YouGov have carried out a fresh poll of Labour party members and Trade Unionists for tomorrow’s Sunday Times. Six weeks ago a similar YouGov poll found David Miliband eight points ahead; today’s poll finds the two Milibands neck and neck, with Ed Miliband very narrowly ahead. For those of you with subscriptions, the Sunday Times’s full report can be found here.

As before, YouGov asked people their first preference, their second preference, and then who they would prefer between the two Milibands (based on the, thankfully correct, assumption that the poll would show the two Milibands coming up top on the early preferences). Samples of party members and members of Labour affiliated trade unions were polled, and MPs preferences were based upon updated work by Left Foot Forward.

The main shift is amongst Trade Unionists. In the Labour member section there is only a small movement towards Ed – in July the two brothers were equal on 50% each, now Ed is ahead by 4 points. Amongst the MPs and MEPs section there has been a very slight movement towards David, and Left Foot Forward’s projected split for MPs & MEPs is now David 56%, Ed 44%. Amongst Trade Unionists there has been a large movement, in July we found a lead of 12 points for David amongst eligible trade unionists. Since then there has been a huge shift, and Ed now leads David in that section by 57% to 43%. Prima facie, it would appear that trade union encouragement of their members to back the candidate they endorsed had a decisive effect.

Putting all three parts of the college together this leaves Ed two points ahead, 51% to 49%. David Miliband is still ahead amongst MPs, but it’s not enough to overcome Ed Miliband’s lead among members and trade unionists.

One big caveat is MPs second preferences – Left Foot Forward have a good canvas of how MPs will cast their first preferences, but there is little good information on how MPs will cast their second preferences. In both YouGov projections we have made the crude assumption that the second preferences of MPs who back Abbott, Balls and Burnham will divide evenly between David and Ed Miliband, but obviously this could go either way. About two thirds of MPs are backing a Miliband anyway, so this unknown section makes up a third of a third of the total vote – about 10%. Another unknown is turnout, but notably over 40% of those polled said they had already voted, and these respondents were more likely to backing Ed Miliband, so if YouGov have included too many unlikely voters, the result should be more favourable to Ed than this suggests.

With the MPs second preferences unknown and the two candidates within the margin of error it really could go either way, but Ed Miliband is now in poll position.

Meanwhile, on YouGov’s standard daily polling (an entirely seperate poll, obviously) voting intention stands at CON 42%, LAB 38%, LDEM 14%. YouGov also asked about the future of Andy Coulson, David Cameron’s Director of Communications who was editor of the News of the World at the time of the phone tapping scandal. 48% think Coulson should go, 24% that he should keep his job.

414 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times Labour leadership poll”

1 5 6 7 8 9
  1. OK Amber

    In which areas of British life do you see evidence of dialect/accent being a bar to success-and what is that evidence?


  2. @ Social Liberal

    That is ironic about Andy Burnham. I’ve always thought that of all the Labour leadership contenders, Andy Burnham would have the most appeal to American voters (if Burnham were allowed to run for president).
    I agree that Andy Burnham would likely have international appeal, if he was our PM. I think he’d do much better on ‘the world stage’ than people think.

    It really is a shame that he won’t be our leader because we are definitely getting a Miliband. I’m sure we will all get used to whichever Mili it is. 8-)

  3. @GucciSocialist… I mean Eoin, didn’t SocalLiberal start out as SocialLiberal, or have I got latent dyslexia?

  4. Sue Marsh

    Curriculum for Excellence

    h ttp://

    It isn’t a prescriptive list of what should be taught and how.

    That has made it difficult for those teachers who were trained in that tradition to adapt to the fact that it is their professional responsibility to design children’s learning experiences. Fortunately, however, Scotland never went down the line of over prescription that I see in England’s National Curriculum.

  5. BillyB,

    You bring to mind two of my medical difficulties- I reckon I’m the dyslexic but more worryingly- I can only communicate with someone if I conceptualise them as a person. SoCallLib it most definitely has always been. The discourse analyst in me has always regarded it as quite a rhetorical pseudoynm.

    Gucci socialist- lol… I’m still laughing at that one.

  6. @ Colin

    Working class, regional accents: In any of the professions, it is an additional mountain to climb.

