Today’s Times has some fresh polling of Labour party members. It was conducted between Tuesday and Thursday this week in the wake of the anti-Semitism row, though is also the first opportunity we’ve seen since the general election to take the general political temperature among Labour party members.

On that second point, the first thing to notice is the major shift in the level of support Jeremy Corbyn has among Labour party members. Two years ago this was still a party divided on the leadership and unsure of his future. Now they are solidly behind him. 80% of Labour members think Corbyn is doing well as leader, just 19% badly. 74% of Labour members think that Jeremy Corbyn should lead the party into the next general, and 64% of members think it is likely that Jeremy Corbyn will become Prime Minister in the future.

This is a complete transformation of attitudes since 2016 – back then, Labour members were split on Corbyn’s performance, didn’t think he could ever win, most didn’t want him to fight the next election. Now, following Corbyn’s victory against Owen Smith and the party’s revivial at the election, Corbyn’s support in the party looks absolutely solid.

Looking briefly at two of the other recent decisions Jeremy Corbyn has made, his members also back him over both his handling of the Salisbury poisonings and his sacking of Owen Smith. 69% think that Corbyn has responded well to the poisonings, and by 50% to 37% they think sacking Smith was the right decision.

Now, moving on to the anti-semitism row that Labour have found themselves in.

19% of Labour members think that anti-semitism in the party is a serious and genuine problem that needs addressing. A further 47% of Labour members agree that there is a serious and genuine problem, but think that is has been exaggerated for political reasons. Finally, 30% think that there is not a serious problem of anti-semitism at all. Broadly speaking, two-thirds of members think there is a problem (though many of those think it is being exaggerated for political effect), just under a third think there is not.

In terms of Jeremy Corbyn’s own handling of the row, most of his members think he has dealt with it well. 61% say he has responded very or fairly well, 33% think he has responded fairly or very badly. It’s less good than his approval overall (implying there are some Labour members who approve of Corbyn’s leadership in general, but think he’s dropped the ball here) but there is still clear majority approval.

Finally, the poll asked whether Labour party members wanted to see Ken Livingstone readmitted to the party or not. 33% wanted to see him return, 41% did not.

I’ll put a link up to the full tabs when they are released.


928 Responses to “YouGov polling of Labour members”

1 15 16 17 18 19
  1. @jonesinbangor

    “..with investment in UK facilities and grants for new entrants into something that successive Government just haven’t looked after and nurtured.”

    Actually there has been lot of investment through grants in UK fishing. But why should there be grants for new entrants; I thought Brexiters wanted to do away with wasteful intervention by technocrats.

  2. CB11

    @”If Burnham makes a success of the Manchester Mayoral job, and early signs are encouraging, then I think he could become a leadership contender again one day.”

    What will cause the new Membership mix , and Momentum, to abandon the Corbynite cause , and vote for/campaign for a Centrist Soc. Dem ( or whatever the correct appellation is) Leadership?

    PTRP has been preaching the gospel of “control” as the central issue. Why would “The Left” of the Party throw it away after putting so much effort in to acquire it?

  3. “For many the MSM is getting by passed. There really not interested in what the Mail, Guardian, Sun has to say.
    https://evolvepolitics.com/a-massive-36-tweet-thread-exposing-the-extraordinary-scale-of-tory-racism-and-abuse-is-going-viral-for-very-obvious-reasons/
    @pete April 6th, 2018 at 7:25 am

    Thanks. It gave me this quote. History teaches us so much:

    …as Malcolm X so eloquently put it:
    “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are
    being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

  4. COLIN

    Even worse, I think that Andy B might be […can hardly bring myself to write the word…] a bit “liberal”.

  5. LASZLO

    I still don’t see a 10 inch statue working – even less so on a five feet column.

    Sounds more like a piece of heavy jewellery to me.

  6. Interesting information in this opinion piece on FPTP

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/06/first-past-the-post-uk-elections-vulnerable-data-hijack

    and it is by Brian Eno (yes that one)

  7. Seems Spain is not being as demanding as first thought over Gibraltar

  8. Laszlo / Crofty

    Not this one I trust:

    http://uzhgorod.in/en/news/2013/oktyabr/the_sculpture_franz_liszt_airport_goes_to_budapest

    Given how much time Liszt spent out of Hungary in his life, you would have thought him an odd choice to honour with an airport. Or maybe not.

  9. Roger Mexico

    Yes, Liszt spent previous little time in Hungary. Moreover, the original name of airport (Ferihegy) came from the first name of the owner of a beer brewery that was there before the airport. Anyway,branding.

