"Apparently there is a route map to British electoral victory that doesn’t go through the Medway towns, Thurrock and Basildon, but through cloud cuckoo land"
Mark Ferguson (@Markfergusonuk) 07/10/2014 08:09 Why should Labour not try and win a marginal in Kent? Seems like a damn good question to me labli.st/1vJuqVC
That article sums up the blistering lazy complacency that Ed Miliband has.
Also the omni shambles speech revealed how much Ed Miliband cares about the deficit and immigration. Answer, he has no interest. However he does like meeting younger people in parks and remembering their conversations, names and contact details. Some might regard that behaviour as reportable.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
So why not a devolved Cornwall? Or Shetland Isles? Or Primrose Hill (dear god please yes)?
Labour cannot go below 27% no matter how bad they are (Foot, Brown), and the tories nadir was 31% in 1997 when the whole mood of the country was for change. So surely the vast majority of these people must have made their minds up shortly after birth, since they seem immovable in their views.
Add in a few % hardcore LDs and others and only 1 in 3 at most are in any way floating voters.
guess it could mean people haven;t thought about politics at all for nearly 5 years, but then by default vote the same way they've always voted come what may. Would that count as a tick in the bars for the 20% or 15%?
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
Interesting that you say the Tories had the best conference *coverage*
Let's think about absolutes.
Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas that one would want from a party ready to enter government in less than 7 months?
Yes, absolutely. But to be fair, ALL the party conferences (and I've now been to Lab/UKIP/Con/LD) are impressive in that way - it's the great charm of party conferences that you meet so many people from shadow Ministers downwards who are bursting to get their ideas listened to and adopted as government policy. The media in Britain is totally crap at reporting policy beyond a few headlines and mood stuff ("I talked to three delegates who said off the record...") and you just don't get a sense of it at all.
I've got a hectic week - going to Stuttgart tomorrow to talk about a monkey testing scandal with regulators there, then to Brussels to discuss animal testing labelling with the Commission, then a seminar on Friday for a Chinese delegation on enterprise architecture, and need to prepare for all three today - so won't be on PB as much as usual. It's a varied life but good fun.
I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score. What are the odds? 5/1? 3/1?
The interesting bit is Scotland. Labour did rather well there in 2010, perhaps owing to the fact that, as has recently been demonstrated, Gordon Brown has a much better reputation there.
I am not sure London intellectual Ed will have the same advantage. I think Labour will do worse in Scotland as a whole than in 2010.
Certainly recent Scottish subsamples have been grim for Labour - it's noticeable that in today's Labour is doing better in Britain as a whole (33) than Scotland (29) (I wonder what that will do to the enthusiasm for EV4EL in some quarters), and in fact the 1.5 point post-conference drop in Labour's average rating is entirely attributable to the change in Scotland (though separately from that the Tories are up 2). We could do with a proper Scottish poll with detailed secondaries to see what's happening up there.
As I've said, I think that opinion is unusually solid this year with few people saying they're undecided, even though it's the classic excuse to stop canvassers bothering you. The reason is probably that UKIP has soaked off a lot of the "oh they're all crap" voters (a lot of whom were vaguely LibDem), leaving a pretty hard core for each party.
It'd be silly to deny that the Tories had the best of the conference coverage (possibly the current not-so-bad coverage of the LibDem will give them a little bounce too?). We still need to move past the by-elections to see how it all settles down, though Thursday's are starting to look broadly predictable (UKIP in Clacton, Labour in H&M).
I’ve never understood why people think being undecided means canvassers won’t bother them again. In my experience, those ARE the people to whom you go back.
The people you don’t back to are the people who say they definitely won’t vote for you!
Because they aren't countries/nationalities within the UK? Going for the Passport To Pimlico just shows how silly Balkanisation is.
And I REALLY don't understand why so many think it's fine for Scotland to have a Parly, the Welsh an Assembly but the majority of UK citizens just have to suck it up?
It's bizarre double-think. And why would that majority WANT to be second class? I presume that Labour doesn't want it because it'd cut them off at the knees for a couple of GEs until the good ship England righted itself/they had time to reframe their offer to the public that appealed to the more RoC voters here.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
So why not a devolved Cornwall? Or Shetland Isles? Or Primrose Hill (dear god please yes)?
17.6.14 LAB 330 CON 263 LD 33 UKIP 0 Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 24.6.14 LAB 330 CON 263 LD 33 UKIP 0 Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 1.7.14 LAB 329(330) CON 268 (263) LD 29(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24(24) (Ed is crap is PM) 8.7.14 LAB 330 (329) CON 264(268) LD 32(29) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 15.7.14 LAB 329 (330) CON 264(264) LD 33(32) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 22.7.14 LAB 331 (329) CON 261(264) LD 34(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 29.7.14 LAB 332 (331) CON 260(261) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 5.8.14 LAB 330(332) CON 262(260) LD 34(34 UKIP0(0) Others 24 (Ed is Crap is PM) 12.8.14 LAB 332 (330) CON 260(262) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 18.8.14 LAB 331(332) CON 261(260) LD 34(34) UKIP0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM 26.8.14 LAB 333(331) CON 259(261)LD(34)UKIP 0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM 2.9.14 LAB331(333) CON261(259) LD24(34) Others24 (24) Ed is crap is PM 9.9.14 LAB332(331) CON260(261) LD34(34) Others24 (24) Ed is crap is PM 16.9.14 LAB 331(332) CON 262(260) LD 33(34) UKIP0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM 23.9.14 LAB 334 (331) CON 260(262) LD 32(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 30.9.14 LAB 334 (334) CON 260(260) LD 32(32) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) 7.10.14 LAB 325 (334) CON 269(260) LD 31(32) UKIP 1(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
I really look forward to the first Ed is crap is NOT PM BJESUS. Before Christmas maybe?
I think you are thinking of ARSE. or next week it this weeks trend continues at the same rate till next Monday.
Labour cannot go below 27% no matter how bad they are (Foot, Brown), and the tories nadir was 31% in 1997 when the whole mood of the country was for change. So surely the vast majority of these people must have made their minds up shortly after birth, since they seem immovable in their views.
Add in a few % hardcore LDs and others and only 1 in 3 at most are in any way floating voters.
guess it could mean people haven;t thought about politics at all for nearly 5 years, but then by default vote the same way they've always voted come what may. Would that count as a tick in the bars for the 20% or 15%?
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
That blistering article in Labour List is from Luke Akhurst. Which is very significant. He is a renowned party loyalist usually finding sunshine through Labour's darkest days. When loyalists write in such a manner, something is afoot. http://labourlist.org/2014/10/labours-mr-micawber-election-strategy/
Of course NickPalmer cannot comment on these things and is secure in knowing he will defeat Soubry. But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
The next general election will take place on May 7th 2015. When the general election comes, will you definitely vote [for the party you named] or might you end up voting differently?
ALL Will definitely vote that way: 48% Might end up voting differently: 52%
Con voters Will definitely vote that way: 56% Might end up voting differently: 44%
Lab voters Will definitely vote that way: 52% Might end up voting differently: 48%
LD voters Will definitely vote that way: 32% Might end up voting differently: 68%
UKIP voters Will definitely vote that way: 42% Might end up voting differently: 58%
It looks like there's plenty to play for here all round to me.
Mr. Topping, one suspects Scottish MPs setting taxes for the English which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament might just earn a bit of attention.
Also to Mr. Topping: because England's one land, though I am wondering if arsehead Clegg thrust unasked for minority status on the Cornish to try and head off an English Parliament and make it easier for him to carve up a land he doesn't seem to understand exists. Why one Parliament for Scotland but not England?
Interesting that you say the Tories had the best conference *coverage*
Let's think about absolutes.
Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas that one would want from a party ready to enter government in less than 7 months?
(Q Charles: "Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas")
Ans (Nick) Yes, absolutely. But to be fair, ALL the party conferences (and I've now been to Lab/UKIP/Con/LD) are impressive in that way - it's the great charm of party conferences that you meet so many people from shadow Ministers downwards who are bursting to get their ideas listened to and adopted as government policy. The media in Britain is totally crap at reporting policy beyond a few headlines and mood stuff....
Really? The media is dominated by left leaning liberals. The view that most of them reported was that the Labour Conference felt flat, with a lack of a buzz. There were not many headlines from Labour, before Miliband's speech.
Because they aren't countries/nationalities within the UK? Going for the Passport To Pimlico just shows how silly Balkanisation is.
And I REALLY don't understand why so many think it's fine for Scotland to have a Parly, the Welsh an Assembly but the majority of UK citizens just have to suck it up?
It's bizarre double-think. And why would that majority WANT to be second class? I presume that Labour doesn't want it because it'd cut them off at the knees for a couple of GEs until the good ship England righted itself/they had time to reframe their offer to the public that appealed to the more RoC voters here.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
So why not a devolved Cornwall? Or Shetland Isles? Or Primrose Hill (dear god please yes)?
Ask Grant Shapps on twitter why it was OK until a couple of weeks ago when Osborne suddenly decided there might be a party advantage in it.
Labour cannot go below 27% no matter how bad they are (Foot, Brown), and the tories nadir was 31% in 1997 when the whole mood of the country was for change. So surely the vast majority of these people must have made their minds up shortly after birth, since they seem immovable in their views.
Add in a few % hardcore LDs and others and only 1 in 3 at most are in any way floating voters.
guess it could mean people haven;t thought about politics at all for nearly 5 years, but then by default vote the same way they've always voted come what may. Would that count as a tick in the bars for the 20% or 15%?
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
I have as well - presume you mean at different GEs and not using different identities at the same GE or different constituencies at the same GE?
@antifrank - Hard to interpret, though. Do people really know how settled their intentions are, and are they actually answering the question or seeing it as a proxy for some other question? I don't know whether we have much historical evidence on this - would such polls in the lead-up to various previous elections correctly have predicted whether there were significant swings from the headline voting intention figures of those polls to the final outcomes? I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. L, 'suddenly', or, as some like to call it, 'after Scotland voted No on the promise of devomax, fundamentally altering the constitutional balance in the United Kingdom'.
Has there been any positive coverage of the LD conf? A genuine question here.
I've just seen pix of sleeping delegates, empty main hall and Vince saying greenie taxes are hurting business/the Mansion tax getting parked in favour of council tax bands and some childishness.
Interesting that you say the Tories had the best conference *coverage*
Let's think about absolutes.
Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas that one would want from a party ready to enter government in less than 7 months?
(Q Charles: "Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas")
Ans (Nick) Yes, absolutely. But to be fair, ALL the party conferences (and I've now been to Lab/UKIP/Con/LD) are impressive in that way - it's the great charm of party conferences that you meet so many people from shadow Ministers downwards who are bursting to get their ideas listened to and adopted as government policy. The media in Britain is totally crap at reporting policy beyond a few headlines and mood stuff....
Really? The media is dominated by left leaning liberals. The view that most of them reported was that the Labour Conference felt flat, with a lack of a buzz. There were not many headlines from Labour, before Miliband's speech.
Labour cannot go below 27% no matter how bad they are (Foot, Brown), and the tories nadir was 31% in 1997 when the whole mood of the country was for change. So surely the vast majority of these people must have made their minds up shortly after birth, since they seem immovable in their views.
Add in a few % hardcore LDs and others and only 1 in 3 at most are in any way floating voters.
guess it could mean people haven;t thought about politics at all for nearly 5 years, but then by default vote the same way they've always voted come what may. Would that count as a tick in the bars for the 20% or 15%?
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
I have as well - presume you mean at different GEs and not using different identities at the same GE or different constituencies at the same GE?
Labour cannot go below 27% no matter how bad they are (Foot, Brown), and the tories nadir was 31% in 1997 when the whole mood of the country was for change. So surely the vast majority of these people must have made their minds up shortly after birth, since they seem immovable in their views.
Add in a few % hardcore LDs and others and only 1 in 3 at most are in any way floating voters.
guess it could mean people haven;t thought about politics at all for nearly 5 years, but then by default vote the same way they've always voted come what may. Would that count as a tick in the bars for the 20% or 15%?
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
Who else could they have chosen? It's not that there's a standout good non loony-lefty credible candidate that somehow got overlooked is it? It's like selecting the 'most beautiful camel' in the market. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Balls? Johnson? Hunt? The Labour front bench has nobody to choose from. Hague was spot on describing them as the most woeful for a generation. That's the problem. They're ALL crap.
Because they aren't countries/nationalities within the UK? Going for the Passport To Pimlico just shows how silly Balkanisation is.
And I REALLY don't understand why so many think it's fine for Scotland to have a Parly, the Welsh an Assembly but the majority of UK citizens just have to suck it up?
It's bizarre double-think. And why would that majority WANT to be second class? I presume that Labour doesn't want it because it'd cut them off at the knees for a couple of GEs until the good ship England righted itself/they had time to reframe their offer to the public that appealed to the more RoC voters here.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
So why not a devolved Cornwall? Or Shetland Isles? Or Primrose Hill (dear god please yes)?
Ask Grant Shapps on twitter why it was OK until a couple of weeks ago when Osborne suddenly decided there might be a party advantage in it.
If party advantage comes, it is because what the electorate want. However the current anomaly of the WLQ does effect party advantage against those who are denied equal representation for all legislation.
But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
Who else could they have chosen? It's not that there's a standout good non loony-lefty credible candidate that somehow got overlooked is it? It's like selecting the 'most beautiful camel' in the market. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Balls? Johnson? Hunt? The Labour front bench has nobody to choose from. Hague was spot on describing them as the most woeful for a generation. That's the problem. They're ALL crap.
Umunna, Burnham, Purnell and Hunt would all have been better than either Brown or Miliband.
The next general election will take place on May 7th 2015. When the general election comes, will you definitely vote [for the party you named] or might you end up voting differently?
ALL Will definitely vote that way: 48% Might end up voting differently: 52%
Con voters Will definitely vote that way: 56% Might end up voting differently: 44%
Lab voters Will definitely vote that way: 52% Might end up voting differently: 48%
LD voters Will definitely vote that way: 32% Might end up voting differently: 68%
UKIP voters Will definitely vote that way: 42% Might end up voting differently: 58%
It looks like there's plenty to play for here all round to me.
If one party could really get a narrative that resonated with the voters, then a majority for that party is not out the question.
