You are here: Home » News »

David Miliband lectures to return

February 13, 2012 11:13 am

Tags:

Share this Article

There’s a great scoop from Amber Elliott over at Total Politics this morning, as she reveals that David Miliband and Jon Cruddas will be continuing their series of “Labour’s future” lectures in the coming weeks. According to Amber:

“Among the expected speakers are Liberal Democrat peer Shirley Williams and Will Hutton, who was commissioned by the prime minister and the chancellor to look into fair pay. The seminar involving Hutton, and chaired by Miliband, is entitled: “How did we get into this mess and how do we get out of it?” Another topic up for discussion is “Know your enemy: how the Conservative Party wins and holds on to power”.

Last year, the first series of seminars were described by some as a sign that the older Miliband was inching his way back to frontline politics. Insiders say they are designed to “stimulate debate within the parliamentary Labour Party”.

You can read the full story – and see the full lecture list – here.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure the Miliband lectures will be of great benefit to all who can stay awake for them. He’s certainly very shy these days – the first time he has made a pronouncement for a week.

  • Anonymous

    Fair pay depends on who’s pay your talking about you lot thought £3.20 was fair.

    How did we get into this mess, what your asking us or your telling us, because it was you lot that made this mess only if your 50% to blame.

    banking and the banking culture can be taken back to Thatcher, but the culture of the bonus payments are down to New labour it got out of hand and you did nothing to stop it saying we did not like people getting rich.

    My worry of course these lecture can be used to undermine the leader of labour by putting forward your own idea of how to deal with the mess.

    Less said right now and allow the leader who is Ed to show us what he can do, if he fails then David and Cruddas will not be taking over I suspect

    • Anonymous

      ”
      My worry of course these lecture can be used to undermine the leader of labour by putting forward your own idea of how to deal with the mess.”

      That worries me, too. The ghastly old waxworks creeping back into the limelight. I found the David Miliband/Jon Cruddas double act one of the most unconvincing and contrived partnerships ever.

      • Anonymous

        Especially as Cruddas seem to like the Limelight  but refuses to take on the battle of leadership, he has been offered many time to take on a position within labour refusing, he has gone from new labour to old labour to newer labour and now he back to New labour. Bloke must be dizzy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-OConnor/100000837891021 Joe O’Connor

    This is surely an important part of the internal debate we need to have about moving on from New Labour and the past. It is  a welcome development in my view.

    Alan: re your post on Saturday regarding Liam Byrne and the Welfare Reform Bill.
    Your proposition that Byrne is actually in favour of the Bill while pretending (in public) to be against it would hold more water if Labour MPs (including Byrne himself) and members of the Lords are not uniformly voting against it. Presumably their actions are part of an elaborate and self conscious attempt to  deceive the public? If not I think we can assume that Byrne and Labour in general are against the Bill- no? 

    • Anonymous

      ”
      This is surely an important part of the internal debate we need to have about moving on from New Labour and the past”

      Come off it Joe, David Miliband IS New Labour, and I hope part of the past.

      On your comment about Byrne: he seems to change his mind according to who he is trying to impress at the time. He is both for and against the Welfare Reform Bill – fair enough, if he and you find that a credible position to take, that’s OK by me.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-OConnor/100000837891021 Joe O’Connor

        Every time you comment on Byrne’s position you change your position. So is your current position that Byrne is neither for or against the Welfare Reform Bill. If so this would completely contradict all that you have said (above) about this subject previously -no?

        Interestingly your position is less flexible when it comes to ‘New Labour’ which you seem to have very carefully and clearly located and defined. Wasn’t ‘New Labour’ a historical moment/movement in our party’s history whose primary purpose was to win elections in the late 1990s and early 2000s by courting more affluent people in the country? IMHO  like ‘Blairism’ it has become a term of abuse and refers to a political moment in the party that is quite clearly over. To purloin a phrase from John Cleese it has shuffled off its mortal coil. It’s time for everyone in the party to move on.    

        • Anonymous

          OKnow tell us what makes Ed Labour different from New labour.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-OConnor/100000837891021 Joe O’Connor

            you’re anti-Labour full stop. What the hell does Ed Labour mean? -Absolute rubbish!

        • Anonymous

          Joe I am only repeating what  Byrne himself has said : when asked if Labour would support the cap on benefits he replied “yes we will” (didnt you watch the video on LL from Newsnight?) , in the past he has made encouraging noises about Purnell/Freud’s reforms, then he suddenly did a volte face last week, even though we all know people with terminal illnesses were being denied benefits WHILE LABOUR WAS IN POWER!. You have got to be consistent – it’s like being “a bit pregnant – untenable.