    Here is a photo of the statue and the great moment of unveiling.

    As someone pointed out he looks bemused while waiting for the piano tuner whose flight is late, while Be one is giggling in the background as he never liked Franzi.

  10. Be one = Heine …

  11. Roger Mexico

    As you could see from the link, it is the same statue. And yes from Carpatian Ukraine.

    And I was wrong, it is only 7.5 inches tall. I wonder if the suitcase under him was made in Hungary :-)

  12. @Colin

    Why would “The Left” of the Party throw it away after putting so much effort in to acquire it?

    —————

    Well stranger things have happened – Mrs May threw away a parliamentary majority only t’other day.

  13. Colin @ 9.30 am and yesterday:

    The sort of evidence I would like to see to firm up the UK government`s case is what Bretton-Gordon has been calling for in press and radio interviews in the last 2/3 days.

    Like info on OPCW Russia inspections, whether they visited Shikhany, and if so a comment on how extensive their checks and on claims that nerve agents were made there.

  14. HIRETON

    Actually there has been lot of investment through grants in UK fishing. But why should there be grants for new entrants; I thought Brexiters wanted to do away with wasteful intervention by technocrats.”

    I know Remainers wish to pigeonhole all Brexiters……

    There’s a wide variety of different viewpoints that thankfully came together in June 2016.

    I’m rather optimistic for the future of young farmers and fishermen post-Brexit, and I think both industries will go from strength to strength, no longer sold out by the metropolitan technocratic elite.

  15. @Crofty

    “Even worse, I think that Andy B might be […can hardly bring myself to write the word…] a bit “liberal”.”

    ——

    Why??? Didn’t you vote for them?

  16. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/britain-urged-to-come-up-with-a-fresh-brexit-border-plan-1.3451985

    “Six weeks of negotiations on Ireland began on Monday last week in Brussels as part of a UK-EU deal to explore workable solutions for the Border, days after Theresa May said the Brexit transition deal struck last month would inject a “new dynamic” into talks.

    However, there is creeping concern that, with less than a year to go until Brexit, Britain is no closer to finding a solution to the Border question, with no ideas considered developed enough to form the framework for a post-Brexit plan.

    Sources say the proposals put on the table by Britain last week are not much different to those put forward last August, which were based on technological solutions and were dismissed by the EU as “magical thinking”.

    It is said that the British team, led by Olly Robbins, have acknowledged that so-called “non-tariff barriers”, and not customs checks, are the main stumbling block on the trade side of the equation.”

    This looks to me as if NI will have a “special status”. The DUP will huff and puff but it is unlikely to bring down the May government.

    Corbyn is doing not much to make clear his own views on Brexit. They seem muddled.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/02/27/corbyn-on-state-aid-fact-checked

  17. Or a meringue?

    If so, is this the deal to be done?

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/09/what-a-ceta-or-ceta-free-trade-agreement-would-mean/

    “The CETA model therefore preserves the UK’s red lines except for no border controls, and offers tariff free or near tariff free trade. It would mean negotiating access commitments from the ‘bottom up’ with the UK treated as a third country when it leaves the EU, rather than the ‘top down’ – as is the UK’s preference.

    A CETA+ type agreement could add key areas of interest to both parties, probably based on reciprocity. As more people are realising, the closer the UK is to the EU, the more it will be a rule taker.

    How effective any CETA+ type arrangements will be depends not on the text of any negotiated agreement, but how effectively the parties adopt the appropriate measures and how effectively these are implemented. In other words the text of the agreement is likely to provide less than full security of market access.

    The scope of FTAs is heavily shaped by precedent. The EU will be reluctant to offer more to the UK than it does to other third parties because these will then demand the same. The inclusion of MFN clauses in FTAs also limits the scope of any EU–UK FTA and the autonomy of a UK trade policy.”

  18. My fourpenneth FWIW

    I’ve voted Labour all my life. I joined in 2010 in protest at the formation of the Con/Lib coalition, didn’t renew my membership following Corbyn’s victory and, after a lot of thought, rejoined last month.

    I didn’t support Corbyn at first because, to be successful, a leader of a Parliamentary party needs support from three sectors: the Membership, the MPs and last, but certainly not least, the voters. Corbyn clearly had the support of the membership but not the PLP and, as far as I could see, would not appeal to voters. Well after the G E I happily tucked into humble pie and I feel JC has earned the right to lead the party to the next election. So I’ve reconciled to him being leader and hopefully most of the PLP feels the same. Obviously there are malcontents but isn’t that the case in every Party?

