Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99%


8:40 am - October 20th 2011

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Lee Brown

Over the past 30 years of unrestrained free market capitalism, the gains of growth have overwhelmingly accrued to the top 1%. They have barely trickled down to whole sections of society. The wealth has trickled up.

As an FT article ‘Top Dogs take bigger slice of spoils’ pointed out: “Between 1976 and 2007 in the US, 58% of the total growth in income was captured by the top 1%. Not only that, but the trend appeared to be accelerating.”

By making the “bottom 99%” a dividing line in British politics, Labour could reach out to the overwhelming majority of people across all parts of the county and attract a very broad alliance of support.

In Britain, the 2010 report Anatomy of the Economic Inequality in the UK, stated: “the share of the top 1% in after tax income fell from 12.6% of the total in 1937 to 4.7% by 1979, but rose again to 8% in 1990 and 10% in 2000.”

This concentration of wealth for the top 1% has been at the expense of the rest of society. Median male real US earnings have not risen since 1975. Average real Japanese household incomes after taxation fell in the decade to mid-2000s.

The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that median wages were stagnant from 2003 to 2008 despite GDP growth of 11 per cent, an issue taken up by Ed Miliband’s in his focus on the squeezed middle.

This would transcend the debate about whether Labour should focus on ‘core’ vote or the ‘swing vote’ which so often stifles the internal debate, when of course it should seek to win over both sectors to forge a successful electoral coalition.

In fact, defending the bottom 99% is already at the core of one of Labour’s most popular policies. Labour’s defence of the 50% tax rate for the 1% who earn over £150,000 is backed by 69% of the population according to recent polls.

Focusing on the bottom 99% could highlight how out of touch the Tories are on other issues too.

Similarly there is strong backing for tough action against banker’s bonuses, which overwhelming go to the top 1% and have been a key driver in income inequality.

In this country, when the governor of the Bank of England has warned that living standards are to plunge at the fastest rate since the 1920s, then maybe Labour as a party of the “bottom 99%” is an idea whose time has come?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Goodie Fuqua

I can’t imagine anyone working in the productive economy votes for Labour? The Labour Party appeals only to the welfare class and those on the public sector gravy train.

I can’t imagine that anyone working in the productive econom votes for Labour? The Labour Party cater to the welfare class and those on the public sector gravy train.

3. Mike Killingworth

This article exhibits the usual left failing: it presupposes that people vote on the basis of reality.

There is overwhelming evidence that they do no such thing. And indeed any voter who responded that this trend is clearly beyond the power of any political party in any particular nation state to reverse could not obviously be accused of lack of realism.

And if such a party got into power and implemented, let’s say, a Tobin Tax (as I’ve no doubt Lee Brown would like) then the City would simply move to the Gulf or the Cape or wherever and London would become as impoverished as Ebbw Vale or Barrow-in-Furness.

4. Misery Fuqua

Perhaps Labour would broaden its appeal if they offered free blow jobs?

5. Buck Damp Leather

I totally disagree – a ball massage whilst you wait for your Giro would have more appeal.

I would advocate we borrow more money from the Chinese and invest that on French lager and new Korean TVs. We need to have a long term plan afterall.

6. Boo Snakefoot

I have spotty ankles and podgy fingers – how can that be acceptable in modern Britain under the ConLibs? Its just so unfair.

“Over the past 30 years of unrestrained free market capitalism”

How can you get so wrong so quickly? All those people grumbling about regulatory burden are just making things up are they? What do you think a good proportion of civil servants do, sit around on their arses rather than implement regulations?

Also: “This concentration of wealth for the top 1% has been at the expense of the rest of society. Median male real US earnings have not risen since 1975.”

No citation I note. Could this be because you have plucked the figure from somewhere unfortunate?

“And if such a party got into power and implemented, let’s say, a Tobin Tax (as I’ve no doubt Lee Brown would like) then the City would simply move to the Gulf or the Cape or wherever and London would become as impoverished as Ebbw Vale or Barrow-in-Furness.”

Do you think that all those at the top of the City are happy to just move around willy-nilly? Perhaps they don’t want to have to pull their kids out of school, buy a house in the Gulf and have to see their Chelsea set less.

You assume the only ties of those who work in the City are financial. Perhaps some CEO’s don’t want to relocate.

9. Sissy Fullblood

It is an appalling outrage. SMASH the capitalist system – its just intolerable we should have to endure living in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet with an adsurdly generous welfare system. SMASH it – we need to dismantle the system so we can be poor and hungry like the rest of the world.

