What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go?


10:05 am - August 6th 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Unlike a lot of lefties, I love polls: regular readers should know that by now. Why? Because I believe to get somewhere (a more equal society, say) you have to know where the electorate is now and understand what arguments would convince them to go with you.

Yesterday, two polls were published on the state of the Labour party and its recent election loss. It’s worth delving into them.

What Demos polls say
Demos polling says the party is “out of touch” and the Labour brand is “toxic” with a lot of voters.

The most widely held perceptions of the Labour Party held by people who voted Labour in 2005 but not in 2010 were:
‘weak’ (73%); ‘divided’ (72%); ‘out of touch’ (66%); ‘I never hear from them’ (60%); represent ‘the past’ rather than the future (58%)

A quarter (25%) of voters who remained loyal and voted Labour still felt the party was ‘out of touch’ compared with just one in twenty (5%) Tory voters who saw the Conservatives as ‘out of touch’. Only 67% of all Labour voters thought Labour was ‘in touch’ while 85% of Tory voters saw the Conservatives as ‘in touch’.

Thoughts
1. Unfortunately, polls can also be abused to reinforce what people want to hear. To me, this says the party needs new, bold ideas that engage people (though it’s not clear what those ideas or policies might be). The party needs to be less top-down, less managerial and focus more on engaging communities locally. Unfortunately none of the candidates, other than perhaps Diane Abbott, have fleshed out serious policies on this.

2. It’s also obvious that Labour’s last manifesto was toxic and any Labour leader who stubbornly campaigns on it (I’m looking at you David Miliband) isn’t going to resucitate the party.

3. If Labour’s right-wingers want to prove they are still “in touch” they have to come up with new ideas rather than simply trying to occupy the bland centre-ground while hoping they win by turning people off the Tories.

What the YouGov / LFF polls say
Yesterday YouGov published details of a poll for Left Foot Forward, which asked questions of Labour members specifically (pdf) and all voters (pdf).

Anthony Wells summarises:

A majority of Labour party members agreed with three criticisms of the party – the large majority (71%) thought Labour had been too subservient to the USA over Iraq and Afghanistan, 64% that it became out of touch with ordinary voters and 62% of party members think that Labour did not do enough for working-class supporters.
On other criticisms, 47% think that Labour didn’t pay enough attention to the trade unions, 41% thought the recession had destroyed Labour’s economic reputation and 33% thought Labour had not been tough enough on immigration. Few (28%) Labour members thought that Gordon Brown had been a poor Prime Minister, and hardly any agreed that Labour had taxed too much (9%) or wasted too much of the money spent on public services (12%

Thoughts and conclusions
1. Labour’s foreign policy expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq especially lost them tons of support. Who would have thought eh?

2. An economic crisis caused by light regulation and Labour’s subservience to the City lost them a reputation for economic competence. I never saw that coming.

3. Labour party members aren’t aligned with the public on two issues: trade unions (the public aren’t too favourable) and immigration (the public thinks the party was too soft).

4. Seems Gordon Brown was a big reason why Libdems and Tory voters stayed away. Shocking, I know.

Also worth remembering
To a certain extent, the views of Conservative and Libdem voters matters less because they are more likely to vote for other parties anyway. But Labour still has to find ways to tease some of them over. In particular – the party utterly failed to tantalise Libdem voters thanks to the stubborn insistence that they were right on their approach to civil liberties.

Neither of the polls point leftwards (except perhaps on financial regulation) nor rightwards (except, perhaps on immigration, where the left needs fresh thinking). But they do scream that the party needs some new, bold ideas rather than regurgitating the same crap from the past.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


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

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Trouble is the Labour party knows this stuff, and it’s perverse.

Perverse in the sense that the leadership candidates (namely David Miliband) felt the need to offer a place on the panel, albeit symbolically, to someone who represented a little more than the career politician.

I think there is scope on these polls for the left, namely to extend further engagement in communities, which can only be seen in Abbott, but seems to be the only point worth praising her for.

