Unfortunately for Labour, the voters are never wrong

by Tom Harris

The late Jimmy Allison, legendary Scottish organiser of the Labour party, addressed the Scottish reception at annual conference in 1990, just a couple of weeks after I had started work as a press officer. “We won 50 seats at the last election, despite the fact that, unlike England, we have a four-party system,” he proudly told approving and slightly drunk delegates.

That claim jarred with me at the time, and I contemplated it for some months afterwards. There was an error in Jimmy’s logic that, as a new arrival at Keir Hardie House, I didn’t have the confidence or the authority to challenge. Our landslide victory north of the border in 1987 was despite a four-way split in the vote? Or because of it?

Last week settled the argument conclusively. While a dominant party could win seats thanks to the three-way split of the opposition vote, that no longer holds when the multi-party system the proportional voting system for Holyrood was designed to enshrine gives way to a traditional two-party system.

And Labour found itself the victim of a huge tactical vote against it, as former LibDem voters, still reeling from the guilt of putting David Cameron into Number 10 last time, switched entirely en masse to Labour’s main challengers.

Why, then, was the vote an anti-Labour one, rather than an anti-SNP one? Because four years after losing power at Holyrood and a year after the same thing happened at Westminster, Labour is still viewed as the establishment. It is a credit to Alex Salmond that he managed to convince the voters that his party is both the party of government and the plucky underdog.

As the votes were counted in the early hours of Friday morning and I stood in a state of shock as colleague after colleague made their concession speech, I suggested to a party worker that the one, tiny glimmer of silver lining was that Labour’s vote had held up. There had certainly been a political earthquake, but it had occurred under the Lib Dems’ feet, not Labour’s, at least in terms of share of the vote. This was true: we won 0.4 per cent less of the popular vote than four years earlier. Yet in the cold light of the next day, even this modest consolation was shown to be hopelessly complacent. The result in 2007 was a poor one; not to have added significantly to our tally in 2011 was a horrible sign of failure.

So, why did it happen?

Iain Gray has, rightly, taken responsibility for a shockingly poor campaign. One of the many ways in which the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections rewrote the political history books is in the massive turnaround in the polls during the short campaign. This was no 1992, when a slim Labour poll lead vanished and reappeared two or three times during the campaign. In 2011, a substantial and long-established poll lead for Labour continued for about two weeks after the starting gun was fired. And then, without any warning, it was completely reversed. Salmond’s party took a double-digit poll lead. Even worse, the polls turned out to be right.

Undoubtedly, we made a huge strategic error by focusing our fire, not on our actual opponents in Scotland, but on David Cameron. “Vote for the party that will defend Scotland from the heir to Thatcher”, we bellowed. Unfortunately, the voters listened to us and did exactly that: they just came to a different conclusion as to which party was best placed to do that.

And while Labour was baffling the electorate by fulminating against a 1980s hate figure, the first minister was swanning around the country telling everyone how wonderful he was. And he did so without challenge, because Labour was too busy fighting the battles of the past to point out that his administration’s actual achievements were few and insubstantial.

But our greatest folly – not just in the last six weeks but in the last 30 years – has been arrogance and complacency. We believed the media’s description of Scotland as Labour’s northern stronghold, and we believed that would never end. We believed that our being turfed out of power in 2007 was a mere blip, that in due course a penitent Scottish people would realize their mistake and return to us on bended knee, begging our forgiveness and pleading with us to relieve them of their incompetent new political masters.

But here’s the thing about democracy: the voters are never wrong. Ever. And they weren’t wrong last week.

Labour deserved to lose. We insulted the intelligence of our voters by peddling a myth about Tory bogeymen that was utterly irrelevant to Scottish politics. We deliberately changed our manifesto promises to a mirror image of the nationalists’, imagining that, given the choice between two identical platforms, the Scottish people would return “home” to Labour.

And in narrowing the policy differences between the two parties, Labour also – if inadvertently – set the scene for a campaign based not on policy but on personality, a battle few Scottish politicians are capable of winning against as impressive an operator as Salmond.

And because of our complacency, we gave almost no thought to a strategy for winning seats on the regional lists; why bother when we were certain to win the lion’s share of constituency seats? In the event, the additional member seats we won minimised our overall losses, so that we can at least have a leadership contest with more than one candidate in it.