10. Darkie Halfmoon

Total cock – Britain is a nasty place to live. I met someone that worked for a few days the other week. He had to suffer the shocking indiginity of sweeping up rubbish. How can this be fair in modern Britain – are a going to hell in a hand cart.

Sassy, give it time, we will be poor and hungry like the rest of the world.

12. Mike Killingworth

I assume that Paul Staines has told his acolytes to come over here and poo…

13. Leon Wolfson

@11 – Multiple people? Reads like one to me. Quite possibly a bot.

Or a hive mind. Which I’m not ruling out either, corporatist mind control is a dangerous thing.

Good article. Blairism always presented Labour with the false choice of either appealing to ordinary people with moderate incomes or appealing to ordinary people on lower incomes, or of no income. In reality, the majority of us – though our individual circumstances differ – are in broadly the same boat economically, sinking or swimming together depending on the actions and whims of a 1% whose wealth, security and political power is in an utterly different realm from ours.

Labour can build a coalition of the 99%, but to achieve this it will need to aggressively take on attempts by the Tories and the corporate media to divide us amongst ourselves. Miliband’s pandering to the right-wing demonisation of people on benefits is a far from positive sign in that regard.

Labour seem pushed to build a coalition that embraces the Blairites, let alone anyone on the centre ground or centre right.

As a party, it is the prisoner of producer interests. In Education, being on the side of the 99% means putting the interests of pupils and parents before those of ideologically driven educationalists and the teacher unions. Labour will never do that, even if it means failing 40% of students.

In Health, being on the side of the 99% means an NHS that prioritises patients over the convenience of bureaucrats. Labour will never do that.

Given Labour’s addiction to anti-business rhetoric, why would any small business owner believe Labour is on her side?

Under Ed M, more than ever before, Labour is an anti-democratic, statist party that wants to stop real power being devolved to individuals and communities and exults in dreaming up new ways for jumped up little commissars to boss us all about.

On the side of the 99%? – don’t make me laugh.

16. Mike Killingworth

[12] Very possibly.

[14] Wondering what does make you laugh, FP, leaves a nasty taste in the mouth…

17. Chaise Guevara

Glad to see the trolls are out in force (or, more likely, one loser is acting as 10 people in a desperate attempt to pretend to have friends) to defend the top 1%, those constant victims of our unequal society…

Back on topic: isn’t it mind-bogglingly obvious that Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99%? I mean, about as obvious as saying “Labour should not pursue the creation of a totalitarian theocracy in Britain”? To be honest, focusing on the top 1% seems like an unlikely mandate even for the Tories.

Back on topic: isn’t it mind-bogglingly obvious that Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99%

Well, not if all the top 1% vote as often as NanoTrollfoot posts.

“Over the past 30 years of unrestrained free market capitalism, the gains of growth have overwhelmingly accrued to the top 1%. ”

Well, no, not really. Hundreds of millions, billions in fact, have risen up out of age old destitution and are now enjoying something close to a middle class lifestyle.

That they’re in Asia and Africa doesn’t change the fact that the last 30 years have seen the greatest reduction of poverty in the history of the species.

Rather a good outcome I would have said. Indeed, I do often say this. The poor are getting richer, Hurrah! That they’re foreigners really shouldn’t trouble a good little liberal now, should it?

20. Mike Killingworth

Asia yes, Tim, but whereabouts in Africa are you thinking of?

Even in Asia there is a good deal of State regulation – it’s just not directed to social democratic purposes.

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/pdfs/Africa_Paper_VX3.2.pdf

“The conventional wisdom that Africa is not reducing poverty is wrong. Using the
methodology of Pinkovskiy and Sala?i?Martin (2009), we estimate income distributions, poverty
rates, and inequality and welfare indices for African countries for the period 1970?2006. We
show that: (1) African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly. (2) If present trends continue, the
poverty Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people with incomes less
than one dollar a day will be achieved on time. (3) The growth spurt that began in 1995
decreased African income inequality instead of increasing it. (4) African poverty reduction is
remarkably general: it cannot be explained by a large country, or even by a single set of
countries possessing some beneficial geographical or historical characteristic. All classes of
countries, including those with disadvantageous geography and history, experience reductions
in poverty. In particular, poverty fell for both landlocked as well as coastal countries; for
mineral?rich as well as mineral?poor countries; for countries with favorable or with unfavorable
agriculture; for countries regardless of colonial origin; and for countries with below? or abovemedian
slave exports per capita during the African slave trade”

That Washington Consensus stuff sure does seem to work, don’t it?

