Is now the time to bet on Labour?
March 14th, 2005
-
Has it all been set up so Gordon can come to the rescue?
Anybody thinking of backing Labour on the Commons spread markets should do it before the budget while prices are at their current levels. Because the perception is that Labour’s campaign is going poorly there’s been a steady decline in the party’s price which is now 9-10 seats down on the end of January.
The current spread prices are totally out of kilter with what the opinion polls are saying. The Martin Baxter seat calculation based on his “poll of polls” is showing a Labour majority of 130. Yet the spread prices have slipped to the point where the predicted majority is barely 60.
IG Index spreads are LAB 350-356: CON 198-204: LD 68-72.
Spreadfair has LAB 352-354: CON 197.2-202.9: LD 68-69
On Thursday morning, the day after Gordon Brown’s budget, it could all look so different and this surely will be reflected in the prices. The Chancellor, who has been keeping a very low profile, will almost certainly present a budget that’s designed for the moment and will form the basis of the final seven weeks of this campaign - assuming May 5th is, indeed, the day.
-
Gordon Brown has been waiting a long time to become Prime Minister and he’s not going to blow his chances on Wednesday.
The transformed Tory machine under Lynton Crosby is going to face a real test dealing with Brown’s reminders of HIS successful management of the ecomony and HIS pre-election goodies. And, no doubt, all the Tory points about cutting waste to fund things will be trumped by what the Chancellor says.
If you are going to bet on Labour - now’s the time.
General Election odds round-up.
© Mike Smithson 2005
MessageSpace Advertising
This is where Labour start to hit their peak. The health of the economy and the economy of health. My own personal opinion is that the tories have jumpped the gun a bit. With mrs Dixonx shoulder for example, surly that should have been brought up close to the date of an election. If Micheal Howard uses any more ‘cases’ now he will be seen more and more as cynical. Also he really can’t stick on tax and immigration as the election approaches as they will be chracterised as being two trick pony’s.
Agree with the statement mike buy Labour.
PS how sucessful where the spreadbets in the past, i personally feel thatthis time they will be some way off as the average punter will bet on how he percieves the campaign rather than how it is actually going.
More to the point Mike - you are buying into the media hype about Lynton Crosby. As I pointed out a few weeks ago the most he managed in Australia in 96 is to not blow the Liberal’s lead which they had had since late 94. The most he has managed so far here is to not blow the Con’s second place. For all his mythical skills, Crosby has managed to keep the Conservatives on 32% in the polls. Sure he’s a reasonable professional, or else he wouldn’t get hired - but wizard?
Tom - last time the spread markets finished up slightly understating Labour (4-5 seats). But you are right - people bet on perceptions and these have tended to be against Labour in the past few weeks. My argument is that this will change for a while following Wednesday.
Graham - the Tories are “only at 32%” in the polls as you say because you refuse to accept the MORI February figure. But both the Populus and ICM figures would have Labour leads of 1-2% less without their “spiral of silence” adjustments which I don’t agree with.
I could also attack YG because their sample is weighted up so that 56% of those responding said they voted Labour last time against the 42% who actually did. We can all attack methodology and both of us are good at using numbers to support our case.
Bob Worcester of Mori came out of the 2001 election saying that something had to be done about the pollsters ongoing over-statement of Labour. His solution with his polling company was to include just those saying they are certain to vote. We’ll see on May 6th whether he’s right.
About Brown’s future, anyone thinks that all these talks about being his last budget (The Telegraph yesterday with an article how blairites have assured that he’s his last budget, but also teh Guardian that had a sort of “save Brown article” is not wise for Labour. If Blair wants to suck him, he should do after the elections without anticipate it. If they start with the “if we have a strong majority he’s out” they could push some Brown fans between voters to stay at home and try to give them a reduced majority.
The tories should try “vote us to keep Brown” slogan instead of “vote Blair, get Brown”.
Re 1. See your argument but it’s flawed. To get to the public you must get a simple message and keep parroting it for a long time. As Blair did in 94-97 Educashun. educashun, tough on crime tough on the causes of crime etc. As for going too early well they had no choice vital to lift your own actvivists spirits before the fight because when it actually kicks off it’ll be too late to gee them up.
1 - not sure how Mrs Dixon’s shoulder could have been brought up closer to the election. She might have had the operation by then!
Andrea. I’m not sure you can take anything the Telegraph say’s this close to an election as anything other than Conservative party propaganda.
About Crosby. I tend to agree with Graham. So far we have seen nothing more than a few stunts. There is a big difference between a stunt that gets you press coverage and a serious campaign that taps into the zeitgeist of the country.
Maurice Saatchi though not averse to the odd stunt knows the difference more than anyone. His “Labour isn’t working” worked because it articulated a national mood. Howards fat lady with a sore arm failed for the same reason. There is a danger in the Tory tactics at the moment that they tap into a national perception that Michael Howard is an opportunist.
Hi,
Sorry to tap in to a different argument, but just wanted to say I love the website. I have been coming on for a couple of months now and I have decided to begin my political betting career today! Of course I will link back to this site.
But as a novice I wondered - which of the companies do you recommend? Do I have to join them all for the best bets? Plus this idea about buying and selling Labour now. Do you just out simple bets on, or can you buy and sell them to other people to make money before the elections etc? I am little confused on that.
James
Mike. I would love to get into a debate with you over this - but I have to get to work and our new internet blocker thingy doesn’t like your site
My point is that all of the pollsters have been showing the Tories between 31 and 34% in the last 3 or 4 weeks, with the exception being MORI. That is almost the same pattern as last time (2001). Polling organisations don’t historically get the Tories half as wrong as they get Labour wrong. The Conservaive Party’s ‘relative progress’ has come entirely through the Lib Dems and not through anything they or Lynton Crosby has done. More to the point, their strategy of targeting the core vote will probably hamper them rather than help them get out of that box, as it reinforces the stereotype that the ‘anti-conservative’ 60% have of them. They are praying for a differential turnout. The problem for the Conservatives is that if turnout goes up in a negative campaign (a la Bush / Kerry) the underlying state of the polls - which is even more loaded against them - (see MORI) will mean they will get murdered.
I said about 3 months ago that I thought the Tories needed to start moving the dial on the polls if they were going to get anywhere. I feel they needed to have shifted into credit by now. The truth is that although they have solidified their vote, so have Labour. FPTP will do the rest.
I admire Andrea for getting his post [4] past the spam filter…
And it’s likely that Gordon Brown (probably the greatest self publicist anywhere) will show everyone how it should be done this week. He has kept deliberately kept a low profile and allowed the crowds to build up knowing that this would enhance his grand entrance. By doing nothing he hasn’t only elevated himself above the pettiness of the last few weeks but by Wednesday we may all be wondering why we’re not voting for him. (At least that’s what he hopes!)
10 - quite!
Did anyone see Rory Bremner’s skit on Jilted John’s wonderful 1978 smash hit “Gordon is a Moron”? Brilliant …
Obscure fact: - is not Jilted John now known as John Shuttleworth?
Graham - even on a conventional reading of the effects of turnout. a high turnout isn’t necessarily bad for the Tories; because the effect may be mostly noticed in safe Labour seats ie. high turnout=reduction in pro-Labour bias in the system.
I think Mike’s argument is simply that in 2001 the pollsters (ICM who were most accurate) were factoring in a slight reduction in the Lab-Con lead due to their spiral of silence adjustments. Since these adjustments are now serving to increase the lead then it is reasonable (if you don’t believe their is a ‘Labour’ spiral of silence) to think that the Conservatives are being understated/Labour are being overstated compared to 2001.
11 - it’s simple Roger
We want him running the economy, not someone else. Now unless he’s going to find a way of combining the jobs of PM and Chancellor together…
Gladstone did… but even Gordon might find it a bit tiring I think.
10- Ops, I just realized what I wrote.
James [8] As far as spread betting goes I think it is a good idea to open several accounts with different companies. Most will quote the same markets and this way you can shop around for the keenest quotes. Good luck!
Graham. Sorry about your work filter. This is quite common - any website with “betting” in the title sometimes get blocked. I have problems with my Vodafone GPRS service which I use to maintain the site when I’m away. Suddenly it blocks out PB.C because of its alleged “adult content”.
18 My work filter is either stupid or sophisticated. I can access this site but not any of the betting sites linked from it.
(17) My thanks for this advice - any more advice is appreciated. I am a gambling novice and I like to be pretty clued up before I start.
What Roger, Graham and the other Labour cheerleaders fail to realise is that the economy is a non-issue at the election, however hard Labour pushes it - it has lower “voter salience” than at any election in modern times. Consequently, voters will look at other areas - where after 8 years - Labour will be found wanting.
21 - Sarah isn’t this the theory that the Republicans used? Also, depsite being far from a Labour cheerleader I agree with them - your lot encouraged people to vote for their self-interest and that’s what they do (and have always done) - if they think you’ll cost them more than Labour will you’ll have to wait …
Let me see if I understand you, Sarah J [21]. The economy wasn’t “salient” in 1997, or rather Ken Clarke’s record at the Treasury wasn’t; then it was “salient” last time when the voters mistakenly rewarded Gordon Brown for Ken Clarke’s hard work. But now they’ve finally realized that they’re incompetent to assess economic performance!
The Conservatives’ average poll rating, of 33.4%, is about 1-2% higher than in February/March 2001. Labour’s, 39%, is about 8%, lower. Obviously, the figures look less good for the Conservatives if one excludes the latest MORI poll, but they look a bit better if one excludes the latest NOP poll, giving Labour a much higher lead than anyone else has recorded.
WRT turnout, Butler and Kavanagh calculate that turnout fell by more in safe Labour seats, in 2001, than in either safe Conservative seats, or of course, marginals - so a higher turnout may not have that much impact on Labour’s seat total.
FWIW, I think turnout will be a bit up on 2001. There are now more people who want to get rid of Tony Blair, and of course, more Labour supporters will be stimulated to help him stay in.
Re: 12 I think BB+F have been very poor this series, but that skit was indeed very good.
Sarah [21] The economy is a non-issue at the election?? I beg to differ - the economy, as usual, is just about the only issue. What sustains NuLab in power and will continue to do so in May, is the lack of serious economic pain in people’s lives. High employment, a general sense of affluent contentment and high, if stable, house prices all contibute to a feeling that while we don’t necessarily like Tony Blair very much he hasn’t actually scared the horses and better the devil you know.
Yes - but without a Tory economic “bogeyman” lethargy will mean Labour voters will not go to vote and Tory voters who hate Blair will!
Sarah [28] Yes I agree there will be an effect that should push Conservative seats seats above 200, but the voters who really matter at this election are comfortably off former tory voters in second grade marginal seats held by Nulab with majorities between 5,000 and 8,000. There simply isn’t the critical mass of discontent to dislodge these MPs. And anyway, how great a result is it for the tories to gain fifty or sixty seats and still only be back where Labour were in 1983?
Gosh, how I WISH what Sarah J is contending would be true. But I just can’t recall any previous election in which the economy, broadly defined, hasn’t been the single most important element in determining how people (most of whom now do not have strong partisan loyalties) actually cast their votes. I’m sure that the ‘trust’ factor in Blair will also be a major element in May - and this will hurt Labour - but the Tories really do have to fight aggressively on the economy, and that’s going to be quite tough.
This is one posting about which I fervently hoped to be proved wrong.
its ok sarah people hate the tories for many many reasons. You shouldn’t have to worry about people that arn’t happy with Blair running out of reasons to vote against the tories.
Recent Election where Economy not main issue? 1997, Booming Britain Lower taxes, and… the Govt loses by a landslide, or Bush edging Gore out at the end of the Clinton boom. Course won’t happen to Blair but maybe an example to show it ain’t always the Economy stupid.
Er, Black Wednesday??
the tories were punished for the early 90’s in 97 so it was an issue
One interesting point would be that if/when the economy turns down (and it is an economic fact that no upswing lasts for ever), how would Labour appeal to the public then?
The economy is usually important. It will, I think, see Labour home on this occasion. It could, though, be a wasting asset, if voters conclude that either of the two main parties could run the economy competently.
Sean, when the economy turns down Labour will be out on its ear quicker than you can say “Just a bit of fun, doesn’t mean anything”
David, I respectfully disagree about 1997 here. The huge tax rises that followed White Monday, in contradiction of the 1992 manifesto (remember the assaults on Labour’s Tax ‘double whammy’ etc etc), meant that the Conservatives’ credibility on economic management was utterly destroyed. The stuff on sleaze, the divisions on Europe etc certainly reinforced the dismal picture, but the economy was pivotal….
Fair point about the 2000 US election but American Presidential elections are by definition far more personalised than here. I do hope Sarah J is proved correct but….
Oops I meant White Wednesday…
37 - the US stock market boom was rapidly deflating, and the feel-good factor eroding, by November 2000.
37, 38 - it took Labour 18 years to overturn a perception of incompetence on the economy. It seems Sarah is catching Lib Dem “wishful thinking” disease.
40 It was longer than that. Almost every Labour government from 1929 onwards faced an economic crisis. One can’t say that Labour were always to blame for these crises (the Great Depression was hardly their fault), the public perception was that they couldn’t be trusted economically. The public perception was that the Tories, by contrast, were economically competent (surprising when you consider the record of Heath’s government for example).
It is a rich irony that White Wednesday, which was so economically beneficial to this country, destroyed this advantage which the Tories had had for sixty years.
George Soros more powerful than Karl Marx
41 - Like the White Wednesday comment. I had always thought it as Black - thinking of the damage it did to the economy. But when you consider the mortal blow it gave to the Tories I suppose white it has to be.
Surely the other way round Icarus. Interest rates dropped sharply, and the economy has grown much faster than the EU average since 1992. It certainly did for the Tories though.
43 - greetings Icarus. Good to meet you in the flesh (Icarus resembles a more mature Brad Pitt for those curious about such things).
Some interesting words from Sarah’s favourite Times journo re the best election result for the Tories: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-1524531,00.html
That article was one of the biggest loads of rubbish i’ve read recently.
45 - Sorry, TS, the link isn’t working. Are you referrring to Parris or Gove or Hames?
Parris, AC. With these coma-separated links (a la Guradian) you have to copy and paste the whole link into the address box in your browser (unless Mike decides to do his magic link edit thingummy).
Whoops - that should have been comma!
Parris was a student Liberal was he not?
I don’t think he was. I remember reading him saying that he once went down to the Polling Station with the solemn intention of voting Liberal, but reverted to the Tories whilst in the Polling Booth. Think of it as a sort of death-bed conversion…
50 AC - au contraire, as they say. From the Horse’s Mouth http://www.libertynetwork.libdems.org.uk/news/8.html
Oops assumed you were talking about Hames.
Sorry Alex, Hames was who I was referring to. Parris wrote the original article. Hames is, IIRC in Sarah’s words, a “New Labour Cheerleader”.
Re links : the simple solution is to use some html - description of link
Oops {a href=”INSERTADDRESSHERE”} link description{/a}
Put < instead of {
GRR. Put “backarrow” instead of {
Alex - is that html?
Interesting article - I’d read a couple of soundbites before but not the whole thing.
Somehow I didn’t imagine that Laws would have been at King’s, but there you go!
<a href=”address of the link”>Textual description of link</a>
Though I’ve had links swallowed on this site in the past when I’ve done that.
Tabman (45) - good to meet you too. Have asked the girls at work who Brad Pitt is - kindest comment was that he is a Git! But I am sure you meant it kindly.
Meeting Tabman gives credence to the polls that show the Lib Dems are attracting the young executive vote. - Not a beard or sandal in sight!
Re The Times: Hames’s article was interesting, but seemed to lack punch. Like many commentators he says the Tories need longer in opposition, but does not say what they need to do with their extended period in opposition. The problems facing the party seem to be manifestly different to those facing labour in 1987. As for Parris’s article, I’m not convinced of his case, as I don’t think there are too many major problems lurking in the next four years. Still time will tell.
As for the linked piece on the Lib Dems, they may have the heavyweight figures, but they do not seem to have the logical solutions. There are still mired in a rehash of 1970s, early 1980s social democracy.
If being in opposition for a long time prepared a party for government, then Charles Kennedy should be getting ready for the Lib Dem equivalent of a Thousand Year Reich.
I would say th economy isn’t always crucial and point to 83, when a combination of ‘Falkland bounce’ and a perception that Labour would have done little better on the issue meant the Conservatives survived after the deepest recession since the war.
61 - surely the implication of the article is that they’re persisting, like Labour with a track towards the hard line when they need to moving towards the centre ground. His thrust is that a 3rd defeat will provide the impetus for a radical restructuring of the party, a “clause 4″ moment if you will, that permits them to build a 40+% coalition.
RE 63. Don’t buy that. Times is Tony’s Parish Paper now. Any so called friendly advice is anything but, given ongoing events between the Times and the Tories.
Re. 63, real incomes were rising for those in work, who were, in turn, concentrated in marginal seats. David Sanders argued convincingly some years ago that the upturn in the economy (if not apparent to the millions on the dole) meant the Tories would have won in 83 even without the Falklands Factor.
Re Tabman 45. The Guardian and Times have comma-separated links which Wordpress - the software on which we run, does not like. If I’m monitoring the site and see one come up I can make it work - but if like today I’m away from the PC, then it’s not possible. You can create your own link using this protocol -
3rd attempt - spam killer not liking me tonight! Sarah has a germ of the truth about it’s not the economy, stupid. As we are all now well able to afford all the food, drink, ciggies, dr*gs, s*x, foreign holidays, kitchens, cars, garden gnomes we want then voters’ mind turn towards more elevating things like fox welfare, starving black children, global warming, mindless hooded hooligans, speed cameras and lots of single issue thingies. It’s a kind of Maslow effect. So maybe Gordon and the Big Blue Budget will not play quite as well as IngSoc hope.
ac post at 62 - lovely thought about Charles Kennedy and the thousand year Reich (sounds like the latest Harry Potter) still, in a week where IngSoc learn the lessons of how to use the Reichstag Fire to crack down on undesirables, what is there left to satirize
Being now dubbed ‘a Labour cheerleader’, I feel a need to put Sarah straight (even though it isn’t true - but hey once there is no way that Sarah will ever believe it I no longer feel the need to try to disabuse her of this).
A good friend of mine once said that there are 2 motivating factors in an election ‘fear and greed’. In his negative way he was making a salient point. People want to feel safe and well off first and foremost (someone mentioned Maslow earlier). These feelings of safety and well offness are created by a combination of factors - the economy, health, crime etc. etc. with the biggest single factor being the economy.
The majority of people, therefore, vote for the party that they *perceive* is going to meet / facilitate these needs best. Whilst the Labour Party maintain a significant lead on that issue, I do not expect them to do badly at the General Election.
YouGov’s poll of 31/1/05 had Labour with a 12% lead on the question ‘which party do you think is more likely to keep Britain’s economy strong - the Conservatives or Labour’ (39%/27%).
O/T - the Other Side has stopped guest postings I note.
The Other Side is deadly boring. It has lost all momentum and had just got so silly. There was one idiot who kept posting the same thing all over the site just to annoy people.
Sorry to sound a jarring note but this budget is being hyped as the best thing since 1997. I personally think it will not be a spectacular success for two reasons. 1) Brown appears to be looking for the long term - always risky - I wonder if this is more to ensure that whoever replaces him (whether he becomes PM or is moved by Blair) has to spend the next 4 years implementing his policies. 2) What giveways there are [such as pensioner council tax reductions perhaps?] will, I suspect be means tested. IMHO Browns enthusiasm for means testing is his greatest weakness. Pensioners in particular hate it. In the long term IMHO means testing puts the welfare state at risk because it penalises those taxpayers who fund it and causes them to resent it.
Finally, has anyone given any thought to when the election after next might be. If Labours majority is less than 30, last Thursdays events give a pointer to life in the next parliament. My guess is a 2007 election.
It won’t necessarily be amazing, but it will be solid and will control the agenda. People don’t love Gordon but the trust him because he is perceived to have delivered a stable prosperous economy. That is the magic ingredient that the Tories still do not have.
David@65 - “given ongoing events between the Times and the Tories. ”
There was a little “clarification” in the Times on Friday that seemed to attract little comment - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1520637,00.html
I don’t if this means they’ve quietly settled, or it is a damage limitation exercise by the Times.
74 - yup. What I find strange is the wild stories the right-wing press is spinning, e.g. 40% tax on house sales. Can they not realise that Brown isn’t that stupid, and if anyone believes them now the effect will be relief with Labour on Wednesday evening?
Anthony. As a ‘Labour cheerleader’ am I allowed to ask if 3rd place enters into Lynton’s vocabulary?
77 - have you still got the reference to that piece about starting in second place Graham?
Sorry Steve. No. Try the New Scientist website - I think they have a lot of archived stuff. Sorry
Re economy not an issue - I think that is a middle class view - We asked some people at work to work overtime - - they dont want to because they are taxed at close to 100% marginal rate.. - So if earn more they lose family credit.. 8 years of a Labour government and we still keep people trapped at the bottom.
73 - The next election may well be June 2009. Parliaments don’t often go the full 5-year term, and 4 seems fairly commonplace. That would take us to May ‘09, but by holding the general election on the same day as the June European elections the government could hope to focus on national issues and avoid a repeat of UKIP’s success in last June’s European elections.
Of course the next election could be in October this year or even earlier. It doesn’t take much movement from current positions to get us into this territory.
You’re only saying that Mike because the German elections will not hold the same appeal for British punters.
Graham - I’m starting a new job after the May 5th election and the last thing I want is another election straight afterwards! Though I do admit that the only elections that really attract UK punters are those here or in the US.
We thought there was going to be a papal election but that looks some way off now.
When I stood in 1992 we considered taking out insurance to cover our election expenses should there be another fight within twelve months. In the end we didn’t - a good election bet.
Two elections in one year really screws party finances - particularly the smaller parties
I was teasing Mike
i don’t think that any of us would want another election so soon. I think it would be exhausting and probably unpleasant. The possibility is there of course, but I wouldn’t put money on it 
Hey, what’s all this about another election ? Just like if wor Jackie and the Toons win the Cup three times they get to keep it (I was there, remember) if I win three elections, I get to keep the ballot boxes
Trust me I’m a regular sort of guy, I know about these things.
labour lead cut in half in tomorrow’s Independent poll
The one good thing Labour did was on their first day - by effectively giving control of the economy to the Bank of England.
Since then, all they have been doing is taxing and regulating the economy - and taking credit for NOT running it.
Now we have the situation where Labour and the LibDems want to break the successful half of the equation by handing over control of the economy to the European Central Bank, whilst amplifying the destructive half by loading on more taxes and employing more and more people in unproductive State administration jobs.
So now the economy is in reality a Tory strong point! because they are the only Party that want to keep the Bank of England’s success going.
I got it right with one of my guesses I am sure 39/34/19 NOP Independent. So really their headline is misleading, because it is well within all the others for the last 2 weeks. The reason for the ‘Tory surge’is because they had them down on 30. The rest of us had them on 32-34 so … Labour still in high 30’s Lib Dems still hovering just below 20. Headline for indy - ‘No change in opinion polls as nothng bleeding happens in run up to election’ would not have been good.
There is an interesting comment in the last para of Curtice’s analysis - something about Labour supporters being hesitant to say - is there a spiral of Labour silence (duh, duh, daaah - dramatic music) developing?
The other interesting thing is the stuff about Tax cuts and the economy. I would be interested to see the questions on this bit, because they seemed good news for the Tories (but I can never find the link to NOP’s poll stuff - anyone - Mike?)
Another little bit caught my eye - the Lib Dems Curtice said are benefitting amongst the womens vote - confirming the NotW poll the other day.
By the way - if Sarah is reading - does the economy not matter now, now a poll shows some encouragement for the Tories?
80 - that is appalling and reinforces my view that means testing is Gordons achillies heel.
90 - You are right Graham, it is an interesting comment and increasingly is looking like the key to interpeting the polls and predicting the election outcome. What does this trend of reluctant labour ’supporters’ tell us? It should be said that the ’spiral of silence’ is a term used to describe a specific phenomenon of people refusing to declare support for a party which they subsequently vote for . People having to be pushed to reveal their preference is not in itself ‘evidence’ of a SOS (although it presumably has the potential to ‘fool’ the adjustment formulas used by eg. ICM and Populus). Anyway there are a number of possibilities for these people - which give very different perspectives on the whole thing.
1) This is some indication of a SOS - Labour support may even be potentially being underestimated.
2) This is an indication of the core Labour vote is illusioned and in danger of staying at home - Suggesting Labour vote may be being overstated but justifying Labour campaign ’scare’ tactics
3) These are people pretty disillusioned with Labour but reluctantly sticking with them until they are convinced by the alternatives, especially the Tories - suggesting that Labour are tentatively on course for victory but leaving the potential for a serious late shift of opinion (labour scare tactics could even be counterproductive in this case)
88 - why not vote Labour or LD then against the euro in the referendum when it happens?
93 - That make sense on an individual level, but is too much of a risk on a big-picture level.
I LOVE” Labour!! How Many People” (That is”) the one’s who allways Complain…..Could Even Begin To Run A Government!……Let Alone All The Tough;’ And Hard Work’ That one Man Has Had to Do!!! Yes, God Blees Mr Tony Blair.!