    But for Labour to be successful there has to be a reconciliation, and that has to come from the Corbynisters, as well as MPs. It’s not just the PLP who have to wave olive branches. JC and his more fervent supporters also have to let bygones be bygones and recognise that compromise is a two-way street.

    I moved to Manchester in 1980 and in 1986 began work as a social worker with children and families in one of the most deprived wards in the country. Things were really tough up here. Manufacturing industries had been devastated by Thatcher’s monetary policies and she seemed to feel disdain for the Northern cities. We were not “her people”.

    People say that New Labour were no better than Tories, but that was not the case. Once Blair and Brown achieved power in 1997, I began to see a real difference in the resources available for children and families. There were Children Centres, Sure Start Centres and Educational Maintenance Grants and of course tax credits were introduced. And efforts were made to tackle the problems young people faced when they left Care. Research showed that care leavers were more likely to be homeless, in prison, drug users or dead. Real effort went into trying to solve these problems.

    And since 2010? Cuts to local authority funding, tax credits, wage freezes, inflation and all have had their effect on the JAMs. Despite Mrs May’s fine words, the Tories have little done little to help them and low income families are struggling. I think the Tories’ default position is a smaller state or, as I like to think of it, private affluence and public squalor. Labour needs to be united to protect the less well off.

  19. WB and Lewblew
    I recommend the Vote UK forum if you are interested in local by-elections..
    In the case in question, the Green candidate was strongly endorsed by the local Independents, who have topped the polls for many years.
    Meanwhile the Lib Dems got a surprise gain from SNP in the Highlands, in another place where Independents normally win, but none stood

  20. DAVWEL

    Thanks

    OPCW are absolutely key-I agree.

  21. LASZLO

    As you could see from the link, it is the same statue. And yes from Carpatian Ukraine.

    And I was wrong, it is only 7.5 inches tall. I wonder if the suitcase under him was made in Hungary :-)

    It looks like a slightly different version of the original. Which was itself a joke and is now being treated seriously. Which may be a metaphor.

  22. @Crossbat

    “The centre of political gravity tends to move over time. Attlee tugged it leftward, and with it the 1950-70s Tory Party and Thatcher then yanked it rightwards, spawning New Labour in the 1990s. It’s perfectly understandable for political parties to go where electorates are going and it’s called a political and economic settlement.”

    ——–

    While it’s true that the centre of political gravity can shift, like it did in 1945, it is also quite common for people to claim it has shifted when it hasn’t.

    1945, you can clearly argue it had shifted. Churchill of all people, with personal ratings others can only dream of, was getting booed on the stump.

    Crucially however, no other party got more than a few percent. This means that the vote wasn’t split to an appreciable extent.

    By the mid-Seventies the Liberals were polling in double figures, and then in 1983 the SDP polled a load more.

    This means that the left vote may well have been split. So you cannot say that the electorate really wanted Thatcherism.

    The LDs clearly moved leftwards, even beyond Labour, splitting the voles again. And when you look at polling on things like Nationalisation, if anything voters tended not just to be in favour but to keep moving leftwards.

    So the idea that New Labour had to “triangulate” is rather tenuous.

    The crucial thing under New Labour, was that Blair courted the press. He had a policy package the PRESS would like. This means that he didn’t get hammered on competency issues the way Major or Corbyn would, or indeed even Cameron at times.

    This is important because even if you have a policy package the voters might prefer, it’s hard to,get elected if getting trashed on competence. Because people may think you don’t have the competence to deliver the policies.

    Once Free Movement took hold, the press were lost even to New Labour, but Blair retired before it became a big issue. He knows now it’s a problem of course, hence he pops up to try and say th EU needs to change. Cameron tried that of course…

  23. @Crossbat

    To summarise…

    It’s difficult to argue New Labpur had to pursue the policies they did because voters wanted those policies.

    However, you CAN argue they maybe had to do it to keep the press on side, so that they didn’t get a load of vitriol about competence, like others did who challenged the press’s view. E.g Cameron. Major and latterly Corbyn.

  24. @Valerie

    “People say that New Labour were no better than Tories, but that was not the case. Once Blair and Brown achieved power in 1997, I began to see a real difference in the resources available for children and families. There were Children Centres, Sure Start Centres and Educational Maintenance Grants and of course tax credits were introduced. And efforts were made to tackle the problems young people faced when they left Care. Research showed that care leavers were more likely to be homeless, in prison, drug users or dead. Real effort went into trying to solve these problems.”