@18

Much of this global poverty alleviation has happened under Chinese state capitalism. Is that a model that the “free-market” right is getting behind these days? Perhaps we have to take our victories for capitalism where we can find them, eh?

In terms of the developed economies, the most successful models of capitalism – i.e. the ones that deliver the most for the majority of the population – is the Nordic model. Now I guess Britain could experiment with doubling-down on neo-liberalism, and going for some sort of full-on Randian dystopia. But the safer bet is probably to try the social democratic model that’s been proven to actually, you know, work.

“Much of this global poverty alleviation has happened under Chinese state capitalism. ”

Some, read @20.

And yes, I would claim moving from Maoist insanity toward something even vaguely more free market leading to growth as showing that moving towards free marketry aids growth.

“the most successful models of capitalism – i.e. the ones that deliver the most for the majority of the population – is the Nordic model. Now I guess Britain could experiment with doubling-down on neo-liberalism, ”

Well, we could always actually do what the Nordics do which is to be much more neo-liberal than the UK currently is, yes. Lower corporate and capital taxation (all of them), abolish the inheritance tax (Sweden), higher VAT (all of them), privatise the fire brigades (Denmark), ambulances (Denmark) all sorts of things we could do to make ourselves more like the Nordics, yes.

Lee Brown,
There has been no free-market capitalism for the past 30 years or indeed 150 years, what we have seen is a combination of neo-liberalism and corporatism, the neo-liberalism of Thatcher specifically appealed to the right and corporatism to the left. In reality, business interests benefitted the most from both measures.
Corporatism was essentially the idea of the LP and it did fit well into the Fabian roots of the party and its move towards socialism, although nationalization isn’t necessarily a pre-requisite.
The LP should go back to its roots and focus on the system, which is broken, not chasing 1% of the population with some other half-baked idea to tax them to death when they are merely following the prescribed culture of capitalism.

The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that median wages were stagnant from 2003 to 2008

As a share of GDP median income has been dropping since 99/00 until 07/08 while mean income has simply fluctuated. In raw figures mean income has risen from an additional 36% to 45% compared to median incomes.

Given that RPI figures show median income increasing over this period this means that while some of the wealth generated is making its way to the 50% ‘poor’ more is held on the 50% ‘rich’ side.

26. Leon Wolfson

@23 – I strongly disagree. Corporatism is very much an invention of the right, and they’ve managed to sell the myth that the left came up with it.

Moreover, corporatism has nothing to do with socialism, mutualism or the cooperation tradition.

@22 – You’re cherry-picking again. It’s in the context of a socialist society with a social contract and huge amounts of support for people on an individual basis.

Moreover, you’re once more trying to bring up the other myth, that capitalism and the free market are the same thing. They’re not.

Also, yes, really. The amount of wealth in the last 30 years the rich control has risen massively again, to the same sort of levels we saw in the 1800’s. Only the fact we’ve been richer overall has stopped massive amounts of people falling into poverty, and the situation now means that people ARE falling into poverty in massive amounts.

At the time as you’re agreeing with kicking away the social safety net.

@14 – Go to Germany and try to start a small company. Then get back to me about how terrible the UK is.

“Go to Germany and try to start a small company. Then get back to me about how terrible the UK is.”

I’m about to try. Let you know how I get on shall I?

Leon,

Corporatism is very much an invention of the right, and they’ve managed to sell the myth that the left came up with it.

I think it is an invention of the corporations myself – they are the ones who made the effort to integrate themselves to politicians, to make donations etc. In Britain, it was easier for them to integrate themselves to the rights, since the left was rather dominated by the unions – it was only once the unions (which I would argue politically are a comparable problem to the corporations) were broken (for good or ill) that the corporations moved in.

I would say that big-government makes it easier for corporations – they are better set than you or me to win government funding (in the same way that certain research groups monopolise academic funding because they are good at it) so can generally get a share of the revenues, and big government does tend to produce a regulatory burden which has a pretty absolute cost which therefore weighs more heavily on smaller competitors. But the most corporationist government I can identify was the (junior) Bush government, not a left-wing government.

Short of total state-sponsored socialism (that hasn’t worked well when tried), I’m not sure what big government can do to avoid this – hence one of my aversions to big government. Interesting to know if you can see anything.