However, we currently seem to have an electorate who
- don't like what Labour did
- don't like what the Tories are doing
- don't like what UKIP would do
- who are these "Liberal Democrats" of which you speak?
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
So why not a devolved Cornwall? Or Shetland Isles? Or Primrose Hill (dear god please yes)?
Because Cornwall and Primrose Hill are not considered to be a national community by the majority of their constituents.
Has there been any positive coverage of the LD conf? A genuine question here.
I've just seen pix of sleeping delegates, empty main hall and Vince saying greenie taxes are hurting business/the Mansion tax getting parked in favour of council tax bands and some childishness.
Interesting that you say the Tories had the best conference *coverage*
Let's think about absolutes.
Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas that one would want from a party ready to enter government in less than 7 months?
(Q Charles: "Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas")
Ans (Nick) Yes, absolutely. But to be fair, ALL the party conferences (and I've now been to Lab/UKIP/Con/LD) are impressive in that way - it's the great charm of party conferences that you meet so many people from shadow Ministers downwards who are bursting to get their ideas listened to and adopted as government policy. The media in Britain is totally crap at reporting policy beyond a few headlines and mood stuff....
Really? The media is dominated by left leaning liberals. The view that most of them reported was that the Labour Conference felt flat, with a lack of a buzz. There were not many headlines from Labour, before Miliband's speech.
Not really, just a lot of in-fighting and out-fighting and I still do not know what the LDs stand for or their strategic sense of direction for the next twenty years. Perhaps they think they will not last that long?
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
So why not a devolved Cornwall? Or Shetland Isles? Or Primrose Hill (dear god please yes)?
Because Cornwall and Primrose Hill are not considered to be a national community by the majority of their constituents.
@antifrank - Hard to interpret, though. Do people really know how settled their intentions are, and are they actually answering the question or seeing it as a proxy for some other question? I don't know whether we have much historical evidence on this - would such polls in the lead-up to different elections correctly have predicted whether there were significant swings from the headline voting intention figures of those polls to the final outcomes? I don't know the answer to that.
The figures have changed meaningfully since May (in a poll that also showed the Conservatives with a two point lead). Then the figures were:
ALL Will definitely vote that way: 48% Might end up voting differently: 52%
Con voters Will definitely vote that way: 48% Might end up voting differently: 52%
Lab voters Will definitely vote that way: 53% Might end up voting differently: 47%
LD voters Will definitely vote that way: 39% Might end up voting differently: 61%
UKIP voters Will definitely vote that way: 53% Might end up voting differently: 47%
So whatever they mean (whether they reflect enthusiasm for their vote or genuine willingness to change allegiance), things have got markedly better for the Conservatives, and worse for the Lib Dems and UKIP.
Has there been any positive coverage of the LD conf? A genuine question here.
I've just seen pix of sleeping delegates, empty main hall and Vince saying greenie taxes are hurting business/the Mansion tax getting parked in favour of council tax bands and some childishness.
Interesting that you say the Tories had the best conference *coverage*
Let's think about absolutes.
Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas that one would want from a party ready to enter government in less than 7 months?
(Q Charles: "Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas")
Ans (Nick) Yes, absolutely. But to be fair, ALL the party conferences (and I've now been to Lab/UKIP/Con/LD) are impressive in that way - it's the great charm of party conferences that you meet so many people from shadow Ministers downwards who are bursting to get their ideas listened to and adopted as government policy. The media in Britain is totally crap at reporting policy beyond a few headlines and mood stuff....
Really? The media is dominated by left leaning liberals. The view that most of them reported was that the Labour Conference felt flat, with a lack of a buzz. There were not many headlines from Labour, before Miliband's speech.
Yesterday the Lib Dems voted to give Councils the right to stop "right to buy". Today they voted that football's problem is those clubs that want to win. Meanwhile they continue to chuck smelly stuff on the Conservatives which will initially grab a headline but after the 20th time it must be boring for the media report. Almost a "what bears do in woods" as "what lib dems say at Conferences about the Conservatives".
@antifrank - Hard to interpret, though. Do people really know how settled their intentions are, and are they actually answering the question or seeing it as a proxy for some other question? I don't know whether we have much historical evidence on this - would such polls in the lead-up to various previous elections correctly have predicted whether there were significant swings from the headline voting intention figures of those polls to the final outcomes? I don't know the answer to that.
People being undecided does not mean there will be a significant swing - it's possible for the respective campaigns of different parties to be equally effective, thus cancelling each other out, and leading to no net swing as people make up their mind.
It's only when one campaign is notably less proficient then the other that you will see a swing as people make up their mind - as with the AV referendum.
That blistering article in Labour List is from Luke Akhurst. Which is very significant. He is a renowned party loyalist usually finding sunshine through Labour's darkest days. When loyalists write in such a manner, something is afoot. http://labourlist.org/2014/10/labours-mr-micawber-election-strategy/
Of course NickPalmer cannot comment on these things and is secure in knowing he will defeat Soubry. But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
The next general election will take place on May 7th 2015. When the general election comes, will you definitely vote [for the party you named] or might you end up voting differently?
ALL Will definitely vote that way: 48% Might end up voting differently: 52%
Con voters Will definitely vote that way: 56% Might end up voting differently: 44%
Lab voters Will definitely vote that way: 52% Might end up voting differently: 48%
LD voters Will definitely vote that way: 32% Might end up voting differently: 68%
UKIP voters Will definitely vote that way: 42% Might end up voting differently: 58%
It looks like there's plenty to play for here all round to me.
If we take those figures at face value. Perhaps most waverers will fall the way they lean, or choose between voting (say) UKIP or sitting at home. It would be interesting to see if Yougov has released any panel data on this point.
It was on his future plans for the economy, though, that [Danny] Alexander made news. He indicated that he would like to continue with the 80 percent spending cuts, 20 percent tax rises approach to deficit reduction that the coalition has taken in this parliament
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
Not a question of "deserves"? Of course it's a matter of "deserves". "Deserves" means fair equality in a democracy. That's the most crucial thing for democratic design there is.
Secondly, you just throw in there "if you want to keep the UK", without any justification whatsoever. This is a nonsense point that is never substantiated. Why would an English parliament cause the end of the UK any more than a Scottish one? Sure, it covers the majority of the population, but I've yet to hear a single argument explaining why this matters in practical terms.
In fact, the end of the UK is far more likely to happen if you continue to make English people second class citizens under the status quo, or you make UK governments unstable by forcing them to deal with English-only majorities. Devolution to an English parliament would actually make the UK more equitable and more stable by removing the English-only matters away from UK politics.
But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
Who else could they have chosen? It's not that there's a standout good non loony-lefty credible candidate that somehow got overlooked is it? It's like selecting the 'most beautiful camel' in the market. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Balls? Johnson? Hunt? The Labour front bench has nobody to choose from. Hague was spot on describing them as the most woeful for a generation. That's the problem. They're ALL crap.
Umunna, Burnham, Purnell and Hunt would all have been better than either Brown or Miliband.
Those camels are more beautiful than the Milicamel. But...lipstick on a pig.....
From Mr Akehurst's article - this did make my smile. Richard Nixon, no less!
The basic strategic problem to me seems to be this:
A) People at the top of the party think you can win by cobbling together a coalition of the minority who voted for us in 2010 (people on benefit, public sector workers, inner city dwellers, BAME voters and what the Americans would call the rust belt of former industrial areas) plus half the minority who voted Lib Dem (Guardian reading liberals, students, people who hated Labour because of Iraq). This is flawed because as George McGovern discovered in 1972, minority plus minority equals minority, and we are up against Tory opponents who are every bit as focused on winning as Richard Nixon was.
I thought Osborne was promising the deficit reduction in the next Parliament would come entirely from spending cuts? (Unrealistic as that may be.)
That's the 80/20 split which Danny wants to continue. The tax rises came first (for the very good reason that they can be implemented much more quickly).
I suppose the alternative possibility is that he means he doesn't want to continue the current planned split, but wants to shift it towards tax rises by banking the existing tax rises and adding further tax rises. If so it's no longer the 80/20 split agreed by the coalition, which is not consistent with what he says.
Either way, it's not a massive difference of opinion. We could do business with this chap.
That blistering article in Labour List is from Luke Akhurst. Which is very significant. He is a renowned party loyalist usually finding sunshine through Labour's darkest days. When loyalists write in such a manner, something is afoot. http://labourlist.org/2014/10/labours-mr-micawber-election-strategy/
Of course NickPalmer cannot comment on these things and is secure in knowing he will defeat Soubry. But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
Luke was a Member of Labour’s NEC 2010-2012. Firmly in the Progress wing.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
Not a question of "deserves"? Of course it's a matter of "deserves". "Deserves" means fair equality in a democracy. That's the most crucial thing for democratic design there is.
Secondly, you just throw in there "if you want to keep the UK", without any justification whatsoever. This is a nonsense point that is never substantiated. Why would an English parliament cause the end of the UK any more than a Scottish one? Sure, it covers the majority of the population, but I've yet to hear a single argument explaining why this matters in practical terms.
In fact, the end of the UK is far more likely to happen if you continue to make English people second class citizens under the status quo, or you make UK governments unstable by forcing them to deal with English-only majorities. Devolution to an English parliament would actually make the UK more equitable and more stable by removing the English-only matters away from UK politics.
People have been saying for decades that FPTP is unfair, yet here it still is. It does not seem fair that some parliamentarians owe their positions to what side their ancestors fought on in assorted coups in the dark ages, yet the House of Lords still stands. Is it fair that my MP gets to vote on fisheries policy when he only visits the park boating lake once every five years?
@antifrank - Hard to interpret, though. Do people really know how settled their intentions are, and are they actually answering the question or seeing it as a proxy for some other question? I don't know whether we have much historical evidence on this - would such polls in the lead-up to different elections correctly have predicted whether there were significant swings from the headline voting intention figures of those polls to the final outcomes? I don't know the answer to that.
The figures have changed meaningfully since May (in a poll that also showed the Conservatives with a two point lead). Then the figures were:
ALL Will definitely vote that way: 48% Might end up voting differently: 52%
Con voters Will definitely vote that way: 48% Might end up voting differently: 52%
Lab voters Will definitely vote that way: 53% Might end up voting differently: 47%
LD voters Will definitely vote that way: 39% Might end up voting differently: 61%
UKIP voters Will definitely vote that way: 53% Might end up voting differently: 47%
So whatever they mean (whether they reflect enthusiasm for their vote or genuine willingness to change allegiance), things have got markedly better for the Conservatives, and worse for the Lib Dems and UKIP.
Given that all the parties have big percentages that might not vote for them, if we assume half of the undecided stay put that just leaves a bit of churn doesn't it? I cant think it would affect the vote percentage all that much...
ie
29% of current UKIP support may break 17/12 to Con/Lab, 22% of current Con support may break 11/8/3 UKIP/LD/Lab 24% of current Labour breaks 10/8/4/2 LD/UKIP/Green/Con 34% of current LD support breaks 12/10/8/4 Lab/Con/UKIP/Green
I just invented those splits and they are probably wildly out but that would give us
Con 29 Lab 27 UKIP 19 LD 10
Probably more than half of the undecided will stay with their chosen party is my initial reaction to that
I suppose the alternative possibility is that he means he doesn't want to continue the current planned split, but wants to shift it towards tax rises by banking the existing tax rises and adding further tax rises. If so it's no longer the 80/20 split agreed by the coalition
Tbf nothing the Coalition agreed on the deficit has happened. We're in a new situation so new plans are not the same as reneging on past agreements. Do the tax rises to date still amount to 20% of the deficit any more anyway? Unlike you I got the sense that Danny was promising tax rises in the next parliament but it's not absolutely clear.
Under FPTP, (excepting the current West Lothian Question issue which is not a matter of voting system but devolution) people vote for representatives who then decide on issues which affect them.
Under devomax, Scottish MPs would be elected to vote on matters, the majority of which would not affect them because they would be devolved.
In short, Scots would set their own income tax rate (if Brown gets his way) and have influence over income tax rates in England. It's a basic issue of democratic accountability.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
Not a question of "deserves"? Of course it's a matter of "deserves". "Deserves" means fair equality in a democracy. That's the most crucial thing for democratic design there is.
Secondly, you just throw in there "if you want to keep the UK", without any justification whatsoever. This is a nonsense point that is never substantiated. Why would an English parliament cause the end of the UK any more than a Scottish one? Sure, it covers the majority of the population, but I've yet to hear a single argument explaining why this matters in practical terms.
In fact, the end of the UK is far more likely to happen if you continue to make English people second class citizens under the status quo, or you make UK governments unstable by forcing them to deal with English-only majorities. Devolution to an English parliament would actually make the UK more equitable and more stable by removing the English-only matters away from UK politics.
People have been saying for decades that FPTP is unfair, yet here it still is. It does not seem fair that some parliamentarians owe their positions to what side their ancestors fought on in assorted coups in the dark ages, yet the House of Lords still stands. Is it fair that my MP gets to vote on fisheries policy when he only visits the park boating lake once every five years?
Your argument boils down to "other unfairnesses exist, therefore we shouldn't try to resolve this unfairness". That could be used to never do anything on any issue. It's really the weakest argument there is.
The crux of the issue is that you're a left-winger, and you don't want the English to be able to govern themselves, because they're not as left-wing as you are.
But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
Who else could they have chosen? It's not that there's a standout good non loony-lefty credible candidate that somehow got overlooked is it? It's like selecting the 'most beautiful camel' in the market. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Balls? Johnson? Hunt? The Labour front bench has nobody to choose from. Hague was spot on describing them as the most woeful for a generation. That's the problem. They're ALL crap.
Umunna, Burnham, Purnell and Hunt would all have been better than either Brown or Miliband.
Those camels are more beautiful than the Milicamel. But...lipstick on a pig.....
Cruddas leader, Field Deputy and Labour would be in a lot better shape
Mr. Roger, I think it is stretching the English language far past the point of breaking to suggest supporting democratic accountability and equal standing for Scotland and England as 'meanness of spirit'.
Surely there’s not a lot of doubt that the LIbDems are talking about increasing the tax “burden” on those at the top of the income scale. A new Council tax band (or two) is an example thereof.
Surely there’s not a lot of doubt that the LIbDems are talking about increasing the tax “burden” on those at the top of the income scale. A new Council tax band (or two) is an example thereof.
Yes, but that could be offset by tax cuts elsewhere (for example further rises in the personal allowance). It's a separate question from what the total tax take would be.
Labour and minorities - this is definitely a problem for them. And I mean minorities in the broadest sense. Whatever the mistakes of new labour, they talked about the many not the few. At the time I thought that silly, who would expect to win power governing in the name of the few rather than the many? However it is pretty clear that there are powerful forces in the media, in business engaged in political lobbying and in the funders of the conservative party who are plainly opposed to government in the interest of the many. They may not say so or even admit it to themselves, assuming that everyone else's interests are the same as theirs. But it amazes me that a democratic party concerned with ordinary people wouldn't set itself against such forces.
Here's a nice piece from a few months ago by Will Hutton on the Tory summer party/fundraiser:
'What is striking about the invitation lists for both the Billingsgate and Hurlingham events is who is not on them. Mainstream business and finance were conspicuous by their absence. The big money guests are people from the darker side of global capitalism, using the leverage available in the shadow banking system over the last two decades to make fortunes in property and private equity.
I could spot no great innovators or business builders. They are almost entirely populated by the new seekers of risk-free profit, congratulating themselves on their entrepreneurial acumen when in truth their skill has been to borrow aggressively as private or family-owned companies at a time of rising asset prices away from the prying eyes of public shareholders or regulators. And then to use the many unregulated and untaxed gaps in the new global economy to hide the financial results from the authorities.
Too many for my taste have toppled over the edge and are embroiled in battles with varying authorities in their former homelands for alleged fraud or tax evasion. Small wonder Central Office was so reluctant to confirm the guest lists.'
No doubt any Labour attacks on these people would be considered 'class war' by the right wing press. Quite what the British middle class has in common with these foreign plutocrats I've no idea.
Seemed really easy to get sleeping Tories, couldn't find any Labour, wonder why. I guess it just shows how the media get into printing 'all the news that fits' at any particular time.
In short, Scots would set their own income tax rate (if Brown gets his way) and have influence over income tax rates in England. It's a basic issue of democratic accountability.
The original devolution settlement gave the Scottish Parliament the power to vary income tax by 3p in the £1 up or down.
So your nightmare scenario could already have occurred. Scottish MPs would have had the power to vote for an income tax increase across the UK, and then to reduce income taxes in Scotland. Yet this never happened.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
Not a question of "deserves"? Of course it's a matter of "deserves". "Deserves" means fair equality in a democracy. That's the most crucial thing for democratic design there is.
Secondly, you just throw in there "if you want to keep the UK", without any justification whatsoever. This is a nonsense point that is never substantiated. Why would an English parliament cause the end of the UK any more than a Scottish one? Sure, it covers the majority of the population, but I've yet to hear a single argument explaining why this matters in practical terms.
In fact, the end of the UK is far more likely to happen if you continue to make English people second class citizens under the status quo, or you make UK governments unstable by forcing them to deal with English-only majorities. Devolution to an English parliament would actually make the UK more equitable and more stable by removing the English-only matters away from UK politics.
People have been saying for decades that FPTP is unfair, yet here it still is. It does not seem fair that some parliamentarians owe their positions to what side their ancestors fought on in assorted coups in the dark ages, yet the House of Lords still stands. Is it fair that my MP gets to vote on fisheries policy when he only visits the park boating lake once every five years?
Your argument boils down to "other unfairnesses exist, therefore we shouldn't try to resolve this unfairness". That could be used to never do anything on any issue. It's really the weakest argument there is.
The crux of the issue is that you're a left-winger, and you don't want the English to be able to govern themselves, because they're not as left-wing as you are.
No, the crux of it is that I like the UK the way it is, and don't want to endanger it over an issue no-one gave a damn about until a couple of weeks ago. If rcs is around, perhaps he can tell us how many times evel or ev4el has been used on pb per month over the past decade. My guess is there'd be a lot of zeros followed by a massive spike last month.
Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.
Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.
I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.
It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.
Not a question of "deserves"? Of course it's a matter of "deserves". "Deserves" means fair equality in a democracy. That's the most crucial thing for democratic design there is.
Secondly, you just throw in there "if you want to keep the UK", without any justification whatsoever. This is a nonsense point that is never substantiated. Why would an English parliament cause the end of the UK any more than a Scottish one? Sure, it covers the majority of the population, but I've yet to hear a single argument explaining why this matters in practical terms.
In fact, the end of the UK is far more likely to happen if you continue to make English people second class citizens under the status quo, or you make UK governments unstable by forcing them to deal with English-only majorities. Devolution to an English parliament would actually make the UK more equitable and more stable by removing the English-only matters away from UK politics.
People have been saying for decades that FPTP is unfair, yet here it still is. It does not seem fair that some parliamentarians owe their positions to what side their ancestors fought on in assorted coups in the dark ages, yet the House of Lords still stands. Is it fair that my MP gets to vote on fisheries policy when he only visits the park boating lake once every five years?
Your argument boils down to "other unfairnesses exist, therefore we shouldn't try to resolve this unfairness". That could be used to never do anything on any issue. It's really the weakest argument there is.
The crux of the issue is that you're a left-winger, and you don't want the English to be able to govern themselves, because they're not as left-wing as you are.
Not really. They may be unfairnesses but they are our unfairnesses. If we were to try to iron every unfairness out then we would be here all day or year or the next 20 years.
Mr. Me, devomax is supposed to be everything save Defence and Foreign matters. Do you really think, even if it falls short of that, there won't be a massive lack of accountability, with Scottish MPs voting on matters which don't affect their constituents?
If rcs is around, perhaps he can tell us how many times evel or ev4el has been used on pb per month over the past decade. My guess is there'd be a lot of zeros followed by a massive spike last month.
People have been moaning about this issue on pbc for over 10 years. Francis would be shocked at your suggestion that it's only recently become important.
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
I have, although I can't actually remember who I voted for except in 2010. I just know I voted Lib Dem as I hadn't done so since the 1999 Scottish election.
It's funny, I can tell you who I voted for at every Holyrood election (Lib Dem, SSP, SNP, SNP) but I couldn't tell you who I voted for in the 2001 or 2005 General Elections. I think 2005 was SNP but they ran such an awful General Election campaign I don't know if I did.
As to whether EVEL will resonate with the voters... 1. Scotland being treated differently to the rest of the country kickstarted a lot of political upheaval - poll tax. 2. The prospect of Constitutional change brought the highest turnout poll in my lifetime - Indyref. 3. Her Majesty's Red Tops won't let anyone miss it.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
Next he'll be describing himself as crossing a Rubicon for UKIP on Friday morning.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
From Mr Akehurst's article - this did make my smile. Richard Nixon, no less!
The basic strategic problem to me seems to be this:
A) People at the top of the party think you can win by cobbling together a coalition of the minority who voted for us in 2010 (people on benefit, public sector workers, inner city dwellers, BAME voters and what the Americans would call the rust belt of former industrial areas) plus half the minority who voted Lib Dem (Guardian reading liberals, students, people who hated Labour because of Iraq). This is flawed because as George McGovern discovered in 1972, minority plus minority equals minority, and we are up against Tory opponents who are every bit as focused on winning as Richard Nixon was.
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
I'll be fascinated to see where that 30% Lib Dem vote goes. Will people assume that they can't beat the Tories this time and vote for their first party of choice? Who will that be? Lib Dem? Labour? Green? Ukip?
Mr. Me, devomax is supposed to be everything save Defence and Foreign matters. Do you really think, even if it falls short of that, there won't be a massive lack of accountability, with Scottish MPs voting on matters which don't affect their constituents?
I'm not defending the status quo - it's certainly not how I would organise things.
All I'm saying is that the nightmare scenario you outline could already have happened, but it didn't. Maybe it won't in the future, even if Scotland achieves devomax and nothing changes for England. Further, we already have a clear example of the unfairness of the WLQ, when Scottish Labour MPs loyally forced through increases in English tuition fees, in the face of a Labour backbench rebellion among English Labour MPs.
Has this event become a major English Nationalist rallying call in the way that the Poll tax and North Sea oil have been for Scottish Nationalists? I don't see it.
Someone on here posted that Nick Palmer could be ,despite ed being crap, secure in the knowledge that he would beat Anna Soubry in the GE. That is complacency of the highest order. I feel sure NPEXMP is not thinking that way at all.....
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
So voters got the MPs they voted for, just as they did in Bootle and Doncaster. The only difference is that the good burghers of Sussex got fewer MPs, of any party, than voters in some predominantly Labour-voting areas, such as Wales and the North East.
From Mr Akehurst's article - this did make my smile. Richard Nixon, no less!
The basic strategic problem to me seems to be this:
A) People at the top of the party think you can win by cobbling together a coalition of the minority who voted for us in 2010 (people on benefit, public sector workers, inner city dwellers, BAME voters and what the Americans would call the rust belt of former industrial areas) plus half the minority who voted Lib Dem (Guardian reading liberals, students, people who hated Labour because of Iraq). This is flawed because as George McGovern discovered in 1972, minority plus minority equals minority, and we are up against Tory opponents who are every bit as focused on winning as Richard Nixon was.
Roger - I'm on the left but I recognise that there needs to be an answer to the WLQ. I wonder if you wouldn't mind going down to Brighton and explaining to a gay man why it is okay for Scottish Labour MPs to vote against introducing gay marriage in England and Wales when for Scotland itself this is an issue devolved to the Scottish parliament. The left must end this obsession with minorities and start aiming to govern in the interests of the average citizen rather than the economic elite that the Tories fawn over.
EVEL does not by itself change many votes (those who feel passionately about it are generally firmly settled in their right of centre vote). What it does is stop Labour talking about its positive policies as it desperately tries to avoid looking anti-English, as the Labour party conference showed.
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
So voters got the MPs they voted for, just as they did in Bootle and Doncaster. The only difference is that the good burghers of Sussex got fewer MPs, of any party, than voters in some predominatnly Labour-voting areas, such as Wales and the North East.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
It's amazing how Labour supporters never seemed to mind this system when it was benefiting them. Not that it has anything whatsoever to do with the WLQ, so bringing it up in that context is completely pointless. They'll be bringing up the House of Lords next too no doubt.
I think we all know full well that if the situation was reversed then Labour would be shouting from the rooftops about how unfair the current situation is and demanding EV4EL. It's so obviously utterly tribal and pathetic.
Logic must be bent completely out of shape in order to justify absolutely anything that lends advantage to Labour over the Tories. Stopping the Tories is the moral thing to do and everything else follows on from that no matter how ridiculous.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
Someone on here posted that Nick Palmer could be ,despite ed being crap, secure in the knowledge that he would beat Anna Soubry in the GE. That is complacency of the highest order. I feel sure NPEXMP is not thinking that way at all.....
Not with all those lovely expenses waiting for the winner.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
We surely have to drop the bitterness about people who change party...
I canvassed Clacton on Friday, and believe me, Carswell is so popular there he would be massive odds on to win if he stood for the Conservatives or as an Independent. Defecting to UKIP was not about saving his career, I am surprised you can be bothered to type it, you must know its nonsense.
The Conservatives were 1/100 with Ladbrokes with Carswell as candidate, UKIP are 1/100 on Betfair now. what are you basing your comments on?
The David Cameron = Richard Nixon analogy works this way, and will alarm Labour supporters.
Cameron like Nixon, didn't "win" his first general election, but won his second and third general elections, and his opponent third time around got the dockside hooker treatment.
I wonder if you wouldn't mind going down to Brighton and explaining to a gay man why it is okay for Scottish Labour MPs to vote against introducing gay marriage in England and Wales when for Scotland itself this is an issue devolved to the Scottish parliament.
Not to forget the wonderful contributions of Jim Shannon to the gay marriage (in England and Wales) debates.
Roger - I'm on the left but I recognise that there needs to be an answer to the WLQ. I wonder if you wouldn't mind going down to Brighton and explaining to a gay man why it is okay for Scottish Labour MPs to vote against introducing gay marriage in England and Wales when for Scotland itself this is an issue devolved to the Scottish parliament. The left must end this obsession with minorities and start aiming to govern in the interests of the average citizen rather than the economic elite that the Tories fawn over.
Do stop the pathetic misreprentation... its quite disgusting the way you want to stir up the politics of hate and envy.
Yet Scots MPs will STILL be able to vote to raise income taxes on the English? Even though these tax hikes will no longer apply to their own constituents?
Under any plans short of actual DevoMax ( so any plans where Scotland gets a block grant from Westminster rather than fully managing its own money ) the English income tax rates directly affect the Scottish block grant as the grant will be adjusted based on notionally applying English tax rates to the Scottish population and looking at the difference between the Scottish rates tax take and the figure based on the English tax rates.
1. The constitution is too important for half baked measures such as a grand committee of English MPs or electing a small number of hereditaries to sit in the Lords. Or jerrymandering boundaries to suit the government of the day. Or forcing a half-arsed referendum on a half-arsed half-solution to FPTP. We need a proper constitutional convention to properly discuss all the issues and agree a comprehensive settlement to all these issues. 2. Most voters couldn't give a toss about point 1.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
No, the crux of it is that I like the UK the way it is, and don't want to endanger it over an issue no-one gave a damn about until a couple of weeks ago. If rcs is around, perhaps he can tell us how many times evel or ev4el has been used on pb per month over the past decade. My guess is there'd be a lot of zeros followed by a massive spike last month.
"no-one gave a damn about until a couple of weeks ago. "
No-one in Labour, perhaps. Which is hardly surprising, as Labour seem even more incompetent, self-serving and nasty than usual when it comes to constitutional matters.
Fortunately the Conservatives are not so blind, and in fact have cared a great deal about it, even assembling the MacKay commission to look into the issue:
In one paragraph you managed to instruct Roger about how the Left must act in the interests of the ordinary man - whatever they are, and then use the most ridiculous partisan language about Tories who are clearly genetically incapable of doing so.
It's precisely this sort of talk that makes those of us who've voted both Left and Right roll our eyes. You're basically attempting to make me ashamed. Well it doesn't work.
The left must end this obsession with minorities and start aiming to govern in the interests of the average citizen rather than the economic elite that the Tories fawn over.
Roger - I'm on the left but I recognise that there needs to be an answer to the WLQ. I wonder if you wouldn't mind going down to Brighton and explaining to a gay man why it is okay for Scottish Labour MPs to vote against introducing gay marriage in England and Wales when for Scotland itself this is an issue devolved to the Scottish parliament. The left must end this obsession with minorities and start aiming to govern in the interests of the average citizen rather than the economic elite that the Tories fawn over.
The handful of Scottish Labour MPs who went down to London to vote against Same Sex Marriage in England and Wales was an astoundingly shameful act.
Corporeal has informed me, and I'm sure you will all like to know, that this Christmas in Glasgow, at the same venue as the Lib Dem conference, Ian Krankie is appearing in panto as Baron Hardup.
1. The constitution is too important for half baked measures such as a grand committee of English MPs or electing a small number of hereditaries to sit in the Lords. Or jerrymandering boundaries to suit the government of the day. Or forcing a half-arsed referendum on a half-arsed half-solution to FPTP. We need a proper constitutional convention to properly discuss all the issues and agree a comprehensive settlement to all these issues. 2. Most voters couldn't give a toss about point 1.
Largely because point 1 is incorrect. So long as the constitution produces a very roughly fair outcome, the public really don't care very much. They correctly see constitutional conventions and the like as employment schemes for politicians and wonks. If it isn't working, the public correctly expect politicians to come up with a quick, very roughly fair solution.
Labour cannot go below 27% no matter how bad they are (Foot, Brown), and the tories nadir was 31% in 1997 when the whole mood of the country was for change. So surely the vast majority of these people must have made their minds up shortly after birth, since they seem immovable in their views.
Add in a few % hardcore LDs and others and only 1 in 3 at most are in any way floating voters.
guess it could mean people haven;t thought about politics at all for nearly 5 years, but then by default vote the same way they've always voted come what may. Would that count as a tick in the bars for the 20% or 15%?
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
I have as well - presume you mean at different GEs and not using different identities at the same GE or different constituencies at the same GE?
Ha ha yes I didn't intend to imply any West Belfast style practices...
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
Oh dear.
FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.
Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
So voters got the MPs they voted for, just as they did in Bootle and Doncaster. The only difference is that the good burghers of Sussex got fewer MPs, of any party, than voters in some predominatnly Labour-voting areas, such as Wales and the North East.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
I didn't know you were such a keen supporter of PR and I clearly missed Labour's new campaign to change the voting system away from FPTP, was it announced at their conference?
Comments
Also the omni shambles speech revealed how much Ed Miliband cares about the deficit and immigration. Answer, he has no interest. However he does like meeting younger people in parks and remembering their conversations, names and contact details. Some might regard that behaviour as reportable.
Labour cannot go below 27% no matter how bad they are (Foot, Brown), and the tories nadir was 31% in 1997 when the whole mood of the country was for change. So surely the vast majority of these people must have made their minds up shortly after birth, since they seem immovable in their views.
Add in a few % hardcore LDs and others and only 1 in 3 at most are in any way floating voters.
guess it could mean people haven;t thought about politics at all for nearly 5 years, but then by default vote the same way they've always voted come what may. Would that count as a tick in the bars for the 20% or 15%?
Who on here has voted for more than 1 party in GEs? #VoodooPollAlert
I've got a hectic week - going to Stuttgart tomorrow to talk about a monkey testing scandal with regulators there, then to Brussels to discuss animal testing labelling with the Commission, then a seminar on Friday for a Chinese delegation on enterprise architecture, and need to prepare for all three today - so won't be on PB as much as usual. It's a varied life but good fun.
The people you don’t back to are the people who say they definitely won’t vote for you!
Unless I did it all wrong!
And I REALLY don't understand why so many think it's fine for Scotland to have a Parly, the Welsh an Assembly but the majority of UK citizens just have to suck it up?
It's bizarre double-think. And why would that majority WANT to be second class? I presume that Labour doesn't want it because it'd cut them off at the knees for a couple of GEs until the good ship England righted itself/they had time to reframe their offer to the public that appealed to the more RoC voters here.
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/labours-mr-micawber-election-strategy/
Of course NickPalmer cannot comment on these things and is secure in knowing he will defeat Soubry. But, Nick should reflect on why Labour picked two cr*p Leaders in a row. Possibly worse than Hague and IDS as Leaders. Labour should try a roll of the dice for a better outcome.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ANP-summary-141006.pdf
The next general election will take place on May 7th 2015. When the general election comes, will you definitely vote [for the party you named] or might you end up voting differently?
ALL
Will definitely vote that way: 48%
Might end up voting differently: 52%
Con voters
Will definitely vote that way: 56%
Might end up voting differently: 44%
Lab voters
Will definitely vote that way: 52%
Might end up voting differently: 48%
LD voters
Will definitely vote that way: 32%
Might end up voting differently: 68%
UKIP voters
Will definitely vote that way: 42%
Might end up voting differently: 58%
It looks like there's plenty to play for here all round to me.
Also to Mr. Topping: because England's one land, though I am wondering if arsehead Clegg thrust unasked for minority status on the Cornish to try and head off an English Parliament and make it easier for him to carve up a land he doesn't seem to understand exists. Why one Parliament for Scotland but not England?
I've just seen pix of sleeping delegates, empty main hall and Vince saying greenie taxes are hurting business/the Mansion tax getting parked in favour of council tax bands and some childishness.
However, we currently seem to have an electorate who
- don't like what Labour did
- don't like what the Tories are doing
- don't like what UKIP would do
- who are these "Liberal Democrats" of which you speak?
Edit: or James Turner Street?
ALL
Will definitely vote that way: 48%
Might end up voting differently: 52%
Con voters
Will definitely vote that way: 48%
Might end up voting differently: 52%
Lab voters
Will definitely vote that way: 53%
Might end up voting differently: 47%
LD voters
Will definitely vote that way: 39%
Might end up voting differently: 61%
UKIP voters
Will definitely vote that way: 53%
Might end up voting differently: 47%
So whatever they mean (whether they reflect enthusiasm for their vote or genuine willingness to change allegiance), things have got markedly better for the Conservatives, and worse for the Lib Dems and UKIP.
It's only when one campaign is notably less proficient then the other that you will see a swing as people make up their mind - as with the AV referendum.
Secondly, you just throw in there "if you want to keep the UK", without any justification whatsoever. This is a nonsense point that is never substantiated. Why would an English parliament cause the end of the UK any more than a Scottish one? Sure, it covers the majority of the population, but I've yet to hear a single argument explaining why this matters in practical terms.
In fact, the end of the UK is far more likely to happen if you continue to make English people second class citizens under the status quo, or you make UK governments unstable by forcing them to deal with English-only majorities. Devolution to an English parliament would actually make the UK more equitable and more stable by removing the English-only matters away from UK politics.
I suppose the alternative possibility is that he means he doesn't want to continue the current planned split, but wants to shift it towards tax rises by banking the existing tax rises and adding further tax rises. If so it's no longer the 80/20 split agreed by the coalition, which is not consistent with what he says.
Either way, it's not a massive difference of opinion. We could do business with this chap.
ie
29% of current UKIP support may break 17/12 to Con/Lab,
22% of current Con support may break 11/8/3 UKIP/LD/Lab
24% of current Labour breaks 10/8/4/2 LD/UKIP/Green/Con
34% of current LD support breaks 12/10/8/4 Lab/Con/UKIP/Green
I just invented those splits and they are probably wildly out but that would give us
Con 29
Lab 27
UKIP 19
LD 10
Probably more than half of the undecided will stay with their chosen party is my initial reaction to that
Under FPTP, (excepting the current West Lothian Question issue which is not a matter of voting system but devolution) people vote for representatives who then decide on issues which affect them.
Under devomax, Scottish MPs would be elected to vote on matters, the majority of which would not affect them because they would be devolved.
In short, Scots would set their own income tax rate (if Brown gets his way) and have influence over income tax rates in England. It's a basic issue of democratic accountability.
The crux of the issue is that you're a left-winger, and you don't want the English to be able to govern themselves, because they're not as left-wing as you are.
A new Council tax band (or two) is an example thereof.
Here's a nice piece from a few months ago by Will Hutton on the Tory summer party/fundraiser:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/05/david-cameron-tories-summer-ball-dark-side-global-capitalism
'What is striking about the invitation lists for both the Billingsgate and Hurlingham events is who is not on them. Mainstream business and finance were conspicuous by their absence. The big money guests are people from the darker side of global capitalism, using the leverage available in the shadow banking system over the last two decades to make fortunes in property and private equity.
I could spot no great innovators or business builders. They are almost entirely populated by the new seekers of risk-free profit, congratulating themselves on their entrepreneurial acumen when in truth their skill has been to borrow aggressively as private or family-owned companies at a time of rising asset prices away from the prying eyes of public shareholders or regulators. And then to use the many unregulated and untaxed gaps in the new global economy to hide the financial results from the authorities.
Too many for my taste have toppled over the edge and are embroiled in battles with varying authorities in their former homelands for alleged fraud or tax evasion. Small wonder Central Office was so reluctant to confirm the guest lists.'
No doubt any Labour attacks on these people would be considered 'class war' by the right wing press. Quite what the British middle class has in common with these foreign plutocrats I've no idea.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
Sleeping Conference Tories http://www.theguardian.com/politics/gallery/2012/oct/10/sleeping-tory-conference-in-pictures
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=conference+sleeping+delegates&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=899&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=t7EzVKeJCIbT7Qa5g4DwCQ&ved=0CC0QsAQ#tbm=isch&q=labour+conference+sleeping+delegates&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=H8suoe5Oc7-tmM%3A;0uGrbCXb9oar0M;http%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fstatic%2Fw-700%2Fh--%2Fq-95%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F10%2F10%2F1349865295223%2FA-delegate-sleeps-as--Fra-003.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgallery%2F2012%2Foct%2F10%2Fsleeping-tory-conference-in-pictures;686;480
Seemed really easy to get sleeping Tories, couldn't find any Labour, wonder why.
I guess it just shows how the media get into printing 'all the news that fits' at any particular time.
So your nightmare scenario could already have occurred. Scottish MPs would have had the power to vote for an income tax increase across the UK, and then to reduce income taxes in Scotland. Yet this never happened.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers
Hmm RT "@PickardJE: "I'm not a defector," said Carswell. "I'm a people’s tribune. In Roman times, someone who held power to account.”
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
It's funny, I can tell you who I voted for at every Holyrood election (Lib Dem, SSP, SNP, SNP) but I couldn't tell you who I voted for in the 2001 or 2005 General Elections. I think 2005 was SNP but they ran such an awful General Election campaign I don't know if I did.
' If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies'
We have to accept anomalies that favour Labour and makes the majority of the population second class voters.
Good luck trying to sell that.
1. Scotland being treated differently to the rest of the country kickstarted a lot of political upheaval - poll tax.
2. The prospect of Constitutional change brought the highest turnout poll in my lifetime - Indyref.
3. Her Majesty's Red Tops won't let anyone miss it.
'EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.'
Even more bollocks than usual.
All I'm saying is that the nightmare scenario you outline could already have happened, but it didn't. Maybe it won't in the future, even if Scotland achieves devomax and nothing changes for England. Further, we already have a clear example of the unfairness of the WLQ, when Scottish Labour MPs loyally forced through increases in English tuition fees, in the face of a Labour backbench rebellion among English Labour MPs.
Has this event become a major English Nationalist rallying call in the way that the Poll tax and North Sea oil have been for Scottish Nationalists? I don't see it.
When you run out of Fatcher metaphors - resort to Tricky Dicky instead.
I suppose it makes a change from Godwin. It's a little bit "nudge nudge wink wink" that.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
I think we all know full well that if the situation was reversed then Labour would be shouting from the rooftops about how unfair the current situation is and demanding EV4EL. It's so obviously utterly tribal and pathetic.
Logic must be bent completely out of shape in order to justify absolutely anything that lends advantage to Labour over the Tories. Stopping the Tories is the moral thing to do and everything else follows on from that no matter how ridiculous.
I canvassed Clacton on Friday, and believe me, Carswell is so popular there he would be massive odds on to win if he stood for the Conservatives or as an Independent. Defecting to UKIP was not about saving his career, I am surprised you can be bothered to type it, you must know its nonsense.
The Conservatives were 1/100 with Ladbrokes with Carswell as candidate, UKIP are 1/100 on Betfair now. what are you basing your comments on?
Cameron like Nixon, didn't "win" his first general election, but won his second and third general elections, and his opponent third time around got the dockside hooker treatment.
Much misunderstood politician, who only resorted to Watergate because JFK shennanigans in Chicago, which Nixon thought JFK stole the whole election.
1. The constitution is too important for half baked measures such as a grand committee of English MPs or electing a small number of hereditaries to sit in the Lords. Or jerrymandering boundaries to suit the government of the day. Or forcing a half-arsed referendum on a half-arsed half-solution to FPTP. We need a proper constitutional convention to properly discuss all the issues and agree a comprehensive settlement to all these issues.
2. Most voters couldn't give a toss about point 1.
No-one in Labour, perhaps. Which is hardly surprising, as Labour seem even more incompetent, self-serving and nasty than usual when it comes to constitutional matters.
Fortunately the Conservatives are not so blind, and in fact have cared a great deal about it, even assembling the MacKay commission to look into the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_the_consequences_of_devolution_for_the_House_of_Commons
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130403030652/http://tmc.independent.gov.uk/
as far as I remember, the issue was even mentioned in their 2010 manifesto.
So perhaps no-one in Labour gave (or gives) a damn about it. But perhaps that's a sign of why Labour are heading towards losing the 2015 GE ...
In one paragraph you managed to instruct Roger about how the Left must act in the interests of the ordinary man - whatever they are, and then use the most ridiculous partisan language about Tories who are clearly genetically incapable of doing so.
It's precisely this sort of talk that makes those of us who've voted both Left and Right roll our eyes. You're basically attempting to make me ashamed. Well it doesn't work.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Over/Under market on Labour's share of the vote (UK wide) being 36.1%
Which is what the Tories got in 2010.
What would the price PBers reckon would be a fair prices on that market.
FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.
Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.
0% increase in benefits vs 1%
'Mansion tax' vs more high value council tax bands
Plenty of wiggle room......
7/4 Over?