The question of who that leader should be (I know and I’m not telling yet) is secondary to the much more important question: what is Scottish Labour for? The root and branch reform Ed Miliband and Iain Gray announced last week is essential, and that review will have to look at every aspect of our organisation. How do we attract new blood to stand for Holyrood? What polices will make us a distinctive brand while advancing our social democratic aims? What changes do we need at branch and constituency level to become, once again, an effective campaigning party?

And, politically, the questions are even more uncomfortable, chief among them being: why did former Lib Dem voters choose the SNP over a party which shared power with them for eight years at Holyrood? What is so toxic about the Scottish Labour brand that even unionist voters are willing to lend their support to nationalists in order to keep us out of government?

The added irony of last week’s poll, having occurred on the same day as the AV referendum, is that Scotland proved itself more than capable of punishing a particular party without the need for three or four rounds of voting.

Tom Harris is Labour MP for Glasgow South.

Tags: , , ,

31 Responses to “Unfortunately for Labour, the voters are never wrong”

  1. iain ker says:

    The root and branch reform Ed Miliband and Iain Gray announced last week is essential,


    How can Middle England Ed do ‘a root and branch reform’ of the TUCLabour Party in Iceland-on-the-Clyde when the TUCLabour Party in England is running around the farmyard without a head.

    When I see Sturgeon and Salmond (sp?) arm-in-arm I just see a couple of chancers capable of distributing a subsidy (isn’t everyone) but without a clue beyond that.

    If the Iceland-on-the-Clyders believe that their country under its present maladministration will ever amount to anything other than a subsidy-junkie with mass unemployment/underemployment then good luck to them.

  2. Brian says:

    ‘But here’s the thing about democracy: the voters are never wrong. Ever. And they weren’t wrong last week’

    You’ve got that right tom,labour deserved to lose,where I will disagree with you is that you all think the Lidb Dem vote went straight over to the SNP,it didnt,there was a slippage of ‘core Labour vote’ to the SNP,and that does not bode well for the future,the genie is well and truely out of the bottle,how about Labour standing up for ordinary working people,instead of kow towing to big business and the banks

    and Ian Kerr,when I see Salmond and Sturgeon,I see two politicos who routed Labour,I certainly dont support independence,but I recognise the magnitude of the result,this may well be seen to be another early point on the long term decline of Labour in Scotland.

  3. Gregor Addison says:


    If you look at the fact that Labour held up its share of the vote you might deduce from that that there was no great loss for Labour, only a great gain for the SNP at the expense of the Lib Dems. The problem is that Labour did in fact lose ground to the SNP and gain votes from the Lib Dems. So it may be that the Labour vote looks higher than it actually is because those moving away from the party were replaced by Lib Dem voters who filled their place. Certainly, you are right that it is puzzling why more Lib Dems went to the SNP than to Labour. I suspect it may have been because they have lost their political faith, the values they held for years, decades, which were compromised and sold out by the Westminster branch of the party. I expect we’ll see a devolved structure within the Lib Dems in the UK, with a breakaway Scottish branch of the party setting itself up as independent of its Westminster branch. In today’s newspapers the Tories seem to be hinting at doing the same thing. And Lord Foulkes claimed today that he has always been a federalist. That, I admit, made me laugh. But he has perhaps grasped the point that there aren’t many options left. Remember when Iain Gray said it wasn’t about the constitution? Well it is about the constitution. And here’s why…

    Scotland and England have divergent political cultures. Devolution has brought this about and it looks set to continue. The schism between Labour MP’s and Labour MSP’s is partly indicative of this. But to grasp what I really mean, think of the NHS. If Scotland didn’t have its own government, we’d be at risk of having Coalition plans foist upon us. Now why should Scotland suffer for English voters voting Tory? Would it be acceptable that we thole it until they again have the sense to vote Labour? No, and that’s part of the reason the Scottish Government came about – because we did have to thole it for twenty years and more when Margaret Thatcher came to power. So we have devolution and it is not going to go away. But how do we make it work? Or, is independence inevitable?

    A nation is made up of its people. If its people feel they have a democratic right to negotiate the details of their statehood, and have a parliament to hand which allows them to do that, then it should be no surprise that they will exercise their will and vote for a party that furthers their aspirations, rather than vote for a party that will keep them in thrall to an ideal of ‘unity’ which is, in fact, nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. If Labour are to survive in Scotland, they need to offer a vision to the Scottish people that does not tell them, you need to put your aspirations to one side, the English electorate is bigger, and the English electorate do not share your aspirations and priorities. Scottish Labour needs to be Scottish.

    That doesn’t mean that it has to accept independence. But if it wants something less than that, it needs to decide what that less is and if it is enough to stop Scotland splitting away. Lord Foulkes has suggested it is federalism and I tend to agree with that. The party structures need to be more independent but for a Unionist party, or a party that straddles the Unionist divide that is two divergent political systems (Scotland/England), that may not be so easy to achieve. Federalism may help the Scottish party but it will need to be applied in England too. Personally, I’m not sure I can wait. I support Scottish independence because I feel the devolved unionist solution is not going to be acceptable to English voters. Therein lies the problem. Scottish Labour can devolve and seek its own solutions but ultimately, in any Union, you have to ensure the support of your other half. Perhaps Scottish Labour should be filing for separation.

  4. iain ker says:

    Brain says
    May 10, 2011 at 4:15 pm
    this may well be seen to be another early point on the long term decline of Labour in Scotland.


    I think the words ‘early’, ‘of’, and ‘Labour’ are all surplus to requirements there.

    Gregor’s was a bit too long for me to read though I’m sure it was very worthy.

    On that note it would be helpful if all the article writers on here summarised their entire argument in the first paragraph, and then put particularly stupid stuff in the second paragraph.

    Time saver for busy Tories like me.

  5. Gregor Addison says:


    You don’t know what you missed. I don’t do short.

  6. Steve says:

    Gregor Addison uses that old cliche, ‘ a tyranny of the majority ‘

    Dear me, how often do we have to be spouted this nonsense, its basic democracy, pure and simple. But for those who cannot accept any other view then their’s is valid, they resport to cliches like this. Total twaddle. Tom has come up with a simply put but accurately stated analysis. Read it again without the preconceptions.

    But Gregor is right about the need to separate Scotland and England. We are totally different in our views. But remember, that means a permanent tory majority in England, and the effect that will have by default on Scotland.

  7. Red Pedro says:

    One of the issues was the very poor performance in oppostion of Labour in the last session: the SNP were in minority government with one more seat than Labour, but were able to govern as if they had a majority of twenty.

    The seeds of this were sown by the candidate selection system pre-1999; the joke is that we were told (by the sainted Donald) that it was quality control – those rejected were “not good enough”. Instead we got lousy candidates for safe seats: the talent pool was shallow to start and just got shallower as time went by.

  8. Gregor Addison says:


    my point is that Scotland is a minority in the Union and England is a majority. That means that if we vote Labour and England votes Tory, we get Tory. It basically means that we can’t affect change unless England votes for the same thing – so we end up having to thole it until England votes in a way that matches our voting intentions. That’s what happened in the 80s. We voted Labour and got twenty odd years of the Tories. We have them again now. So that is all I meant by ‘a tyranny of the majority’. The further point is that if Scotland want to affect change without having to adhere to the English vote (and England may want to affect change without having to adhere to the Scottish vote), then some form of federal system is needed which will allow that. Either that or we separate. Also, I can’t really read Tom’s article without preconceptions, any more than he could write it without preconceptions. The aim of my writing here is to encourage others to think about the need for a) independence, or b) a federal option of extended devolution throughout the UK. The status quo seems to favour no-one.

  9. Red Pedro says:

    Steve – what do you mean that Scotland and England are “totally different in our views”? That English people are morally and therefore socially inferior so vote Tory? I am sure that is not what you mean, but it is just as surely the case that English people in Glasgow have more in common with those in Liverpool and Manchester and Portsmouth (and those in Somerset have more in common with those in Perthshire) than with each other.

    To suggest otherwise implies a belief that accidents of geography – which cannot be changed – are the problem in society, and not class and economic advantage – which in contrastb we can shape and improve – through politics.

  10. Gordan says:

    A refreshingly frank analysis Tom.

    From the viewpoint in Sheffield (Scotland.South) it looks to me like England just lost the 70’s devolution debate. 42.6% to Taissoch Alex IS Independence; delayed 40 years. Alex will bluff ‘Slick Dave from PR’ as long as he can about a vote date. Will it ever come? The English National Party (Conservative, Centralist & ex-Unionists) are dusting down their old fears of the SLA; a paranoid myth of their own invention, if coloured by their family history in causing Partition. New Labour (Liberal, Centralist & Unionist) seems to have squashed the Co-operative Party (The real Blue Labour; conservative and localist) have paid a very, very bitter price for joining the dark cult of ‘managerialism’ (Tribal Chief Knows Best) ; from Rochdale to Hollyrood. Tony Benn’s portait in Portcullis House looks more relevent by the day. Tony B for President of the ‘Commonwealth of the Isles’?