29. Leon Wolfson

@27 – Of course, labour organising itself is equally as much a problem as the basis of this entire crisis, and of the way which the classes where unionising has been among have seen their wages barely grow as the rich’s wealth has soared.

And of course there are solutions, like free-market anti-capitalism. Encouragement of worker organisation, combined with checks on the market power of larger corporations and attention given – not in the classical model, but in terms of fairness – to the labour theory of value.

It’s not a radical message. It’s not supposed to be a radical message. But things should be changed. (Mutualism embraces gradualism rather than a vanguard, precisely because of the abuses of communism)

Big government and corporatism are entirely different things. The Nordic countries have very big governments, and corporatism has failed to take hold because of the strong social contract.

@26 – Please do!

Leon,

Of course, labour organising itself is equally as much a problem as the basis of this entire crisis, and of the way which the classes where unionising has been among have seen their wages barely grow as the rich’s wealth has soared.

Unions caused the British crisis of the 1970s remember – I have no problem with unions as a means of defending their members (indeed, I am a strong supporter of free association – which makes me differ from the TUC for a start…). My issue is with unions acting as political paymasters and influencing the political process – they are no more representative of anyone other than their members than corporations are of anyone other than their shareholders, so they should not seek to set policy but rather only to work for members’ benefits.

And of course there are solutions, like free-market anti-capitalism. Encouragement of worker organisation, combined with checks on the market power of larger corporations and attention given – not in the classical model, but in terms of fairness – to the labour theory of value.

Firstly, if you allow government to define fairness, you give an competative advantage to whoever can bend the government to their point of view. That sort of intervention in pursuit of an abstract is the key thing underlying corporationism.

Secondly, ‘free-market anti-capitalism’ is a wonderful banner, but it probably embraces my position as much as yours. Capitalism (the primacy of wealth over innovation if you want) is a system that will hopefully fail and be replaced by a proper market with proper levels of free information. I have great hopes of this little thing called the internet for a start… And however a business or organisation is arranged, be it private, corporation or co-operative, it is still going to seek the best for itself or its members.

It’s not a radical message. It’s not supposed to be a radical message. But things should be changed. (Mutualism embraces gradualism rather than a vanguard, precisely because of the abuses of communism)

I need to see the evidence that mutualism is a better system – at least one building society needed bailing out remember.

Big government and corporatism are entirely different things. The Nordic countries have very big governments, and corporatism has failed to take hold because of the strong social contract.

Have they (leaving aside the fact that I don’t think Nordic government spending is proportiantely noticeably greater than ours)? Who provides the services under the social contract (as Tim W keeps pointing out, government reach in Scandinavia is a lot smaller – many services are run by private companies)? Who supplies the materials for government businesses? Less global corporations are engaged probably, but the Scandinavian governments are relatively small in terms of budgets compared to us, and especially compared to the USA or the EU. There are still companies dependent on government and companies that make profits from taxes rather than tax payers. These companies have a vested interest in the ‘strong social contract’ since this is how they make their money – you need to break the refusal to realise that however socialised a system, outside of state socialism there are companies making money from it. Unless you control the resources and the means of production, how is your government going to address the problem that your actions determine others’ profits, and they are aware of this?

Thanks for setting me straight on Africa, Tim. I mean, not that I said anything about Africa, but thanks for setting me straight on it.

What I did say was that “much of this global poverty alleviation has happened under Chinese state capitalism”, not the free-market version. You said, “some”. The World Bank says most.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/16/china.india

And yes, I would claim moving from Maoist insanity toward something even vaguely more free market leading to growth as showing that moving towards free marketry aids growth.

The more plausible claim is that moving from Maoist insanity toward a sensibly mixed economy can increase economic benefits for the population. Just as moving away from a sensibly mixed economy towards neo-Reaganite/Thatcherite insanity can decrease the economic benefits for the majority of the population.

we could always actually do what the Nordics do which is to be much more neo-liberal than the UK currently is

Putting aside the cherry-picking of individual bits and pieces, I think you know just as well as I do, Tim, that Britain adopting the full substance of Scandinavian economics would bring you and other free-marketeers out in a cold sweat.

” Over the past 30 years of unrestrained free market capitalism…”

As others have pointed out when you start the article with something made up it devalues the whole article. Very little in Britain has remotely resembled a free market in centuries. As soon as you introduce regulations the market by definition is not free. When regulators tell hairdressing shops where they can store chemicals there is no free market in hairdressing. The market is not free when regulators tell pubs when they can open and the quantities to sell and there shall be no smoking on the premises. The market in selling food is not free when a nomenklatura from the local council visits to inspect the kitchen. The banks and financial services were not unregulated when the FSA has more regulators than the British Empire had civil servants. They were badly regulated not unregulated.

We do not have a free market and probably never will. Moreover, in a modern society a totally free market would probably be undesirable. As evidenced by the fact that no one anywhere in the world has one. Therefore, the issue is around various degrees of not free and whether making something more free improves our society.

Raising incomes for most people is certainly a laudable goal. The Nordic model is highly successful. However, in every international analysis they are defined as more neo-liberal than the UK economy. Market income inequality is almost the same as the UK. The difference is they reduce market income inequality through taxes and transfers. Therefore, it ain’t rocket science what you need to do to improve our outcomes. No need to smash the system. Just get rid of our awful tax system and introduce a better one. If Leon likes the Nordic model who am I to disagree.

” The important thing to note here is that even in the most socialist of welfare states, market income inequality is very high, nearly as high as it is in the UK or US. The fact that Sweden is one of the least unequal countries on earth has to do almost entirely with taxes and transfers. ”

http://www.peterfrase.com/2011/08/redistribution-under-neoliberalism/comment-page-1/

25
You don’t need to educate me about capitalism, free-markets and corporatism, your comment was needless and does not add to this debate.
Fabian socialism did not necessarily mean nationalization, its original focus was co-operatives, very much in line with the model of socialism proffered by William Morris, nationalization does fit well with Fabianism but, with hindsight, we have seen the problems.
Mutualism is a good socialist ideal but we have seen what happens, it is crushed within the culture of capitalism, need I mention Northern Rock, and the NHS is going the same way, an excellent socialist ideal now in danger from the thrust of capitalism in trouble.
The real problem with ‘selling’ socialism, as indicated by your comment, is that when it’s mentioned the USSR is invariably cited, but moving from capitalism to socialism is not the same as moving to socialism from feudalism, and state socialism is only one model. On saying that, we would have to be very careful how we deconstucted the existing state machinery.

34. Arthur Seaton

Good article, Lee, and of course 100% correct, the right-wing squealing of the stuck pigs above confirms its correctness still more. Its a good thing to watch them squeal – the little piggies are starting to get a bit worried.

Of course, there is little sign yet that the Labour Party will have the courage of its old convictions and actually speak for the 99%, rather than the parasitic sponging 1% currently bleeding us dry. Blair and Brown sucked up to them too much, and old habits die hard. But the louder these parasites get the message that they’re not wanted, the more popular this message gets, then the more the Labour Party may be forced to listen.

35. Leon Wolfson

@29 – Setting policy IS working in their members benefits.

Also, one building society needed a small guarantee compared to the banks. As in about 10% of the cash. A few very small ones outright failed, but were bought by bigger ones.

And as I said, I have no problem with the free market and company profits. The companies making money in the Nordic countries from the government are generally smaller companies, and IN those countries, rather than multinationals based overseas. The capitalist elements of the system are distinctly blunted – wages count for far more than than here!

@32 – I don’t? Well, then, since you didn’t mention Northern Rock de-mutualised in 1997 you’re knowingly lying. Er…

36. So Much For Subtlety

Over the past 30 years of unrestrained free market capitalism, the gains of growth have overwhelmingly accrued to the top 1%. They have barely trickled down to whole sections of society. The wealth has trickled up.

I love people who cite Polly Toynbee for their evidence. A sign of a real quality argument. What does La Stupenda of the Champagne Socialists say:

“A well-timed report from the Resolution Foundation this week laid out the raw figures: of every £100 rise in national income since 1977, the half of the population on average or below average incomes received just £12. Meanwhile, the top tenth received a £14 share. For much of the past 30 years the bottom half did see their incomes rise, so they didn’t notice they were falling behind the rest.”

The wealth has not trickled up. It just has not trickled down as much as you all would have liked. So what? The fact is the poorer are better off. That is a good thing, right?

37. So Much For Subtlety

22. David Wearing

Much of this global poverty alleviation has happened under Chinese state capitalism. Is that a model that the “free-market” right is getting behind these days? Perhaps we have to take our victories for capitalism where we can find them, eh?