    Good grief, woman, you’ll be carted off to the Tower for such sentiments, certainly by most of the UKPR fraternity! For what it’s worth, I agree with most of what you have to say and, if it’s any consolation for us few remaining New Labour admirers, I think history will eventually be kind to Blair and Brown and the governments that they both modelled and led. Probably not for a generation, such has been the toxicity of the backlash against them, from both right and left by the way, but I think they will be redeemed ultimately for the good that they did.

    I’m probably in a one man club here, but when I gaze at the political scene now, I’d have Tony Blair back as PM tomorrow.

    There, I’ve said it.

    Off with my head!

    :-)

  25. @Valerie

    “People say that New Labour were no better than Tories, but that was not the case. Once Blair and Brown achieved power in 1997, I began to see a real difference in the resources available for children and families. There were Children Centres, Sure Start Centres and Educational Maintenance Grants and of course tax credits were introduced. And efforts were made to tackle the problems young people faced when they left Care. Research showed that care leavers were more likely to be homeless, in prison, drug users or dead. Real effort went into trying to solve these problems.”

    ——–

    Sure, New Labour put more money into services. So why do some on the left, or even the centre, still have concerns?

    1) There was a load of other stuff New Labpur voters seem rarely to engage with, as if to sweep under the carpet, from ATOS Io tuition fees to inflating house price and more besides. (I’m not even going to bring Iraq into it).

    2) a fair amount of the public sector investment was accompanied by things to assist with transfer of that money eventually to the private sector. PFI, obviously, but also academies, privatising bits of the NHS etc.

    So in the long run the public sector investment becomes giving taxpayer largesse to the private sector, and they set up the mechanisms to allow more of that.

    In accepting the more liberal approach to things like banking, they allowed to Crunch and hence the excuse for Austerity

    3) they may have put more money into education, but they also piled on over seven hundred directives. More than one a week! (Some of them were actually ok!!)

    4) Tax credits, minimum wage, are more Liberal apologia for screwing up economically, and again are mostly subsidies for the private sector to keep them offering low-pair jobs. Creating proper jobs was the way we raised living standards post war.

  26. @Crossbat

    “Good grief, woman, you’ll be carted off to the Tower for such sentiments, certainly by most of the UKPR fraternity!”

    ——-

    That’s the endless New Labour refrain. They just take the debate into a different, much easier place: “OMG, New Labour weren’t utterly evil right wingers!”

    Which is easier to defend against than the more usual concerns.

  27. Garj,
    “Given that it’s more or less impossible to access social housing unless you’re destitute, those migrants can’t have been making much of an economic contribution at all.”

    There is a logical error here. That they might be being exploited and earning very little, does not mean they are not contributing to the economy. Of course, if a French utility is hiring cheaply polish workers, then quite possibly we arent seing much going to the UK economy, but maybe nor would we if they hired cheap brits. But we might still all be getting cheaper electricity, with a net benefit to the entire population and economy.

    Colin,
    “Or to put it another way-The Tories looked at the annual deficit-11% of GDP PER ANNUM & thought , total debt will be a major risk if we leave this without cutting spending.”

    I put it the way I did, because it is usually spun your way. However, it is equally true the deficit has been a very useful tool for the tories to argue for service cuts supplied by government. Nor is it clear to me that the government is even trying to reduce the growth of income inequality, which imples the wealthiest are being taxed proportionately less and less. That being so, there would seem to be a way to fix the deficit without cutting services?

    The deficit would seem to be manageable, because plainly we have managed it. But I am reminded of what happened to greece. They too had a manageable deficit, until suddenly there was a world recession. The British economy seemd to be in rather the same position, and now we are planning to impose a brexit recession upon it ourselves. The Greek government might end looking like economic wizards in comparison.

  28. “it’s any consolation for us few remaining New Labour admirers, I think history will eventually be kind to Blair and Brown and the governments that they both modelled and led.”

    ——

    Depends who writes the history. The New Labour version will be great! The version where they countered discrimination and put some money into services and raised house prices for older people and there was none of the bad stuff will be great!