  11. Steve says:


    Of course the differences in the two nations means that we need to separate, no dispute there. Bear in mind that without the Scottish labour vote the tories would have won just about every election since the war in England.

    Eventually even Cameron will realise the benefits of separation to England in general, and the tories in particular, will outweigh the disbenefits, even allowing for the proportion of oil and gas production that would be left with Scotland under the UN treaties on setting offshore boundaries, which would be a lot less than most Scots (and the Nats intentionally) would have you believe. With only one Scottish tory MP in recent history there is no benefit to Cameron in staying, other than the desire to be the big frog in a bigger pool, something even the English taxpayers are starting to realise has been to their detriment over the years. Once the nation press there get that into their heads watch the independence steamroller roll south of the border. English independence frojm Scotland, not the other way round.

    The UK has fought a number of wars recently to support the right of national groups to self determination, the Scots have the same right, as have the English. Given the Barnet formulas distorting effect on public spending over the years, what proportion of the UK’s current national debt will accrue to the newly independant Scotland? And even given oil and gas income, how the hell will we pay the interest, let alone the principle?

  12. Robert Eve says:

    Think positive. Independence for Scotland means no more Scottish MPs at Westminster.

    What’s not to like!!

  13. Gregor Addison says:

    Red Pedro,

    people in Liverpool and Glasgow no doubt have much in common but that disguises the fact that the institutions which run their day to day lives are not the same. The NHS in Scotland is different because it is devolved. Education policy in Scotland is different because it is devolved. Scots law is different. There are a great many differences which are institutional. Anyone living in Glasgow, whether they are from England, Scotland or any number of countries outside the UK, deal with very different institutions taking different decisions to those south of the border. And it is with those institutions that they engage politically and socially. On a practical level, then, the political solutions to their social problems lies (in many cases) with these institutions and the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. There does seem to be divergent political cultures north and south of the border. In Scotland we have free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, no tuition fees, and so on. Oddly, our Labour party voted against the last two of these. But the leftist SNP have kept the commitment to the NHS and free education, even if Labour abandoned it. We would not have been so fortunate had we no Scottish Parliament.


    I have no doubt that Scotland can be independent and successful. Many small nations, like Denmark, or Norway, are very successful. We would get more oil revenues than we currently get. And our share of the national debt would have to be determined in negotiations for independence. I have read 8% based on population but I am no economist and so I’m sure others will make the running on that argument. Scotland is no economic basket case. I hope we’re not going to see a revival of the tired old rhetoric of Scotland being poorer than Albania and having customs at the borders.

  14. Jeremy Poynton says:

    We bloody hate you down here as well, especially your Labour MPs being able to vote here when you have your own Parliament.

    I say this as one who voted Labour in every election, local and general, from 1970 until Iraq. Now, I solemnly pray for the destruction of Labour, at least in England. If Wales want you, and Scotland does again, well they can have you, and more importantly, they can pay for you.

  15. Gregor Addison says:

    Very mature Jeremy. Very mature. The West Lothian Question came about because devolution was only partial. It was seen as an answer to the problem of the ‘fringes’ (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland – London?). Had devolution been properly thought out it would have delivered a mechanism to stop Scottish MPs voting on English issues. The problem is that defining what is an English only issue is not straightforward. If English voters want a change to the devolution settlement then they should push for a solution. Perhaps an English, or UK-wide, constitutional convention could look at the issues and decide upon a way forward. I don’t think Scotland hates the Labour party but they have fallen out of love with the party. If the Labour party remain the Glasgow Unionist Party that they seem to have become, then they will not find a way back into the hearts of Scottish voters. They need to find a solution within Scotland that is supported by Westminster and acceptable in England; that means dealing with the current imbalance in the devolution settlement. The labour movement has brought great benefits to the lives of many in the UK but it is currently being impaled on the railings of the Union.

  16. Steve says:

    Red Pedro: As one who has lived some 64 tyears so far, and on both sides of the border, and longer in Scotland than England, it would be a blind person who thought that the two nations are anything like the same. Gregor touches on it, but I could write a dissertation on it.

    Gregor: I am not saying that Scotland can’t go it alone and survive, what I am pointing out is some of the downsides that it involves. That is not to say don’t do it. I personally would like to see both Scotland and Wales go independent, and Ulster handed back to the Free State.

    Any rational being would come up with a figure closer to a 12% portion of the national debt to be transferred, based on UK Government expenditure over the years, and don’t forget that the liability for all those public sector pensions payable north of the border would come as well. Say about a quarter of a trillion pounds Sterling at current values to include both.

    No doubt the SNP arer looking forward to this in particular.

  17. Gregor Addison says:

    Steve, our share of the national debt would be worked out during the negotiations for independence. There are various views on how this would be done. Since I’m not an economist I won’t pretend to know the figures involved but I’m sure that in other countries where independence was delivered it was not voted for only by millions of economists. I am left falling back on experience. I have travelled and spent time in other countries which seem not to have the resources that Scotland has and yet they are independent and successful. One could ask how England will pay off its share of the national debt without oil revenues? Given that oil companies are currently annoyed at having to bail out the UK, they might be glad of a shift to an independent Scotland. Who knows?

  18. Jim Lambie says:

    Some diverse opionions on the Scottish Elections Results, To me, it appeared to be victory for the positive, against the negative

  19. Gerry Fisher says:

    For years I have maintained amantra which said that the Tories were Unionists because without the Union they could rarely rule Scotland: the Labourites were Unionists because without Scotland (and Wales) they would rarely rule England, and the UK. Comments above merely prove that I have always been right in that assertion. And just as Trotsky fought Stalin for Socialism across the world, and lost, so Labour are losing in Scotland because , finally, Scotland sees its own values as more important as the need to export them South. That plus the fact that the Scottish hierarchy are seen to be more interested in power for themselves than the public good is a process which is sweeping the land – just as 20 years ago it became obvious to the Scots that they were a nation, off the football field as well as on – the drive4 of history goes on. Tam Dalyell was right of course – devolution was moving on to a motorway with only one arrival point, and Enoch Powell was wrong if he actually thought that power devolved was power retained.

  20. Jeremy Poynton says:

    @Gregor Addison says: May 11, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Gregor, the first things that must happen is that all Scottish MPs must be prevented from voting on any matter that affects England. SNP MPs have the good grace, already, to refrain, but situations such as tuition fees, with Scottish Labour MPs voting for them whilst they are not used in Scotland disgusts. Simple as that. If Scotland wants the power to order its own future, then at least keep your noses out of ours.

  21. Steve says:

    Gregor asks “One could ask how England will pay off its share of the national debt without oil revenues? ”

    Well they could start with the 8 billion or so paid currently to Scotland, in addition to normal government expenditure per head in England. Take that, plus the average expenditure per head paid out into Scotland anyway, add in the savings on the payments to Northern Ireland and Wales, and the figure must be closeer to 20 billion per year rreduction in government spending generated. That would start making a significant hole hole in their debt, let alone their current account defecit. And with a majority tory government just about guaranteed there, I can see the level of subsidies paid to councils in the labour majority north of England being reined back as it wouldn’t make any difference to voting figures as well.

    Of course Scotland can succeed just like those other countries you refer to. All it would have to do is live within it’s means. Just like them.

  22. Kiwi Mike says:

    Steve says: May 11, 2011 at 9:31 am
    Steve says:
    “….what proportion of the UK’s current national debt will accrue to the newly independent Scotland? And even given oil and gas income, how the hell will we pay the interest, let alone the principle?”

    Are you saying that after 304 years of the Union the UK has no assets?
    As in a cordial divorce – when ‘partners’ split not only the debts but the joint ‘belongs’ are shared out ‘fairly‘.
    I don’t know enough about Great Britain’s finances but if there is only debt and no assets – isn’t that when one calls bankruptcy. There must surely be something left in the ‘kitty’.

  23. Gregor Addison says:


    I hope you’ve done a calculation to deduct oil revenues and taxation.

  24. Amber Star says:

    @ Tom Harris

    The question of who that leader should be (I know and I’m not telling yet)
    Well aren’t you a tease?


  25. Amber Star says:

    The Scottish electorate have called the SNP’s bluff. Let’s see if fat Alex’s crew can run a parliament without the excuse of a big [Labour] boy did it & ran away.

    Current polling shows that 58% are against independence, with only 29% for. Like AV supporters, the pro-independence chaps think that we’ll come round to their point of view once everything is explained to us. IMO, ‘twil be the same as AV: The more it is explained, the less we’ll like the idea.

    And Alex Salmond looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights when he was interviewed after his ‘victory’. The back-peddaling has been LOL funny. There won’t be a referendum for years. And, if it eventually happens, it won’t be a straight up or down vote – in fact, there may be 3 or 4 options & the word ‘independence’ may not appear in any of them.

    The SNP’s majority gives Labour a great opportunity to stop being the opposition filter that saves Scotland from Alex’s dafter ideas; we should step back & spend some time considering what Labour should offer Scots as a vision for the future within a United Kingdom.

  26. Gregor Addison says:

    Amber Star

    You could start with giving up the self-deluding fantasies of still being in control.

  27. AmberStar says:

    @ Gregor Addison

    You could start with giving up the self-deluding fantasies of still being in control.
    LOL 🙂

    As Tom says, it’s the voters who are in control. Disregard that at your peril.

    And remember, when Alex Salmond was responsible for being the opposition in Scotland, he got bored; he resigned the SNP leadership & took himself off to Westminster just for the fun of it.

    I doubt voters will want their country to pass from a relatively stable union into the clutches of a politician who runs away when things get tough or, even worse, when he simply gets bored.

  28. Gregor Addison says:

    We’ll see.

  29. Firefly says:

    @Jeremy Poynton:

    Jeremy, you say:
    ‘the first things that must happen is that all Scottish MPs must be prevented from voting on any matter that affects England. SNP MPs have the good grace, already, to refrain, but situations such as tuition fees, with Scottish Labour MPs voting for them whilst they are not used in Scotland disgusts. Simple as that. If Scotland wants the power to order its own future, then at least keep your noses out of ours.’

    You seem to be missing the key point here. England doesn’t have its own parliament. It may be unfair, it may be wrong, but England does not have a parliament. The parliament in Westminster is the United Kingdom Parliament, which governs key areas for all nations under that state banner and all areas for England.
    Historically this is in part because the concept of Nationalism in England goes hand in hand with Fascism and bigotry (BNP & Naziism), a concept that horrifies the average English voter.

    So while the Scottish Nationalists can make their stance about freedom and inclusion for all, the English do not have that luxury.

    Scotland has not experienced the horrendous racial bigotry that permeates so much of England. When someone comes up with an English Nationalism stance that can be inclusive and equal, England may well get a parliament of its own, where all the regions get an equal say.

    Ask the people of Northern England if they feel represented by Westminster. As I originate from there, I can tell you from personal experience that there are many who want to move Hadrian’s Wall down a bit (The Watford Gap has been suggested) and be ruled from Edinburgh. If it weren’t for the Scots and Welsh votes, the regions outwith the Home Counties would be weakened and all decisions would be made based on what is right for the South East of England.

    If you disagree with how it works, campaign to change it. The Scottish MPs do what they are charged to do, as are all the other MPs, i.e. to do what is best for the United Kingdom as they see it. Not all Scots agree with devolution or independence. English MPs have voted for many years on matters that affect Scotland, and with their larger vote, they have won the day.

    Don’t blame Scotland for fighting for equality – join the battle and fight alongside us for your own.

  30. shaun the brummie says:

    firefly….after what your anti english celtic labour party cabal have done to england…i.e. mass uncontrolled immigration,illegal wars,human rights act(for everyone except the english),selling out to europe..etc.we english relish the time a very right wing government comes to power,you jocks will have left by then(i hope).you insult us with the “english nationalism=nazism”.you jocks are the most anti english people in the world.and you have no idea how much you are hated,with “your benefits”,paid for by us,and yet denied us by you anti english celts in the labour party..look at the hypocrisy that abounds in scotland,the old firm 2 not very good football clubs,hate england and the english….and yet expect to enter english football at the top…….McTossers the lot of you….ENGLAND FOREVER BRITAIN NEVER.

  31. S Jones says:

    I don’t know why everybody seems to go along with the obvious fallacy that ‘voters are never wrong’.

    When questioned about practically any matters concerning politics or economics they have little factual understanding.

    Why go along with this pretence that once in the ballot box they become Socrates, Aristotle and Plato combined?

Leave a Reply