          I think Byrne really doesn’t believe anything – he just says what he thinks expedient.  I’m beginning to think B yrne mjust be a relative of yours!

          Finally you say “ ’Blairism’ it has become a term of abuse and refers to a political moment in the party that is quite clearly over. To purloin a phrase from John Cleese it has shuffled off its mortal coil. It’s time for everyone in the party to move on.”

          It became a term of abuse because of the lies and deceit and moneygrubbing of Blair and some of his most fawning acolytes, most especially Mandy,  I hope sincerely Blairism is over – but try telling that to the likes of D Miliband, John Rentoul who tries to revive the putrified corpse on a practically daily basis, and several “Labour” MPs  and former MPs  - and not least the writer of  that potty article on LL today warmly recommending a new prawn cocktail incentive. Tell THEM  Blairism is dead – but break it to them gently. As T.S. Eliot wrote “humankind cannot bear too much reality”

        • Anonymous

          Joe: Here is an example of Byrne trying to have his cake and eat it. You must forgive the cliche’ ridden script (several mentions of “the squeezed middle” and “hard-working families”, a few warm words for pensioners and for some reason a family “with degrees” who will suffer – I suppose their degrees make their suffering worse than it would for the less intelletual. It get’s interesting round about 1’55″.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wORAyvdzug 

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-OConnor/100000837891021 Joe O’Connor

            Yeah watched it Alan. It sounded like an unequivocal attack on the Bill. Perhaps you should watch it again.
            I can’t see an ideological problem with Labour standing up for the Middle Class as well as those who are the worst off in society. 
            In your comments above you seem to have conflated ‘Blairism’ with ‘New Labour.’ In my view the former didn’t really exist and simply served as a term of abuse. The latter was a conscious political strategy primarily aimed at winning votes in the prosperous South and South East of England. One could argue that much of the current leadership of the party were closely associated with ‘New Labour’ whilst being implacably opposed to Blair himself, eg Ed Balls.

            Finally, you accuse Byrne of inconsistency while you yourself have proposed at least 3 radically different interpretations of Byrne’s position in  the space of 3 days. Hardly a model example of consistency.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-OConnor/100000837891021 Joe O’Connor

            Yeah watched it Alan. It sounded like an unequivocal attack on the Bill. Perhaps you should watch it again.
            I can’t see an ideological problem with Labour standing up for the Middle Class as well as those who are the worst off in society. 
            In your comments above you seem to have conflated ‘Blairism’ with ‘New Labour.’ In my view the former didn’t really exist and simply served as a term of abuse. The latter was a conscious political strategy primarily aimed at winning votes in the prosperous South and South East of England. One could argue that much of the current leadership of the party were closely associated with ‘New Labour’ whilst being implacably opposed to Blair himself, eg Ed Balls.

            Finally, you accuse Byrne of inconsistency while you yourself have proposed at least 3 radically different interpretations of Byrne’s position in  the space of 3 days. Hardly a model example of consistency.

          • Anonymous

            What better way to demonstrate Byrnes inconsistency?

            If he had proposed 3 identical interpretations he would have been undermining his own point.

            In that video Byrne says they don’t oppose over 3/4 of cuts the government is making. Is that a clear and unambiguous attack on the bill?

            I guess you’re easily pleased/fooled.

          • Anonymous

            Joe there is none so deaf and all that. Byrne tells Paxman (BBC2`) and Dermot Mernahan (Sky News) that Labour won’t oppose the benefit cap, then he did a volte-face by suggesting there should be regional benefit caps. Both interviewers suggest to him he is being opportunistic. Then he seems to suggest that there should be a time limit on ESA – but 2 years rather than one. He generously suggests this to help those with cancer patients  (which of course we would all agree with. But he seems to overlook the fact that there are people suffering from life-threatening conditions which will not magically disappear after 2 years (serious uncontrolled Epilepsy for example) – so what do thy do after 2 years?. I know somebody with this condition and ever since Purnell’s reforms (endorsed at the time by Byrne) he has been worried by every brown envelope that comes through his door.

            Don’t forget Purnell’s “reforms” saw a lot of people ATOS considered well enough to work and were put on JSA not ESA, even those who were terminally ill.

            That was shameful and that was a Labour measure, and no amount of clever word play can disguise that.

            Also of course remember both Labour and Conservatives have used the services of the same political hussy  (D Freud), so it is the height of hypocrisy for Labour to pretend that it is nothing to do with them. I repeat when Purnell bought in these measures Byrne was supportive – every time he appeared on Radio 4 and was asked about it, he never suggested that there should be regional variations etc.

