8 reasons Labour has a good chance of an overall majority

21st January, 2014 7:00 am

There was a flurry of panicky tweets early last week when Labour’s poll lead dipped to 3 points with ICM and YouGov. These were from a mixture of good Labour people who are genuinely nervous about the party’s prospects, and professional commentators who would have egg on their face if Ed Miliband becomes PM because they have talked him down so much, so are looking for polls that confirm their gloomy prognosis.

In the event the “dip” turned out to be a 24 hour wonder, or perhaps just sampling error, as no fewer than seven different opinion polls have been published in the last four days, all showing better Labour leads than the rogue two, with Ipsos Mori showing a lead of 9% – this from a pollster who had the two main parties level-pegging in October.

The general trend over the last year is that Labour’s lead is gently going downwards, which is to be expected given both the start of an economic recovery and the usual pattern of government recovery after the mid-term, as any government will try to take the most unpopular decisions during the period furthest from an election.

But there are a number of factors that lead me to be to think that whilst the General Election is going to be close fought, Labour is still set to be at least the largest party and has a good chance of an overall majority:

rosette_vote.jpg

1. The negatives that pessimists raise are already factored into the current poll figures. Yes, Ed Miliband is seen less positively than the party as a whole (with the opposite being true of David Cameron and his party) and voters are optimistic about the wider economy (as opposed to their own household finances), but both these questions get asked at the same time, to the same people, as voting intention questions, and the same voters still give Labour a lead.

2. Labour doesn’t actually need an opinion poll lead to win the General Election. Differential turnout and distribution of votes round the country means that a dead heat on 35% each, the worst poll finding in the whole of 2013, would leave Labour just 3 seats short of a majority and 38 seats ahead of the Tories. This is because the Tories pile up majorities in high-turnout, safe rural seats, which is of no help in a First-Past-the-Post voting system. This may be unfair, but it’s the system the Tories campaigned to keep in the 2011 referendum.

3. Labour is doing better in the key marginal seats that will decide the election than in the national polls, according to both the individual seat polls commissioned by UKIP and Lord Ashcroft’s mega-polls of voters in marginals.

4. The fundamental strategic shift that will probably determine the outcome of the 2015 General Election occurred in May 2010 when a large slice of the 2010 Lib Dem vote switched to Labour in disgust at a party they had been sold as being to Labour’s left going into coalition with the Tories. Short of the Lib Dems collapsing the Coalition and putting Ed Miliband into 10 Downing Street before the General Election, nothing is going to happen that will shift these people back to the Lib Dems. And they are certainly not going to vote Tory. This group of voters appears to be the most enthusiastic about voting, and voting Labour, of any in the electorate. Their realignment to Labour by itself puts us within spitting distance of winning.

5. Four party politics with UKIP as a major player means that the vote share needed to win is lower than in 2010. UKIP probably won’t get the highest shares they have had in polls in a General Election, but they will get substantially more votes than in 2010, from a variety of sources including non-voters, but hitting the Tories more than Labour by at least a 2:1 margin. My personal guess is that UKIP will get 6-8% of the vote (compared to 3% last time) and at least two parliamentary seats. The threat from them in previously safe Tory seats will panic the affected MPs and play havoc with allocation of campaigners and cash by the Tories. It could also throw a number of long-shot seats back into play for Labour by splitting the anti-Labour vote. Between now and the General Election the 22nd May Euro Elections mean UKIP will remain the big political story, with momentum renewed from fighting what is their best set of national elections, and the Tories thrown into further internal turmoil as a result. Whilst Labour just has to be itself to keep the defectors from the Lib Dems, the Tories can’t reposition themselves to win back UKIP defectors without adopting a harshness of tone that will alienate centrist voters.

6. Whilst the rise of UKIP may be partly reversed, it must mean that the Tories can’t do better than they did in 2010 when they got 36% of the vote. Where would any new Tory voters come from? And so one of Labour’s tasks, beating them on vote share, becomes easier. Ditto, locally in each marginal seat.

7. The movement since 2010 has mainly been between the Lib Dems and Labour and the Tories and UKIP. There hasn’t been much direct shift from Con to Lab. This sounds bad but it also means that there is minimal scope for traditional swing back to the Tories between now and polling day i.e. the share Labour has is a lot more solid than at similar stages in previous periods in opposition because it consists almost entirely of people with zero propensity to vote Conservative.