There is no such thing as “state capitalism” in China. There is a rusting corpse of the old socialist sector and then there is the real economy. Which, if it resembles anything, resembles Somalia. It is seriously Wild West free market in the sense the government does not have a clue what is going on, they cannot control anything at all and there is not even any law and order.

I notice that you cite the Guardian for this claim. Which makes no claim about State Capitalism. But does point out that where free markets have been warmly embraced – China and India – poverty is in decline. Where they have not – Africa and the home of Chavez, Latin America – it is not. Go figure.

31. David Wearing

What I did say was that “much of this global poverty alleviation has happened under Chinese state capitalism”, not the free-market version.

And the fact remains that this is a figment of your imagination. There are some companies that could be called State Capitalism but not many. Haier perhaps. The rest is utterly unregulated.

The more plausible claim is that moving from Maoist insanity toward a sensibly mixed economy can increase economic benefits for the population.

That would be true if China had a mixed economy. It does not.

Just as moving away from a sensibly mixed economy towards neo-Reaganite/Thatcherite insanity can decrease the economic benefits for the majority of the population.

That is not the experience of China where the economy is more free market, and less regulated than anything any Thatcher-hater could dream of in their worst nightmare. In China if you want to dump your toxic sludge into the nearest river, you can. And they do. Which is why China is becoming a leading producer of solar panels for instance. Want your workers to work overtime? Lock them in and beat them until they agree. Don’t feel like paying them? Don’t!

There is not a free-market. It is rigged and monopolized. The free-market works very well when on a level playing field.

Factors of production:

1. LAND
2. CAPITAL
3. LABOUR.

We have never had a free-market. It is rigged all over. LAND is rigged and monopolized. LABOUR is rigged. Free it up and tax those with privilege in the market. Then we will see.

Land Valuation Tax keeps speculation to a minimum. They can’t do harm – like create financial crashes. Speculators are the scourge of modern times. We allowed them to go wild and distort LAND one of the factors of production.

@Richard wrote..
“As soon as you introduce regulations the market by definition is not free. When regulators tell hairdressing shops where they can store chemicals there is no free market in hairdressing. ”

When all hairdressers have to do the same the market in hairdressing is free. It is when only some have to conform it is not free.

@ Goodie Fuqua
“I can’t imagine anyone working in the productive economy votes for Labour? The Labour Party appeals only to the welfare class and those on the public sector gravy train.”

Is this the same Labour that created zero unemployment and the longest economic growth in UK history?

35
I don’t really like being called a liar, Leon, and I mentioned the Northern Rock in the context of the culture of capitalism not being condusive for mutuals to operate I thought that after making that comment you would infer that I was refering to the de-mutualization and the subsequent outcome. Similarly, I also pointed-out that the NHS (a socialist concept) is now in danger from capitalism, in fact I have made the observation on several other occasions that it is almost impossible to create institutions which are counter-ideological within a capitalist society.

42. Rob the crip

Some of the comment show the people not to be Tories, but slighly uneducated the Giro went out ten years ago, people have money paid into Bank accounts now saving million unless it goes wrong.

Free blow jobs by a person who has more names then blow jobs i suspect.

In the end people will not vote labour because they do not trust labour, as you can see by my name, I’m on welfare, but I do not need it, I also run my own charity, called Tories for a blow job.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% http://t.co/o2cyeiOe

  2. Larry Southpaw

    Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/RKtTgueM via @libcon

  3. Catherine, Cardiff

    Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/RKtTgueM via @libcon

  4. Emma

    RT @libcon Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% http://t.co/E2BG0wXo – those comment trolls move fast!

  5. Alex Braithwaite

    Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OfcVlRdI via @libcon

  6. Roblackenby

    Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OfcVlRdI via @libcon

  7. Noxi

    RT @libcon: Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% http://t.co/woDuilYS

  8. Jon Lansman

    Checkout Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% by @leejamesbrown http://t.co/BLcpX5SY

  9. lee james brown

    My @libcon piece on why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% http://t.co/pKXtvicf.

  10. One Society

    Labour should make "the 'bottom 99%' a dividing line in British politics" argues activist @leejamesbrown http://t.co/CIzOym9A

  11. Jameela

    Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% http://t.co/o2cyeiOe

  12. Janet Graham

    Why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% http://t.co/o2cyeiOe

  13. neilrfoster

    My @libcon piece on why Labour should concentrate on the bottom 99% http://t.co/pKXtvicf.





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.