A concern I have with the reading is that David Miliband, being the person he is, has set the bar for what a right wing agenda in the Labour party looks like. I’ll no doubt be shouted down for this, but no one (other than I suppose Abbott, at a push Miliband the younger) represents any radical shift to the left. Further, no one seems to recognise that a socialist narrative is the only one worth pursuing against the cuts agenda.

On this matter, as a party member myself, I will be voting not for someone who closest resembles my politics (I think this might be the same for many people with similar politics to myself), but for someone who best pins down a Labour narrative and a Labour ideas based. For me, new Labour has brought the party identity into total flux; less a party of progressive politics, and more a party composed of Tory anti-Tories (of all things).

The Labour party under its new leadership ought to spell out its attitude to the unions (critical friend, part of its identity, not necessarily at the beck and call of it, even in spite of funding); its attitude on immigration (has tremendous benefits, but people falling out of the radar is dangerous, and ghettoised communities jeaopardises a multicultural agenda, rather than it being the sum total of it – as the right and far right would have us believe).

Further, and most importantly, we need a real narrative on the economy. It is potentially toxic to simply say we hate cuts and not back this up with anything – this appears like politicking. This is where an ideas base needs to come in; someone who can engage with practical ideas from universities, think-tanks, NGOs and experts in communities themselves to understand the problem and the solution, not just say what they think people want to hear.

From attending many hustings, what I can see is a reponse of sorts ot the dying days of new Labour. Though I suspect, and many others do too, that it’s mostly hot air, candidates are saying what they think we want to hear – it might be an obvious outcome of the candidates turning their back on the new Labour project, who were once instrumental to it, but it is certainly not a helpful one. The mission will be to offer up something more; addressing the above, and what Paul has addressed here, will be a start. Do this, and we can begin to tackle the Tories honestly.

I hate opinion polls. They have created a generation of spineless duplicitous politicians who tailor their every action and policy to what they think will be popular instead of trying to convince the electorate of the merits of honestly held beliefs. They reduce politics to the level of a popularity contest and should be banned outright for at least a month before elections leaving the electorate to make their own minds up

“Unlike a lot of lefties, I love polls…”

Except, of course, when they appear to suggest a conclusion which you’re unhappy with.

For example, you obstinately defend Ed Balls despite the fact – or, at least, the evidence from polls – that he is by far the least popular leadership candidate (and, indeed, Labour politician; and, indeed, politician).

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/03/in-defence-of-ed-balls-again/

But you seem quite happy to draw conclusions (and then develop strategies) off the back of this poll.

Incidentally, I wholly agree that Labour needs new ideas.

I also think it needs a change of personnel: it is hard to present yourself as the party of “the future” (and hard to get away from authoritarianism and bullying) when you are seriously considering choosing Ed Balls as leader.

“Further, and most importantly, we need a real narrative on the economy. It is potentially toxic to simply say we hate cuts and not back this up with anything – this appears like politicking.”

D Mili argues that we should keep the policies to halve the budget deficit over four years, but that our main focus should be on the ‘jobs deficit’, aiming to halve unemployment (as Sweden did in the 1990s after an economic crisis). Is that the sort of thing that you mean?

donpaskini,

The reason I left this open is because I wouldn’t want to speak (probably out of turn) on behalf of anyone; each candidate undoubtedly has an idea on what it means to be for or against the cuts agenda. With regards to reducing the deficit, myself I’m inclined to agree with that statement you make, though potentially I’d go a little further in so far as this: if reducing the jobs deficit means having to spread budget deficit over 6-8 years then so be it, but for me it should go without saying that reducing unemployment should be a priority, even if that means not achieving the idealistic goals set by the Tories on quick budget deficit reduction.

I’m not attempting to say this is necessarily like for like, but this country in the early part of the last century juggled financial recession with very reasonable levels of employment.

6. Rhys Williams

I must admit I despise opinion polls and think tanks.
So a Demos poll just about makes me puke.
I am sorry Lefties but the right is here to stay, for a very,very long time.
Labourites your party is perceived as authoritarian and of vested interests
Lib Dems your party is perceived as a bunch of closet free market tories or a pro euro muesli munchers.
In the next election Clegg and the Orange bookers will join the Tories and the others will go back to be a very minor party.
All we can look forward to is more lectures on the free market, tea party politics, workfare. and why we should nuke Iran (by the look of another post, also China).
Sunny you do great job but don’t you feel you are just pissing in the wind

“It’s also obvious that Labour’s last manifesto was toxic”

It wasn’t the manifesto which was toxic, it was the party. I agree with the rest of it though.

