Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jim Murphy wins Scottish Labour leadership election with 56

24

Comments

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Yorkcity said:

    malcolmg said:

    antifrank said:

    This is probably the optimal result for Scottish Labour out of those on offer. Jim Murphy is at least capable, even if he is not fully stocked on charm. Since he has registered a convincing victory, it is not really open to his opponents to sulk from the sidelines or to launch a guerilla campaign against him in the short term.

    Labour may still do badly next May in Scotland, but I expect that the chances of obliteration have receded significantly with this result.

    It is certainly the best possible outcome for SNP, having a Tory as their Scottish puppet leader will not be a rallying point.
    Sending your previous leader back to Westminster and the Oil Price the SNP worked their economic credibility on will be thrown right back ..

    Do you ever criticize the SNP ?

    your point is , why is Salmond choosing to continue his career elsewhere an issue and can you name anyone who ever gets/has previously got oil prices correct , it could be 200 dollars next month , who knows.

    PS , yes the changing of the drink drive laws is pathetic , as is stopping buy 3 for 2 and other such interfering nanny state stuff they come up with. They are arseholes like the rest but are far superior to the crooks in Westminster, I am no SNP fan boy.

    Salmond is only ever really happy at Westminster, I think he finds Holyrood provincial and lacking in glamour.
    barking as ever Monica
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    malcolmg said:

    Does this mean a by-election?

    I gather Murphy will fight his seat in the GE and then give it up once he's won a seat for Holyrood in 2016.
    He will not give up the gravy train for sure, he will milk as much as he can get.

    gravy train ? Has the former FM handed back his £65k yet ?
  • In my opinion, Murphy clearly makes Labour a stronger proposition in Scotland. We need to separate the agenda SNP supporters have been pushing for months - "Murphy is too right-wing to win traditional Labour voters over" - from what people actually think on the ground. Far too often I see analysis that seems to just take whatever politically motivated spin the SNP say as if it's an observable fact.

    If the SNP actually thought Murphy would turn out to be a disaster for Labour they wouldn't have invested so much effort in trying to discredit him in the first place. I've heard almost nothing about Findlay from them, despite their argument claiming he'd be a far more dangerous candidate for the SNP than Murphy. That speaks volumes about what they really think.

    The biggest problem for the party isn't that they've become "too right-wing", it's that they've been led by low calibre personalities who have effectively allowed Salmond (a towering personality by any measure) to set the political agenda. Whatever Murphy may be, he's clearly a big personality who can take the fight to the SNP and that's clearly going to improve their fortunes in my view.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Following the rise and fall (and rise) of stamp duty in the disaggregated accounts is interesting.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Yorkcity said:

    chestnut said:

    Wasn't Jim Murphy meant to be one of the prominent Labour/No people during the referendum?

    He was.

    No won.

    True Carlotta

    It did .

    You would think the opposite that 55% voted yes.

    I supported a yes vote for scotland, in the main because it will become a neverendum campaign.

    Jim Murphy came across to me as a tough campaigner.
    A big jessie who was shouting to nobody until he got hit with an egg. After that he was scared to come out the house.
    And yet.....

    His side won......

    Yours, lost.......

    what a pansy you are, it was a political vote. You seriously need to get a life.
    I see your grasp of debate has not been dulled by your trouncing. What happened to your emigration plans? Or are you stuck in a land of hopeless losers, to use your phrase?
    Again you fantasise and whilst not stuck I do indeed live in a country that has 55% of losers living in it for sure. You are a sick nasty Tory , easy to see why you are always on here , only way you could pretend to have friends or a life.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    Alistair said:

    They've released voting percentages but not raw figures. SLab embarrassed about membership number in face of SNP membership surge?

    Quite so. It's one of the key questions about SLAB and has been for some years now. Could be critical at a GE when they can't import Labour activists from over the border to replace the locals who are scunnered with the party. The apparent policy of refighting indyref only looks like maintaining the same disenchantment in party members.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    chestnut said:

    He was.

    No won.

    But Labour lost.
    As a rabid nasty little pipsqueak Tory , she will not worry about that, the Tories love Murphy as a kindred spirit of the nasty party.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    "I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans."

    The same could be said for Plymouth and Portsmouth. Fortunately the horrors of the post-war rebuilding are themselves now being removed and all three cities will be much better as a result.

    Southampton does also have a very fine curry house, probably one of the best in the South of England.

    Oh? Which one is that, please? I have to go there on business ...

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Yorkcity said:

    malcolmg said:

    Yorkcity said:

    malcolmg said:

    antifrank said:

    This is probably the optimal result for Scottish Labour out of those on offer. Jim Murphy is at least capable, even if he is not fully stocked on charm. Since he has registered a convincing victory, it is not really open to his opponents to sulk from the sidelines or to launch a guerilla campaign against him in the short term.

    Labour may still do badly next May in Scotland, but I expect that the chances of obliteration have receded significantly with this result.

    It is certainly the best possible outcome for SNP, having a Tory as their Scottish puppet leader will not be a rallying point.
    Sending your previous leader back to Westminster and the Oil Price the SNP worked their economic credibility on will be thrown right back ..

    Do you ever criticize the SNP ?

    your point is , why is Salmond choosing to continue his career elsewhere an issue and can you name anyone who ever gets/has previously got oil prices correct , it could be 200 dollars next month , who knows.

    PS , yes the changing of the drink drive laws is pathetic , as is stopping buy 3 for 2 and other such interfering nanny state stuff they come up with. They are arseholes like the rest but are far superior to the crooks in Westminster, I am no SNP fan boy.
    True regarding the Oil Price and quantitative easing you get more sense from Max Keiser than the mainstream media.

    Regarding Alex Salmond he should show some magnanimity, and not go back to Westminster.

    He threw the kitchen sink at keeping all the items of the British state such as the currency, an unelected head of state etc to not scare the voters, and still lost , because the Scottish people did not have the courage to leave .
    The SNP are like their national football team in the seventies all promise, but can not get out of the group stage at the world cup.
    Now they do not even qualify.
    Not so sure, if there is an upset and they get a lot of MP's it is perfect timing. If they get the same as last time I would agree it is pointless, but if a big SNP contingent and hung parliament/shaky coalition then he could make a huge difference.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    In my opinion, Murphy clearly makes Labour a stronger proposition in Scotland. We need to separate the agenda SNP supporters have been pushing for months - "Murphy is too right-wing to win traditional Labour voters over" - from what people actually think on the ground. Far too often I see analysis that seems to just take whatever politically motivated spin the SNP say as if it's an observable fact.

    If the SNP actually thought Murphy would turn out to be a disaster for Labour they wouldn't have invested so much effort in trying to discredit him in the first place. I've heard almost nothing about Findlay from them, despite their argument claiming he'd be a far more dangerous candidate for the SNP than Murphy. That speaks volumes about what they really think.

    The biggest problem for the party isn't that they've become "too right-wing", it's that they've been led by low calibre personalities who have effectively allowed Salmond (a towering personality by any measure) to set the political agenda. Whatever Murphy may be, he's clearly a big personality who can take the fight to the SNP and that's clearly going to improve their fortunes in my view.

    It's difficult to be sure, because so much of Scottish politics is mediated by the mostly Unionist press and that has been building up Mr M tremendously for months - he was conceivably planning a leadership push, at least as an option, from well before indyref. The National was rather more balanced, or at least had a different balance, but it's only been settled as a permanent newspaper for days or weeks.

  • Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Yorkcity said:

    malcolmg said:

    antifrank said:

    This is probably the optimal result for Scottish Labour out of those on offer. Jim Murphy is at least capable, even if he is not fully stocked on charm. Since he has registered a convincing victory, it is not really open to his opponents to sulk from the sidelines or to launch a guerilla campaign against him in the short term.

    Labour may still do badly next May in Scotland, but I expect that the chances of obliteration have receded significantly with this result.

    It is certainly the best possible outcome for SNP, having a Tory as their Scottish puppet leader will not be a rallying point.
    Sending your previous leader back to Westminster and the Oil Price the SNP worked their economic credibility on will be thrown right back ..

    Do you ever criticize the SNP ?

    your point is , why is Salmond choosing to continue his career elsewhere an issue and can you name anyone who ever gets/has previously got oil prices correct , it could be 200 dollars next month , who knows.
    I know it won't be $200 a barrel next month. Plenty of people said at the time the SNP's oil forecasts were hugely overstated. Thankfully 55% of the population weren't duped. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to find out how such an over inflated, unbelievable figure got into the White Paper, produced as it was, by impartial civil servants.
    The effect on Scotland's tax take of $60 oil (assuming a 50% reduction in oil based economic activity on top of the reduction in raw oil tax take) is less than natural year by year volatility in Scotland's tax receipts.

    Oil makes up 20% of the Scottish economy. A drop in its value of 50% is not background noise, it is catastrophe. But it will be interesting to see the figures you come up with to justify your claim.
    HMRC disaggregated accounts.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360002/disag-stats.pdf

    As the oil price drops, so direct income from North Sea oil falls; then on top of that there are reductions in Corporation Tax to factor in, plus reductions in income tax, plus reductions in investment. The cumulative effect is catastrophe for an economy so reliant on one sector. There is no getting round it I am afraid.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    In my opinion, Murphy clearly makes Labour a stronger proposition in Scotland. We need to separate the agenda SNP supporters have been pushing for months - "Murphy is too right-wing to win traditional Labour voters over" - from what people actually think on the ground. Far too often I see analysis that seems to just take whatever politically motivated spin the SNP say as if it's an observable fact.

    If the SNP actually thought Murphy would turn out to be a disaster for Labour they wouldn't have invested so much effort in trying to discredit him in the first place. I've heard almost nothing about Findlay from them, despite their argument claiming he'd be a far more dangerous candidate for the SNP than Murphy. That speaks volumes about what they really think.

    The biggest problem for the party isn't that they've become "too right-wing", it's that they've been led by low calibre personalities who have effectively allowed Salmond (a towering personality by any measure) to set the political agenda. Whatever Murphy may be, he's clearly a big personality who can take the fight to the SNP and that's clearly going to improve their fortunes in my view.

    Findlay was perfectly able to scupper himself without help from the SNP. Murphy is obviously a much better politician but will not suit most Scottish Labour people. He is a close to being a Tory as you can get.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    I'm surprised shadsy hasn't trimmed murphy's odds of reelection in East Renfrewshire.

    1/3 is probably value.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Does this mean a by-election?

    I gather Murphy will fight his seat in the GE and then give it up once he's won a seat for Holyrood in 2016.
    He will not give up the gravy train for sure, he will milk as much as he can get.

    gravy train ? Has the former FM handed back his £65k yet ?
    Alan, it went to charity, probably first money out of the golden trough to ever do so.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage)
    13/12/2014 10:16
    "No boots on the ground" we were told. "No mission creep" we were promised. This lot just can't help themselves... news.sky.com/story/1391206/…
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Yorkcity said:

    malcolmg said:

    antifrank said:

    This is probably the optimal result for Scottish Labour out of those on offer. Jim Murphy is at least capable, even if he is not fully stocked on charm. Since he has registered a convincing victory, it is not really open to his opponents to sulk from the sidelines or to launch a guerilla campaign against him in the short term.

    Labour may still do badly next May in Scotland, but I expect that the chances of obliteration have receded significantly with this result.

    It is certainly the best possible outcome for SNP, having a Tory as their Scottish puppet leader will not be a rallying point.
    Sending your previous leader back to Westminster and the Oil Price the SNP worked their economic credibility on will be thrown right back ..

    Do you ever criticize the SNP ?

    your point is , why is Salmond choosing to continue his career elsewhere an issue and can you name anyone who ever gets/has previously got oil prices correct , it could be 200 dollars next month , who knows.
    I know it won't be $200 a barrel next month. Plenty of people said at the time the SNP's oil forecasts were hugely overstated. Thankfully 55% of the population weren't duped. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to find out how such an over inflated, unbelievable figure got into the White Paper, produced as it was, by impartial civil servants.
    The effect on Scotland's tax take of $60 oil (assuming a 50% reduction in oil based economic activity on top of the reduction in raw oil tax take) is less than natural year by year volatility in Scotland's tax receipts.

    Oil makes up 20% of the Scottish economy. A drop in its value of 50% is not background noise, it is catastrophe. But it will be interesting to see the figures you come up with to justify your claim.
    HMRC disaggregated accounts.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360002/disag-stats.pdf

    As the oil price drops, so direct income from North Sea oil falls; then on top of that there are reductions in Corporation Tax to factor in, plus reductions in income tax, plus reductions in investment. The cumulative effect is catastrophe for an economy so reliant on one sector. There is no getting round it I am afraid.
    and if you had your own currency the bonds would be a hard sell so interest rates have to go up, or you sell your independence to Berlin.
  • I know very little about the candidates in this election, but strikes me from a distance they have elected the best campaigner. The SNP will at least have a battle on their hands.
  • Assuming the polls have been exaggerating the Labour decline, which seems likely (temporary media squabbling plus the SNP being flattered by referendum-only voters), the resulting "turnaround" story should set Murphy up nicely for the leadership of UK Labour.

    I also suspect he'll be a useful stick to beat Ed with - I'm sure his victory speech will be written up along the lines of 'If only Ed could talk from the heart like that...'
    On the other hand this changes the short-term calculation for the Blairites. Their best hope now needs a few years in the Scottish job to set himself up for the UK leadership. That means they need to make sure Ed Miliband either stays in the job well past 2015 or gets replaced by somebody with a terminal illness.
  • I am waiting for him to reply to an email. He appeared on the Today programme a few weeks ago, he said something to the effect that he wouldn't be so impertinent as to tell the English how they would want to be governed. A little while later he said he would be comfortable with "further devolution to cities and regions". I sent him an email asking how he squared these two incompatible statements. It was a polite email and I carefully avoided using the word "hypocrisy". I haven't had a reply, even from a minion.

    But are they incompatible? On the one hand he “wouldn't be so impertinent as to TELL”, on the other, he appears to be saying that if a particular system is chosen he would be content.

    Seems a reasonable position to me.

    It's a while since I heard it, so my memory is now slightly faulty. It was a response to a fairly open question about English devolution, he seemed to go straight for one solution (splitting England into penny packets) rather than considering other options e.g "of course the English can have their own Parliament if they want one".

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Carnyx said:

    "I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans."

    The same could be said for Plymouth and Portsmouth. Fortunately the horrors of the post-war rebuilding are themselves now being removed and all three cities will be much better as a result.

    Southampton does also have a very fine curry house, probably one of the best in the South of England.

    Oh? Which one is that, please? I have to go there on business ...