    Partners in the big accountancy firms, barrister stables & law firms – you will not hear a working class accent amongst them. The boardrooms of insurance, banking, investment & stockbroking are similar no-go areas for regional, working class accents. You may find them on the Trading floor – but nowhere else. Even the receptionists, PAs & IT chaps will have ‘nice’ accents. 8-)

  7. I think every teacher in the UK should be compelled by law to take large amounts of ketamine before class every day.

  8. @Eoin – John Cooper Clarke’s back catologue is well worth a look for any social historian… no doubt you are familiar. ‘Beasley Street’ for a commentary on the 1980s in particular.

  9. Barney

    I apologise for my comment last night.

    However, I do get tired of assumptions that Central Government is responsible for the minutiae of the implementation of educational reforms – at least in Scotland, where that has never been the policy of any government.

    Re-reading your comment, you weren’t actually doing that.

  10. BillyB,

    Yes it is very good. Reminds my of my four best friends growing up. The McCauls, The McAvoy’s and the Clarkes. God help Newry. Thankfully, for Newry at least, they are all dead or in prison.

  11. Amber @ 12.25 pm

    “Partners in the big accountancy firms, barrister stables & law firms – you will not hear a working class accent amongst them.”

    Well that is not my experience Amber.

    I qualified FCA from, a council house after a five year postal course of evening study.
    I moved from rural SW to Brum & joined KPMG.
    My fellow managers & the partners were a completely eclectic bunch of all accents & backgrounds.

    When I left the profession for INdustry my contact with the legal profession was via a Pinsents partner who could not have been more ordinary or working class by background.

    So. all I can say is that I am sorry for your experience ( presumably in Scotland ?) -if that is what it is.

    It is not one I shared-or recognise through a professional career of 40 years.

    I do not believe accent or dialect is a bar to success in this country-unless one has a very very large chip on the shoulder-or wishes-like Howard to join a “club” which doesn’t want you as a member.

  12. Amber

    “Working class, regional accents”

    You grouped these together-which was interesting I thought.

    Do you think a regional accent ( I prefer dialect -it gets you down to county level) is the same thing as a “working class” accent?

    What is a “working class accent” actually ?

  13. The simple straw poll would be to examine the accents of the CEO’s in the top 100 comapnies. Diageo, BA, and Ryanair all have brogues. But then Stuart Rose, Philip Green and Branson’s tongues are made of silk. I guess the picture is not uniform, and it would be naive to suggest it is.

    From my expeirence, those on the bottom rung and those who ‘think’ they are something seem to place most credence on how you sound. It undoubtedly leads to stigmatisation (a la Rooney & Gerrard but also a la Cameron and Johnson). It can also hamper recruitment and promotion. A Gateshead teacher was routinely scowled at for his thick accent in a examiner meeting I attended in June. However, with another examining compnay, the chief examiner was a Geordie. Thus, pockets where it does not exist are present and vice versa. Moslty in is a hidden undertone in society.

    I refer people to the ICM poll which showed that 88% of people believe we live in a class based society.

  14. Eoin,

    “It many walks of life it is an asset. Just not down there in sunny S. England”

    Haha! In that case, I must take care to avoid the south of England. I’d find it a darned shame to have to water down my beloved Northern Irish rhoticity and ingliding diphthongs!

  15. @ Colin

    Funnily enough, I found it in most offices throughout the UK – particularly London.

    I agree though, Birmingham & Manchester were much more varied than other city offices. 8-)

  16. Colin,

    Your post was very informative. I was glad to be able to read it. Knowledge of matters like these is a jigsaw, most likely of a thousand pieces.

  17. Eoin

    “I guess the picture is not uniform, and it would be naive to suggest it is.”

    Of course it would -you might as well try to find a connection between their haircut and their success.

    I was interested in your very honest observation that prejuduce about accent was greatest in the group you were brought up with. I thought that was very telling.

    Re the area of Industry-watch Dragon’s Den & tell me that the way people speak makes one jot of difference to commercial & personal success.

    It is a huge red herring.

    ……may that’s a Red herring :-)

  18. Eoin Clarke

    “I refer people to the ICM poll which showed that 88% of people believe we live in a class based society.”

    Once again the problem is polling trying to present Britain as a single society. I would suggest that there are several different “class based” societies in the UK, and that there are other issues than class that can be involved in marking out the power elite – no more so than in your part of the world.

  19. Amber

    We clearly live in parallel universes ;-)

    It explains a lot.

