A staggeringly bad result for the LibDems with just 349, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE VOTES ! And let's have none of this supposed pro-Tory tactical voting malarkey, LibDems have never been known to vote tactically for the Blues in their sweet little lives, quite the opposite in fact. Those in the party *cough* who are relying on Ashcroft's polls to save them at the forthcoming GE could be in for a nasty shock. Personally, I've more confidence in Stephen Fisher's model showing them losing over half their seats.
The bell that tolls for the libdems is that the Greens got more than 400% of their vote with 4.2%, making comparisons with labours 2.2% in Westmoreland irrelevant.
It is the loss of votes to the greens that will see their 2015 MPs fit into a peoplecarrier
The Greens are irrelevant in almost all of the LibDem targets. Where were the Greens in the Cheadle constituency last night ?
I'm afraid you too often allow your total disdain of the LibDems to cloud any reasoned analysis of their essential position which is dire in most seats but enjoying substantial strength in several dozen seats.
In contrast Ukip enjoys broad support but with limited opportunities to convert to wins in a general election.
Once again Jack W showing us his superior analytical skills.
It is the absolute lack of understanding by many PBers of how FPTP works that I find so perplexing.
Once again OGH showing us his superior analytical skills.
Get a room you two.
It should be a cause for celebration that Mike Smithson and I should provide a level of sanity amongst the tirade of dross that PB occasionally pours forth in the aftermath of the heady brew of a by-election.
Mike and I are wily old birds who have seen miraculous by-elections scream through the political landscape only to fade into irrelevance at the general election. It's the nature of the beast and the voters thoroughly enjoy participating in the ritual of government by-election bashing.
I'm interested to know why Reckless is voting with Labour today. Has he really had a damascene style conversion on this issue (along with several other issues) or is the truth that the two kippers are basically now there to stir up as much trouble for Cameron as possible (since a Cameron outright win in May 2015 is the one and only kippers true nightmare).
"Over the long run, we estimate that London is one of only three UK regions to have dependably made a net contribution towards the overall UK fiscal balance. In the nine years prior to the economic and financial crisis of 2008/09, London‟s surplus ranged between £10bn and £20bn. During the worst years of the economic downturn, London‟s fiscal account dipped just below balance, in 2009/10, before rebounding to around £5bn the following year."
London should go independent and let the hicks work out for themselves how they are going to fund their reactionary dreams.
Do you say this sort of stuff just to get a reaction? Unlike almost all other subjectd on which you comment, it's entirely unconstrucfive. So I just ignore then, tbh.
Country types don't like what London stands for. But they do like its money. It's quite a feat to bite the hand that feeds you and expect to be re-fed, but it's one that the provinces keep expecting to be able to pull off.
A repeat of how you feel about his subject: these arguments clearly generate a strong emotional reaction in you. But I expect if you did truly think and reflect on this, you'd be much more circumspect: you're too intelligent to be anything other.
A staggeringly bad result for the LibDems with just 349, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE VOTES ! And let's have none of this supposed pro-Tory tactical voting malarkey, LibDems have never been known to vote tactically for the Blues in their sweet little lives, quite the opposite in fact. Those in the party *cough* who are relying on Ashcroft's polls to save them at the forthcoming GE could be in for a nasty shock. Personally, I've more confidence in Stephen Fisher's model showing them losing over half their seats.
The bell that tolls for the libdems is that the Greens got more than 400% of their vote with 4.2%, making comparisons with labours 2.2% in Westmoreland irrelevant.
It is the loss of votes to the greens that will see their 2015 MPs fit into a peoplecarrier
The Greens are irrelevant in almost all of the LibDem targets. Where were the Greens in the Cheadle constituency last night ?
I'm afraid you too often allow your total disdain of the LibDems to cloud any reasoned analysis of their essential position which is dire in most seats but enjoying substantial strength in several dozen seats.
In contrast Ukip enjoys broad support but with limited opportunities to convert to wins in a general election.
Once again Jack W showing us his superior analytical skills.
It is the absolute lack of understanding by many PBers of how FPTP works that I find so perplexing.
Once again OGH showing us his superior analytical skills.
Get a room you two.
Lib Dems get 0.87% their lowest vote % ever and take comfort in their cot blanket called FPTP.
It's extraordinary that the bulk of today's news has been about the lamentable state of the Labour party. They really need to get a grip or they'll end up a total laughing stock.
A staggeringly bad result for the LibDems with just 349, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE VOTES ! And let's have none of this supposed pro-Tory tactical voting malarkey, LibDems have never been known to vote tactically for the Blues in their sweet little lives, quite the opposite in fact. Those in the party *cough* who are relying on Ashcroft's polls to save them at the forthcoming GE could be in for a nasty shock. Personally, I've more confidence in Stephen Fisher's model showing them losing over half their seats.
The bell that tolls for the libdems is that the Greens got more than 400% of their vote with 4.2%, making comparisons with labours 2.2% in Westmoreland irrelevant.
It is the loss of votes to the greens that will see their 2015 MPs fit into a peoplecarrier
The Greens are irrelevant in almost all of the LibDem targets. Where were the Greens in the Cheadle constituency last night ?
I'm afraid you too often allow your total disdain of the LibDems to cloud any reasoned analysis of their essential position which is dire in most seats but enjoying substantial strength in several dozen seats.
In contrast Ukip enjoys broad support but with limited opportunities to convert to wins in a general election.
Once again Jack W showing us his superior analytical skills.
It is the absolute lack of understanding by many PBers of how FPTP works that I find so perplexing.
Once again OGH showing us his superior analytical skills.
Get a room you two.
It should be a cause for celebration that my Mike Smithson and I should provide a level of sanity amongst the tirade of dross that PB occasionally pours forth in the aftermath of the heady brew of a by-election.
Mike and I are wily old birds who have seen miraculous by-elections scream through the political landscape only to fade into irrelevance at the general election. It's the nature of the beast and the voters thoroughly enjoy participating in the ritual of government by-election bashing.
Whatever. As long as you two do your bashing behind closed doors.
"Over the long run, we estimate that London is one of only three UK regions to have dependably made a net contribution towards the overall UK fiscal balance. In the nine years prior to the economic and financial crisis of 2008/09, London‟s surplus ranged between £10bn and £20bn. During the worst years of the economic downturn, London‟s fiscal account dipped just below balance, in 2009/10, before rebounding to around £5bn the following year."
London should go independent and let the hicks work out for themselves how they are going to fund their reactionary dreams.
So, you quote from a London boosterism site to back you up?
And those "hicks" you so distain saved London's ass just so very few years ago.
I realise that facts and figures are something that you struggle with, but the inconvenient truth is that London (with all those non-native inhabitants that make you shudder so) fund the rest of the country's lifestyle.
If you want to live in the 1950s, you'd have to get used to 1950s standards of living as well.
This is a bit rich.
The direct financial interventions, the free money known as QE and huge infrastructure expenditure (forgotten the Olympics, already?) are complete mysteries to you.
Kippers a bit quiet after being so voluble for weeks on end - just maybe they're not as happy as they'd like us all to think.
I think 'Quietly satisfied and watching the other two parties make fools out of themselves' about covers it. The trend is with Ukip. 90% polls and landslide by-election wins you can keep for flash in the pan parties like the SDP.
Reckless is surely going to be another Dr Spink - a UKIP five-minute wonder who vanishes into obscurity after a few months. UKIP's lead is nothing compared to, say, the Lib Dems' Christ Church by-election win of 1993, which the Tories subsequently overturned at their nadir of 1997.
Yes, we need a bit of perspective on PB. UKIP are doing well at the moment, no doubt about that. Not as well as the SDP did in their heyday nor as well as the LIbDems have done since (Christchurch as you noted but also Newbury, Bermondsey, Eastbourne Brent etc). Also Clacton and Rochester were really UKIP holds, since the defectors were sitting MPs. LibDems did really badly in the Rochester by-election, Labour did really badly in the Winchester by-election. Neither was in contention in those seats and there's not many conclusions you can draw from them.
Heywood and Middleton might be a useful indicator as well... deepest red nearly went purple.
Yes they did well in a by-election with 36% turnout, but no prizes for 2nd place.
A repeat of how you feel about his subject: these arguments clearly generate a strong emotional reaction in you. But I expect if you did truly think and reflect on this, you'd be much more circumspect: you're too intelligent to be anything other.
I'm not particularly emotional on the subject. I regret that apparently intelligent people can see fit to rant about metropolitan liberals when very often those metropolitan liberals are funding the way of life that they consider under threat. I regret that those apparently intelligent people want to lead the country, including the bits that actually make money, into an economic and cultural cul de sac. But emotional? No, not really.
"Over the long run, we estimate that London is one of only three UK regions to have dependably made a net contribution towards the overall UK fiscal balance. In the nine years prior to the economic and financial crisis of 2008/09, London‟s surplus ranged between £10bn and £20bn. During the worst years of the economic downturn, London‟s fiscal account dipped just below balance, in 2009/10, before rebounding to around £5bn the following year."
London should go independent and let the hicks work out for themselves how they are going to fund their reactionary dreams.
So, you quote from a London boosterism site to back you up?
And those "hicks" you so distain saved London's ass just so very few years ago.
I realise that facts and figures are something that you struggle with, but the inconvenient truth is that London (with all those non-native inhabitants that make you shudder so) fund the rest of the country's lifestyle.
If you want to live in the 1950s, you'd have to get used to 1950s standards of living as well.
Since a significant portion of the London wealth creators live well outside the city this sort of argument is pretty stupid.
A staggeringly bad result for the LibDems with just 349, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE VOTES ! And let's have none of this supposed pro-Tory tactical voting malarkey, LibDems have never been known to vote tactically for the Blues in their sweet little lives, quite the opposite in fact. Those in the party *cough* who are relying on Ashcroft's polls to save them at the forthcoming GE could be in for a nasty shock. Personally, I've more confidence in Stephen Fisher's model showing them losing over half their seats.
The bell that tolls for the libdems is that the Greens got more than 400% of their vote with 4.2%, making comparisons with labours 2.2% in Westmoreland irrelevant.
It is the loss of votes to the greens that will see their 2015 MPs fit into a peoplecarrier
The Greens are irrelevant in almost all of the LibDem targets. Where were the Greens in the Cheadle constituency last night ?
I'm afraid you too often allow your total disdain of the LibDems to cloud any reasoned analysis of their essential position which is dire in most seats but enjoying substantial strength in several dozen seats.
In contrast Ukip enjoys broad support but with limited opportunities to convert to wins in a general election.
Once again Jack W showing us his superior analytical skills.
It is the absolute lack of understanding by many PBers of how FPTP works that I find so perplexing.
Once again OGH showing us his superior analytical skills.
Get a room you two.
It should be a cause for celebration that my Mike Smithson and I should provide a level of sanity amongst the tirade of dross that PB occasionally pours forth in the aftermath of the heady brew of a by-election.
Mike and I are wily old birds who have seen miraculous by-elections scream through the political landscape only to fade into irrelevance at the general election. It's the nature of the beast and the voters thoroughly enjoy participating in the ritual of government by-election bashing.
Whatever. As long as you two do your bashing behind closed doors.
Watching Mr. Reckless be sworn in and everyone then chip off, i noticed Mr. Carswell walked out of the back of the chamber behind the speaker on the Govt side, not the Labour side and despite sitting on the other side of the house..
Confirms my theory he's a double-agent returning soon to the blue team just at the right time...
That or I'm over tired and trying to avoid writing 3 suitability reports on pensions by trolling froth on pb.
With all this Labour implosion and the passing of peak Kipper , the news that There will be a new Nat paper to appeal to 37% of the population in Scotland has passed by.
The Sunday Herald is going daily and will be called The National. Should imagine the Heralds days are numbered.
"Over the long run, we estimate that London is one of only three UK regions to have dependably made a net contribution towards the overall UK fiscal balance. In the nine years prior to the economic and financial crisis of 2008/09, London‟s surplus ranged between £10bn and £20bn. During the worst years of the economic downturn, London‟s fiscal account dipped just below balance, in 2009/10, before rebounding to around £5bn the following year."
London should go independent and let the hicks work out for themselves how they are going to fund their reactionary dreams.
So, you quote from a London boosterism site to back you up?
And those "hicks" you so distain saved London's ass just so very few years ago.
I realise that facts and figures are something that you struggle with, but the inconvenient truth is that London (with all those non-native inhabitants that make you shudder so) fund the rest of the country's lifestyle.
If you want to live in the 1950s, you'd have to get used to 1950s standards of living as well.
Since a significant portion of the London wealth creators live well outside the city this sort of argument is pretty stupid.
All the wealthy areas of London vote Conservative.
And Carswell on QT - doesn't exactly have the common touch does he? Ken Clarke still does the business better even as he nears his dotage.
I agree, came across badly, has very esoteric views too. UKIP badly needed some other MPs to represent them.
Carswell certainly didn't carry the Birmingham QT audience with him. He reminds me of John Redwood - they might both say much that is of interest, but you wouldn't want either of them fronting the presentation of your party's policies.
''Most leftists can't do that though, because they don't value English history because they don't like the English. ''
To be fair, I don;t think this is true of the genuine labour people who used to populate labour in the days when it was a genuine mass movement.
I don;t think Harold Wilson hated the English. Or Clem Attlee. Or James Callaghan. Or even, for that matter, Arthur Scargill.
Labour used to be able to hide their sneering intellectuals. Now they can't.
Lefties do not like English history. They do not like British history. That why its a good idea to see that they do not gain power.
I think the genuinely likeable working class northern Labour MPs, who had real world lives and jobs, like the 3 PMs you cite, don't hate the English at all, indeed are probably very patriotic and proud. Someone like Alan Johnson, probably the Labour politician I could most live with as PM out of the current crowd.
It's those of a right-on, intellectual, Guardian-reading, wonkish, hoity-toity, champagne socialist, mwah-mwah, darling luvvie dear, elitist, culture-wanker persuasion who are the complete arseholes who hate the English, the British, our history, and our country and all it stands for.
Emily Thornberry is just the sort of person who epitomises that perfectly. Then you have those who are a bit more connected but still within that circle - the likes of EdM and the Islingtonians who surround him. Even Blair (and Mrs Blair) weren't totally removed.
Lib Dems get 0.87% their lowest vote % ever and take comfort in their cot blanket called FPTP.
A question for Mike and other Lib Dems:
If you get umpteen seats, but a derisory national vote share, why should you be treated differently from other such parties e.g. DUP, SNP?
National vote share DOES matter.
Wasn't there an election when the Tories got more votes but fewer seats? It may happen next year too. The LibDems, Greens and all the other smaller parties have been penalised by FPTP up to now, so explain why vote share matters. It doesn't under FPTP.
MP condemns Labour decision to increase influence over selection of parliamentary candidates Former party vice-chairman Tom Watson says local candidates could lose out to special advisers close to leader’s office
He is a Tory voter / cant be arsed to vote isnt he?
Of course he will dance to the Suns tune.
I have no idea who he votes for, but it's hardly his fault that a sneering Labour MP from London chose to plaster a picture of his house all over the front pages.
Can’t believe the Thornberry debacle is still rumbling along – Ed needs to do something impressive before the weekend to knock it off the front pages.
I’m sure Ms Powell would appreciate the wisdom of PB for some capital advice ; )
When you look at the people Ed has surrounded himself with, surely even the most ardent Leftie must despair. It's like the intellectual and capability equivalent of the old saying "if you want to look thin, hang around fat people."
Lucy Powell must have had one of the most torrid initiations ever in a top job. That Ed surrounds himself with such lame people should worry the crap out of anyone thinking for a moment how he would run the country.
A repeat of how you feel about his subject: these arguments clearly generate a strong emotional reaction in you. But I expect if you did truly think and reflect on this, you'd be much more circumspect: you're too intelligent to be anything other.
I'm not particularly emotional on the subject. I regret that apparently intelligent people can see fit to rant about metropolitan liberals when very often those metropolitan liberals are funding the way of life that they consider under threat. I regret that those apparently intelligent people want to lead the country, including the bits that actually make money, into an economic and cultural cul de sac. But emotional? No, not really.
More richness.
Considering the number of those metropolitan liberals paid by the state (politicians and their hangers on, working in the subsidised arts, education, BBC or in the NHS teaching hospitals), to talk of their funding the "hicks" is risible.
The Sun have overstepped the mark now with Thornberry story. Organizing / filming white van man attempting to doorstep her is pushing it too far, and just wait for the left leaning media to go nuclear on them / Murdoch / etc etc etc.
What's wrong with that?
Is it any different to her taking a photo of the poor bloke's house, posting it on Twitter to the world at large and saying "look at this idiot, let's all have a laugh at him"? She hasn't had much to say so far, surely not only The Sun are outside her doorstep right now, given this is currently the UK's top political story? (and on a day UKIP won their second MP, ffs... - lol!)
He is a Tory voter / cant be arsed to vote isnt he?
Of course he will dance to the Suns tune.
I have no idea who he votes for, but it's hardly his fault that a sneering Labour MP from London chose to plaster a picture of his house all over the front pages.
I thought he was a swing voter, Lab 1997 - 2005 Tory in 2010?
Watching Mr. Reckless be sworn in and everyone then chip off, i noticed Mr. Carswell walked out of the back of the chamber behind the speaker on the Govt side, not the Labour side and despite sitting on the other side of the house..
Confirms my theory he's a double-agent returning soon to the blue team just at the right time...
That or I'm over tired and trying to avoid writing 3 suitability reports on pensions by trolling froth on pb.
Could be. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't return to the Tory fold with lurid tales of cultism, hero-worship and subjugation within UKIP ranks. There's a precedent. Paul Marsden returned to Labour after defecting to the Lib Dems with tales of Kennedy's drinking exploits and the hierarchy's attempts at a cover-up.
Omg - the comments are really funny puts the naffo comedians on the beeb to shame. The one with her in a St. George swimsuit and the one just called lunch are really epic.
If I could be bothered I'd embed the Tweetpic here. It's a beaut.
The one of the lady in the US flag was more to my taste.
A repeat of how you feel about his subject: these arguments clearly generate a strong emotional reaction in you. But I expect if you did truly think and reflect on this, you'd be much more circumspect: you're too intelligent to be anything other.
I'm not particularly emotional on the subject. I regret that apparently intelligent people can see fit to rant about metropolitan liberals when very often those metropolitan liberals are funding the way of life that they consider under threat. I regret that those apparently intelligent people want to lead the country, including the bits that actually make money, into an economic and cultural cul de sac. But emotional? No, not really.
More richness.
Considering the number of those metropolitan liberals paid by the state (politicians and their hangers on, working in the subsidised arts, education, BBC or in the NHS teaching hospitals), to talk of their funding the "hicks" is risible.
You need to learn the meaning of the word "surplus".
I expect that the judgment being delivered in Merck v Merck this morning was rather better attended by the press than the parties would have expected 24 hours ago.
The afternoon after the night before and one of those results with crumbs of comfort for all even the LDs who did beat the Loonies to be fair.
As for Emily Thornberry, I do think some of the indignation has gone over the top but when the defenceless animal is down, the hyenas rarely show any mercy. I can understand Ed M's frustration - it was an elementary political mistake which a frontbench politician shouldn't be making. As Nick said on the other thread, once the indignation burns itself out, the story is gone as well. Those who dislike Labour have simply found confirmation of their viewpoint.
R&S wasn't a bad result for the Conservatives - I'm still unclear as to the extent of the "effort" - was it 600 activists at Newark ? How many feet were on the ground regularly in the last fortnight ? It probably wasn't wise for Cameron to make such a public display as the defeat looks like a repudiation of him personally.
As for Labour, the theory they could have won with some effort doesn't stand up to much scrutiny in my view. The line at Labour HQ was possibly that effort might have allowed the Conservatives to scrape home and weaken UKIP. As with H&M, we're left with the "What If ?" questions. Would defeat at H&M have triggered a leadership crisis for Labour - would coming third at R&S have done the same for the Conservatives ? We'll never know.
My one thought is that the turnout (51% I believe) and the comment by OGH from the Ashcroft poll on the source of UKIP support suggests that if the turnout had been higher, Reckless would have won bigger. To assume therefore hat the seat will revert depends on where you think turnout might be next May - in contested marginals like R&S turnout is always higher than in safe seats like East Ham. UKIP need to be able to get more of the previous non-voters out to vote for them in May than they managed yesterday.
How seriously is the British political system now taking working class voters and their worries? There can be few more eloquent illustrations than events in Rochester this week. Emily Thornberry took a picture of White Van Man’s house. Mark Reckless of Ukip suggested that Europeans living and working in the UK might be expelled from the UK. Miss Thornberry lost her job. Mr Reckless won re-election.
I expect that the judgment being delivered in Merck v Merck this morning was rather better attended by the press than the parties would have expected 24 hours ago.
What are the lads arguing about this time?
I have no idea. The judge, however, was Mr Thornberry, aka Nugee J.
Of topic: I am - City crooks permitting - intending to be at DD's this evening. If OGH is there taking pictures he can photograph my shoes only, for the benefit of Beverley C, TSE and any other PB shoe fetishists.
And we can then continue discussing the political significance of a football fan putting up English flags at the time of an England-Scotland football match.
When Polish children displaced non-Catholic children from high performing Catholic schools in London, that's when the Guardian became viciously anti-Catholic.
Why didnt they become viciously anti-Polish instead?
Liberals are better at hiding their racism.
When they are attacking Faith Schools they talk of being against discrimination, which is a funny way of describing attacking Catholic, Jewish and Muslim institutions.
By this criterion, the KKK burning Black churches was anti-discriminatory.
Afternoon all UKIP need to be able to get more of the previous non-voters out to vote for them in May than they managed yesterday.
This was their moment in the spotlight - why should they be able to win more voters back from the Can't Be Arsed Party in May?
Plus the Tories will have the canvass returns from the significant number who said they would return to the party in the general, but were enjoying having a bit of a holiday fling.
"Over the long run, we estimate that London is one of only three UK regions to have dependably made a net contribution towards the overall UK fiscal balance. In the nine years prior to the economic and financial crisis of 2008/09, London‟s surplus ranged between £10bn and £20bn. During the worst years of the economic downturn, London‟s fiscal account dipped just below balance, in 2009/10, before rebounding to around £5bn the following year."
London should go independent and let the hicks work out for themselves how they are going to fund their reactionary dreams.
Do you say this sort of stuff just to get a reaction? Unlike almost all other subjectd on which you comment, it's entirely unconstrucfive. So I just ignore then, tbh.
Country types don't like what London stands for. But they do like its money. It's quite a feat to bite the hand that feeds you and expect to be re-fed, but it's one that the provinces keep expecting to be able to pull off.
London without its hinterlands would turn in on itself.
It's a rareified bubble, but needs the dose of reality that it gets from the surrounding country.
Comments
Mike and I are wily old birds who have seen miraculous by-elections scream through the political landscape only to fade into irrelevance at the general election. It's the nature of the beast and the voters thoroughly enjoy participating in the ritual of government by-election bashing.
The direct financial interventions, the free money known as QE and huge infrastructure expenditure (forgotten the Olympics, already?) are complete mysteries to you.
Of course he will dance to the Suns tune.
Watching Mr. Reckless be sworn in and everyone then chip off, i noticed Mr. Carswell walked out of the back of the chamber behind the speaker on the Govt side, not the Labour side and despite sitting on the other side of the house..
Confirms my theory he's a double-agent returning soon to the blue team just at the right time...
That or I'm over tired and trying to avoid writing 3 suitability reports on pensions by trolling froth on pb.
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-11-20/labour-mp-quits-shadow-cabinet-over-white-van-tweet/
The Sunday Herald is going daily and will be called The National. Should imagine the Heralds days are numbered.
I’m sure Ms Powell would appreciate the wisdom of PB for some capital advice ; )
It's those of a right-on, intellectual, Guardian-reading, wonkish, hoity-toity, champagne socialist, mwah-mwah, darling luvvie dear, elitist, culture-wanker persuasion who are the complete arseholes who hate the English, the British, our history, and our country and all it stands for.
Emily Thornberry is just the sort of person who epitomises that perfectly. Then you have those who are a bit more connected but still within that circle - the likes of EdM and the Islingtonians who surround him. Even Blair (and Mrs Blair) weren't totally removed.
The LibDems, Greens and all the other smaller parties have been penalised by FPTP up to now, so explain why vote share matters. It doesn't under FPTP.
More SPADS:
MP condemns Labour decision to increase influence over selection of parliamentary candidates
Former party vice-chairman Tom Watson says local candidates could lose out to special advisers close to leader’s office
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/tom-watson-condemns-labour-leader-influence-parliamentary-candidate-selection
Well, with half their members in London, they can't find them all seats there.....
Lucy Powell must have had one of the most torrid initiations ever in a top job. That Ed surrounds himself with such lame people should worry the crap out of anyone thinking for a moment how he would run the country.
Considering the number of those metropolitan liberals paid by the state (politicians and their hangers on, working in the subsidised arts, education, BBC or in the NHS teaching hospitals), to talk of their funding the "hicks" is risible.
Is it any different to her taking a photo of the poor bloke's house, posting it on Twitter to the world at large and saying "look at this idiot, let's all have a laugh at him"? She hasn't had much to say so far, surely not only The Sun are outside her doorstep right now, given this is currently the UK's top political story? (and on a day UKIP won their second MP, ffs... - lol!)
The afternoon after the night before and one of those results with crumbs of comfort for all even the LDs who did beat the Loonies to be fair.
As for Emily Thornberry, I do think some of the indignation has gone over the top but when the defenceless animal is down, the hyenas rarely show any mercy. I can understand Ed M's frustration - it was an elementary political mistake which a frontbench politician shouldn't be making. As Nick said on the other thread, once the indignation burns itself out, the story is gone as well. Those who dislike Labour have simply found confirmation of their viewpoint.
R&S wasn't a bad result for the Conservatives - I'm still unclear as to the extent of the "effort" - was it 600 activists at Newark ? How many feet were on the ground regularly in the last fortnight ? It probably wasn't wise for Cameron to make such a public display as the defeat looks like a repudiation of him personally.
As for Labour, the theory they could have won with some effort doesn't stand up to much scrutiny in my view. The line at Labour HQ was possibly that effort might have allowed the Conservatives to scrape home and weaken UKIP. As with H&M, we're left with the "What If ?" questions. Would defeat at H&M have triggered a leadership crisis for Labour - would coming third at R&S have done the same for the Conservatives ? We'll never know.
My one thought is that the turnout (51% I believe) and the comment by OGH from the Ashcroft poll on the source of UKIP support suggests that if the turnout had been higher, Reckless would have won bigger. To assume therefore hat the seat will revert depends on where you think turnout might be next May - in contested marginals like R&S turnout is always higher than in safe seats like East Ham. UKIP need to be able to get more of the previous non-voters out to vote for them in May than they managed yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11245808/Emily-Thornberry-White-Van-Man-and-Rochester-who-lost-the-working-class.html
And we can then continue discussing the political significance of a football fan putting up English flags at the time of an England-Scotland football match.
When they are attacking Faith Schools they talk of being against discrimination, which is a funny way of describing attacking Catholic, Jewish and Muslim institutions.
By this criterion, the KKK burning Black churches was anti-discriminatory.
Labour Damaged As Thornberry Gets On Her Bike
http://news.sky.com/story/1377811/labour-damaged-as-thornberry-gets-on-her-bike
Plus the Tories will have the canvass returns from the significant number who said they would return to the party in the general, but were enjoying having a bit of a holiday fling.
It's a rareified bubble, but needs the dose of reality that it gets from the surrounding country.
Might have been the Sun's doing?