            Byrne now wants help for the “squeezed middle” (whoever invented that inelligent term must have been drunk when they did so) yet Byrne was the man who left a note to his successor David Laws saying “there is no money left…good luck”. How can anyone take such a clown seriously.

            My impression is of a man who will change his tune when it suits him, and many of his interviews are contradictory.

            As regards your remarks on Blairism and New Labour: it is virtually the same thing. Blair crammed his cabinets full of cronies and yes-men, and all from the same wing of the party – with a couple of token left wingers Frank Dobson and Clare Short who were derided by the gang whenever they spoke out. It was as if Blair was the playground bully, and the likes of Byers, Hutton, Milburn, Reid, Blunkett, Straw etc held the coats. Then of course you had Mandelson and Campbell with their briefings

            To the extent that Blair run a cabinet full of like minds, Blairism is New Labour and New Labour is Blairism. Talk of “The Third Way” and all that tripe.

            If “Blairism” is a term of abuse, that is because Blair himself is now seen as a deluded,  selfish, egotistical greedy man with his eye on how to make money for himself. Also, of course, Blair is the first PM to be interviewed by the police – under caution – while in office.

            Labour should be ashamed on him

  • Anonymous

    S.Williams and W.Hutton are people I greatly admire.

    But perhaps, being “progressive” is not the preserve of one group
    over another- this needs to be a broad debate about future direction.

    Sounds a good event.

    Still have great reservations though generally about “camps”
    within the party- I’d like to see all pulling together.

    Jo

     

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-OConnor/100000837891021 Joe O’Connor

      What camps? There aren’t any! 

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps “wings” would be a better description.

        There’s been a massive amount written by ex Blairite ministers via the media over time, and regular  prominent commentators.

        I do think the right wing of the party has been extremely vociferous-
        eg towards the traditional elements within the party; also espousing fears that we’re going too far left etc; when most people don’t actually perceive that at all.

        From the outside, that looks like a power struggle, and trying to seize an agenda; or perhaps settling old scores.

        All of this would be fine if it was everyone working together,
        and open discussions- but I’m not sure if that’s actually happening.

        Ultimately Joe, what I’d favour is a more plural approach of centre left thinking, and creation of a wider movement- not one small grouping,
        or harking back to the halcion days of New Lab etc.

        I think events have moved on a lot, and so have the people.
        It would be good if the best elements could be combined, not “owned,”
        for the sake of the party as a whole.

        These are just my impressions.

        I’m also in favour of the Refounding process, bringing more of the members
        and public supporters on board with policy ideas; not for it to be a purely academic exercise or bubble/elite.

        I may be way off the mark- but am open to discussion if civil.

        Hope that explains a little more.

        Jo

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          Jo,

          not trying to hijack your own very thoughtful views, but your mention of “Wings” got me thinking.

          I was listening to this earlier, and it got me thinking.  This is the message Labour should send.  The video I link to is old, and seems out of date.  But the lyrics (the poem, the message) is fresh.  It is a message of hope and solidarity, and is classless, apart from saying that we are all there to support each other,

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8smO4VS9134&feature=fvwrel

          • derek

            Nice song! shame about the written attachment?

            Here’s a hope tune! 
             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28AVCRnoA80&feature=related

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Derek,

            I know the lyrics are associated with the city of Liverpool and the football club, but I don’t care about that (Liverpool St Helens FC is the second oldest rugby union club in the world, I’m not talking about league, and to me of far greater interest than anything happening at Anfield).

            The aspiration is both soaring and grounded.  I’m not trying to suggest a new anthem for Labour (I’m not even a member of the Party), but maybe a way of thinking that is inclusive – you’ll never walk alone – but also considering of responsibility for caring for others less fortunate. An offering, not a demand.

          • derek

            Aspiration alone isn’t enough? Jaime and we certainly not in this all together.

            Someone from Liverpool, once said’ as soon as you born they make you feel mall’ by giving you no time instead of it all!!!!!!!

            In fact here’s me and one of my twin boys making a belated show of solidarity. 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            You should have told the man in the middle a joke, or pinched him.  Anything for an expression!

            Perhaps he was in his “miserable” period, or maybe Yoko had told him he was on the sofa that night.

          • derek

            I couldn’t? John had wax in his ears…LoL!

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Yes well, wax or not, he was cr*p after the Beatles.  Divorced himself from the McCartney ability to make some meandering thoughts into a good song.  His loss.

          • derek

            Paul was a bit too conservative and hell bent on marriage.

            I notice in your first post you refer to inclusiveness? do you really believe that this recessions austerity measures are being dealt out inclusively?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            I also thought Marianne Faithful was better at this song.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N_rNz2oAGA

            She’s got a very good band though, 7 instruments and lots of post-production, which I don’t think Lennon ever had.  Marianne Faithful seems to me to be the musical equivalent of Polly Toynbee*.  You can’t ever think of her as a horny handed daughter of toil.

            * Mars Bars notwithstanding. I think Polly would sue at the very suggestion of Mars Bars, fur wraps and a police raid.

          • derek

            She give it some, nice Hi-hat, steady bass high tone, broken cords and melodic guitar and key boards, slightly jazzed riffs, over all nice delivery but did she get it?????? can you name the 5th and 7th instruments?

          • derek

            One man and one instrument but a powerful delivery, Hmmm, Hmmm the damage done!!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0t0EW6z8a0 

          • Anonymous

            OK thanks Jaime.

            Sentiment appreciated.

            J

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-OConnor/100000837891021 Joe O’Connor

          Jo 
          As someone who lived through the party divisions of the early’80s when the party really was divided between warring facions my own feeling at the moment is how extraordinarily united the party is.
          However, in order to move forward we clearly need an internal debate and this is what is happening at the present time.
          You will see above that I don’t recognise the term ‘Blairite’ as having any meaning. It was and is a media invented term which was then transformed into a term of abuse to sling at the sections of the Labour Party leadership. 

          IMHO   in order to win again we must make some kind of appeal to the reasonably well off sections of the population. The party has always been a broad church and disposed of any intentions to rip up capitalism in the early 1920s. It’s time for everyone in the party to properly face up to these 2 factors.

          • Anonymous

            Joe: Just because YOU don’t recognize the term “Blairite”, it doesn’t mean it is not definable – the journalist John Rentoul frequently describes himself as “a Blairite” and these means praising Blair at the expense of Ed Miliband. Just one example for you. You can find his Indep-endent blog easily enough if you want to.

            Allen in his article yesterday pined for the days of the Prawn Cocktail circuit, Alex Smith joined in by wanting Labour to be more acceptable/palatable to big business.

            The truth is the chairman of Anglo International Widgets  (hope no such company exists) is unlikely to get the vote Labour posters up in his Sunningdale mansion (his chauffeur probably votes Conservative as well) but certain sections of the Labour party want to spend time and energy pandering and cajoling these people who are never likely to support Labour, at the expense of its core and natural voters who have deserted the party in droves over the past several years.

            If to make “Labour” more acceptable to the City, it wants to be a right-wing party, so be it, but they will have to accept they will lose an awful lot of support elsewhere in the party.

            There seems little point in trying to become the Conservative Party, when it exists already

          • Anonymous

            Hi Joe, thankyou for one of the most helpful and constructive explanations I’ve yet seen on this topic.

            If I may explain a litte of my background and thinking.

            I have not been involved internally with the party at any time- although always a Labour supporter, and feel very strongly about “Labour values.”

            Have been becoming increasingly disillusioned and somewhat disenchanted with mainstream politics over recent years; but I’ve always managed to hold out some hope
            that the party can change, and become more in touch with the relevant concerns of ordinary people; show some backbone in dealing with the important issues, and not merely for opportunistic purposes or positioning for electoral gain.Maybe I hope for too much.

            But especially in the current times- post 2008, I think there has been a crisis of confidence- but also a turning point and opportunity.

            I have a hunch that there are many people out there who want politics to be more meaningful, and are totally fed up
            with the rhetoric and platitudes; media hype- but without much depth or nuanced dialogue- involving people!

            There is an impression of helplessness given out, as we listen daily like passive recipients to the news on the economy;
            public services being dismantled, vulnerable groups more sidelined, poverty increasing, unemployment sky rocketing,
            young people’s life chances being stifled.

            Also, I find it ludicrous that the public are just supposed to sit back and accept whatever diet of topics is fed to us- when there is so much of crucial importance that should be being aired, and treating us like equal partners in some kind of democratic process. 

            It’s politicians and the media- that’s it.
            No involvement from frontline staff on the receiving end of drastic “reforms,” the unemployed, poor, disabled,
            mentally ill, young, old, abused, etc.

            The only place these voices appear to have any kind of representation or part in dialogue is via unions in the workplace, charities, community groups,and some research and good clips from the BBC.But aren’t all these arenas under some kind of threat in themselves- eg funding and resources?

            Anyway- sorry going off on a tangent here, but the point is- I think particularly at grassroots’ level of political parties and within communities- there are real bread and butter issues which should be influencing the narrative and agenda- in meaningful terms and language.

            I’ve been more inspired by Ed M, and do believe his heart is in what he says.But I do get very frustrated by the impression of big party machine and the “output”
            which seems to be more about catching headlines than having a real conversation?

            I think many of us got fed up towards the end of term of last Labour administration; I really was hoping for genuine reform- and that may still be possible over time.
            One of the keys IMO is involving members and public supporters in policy direction and process every step of the way- but something transparent and open.

            Too long a post again- sorry.

            Regarding possible factions and groupings within the party,
            I’m going very much by what I’ve read from some of the
            ex ministers from right wing of Labour- and prominent media commentators.

            This is all OK in my book if above board
            and a genuine dialogue between all sides and interests,
            hopefully with some common ground and aims.

            It’s how it’s done- not necessarily the content or substance of debate.

            Much as I’m not that keen on the phrase “squeezed middle”
            I do thing there’s a lot of truth in that- but maybe it has to be redefined and explained, that it actually means most of us-
            not those wealthy enough to survive any economic downturn.
            But, vitally also not to alienate our core suporters-
            I think was a big mistake over time.

            I think Labour has to be very clear as to what it is about
            and who it is representing; what are the key issues- for people.Not merely basking in the shadows or jumping at any opportunity; but developing its own distinctive narrative and redefinition.I think it will need something different from before, but drawing upon the best that has been acheived.
            For me, it’s about a more pluralist and outward looking vision and a centre left movement- not a continuation
            of hovering in the middle ground or lurching further to the right.It’s more about pragmatism and values I believe.

            Cheers- and thanks for bearing with me thinking these things through.

            Jo.
            .

      • Anonymous

        Joe you are very naive! Certain people come out of the woodwork to give interviews or off the record remarks about your own leader, and that isn’t a camp or a wing?

    • Daniel Speight

       I’m afraid I can’t share your admiration for Shirley Williams Jo. I know there has been a rehabilitation of the Limehouse Gang of Four by New Labour, but that doesn’t excuse her or the others, in my view, of the betrayal of the party that nurtured their political careers.

      Their split was done in such a way as to cause the most damage possible to the Labour Party. And why? Because they couldn’t get their own way inside the party and rather than fighting their corner they went off and started their own party. The damage done by Militant seems rather minor when compared to what they did.

      I do look at the similarities between them and some of those criticizing the present leadership from the wings. I wonder if David Miliband fancies a change?

      • Anonymous

        Hi Daniel- thankyou- this is interesting, but not something I’ve ever been aware of.I’m simply judging how I’ve seen things, particularly over the last few years.I’ve heard some great discussions, eg via R4 and the BBC, with
        some of these “veterans” from all parties- who seem to be more in a position now of being able to take an independent view, which is more nuanced and personally I find much more engaging.Eg- from R.Hattersley, D.Steele,S.Williams, and a few Tories who seem more willing now to have an adult dialogue.Possibly when ministers are in their frontline role they have big constraints about what they can say- but that I think is what can make it all so dull and unconvincing.

        I don’t know of the history you mention;(but am impressed by some of you guys!)- all I can say is, I’m very grateful to SW for her input on the health bill, showing principle, backbone, steely determination- and open and upfront in public debates.

        On another note- I don’t understand what appears to be some kind of ambivalence or hostility between some within Labour and the liberals- and vice versa? I’m hoping there will be many who share left of centre ideas and principles who can put differences aside for the sake of a genuinely alternative agenda in future years for this country.

        I honestly believe there are many who would identify with this position,
        but representation at the current time seems almost to be a vacuum;
        eg compared to the liberal conservative consensus.

        Thanks again- I enjoy the informative blogs.

        Jo

  • Anonymous

    Nobody was taking notice, he thought Ed was making to much of a show winning three PMQ’s so had to remind us all he still here ready and waiting.

  • http://twitter.com/joshfg Joshua Fenton-Glynn

    I remember being shocked to see how many around Progress supported the Labour joining a coalition with the Lib Dems after the last election.

    Perhaps David Miliband has made the assessment that Mandelson seemed to after the last election – “we are now entering the days of coalition” – and are courting figures who are influential within the Lib Dems in the hope that if the next election leaves us with another unclear result then David will be the only person the Lib Dems can do business with, alowing a putch in which oridnary members and affiliates don’t get a say.

    My suggestion is that this tactic is folly as the Lib Dems will be so hopelessly weakened that they will be in no position to dictate terms.

    Anyway those are my thoughts

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    By Chris Williamson

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    By Owen Jones

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    By Ben Shave

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    By Ann Black

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →