Tomorrow’s Times has a new YouGov survey of the Labour party leadership election electorate (members, union affiliates and £3 supporters). The figures show Jeremy Corbyn’s lead increasing in the last three weeks – back then he had a seventeen point lead on the first round and just scraped over the line after the reallocation of second and third preferences. The new figures have him comfortably ahead – in the first round preferenes are Corbyn 53%, Burnham 21%, Cooper 18%, Kendall 8%. If the final round ends up Corbyn vs Burnham then Corbyn wins by 60% to 40%, if it ends up Corbyn vs Cooper then Corbyn wins by 62% to 38%. The full tabs are here and Peter Kellner’s commentary is here.

As far as the poll is concerned Jeremy Corbyn is currently solidly ahead (though of course, ballot papers haven’t yet gone out and there is a month to go – indeed, as I write it’s not too late to join Labour and have a vote in the election!). Polling party members is hard, there are not publically available targets to weight or sample too, and there has already been a huge influx of new members and new £3 sign-ups about whom we know little. YouGov’s data has the right sort of proportions of new and old members (thought the final proportions are obviously impossible to know yet), but it’s impossible to know if the sample is right in terms of things like social class. However, looking at the tables Jeremy Corbyn is ahead in every age group and amongst members from every region, amongst working class and middle class members, and amongst members, trade union affiliates and £3 sign-ups.

Corbyn’s least strong group is people who were party members back before 2010 among whom either Cooper or Burnham would beat Corbyn on second and third preferences. People who joined the Labour party between 2010 and 2015 are more pro-Corbyn, meaning amongst all pre-2015 party members the race would be very close. People who have signed up since 2015 are extremely pro-Corbyn, pushing him into the lead.

208 Responses to “Second YouGov poll has Corbyn ahead”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. @Lizh

    No, originally I was worried but the SNP MPs and MSPs are very pro-Corbyn and Scottish Labour very anti-Corbin.

  2. “The right wing of the party wanted a system that would allow people who weren’t committed Labour activists to have input into the leadership election. They got one. They have only themselves to blame if they don’t like the result.”

    Intentionally marching the troops off a cliff as I think electing Corbyn would be, I agree with you.

    They failed to understand that the typical Labour campaigner is on aggregate a fair nudge to the right of plenty of their voters.

    There are lots of people who sat on their hands when it came to joining or campaigning for a party they saw as “Tory-Lite” (a term I utterly loathe for its intellectual laziness, but we are where we are).

    They aren’t a majority or even a plurality of the Labour electoral coalition, but there are enough of them to swing a leadership election if they get involved.

    Whereas campaigning activists who did their stretch on the doorsteps before May are driven by two things: 1) they speak to lots of ordinary, not-very-political voters and understand their views and prejudices better. 2) They want to defend the local or national politicians they helped elect – and with whom they may be personal friends – who have to make compromises in elected office.

    That doesn’t necessarily make them change ideologically, but it makes them change tactically, and support a bit more flexibility of ideology if it makes their job on the doorstep easier. And understandably so – you don’t want a leader who’ll make people shout at you.

    The Blairites thought that the coalition consisted of those doorstep activists as the leftmost wall of the broad church, when actually they’re a framework that keeps the whole structure up, and they span the whole thing. They thought the electoral coalition consisted of those who secretly wanted Blair back and voted Miliband with gritted teeth. Some of them were – others, probably more, were not.

    It’s the inability to move towards those who didn’t vote Labour for fear of upsetting those who did that is the trickiest challenge for the next leader. Two of the four candidates would screw it up – in opposite directions.

  3. @COUPER2802

    It makes me cynical when others outside the LP show their concern about who we select as our leader.

  4. @ Couper,

    The goal was to use the (relative) excitement of the leadership election to draw people into the party. Which to be fair, it… has. So you see why it wouldn’t work if they didn’t let the newbies vote right away. Remember, Labour doesn’t have a tragically lost independence referendum to lure people in. ;)

    I honestly don’t know what I think about this. One the one hand, the entryists and the fairweather activists are clearly a problem. On the other hand, in the internet age where we expect to get everything instantly at the click of a mouse I’m not sure it’s really sustainable to demand people who become interested in the party wait a year to participate in the only event that has any influence on policy.

    But I agree the PLP need to do their job. All wings of the PLP, actually- much of the problem here is that Jeremy Corbyn, specifically, is a terrible candidate, and that problem would be solved if the soft Left had put up someone serious.