The elephant in the room is the war – until that is somehow dealt with Labour won’t stand a chance of winning back the millions of voters they lost.

Then there was the abandonment of civil liberties. People who lead insecure lives tend to care less about civil liberties and more about the state giving them protection, but these people generally live in rock solid labour areas anyway.

Until Labour can win back some of its old civil liberties credentials from the coalition then it’s going to be cinfined to it’s core vote.

“All we can look forward to is more lectures on the free market, tea party politics, workfare. and why we should nuke Iran”

Don’t be such a spoilsport !

The comrades got to look all tough and macho by attacking Iraq. Why shouldn’t the tories be allowed to have a bit of fun with Iran ?

9. paul barker

One point you didnt focus on was the attitude to Trades Unions. The voters, mostly think Unions have too much influence & Labour members the opposite. This is likely to become a more prominent issue if we do get an “Autumn of Discontent”.
So, do you back the Unions & confirm the voters views of Labour as “out of touch” etc; or do annoy the Unions & threaten your supply of Funds ?

10. Zeke the Cork

“Neither of the polls point … rightwards (except, perhaps on immigration, where the left needs fresh thinking).”

Surely the lesson of the last 13 years is that however far to the right Labour tacks on immigration – both in rhetoric and policy – it will never be enough to satisfy the right-wing media.

If the last Labour government had started rounding up asylum seekers at gunpoint and putting them in a pen on St Kilda, the Express would doubtless have turned it into a story about immigrants being given a seaside holiday at taxpayers’ expense.

If popular opposition to immigration was based on something rational, then it would be possible to deal with it. But in my experience, it mostly isn’t. It’s based on a mixture of nostalgia, deep-seated prejudice and decades of newspaper scaremongering, and it will not be dispelled by anything short of a total end to all immigration.

I hate to counsel a strategy of evasion, but in my view the best thing the left can do with regard to immigration is to try to avoid talking about it as far as possible. There is nothing to be gained from doing so. It simply isn’t possible to have a sane discussion (God knows I’ve tried often enough, with friends. I used to argue with them, but nowadays I’ve learned to just change the subject).

However there is a good chance that the importance of immigration as an issue is going to decline over the next few years, with net migration rates currently falling as the initial boom in arrivals from eastern Europe dies away. So the best “fresh thinking” the left could do concerning immigration is to start looking around for other, more congenial things to get people angry about. We shouldn’t be short of them in the near future.

If the unions and Labour party could it make it attractive to the self -employed and those in SMEs then it could gain votes . High taxes and excessive regulation increases white collar state sector employment yet increase the costs and workload on the self employed and those in SMEs to a significant degree: a consequence is a lack of investment and an unwillingness to employ more people.
When is Labour going to make it self attractive to the aspirational hardworking self employed and those in SMEs, who dominate much of the private sector? Why Labour cannot create a points system for immigraton which allows in highly skilled people on visas for up to 2 years but which does not give citizenship to any children born in this country or access to the welfare state apart from emergency NHS treatment? Why cannot Labour create a border security force and monitor those coming in and leaving this country with particular vigilance given to academic establishments. All academic establishments should be made responsible for those students who break the visa rules.

PDH is correct, when people feel secure they will worry about civil liberties. Labour failed to ensure that the Police’s job was to protect people from criminals, especially violent ones. In large parts of the UK people no longer believe the response time of the Police to 999 calls is sufficiently quick to protect them from criminals and to apprehend them once a crime has occurred. If people consider that a criminal will be caught after a crime has taken place they will think about civil liberties. However, many criminals are often caught only after 10s of criminal acts have taken place.

the party utterly failed to tantalise Libdem voters thanks to the stubborn insistence that they were right on their approach to civil liberties.

That pretty much sums it up.

If you are so far down in the sewer that you talk of the restoration of civil liberties for electoral advantage rather than because you believe in them, then you don’t deserve to be allowed out.

Here are some new ideas

Get out of Afghanistan
Scrap Trident
Break up the banks and mutualise the ones we own
Citizens Basic Income
Raise corporation tax
New competition legislation
Education voucher system

The key is to get away from the Fabian/Common Purpose vision of an imposed socialist society. Labour needs to get back to representing ordinary citizens rather than appeasing the corporations and to allow individuals to take responsiblity for their own lives again.

We all know that won’t happen with the current personnel.

@12 I agree with your shopping list, perhaps apart from having a voucher system with education. I am open to persuasion, because quite frankly the state school system is shit, every day we hear at least two or three stories of parents trying to get their kids into a very small number of oversubscribed good state schools to avoid little Timmy going to St Stabsville Comprehensive around the corner, so we need a shake-up.

Not all kids are the same, so why should we send them all to the same schools?

14. Shatterface

From Anthony Wells’ summary:

‘On other criticisms, 47% think that Labour didn’t pay enough attention to the trade unions…’

From Sunny’s summary:

‘3. Labour party members aren’t aligned with the public on two issues: trade unions (the public aren’t too favourable)… ‘

Looks to me more like the unions are far more popular with the Labour supporters than with the Labour Party.

15. Rhys Williams

Has the coalition repealed any of anti terror legislation

16. the a&e charge nurse

Labour can draw up an exciting new agenda if it wants to (full of shiny buzzwords) but only the most gullible member’s of the general public attach any great weight to a political manifesto when the party is not in office.

I fear we will simply have to wait for the usual pattern of the government of the day slowly imploding before the pendulum swings back again to the left?

@ blanco

I am open to persuasion, because quite frankly the state school system is shit, every day we hear at least two or three stories of parents trying to get their kids into a very small number of oversubscribed good state schools to avoid little Timmy going to St Stabsville Comprehensive around the corner, so we need a shake-up.

The point about a voucher system is that vouchers of higher value can be given to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. So, from the school’s point of view, there are cash advantages in having them that will mitigate against any potential downsides.

Such a system could break cycles of deprivation that have lasted for decades.

18. gastro george

Opinion polls are, of course, interesting – but they need to be read rather sceptically as, despite some pollsters best intentions, horribly prone to giving responses driven by the question or what is currently in the media. This particularly applies to focus groups, especially those driven in the style of the Republican’s favourite pollster, Frank Luntz.

For example, the immigration issue is almost entirely driven by media coverage and urban myths.

Similarly, the Tories have successfully driven the cuts in the media, so it is quite natural that polls will now show a relatively high approval rating. If the question is made more specific – about cuts to services that those questioned care about – then the response is, of course, radically different.

Some attribute this to cognitive dissonance. However, it can largely be attributed to the responses being to media-driven abstract concepts on the one side, against reality on the other.

19. Rhys Williams

So Blanco what are your ideas for education.
As for vouchers,
How will the poor kids get to the middle class schools.
Transport costs might be a problem
Also won’t you get a situation when the school gets full of poor kids, the middle class parents will then just start an open school for their own area for their own kids.
So you will have sink school in the middle class area with the same problems.

20. Charlieman

Many years ago I worked for a market research company. The research we conducted was a bit more sophisticated than the population adjusted head count that comprises an opinion poll. We tried to measure sentiment and idealism, then use that information to predict consumer behaviour.

The company founders (one a psychologist, the other a statistician) were activists in different political parties. Both held the view that policy creation by market research was repugnant and foolish.

It is also worth noting that multinational companies can often afford to lose when they use market researchers and consultants to redefine a brand. The companies own more than one brand, so if they screw up medicated confectionary (cough sweets, to you and me) they can fall back on another brand.

But political parties only have one brand and if they screw it up, they are out of business. And the message and image that a party delivers is the same to activists and voters. (An exception is RCP/Spiked.)

Market research can be legitimately used to inform policy creation and how to present policy to the public. Market research should never be used to define policy.

Anthony Wells summarises:

Few (28%) Labour members thought that Gordon Brown had been a poor Prime Minister, and hardly any agreed that Labour had taxed too much (9%) or wasted too much of the money spent on public services (12%)

Excellent. 28% a “few”….hmmm, what percentage did Labour get at the last general election? And 9% and 12% are “hardly any”…so Mr 10% should feel very happy with himself.

Like some have said above, I detest OPs and think tanks. They alone, IMHO, have just about destroyed policy making and politics as a whole.

Pager:

The key is to get away from the Fabian/Common Purpose vision of an imposed socialist society. Labour needs to get back to representing ordinary citizens rather than appeasing the corporations and to allow individuals to take responsiblity for their own lives again.

We all know that won’t happen with the current personnel.

Couldn’t agree more!

The current crop are, as we all know, New Labour through and through.

What to do? Well, as there hasn’t been any real left-wing narrative (for want of a better word) how can a left-wing ideal be seen by the electorate? New Labour went right and stayed there – one of the reasons a lot of people looked toward the LibDems rather than “Labour”. That didn’t transpose into seats, but that was a lot down to the defunct FPTP system.

23. Charlieman

@22 Will Rhodes: “Like some have said above, I detest OPs and think tanks.”

The original idea of a think tank was an independent body that could discuss outrageous ideas. By being independent of parties or government, smart people (politicians, academics and lay people) could debate privately and present a public paper for wider discussion. Think tanks were places where people of different political persuasions exchanged ideas. Like big senior common rooms when guests are visiting.

Somewhere along the line, some think tanks were perverted into lobby organisations for particular politicians or parties. Some think tanks abandoned the ideal of new thought.

But not all. We cannot toss away serious thinkers whilst rubbishing the partisans. Perhaps this is time for a (genuine) rebranding of think tanks.

“1. Labour’s foreign policy expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq especially lost them tons of support.”

Wrong. It was Labour Party members, not voters in general, who cared deeply about Iraq. I presume they didn’t vote against their own party. Who won the 2005 election ?

Zeke – I admire your ‘strategy of evasion’ re immigration – I think that pretty much WAS Labour’s strategy until 7/7. It’s good to see a Labour supporter being honest about the fact that dishonesty is the best strategy.

Gastro “For example, the immigration issue is almost entirely driven by media coverage and urban myths.”

I know. Like the urban myth about nearly a quarter of schoolchildren in English primary schools being from ethnic minorities. Or the myth that more than half the children born in London are born to foreign-born mothers. Or the myth about foreigners and crime.

“Who won the 2005 election ? ”

Between the elections of 1997 and 2005, Blair lost 4 million votes and at least half the membership of the Labour Party.

Conservative credibility in the 2005 election was seriously dented by a combination of the leadership of IDS followed by Michael Howard, along with the consequences of that Australian election guru (Lynton Crosby) the Conservatives brought in who thought dog whistle politics was the way to win.

Turnout at the 2005 election was the second lowest since 1918, the turnout in the 2001 election having been marginally lower. In 2005, more of the electorate didn’t vote than the number who voted for Labour candidates, which was hardly a ringing endorsement of New Labour.

I’m with Sunny in his enthusiasm for digesting and interpreting polls, but it’s important to remember their limitations, and to resist the seduction of their apparent decisiveness and finality. They’re raw material for people to act on and shape, not commandments etched in stone. What’s more, they are susceptible to easy misinterpretation unless embedded in an historical/sociological context. Eg, where is the evidence that “the public aren’t too favourable” on trade unions? That isn’t in the polls linked to, which addresses a different question. Social attitudes surveys on trade unions tend to find that people aren’t especially hostile to the trade unions. In 2007 (the most recent social attitudes survey I can find at the moment, but it’s representative of the rule for some time now), 15.1% of people felt the unions had too much power, 19.3% too little, and 42.4% about the right amount. There hasn’t been a majority who were hostile to union power since the early 1980s, partly due to what followed from the defeats inflicted on the trade union movement, and certainly since the 1992 miners’ strike. (eg, see: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121559025/abstract)

The difference between Labour Party members and the public as a whole is over whether the Labour government paid too little attention to trade unions. On this, it is not fair to say that members are “out of touch” with the public. It is a matter of different priorities and compentences in answering the poll. Labour Party members have a direct understanding of the important role that the trade unions play in the party’s success, and they also understand the trade unions to be directly related to the class issues that also come up in the polls. The polls show a consensus that the Labour Party did too much to help the rich, and too little to help ordinary working class people. Labour Party members don’t disaggregate this issue from the issue of trade union representation in the way that much of the public does.

