Tomorrow’s Times has a new YouGov poll of the Labour leadership electorate (party members from before the cut-off date, trade union affiliates and £25 registered supporters) showing Jeremy Corbyn with a robust lead over Owen Smith. Topline voting intentions excluding don’t knows are Corbyn 62%, Smith 38%. 8% of voters say don’t know.

Jeremy Corbyn leads convincingly in all three parts of the electorate: among party members he is ahead by 57% to 43%, among trade union affiliates he is ahead 62% to 38%, among registered supporters he is ahead by a daunting 74% to 26%. If the numbers are broken down by length of membership Owen Smith actually leads among those who were members before the last general election, but they are swamped by the influx of newer members who overwhelmingly back Jeremy Corbyn.

The poll was conducted over the weekend, so after Labour members will have started to vote. The actual contest still has three weeks to go, but with people already voting and that sort of lead to make up Owen Smith’s chances do not look good.

Looking to the future, 39% of the selectorate (and 35% of full party members) think it is likely the party will split after the election. 45% of party members who support Owen Smith say that if some MPs opposed to Corbyn were to leave and form a new party they would follow them (29% of Smith supporters say they are likely to leave the party if Corbyn wins anyway… though I’m always a little wary of questions like that, it’s easier to threaten to leave than to actually do it)

YouGov also asked about mandatory re-selection. Party members are divided right down the middle – 46% of full members think MPs should normally have the right to stand again without a full selection, 45% of members think that MPs should face a full reselection before every election. The split is very much along the Smith-Corbyn divide – 69% of Corbyn supporters are in favour of reselections, 77% of Smith supporters are opposed.

Full tabs are here.


1,056 Responses to “YouGov/Times poll of Labour leadership race”

1 2 3 22
  1. Been waiting so lonh

  2. Among pre-GE 2015 members, Smith leads Corbyn 68-32. Has any internal election for any party had groups of members spin so quickly on a dime like that?

  3. OK. “The Canary” isn’t exactly a balanced source on anything!

    Still, their response to Alan Roden moving from political editor of the Scottish Daily Mail to Kez Dugdale’s SLab Communications Director is rather more savage than one might expect from the bitterest cybernat!

    http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/30/not-content-with-losing-40-of-their-41-seats-in-scotland-labour-reveal-plan-to-shed-that-last-one-too/

    In that YG poll, I noted that Lab members/supporters in Scotland were only 4.5% of the GB selectorate total.

    Whether that is accurate or not, I don’t know – but it wouldn’t be surprising, That half of the wee Scottish sample is likely to remain with the brand name, regardless of who is leader, isn’t surprising either.

  4. Mr nameless

    Saw an interesting tweet, apparently Owen has improved his lead among the pre GE members by 8 points during the campaign but corbyn has increased his lead among the post GE members by 9 points during the campaign.

  5. CR

    39% of GB Lab selectorate think it likely that party will split after leadership election, as opposed to 46% who think it won’t.

    Among the tiny group of these in Scotland (where the arguments are different) it’s an even divide – 44% for each option.

  6. I’ve just seen the front page of the times. Balls is dancing away next to the “corbyn on course to win bigger mandate” headline. I think that was unnecessarily cruel, but it still made me giggle

  7. Oldnat

    If we had PR a split wouldn’t be a problem, but under FPTP is a serious worry. As i see it, the entire problem in the labour party is a result of the inadequate voting system

  8. Robin

    On data, Google and so forth.

    I largely agree with you, although I think you slightly (!) overestimate our universities’ capabilities.

    The trouble is that Google is now genuinely a venture capital fund – their behaviour is different. It could be done – but then you really need genuine experts who can negotiate through the deal. I saw one deal that Goodle made with a start up. It is really extremely well done, and you need to match it. It also needs a political decision (exploiting the basis that the NHS could give).

  9. @oldnat

    “Sadly, no one seems to have bothered to ask either candidate, or the selectorate. whether it is a clever idea to piss oil revenues up against the wall, or to invest them for the public good.”

    —————

    Sadly, you also need to consider the more Unionist option you tend to forget about: whether peeps would like to p1ss oil revenues up the wall for the public good, i.e. in order to keep the union.

    A related question might be: if you are an oil magnate, and your partner says they want to leave you, and they plan to take most of the oil, are you going to set up a trust fund so they can snaffle a load of that too and make leaving even more likely?