    You'll have to give me some time to dig out the details. It is bang in the middle of the city just around the corner from the Civic Centre and is up on the first floor with just a door at street level (like Veraswami's in London). I could take you there but I can't remember the name. The Hurstpierpoint & District Gentlemen's Temperance Society use it when we go on outings & adventures to that part of the world. Let me come back to you.
  • Assuming the polls have been exaggerating the Labour decline, which seems likely (temporary media squabbling plus the SNP being flattered by referendum-only voters), the resulting "turnaround" story should set Murphy up nicely for the leadership of UK Labour.

    I also suspect he'll be a useful stick to beat Ed with - I'm sure his victory speech will be written up along the lines of 'If only Ed could talk from the heart like that...'
    On the other hand this changes the short-term calculation for the Blairites. Their best hope now needs a few years in the Scottish job to set himself up for the UK leadership. That means they need to make sure Ed Miliband either stays in the job well past 2015 or gets replaced by somebody with a terminal illness.
    Er. What about Chukka? Mandelson is reportedly very keen on him.
  • Assuming the polls have been exaggerating the Labour decline, which seems likely (temporary media squabbling plus the SNP being flattered by referendum-only voters), the resulting "turnaround" story should set Murphy up nicely for the leadership of UK Labour.

    I also suspect he'll be a useful stick to beat Ed with - I'm sure his victory speech will be written up along the lines of 'If only Ed could talk from the heart like that...'
    On the other hand this changes the short-term calculation for the Blairites. Their best hope now needs a few years in the Scottish job to set himself up for the UK leadership. That means they need to make sure Ed Miliband either stays in the job well past 2015 or gets replaced by somebody with a terminal illness.
    Er. What about Chukka? Mandelson is reportedly very keen on him.
    Dunno, but it feels like he could do with a few more years as well.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    edited December 2014

    Indigo said:

    Meanwhile the Lib Dems are making "brave" forecasts.
    "top figures in the party are forecasting they will have 35-40 MPs "
    " The estimate is based on secret opinion polling seen by leading figures in Nick Clegg's party and obtained by Sky News.
    But they are predicting they will hold 28 seats, half their current 56. Another 10 are regarded as marginal, five more are less winnable, and senior Lib Dems expect to gain two seats from the Conservatives."
    "The two seats party chiefs predict they will win are Watford and Winchester"
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lib-dems-fear-losing-11-seats-election-230646430.html

    I guess they are hoping UKIP will take a huge chunk out of the CONs in Winchester, seems optimistic since there is a 3000 majority, and no one else to squeeze, plus the LDs have a new candidate. The LDs presumably had most of the Gown vote, but students and dons seem to have been moving off to the Greens recently. The rest of the constituency is mostly city commuters, hardly the WVM sorts that would be expected to move to UKIP in droves.
    I like Winchester, a fine old town with a very nice market (the cheese stall is particularly magnificent), good pubs but a dearth of decent restaurants. It should be the site of the new English Parliament. However, I am lost as to your reference to the dons and the gown vote. Winchester isn't a university city, or have I missed something.
    The old teaching training college is now a "university".
    The main academic influence on the city is of course the public school, which also owns one of the best pubs, the Wykeham Arms. My favourite is the Hyde Tavern, just up the road from where King Alfred's burial place at Hyde Abbey is now marked with a pleasant memorial. (The bones purported to be his have been removed from Hyde parish church for safe keeping but I believe DNA analysis failed to give a result).

    Yes Winchester is a very pleasant city. Although I would prefer an English parliament to sit at Christ Church, Oxford, where of course the King's parliament sat during the Civil War.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    isam said:

    Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage)
    13/12/2014 10:16
    "No boots on the ground" we were told. "No mission creep" we were promised. This lot just can't help themselves... news.sky.com/story/1391206/…

    It looks like the forces are going to train the local army, rather than be on combat operations on their own. Still, IS need dealing with, and we should be glad to assist the Iraqi and Kurdish governments if they want it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034



    As the oil price drops, so direct income from North Sea oil falls; then on top of that there are reductions in Corporation Tax to factor in, plus reductions in income tax, plus reductions in investment. The cumulative effect is catastrophe for an economy so reliant on one sector. There is no getting round it I am afraid.

    You can get around it by being a Nat, since the main goal is independence, everything beyond that pales into insignificance.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Yorkcity said:

    chestnut said:

    Wasn't Jim Murphy meant to be one of the prominent Labour/No people during the referendum?

    He was.

    No won.

    True Carlotta

    It did .

    You would think the opposite that 55% voted yes.

    I supported a yes vote for scotland, in the main because it will become a neverendum campaign.

    Jim Murphy came across to me as a tough campaigner.
    A big jessie who was shouting to nobody until he got hit with an egg. After that he was scared to come out the house.
    And yet.....

    His side won......

    Yours, lost.......

    what a pansy you are, it was a political vote. You seriously need to get a life.
    I see your grasp of debate has not been dulled by your trouncing. What happened to your emigration plans? Or are you stuck in a land of hopeless losers, to use your phrase?
    I do indeed live in a country that has 55% of losers living in it for sure. You are a sick nasty Tory
    I think others may draw their own conclusions as to who the 'sick and nasty' person is who describes 55% of their compatriots as 'losers'...
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Does this mean a by-election?

    I gather Murphy will fight his seat in the GE and then give it up once he's won a seat for Holyrood in 2016.
    He will not give up the gravy train for sure, he will milk as much as he can get.

    gravy train ? Has the former FM handed back his £65k yet ?
    Alan, it went to charity
    Well, you're half right, which admittedly is pretty good for you:

    The SNP issued a statement saying Mr Salmond donated half the £50,000 he received after tax to a charity he set up in his mother’s name.......
    However, there was no mention of the remaining £25,000 or what he did with the money given he has remained in front-line politics ever since.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11281111/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-repay-65000-golden-goodbye.html
  • Assuming the polls have been exaggerating the Labour decline, which seems likely (temporary media squabbling plus the SNP being flattered by referendum-only voters), the resulting "turnaround" story should set Murphy up nicely for the leadership of UK Labour.

    I also suspect he'll be a useful stick to beat Ed with - I'm sure his victory speech will be written up along the lines of 'If only Ed could talk from the heart like that...'
    On the other hand this changes the short-term calculation for the Blairites.
    Are there such things as 'Blairites' any more?

    Other than a conviction that what is important is 'what gets them elected' I doubt there was ever much of a philosophy in 'Blairism'....
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Yorkcity said:

    malcolmg said:

    antifrank said:

    This is probably the optimal result for Scottish Labour out of those on offer. Jim Murphy is at least capable, even if he is not fully stocked on charm. Since he has registered a convincing victory, it is not really open to his opponents to sulk from the sidelines or to launch a guerilla campaign against him in the short term.

    Labour may still do badly next May in Scotland, but I expect that the chances of obliteration have receded significantly with this result.

    It is certainly the best possible outcome for SNP, having a Tory as their Scottish puppet leader will not be a rallying point.
    Sending your previous leader back to Westminster and the Oil Price the SNP worked their economic credibility on will be thrown right back ..

    Do you ever criticize the SNP ?

    your point is , why is Salmond choosing to continue his career elsewhere an issue and can you name anyone who ever gets/has previously got oil prices correct , it could be 200 dollars next month , who knows.
    I know it won't be $200 a barrel next month. Plenty of people said at the time the SNP's oil forecasts were hugely overstated. Thankfully 55% of the population weren't duped. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to find out how such an over inflated, unbelievable figure got into the White Paper, produced as it was, by impartial civil servants.
    The effect on Scotland's tax take of $60 oil (assuming a 50% reduction in oil based economic activity on top of the reduction in raw oil tax take) is less than natural year by year volatility in Scotland's tax receipts.

