contemplated it myself once! Am intrigued at philosophy being a good grounding for software development, who’da thunk it?

“Am intrigued at philosophy being a good grounding for software development, who’da thunk it?”

I read an article in The Economist in the early 1980s focused on what happened to philosophy PhDs from American universities where the annual output easily exceeded the numbers of academic posts becoming vacant. Reportedly, a disproportionate number went into the then burgeoning computer industry where analytical skills were especially valued. My son was aware of this and that may have influenced his degree course choices although he emerged from university as computer literate – word processing, storing and retrieving data files – but not much more. As a student, he seemed to have acquired an early aversion to attending lectures – apparently a familiar sentiment at Oxbridge, unlike other uiniversities – but evidently benefited from the highly pressured tutorial system where he was required to produce an essay every week on alternating subjects. FWIW my impression is that it’s self-tuition enforced by the Oxbridge tutorial system which often gives Oxbridge grads the edge. Hence, my son will wade through technical computer manuals to sort out compatibility issues and opportunities for software development as well as medical literature in order to write scripts for multimedia presentations in the web for pharmaceutical companies. The ability to absorb and precis new text materials, as cultivated by the Oxbridge tutorial system, is awesome.

38. George W Potter

It’s sad that someone at the bottom of the social heap and class system can claw their way up to go to one of the best universities in the country and then just be casually dismissed as an “elitist” as a result. I thought this was meant to be precisely how the education system should work? Equality of opportunity and all that.

This whole article stinks somewhat of strawman posturing.

People don’t hate the various candidates for going to Oxbridge. They lament that there is increasingly only one route to political influence – that of good school results, an oxbridge degree, working for an MP for a while, and then for a think tank or campaign group.

That uniformity is bad for politics. It leads to a lack of wider comprehension of the lives of those being governed. It means ideas tend to be relatively uniform and political trends aligned across parties.

In the same way that we want diversity of politicians in terms of women and ethnic minorities – because it ensures a diversity of outlook – so surely we want a diversity of career experience among out leading politicians.

Alan Johnson would have been my instinctive choice for leader, but has decided not to stand. But his route into politics, and that of say, Stephen Timms who went through local government, seems on the face of it to be a weakening force for influence.

And that is bad news.

@38: “Equality of opportunity and all that.”

C’mon. Let’s recognise the unexpected accomplishment of our New Labour government – try this Guardian report about a new OECD publication: Going for Growth:

“The chances of a child from a poor family enjoying higher wages and better education than their parents is lower in Britain than in other western countries, the OECD says”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

See the Figure 5.1 posted in the relevant OECD report: Going for Growth:
http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_34325_44566259_1_1_1_1,00.html

See too this LSE research monograph: Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

@36/37

American philosophy departments, like most of their British counterparts, specialise in so-called analytical philosophy (in the tradition of great men like Frege and Russell and (especially) Wittgenstein). As a result they will have often excellent grounding in formal logic — very valuable in the software (and hardware) industries.

People who studied Derrida and other purveyors of word-games, did, I suspect less well.

42. Mike Killingworth

[41] Linguistic philosophy is all about word-games…

@41

Anyone who can make their way through Wittgenstein gets my utmost wholehearted respect..!

@40

Do you not realise how ridiculous your blaming Labour for a lack of social mobility is? I would hope so as having read your own links you will surely know that the lack of social mobility relates to those educated well before Labour came to power.

For example – the figures on social mbility in the OECD report looks at the wages of sons and daughters aged 35 to 44 – in 2006.

So the youngest of them, the 35 year olds, left school (in fact lets say sixth form) in around 1989.

Given that education standards are the single biggest influence on social mbility of the working classes, the results of Labour’s massive improvements in education standards won’t be seen – by this reckoning – for at least another decade. (those who started their education under Labour in 1997, are presently just 18 years old, and have yet to attend uni if they are going to.

@42 – a game, sure, as Wittgenstein described it, but not the way that Derrida and others “philosophise” — in a way in which they happily contradict themselves, eschew the use of logic and may be best thought of as literature or rhetoric.

46. Nick Cohen is a Tory

I do find this argument pointless.
Who cares , where they were educated.
They are professional politicians but they are no different from other professions. Teachers, Medics, Lawyers and Accountants, usually have only one type of job after leaving education.
I know I am going to make unpopular statement but on the whole the politicians of all creeds in the UK (except Griffin) are quite likeable and moderate. Also compared to the corruption of many countries the expenses row was small fry

47. Nick Cohen is a Tory

Also is this thread turning into Open university Module 5 : Philosophy 3

“Who cares, where they were educated.”

Exactly. Jim Callaghan – Labour PM from 1975-79 – wasn’t a graduate and his assessment of keynesian remedies for a recession is still quoted:

“We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3288907.stm

49. Mike Killingworth

[45] I like “rhetorician” as a label for Derrida…

They are professional politicians but they are no different from other professions. Teachers, Medics, Lawyers and Accountants, usually have only one type of job after leaving education.

But they don’t govern us do they?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Political Animal

    RT @libcon So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4

  2. Stephen Tall

    RT @libcon So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4 << good article. Anti-Oxb shows "poverty of aspiratn".

  3. Emma Jackson Stuart

    RT @libcon So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4 > HEAR F***ING HEAR

  4. Bobski

    hypocracy, thy name is labour http://bit.ly/b2a1e0

  5. Mike Power

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4

  6. Liberal Conspiracy

    So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4

  7. Kate B

    RT @libcon: So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4

  8. Tweets that mention So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? | Liberal Conspiracy -- Topsy.com

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mike Power, Liberal Conspiracy and Political Animal, Kate B. Kate B said: RT @libcon: So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4 […]

  9. Elizabeth Eva Leach

    RT @libcon So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/9T1hMY

  10. Think Debate

    RT @libcon So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge? http://bit.ly/bXWkp4





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.