  5. … or actually, if the Blairites or the Brownites had put up someone serious.

  6. (That’s a little unfair to Andy Burnham. But not very.)

  7. Spearmint,

    Indeed. Like the alternate history where John Smith survives, we’ll never know – but what if Jon Trickett had stood, or Louise Haigh had been in parliament longer, or Lisa Nandy hadn’t just given birth?

  8. @ Mr. Nameless,

    Trickett is especially funny to me because he whined incessantly that no one would stand while refusing to do it himself. If he’d just been willing to put in the graft he would probably be leading the party come September, but no. So instead he’ll be taking his orders from Jeremy Corbyn.

    Further sources of amusement: Jon Ashworth and all the other people who were like “We need a long leadership contest so Andy Burnham won’t win to fully debate the issues!” That’s going to plan, eh, lads?

  9. LIZH

    @” So why the fear?”

    Did I say I was afeared?

    He isn’t going to be PM-I’m not at all sure he wants to be-I was being ironic & trying to indicate that Murphy/Corbyn are selling you an empty dream.

    But I concede that it is your dream & you are entitled to it


  10. Spearmint,

    Jon Ashworth is a weird guy. I met him at a joint campaign day with Tom Watson in Sheffield Hallam. He’s a Leicestershire MP and I’m from North West Leicestershire so we had a bit of a chat and he kind of talks through you, not to you.

    It’s an incredibly odd feeling, and it’s indicative of how built of cardboard and set dressing the Blairite “popular appeal” can be.

  11. Nostalgia might carry Labour quite a long way, and there are probably many older voters of all parties who who feel that utilities like water should not be in private hands (though the old water boards had rather neglected the infrastructure I believe).

    And, if I recall correctly, the 1983 election result was not only about Labour’s “suicidal” manifesto, but also about the Falklands war which was generally popular.

    But having said that, elections are a numbers game, and I don’t think that most voters would feel that going back to the Atlee post-war settlement (brilliant though it was for the time) was quite enough. Consumerism and individualism are the order of the day.

    Personally I agree with a post that Bill Patrick put on the previous thread…

    “It took until the 2005 election, when the Tories faced 13 years out of power and two election defeats in which their vote share had increased just 1.7%, before the consensus that a change was needed was irresistible. And it wasn’t as simple as just moving to the left: Cameron had to construct an identity for the Tories that was neither Thatcherite nor Blairite. Labour will need to do the same, and it won’t be as simple as just copying Tory policies or using the word “aspiration” a lot.”

  12. @ Mr. Nameless,

    I don’t dislike him, and at least he gets out there and goes doorknocking, but his judgement in this instance was… not the best.

    Which is indicative of the broader New Labour problem, I think. He’s spent two years campaigning alongside Labour activists almost non-stop, and he didn’t think this was a risk? They’ve completely lost their political antennae.


    ‘One the one hand, the entryists and the fairweather activists are clearly a problem.’

    Not sure about this. Entryists look as if they are a very small percentage of the whole. There are lots of young people but a sizebale proportion of new members seem to be people ‘coming home’… ie. those who left the party over the Iraq war.

    Can’t see any ‘clear problem’ here.

  14. This interesting observation was posted on pb:-

    “Isabel Hardman made an interesting point the other day. Electing Corbyn turns the Tory majority in the Commons from 12 to 32.

    You can’t see the 10 DUP/UUP MPs voting along side the party that has just elected a leader who wants a united Ireland.

    They will be on team blue no matter what.”

  15. @MrNameless

    ‘They thought the electoral coalition consisted of those who secretly wanted Blair back and voted Miliband with gritted teeth.’

    I find this one of the most astounding things of all. There really was a deep seated arrogance in some of the assumptions made. Not least the idea that ‘middle of the road ordianry voter’ cared deeply enough about the Blairite project to get involved in Labour leadership election, Hard enough to get people voting in a general election..

  16. I think it is worth looking into the John Curtice analysis of why Labour lost last time. i.e. it is not becasue they were too left.

    I think that Corbyn winning would probably be bad for Labour, but I do think electing a Blairite would be even worse. Corbyn could shore up the base, but the Blairites would risk losing the base and fail to win over middle England.

    I think we also have final proof that apart from the man himself, the Blairites are absolutely terrible at politics.

  17. @ Spearmint

    ‘much of the problem here is that Jeremy Corbyn, specifically, is a terrible candidate’

    I wonder if you could expand on why you believe Jeremy Corbyn to be a terrible candidate?