    Oil makes up 20% of the Scottish economy. A drop in its value of 50% is not background noise, it is catastrophe. But it will be interesting to see the figures you come up with to justify your claim.
    HMRC disaggregated accounts.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360002/disag-stats.pdf

    As the oil price drops, so direct income from North Sea oil falls; then on top of that there are reductions in Corporation Tax to factor in, plus reductions in income tax, plus reductions in investment. The cumulative effect is catastrophe for an economy so reliant on one sector. There is no getting round it I am afraid.
    But Scotland has a huge financial sector it could rely on instead. It's not like critical things like a lender of last resort were in doubt...
  • Assuming the polls have been exaggerating the Labour decline, which seems likely (temporary media squabbling plus the SNP being flattered by referendum-only voters), the resulting "turnaround" story should set Murphy up nicely for the leadership of UK Labour.

    I also suspect he'll be a useful stick to beat Ed with - I'm sure his victory speech will be written up along the lines of 'If only Ed could talk from the heart like that...'
    On the other hand this changes the short-term calculation for the Blairites.
    Are there such things as 'Blairites' any more?

    Other than a conviction that what is important is 'what gets them elected' I doubt there was ever much of a philosophy in 'Blairism'....
    I'm not an expert in internal Labour politics but IIUC it's more factional than philosophical.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Does this mean a by-election?

    I gather Murphy will fight his seat in the GE and then give it up once he's won a seat for Holyrood in 2016.
    He will not give up the gravy train for sure, he will milk as much as he can get.

    gravy train ? Has the former FM handed back his £65k yet ?
    Alan, it went to charity, probably first money out of the golden trough to ever do so.
    It went on PR.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Indigo said:

    Meanwhile the Lib Dems are making "brave" forecasts.
    "top figures in the party are forecasting they will have 35-40 MPs "
    " The estimate is based on secret opinion polling seen by leading figures in Nick Clegg's party and obtained by Sky News.
    But they are predicting they will hold 28 seats, half their current 56. Another 10 are regarded as marginal, five more are less winnable, and senior Lib Dems expect to gain two seats from the Conservatives."
    "The two seats party chiefs predict they will win are Watford and Winchester"
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lib-dems-fear-losing-11-seats-election-230646430.html

    I guess they are hoping UKIP will take a huge chunk out of the CONs in Winchester, seems optimistic since there is a 3000 majority, and no one else to squeeze, plus the LDs have a new candidate. The LDs presumably had most of the Gown vote, but students and dons seem to have been moving off to the Greens recently. The rest of the constituency is mostly city commuters, hardly the WVM sorts that would be expected to move to UKIP in droves.
    I like Winchester, a fine old town with a very nice market (the cheese stall is particularly magnificent), good pubs but a dearth of decent restaurants. It should be the site of the new English Parliament. However, I am lost as to your reference to the dons and the gown vote. Winchester isn't a university city, or have I missed something.
    Can I second a fondness for Winchester; it's a superb little town. It's the place I took Mrs J to when she was considering moving to Southampton for a job, and in part persuaded her to take that job. (*) For anyone visiting, the walk from the city to St Catherine's Hill is lovely, and anyone interested in history and/or architecture must visit the little-known St Cross Hospital, the oldest charitable institution in the UK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_of_St_Cross

    (*) I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans.
    Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Does this mean a by-election?

    I gather Murphy will fight his seat in the GE and then give it up once he's won a seat for Holyrood in 2016.
    He will not give up the gravy train for sure, he will milk as much as he can get.

    gravy train ? Has the former FM handed back his £65k yet ?
    Alan, it went to charity, probably first money out of the golden trough to ever do so.
    It went on PR.
    LOL, what a cynic
  • "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Socrates said:

    Indigo said:

    Meanwhile the Lib Dems are making "brave" forecasts.
    "top figures in the party are forecasting they will have 35-40 MPs "
    " The estimate is based on secret opinion polling seen by leading figures in Nick Clegg's party and obtained by Sky News.
    But they are predicting they will hold 28 seats, half their current 56. Another 10 are regarded as marginal, five more are less winnable, and senior Lib Dems expect to gain two seats from the Conservatives."
    "The two seats party chiefs predict they will win are Watford and Winchester"
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lib-dems-fear-losing-11-seats-election-230646430.html

    I guess they are hoping UKIP will take a huge chunk out of the CONs in Winchester, seems optimistic since there is a 3000 majority, and no one else to squeeze, plus the LDs have a new candidate. The LDs presumably had most of the Gown vote, but students and dons seem to have been moving off to the Greens recently. The rest of the constituency is mostly city commuters, hardly the WVM sorts that would be expected to move to UKIP in droves.
    I like Winchester, a fine old town with a very nice market (the cheese stall is particularly magnificent), good pubs but a dearth of decent restaurants. It should be the site of the new English Parliament. However, I am lost as to your reference to the dons and the gown vote. Winchester isn't a university city, or have I missed something.
    Can I second a fondness for Winchester; it's a superb little town. It's the place I took Mrs J to when she was considering moving to Southampton for a job, and in part persuaded her to take that job. (*) For anyone visiting, the walk from the city to St Catherine's Hill is lovely, and anyone interested in history and/or architecture must visit the little-known St Cross Hospital, the oldest charitable institution in the UK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_of_St_Cross

    (*) I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans.
    Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.
    Winchester is a superb place , I lived in the Royal Hotel there for a year in the early 90's. Wonderful food at the Wykeham Arms in those days. Happy days, the porter used to give my wife tips for the horses and we knew all the staff.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Does this mean a by-election?

    I gather Murphy will fight his seat in the GE and then give it up once he's won a seat for Holyrood in 2016.
    He will not give up the gravy train for sure, he will milk as much as he can get.

    gravy train ? Has the former FM handed back his £65k yet ?
    Alan, it went to charity, probably first money out of the golden trough to ever do so.
    It went on PR.
    In fairness it does seem a worthy cause with sensible guidelines:

    http://www.marysalmondtrust.com/guidelines.html
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Does this mean a by-election?

    I gather Murphy will fight his seat in the GE and then give it up once he's won a seat for Holyrood in 2016.
    He will not give up the gravy train for sure, he will milk as much as he can get.

    gravy train ? Has the former FM handed back his £65k yet ?
    Alan, it went to charity, probably first money out of the golden trough to ever do so.
    It went on PR.
    In fairness it does seem a worthy cause with sensible guidelines:

    http://www.marysalmondtrust.com/guidelines.html
    Not taking the spare change at all might have been even better. He's already got half a dozen jobs and pensions. Why does the taxpayer need to fund his pet projects ?
  • "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Socrates said:

    Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.

    Although having the political capital separate from the commercial capital has its problems too: look how "inside the beltway" is derided by everyone in the US. Canberra and Ottowa are looked down in Australia and Canada. And don't let's get started on Brasilia.

    If the seat of government moved to Lincoln, then the inflow of lobbyists and career politicians and civil servants and the like would mean Lincoln would no longer be Lincoln. It would be a city only of government, and the rest of the country would curse politicians for never leaving their Lincoln bubble. (And Lincoln would find itself getting all the art subsidies...)

    We could, of course, avoid this issue by having the seat of government move around the country, such that it is Birmingham for a period, then Lincoln, then Bristol, then Glasgow etc.

    But this is not without its issues too: it would be expensive and inefficient; civil servants (now a long way from their titular masters) would find themselves with a lot more power (or ministers would spend their entire life shuttling between the chamber and their departments); and the facilities that would need to be created to enable MPs to serve the constituents (not to mention the cost of hotels to house MPs) could potentially be ruinious.
  • Note I've not seen a copy of the embargoed ComRes so I'm speculating.
  • Blimey.

    Guido will soon be winding down for Christmas and the team would be faced with the tedious job of comment moderation over the holidays or to decide to just let anarchy prevail. For the last few months we have as an experiment adopted an even more laissez faire attitude to comments. Animated GIFs, YouTube videos, tweets, images and the like were allowed. The result was gay porn, racist videos and it generally getting worse. We have now after ten years tested the “no pre-moderation” model to destruction.

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/13/de-re-commentari/

  • rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.

    Although having the political capital separate from the commercial capital has its problems too: look how "inside the beltway" is derided by everyone in the US. Canberra and Ottowa are looked down in Australia and Canada. And don't let's get started on Brasilia.

    If the seat of government moved to Lincoln, then the inflow of lobbyists and career politicians and civil servants and the like would mean Lincoln would no longer be Lincoln. It would be a city only of government, and the rest of the country would curse politicians for never leaving their Lincoln bubble. (And Lincoln would find itself getting all the art subsidies...)

    We could, of course, avoid this issue by having the seat of government move around the country, such that it is Birmingham for a period, then Lincoln, then Bristol, then Glasgow etc.

    But this is not without its issues too: it would be expensive and inefficient; civil servants (now a long way from their titular masters) would find themselves with a lot more power (or ministers would spend their entire life shuttling between the chamber and their departments); and the facilities that would need to be created to enable MPs to serve the constituents (not to mention the cost of hotels to house MPs) could potentially be ruinious.
    Does it still need a single physical location? Just do the debating and voting online, then let people get together to do their various political plotting and scheming when and where they like.
  • "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.

    Although having the political capital separate from the commercial capital has its problems too: look how "inside the beltway" is derided by everyone in the US. Canberra and Ottowa are looked down in Australia and Canada. And don't let's get started on Brasilia.

    If the seat of government moved to Lincoln, then the inflow of lobbyists and career politicians and civil servants and the like would mean Lincoln would no longer be Lincoln. It would be a city only of government, and the rest of the country would curse politicians for never leaving their Lincoln bubble. (And Lincoln would find itself getting all the art subsidies...)

    We could, of course, avoid this issue by having the seat of government move around the country, such that it is Birmingham for a period, then Lincoln, then Bristol, then Glasgow etc.

    But this is not without its issues too: it would be expensive and inefficient; civil servants (now a long way from their titular masters) would find themselves with a lot more power (or ministers would spend their entire life shuttling between the chamber and their departments); and the facilities that would need to be created to enable MPs to serve the constituents (not to mention the cost of hotels to house MPs) could potentially be ruinious.
    Does it still need a single physical location? Just do the debating and voting online, then let people get together to do their various political plotting and scheming when and where they like.
    Ministers need to be with their departments if they are to supervise them properly.
    MPs could theoretically debate "virtually".

    But that wouldn't get them around the country: it would just lead them to stay in their constituencies (which would be cheap).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,221

    Blimey.

    Guido will soon be winding down for Christmas and the team would be faced with the tedious job of comment moderation over the holidays or to decide to just let anarchy prevail. For the last few months we have as an experiment adopted an even more laissez faire attitude to comments. Animated GIFs, YouTube videos, tweets, images and the like were allowed. The result was gay porn, racist videos and it generally getting worse. We have now after ten years tested the “no pre-moderation” model to destruction.

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/13/de-re-commentari/

    I liked this bit:

    "That is an inevitable consequence of having among the tens of thousands of readers a fair number of moronic, window licking, certifiable loonies for whom this is their preferred outlet. "
  • Interesting post on Tom Watson's feed (not by him): Here's hoping @tom_watson sends @jimmurphymp his congratulations and takes the fight now to the Nats and Tories
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
    I'm not sure UKIP fits on the left-right political scale in any meaningful way. And, for that matter, I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.

    I probably agree with Richard Tyndall more than any other poster on this site, and disagree with Socrates most. Yet they are both supporters of the same party.

    I agree with a lot of what Edmund in Tokyo writes, but I'd rather cut off my own arm than vote Green. (Although I am a big believer in the long-term potential of alternative energy.)

    Take UKIP. I support the abolition of the CAP: but I would replace it with... nothing. There's no reason to subsidise agriculture in the UK, and the subsidies paid cause all sorts of additional distortions (higher home prices not just higher food prices).
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I will forever associate Derek Draper and 'window lickers' as he pretended not to know what it referred to, got himself into terrible knots taking Guido on and disappeared back into obscurity.

    One of the most hilarious periods in UK political blogging history. Mr Brand isn't even playing in the same dimension.
    tlg86 said:

    Blimey.

    Guido will soon be winding down for Christmas and the team would be faced with the tedious job of comment moderation over the holidays or to decide to just let anarchy prevail. For the last few months we have as an experiment adopted an even more laissez faire attitude to comments. Animated GIFs, YouTube videos, tweets, images and the like were allowed. The result was gay porn, racist videos and it generally getting worse. We have now after ten years tested the “no pre-moderation” model to destruction.

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/13/de-re-commentari/

    I liked this bit:

    "That is an inevitable consequence of having among the tens of thousands of readers a fair number of moronic, window licking, certifiable loonies for whom this is their preferred outlet. "
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited December 2014
    Coming up on PB this weekend

    The Scottish polling prize competition. What will the SNP lead be, to 2 decimal points, in the Survation/D Record poll. Fieldwork, I understand, will all be post Murphy election.

    At stake as prizes the new book by PB's Andy Cook
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.

    Although having the political capital separate from the commercial capital has its problems too: look how "inside the beltway" is derided by everyone in the US. Canberra and Ottowa are looked down in Australia and Canada. And don't let's get started on Brasilia.

    If the seat of government moved to Lincoln, then the inflow of lobbyists and career politicians and civil servants and the like would mean Lincoln would no longer be Lincoln. It would be a city only of government, and the rest of the country would curse politicians for never leaving their Lincoln bubble. (And Lincoln would find itself getting all the art subsidies...)

    We could, of course, avoid this issue by having the seat of government move around the country, such that it is Birmingham for a period, then Lincoln, then Bristol, then Glasgow etc.

    But this is not without its issues too: it would be expensive and inefficient; civil servants (now a long way from their titular masters) would find themselves with a lot more power (or ministers would spend their entire life shuttling between the chamber and their departments); and the facilities that would need to be created to enable MPs to serve the constituents (not to mention the cost of hotels to house MPs) could potentially be ruinious.
    Does it still need a single physical location? Just do the debating and voting online, then let people get together to do their various political plotting and scheming when and where they like.
    Ministers need to be with their departments if they are to supervise them properly.
    MPs could theoretically debate "virtually".