  20. @Eoin, sorry to hear that. I don’t shout in the street, but occasionally I don’t censor my remarks… bordering on Tourette syndrome: making a flippant comment that touches a sensitive nerve is something we all do at times. :(

  21. Eoin

    I keep trying to resist that sort of detail.

    But sometimes it seems the only way.

    I suppose its part of the problem of holding conversations with people you will never see, and cannot communicate normally with.

    One gets the strangest of images & perceptions.

    The huge political divide is always there of course which clouds so much ………possibly.

    Perhaps its best not to try & understand people-just say when/why you disagree/agree & leave it at that

  22. @ Colin

    I do not believe accent or dialect is a bar to success in this country-unless one has a very very large chip on the shoulder &

    What is a “working class accent” actually ?
    Really, Colin – do I come across as somebody with a chip on my shoulder?

    I’m surprised you don’t know what a working class accent is – I could come to Brum & point out a working class Brummie accent to you, or you could come to Edinburgh & I’d do the same for accents here in seconds.

    It ought not to matter; but it often does. Neil A posted last time we touched on this subject. He said that he was sent to boarding school & has an accent that is completely different to his local peers. He considered this ‘upgrade’ to be an asset in his career. 8-)

  23. Colin,

    Perhaps its best not to try & understand people-just say when/why you disagree/agree & leave it at that. :) :)


    Thanks but it is less sensitive than you think. Some of it in typical working class culture is humour. My best friend once tried to hang himslef off our flat complex. The eeejit never took into consideration that his Celtic scarf was elasticated lol. Funniest sight in the world I can assure you. There are lots of little anecdotes like that- I like to try to keep smiling about them. He got there in the end mind you.

  24. Amber

    “do I come across as somebody with a chip on my shoulder?”


  25. OldNat,

    Yes your are right but be careful Cultural nationalism can create its own class system. For example, you’re only a true scot if you speak Gaelic. One Gaelic dialect is hled up as the correct one… for example is dubh (black) pronounced Dove or Doove. That can be a marker Ireland. pronounce it the first way and your pigeoned holed as a working class republican who learned the language because he had a ‘chip on his shoulder’.

    Also, Our Gaelic Football teams particulalry Down and Armagh have 100% third level educated gaelic football players. They dont let the comprehensive kids play it. I relaise hurling/shinty is not the same but the dangers are there nonetheless.

  26. Eoin

    Thanks for the info on the the 2011 Irish Presidential – though I can’t find any separate info on “Quantum Research” and are pretty scathing (even by their standards) about past polls. Norris would be a brilliant choice and a gay Prod should keep the Popes away. :P If they can’t get him, there’s always Graham Norton.

    Re accents/dialects. Like most things involving the British class systems this is an ever-changing and infinitely complex minefield. Southern Irish normally gets counted as “foreign” and therefore honorary semi-posh – hence all those CEOs. This is because us Brits can’t tell our Blackrock from our Ballymun.

    Northern Ireland is generally treated as the softer the better externally. Internally however accent is a matter of infinitely small gradations and any two NI’ers will attempt to pin each other down to which side of which street in which town one comes from, entirely by the use of accent.

    Some English accents are only acceptable in pretty limited circumstances. A strong West Country or Birmingham accent might be acceptable in a comedian but not in most other broadcasting contexts.

  27. Amber

    “I could come to Brum & point out a working class Brummie accent to you,”

    With respect Amber-you could point out a Brummie accent . It might be a well educated Brummie accent ( employing correct English usage)-or it might be a less well educated Brummie accent ( employing incorrect English usage)-but it would just be a Brummie Accent.

    I could take you to hear a Black Country dialect-you would have to come with me to Dudley or Wolverhampton for that.-now that is much more interesting & pleasing on the ear .

    And-at least a few years ago- I could have taken you to hear a Foundry Worker using it-and a Millionaire using it-the same dialect.

  28. Norfolk dialect is *never* heard outside the county border. There are limits to how courageous one can be.

  29. @ Colin

    Thanks – & to clarify: I am not saying the people are absent from these places; I’m saying that people changed (had to change?) the way they speak to get there.

    Does it matter that they’ve changed their voice? They’ve likely had to change the way they dress & – yes – their hairstyle too. Is their voice part of their personality & the other not? I just find it interesting, that is all. 8-)

  30. Roger,

    Very true, I could pin one of those sandpaper ones down to the nearest mile. Since it takes me half an hour to say a sentence I am equally sure that they have my cards marked.