We would do well to recall Pierre Bourdieu’s verdict that “public opinion does not exist”. It is an “artifact, pure and simple, the function of which is to dissemble that the state of opinion at any given moment is a system of forces and tensions and that nothing is more inadequate for representing the state of opinion than a percentage”. If we think of opinion in this way, as being riven by tensions, as being pulled in different directions by propaganda, material interest, experience, acculturation etc., we will stand less chance of being seduced by stark figures that apparently favour us, or of being intimidated by those which don’t favour us, and we will be more equipped to fight the opinion battles that matter.

Polls only give certain indications, they certainly shouldn’t be the guide for policy. For example, a poll showing people though Labour were soft on immigration doesn’t mean Labour should be “tough” on immigration. It means they need to sell immigration and their policy on it. Or just avoid the issue and concentrate on other issues.

Poll driven leaders get unstuck very quickly – just look at Labor in Australia at the moment.

28. Rhys Williams

“But not all. We cannot toss away serious thinkers whilst rubbishing the partisans. Perhaps this is time for a (genuine) rebranding of think tanks.”
Why cannot thinkers work independently.
It is type of cowardice, scared of the validity of your own ideas.

29. gastro george

#24 Laban. The statistics are only a problem is you have the prejudice that the statistics are a problem. Would you apply the same reasoning to Brits living on the Spanish coast or in the Dordogne? Their grasp of Spanish or French is usually very limited, as is their integration into “native” society.

From Labour MP

“But the plain truth is that this was a party abandoned by working people who want to get on in life: In 1997 Labour led the Conservatives by 23 points among skilled workers, but by 2010 they trailed the Tories by eight points.

In other words, there’s a mountain to climb.”

“In other words, there’s a mountain to climb.”

Blair lost 4 million votes between the elections of 1997 and 2005 as well as at least half the membership of the Labour Party.

Interesting lessons from Scottish polls and election prospects might need to be learned. Labour are seemingly well ahead north or the border after losing in 2007.

Will be interesting in as year’s time to find out how real that turns out to be and how Labour can repeat the trick across the UK.

“Will be interesting in as year’s time to find out how real that turns out to be and how Labour can repeat the trick across the UK.”

The politics of the Celtic fringes and the north of England are very different from the politics of London and the south. David Miliband has recognised this:

“David Miliband issues stark message to Labour: no return to Downing Street until we win back the south”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/jul/20/davidmiliband-lockerbie

There were fears that the financial crisis would impact London’s economy relatively badly because of it high dependence on financial and business services but it seems to be more resilient than the regional economies of other parts of Britain.

“Labour party members aren’t aligned with the public on two issues: trade unions (the public aren’t too favourable) and immigration (the public thinks the party was too soft).”

I’m sorry, what?

59% of the public, against 12% of Labour-voting Labour members, believe much of the money Labour put into public services was wasted.

40% of the general public, against 9% of LVLM, think Labour taxed too much.

Can we not ignore these vastly damaging public perceptions, please?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY

  2. Nick Garfoot

    RT @libcon: What do these polls tell us about where #Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY

  3. Lee Griffin

    RT @libcon: What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY

  4. sunny hundal

    What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY

  5. Obnoxio The Clown

    RT @sunny_hundal: What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY <-They could go fuck themselves, perhaps?

  6. Vijay Singh Riyait

    RT @sunny_hundal: What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY

  7. Peter Campbell

    RT @sunny_hundal What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY <- Interesting analysis. I love polls too!

  8. Raincoat Optimism

    RT @libcon What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/asn8XX

  9. James Brown

    RT @libcon: What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go? http://bit.ly/chYxbY

  10. Regurgitating Games

    What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go … http://bit.ly/dzsIcq

  11. Dianne Abbot is the Real Miliband! « Raincoat Optimism

    […] of the Labour party, the less likely they were going to be electorally successful – which, it would appear, is the case right […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.