    But that wouldn't get them around the country: it would just lead them to stay in their constituencies (which would be cheap).
    We are assuming England should have "big government". I would in fact devolve most functions to local units, they could be as small or as large as local people want. The English government would then do a few strategic things like roads and railways, and have an audit function over the local units. I would prefer the Executive to be separately elected, as in the US, so the English Parliament would purely have legislative and executive-oversight functions. It need not be very large and would only need to sit for a couple of months a year.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014

    Indigo said:

    Meanwhile the Lib Dems are making "brave" forecasts.
    "top figures in the party are forecasting they will have 35-40 MPs "
    " The estimate is based on secret opinion polling seen by leading figures in Nick Clegg's party and obtained by Sky News.
    But they are predicting they will hold 28 seats, half their current 56. Another 10 are regarded as marginal, five more are less winnable, and senior Lib Dems expect to gain two seats from the Conservatives."
    "The two seats party chiefs predict they will win are Watford and Winchester"
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lib-dems-fear-losing-11-seats-election-230646430.html

    I guess they are hoping UKIP will take a huge chunk out of the CONs in Winchester, seems optimistic since there is a 3000 majority, and no one else to squeeze, plus the LDs have a new candidate. The LDs presumably had most of the Gown vote, but students and dons seem to have been moving off to the Greens recently. The rest of the constituency is mostly city commuters, hardly the WVM sorts that would be expected to move to UKIP in droves.
    I like Winchester, a fine old town with a very nice market (the cheese stall is particularly magnificent), good pubs but a dearth of decent restaurants. It should be the site of the new English Parliament. However, I am lost as to your reference to the dons and the gown vote. Winchester isn't a university city, or have I missed something.
    The "other" college is now a university, the real one is there as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_College if you have a spare £35,000 a year.
  • rcs1000 said:

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
    I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.
    Have you tried this:

    http://politicalcompass.org
  • Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Meanwhile the Lib Dems are making "brave" forecasts.
    "top figures in the party are forecasting they will have 35-40 MPs "
    " The estimate is based on secret opinion polling seen by leading figures in Nick Clegg's party and obtained by Sky News.
    But they are predicting they will hold 28 seats, half their current 56. Another 10 are regarded as marginal, five more are less winnable, and senior Lib Dems expect to gain two seats from the Conservatives."
    "The two seats party chiefs predict they will win are Watford and Winchester"
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lib-dems-fear-losing-11-seats-election-230646430.html

    I guess they are hoping UKIP will take a huge chunk out of the CONs in Winchester, seems optimistic since there is a 3000 majority, and no one else to squeeze, plus the LDs have a new candidate. The LDs presumably had most of the Gown vote, but students and dons seem to have been moving off to the Greens recently. The rest of the constituency is mostly city commuters, hardly the WVM sorts that would be expected to move to UKIP in droves.
    I like Winchester, a fine old town with a very nice market (the cheese stall is particularly magnificent), good pubs but a dearth of decent restaurants. It should be the site of the new English Parliament. However, I am lost as to your reference to the dons and the gown vote. Winchester isn't a university city, or have I missed something.
    The "other" college is now a university, the real one is there as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_College if you have a spare £35,000 a year.
    Then there's Winchester School of Art, part of University of Southampton
    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/wsa
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    rcs1000 said:

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
    I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.
    Have you tried this:

    http://politicalcompass.org
    That's a libertarian advocacy website, so hardly impartial.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    How well Murphy does will have a significant impact not only on the General Election result, but how successful Labour is in screwing England over if it forms the next government.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Bearing in mind that a 10 is Adolf Hitler and a 0 is Josef Stalin:

    David Cameron: 5
    Ed Miliband: 3
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 6.5
    Conservative Party: 6
    Labour Party: 3
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 7
    Liberal Democrat Party: 4
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: 6
    Russell Brand: 3
    Socrates: 6.5
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Just looking at the YouGov monthly averages.

    November 2014 was Labour's lowest month of this parliament, the LDs joint lowest, and UKIP's joint highest.

    Nov 2014 Con 32%, Lab 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 16%
    Nov 2013 Con 32%, Lab 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%
    Nov 2012 Con 33%, Lab 43%, LD 9%, UKIP 8%
    Nov 2011 Con 36%, Lab 41%, LD 9%
    Nov 2010 Con 40%, Lab 40%, LD 11%

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1o150dfzov/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Voting-Trends-with-UKIP-111214.pdf
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.

    Although having the political capital separate from the commercial capital has its problems too: look how "inside the beltway" is derided by everyone in the US. Canberra and Ottowa are looked down in Australia and Canada. And don't let's get started on Brasilia.

    If the seat of government moved to Lincoln, then the inflow of lobbyists and career politicians and civil servants and the like would mean Lincoln would no longer be Lincoln. It would be a city only of government, and the rest of the country would curse politicians for never leaving their Lincoln bubble. (And Lincoln would find itself getting all the art subsidies...)

    We could, of course, avoid this issue by having the seat of government move around the country, such that it is Birmingham for a period, then Lincoln, then Bristol, then Glasgow etc.

    But this is not without its issues too: it would be expensive and inefficient; civil servants (now a long way from their titular masters) would find themselves with a lot more power (or ministers would spend their entire life shuttling between the chamber and their departments); and the facilities that would need to be created to enable MPs to serve the constituents (not to mention the cost of hotels to house MPs) could potentially be ruinious.
    Fair points. Give it to somewhere bigger then: Birmingham or Leeds.
  • Today's Labour selections

    Merthyr: Caerphilly Deputy Leader Gerald Jones selected. The ward he represents on Caerphilly council is in this constituency.

    Cynon Valley: Ann Clwyd MP won the reselection against 3 women.

    Holborn selection scheduled for today too. But they have still queueing to enter
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    CarlottaVance,

    I tried your survey and came out as Economic Left/Right: -4.75, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.7

    Seems a bit too lefty and an odd combination.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited December 2014
    rcs1000 said:



    I probably agree with Richard Tyndall more than any other poster on this site, and disagree with Socrates most. Yet they are both supporters of the same party.

    We only disagree a lot because we're both posters that like to get stuck into a debate with people we disagree with. There's a lot of other posters that flinch from open argument, or prefer to just lob insults about rather than get into facts and figures. I think there's a lot we agree on, from farming subsidies to GCHQ snooping to gay rights. We're both broadly classical liberals. It's just I temper it with a willingness to intervene in the market to look out for the poor and to maintain a liberal culture.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    I think Jim Murphy becoming the SLAB leader is probably already baked into SLAB’s support level of around 25%. I do not foresee Murphy being able to attract back any of the SLAB supporters currently backing the SNP. However, he may prevent further leakage of support to UKIP, but his right wing credentials will most likely drive more of SLAB’s remaining supporters into the arms of the Greens, LibDems, SNP and even the SSP.

    I remain sceptical whether Jim will ever actually seek a seat in Holyrood. Particularly if SLAB’s May 2015 showing is poor. However bad things get for SLAB in May 2015, they will likely do even worse in May 2016, due to the vagaries of the D’Hontt model the Greens could end up snapping at SLAB's heals for second place.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    edited December 2014

    Today's Labour selections

    Merthyr: Caerphilly Deputy Leader Gerald Jones selected. The ward he represents on Caerphilly council is in this constituency.

    Cynon Valley: Ann Clwyd MP won the reselection against 3 women.

    Holborn selection scheduled for today too. But they have still queueing to enter

    Sir Keir Starmer would surely be future cabinet/shadow cabinet material if he gets selected in Holborn.
  • Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
    I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.
    Have you tried this:

    http://politicalcompass.org
    That's a libertarian advocacy website, so hardly impartial.
    Nothing is 'impartial - and it does provide their view of current political leaders to benchmark yourself against.....
    Given its a 'libertarian advocacy web site and I I score -6.4 (i.e, very Libertarian) on the Libertarian score.......
  • VinnyVinny Posts: 48
    Lord help us, a 'fairer Scotland!' What Labour voters don't grasp is that what is 'fairer' to those legislated in favour of is less than 'fair' to those legislated against.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    Pleased to see Jim Murphy win so strongly in Scotland. Good to see one of Labour's natural leaders in a prominent role.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited December 2014
    You don't put a Tory as head of scottish labour, the scots hate the Tories.
    In my opinion Jim Murphy will drive scottish labour to the ground, however since it has been driven to the ground already there won't be much difference.

    Labour has thrown the towel in trying to get ex-labour voters who now vote SNP and Greens, however I can't see them getting any votes from the Tories and LD's in Scotland because there aren't any to begin with.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited December 2014
    Socrates said:

    Bearing in mind that a 10 is Adolf Hitler and a 0 is Josef Stalin:

    David Cameron: 5
    Ed Miliband: 3
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 6.5
    Conservative Party: 6
    Labour Party: 3
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 7
    Liberal Democrat Party: 4
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: 6
    Russell Brand: 3
    Socrates: 6.5

    Ed Miliband is on par with Russell Brand on left wingness?
  • Afternoon all. I've put up a post exploring the Labour/Conservative battleground:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-1-conservatives-vs.html
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    As such I then expect not much change in the ComRes poll VI.
    In my political views though:

    David Cameron 5
    Ed Miliband 4
    Nick Clegg 5
    Nigel Farage 7
    Conservative Party 6
    Labour Party 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party 7
    Liberal Democrat Party 5
    Green Party 2
    Prince Charles 3
    Russell Brand 2

    As for me, I'm at both 7&3.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Carnyx said:

    "I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans."

    The same could be said for Plymouth and Portsmouth. Fortunately the horrors of the post-war rebuilding are themselves now being removed and all three cities will be much better as a result.

    Southampton does also have a very fine curry house, probably one of the best in the South of England.

    Oh? Which one is that, please? I have to go there on business ...

    I'm a regular visitor to Southampton as I live not far away and my daughter in at the University of Southampton. I think HL is referring to the Namaste Kerala restaurant on New st or mabe New road?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    edited December 2014
    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Roger said:

    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory not that doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also looks streets better than Ed.

    "in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory"
    So Murphy doesn't have a chance then.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Roger said:

    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.

    Ha Ha Ha , not Dutch friends then , what dribbling fantasy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,537

    rcs1000 said:

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
    I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.
    Have you tried this:

    http://politicalcompass.org
    I came out as very centrist on both social and economic affairs which doesn't seem right. But, then, I wanted to answer "it depends" to a lot of questions, and that wasn't an option.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Bearing in mind that a 10 is Adolf Hitler and a 0 is Josef Stalin:

    David Cameron: 5
    Ed Miliband: 3
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 6.5
    Conservative Party: 6
    Labour Party: 3
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 7
    Liberal Democrat Party: 4
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: 6
    Russell Brand: 3
    Socrates: 6.5

    Ed Miliband is on par with Russell Brand on left wingness?
    What big differences do you think there are between them? Russel Brand shouts from the rooftops more, but they have similar views.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Moses_ said:

    Carnyx said:

    "I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans."

    The same could be said for Plymouth and Portsmouth. Fortunately the horrors of the post-war rebuilding are themselves now being removed and all three cities will be much better as a result.

    Southampton does also have a very fine curry house, probably one of the best in the South of England.

    Oh? Which one is that, please? I have to go there on business ...

    I'm a regular visitor to Southampton as I live not far away and my daughter in at the University of Southampton. I think HL is referring to the Namaste Kerala restaurant on New st or mabe New road?
    What’s disabled access like? I have a relative who has to visit the hospital in Southampton every few months and currently needs a wheelchair.
  • antifrank said:

    Afternoon all. I've put up a post exploring the Labour/Conservative battleground:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-1-conservatives-vs.html

    Thanks Antifrank - interesting reading as ever.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    I think Murphy's record is going to be examined more thoroughly.

    Jon Stone ‏@joncstone 24 mins24 minutes ago

    Jim Murphy on who should get disability benefits, from when he was a DWP minister in 2006: http://bit.ly/1uBvcT6
    Embedded image permalink
    Roger said:

    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    Speedy said:

    You don't put a Tory as head of scottish labour, the scots hate the Tories.
    In my opinion Jim Murphy will drive scottish labour to the ground, however since it has been driven to the ground already there won't be much difference.

    Labour has thrown the towel in trying to get ex-labour voters who now vote SNP and Greens, however I can't see them getting any votes from the Tories and LD's in Scotland because there aren't any to begin with.

    You're not the only one who thinks that.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/but-seriously/#more-64486


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    I think Murphy's record is going to be examined more thoroughly.

    Jon Stone ‏@joncstone 24 mins24 minutes ago

    Jim Murphy on who should get disability benefits, from when he was a DWP minister in 2006: http://bit.ly/1uBvcT6
    Embedded image permalink


    Roger said:

    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.

    Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Carnyx said:

    Speedy said:

    You don't put a Tory as head of scottish labour, the scots hate the Tories.
    In my opinion Jim Murphy will drive scottish labour to the ground, however since it has been driven to the ground already there won't be much difference.

    Labour has thrown the towel in trying to get ex-labour voters who now vote SNP and Greens, however I can't see them getting any votes from the Tories and LD's in Scotland because there aren't any to begin with.

    You're not the only one who thinks that.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/but-seriously/#more-64486


    you might as well post the Beano
  • He won't thank me for this endorsement, but I think Murphy "gets it" and has the balls to spring the surprises and strike the independent policy stances that will revive Scottish Labour.
  • Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
    I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.
    Have you tried this:

    http://politicalcompass.org
    That's a libertarian advocacy website, so hardly impartial.
    Nothing is 'impartial - and it does provide their view of current political leaders to benchmark yourself against.....
    Given its a 'libertarian advocacy web site and I I score -6.4 (i.e, very Libertarian) on the Libertarian score.......
    I score 3.38 left-right and -4.78 libertarian, so I am a moderate libertarian and more so than I am on the right. But there are some odd questions. Why just have one on the legalisation of cannabis for personal use? I would support commercial production and sale. And I found some of the questions too "yes&no" to justify an Agree and a Strongly Agree statement. But it probably shows why I find it difficult to identify strongly with any one particular political party, I am not sure any would fall in the purple right-libertarian box.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    Carnyx said:

    Speedy said:

    You don't put a Tory as head of scottish labour, the scots hate the Tories.
    In my opinion Jim Murphy will drive scottish labour to the ground, however since it has been driven to the ground already there won't be much difference.

    Labour has thrown the towel in trying to get ex-labour voters who now vote SNP and Greens, however I can't see them getting any votes from the Tories and LD's in Scotland because there aren't any to begin with.

    You're not the only one who thinks that.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/but-seriously/#more-64486


    you might as well post the Beano
    You can't read the Dandy all your life if you want to know what is being discussed!

  • Mr. Carnyx, Desperate Dan would disagree.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Carnyx said:

    I think Murphy's record is going to be examined more thoroughly.

    Jon Stone ‏@joncstone 24 mins24 minutes ago

    Jim Murphy on who should get disability benefits, from when he was a DWP minister in 2006: http://bit.ly/1uBvcT6
    Embedded image permalink


    Roger said:

    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.

    Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
    Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    Mr. Carnyx, Desperate Dan would disagree.

    Exactly. But like Mr Murphy and the main Scottish media, he comes from his own very special position. Not all of us like cow pie, after all, and would much rather read something more modern like 2000AD.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Speedy said:

    You don't put a Tory as head of scottish labour, the scots hate the Tories.
    In my opinion Jim Murphy will drive scottish labour to the ground, however since it has been driven to the ground already there won't be much difference.

    Labour has thrown the towel in trying to get ex-labour voters who now vote SNP and Greens, however I can't see them getting any votes from the Tories and LD's in Scotland because there aren't any to begin with.

    You're not the only one who thinks that.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/but-seriously/#more-64486


    you might as well post the Beano
    You can't read the Dandy all your life if you want to know what is being discussed!

    Well at least DC Thompson actually publishes in Scotland.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    He won't thank me for this endorsement, but I think Murphy "gets it" and has the balls to spring the surprises and strike the independent policy stances that will revive Scottish Labour.

    A super optimist.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Bearing in mind that a 10 is Adolf Hitler and a 0 is Josef Stalin:

    David Cameron: 5
    Ed Miliband: 3
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 6.5
    Conservative Party: 6
    Labour Party: 3
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 7
    Liberal Democrat Party: 4
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: 6
    Russell Brand: 3
    Socrates: 6.5

    Ed Miliband is on par with Russell Brand on left wingness?
    What big differences do you think there are between them? Russel Brand shouts from the rooftops more, but they have similar views.
    Is Ed Miliband supporting a radical-left revolution to take over the country?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMke9749FoE
  • Mr. Carnyx, Korky the Cat disapproves of your heresy.
  • English votes: Hague will apparently accuse Miliband of 'running away' on the matter of English votes for English laws:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11291397/Ed-Miliband-accused-of-running-away-from-English-home-rule.html

    This could be a very bad situation for Labour. If they do the decent thing they'll fear hobbling themselves [although right now the SNP are doing their best to make that a theoretical point], and if they don't then their coverage will only be negative.

    Serves them right for buggering up a long-standing constitutional settlement for partisan advantage, which was narrow-minded as it was short-sighted.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    edited December 2014

    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror.
    No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!

    The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI

    As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale:
    Your own political views
    David Cameron
    Ed Miliband
    Nick Clegg
    Nigel Farage
    Conservative Party
    Labour Party
    UKIP, UK Independence Party
    Liberal Democrat Party
    Green Party
    Prince Charles
    Russell Brand

    Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
    Good game!

    On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)

    I'd go:

    Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something)
    David Cameron: 6
    Ed Miliband: 4
    Nick Clegg: 5
    Nigel Farage: 8
    Conservative Party: 7
    Labour Party: 4
    UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8
    Liberal Democrat Party: 3
    Green Party: 2
    Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push)
    Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
    I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.
    Have you tried this:

    http://politicalcompass.org
    That's a libertarian advocacy website, so hardly impartial.
    Nothing is 'impartial - and it does provide their view of current political leaders to benchmark yourself against.....
    Given its a 'libertarian advocacy web site and I I score -6.4 (i.e, very Libertarian) on the Libertarian score.......
    I score 3.38 left-right and -4.78 libertarian, so I am a moderate libertarian and more so than I am on the right. But there are some odd questions. Why just have one on the legalisation of cannabis for personal use? I would support commercial production and sale. And I found some of the questions too "yes&no" to justify an Agree and a Strongly Agree statement. But it probably shows why I find it difficult to identify strongly with any one particular political party, I am not sure any would fall in the purple right-libertarian box.
    Economic Left/Right: -8.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

    Surprised that Barack Obama is where he is.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    edited December 2014
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    I think Murphy's record is going to be examined more thoroughly.

    Jon Stone ‏@joncstone 24 mins24 minutes ago

    Jim Murphy on who should get disability benefits, from when he was a DWP minister in 2006: http://bit.ly/1uBvcT6
    Embedded image permalink


    Roger said:

    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.

    Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
    Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
    I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an obvious solution to SLAB's woes. He may solve these woes - but he could make them much worse and kill them off for good. Meanwhile the SLAB-SNP feud is going to get even more intense, which I had not thought possible. And SLAB have already found that anti-SNP negativity does not work.

    We need to see whether Mr M can provide a programme that appeals to the Scots without being stabbed in the back, deliberately or accidentally, by his Tory chums in Better Together, or struck down by Mr Miliband. Or whether he can do it without losing his own seat.

    There is also another issue which has perhaps been forgotten momentarily here: that Mr Murphy cannot take part in Holyrood except, so to speak, as the remote master . Ms Dugdale is going to have to front that and it will be interesting to see how she copes with debate and with thinking on her feet, especially when she's not even the local branch manager. However, she may still be better than the last one.

    The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Speedy said:

    You don't put a Tory as head of scottish labour, the scots hate the Tories.
    In my opinion Jim Murphy will drive scottish labour to the ground, however since it has been driven to the ground already there won't be much difference.

    Labour has thrown the towel in trying to get ex-labour voters who now vote SNP and Greens, however I can't see them getting any votes from the Tories and LD's in Scotland because there aren't any to begin with.

    You're not the only one who thinks that.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/but-seriously/#more-64486


    you might as well post the Beano
    You can't read the Dandy all your life if you want to know what is being discussed!

    Well at least DC Thompson actually publishes in Scotland.
    Murphy has done well since his 7&1/2 free years at Uni and no qualification to show for it , over £1M in expenses alone since 2001.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Oh, Camyx, what a tangled web has been woven! And what’s it going to be like when the DUP get into Government at Westminster!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    I think Murphy's record is going to be examined more thoroughly.

    Jon Stone ‏@joncstone 24 mins24 minutes ago

    Jim Murphy on who should get disability benefits, from when he was a DWP minister in 2006: http://bit.ly/1uBvcT6
    Embedded image permalink


    Roger said:

    A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.

    I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.

    From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.

    Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
    Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
    I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an obvious solution to SLAB's woes. He may solve these woes - but he could make them much worse and kill them off for good. Meanwhile the SLAB-SNP feud is going to get even more intense, which I had not thought possible. And SLAB have already found that anti-SNP negativity does not work.

    We need to see whether Mr M can provide a programme that appeals to the Scots without being stabbed in the back, deliberately or accidentally, by his Tory chums in Better Together, or struck down by Mr Miliband. Or whether he can do it without losing his own seat.

    There is also another issue which has perhaps been forgotten momentarily here: that Mr Murphy cannot take part in Holyrood except, so to speak, as the remote master . Ms Dugdale is going to have to front that and it will be interesting to see how she copes with debate and with thinking on her feet, especially when she's not even the local branch manager. However, she may still be better than the last one.

    The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
    Anthing I have seen of her so far , she is your usual Labour drone , for sure Murphy will want her dumped once he gets into Holyrood, though I would not put it past him staying in Westminster.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Another endorsement for Jim Murphy.

    Fraser Nelson ‏@FraserNelson 7m7 minutes ago

    Great news about Jim Murphy. Blairites always were good at winning elections. Now let the restoration begin!

    And a response.

    Paul Martin ‏@womblingfree

    @FraserNelson Fraser Nelson supports JimMurphy?? Its like Bernard Matthews became leader of PETA and was endorsed by Ronald McDonald.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited December 2014
    Does anyone remember this from 2010 about how appalling Jim Murphy did on the scottish leaders debate?

    http://metro.co.uk/2010/04/25/survey-salmond-ahead-after-debate-3437841/

    "An online survey for STV asking voters which of the leaders had performed best put Mr Salmond in front, with 45% opting for the SNP leader. Mr Carmichael came in second with 33%, ahead of Mr Mundell on 18% and Mr Murphy with 5%."

    Yeap, dead last with just 5%, I bet even Red Ed can do better than 5% in a debate.
    So it's not just his personal policies that Murphy will have a real struggle with.
This discussion has been closed.