    Regarding the southern contest. i am hoping lAbour will put togehter a unity candidate.. I see their two potentials had a combined 30% – not bad.

  31. Eoin Clarke

    “Cultural nationalism can create its own class system.”

    Virtually anything can be used by the elite to mark themselves as “superior”, is how I would have put it.

  32. OldNat,

    Yes that is a good point. Race, Gender, Class, Culture, Nationality, Orientation.

    The problem for some is known as triple jeopardy.

    Eg is it my race that makes me an inferior paddy. Is it that I am a knacker? Or should I console myself that at least I am not a woman? Brian Dooley wrote a good book. It is called Ulster’s White Negroes.

  33. Andrew Chandler. – 1.05 am
    I loved your post.

    As an unparalleled expert in drugs and addiction, (Whoops, sounded a bit like Wayne there ;) I have thought long and hard about the drug situation in this country and have read some fascinating books about the issue.

    I have seen some of my friends ravage by drugs, their lives ruined. They got very little support from the NHS.
    My friends were by no means part of the “underclass” – one was a BSc, another was a managing director.

    Initially, I think it does sound way too radical to many people, but often I’ve found my friends changing their minds once they’ve looked into it a bit more.

    Firstly, people will always take drugs. It’s happened in every society, everywhere in the world since time began. We will never stop this. The police force estimate that they only manage to seize 1% of illegal substances bought into this country. Most police officers argue that the “War On Drugs” has been a 100% abject failure

    Secondly, the drugs that people buy from dealers are often “cut” This means that they are bulked out with all kinds of rubbish to increase profitability for the gangs – sugar, dung, bleach cleaners, etc etc etc.

    Thirdly, if drugs were to be totally legalised, there wouldn’t suddenly be cocaine or heroin “shops” where drugs were freely available. An addict would get their drugs from GPs.

    Finally, crime most CERTAINLY would go down. Addicts steal, they burgle, they smuggle, they mug they neglect their children. Not because they WANT to do it, but because their illness/addiction compels them to.

    I saw an absolutely FASCINATING documentary a few years ago. The presenter started out feeling much as you do, but by the end, he concluded extremely vehemently that legalisation would save lives.

    Apparently, this is the best method:

    1) Firstly, an addict needs to be able to get drugs easily from their GP and we must reverse our stigma of them. This just makes addiction worse.

    2) They must know that they will get as much of whichever substance it is they’re addicted to, this removes the panic addicts face over running out and suffering withdrawal.

    3) Every addict should be given unlimited counselling.

    The drugs are then :
    -Doses can be more easily monitored and measured.
    -The addict no longer needs to rob for their next fix.
    -They no longer have to go to low-life dealers who casually suggest to some poor scared 16 year old that he tries a “simple” line- “Oh, one won’t hurt” blah blah..
    THAT is how cannabis is seen as a “gateway drug” not because of itself, but because of the low-like dealers who coax them on to try new things

    The most remarkable point of all of this (imo) is that addiction actually reduced under this system, not just a bit of success either if I recall correctly this method CUT addiction (by over 50% Sweden if I remember rightly??)

    Take away the panic over where the next fix is coming from, how will they pay for it, whether the dealer is dangerous and imo you reduce 50% of the strains an addict faces.

    One last word – If drugs WERE to be legalised, any dealers found to still be making profit from addiction should get the ultimate punishment by law – life imprisonment.

  34. OldNat,

    Forgive me.. Fionbarra O’Dochartaigh wrote it

    h ttp://’s+white+negroes&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  35. @ Colin

    And-at least a few years ago- I could have taken you to hear a Foundry Worker using it-and a Millionaire using it-the same dialect.
    It isn’t about money; there are rich people with regional dialects &/or working class accents. It is one of the priviledges of wealth, that you can speak any way you like (money talks?) ;-)

  36. @eoin
    ‘But then Stuart Rose, Philip Green and Branson’s tongues are made of silk’

    I had a chuckle. Not that it defeats your point but Green has an accent that would fit perfectly with East End barrow boys, and language that would embarass most of them…..

    There are plenty of examples of big business leaders with strong regional accents. Personally, I have never found accent to be a barrier at any point (Scottish seems to find ‘preference’ though more than not, I might have found it different if I was broad scouse, unless I wanted to work for Tesco!)