  18. @ Catoswyn,

    The problem is that they are making everyone else miserable. Even the reasonable people who don’t object to internal democracy are not keen to be called Red Tories by people who voted Green in May.

    I agree there are too few of them to have a material effect on the outcome, but the fact that they are making other people miserable is itself a problem. It’s like immigration in Clacton.

    We can’t do anything about the sore losers who throw their toys out of the pram whenever they get a leadership election result they don’t like; those people deserve to be miserable. But a phenomenon that is making longstanding party activists feel unvalued and unwelcome in their own party is something that needs to be addressed. (New Labour is another phenomenon that made longstanding party activists feel unvalued and unwelcome in their own party, and also needs to be addressed.)

  19. I could not vote for New Labour; I could easily vote for Corbyn.

    With the disappearance of the Liberals into the Tory Party there are a lot of protest / left of New Labour votes floating around which he could mop up. Even the SNP and Greens could lose some votes to him…


    I agree.


    That’s a shame.:( Hopefully it will pass. Corbyn is talking ‘unity’ and ‘inclusivity’.

  22. Spearmint is bang on the money. And Catoswyn, Benn used to talked about that too. It didn’t work out.

    There are members who are seeing views that enthused and excited them when campaigning in April and May attacked as Tory Lite by one side and as extremist by another.

    It’s the first time I’ve ever felt unwelcome in my party, and the resentment that stirs up can’t be exclusive to me.

    If Corbyn somehow manages to start winning elections, that will fade, and the unity will come. But if he loses, there will be a lot of pre-2015 members – on the left and centre of the party as well as on the right – who will blame it on an army of outsiders who they don’t believe will stick around when the going gets tough.

    A #GreenSiege if you will.

  23. @ Syzygy,

    He’s going to be 70 years old in 2020, he’s not a commanding or charismatic presence, and he has a long, long paper trail. Anyone who made speeches in 1983 said some things that would get them in trouble today- David Cameron was probably wandering around the edge of Tory Conference in a “Hang Nelson Mandela!” T-shirt- but the problem with Corbyn’s 1980s speeches is that they were recorded in Hansard. The press will be looking for them.

    He’s also been hanging out on the far left fringe for too long. The thing about any culture is that it has dumb ideas that circulate unchallenged. If you’re not unusually critical and sceptical you pick these ideas up, and Corbyn has been marinating in the Left long enough to soak up many of its dumb ideas. The centre also has a lot of dumb ideas (ask the British public what they think the foreign aid budget is), but people can’t tell they’re dumb because they’re received wisdom and most people share them. The culture of the Left fringe is sufficiently far removed from the mainstream that its dumb ideas are alien and therefore noticeable to the general public. This has already got Corbyn into trouble (homeopathy) and will get him into much more if he’s elected leader because he won’t lie about what he believes.

    I think trying to fight 2020 from the Left is not a good plan, but for it to have any remote chance of success Labour needs Alexis Tsipras, not Jeremy Corbyn. I like him. I like a lot of his ideas. I don’t want him to discredit them by failing.

  24. Spearmint

    It probably depends what his genuine motivations are.

    It is likely that any new leadership election would also result in left candidate being elected, so it would be a logical plan for him to nurture potential successors to take over before 2020 if his motivation is to see a programme through rather than go for personal glory.

    Labour have little chance of winning until there is another economic crash which splits middle England away from the Tories (to another party, not necessarily Labour). I would expect another crash to particularly impact middle England (the working class are already shafted).

  25. ManintheMiddle – “I am just stunned how Labour could let this happen. First they nominate someone they don’t want to lead them, then they change the rules so everyone can vote for him.”

    It’s because Lab is a deeply sentimental party, they constantly believe people will “do the right thing” and they’re constantly surprised when bad actors take advantage (and this applies to some of their policies in government – they’re just not cynical enough to see the pitfalls).

    But that Polyannaish streak is also why the public has affection for them and wants them to survive even if they don’t vote for them!

    Leadership contests do give an insight into a party’s basic culture.

    The SNP ensured that only Nicola Sturgeon got nominated to become leader and then “acclaimed” her in front of a Nuremberg style rally of the new members who weren’t allowed the chance to vote for her! And for good measure they discipline any member who criticises the Dear Leaderine.

    Conclusion: they are super authoritarian.

    The Conservatives allow several nominees but the first rounds of voting are confined to the MPs only. When the candidates are whittled to two, the members vote, but they have to have been members for at least a year.