    Not that I’m advocating these things, just that the options need to be considered. As you know, I consider oil increasingly an anachronism…

  10. @oldnat

    Or to put it another way, if assorted Scots hadn’t been keen to leave on discovering the oil, then a Sovereign wealth fund would have been less risky for the union, and hence more likely. Oh the irony…

  11. YouGov also asked about mandatory re-selection. Party members are divided right down the middle – 46% of full members think MPs should normally have the right to stand again without a full selection, 45% of members think that MPs should face a full reselection before every election.

    It’s worth pointing out that what those against mandatory re-selection are actually agreeing with is:

    So long as an MP has done a reasonable job they should be entitled to stand again for their political party at the following general election and defend their seat – only if an MP fails badly or is very unpopular with members should there be a full reselection

    It’s possible that some might read this as the current MP being automatically sacked rather than having to stand against other possible candidates in a new selection (though the other option makes this clearer). And of course ‘reasonable job’ is open to a lot of interpretation. I also can’t help noticing that Union affiliates are 51% to 41% in favour of reselection. Presumably now that no one else has a job for life, they don’t see why MPs should.

  12. Has there been polling on the jury service model for MPs?

  13. It is really quite an extraordinary poll.
    Given my experience round here (I know people say it’s different in other areas) it just feels like the party that I have worked pretty hard for (others have worked much harder for a long time) has been taken over by people who don’t care for it, only for an accidental leader. They are not interested in talking to voters, or seeking their votes or engaging with any real political debate beyond ‘austerity bad’
    I took part in this poll and said I didn’t think the party would split. Not sure now. If there are deselections I will probably leave and if a new, left of centre party with serious political leaders forms I will join that. If not, I could end up a Green – more professional and more honest than a Corbyn/trot led Labour Party.

  14. @Kentdalion

    “Norwegian governments appear to have decided early on that a windfall public asset should be used for the benefit of all its citizens … British governments clearly took a different view.”

    ———

    yes but Norwegies prolly didn’t have a partner who was threatening to leave and take the oil and maybe even the Zero 7 CDs.

  15. Carfrew

    The SNP were a quite small political force at the time the oil was discovered and didn’t really start to make headway until the Blair years. I don’t think its factually correct to suggest that the oil bonanza was managed in the way in was because the Scots were threatening to leave. In fact i would say that if there had been a serious risk of Scotland going independent the oil would have been managed better

  16. Mandatory reselection is a difficult view to poll, I think. Too circumstantial.

    In principle, I’m strongly in favour of it. Enforcing it now, though, could well destroy the Labour Party, so I’d have to think more than twice about what answer to give: I’d probably say ‘no’, with certain caveats (e.g. openly rebellious front benchers who would rather undermine the leadership than unite).

    Do we have estimates for vote % inclusive of excluded (‘purged’) members and supporters? I’ve seen 75% to Corbyn circulated online, without a scrap of data shown to back it up.

  17. (From last thread)

    Robin

    The UK are pretty good at the medium scale I would guess. There is a world of difference between that and the scale of the data (both in numbers and number of features analysed) that DeepMind is using. Once you start working at those levels you can do a lot more and get a lot more out. At that level it does require specific expertise and techniques to handle the data, far beyond those needed to analyse and small of medium size trial. From DeepMind’s point of view it’s a really good data set to work on in terms of being a highly complex data set as well as having a “good for the public result”. It doesn’t need the personalized details for it to be a valuable exercise.

    To answer your specific problems

    a) Obviously the NHS has control of the data and the terms of how it chooses to release that data. Any research done will be done in partnership as there is a lot of domain specific knowledge which will be shared as part of the process. If you can’t trust the NHS trust to handle this data appropriately then they shouldn’t be recording data in the first place. There is no evidence that everything about DeepMind is about running a profit. I’d love to see how playing Go is likely to return a profit, it was about prestige (as it was thought very recently that being able to play Go at that level would be impossible for a computer so to come out of nowhere and beat the world champion convincingly was a huge coup for DeepMind in terms of artificial intelligence)

    b) We do have strict anonymisation laws and I’m sure DeepMind can offer advice in terms of making this anonymisation secure. I’d trust DeepMind a lot more with the data that I would the government who always seem to be “losing” data. I find it unlikely Google would attempt to unanonyminise the data as the downside to the company’s reputation if they get caught (which they would) trying to sell on the rematched data.

    CARFREW

    It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be safer than the government by a few orders of magnitude, which is pretty easy in reality. If the Government is 1000x times more likely to mishandle, lose or publish your unanonymised data than DeepMind are to misuse it, you shouldn’t be worrying about DeepMind.

    Just like you’re are 100x more likely to have a heart attack during a flight than die in a plane crash, it seems more people are more worried about the latter when in reality if the risks were doubled or halved, either way it would be unlikely to make any difference to you.

    I’d say either playing on Facebook or Twitter is worth your data being used under it’s current Ts&Cs or it isn’t. You can choose to opt out entirely or limit what you put on Facebook or Twitter if you are worried about data being used. There was an internet before Facebook and Twitter and it still worked pretty well.

    Someone has to pay for the resources needed, so if a “pay per tweet” version of twitter started, I doubt it would be very successful. The same goes for Facebook. People seem to like the model where you get stuff for free and the company gets to use your data which individually is worthless, only once it is aggregated does it have any value. People don’t see it as a “cost” to them, because they don’t actually lose anything. In nature it’d be called symbiosis, which works pretty well in nature.

    It seems more people end up in trouble for posting stuff the world can see and regret posting after the event, than having their posts analysed to determine if they prefer Coke or Pepsi (other soft cola drinks are available). The amount of self harm that people inflict on themselves through social media far outweighs anything Facebook or Twitter could do with the data.

    I bet a lot of people (Including Ed Balls, who managed to get a day named after him for tweeting “Ed Balls” for some unknown reason) would love a “foot in mouth” analysis tool which flagged anything dumb the user posted and held it back for 24 hours while the author reconsidered their words. Or a “You’re drunk aren’t you?” block on their email. Both would require analysing the content of your messages but I”m sure a lot of people in the history of Facebook and Twitter would have liked that service.

  18. The only problem with this poll is that it can’t predict how many of the selectorate will be purged or which ones. Also are we quite sure that the respondents are all valid voters or more to the point believe themselves to be?

  19. @Rach

    Neil A once posted data to show the rise of SNP correlated with the oil thing. SNP acquired some clout in the Seventies, sufficient to bring down Labour, whereupon took a bit of a hit.

    I’m not claiming the oil was managed in a particular way primarily because of Scots interest in leaving, after all there were pressing needs for the oil revenues during the era of recession, high unemployment etc., but you can see how it might be considered as an additional reason to not have a wealth fund. Whether in fact politipeeps would say that is summat else…

  20. Carfrew

    Just looked up the History and there does seem to be a correlation, though it seems distrust of Westminster had set in long before

  21. @Rach

    Obviously, others on the board are the experts in distrust of Westminster, but yeah, that was an issue before the oil, indeed nationalism predates the oil. It’s just that it became more prevalent with the oil. Just as a partner winning the lottery may wish to leave their other half on discovering they’ve won the lottery.

    But of course, they may wish to blame their other half rather than the lottery…

  22. Carfrew

    Ive always been surprised that the SNP didn’t take off sooner. It always seemed to me as an English person that the thatcher govt hated scotland. Everything seemed to be tried out on scotland first, it seemed they were singled out for particularly harsh de-industrialization. It seemed to me that the Scots suffered worse than anyone else and had the privilege of paying for it with their oil

  23. Given the current cost of borrowing the UK could borrow enough to set up a sovereign wealth fund and probably expect returns to outstrip the borrowing costs – the reason why the UK chose not to set up a sovereign wealth fund is due to the Conservatives (especially in the 1980’s) fundamental belief that large assets and infrastructure are better managed in the private sector.

  24. @Rach

    Yes, it does seem as though the Thatcher era ratcheted up issues with Westminster, summat championed on here numerous times!! I don’t recall anyone ever contesting it, you are pushing at a very open door there!!…

  25. I was thinking the same as Cambridgerachel – have YG taken into account the purges?

    Don’t know the numbers precisely, but if Corbyn leads by 57/43 overall on a selectorate of 640,000 in total, that would give Corbyn 365,000 votes. If the reports of 30,000 purged voters are true, and if these are all Corbyn supporters, that gets very close to the 45,000 figure that represents 7% of the total – making the result a 52/48 split. Hmmmm….

    Either way, I suspect thaat the split between long term and recent members is very destabilising and fits with the narritive that members who have worked for longer and faced voters more frequently are taking a different judgement to the recent followers. I think it bodes very ill for the future of the party, and tends to back up the hypothesis that the main driving force behind Corbyn are unrealistic ambitions with limited practical experience of doorstep politics. I don’t think many of these people actally understand how bad Corbyn is becasue they haven’t tried to engage with real voters.

    There will be a big shock coming for many, I suspect.

  26. @Alan

    Yes, I can’t help noticing that you are making the convenient assumption of a government being a thousand times more likely to screw things up. This may be the case on your world, but over on this planet, I know this may be hard to believe, but the private sector is also very capable of messing things up, and quite often, government action keeps private sector nonsense in check. That’s why we have pollution regs and so on, otherwise private sector peeps take the mick!!

    The other day in the Times, Alan, the big supermarkets were pleading for Theresa to think again on ditching the unhealthy food taxes etc., because they know a voluntary pfivate sector code won’t work. Only needs a few smaller companies to ignore it and the whole thing collapses.

    Sometimes, it’s a case of simple efficiency. Those who tend toward the more Libertarian might like nothing more than to spend an evening in pouring over refuse data, trying to pick their private sector refuse collector; I rather like that I don’t have to worry about it and refuse just gets collected. This means we can focus on our specialisms, like moaning about storage.

    We have at times on this board enjoyed exchanging tales of private sector snafus to go along with the public sector. Maybe on some planets they didn’t have the pleasure of the thousand times better private sector selling customer data on hence customers plagued by calls from peeps pretending to be their mobile phone provider, but I did and it made one long go live on one of those worlds blessed with privare sector wondrousness.

    Am not impressed that you seem to be limiting us to just the two options of either using Facebook with #datageddon T&Cs, or else not using Facebook at all. This is overly fawning of the private sector, letting them dictate things overly, and not necessarily giving us the best options.

    Some of us might like an additional option for consideration, summat more suitable, where private sector required to give less burdensome T&Cs. Unlike your example, they can still make money under this approach, using some data, but also ad revenues, additional services etc…

    Enjoyed your fluffy example of a world in which data is only used to work out which cola we want to be marketed to us, but it is possible to use data in other ways, and in the future who knows what the buggers’ll come up with.

  27. @Alan

    “I find it unlikely Google would attempt to unanonyminise the data as the downside to the company’s reputation if they get caught (which they would) trying to sell on the rematched data.”

    ——–

    What, for examole, if don’t sell it on but just use it internally for competitive advantage? Harder to spot. Also, what about encryption and the advent of… quantum computing!!!

  28. @Alec

    “There will be a big shock coming for many, I suspect.”

    ———-

    Perhaps, but they needn’t worry: the thousand-times more effective private sector can save the day!! Once G4S are in charge of the purges, everything’ll work out fine…

  29. Owen Smith’s odds have been gradually shortening in the last week or so, suggesting that there was hope for his campaign. But the YouGov/Times poll has changed things quite dramatically, Smith is now available at 8/1, whereas Corbyn is at 1/7 on, which represents an interesting betting opportunity in a two horse race.

    The fact that Smith leads amongst longer-established party members perhaps increases the prospects of a formal split. Longstanding supporters are undoubtedly going to feel that their party has been hijacked by something akin to a protest movement.

    There is now a significant space available in the centre left of British politics, so it is surprising that the LibDems do not appear to be making much progress. If I were a Smith/PLP supporter, I would be inclined to go and hijack the LibDems…

  30. GUYMONDE

    @” it just feels like the party that I have worked pretty hard for (others have worked much harder for a long time) has been taken over by people who don’t care for it, only for an accidental leader. ”

    This looks like the first case of Metanorphosis. in a Political Party.

    This fascinating & incredible change in body structure & function can be “complete” (holometaboly) , or partial ( hemimetaboly),

    Which is it in this case?

    As we watch the final emergence in September , will it be just another moulted instar-or the strange & different creature which emerges from that pulsating soup of changing cells hidden in the pre-result pupa?

    I suspect the latter & look forward to watching the Corbynite adult phase slowly pump life into its shimmering new wings , before soaring aloft to leave the shriveled husk of its former existence dangling uselessly in the summer breeze.

  31. @Guymonde

    I am a staunch Corbyn supporter but I can understand how you feel. I have been through it twice. After supporting Labour for many years & waiting for the Thatcher years to end, to find Blair carry on with her policies was so disappointing. I started supporting LibDems & then felt betrayed by Clegg. It is not true to say that Corbyn supporters don’t care for the party. I not only delivered leaflets for Miliband but attended fundraisers and donated a lot of money to his campaign. For me Corbyn’s Labour is the kind of Labour Party I want to belong to. As far as I am concerned the Blairites were the rightwing entryists and I will be glad to see the back of them.

  32. CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    ………………. the inadequate voting system”

    Depends on your view of voting systems, many are very happy with FPTP and think its more than adequate.

  33. This poll does not reflect my experience from phone canvassing (of course include a large pinch of salt for one surveying around 300 people). Smith has been marginally ahead in members votes.

    I wonder if there is a potential flaw in the registered supporter sampling that had given it 70:30 for Corbyn – in short is it the echo chamber of the internet meaning Corbyn supporters are more likely to have registered for Yougov. I could not see it in any of the data of how the people were selected?

    Time of membership, was this an asked question or something from YouGov data base? (sorry if it is in the data I have only had time to skim the key areas). If it is from data bases again perhaps that tells us something about the over representation of Corbyn supporters.

    Don’t get me wrong I think the evidence is that Corbyn will win overall but I would be surprised if it is by that big a margin

  34. CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    “particularly harsh de-industrialization. ”

    Do you mean we had a government which stopped propping up failing outdated industries?

  35. @LIZH
    I started supporting LibDems & then felt betrayed by Clegg.
    —–
    I’m intrigued by that statement.

    Given the numbers of seats each party won, a Con-LD coalition was the only realistic way that a Govt. with a majority in the House could be formed.

    Once two parties enter into a coalition, compromises have to made in order to agree policies for the new administration.

    What else could Clegg have realistically done in that situation?

  36. Colin

    Loved your 8.45 especially the last paragraph. :-)

    It really is amazing, the weirdness which is the Lanour Party.

  37. Length of membership does not include affiliated members (or registered supporters) so that the presence of trades union in voting is not apparent in the pre-May 2015 membership , or – perhaps more important – in any influence this and the position of the trades unions themselves may have in any movement for or against a split. It would in practice, together with that of most affliated organisations and donors, be strongly against a split and for the constitutional process of selection at elections and in the leadership and cabinet and NEC over time, and for this process to held in the background while the parliamentary party rallies round and by and large obeys the whip.

  38. @David Carrod

    Confidence & supply. There was no need to rush into a coalition. They could have negotiated harder.

  39. TOH

    @”It really is amazing, the weirdness which is the Labour Party.”

    It is-and one can only conclude, with GUYMONDE, that the new, more recent membership is joining a Leader-not a Party.

    This begs a number of questions about succession, but also about the sustainability of membership which is attached to personality.

    …………I suppose the response would be that Christianity has outlasted Christ. But there was the matter of Resurrection I suppose. We will have to wait & see on that one.

  40. Good morning all from a sunny Reigate.

    AW….How was Butlins? Hope you had a good holiday.
    ………….
    “Jeremy Corbyn leads convincingly in all three parts of the electorate: among party members he is ahead by 57% to 43%, among trade union affiliates he is ahead 62% to 38%, among registered supporters he is ahead by a daunting 74% to 26%. If the numbers are broken down by length of membership Owen Smith actually leads among those who were members before the last general election, but they are swamped by the influx of newer members who overwhelmingly back Jeremy Corbyn”

    “Looking to the future, 39% of the selectorate (and 35% of full party members) think it is likely the party will split after the election. 45% of party members who support Owen Smith say that if some MPs opposed to Corbyn were to leave and form a new party they would follow them (29% of Smith supporters say they are likely to leave the party if Corbyn wins anyway… though I’m always a little wary of questions like that, it’s easier to threaten to leave than to actually do it)”
    _______

    The figures do look good for ol Corby but not as convincing as I would had thought. 3 weeks to go so still quite a lot can change. It just shows you how much of an impact the huge influx of Corby supporters has had on the leadership race. At grass roots level Labour is a Corbynista party.

    I’m not surprised at the figures showing those who think the party will split and those who said they would leave should ol Corby win but as AW said ” it’s easier to threaten to leave than to actually do it”.

    Split or no spit…It will be in the hands of the PLP.

  41. John Pilgrim

    Yes, the unions would almost certainly be against a split. Also roughly a third of the pre-2015 membership were also union members (and quite a bit lower among the new members).

    Unless the rules on the rules of deselection are changed (or the reselection of candidates for 2020 is made compulsory) it is unlikely that it could succeed (to any meaningful extent).

  42. Confidence & supply.
    ——
    Hmm, that was what kept Labour in power between 1977-79, the so-called Lib-Lab pact.

    Not, I would suggest, a recipe for stable government, and in 2010 after Brown / Darling had made a dog’s breakfast of the economy, the last thing the country needed.

    Those on the left did, and still do, whinge about ‘Tory cuts’, but again I would ask the question, what other realistic options were there?

  43. THE OTHER HOWARD @ CAMBRIDGERACHEL
    Depends on your view of voting systems, many are very happy with FPTP and think its more than adequate.

    How can it be fair that the SNP got 56 seats from 1,454,436 votes whilst UKIP and the Greens each got 1 seat from 3,881,099 and 1,157,613 respectively?

    And I say that as someone who would have voted SNP if I hadn’t been excluded as a long term expat!

    The system more or less worked when there were only two major parties but is now unrepresentative of public opinion.

    With 63.1% of voters NOT voting Con but giving them an overall HoC majority, even they should be worried, especially by UKIP. Under the plurality system, a small move from Con to UKIP [quite possible if Brexiters don’t like May’s solution] could well give Lab an overall HoC majority in 2020.

  44. I should have quoted the source for the stats in my previous post:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results

  45. BARBAZENZERO

    “The system more or less worked when there were only two major parties but is now unrepresentative of public opinion”
    ________

    Yes you can’t argue with that point.

    If 4 million people had voted for lets say, 10 smaller parties who were spread out over the UK then that’s not so bad but as you pointed out UKIP alone won nearly 4 million votes but ended up with only 1 seat.

    When you have (UK wide) two main parties and a smaller 3rd party then under FPTP it is extremely difficult for the 3rd party to make a breakthrough as seen with UKIP back in 2015.

  46. DAVID CARROD

    “Those on the left did, and still do, whinge about ‘Tory cuts’, but again I would ask the question, what other realistic options were there?”
    _______

    We all agree the public purse has to be brought under control and money doesn’t grow on trees but much of the Tory cuts were “political motivated”. Not my words but those of IDS the former work and pensions secretary.

    The problem with the cuts (as many in civic society have said) is that they disproportionately disadvantage low income households.

  47. ALLAN CHRISTIE
    When you have (UK wide) two main parties and a smaller 3rd party then under FPTP it is extremely difficult for the 3rd party to make a breakthrough as seen with UKIP back in 2015.

    Yes, and my point was that even a Corbyn Lab could reap the benefits of the right being split in 2020.

    Virtually all the “smaller” parties support electoral reform, including UKIP but excluding the DUP I think. The DUP may have their own problems by then, of course, having changed tack on the border issue.

    Con benefited from the plurality system in 2015 but could reap the whirlwind in 2020, especially if 2016 referendum voters who didn’t vote in 2015 feel let down by May’s Brexit solution- assuming she has one by then, of course.

  48. After the last Labour split the SDP had to arrange a joint approach with the Liberals and fight the 83 election as “The Alliance” to avoid having 2 “3rd Parties”. That “3rd Party” area is now full with the Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens, plus a strong SNP. Even with only one “3rd Party” most Labour MPs who defected to the SDP lost their seats. It is not so attractive an option now so they would have to be very committed to jump.

  49. @David Carrod @Allan Christie

    I agree the cuts were politically motivated.

    ” in 2010 after Brown / Darling had made a dog’s breakfast of the economy, the last thing the country needed”

    Considering debt has gone up, NHS in crisis, the Coalition has destroyed not improved the economy.

  50. @CR

    “Ive always been surprised that the SNP didn’t take off sooner. It always seemed to me as an English person that the thatcher govt hated scotland.”

    Pre-Blair Labour reflected the Scottish Labour view on that but New Labour didn’t.

1 2 3 22