    Of far greater prevalence though in most industries (and certainly FTSE 100) is gender-, rather than class- or accent-based discrimination. There’ll be more geordie or scouse men than women …………………

  37. ‘than women from any background’

  38. Somebody tell me this is not a vodoo poll :)

    h ttp://

  39. Social liberal
    The class system, accent and dialect being the most important aspect on first meeting, dominates the English highest rungs of society completely, as you would find our within a few weeks of landing at Heathrow (possibly before reaching the exit).

    As Wilde said, those who deprecate Society, are those who were unable to get into it.

    Anecdote: (I have had the privilege to live and work for a while with some of these people) two ex-public school chaps said to each other (forgetting my presence) ‘what do you reckon to him’ about a lecturer at a conference. ‘I reckon minor public school’ said one. ‘Spot on’ said the other. They chuckled.

    You see, it even works in their own milieu.

    As Amber says, it’s the ‘gentile’ professions where this really operates, unless the person doesn’t even need one, such as the rural landed. Of course, bringing it around to our theme, this is where most of our most successful political class is drawn from, ( not Labour typically but……).

    We are only talking about perhaps 100,000 people max (including all ages) but the culture spreads afar as others here have pointed out.

  40. HoodedMan,

    Mr Green will be most appreciative. I agree with your gendered point.

  41. @Socialliberal

    Im sorry, social liberal….you should really read what i wrote i believe that gays should be married in registry offices.

    End of argument.

  42. @Social Liberal and to everyone else

    You should not slander my views on gay marriage social liberal because your trying to cause a very petty argument and trying to unsuccessful make me look like a hombothic person which i am not.

    You said to me, my views on gays i dont understand your rationality in why they shouldnt get married in registry offices. Your really trying to put words in my mouth because if you read what i said i believe that gays should be married in all public places which is including registry offices, or anywhere where the public use it. So be it a shopping centre.

    So i would thank you for not slating me and slander me my views and arguments because you have got it completely wrong.

    My argument is that religious insitutions should not be forced to marry gay people if they do not accept it. However, this shouldnt stop religious insitutions that do accept homosexuality like the Quakers.

    So please social liberal, stop trying to big and cause a rift with me and trying to label me as some kind of homobothic person because i am bisexual anyway and all for equal rights. But i also believe in rights not to accept them rights. Theres a big differences between social tolerance and social acceptance.


  43. After mixing up Billy and Billy Bob the other day, I’m the last to talk, but I’m guessing SoCalLiberal is short for Southern Californian Liberal, and it is definitely not SocialLiberal……………

  44. @ Sue

    I’m sorry, I cannot accept that argument. I use to be a supporter of legalisation of drugs but I’ve matured my politics and I just think it will would not work and as the listed arguments i gave earlier it wont save money and i really do it hate it when Labour Party people (before you say it, i am a labour member) always go on about how the Tories have to relate everything to costs, money and how much this is costing the state and that labour people think everything shouldn’t have a price but when it boils down to drugs and crime…its always money and savings related. JUST LIKE A TORY WOULD SAY.

    It would have a huge social cost and economic cost. It would cost the mental health service money, it would cost the NHS money, it would cost the police authorities money when people want to feed their addiction and if you introduce a massive government regulation it will cost loads of money. But the social cost will be devasting.

    Honestly, the day Britain legalises drugs (i can accept some arguments in legalising some drugs although i personally would not accept it but I would live with it) but the day britain legalises ALL drugs I will be on that flight to Australia and it will be the final nail in the coffin for Britain.

  45. @ Sue Marsh – “…panic over where the next fix is coming from”

    I should think that most addictions arise as a strategy to overcome a recurrent/semi-permanent state of ‘panic attack’. Self-medication is seen to be effective by the user, perhaps in some way more self-empowering than being prescribed another drug which can have equally detrimental side-effects.
    If you stabilise people, they have a chance to look beyond their driven behavior. No guarantee that they will make a breakthrough, that is the same with all behaviors, but the criminal cycle can be broken. The majority of harm is in the lifestyle… lack of food, hygiene, self inflicted injuries.

    I think that this type of responsible approach works in the case of herion; in pure measured doses it is largely benign to the human organism, though highly addictive. Some other commonly used (synthetic)drugs are highly toxic and alternative treatments need to be explored.

  46. @Sue M

    1.57 great post- best contribution of the lot since I last looked in a day ago.

    I don’t agree with all of it i.e. a blanket legalisation- but it is a convincing argument for extending legalisation beyond weak (but not psychoactive skunk) cannabis. I think it would have to be done in a staggered manner with huge- libertarians please note- government regulation and control (and taxation). Plus ongoing medical research.

    I’d have to be further convinced of skunk and smack being freely available. I am sure a full cost-benefit analysis of these specific drugs could come to a conclusion that the benefits to freedom blah blah blah could be outweighed by the individual and family breakdown caused. Skunk is already linked to Bipolar Disorder- a terrible debilitating condition in all its phases whether ‘up’ or ‘down’.

    Plus legalising means they are for sale right. Addicts have to eat, drink and transport themselves around. This all costs money. Certainly the addicts on benefits will still burgle and mug in my prediction, as there is never enough money to feed an addictive habit. Particularly of course as benefits will see whopping real terms cuts- at least for the next 4 and a half years.

    OK OK this latter argument does not apply to your Managing Director example: but I doubt whether s/he is out a-burgling and a-robbing….unless s/he works in the city ;-) Even though s/he has had a liking for illegal drugs. So the ‘reduction-in-crime- argument does not apply to them. But perhaps the individual/ family breakdown (via *use* not legality) has been an issue?

    But this is definitely worth looking at in a objective steely eyed manner.

  47. Sue

    I was interested in your 1.57pm post.

    It made me read up on Sweden.

    Are you absolutely certain you have the Swedish situation correct ?

    These extracts are from

    ” In comparison to other Western countries in Europe, Swedish drug policy is regarded as restrictive. One of the aims of the policy is to make it clear that drugs are not tolerated in society. Some examples of this restrictive attitude include:

    •The overall goal is that of a drug-free society;
    •Harm reduction programs are only available in a limited fashion;
    •Treatment is abstinence-based and coerced;
    •Consumption of narcotics is an offence, and urine and blood test are used to detect those suspected of drug use;
    •Drug laws are strictly enforced;
    •Discussions regarding the medical value of marijuana are almost non-existent;
    •Swedish legislation strictly adheres, and even surpasses, the requirements set out in the three United Nations drug conventions

    While Swedish drug policy is currently very restrictive, this was not always the case. In the 1960s, its policy was fairly liberal, basically reflecting a harm reduction approach. For example, from 1965 to 1967, it was possible for chronic drug users to obtain prescriptions for morphine and amphetamines

    Over time, Swedish policy became more repressive. The current Swedish policy, with its primary goal of a drug-free society, was instituted in the late 1970’s because of what was thought to be an increasing social problem.

    There is no real distinction between hard and soft drugs in Sweden. Marijuana is viewed as a dangerous drug that leads to harder drugs and lifelong addiction. Drug education programs start early and regularly appear throughout the school curriculum. The Swedish vision of a drug-free society is so widely accepted that it is not questioned in the political arena or the media. The Swedish drug policy has support from all political parties and, according to the opinion surveys, the restrictive approach receives broad support from the public”

  48. @Colin

    I’m glad you share my views on drugs and i do not feel like the only one. However, i am increasingly worried in the ever increasing support for legalising drugs on which I believe are very simplistic arguments.

    Like Amber says. We do not know how bad drugs affect and how much this affects different people. I would favour a comphrensive study…even if its a study that will take years to conclude and be expensive to the taxpayers, i would strongly favour a big study to discovering the realities of drugs.

    Because tbh, the Mail (agaisnt drugs) and the Guardian (for it) are all wrong. They are not experts on drugs, they haven’t read the real scientific articles and tbh the science has conflicted year on year with one saying its less harmful and others saying it causes mental health problems.

    But once we get a detail analysis and study we can look from that argument and determine our drug laws from that with some possibilities of some drugs getting legalised.

    My own view is that even alcohol can be harmful for some people. However, it would be impossible to criminalise it but while cannabis is still illegal until we get further analysis i think it should remain illegal.

    Glad we share the same views Colin. Can I ask which Political Party you support? Or is that being rude? LOL

  49. Sue

    I was interested in your 1.57pm post.

    It made me read up on Sweden.

    I’m not sure you have the the Swedish situation correct at all.

    I refer you to this :-

  50. Sue

    I was interested in your 1.57pm post.

    It made me read up on Sweden.

    I’m not sure you have the the Swedish situation correct at all.

    I refer you to this :-

1 5 6 7 8 9