8. Don’t get sucked into making silly comparisons with the run-up to 1992 or 1997. Labour’s inflated mega-leads in opinion polls then were in a period when there wasn’t a major fourth party and when polling methodology was completely different and fundamentally flawed because it didn’t take enough account of differential propensity to turnout or people embarrassed to say they were Tory. 2015 is going to be a sui generis election because of the coalition so park all the historical analogies.

So my advice is, read the polls, but read all of them over a period of time. Don’t panic and keep canvassing – the most useful way you can react to a bad poll is not to tweet about it but to give more help to your nearest target marginal constituency.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Monkey_Bach

    9. The Conservatives are sectional, dishonest, malicious, and unconscionably cruel, deliberately targeting the pain of cuts in expenditure on the most helpless and vulnerable citizens in society, and the Liberal Democrats irreparably damaged by their association with that party and tacit endorsement of its policies.

    Eeek.

    • BillFrancisOConnor

      Now look I’ve told you before-this has to stop. I wholeheartedly agree with you once again.

      • treborc1

        Then press the reply on my name other wise it looks like your speaking to the other Welsh Person Monkey bach.

    • NeilMc1

      Sectional, dishonest, malicious. Have you ever heard of Brown, Blair, Balls etc. The most venal bunch one could have had raping our once great country.

      • BillFrancisOConnor

        Another abusive ranter (devoid of any argument whatsoever in this case) has migrated from the Telegraph. Watch the ‘up’ vote tally spiral ever upwards.

        • NeilMc1

          Hardly a rant now was it. I know the truth always hurts, but really, try to retain some sense of balance.

          As they say, “If you want to make a libertarian angry, tell them a lie. If you want to make a socialist angry… tell them the truth”

          • rekrab

            Balance? has this country ever had a justice for all attitude?
            Seems to me that the great capitalist systems broke the world and their idea on how to mend it, is take from the poor while the greedy fat bankers still on the wall laughing their heads off.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            But you put forward no argument or evidence to support your claims whatsoever. You’re not a UKIP supporter by any chance are you?

          • treborc1

            Socialists on here maybe one maybe two, sadly not to many they are mostly closet Tories dreaming of the return of Blair.
            As is most of the new Front Bench

      • Danny

        “The most venal bunch one could have had raping our once great country”.

        Have you heard of a lady called Margaret Thatcher?

        • treborc1

          That is the problem most of our young have not, but a hell of a lot know the Other Thatcher Blair., and most of them are not joining political parties and a lot are not voting, and h who can blame them.

      • treborc1

        When the fecking hell has this country been great, what you mean invading other countries, if that makes us great then Germany must be tops, they tried to invade the world.

        What has made the UK great was formation of the NHS, Education and the welfare state and both labour and the Tories have spent the last thirty years trying to destroy it, Blair tried to flog off education the NHS the post office the Royal Mail, and now the Tories have an open mandate to do the lot

    • treborc1

      They took on Labour mantle then as the party who dislikes the poor the sick the disabled after Brown decided the middle class needed a tax cut so he gave them some tax from the poorest with his supposed tax fiasco only it was not a fiasco it was to try and get the middle class vote.

  • swatnan

    Good advice from Luke … but read it and then throw it away. The fact is nobody knows what will happen; its all in the air; there are too many unknown Rumsfeldt Factors to contemplate. A couple being the electorate still haven’t forgiven Labour for Iraq, or for the 2008 Banking Collapse. Yes, the Economy is recovering despite the efforts of Osborne and Balls to wreck it. Mystic Meg has as much chance of hitting on the right result as the political pundits.

    • leslie48

      Be careful what you wish for -as the horrors of Syria continue this ‘holocaust’ of gassing, torture, murder and bombing of children and women civilians will come back to haunt our socialist movement when we voted in Parliament to sit on our hands despite the evidence of massive crimes against humanity. Those non-interventionists sit in the ruins of the worst war crimes of the 21st century in their false victory of stoping the allies and siding with Putin. Surely the Labour Part’y’s worst hour.