    (The version without ATOS and academies and privatisations and tuition fees and the worst banking crash for a century and subsidising low pay, and free movement and all the stuff buying off the boomers while making things harder for younger people,

    oh and Iraq etc. etc….)

    writing the version where they didn’t allow th Crunch, didn’t do Iraq, didn’t

  29. Like Andrew111 (who is himself an interesting commenter on the site) I’d recommend the Vote UK Forum for the background on each week’s LA by-elections. Thread on yesterday’s is here:

    http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/11101/local-council-elections-5th-april

    As well as useful summaries of the results in each ward, someone usually links to Andrew Teale’s previews for the week and there’s often local information supplied by posters with local knowledge to supply context. Middleenglander usually posts a very useful set of comparison tables after the reslts are known as well.

    In the case of Wiveliscombe, the Green candidate clearly had the backing of the other Independent councillor for the ward, but the Greens had also got a reasonable vote in 2015 and it does fit into a recent pattern of Green-Indy cooperation in the West Country.

    The Lib Dem gain was an impossibly remote, watery and scenic rural ward (a third bigger in size than all of Greater London). Some ballot boxes have to come by boat. As with such areas the local tradition is of Independents and even those Party politicians who get elected, tend to be in spite of their label rather than because of it. There were three Independent candidates as well as SNP, Con and Lib Dem. The Lib Dem got 31% vs 27% for the SNP and the lead increased from each set of transfers, though not overwhelmingly so except from the Conservatives. He had stood in 2017 and is clearly well known locally and may well have benefited from first preferences that went to the two winning Ind candidates then.

    Presumably the SNP had a problem finding a local candidate at short notice after the death of their previous councillor. They ended up putting up someone from Wester Ross, 130 km away. This ought to have been electoral suicide in such an area, so getting 27% is a sort of triumph (and might imply getting one of the three seats under STV next time). It suggests something that often gets missed, though we see it in polling as well, which is how solid the SNP vote is

  30. Valerie

    Your fourpunce is in the post.

  31. @Sam “Corbyn is doing not much to make clear his own views on Brexit. They seem muddled.”

    Corbyn’s views have been made plain and repeated for the past 45 years. They haven’t changed. The one thing you can give Corbyn credit for, is the fact he hasn’t changed his views! I am quite sure he would prefer a more limited trade deal if it meant full steam ahead towards his vision of a socialist utopia. Have no doubts about that Sam.

  32. @Crossbat 11 – The Blair + Brown Years

    The first administration stuck to the Tory spending plans (they were bequeathed a benign financial situation that was steadily improving) and provided the platform for the following two victories. There were several policies that gained wide support. The 2nd administration ran deficits in a boom which was extremely unwise. Blair also unnecessarily flung open the doors to the EU accession countries without an integration plan when he could have waited 7 years and then the whole EU would have been their oyster.

    The 3rd administration continued to run deficits in a boom, Blair gave up part of the rebate in the hope of CAP reform and diverted the funds to the Eastern Block of accession countries. I believe he did that as his plan was to become EU President and wanted someway to atone for the failure to get the UK to join the Euro.

    Thank god Brown blocked him from the Euro.

    Of course, the Brown years as PM were a disaster from a government management point of view. He was psychologically incapable of leading in my opinion. If they had not run deficits for 7 years we would have been much better placed to weather the financial crisis and “@usterity” wouldn’t have lasted so long.

  33. Hungarian polling companies really have a terrible time. They have to use the 2014 party preference as a base, but a third more said they voted for Fidesz than in reality (not to mention that now 50% the 18-25 years old also refuse to declare their party preference).

    Anyway, as publishing polls or any campaigning from midnight is banned, this was probably the last poll. 59% of voters saying that they would vote which the polling company projected to about 65-68% turnout. In this Fidesz is projected at 46%, but what it is enough for is the real question – the polling company refused to answer this, and says that it’s only for the PR part of the election, and no prediction for the FPTP seats which have been volatile.

    [I’m making these comments on the Hungarian elections, because they are quite unique for polling, and also because a defeat of Fidesz (unlikely), in spite of the unimportance of Hungary, would have major political effects in the EU.].

  34. What’s happening with the pollsters – are they on strike or something?

  35. @jonesinbangor Bangor

    You think UK farmers have been ” sold out by the metropolitan technocratic elite” to the tune of about £4bn a year? One thing which seems common to nearly every Brexiter is there unwillingness to engage with facts.

  36. DANNY

    @” the wealthiest are being taxed proportionately less and less. ”

    “The average income tax rate for a worker on 167 per cent of the average wage is now twice that for someone on 67 per cent of the average wage, up from one and a half times in 2000.

    The UK income tax system has become significantly more “progressive” — a measure of how much tax rates increase with income — according to the figures from the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.”

    FT
    April 2017

  37. SEA CHANGE

    You are a bubble bursting old spoilsport-ruining all that New Lab hairy chested coming out .

    :-) :-)

  38. Yes, the UK tax system (excluding council tax) is fairly progressive, although mainly because of the large number of people on miserable wages and because of the low VAT on daily essentials.

  39. @Sam: “The scope of FTAs is heavily shaped by precedent. The EU will be reluctant to offer more to the UK than it does to other third parties because these will then demand the same.”

    You don’t find it odd that the EU sticks close to precedent on some things, and then demands a status for Northern Ireland that is half-way to being like when the Ottoman Empire transferred power over Bosnia to a victorious Habsburg Empire, but keeping their flag flying.

    I did not agree with the Brexit Bus business because it was not true in any way that matters – but the EU’s pretence that their solution for N. Ireland has no constitutional implications for the province is a naked untruth. Northern Ireland will be largely under EU sovereignty, and de facto represented by Southern Ireland. The examples given by Barnier of Hong Kong and the Isle of Man are so facile that you wonder he could deliver them with a straight face. .

    But this is not about propaganda which the other side gets to counter, and the electorate decides – it is a rather aggressive attack on UK sovereignty by supposedly friendly states.

    It is all a rather extraordinary demand, whereas the UK leaving the EU is an ordinary act of self-determination recognised unconditionally in EU law.

  40. @Sam:

    On Corbyn, I rather think Starmer has persuaded him that the EU can address his particular concerns about the EU interfering with socialism.

    Labour is pretty much at a position of Brexit dealing with a few pet concerns, and some token on free movement.
    The sort of thing which would make Rees-Mogg say that it would be better to stay in the EU after all.

  41. @jonesinbangor – I think that the point regarding the 87% of quota for non UK vessels is that, in the main, these quotas were based on what fleets were actually catching. In other words, when the UK had control of these waters, UK fishermen only took 13% of those species.

    And as for farming being sold out by anyone – sorry, but it’s the most featherbedded industry in the UK. It’s not just the £4bn of direct subsidy, but the massively discounted red diesel, business rate exemption (vast, if calculated like any other business) and inheritance tax relief is similarly an absolutely massive bung to farmers.

    Now, there are good reasons why different business rates and inheritance regimes should apply to agricultural land as opposed to other industry, but they don’t have different systems – they just don’t pay the taxes.

    So please – no more about hard done by farmers. I’m not saying farmers don’t need some special support, but let’s not pretend anyone has sold them out.

  42. @Sea Change

    Running deficits was one of New Labour’s better plans, Even Thatcher was known to do it.

    And it’s common practice in business, for the very good reason it helps with growth.

    Then when you do have a setback, it’s from a stronger position. If you have years of more growth, that compensates for losing seven percent of the economy in th Crunch.

    Household economics treats the deficit as dead money, instead of as an investment that can pay for itself. Worse, if you try and run a surplus, then absent of some additional external influx, the money has to come from the private sector, hampering them.

  43. @crossbat 11

    Good to know Im not a lone voice in the wilderness.
    And I’m a baby boomer :-(

  44. @Colin “You are a bubble bursting old spoilsport-ruining all that New Lab hairy chested coming out ”

    LOL. It’s a character flaw I have no intention of fixing!

    I noticed the overly excitable and factually disconnected Lord Adonis is complaining that the BBC is biased towards Brexit! That’s a good one.

    I’m still waiting for him to put a stop to Brexit. Remember, “people like him” have a duty to overturn the Referendum apparently.

  45. And however ‘psychologicallyy damaged’ Brown may or may not have been, thank God he and Darling were there in 2008. Imagine if Cameron and Osborne had been at the helm.

  46. @Carfrew

    Borrowing money for investment into income generating activities is only sound if that future income significantly outweighs the interest cost. The Labour government ran deficits to provide enhanced public services. They further indebted the country with PFI contracts. Had they continued the policies of their first administration into the 2nd and 3rd and not thrown open the door to the Eastern Bloc accession countries these 3 things would almost certainly have happened:

    1) Our current £2 Trillion+ Debt would be substantially lower
    2) We would not have a Deficit now and “@austerity” would have ended sooner.
    3) We’d still be in the EU as the immigration issue would not have had enough time to build up such a head of steam yet.

  47. Hairy chested New Labour, moi?
    Thanks Colin. You do know how to turn on the charm.

1 15 16 17 18 19