    Conclusion: they care most about the leader being able to command the Parliamentary party, and they’re shrewd enough about human nature to protect themselves against entryists

    Labour – complete free for all. All wings must get nominated to have a “debate”. Anyone can join at the last minute for peppercorn rates so you have the phenomenon of people who’ve been members for five minutes lecturing people who’ve been members for decades about “true Labour values”.

    Conclusion: they really are a broad unstructured movement which simply can’t be controlled, and they are constantly surprised at people taking advantage of their good nature. The unplanned nature of it all means they could have a complete disaster on their hands or a complete triumph. (Corbyn has proved to be extremely good at guerilla campaigning – we haven’t seen that kind of thing in Britain before, you have to go back to Obama’s first campaign against Hillary to see something similar).

  26. Candy

    It is that patronising tone (no pun intended) which explains why the Blairites have lost their support, first in the country and then in the party.

  27. From some of the language on here (‘people who’ve been members for five minutes lecturing people who’ve been members for decades about “true Labour values”’) it’s at least gratifying to see people spotted my Hipster/Burnham meme.

    It was described as “everything wrong with the Labour Party summed up in one meme” and by a LabourList editor as “pretty awful”.

    I’m doing well.


    ‘It’s the first time I’ve ever felt unwelcome in my party, and the resentment that stirs up can’t be exclusive to me.’

    I’m sorry about that. Unpleasant indeed. That resentment and feeling of being unwelcome were also felt by many when the party changed in the past to a more centrist position. I suppose change is difficult. Any broad church party is prone to this sort of thing.

  29. @ Mr. Nameless,

    This is why I’m so unsure what to do about this. Stephen Bush is right, but so is your meme. Telling people to stop joining the Labour Party because they’re enthusiastic about a leadership candidate is clearly insane. On the other hand, Hipster Dude needs to STFU and get his dubious facial hair out of my face.

    How do we reconcile this?

    The facile answer is “MPs should do their job properly and screen the leadership candidates”, but Corbyn only needed charity nominations because the Left couldn’t get its act together. I doubt that will happen again now that they’re the clear frontrunners in any future leadership contest.

  30. @MrNameless – I was referencing an image being shared on Twitter – was that one you created? If so, well done!

  31. “Couper2802:

    The top reasons Labour lost the election according to TUC poll:
    The top three reasons people gave for not voting Labour were fears that the party could not be trusted with the economy and would spend too much, be too generous with the benefit system, and be forced to make too many concessions to the SNP.”

    This is an interesting line of thought, but it maybe misses something. It assumes that parties can only ever lose elections, and doesn’t assess motivations for electors voting *for* a party. In other words, Corbyn might not win back those who deliberately voted *against* Labour for the reasons given, but might he give some others reason to vote *for* Labour who otherwise wouldn’t?

    I don’t know the answer, but the sword seems double- rather than single-edged. Given that people at least *say* they are they are tired of negative politics and want something to vote for rather than against (whether or not they act accordingly!), it seems that there could be something there to play for, at least in theory.

    Personally I think the Corbyn phenomenon is partly a generational convulsion as those significantly younger than the New Labour wave demand more from a society that has somewhat disenfranchised them as an age group. This is how it plays out on the “left” of politics, and it presumably plays out there first since the left tends to have a younger base than right. It should work it’s way through on the political right too at some point, I wonder how it will pan out there?

  32. MrNameless

    This is what the radical Left do, anyone slightly to the right of them personally is seen as a Conservative/right wing.

    The wave has finally caught up with you. Since Blair stood down in 2007 Labour has been lurching to the left again and again, and seeing their results plummeting. They elected Gordon who was to the left of blair, he lost, so they went further left to ED, he lost by an even bigger lead, so now they are moving even further left either with Burnham OR GREATER still to the extreme left of Corbyn.

    Moderates/independents/centrists anyone who doesn’t share their purist vision are not welcome.

    Labour in my opinion doesn’t try to reach out to people in a friendly and persuasive way. Instead it brands them as enemies. Just look at this site, I voted Lib Dem in May and would be open to voting for Labour under Dan Jarvis or Liz Kendall but am regularly referred to as a Conservative by members who want to see everything as Black and White, your either radical left or Conservative, no in between!

  33. “Personally I think the Corbyn phenomenon is partly a generational convulsion as those significantly younger than the New Labour wave demand more from a society that has somewhat disenfranchised them as an age group. This is how it plays out on the “left” of politics, and it presumably plays out there first since the left tends to have a younger base than right.”

    I think that is correct. I am 35, part of the first cohort of students to pay tuition fees (a now-trifling £1000 pa), who then saw house prices spiral away from my reach once graduated (I am very lucky to have overcome that last hurdle). I then have my retirement age shifted up whilst I see the rich elderly get feather-bedded with free TV licences and suchlike. To add insult to injury, I then had to watch Blair cosy up to an American president who made Reagan look like FDR. I am then supposed to look on the early-2000s with nostalgia.

    Then the good stuff they did gets bulldozed after only a few years of Tory rule.

    Compared to a 25 year old graduate, I am lucky. It is no wonder that so many of them are turning further left.

    If I can see that as a moderate, it ought to be possible for those who seek to lead Labour.

    If I am right about the finances of middle England being built on the sand of over-inflated house prices, the political impact when the tide comes in will be equally monumental for the Tories.

  34. Spearmint, Candy,

    Yeah that was me. I actually made it for a (Corbyn-backing) friend’s Facebook page (Labourball, look it up, it’s a giggle) and didn’t expect it to go as wide as it did. If Corbyn won by a few hundred votes you’d probably be able to put it down to that, and I’m not hugely proud of it – the danger of the internet is that a brief moment of frustrated snideness gets taken as emblematic of a systemic problem.

    “How do we reconcile this?”

    I think for the sake of party growth, allowing new members post-election to vote is a right that needs to exist. But perhaps they could be weighted down by 50% or so – so those who’ve contributed most by joining before the election have the most say. I’m not sure it would work all that well, but it’s an idea.

    One other idea is to make joining the party some kind of contractual obligation with a time limited term. That way you can’t join, vote for a candidate, and bugger off if they don’t win. It ensured loyalty to the party rather than to an individual. It would be seen as bureaucratic and weird though.

  35. @CANDY

    Enjoyed that analysis of the parties….very good.

  36. “Here’s another for you, Old Labour hasn’t won a majority for 41 years and counting!!!”

    I think people are looking backwards rather than forwards.

    The whole 40-year neoliberal globalization thing is starting to crumble* so the tide is turning in the Syriza / Podemos / Linke type direction. It might be a little too early for the full Corbyn just yet but it’s certainly too late for anything remotely Blairite.

    (*In a nutshell I think the economic right have been on their best behaviour since 1917 but went back to their old ways after the collapse of the Soviet Union and as greed makes the economic right stupid they’ll always create conditions for an economic backlash unless they’re prevented by the more nationalist type right.)

  37. Hawthorn, as a 33 year-old your experience rings very true.

    As I perceive it you are two year “better off” than me! And the poor people coming of age now are fifteen years “worse off”. I find it incredibly sad that I have ended up assessing people’s lives in such a way, but I’m not sure I could argue that it’s too far from the truth.

  38. And I thought the discussion on “working hard” in the last thread got partisan, this latest thread resembles the YouTube comments section.

  39. Popeye

    The stupid thing is that it is not just the poor, but the middle class as well.

    My parents did very well out of Blair, which might explain why they see the debt/house price thing as an aberration from a successful programme, rather than it being an intrinsic feature of it.

  40. To clarify, I mean household debt rather than public debt!

  41. Hawthorn

    See my post of a fortnight ago – your economic performance will peak at the age of 47 ( statistically ).

    You have much to look forward to – your golden days are just beginning.

  42. Colin

    And lo , there was great renting of garments , and wailing of women, and fear stalked the land .

    Have you been hanging about in the Guardian editorial offices again?

    UK -Russia relations have a bright future ahead. The People’s Vodka stocked in every branch of the UK State Supermarket?

    Russian Standard Vodka is currently on special offer of £13 a bottle in the Coop. Behold, we’re already seeing the benefits of Corbynism[1].

    At the start of this campaign (when the Blairite laughter was just patronising rather than fearful) I suggested that Corbyn would do a lot better than expected. In part because some people would see him as a ‘re-open nominations’ candidate as Lurgee for example does. I also said that if he did do well, it would certainly be fun. Isn’t it just?

    The collective nervous breakdown of the Labour establishment and its supporters in the Guardian etc has been particularly amusing. Though one feels it might have been more effective in countering Corbyn if its opposition didn’t consist of screaming “How very dare you!” and little else.

    As I’ve pointed out before, it’s the sheer amateurism of the professional politicians that is so dumbfounding (other Parties aren’t much better). These people are having rings run round them. By. Jeremy. Corbyn.