  • uglyfatbloke

    Regional differentials are extremely important and FPTP does have a profound efect, but it’s not just a tory issue. If – as is most likley – there is a ;No’ vote in the referendum any further devolution will be kicked into the long grass and the gnats will benefit accordingly. They may only get a handful of votes in terms of UK turnout, but they may well get 40% of the vote in Scotland, in which case they will benefit from FPTP in much the same way that Labour has for generations; Bear in mind that 40% (ish) of the vote has given Labour 80% of the seats. That has never been quite as important to building a Labour majority as many people think, but it is not insignificant.
    Additionally, the glib-dumbs may be facing losses ij England and Wales, but they are staring at a thorough drubbing in Scotland given their mindless race into a coalition with Cameron; those ministerial cars and salaries are very likely to cost the glib-dumbs dearly.
    Economic recovery – and I’ve yet to be convinced that that is quite as assured as the tories seem to think – will benefit Cameron in England, but the more chance there is of a tory majority, the better the gnats will do.

    • John Ruddy

      Cant see the SNP doubling their vote 6 months after a No vote.

      • rekrab

        Cowdenbeath by-election on the 23rd, should be a labour hold but lets see what the swing is, if it’s over double figures then the yes vote come September is really well and truly on.

        • John Ruddy

          Both the by-elections last year showed a swing AWAY from the SNP and TO Labour. We gained Dunfermline.

          The Swing in Donside was 9%, and the SNP spent £85,000. They’re not spending anything like that in Cowdenbeath. There will be no swing to the SNP there.

          • rekrab

            John, of course there will be a swing to SNP , although I’d expect labour to hold.

            Lets wait and see?

          • John Ruddy

            Why would there be a swing to the SNP – when there hasnt been a swing to them in the last two by-elections, and the opinion polls show a swing to labour for Holyrood elections and they are running such a poor campaign there?

          • John Ruddy

            Or indeed, any SNP victory in any of the last 16 council by-elections in Scotland.

          • rekrab

            Jeez! steady more double negatives than two right feet.

          • rekrab

            Given Rachel Reeves I’m tougher on the unemployed than the Tories article yesterday and John Denham post a short time back, I’ll add a bit from that ” My model proposes a flat rate student entitlement of nearly £15,000 that each English student gets towards the cost of their education. This would bring the average total fee for a three year degree (to cover the remaining costs) down to below £10k – the same as when Labour left office. A two year degree would cost just £5000 in total. And an employer backed degree would cost the student nothing.” Labour is really on the verge of creating the absolute elitist education policy ever.Where the vast majority of straight 5 A’s students still come from the private sector, so they’ll most probably snatch the employer idea of paying the fees and Rachel’s idea of creating basic maths and English testing will close the door on otherwise workable jobs for the doers as the bosses seek in favour of thinkers. Reasons? there’s to many to mention here.

          • rekrab

            If you think Scotland has got behind labour then I say think again, the Dunfermline election was about getting rid of a bad man, these forthcoming election are about free school meals, jobs, not many want to swallow the bitter pill of “one nation” labour and many are unhappy that a labour MP is doing the Tories ground work.

          • John Ruddy

            Firstly, Dunfermline wasnt about getting rid of a bad man – he had already gone.

            Secondly, what about the swing against the SNP in Donside?

            Thirdly, no one on the doorsteps in Cowdenbeath are talking about the issues you seem to think are important.

            Fourthly, the SNP are running their campaign on the basis of its a vote for independence. Almost guaranteed to fail.

          • rekrab

            John, normally a by-election is held with an ex- holder moves or sadly passes away.

            John, I’ll reiterate! lets wait and see how big the swing from labour to the SNP is.

          • John Ruddy

            The swing was a massive 11.2% from the SNP to Labour. Biggest swing to an incumbant in a by-election to the Scottish Parliament ever.

            SNP vote has collapsed.

            And lets not forget, this was always going to be a Labour hold – so getting our vote out was always going to be tough.

      • uglyfatbloke

        I do understand the rationale, but I have grave doubts about it. If the No campaign can offer a really convincing package on further devolution then I think you’re right, but if not…and there’s no sign of it….I think the situation is a good deal more precarious than most people expect. A No vote is very likely to make all the party hierarchies feel that they can put devolution issues on the back burner, which is what happened after 1979. It worked then, but I don’t think it will work again.
        Also, there is a tendency to compare apples with pears – or possible even apples with spanners. The gnats have been pretty competent at government in a broadly social-democratic kind of a way. We’d probably be better to compare the results of the last Scottish GE, not the last UK GE, so the gnats would n’t have to do anything like double their vote, just retain the kind of vote they got at the last Holyrood election. FPTP can be a curse when it is n’t a blessing and a lot of seats which looked totally safe in the past may well be in play come 2015.
        If it looks like Cameron might win it will be hard struggle to convince the electorate that getting 40 labour MPs from Scotland will be very useful especially bearing in mind the performance of Scottish MPs in the Thatcher days .which was not exactly inspiring…and the current crop are not exactly inspiring either I’m afraid. Every time Ian Davidson opens his mouth a few more party membership cards go in the bin.
        On top of that the Scottish glib-dumbs are headed for a very bad election indeed. One (or possibly two) will fall to Labour and they’ll keep Carmichael and -probably – Kennedy. The rest of the glibs are most likely to be gobbled up by the gnats and they have no chance of making any gains. .

        • John Ruddy

          As the No campaign has said, it is not for them to offer a vision of extra devolution – it is up to the parties. The Lib Dems have already set out theirs, Labour will set out its at the Scottish Conference in March and no doubt the Tories commission will report in due course.

          I very much doubt that it will be put on the back burner – for one thing Labour is well aware of what happened in 1979. For one thing, there are already plans in place for further devolution to take place in 2016.

          As for the Lib Dems seats – well, they have 11 at the moment, and although they will lose a few, I suspect they will keep more than many people imagine – partly because of the split opposition. My feeling is they will have 5 – 8 seats. Yes some will fall to Labour – some may well go to the SNP, but there are also some that are ripe to go back to being Tory seats.

          • uglyfatbloke

            I think that’s all – or at least mostly – perfectly possible, I’m not so sure that it’s probable. I’m aware that some of the brighter elements among the Scottish tories are resigned to having no MPs after the next GE (oh how sad) and are concerned about getting their vote out to the level of the last Scottish GE. I’m also told (I have zero knowledge of gambling in any form really)that bookies are pretty confident that the gnats will make (relatively) a lot of gains. I quite agree that it is not really for BT to offer a prospectus for devolution, but I think the wider electorate may not see it that way.
            I doubt if the tories will have anything constructive to say, so no change there.
            As for vote-switching among tories, and glib-dumbs… if there is a No vote (and I think there will be) it would be no surprise if some voters turn out for the the gnats to keep other parties out – and vice versa of course – but most of the electorate are not really that aware of the situation in their own constituency, but more so of the wider picture.
            We are seeing a more practical approach among Labour leaders – notably Ed Balls’ willingness to talk about currency-sharing and I think that will play well with the electorate, whereas consistent hysterical numpty-ism from the tories, the glib-dumbs and some (not so many as all that) Labour MPs does not help at all.
            I suspect a lot of Labour MPs, activists, advisers are not really very aware of the post 1979 aspects and I am certainly aware of several people who have simply closed their eyes to it.
            Whether all of this makes that much difference is another matter. The gnats won’t ever go into coalition with the tories and are likely to be – broadly – supportive of a Labour programme for government, as they were in the nid to late 70s.
            Of course the situation could change radially. If Ed were to adopt FFA and dump Trident the gnats would n’t have a leg to stand on; ion fact if the original Holyrood set-up had included FFA then George Robertson would have been right and the gnats would have been killed ‘stone dead’.
            There is still a general assumption that most who vote gnat for Holyrood will turn to Labour or the glibs ot the tories for Westminster elections. I’m not convinced that this is still the case, or that it should be relied on. A ‘No vote may actually harden the gnat vote simply because a lot of people feel that as long as there is a strong gnat threat there will be more devolution, but that the No vote has ruled out actual independence, so voting gnat would be ‘safe’ in terms of the wider Union. They might even be right.
            Regardless, there’s no room for complacency and some cause for concern. Even if the glibs hold on well in Scotland (and they might) all may not be quite as rosy as we might think, especially if it looks like the tories may win or even just be the largest party. The performance of Scottish Labour MPs in the Thatcher/major years – and to some extent the Blair years too – (accepting moving the maritime border for instance) was hardly the stuff of principled politics. and the most visible and voluble elements of the party in Scotland are not what you’d really call leadership material are they?

  • Doug Smith

    “UKIP will get 6-8% of the vote (compared to 3% last time) and at least two parliamentary seats.”

    If so it’ll be a mega-payday for me at the bookies.

    To ‘up’ the UKIP vote (and therefore divide the anti-Labour vote as well as boosting my chances of a big win) Miliband should offer a referendum on the EU. Otherwise Cameron’s main campaign slogan in the marginals will probably be a very effective appeal to EU sceptics: “Vote UKIP, get Labour.”

    • John Ruddy

      Not sure how that slogan will play. In Lord Ashcroft’s polling, he asked UKIP voters how they would vote if their vote meant there was a Labour Government.

      The vast majority said it wouldnt change how they voted.

      • Doug Smith

        My money’s on Miliband offering a referendum in the run up to the general election – once the campaign is in full swing he’ll soon realise which side his bread is buttered on.

        • treborc1

          Does Miliband eat bread my god he’s one of us but Butter bit of the posh side

  • Hugh

    As things stand, that’s about right. However, it’s less hopeless for the Conservatives than this suggests because, first, it’s perfectly possible UKIP could implode or supporters vote Tory, given a choice between that and Labour, and, second, because it is about the marginals and swing voters who, by definition, can be swayed. That’s where the extra Tory support could come from.

    The idea that the Conservatives can’t poll more than the 36% of the last election is undermined by the fact they polled 40% and over during their first six months in office.

    • Doug Smith

      “UKIP could implode”

      That’ll only happen if Farage himself ‘implodes’ – UKIP is a one man show.

      • Hugh

        The fact Farage is less popular than his party suggests that’s not altogether impossible. However, I don’t think it’s true anyway: closer to the election scandals involving UKIP candidates would hurt the party.

        • Doug Smith

          UKIP can expect to harvest a decent-sized protest vote. Most UKIP supporters I know don’t expect Farage/UKIP to have all the answers, they’re just sick to the back teeth of the LibLabCon.

          • Hugh

            Again, I don’t think that really addresses what I wrote. Yes, as things stand UKIP look like getting a decent vote. However, there seems little reason to doubt a few stories near polling day that, for example, showed UKIP candidates or Farage himself to be as venal as voters take the other party’s politicians to be would wipe out a fair chunk of it. Likewise could bad infighting – or any other number of causes.

            Assuming UKIP’s final vote will be more or less what it is now over a year before an election seems foolish.

          • treborc1

            That’s the problem with UKIP they get the protest vote all over the country not in one place so the vote goes up sadly it does not win MP’s

      • treborc1

        I think most parties are one man, bad leaders poor leaders and the party is nearly always sunk. People will be voting at the next election on whether the leader can take us forward, and that has to be a worry for labour, the party is ahead in the polls, but the leader and whether he is trusted on the recovery the economy is a bigger issue.

      • BillFrancisOConnor

        Isn’t a case of there being only a place for one comedian at the top of the party where some of the others think there may be space for two or three?

        • treborc1

          Miliband Balls and Reeves three real comedians and the other lots well Cameron Osborne and Gove, is that not the problem we have two parties who are all better off on TV telling jokes, then running a country..

  • philwoodford

    There are a lot of sensible points here. If we can believe the polling in the key marginals, that’s obviously a big plus for Labour. And the point on first-past-the-post is well made. Number 8, however, is very off beam. Polling was very accurate in 1997 after the fiasco of 1992. A lot of work was done by research organisations between those two elections. A more chilling comparison, I think, is with the 1987 election. Miliband’s lead now is broadly comparable to Kinnock’s at an equivalent point before the 87 poll. So while I can see all the logical arguments here, there’s something in my water that says I don’t quite believe it. If Labour goes into the election trailing on the economy and with the electorate having more confidence in Cameron than Miliband as a leader, I’d be very surprised if the result were an overall Labour majority.

  • david trant

    I live in a rural seat, I’m not sure the Tories can necessarily depend on those votes, if talking UKIP is the same as voting UKIP they’ll get a landslide here.

  • PaulBurgin

    I think we have a chance of winning, a good chance, but that if we do it will be a slim majority of less than 50 and that we cannot take anything for granted. As Luke said we need to keep on canvassing! Plus as Hugh said, UKIP could implode! I doubt their recent activities will encourage people to join them!

    • Graemeyh

      I agree with you but “a slim majority of less than 50”. In 1979 Thathcher had a majority of well less than 50, which was considered quite healthy. I think huge majorities are a thing of the past.

      • John Ruddy

        Her majority was 44. Quite satisfactory for doing the business she wanted to do.

      • robertcp

        I hope so. Big majorities mean that the governing party can do just about anything.

        • Danny

          Don’t discount the impact of a self-destructive Progress influence. The minute Ed wants to do anything the Blairite’s don’t like, the Lord Sainbsury whip may appear more powerful than the party whip to a significant portion of Labour MPs. A 40-50 majority will then not seem quite so strong.

          • robertcp

            Good point. We might find out a lot about some MPs and parties in the next Parliament.

          • treborc1

            You can see either Progress at work or Brown at work with the 46 labour MP’s who did not bother voting on the so called Spare room tax

    • rekrab

      One things for sure there won’t be any new restrictions on party funding come 2015, although labour could indeed have taken a shotgun to both feet within the next 5 weeks, imploding? could be the buzz word for some party but you’d be naive if you thought the deals and spending between the Tories and UKIP don’t exist.

      • treborc1

        Well labour funding depends on the Unions and the labour party agreeing which deal they can do for MIliband to keep face.

        Not forgetting the Unions has to take this back to the membership, or I hope they do.

    • treborc1

      Bit like Brown and the BNP takes people minds off the non policies people will think we have to vote labour, it did not work for Brown it will not work now the UKIP vote is not real.

  • Kevin T

    Number 2 is a little dishonest, isn’t it? The reason Labour could win a majority despite getting only slightly more votes than the Tories is that Labour’s seats tend to be smaller and contain fewer voters. I’ll grant you the Tories should have made it priority 1 to get that changed and their failure to do so is their own fault, but Labour is extremely dishonest about this.

  • simon1970

    This is surely one of the most complacent pieces of writing I have seen in a long, long time. There is a lot that can still happen – and articles like this do nothing to encourage the work necessary for any party to secure a victory.

    Keep up the wishful thinking and Labour will be out of office for many years to come.

  • wycombewanderer

    All bets are off until Len publishes his manifesto for 2015.

  • markfergusonuk

    Constituency size isn’t the cause for 2, it’s differential turnout

    • Steve Stubbs

      If that we true, then there would have been no point in opposing the changes proposed in the boundaries to even up the size of constituencies, would there? Kevin1 is right, that whole paragraph is very one-sided.

  • kle4

    I don’ tthink Labour deserve to win a majority in 2015, but I think it would be very complacent for Labour’s opponents to not take into account points like the above. It’s just very easy for them to get a majority as things stand.

  • NBeale

    Sigh! It is a MATHEMATICAL NECESSITY that the party which lost the last election will be doing better in the Marginals than in the country as a whole. If the C Lead at the last election was 7% and the Labour lead is now 6% then the Labour Lead in the Marginals will be about 13%. Obvious when you think about it.

  • robertcp

    As Luke says, the Tories campaigned to keep first past the post, so it is tough luck if it works against them.

  • robertcp

    It could be argued that before 2010 the first task of an opposition party was to make sure that the election was not held after four years. Kinnock failed to do this in 1987 but I do not think that Cameron would ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament this year even if he had that option.
    Of course, Kinnock lost again five years later in 1992 but this result was actually unusual. Governing parties lost power in 1929, 1964, 1979, 1997 and 2010 after Parliaments that lasted longer than four years. Labour won in 1950 but with a majority that was too small for a full Parliament.

    • philwoodford

      Yes, fair point. So you’re saying Miliband must be in a stronger position than Kinnock, because you couldn’t imagine the Tories risking going to the polls in 2014 if they were able to do so. The counter argument would be that the government is intrinsically weaker in 2014 than in 1987 because it is formed out of two unlikely coalition partners and doesn’t have a large Commons majority. In those circumstances, it should have been rather easier to have them on the ropes, but I don’t think Labour has really managed that. It’s a stupid ‘what if…’, but if David Miliband had been elected, I actually believe that Labour might have exerted enough pressure for the coalition to have imploded before now.

  • reformist lickspittle

    The polls were not that accurate in 1997 – most overstated the Labour lead (and did so again in 2001)

    Polling methodology *is* less favourable to Labour now than it was then. This is simple observable fact.

  • treborc1

    Unemployment is dropping and the recovery is on going and getting faster.

    Yes labour is winning.

    yes but workers are £1600 worse off under the Tories or course the Tories will say who’s fault is that, labour will say well vote us in and we will make sure you get a better deal, but your going to have to tell us what that deal is, because we all know the rich got richer under labour and the poorer got poorer.

x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit