not especially. He was the leftish candidate against Brown, resigned due to Labour's support for the ERM, had left the country by the time Blair got in.
wow, 100% of people in the first few dozen posts are disagreeing with him abstaining on the welfare bill and pretty much all saying they'll vote for corbyn now.
Off the top of my head - and I'll happily stand corrected if wrong - I think there's a parliamentary convention whereby the opposition votes with the government (or at least doesn't oppose it) if the vote relates to a manifesto commitment.
As is clear from this forum that politicians are all unscrupulous immoral opportunists lining their pockets wouldn't they be likely to back anyone who will get them into power?
that is, or was, true about the House of Lords, they'd never absolutely reject a manifesto commitment
So there it is from the horse's mouth.
So who the hell is going to represent us "old fashioned leftists " if the Labour Party won't.
So who the hell is going to represent us "old fashioned leftists " if the Labour Party won't.
Fairly similar in my constituency.
Whole thing rests on the truism that poorer, more transient populations are more likely to vote Labour (which, like most truisms has a fair bit of truth to it). With regard to offering this as a reason why the pollsters got it so badly wrong, I'm less convinced (partly, but less so). It would require the pollsters not be asking whether respondents were registered to vote - or those respondents thinking they were registered when they weren't. I'm sure gould and tait are right to focus on the importance of non-registration as a piece of intended gerrymandering. However it will need some actual studies and research to really quantify the effects.
