DIANE ABBOTT explodes the anti-migrant myths perpetrated by cynical politicians and an irresponsible mass media
Latest editorial
Dodgy conclusions on Labour’s failure
Cruddas’s probe into the party’s ballot box defeat says more about his biased and unreliable polling than anything else, argues BEN FOLLEY
ANSELM ELDERGILL examines the government’s proposals to further limit the right of citizens to trial by jury
As we mark the anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, JOHN WIGHT reflects on the enormity of the US decision to drop the atom bombs
For 80 years, survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings have pleaded “never again,” for anyone. But are we listening, asks Linda Pentz Gunter
Labour councillor PAUL DONOVAN wonders why the right-wing party gets so much more media attention than it seems to merit
SOLOMON HUGHES asks whether Labour ‘engaging with decision-makers’ with scandalous records of fleecing the public is really in our interests
JON CRUDDAS has today argued, as part of his independent inquiry into Labour’s election loss, that “the Tories didn’t win despite austerity, they won because of it. Voters did not reject Labour because they saw it as austerity lite. Voters rejected Labour because they perceived the party as anti-austerity lite.”
The actual title of the LabourList article, and the political thrust of the accompanying Patrick Wintour piece in The Guardian, is “Labour lost because voters believed it was anti-austerity.”
As with others trying to assert this political line, Cruddas is engaging in an impressive feat of political spinning to reach this conclusion, based on the questions and the findings so far published.
More from this author