    [1] Actually I’ve always thought of him as more of a Latin American guy – he speaks Spanish and his wife is Mexican and runs a coffee importing business. Buy tequila shares now.

  43. Colin

    “Isabel Hardman made an interesting point[:]

    You can’t see the 10 DUP/UUP MPs voting along side the party that has just elected a leader who wants a united Ireland.”

    Indeed. That would be almost as unthinkable as Unionists forming a government with political Parties that had the same aim of a united Ireland.


  44. The more the establishment in the media and politics go on about what a disaster Jeremy Corbyn would be, the more popular he gets.

    This is evidence to me that he is appealing to a whole swathe of people keen on serious change in our politics and institutions. This group does not like nor trust the establishment, and therefore anything they say to harm JC is counter-productive.

    Jeremy is firing up people within the Labour Party and outside like the other candidates are not. This is evidenced by the big turn outs at his rallies. If Jeremy is deemed “not to be charismatic”, then the three other candidates are far worse.

    I don’t know if he could win in 2020 (I suspect no Labour Leader can in reality, unless ligtning strikes), but his message is reaching out beyond Westminster and the media circus to people who have not been reached by a Labour Leader for many, many years.

    If we believe that open democracy is good, and fuelled by ideas and debate, JC has been very successful. The forces against him appear to be not so keen on this approach, but want to stick to the same rulebook as always, and essentially lock many people in our country out of the game.

    If JC is running away with it, it speaks louder of the poor campaigns of his opponents.

  45. Not sure the young are going to see it as a golden era if their earnings peak keeps falling progressively in relation to boomers in real terms, or if cost of living and housing etc. rises faster than their earnings…

  46. Candy

    The Conservatives allow several nominees but the first rounds of voting are confined to the MPs only. When the candidates are whittled to two, the members vote, but they have to have been members for at least a year.

    I don’t know if that is quite correct. As far as I can work out you only had to be a member when the election was called for the last leadership election:

    In any case they seem to become more enthusiastic about opening up the franchise since. They had an open selection meeting for a number of by-elections and other seats (Clacton, Rochester, Yeovil) and for the current selection of the candidate for Mayor of London you can get to vote by paying £1.

  47. Colin

    Interesting post regarding the inevitable anti-Corbyn stances of the Ulster Unionists. Obvious, isn’t it?

    There has been much talk of Corbyn uniting the left and capturing support from the Greens, etc. And I think that might well be true. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised to see the Labour vote percentage improve in 2020 under his leadership.

    But he will also unite the centre-right, whom he may well terrify. I can see the Tories at 40%+, in the event of a contest with Corbyn.

    Which incidentally leaves the LibDems absolutely nowhere.

    But I still think Corbyn does not wish to contest 2020, and will stand aside in 2018, which, if I remember correctly, is your stance too.

    Corbyn, in my view, is shrewd. I can see him going in 2018, to be replaced by Jarvis, Starmer, whoever; having destroyed the Burnham/Cooper Brownite heritage, stilettoed the Blairites, doubled the membership, and left a legacy of a new economic policy.

    He cannot win an election, but he can be a highly successful Labour leader.

  48. @POPEYE

    “Hawthorn, as a 33 year-old your experience rings very true.
    As I perceive it you are two year “better off” than me! And the poor people coming of age now are fifteen years “worse off”. I find it incredibly sad that I have ended up assessing people’s lives in such a way, but I’m not sure I could argue that it’s too far from the truth.”


    Nah, you’re right. I see it myself… students who go travelling after graduating because can’t find a proper job, the young peeps who just throw into the convo that it would be awkward to leave their partner because can’t afford to rent alone. Or if they leave, wind up kipping on friends couches for an indeterminate period. People returning home to parents because can’t really survive on the zero hour thing…

  49. MIM
    ‘ With a booming economy and increasing standards of living as well as being 100 seats behind it was always going to be an uphill struggle for Labour but now they have effectively handed out axes for the electorate to cut them off at the knees.’

    There is a big difference between a booming economy and an economic recovery. If we had a few years of 4% growth you would have a point but there is no real prospect of that. I suggest there is a good chance of another recession before 2020 and that Osborne may reap a bitter harvest as a result – with people feeling that the austerity and suffering had been for nothing.

  50. Here’s the London Mayor registration details if you’re interested:

    though you do have to live in London. Also, given that they have a shortlist of four men (and no women) produced by a committee of 19 men (and no women), it’s possible that they aren’t allowing women the vote.

1 2 3 4 5