• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
If it's Yvette Cooper against Boris Johnson Labour can kiss goodbye to the next two elections at least; they need to remove any link to the old guard and it's just too easy for the Tories to say "vote Cooper get Balls".

I agree with this. In the last leadership election, my preference vote was Andy Burnham > Ed Miliband > Ed Balls > David Miliband > Diane Abbott. This time, I think my first preference is going to be Dan Jarvis.
 
Blair's legacy is a lot more varied than a lot of the left think. New Labour undoubtably had its downsides, and I think in general the great shift rightwards (or centre, if you prefer) was probably a poor strategic mistake in the long term, but there can be no denying that most of the people in the country were much, much better off under New Labour than they were under any of the preceding Tory governments.

I'd agree with a lot of that. Good reason for them to try it again IMO.


No, I wont stop being 'a silly billy'. The fact remains that lower taxation and lower public spending has led to more recessions, worse levels of inequality, higher levels of poverty, lower health levels, etc., virtually everywhere it's been tried. The fact that you can point at Switzerland or Monaco and say, 'well their 2% top tax rate is doing them wonders' is a red herring and you know it. And you point to the USA while ignoring that the USA was (economically speaking) a better place to live when it had tax rates double what it has now.

Ireland was the great success story for you types and it suffered among the worst in the world during the last recession. There's a mountain of evidence that it's a disaster. It's not my fault you're ignoring it in favour of some libertarian fantasy about how everything would be better if there was no way to fund the welfare state.

I didn't mention Switzerland or Monaco? And when the US was better is a) debatable and b) not wholly relevant to the point at hand, which is that the US has traditionally been a low tax, low state intervention country, has benefitted massively from it economically and, whether you think it's better now or worse than before, millions of people think their loves will be better there - and most of them will be right.

i'm not sure who you're talking about when you say "you types" re: Ireland. They benefitted massively from EU money and an ECB that lead then To the horrible that their property market ended up in - their problems have nothing to do with their tax regime.
 

PJV3

Member
My money is still on Chuka, although Yvette is a stronger contender now Balls is out of government.

And there is a lot of risk going with "Vote Yvette, get Balls". A HUGE amount of risk. It leaves them wide open to some nasty sexism allegations.

The David Lammy thing is potentially interesting if you like a Blair type candidate.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Crab, how much of a connection does Andy Burnham have with the Blair/Brown era of "New Labour"?

I've always thought of him positively - I think he would do well as leader.
 
One of my younger sisters is severely autistic. She's approaching 30 and has the mental age of an eight year old. Under the Tories she's had physical help withdrawn, money to live on lowered, schemes to help her get out of the house ended, respite ended and been forced through the whole DLA-PIP clusterfuck. All of that support was replaced by a scheme where she gets to help make sandwiches for a token payment of less than a pound an hour. She hates it, but won't give it up because it's her only chance to do something that doesn't involve her immediate family and carers.

To those of you who voted Tory and are now fucking whining that you're being shamed, fucking good! You absolutely fucking should be! Any positive you manage to claw out of being governed by the Tories over the next five years is done at the expense of the poorest, most vulnerable people in your society, which makes you either ignorant of widely reported facts or outright complicit in evil.

I'm sorry to hear that man, as I've already stated in this thread I have a seriously disabled nephew who also has fallen foul of the Tories and will again. But please refrain from stuff like that last paragraph.

If anyone's complaining that they're being "shamed" by voting for one party or another, then they really need to contact a mod - given that it's a thread rule.

Agreed.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
TTIP may also include this bullshit:

http://corporateeurope.org/power-lo...tiny-board-prevent-laws-hurt-corporate-profit
The European Commission’s shocking leaked proposal for ”better regulation” would create pro-business bureaucratic mechanisms to prevent new laws - from regulating chemicals to preventing climate change - that could hurt the bottom line of corporations.

So apart from being able to contest laws that hurt business, there would now also be an organ that prevents laws that could potentially hurt business from ever being instated.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
My increasingly powerful feeling is that what the left needs is the next Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher. Someone with the political clout to drag the current framing of political debates--which is still currently unabashedly right-wing--back towards the left, and what progressive politics can achieve. The problem with looking at the current electoral map and trying to figure out how a genuinely progressive voting platform might have done is that since 1979, political discourse in this country has been framed almost exclusively by the right wing. When the Labour party start talking about how to balance the budget and bring down the deficit, they've lost the debate. They arguing against an opposition's lies, so it's an argument in bad faith, and the Tory party can just turn around and 'a-ha!' them--'the Labour party doesn't even try to dispute the narrative that the deficit was too high...' etc.

Cowtowing to the framing of the Tory party, insisting that Labour need to move further right, plays right into the Tory's hand. It might win them short term popularity, but it will do it at the expense of permanently shifting and cementing the debate around the centre-right, which just makes the increasingly radically right-wing economic policies of the Tory party seem ever more sensible and responsible. This has already happened. Policies that the Tories would have baulked at as being irresponsibly dangerous in the 80s will be passed during this term. Why is that? Because the Labour party drifted too centrist, and now those policies are within reach of the Tories.

It's really not easy, as a young, progressive, left voter to take much hope in this defeat. I honestly believe that any hope of a progressive, prosperous, left-wing Britain in my lifetime died yesterday, and the drift rightwards towards a country of increasing inequality, economic injustice, and social deprivation now seems pretty much inevitable. Game over, the right wing won the battle for Britain's future.

I didn't mention Switzerland or Monaco? And when the US was better is a) debatable and b) not wholly relevant to the point at hand, which is that the US has traditionally been a low tax, low state intervention country, has benefitted massively from it economically and, whether you think it's better now or worse than before, millions of people think their loves will be better there - and most of them will be right.

i'm not sure who you're talking about when you say "you types" re: Ireland. They benefitted massively from EU money and an ECB that lead then To the horrible that their property market ended up in - their problems have nothing to do with their tax regime.

Regardless of whether you think that the USA is 'traditionally' like that (arguably this is a myth that was invented in the 80s by Reagan in order to push through his new economic order), the fact is that the USA has never been a better place to live for many people (again, economically speaking, since obviously historically the USA was a pretty poor place to live if you were, for instance, black) than when tax was very high compared with now (not the 91% usually quoted, but still much higher than today); businesses also flourished, it was the start of the modern technological boom too.
 
I doubt it will be Cooper for that reason (too close to the old guard), especially with Balls out of a seat. Umunna is 2/1 according to the bookies and I think he will get it.
 
So they are not suing us then? What am I supposed to be flapping about again?
Jesus Christ really? Of course they are not suing us right now, who said they were? Passing TTIP opens the door for them and other multinationals to sue us. What don't you understand about that?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Crab, how much of a connection does Andy Burnham have with the Blair/Brown era of "New Labour"?

I've always thought of him positively - I think he would do well as leader.

In the days when you absolutely had to be a Blairite or Brownite and there was no fence-sitting, Burnham was a Brownite. He was good friends with Ed Miliband and they often worked and talked closely together, but Burnham didn't like Balls particularly and often tried to distance himself from Brown politically if not ideologically. He's a figure from the New Labour era, if admittedly the very tail end of it, but he's probably the least connected member of the 'Old Guard' that's going to be running for this leadership contest. I also think he'd do well. He's a good communicator and a good thinker. His only problem is the Mid-Staffordshire debacle, that'll definitely stick.

You should look into Dan Jarvis, Dan, I think he'd be right up your street.

I really hope it's not Ummuna. I used to like him, but I think the Opposition period has been pretty revealing of him as a total lightweight. He's popular in the PLP but frankly even Cameron's more of a heavyweight than he is, and that's not a good position to be in.
 

PJV3

Member
My increasingly powerful feeling is that what the left needs is the next Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher. Someone with the political clout to drag the current framing of political debates--which is still currently unabashedly right-wing--back towards the left, and what progressive politics can achieve. The problem with looking at the current electoral map and trying to figure out how a genuinely progressive voting platform might have done is that since 1979, political discourse in this country has been framed almost exclusively by the right wing. When the Labour party start talking about how to balance the budget and bring down the deficit, they've lost the debate. They arguing against an opposition's lies, so it's an argument in bad faith, and the Tory party can just turn around and 'a-ha!' them--'the Labour party doesn't even try to dispute the narrative that the deficit was too high...' etc.

Cowtowing to the framing of the Tory party, insisting that Labour need to move further right, plays right into the Tory's hand. It might win them short term popularity, but it will do it at the expense of permanently shifting and cementing the debate around the centre-right, which just makes the increasingly radically right-wing economic policies of the Tory party seem ever more sensible and responsible. This has already happened. Policies that the Tories would have baulked at as being irresponsibly dangerous in the 80s will be passed during this term. Why is that? Because the Labour party drifted too centrist, and now those policies are within reach of the Tories.

It's really not easy, as a young, progressive, left voter to take much hope in this defeat. I honestly believe that any hope of a progressive, prosperous, left-wing Britain in my lifetime died yesterday, and the drift rightwards towards a country of increasing inequality, economic injustice, and social deprivation now seems pretty much inevitable. Game over, the right wing won the battle for Britain's future.

Or the tories could finally push too far and the political pendulum swing back hard. I try to be an optomist, Nobody likes a bitter depressed socialist(not accusing you of being one).
 

zpiders

Member
I voted for the Tories due to 3 reasons.

1 - I didn't want the SNP to get in a coalition with Labour.
2 - All the mess that Labour created under Blair and Brown is still fresh in my mind.
3 - I hate being told what to do by all the vocal Labour supporters around me.
 

Jezbollah

Member
In the days when you absolutely had to be a Blairite or Brownite and there was no fence-sitting, Burnham was a Brownite. He was good friends with Ed Miliband and they often worked and talked closely together, but Burnham didn't like Balls particularly and often tried to distance himself from Brown politically if not ideologically. He's a figure from the New Labour era, if admittedly the very tail end of it, but he's probably the least connected member of the 'Old Guard' that's going to be running for this leadership contest. I also think he'd do well. He's a good communicator and a good thinker. His only problem is the Mid-Staffordshire debacle, that'll definitely stick.

You should look into Dan Jarvis, Dan, I think he'd be right up your street.

I really hope it's not Ummuna. I used to like him, but I think the Opposition period has been pretty revealing of him as a total lightweight. He's popular in the PLP but frankly even Cameron's more of a heavyweight than he is, and that's not a good position to be in.

Cheers mate. Will look into Dan Jarvis right now :)
 

Audioboxer

Member
I voted for the Tories due to 3 reasons.

1 - I didn't want the SNP to get in a coalition with Labour.
2 - All the mess that Labour created under Blair and Brown is still fresh in my mind.
3 - I hate being told what to do by all the vocal Labour supporters around me.

Doubt there would have been a coalition, simply a vote by vote partnership on policies that line up. Labour still had a fair few policies the SNP would not have backed (Trident for one).
 

RedShift

Member
Hear, hear!

Fuck the UK if we legalise fox hunting. Foxes are awesome, and bloodsports are simply disgusting.

Yep.

Well actually, no fuck foxes. My parents kept chickens while I grew up, foxes took loads of them. Plus they make terrifying noises in the night. Foxes suck.

But wanting to hunt them down with dogs and rip them apart for fun is absolutely vile.
 

PJV3

Member
I voted for the Tories due to 3 reasons.

1 - I didn't want the SNP to get in a coalition with Labour.
2 - All the mess that Labour created under Blair and Brown is still fresh in my mind.
3 - I hate being told what to do by all the vocal Labour supporters around me.

The first two are valid, the 3rd one is a bit odd.
I will vote how I like regardless of what people around me think or say one way or the other.
 

Audioboxer

Member
Yep.

Well actually, no fuck foxes. My parents kept chickens while I grew up, foxes took loads of them. Plus they make terrifying noises in the night. Foxes suck.

But wanting to hunt them down with dogs and rip them apart for fun is absolutely vile.

Well, I do support farmers/anyone like yourself having the ability to defend livestock/crops, that is a different matter that only affects select foxes/animals. However going out of our way to hunt down docile foxes not bothering anyone and slay them is a terrible thing to legalise.
 
Iain Dale was tipping Dan Jarvis too - or at least telling people to keep an eye on him.

And Lammy reiterated after his win his desire to run for London Mayor. IMO that could be good for him - he's young and that's the most significant directly elected position in the country. A good stepping stone to Labour Leadership?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
My increasingly powerful feeling is that what the left needs is the next Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher. Someone with the political clout to drag the current framing of political debates--which is still currently unabashedly right-wing--back towards the left, and what progressive politics can achieve. The problem with looking at the current electoral map and trying to figure out how a genuinely progressive voting platform might have done is that since 1979, political discourse in this country has been framed almost exclusively by the right wing. When the Labour party start talking about how to balance the budget and bring down the deficit, they've lost the debate. They arguing against an opposition's lies, so it's an argument in bad faith, and the Tory party can just turn around and 'a-ha!' them--'the Labour party doesn't even try to dispute the narrative that the deficit was too high...' etc.

Attlee would never work in the modern political era. He had no clout at all. When Labour won the election in '45, the Times had to run a front page header explaining who precisely the Labour leader was. Many Labour voters hadn't even heard of him. The man was quiet and unassuming, and famously terse and Spartan in speech. He didn't win his election victory on the back of great oratory, that's for sure. Our greatest Prime Minister, yes, but not because of his electioneering but in spite of it. Looking for recipes to success by approaching '45 is a terrible idea, that's just not the political context. Honestly, you should be mentioning Blair. Not ideologically, but certainly politically.

Labour can't run "Look, we ran a deficit in the period after 2007 because when public spending falls, that's also bad for public income because one man's expenditure IS another man's income, therefore we increased government spending to prop up incomes to prevent mass unemployment", even though it's reasonable and in all probability correct, because they would be savaged by the press, who, in contrast to the views of Cyclops and vcassano, do very clearly still hold a strong degree of influence over the views of the nation. You try running that argument to the Sun (read by 12 million people, probably representing a quarter of the electorate) and see how well they report it. That's not a realistic option.

Labour needs something akin to peak Alastair Campbell. Malcolm Tucker's not the subject of one of the greatest political satires for no reason.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Or the tories could finally push too far and the political pendulum swing back hard. I try to be an optomist, Nobody likes a bitter depressed socialist(not accusing you of being one).

I'm absolutely a bitter, depressed socialist. Why wouldn't I be after yesterday?

Attlee would never work in the modern political era. He had no clout at all. When Labour won the election in '45, the Times had to run a front page header explaining who precisely the Labour leader was. Many Labour voters hadn't even heard of him. The man was quiet and unassuming, and famously terse and Spartan in speech. He didn't win his election victory on the back of great oratory, that's for sure. Our greatest Prime Minister, yes, but not because of his electioneering but in spite of it. Looking for recipes to success by approaching '45 is a terrible idea, that's just not the political context. Honestly, you should be mentioning Blair. Not ideologically, but certainly politically.

Labour can't run "Look, we ran a deficit in the period after 2007 because when public spending falls, that's also bad for public income because one man's expenditure IS another man's income, therefore we increased government spending to prop up incomes to prevent mass unemployment", even though it's reasonable and in all probability correct, because they would be savaged by the press, who, in contrast to the views of Cyclops and vcassano, do very clearly still hold a strong degree of influence over the views of the nation. You try running that argument to the Sun (read by 12 million people, probably representing a quarter of the electorate) and see how well they report it. That's not a realistic option.

Labour needs something akin to peak Alastair Campbell. Malcolm Tucker's not the subject of one of the greatest political satires for no reason.

I should clarify that when I mention Attlee, I don't mean as a personality, I mean for his government's success in completely rewriting the political rulebook in favour of social democracy--the same thing that Margaret Thatcher did for neoliberalism.
 

PJV3

Member
I'm absolutely a bitter, depressed socialist. Why wouldn't I be after yesterday?

I am too, I lived through the 80s so I hide it well.

At some point things will change, im hoping the eu referendum will burst some of the boil.

Apologies for double post.
 

Audioboxer

Member
To be fair there was also Labour supporters saying ed would need to cut a deal/was being foolish to rule it out.

I didn't have a problem with the idea.

They were definitely going to cut deals, Ed saying he'd flat out refuse to work with the SNP was just chest thumping to try and appeal to any anti-SNP voters in England. But it was never going to be a coalition, just an effort to lock out torry policies. I personally, as an SNP voter, think that would have been good for England. However Ed was a pretty terrible leader. Hence, Labour cost themselves a lot of votes, not us up in Scotland.

I can't say I'm not interested to see the battle that may unfold now. It will be entertaining to say the least. Nicola still sticking to fighting the Torries - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32672244
 
Didn't have a problem with the idea either. At the end of the day it will still be two UK parties governing the UK.

There isn't a mandate for another independence referendum.

But if there were to be one by 2020 the yes vote would walk it.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I should clarify that when I mention Attlee, I don't mean as a personality, I mean for his government's success in completely rewriting the political rulebook in favour of social democracy.

He did that from office, though, not outside of it. Same for Thatcher. You're looking at the problem backwards. You need to win an election first, which goes back to the conversation we were having yesterday - face of Blair, soul of Miliband.
 

PJV3

Member
I'm fine with killing foxes for pest control, but to make it a sport where people have fun trying to kill something...


I remember one of the hunts going through people's gardens, and the stinking attitude of the huntsmen.

At least the national trust won't allow it on their land.
 
Heh Alister Campbell was successful because he was representing a candidate that people liked when before all the other stuff. I mean he was obviously very good, but he was working with Waitrose ingredients and, say, Rose's like cordial, not Tesco value.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Heh Alister Campbell was successful because he was representing a candidate that people liked when before all the other stuff. I mean he was obviously very good, but he was working with Waitrose ingredients and, say, Rose's like cordial, not Tesco value.

I agree, but that was a response purely to the 'narrative' point.
 

Audioboxer

Member
Didn't have a problem with the idea either. At the end of the day it will still be two UK parties governing the UK.

There isn't a mandate for another independence referendum.

But if there were to be one by 2020 the yes vote would walk it.

Now, probably if it's Torry business as usual. I was optimistic about a potential labour/SNP vote by vote partnership that would see more progressive politics in the UK actually mending the broken relationship with Scotland/Westminster. Keeping Scotland in the UK is as simple as keeping the people happy and confident that we can work together. If the Torries don't do something about that they're handing Scotland independence on a plate.
 

PJV3

Member
Heh Alister Campbell was successful because he was representing a candidate that people liked when before all the other stuff. I mean he was obviously very good, but he was working with Waitrose ingredients and, say, Rose's like cordial, not Tesco value.

How's your head this fine day?.

I want a glass of lime cordial now.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Look at all you posh wankers with your posh cordials.

What you should actually be partaking is the rather fine Waitrose pomegranate and elderflower cordial.
 

PJV3

Member
Look at all you posh wankers with your posh cordials.

What you should actually be partaking is the rather fine Waitrose pomegranate and elderflower cordial.

Tell cyclops it's special and he will pay 200 quid a glass if he's drunk enough.
 

Walshicus

Member
I voted for the Tories due to 3 reasons.

1 - I didn't want the SNP to get in a coalition with Labour.
2 - All the mess that Labour created under Blair and Brown is still fresh in my mind.
3 - I hate being told what to do by all the vocal Labour supporters around me.

The SNP are great though, why wouldn't you want any of that?
 

Calabi

Member
Yes. But I'd go further, being a bit cynical. This is a way of understanding national finances that makes taking resources away from the poorest and neediest necessary, not desirable, or morally just. You don't need to grapple with the consequences of taking away Child Benefit for people with 3+ children, or telling cancer sufferers they have to seek employment, if you believe that it's the only opton to keep the lights on.

In my family there's a lot of sceptism about the benefits system (and we are not rich, I assure you), but I'd been able to fight back pretty effectively with real examples until this line of argument was plastered everywhere. Trying to explain the principles of economics to a 70-year old man who struggles to understand that just because one person from a particular background he interacted with was nasty, it doesn't mean they all are, is not something I have any interest in doing (he voted UKIP, as he has done at every election since 2010).

I think this attitude is endemic, because of the way we are taught at school. Facts are just forced down our throats like we were in factories. No examination or critical thinking of that information, in fact it's frowned upon.

It makes everyone very susceptible to outside influence. It makes the perfect citizen for our fear induced societies.

I cant see this position lasting long though, lies only get you so far, for so long. I see the Tories getting in as a good thing. There's going to be no excuse this time, no blaming the opposition. The conservative position will be debunked. It's just sad a lot of people are going to have to suffer in the meantime, but that's the way these thing's always go.
 

Ding-Ding

Member
I'm absolutely a bitter, depressed socialist. Why wouldn't I be after yesterday?



I should clarify that when I mention Attlee, I don't mean as a personality, I mean for his government's success in completely rewriting the political rulebook in favour of social democracy--the same thing that Margaret Thatcher did for neoliberalism.

That is just not going to happen. Both Attle & Thatcher were able to move the centre of politics because of the events around them. With Attle's government it was a country in desperate need of rebuilding after WW2. Thatcher was able to because of the complete disaster of socialist Britain in the 70's. So unless something drastic happens, the political centre is not going to move, no matter who is Prime Minister.

Pushing left will only turn middle England even further away from Labour. At the end of the day, Labour have to take note that they haven't won an election in 40 years with anyone to the left of Tony Blair. Now that says alot
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Blair was our Clinton, so the analogy isn't bad at all.

EDIT: Fuck it GAF. I'm p drunk right now but I'm going to run for Parliament in 2020. You watch me.

I'm sobering up and I'm still standing behind this.
 

Cyd0nia

Banned
I'm sobering up and I'm still standing behind this.

It would be the right sort of reaction for the disenfranchised public to have. UKIP and the SNP, though very different in the respectable stakes, owe a lot of their recent success to the infectious popularity of their movements and the active on the ground support of people entering politics for the first time. Didn't one constituency up there elect a twenty year old or something? Edinburgh west was won by a new entrant, a business exec who felt she had to act after the referendum etc.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
You were drunk at 11am?! Crumbs, Crab - Cameron isn't that bad!

No, I had spare drinks left over from results night so I thought I'd neck them and it ended up being a slightly more ambitious proposition than I expected so I had to go ly dow and GAF.
 
It would be the right sort of reaction for the disenfranchised public to have. UKIP and the SNP, though very different in the respectable stakes, owe a lot of their recent success to the infectious popularity of their movements and the active on the ground support of people entering politics for the first time. Didn't one constituency up there elect a twenty year old or something? Edinburgh west was won by a new entrant, a business exec who felt she had to act after the referendum etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/snp-mhairi-black-20-labour-student-mp

Youngest MP since the 1700's.

I'm going to go take the logo off my avatar, then listen to the Bugle and drown my sorrows tonight in wine.

We'll see how the next 5 years go. I hope the public can argue back on the more unlikable parts of the policies that have already been announced and will be announced, but I'm not optimistic.
 

Cyd0nia

Banned
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/snp-mhairi-black-20-labour-student-mp

Youngest MP since the 1700's.

I'm going to go take the logo off my avatar, then listen to the Bugle and drown my sorrows tonight in wine.

We'll see how the next 5 years go. I hope the public can argue back on the more unlikable parts of the policies that have already been announced and will be announced, but I'm not optimistic.

I'm wondering which of their awful policies (stuff like the snoopers charter, leaving the ECHR, reintroducing murder sports) they'll be whipping through and which they'll allow genuine votes of conscience on. Maybe we need to identify the true libertarians and socially responsible people in the party and start canvassing them now, along with those in the house of Lords.
 

cjp

Junior Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePz-l6wge94

Nope, just a return of the feel good factor. Tangible things such as an uptick at work, maybe overtime getting offered, low mortgage payments, comments from friends and family and whatever breeds confidence. Labour were in charge when the misery came, and the Conservatives weren't. Luck? Maybe, but that's how it is. Labour couldnt get their message across or even eat a sandwich. If the Conservatives cock it up and they bring the feel bad factor Labour will get back in.

Politics.

The feel good factor being that families are £1600 a year worse off than 2010 or that a million people are now reliant on food banks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom