I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Not all teachers. See LabourTeachers blog, for example. Yes, really.
Anyway, it would be worth getting him back just to enjoy all the hysterical whining from the "progressives".
The points were often made here that Gove's political failure was to alienate teachers given that he started out in 2010 with most of them on his side.
AndrewP But Labour also won areas like Wirral West and Chester and Hove which were solidly Tory in the eighties and 1992. It is demographic change, Labour, like the Democrats, are losing economically depressed, small towns which like populism, they are doing better in more prosperous suburban areas and it is those areas they need to win as well as sweeping the inner cities
I just got back from having a drink with someone who works at a fairly high level in the European Commission. There's a mood of despair in the EC at the UK result, as they were really hoping to avoid the headache of British demands for renegotiation.
Apparently, the current thinking in the Commission is that they want to fob off Cameron with a memorandum clarifying some aspects of the treaties, and they think he'll buckle if they refuse to countenance actual treaty change. They want this to use a memorandum because then it can easily be reversed if there is a future more "pro-European" leader and they can get the UK back on the track of integration into a federal Europe.
This sounds like a big mistake if true. Cameron now has the wind at his back and I can't believe he would accept anything less than a permanent treaty change. Both because he genuinely wants the UK to get off the integrationist train on a permanent basis, and also because it would be a betrayal of his party to have a false renegotiation.
Its becoming clear what the Tories were up with all the Facebook months ago now. Crosby basically says that evidence shows you can't just convince somebody in a campaign. No matter how much better Ed might be doing to exception during the debates, unless you have already built some sort of rapport well in advance, you are asking too much.
Messina's voter-targeting and social media work were at least as important as Crosby's messaging. I'd suggested this a few times on pb and yet on polling day I still believed the polls and backed Labour at 4/1 for a "true" even-money shot. What it did mean is that after the polls closed I was willing to believe the analysis of AndyJS and others on pb of the early results, and jump on Con maj to get out of trouble. Messina, not Crosby, won this election.
Its becoming clear what the Tories were up with all the Facebook months ago now. Crosby basically says that evidence shows you can't just convince somebody in a campaign. No matter how much better Ed might be doing to exception during the debates, unless you have already built some sort of rapport well in advance, you are asking too much.
Messina's voter-targeting and social media work were at least as important as Crosby's messaging. I'd suggested this a few times on pb and yet on polling day I still believed the polls and backed Labour at 4/1 for a "true" even-money shot. What it did mean is that after the polls closed I was willing to believe the analysis of AndyJS and others on pb of the early results, and jump on Con maj to get out of trouble. Messina, not Crosby, won this election.
Having watched the video I linked, it seems like one needs the other.
In any case Labour do not need small towns to win, they become largest party if they win the inner cities and add the suburbs
Labour need Worcester, Gloucester, Nuneaton, Redditch etc etc....Umannua will have zero resonance there.Nil. Jarvis maybe. Others perhaps. A slick London metro lawyer, no chance.My view.
It shows Labour's problem when the 5th favourite for next leader is Tristram Hunt.
Chukka would be a very bad choice. He comes across as a male version of Emily Thornberry Jarvis looks good on paper but has not really be tested. Could be a star could be a dud. Cooper always comes across as a safe pair of hands to me but not very inspiring If I were Lab I would pick Burnham (despite Stafford)
Interesting insightful comment from the pub tonight. A guy said ‘ Ironical that on the very day we commemorate 70 years since VE Day that the British people reveals the extent of its inherent nastiness’. I tend to agree with that.
A majority of 12 is certainly far from by-election proof – as Major discovered post 1992 when he started off with a majority of 21. Many people will now look forward to news of Tory MPs ‘popping their clogs’ in the hope that his majority eventually disappears.
Really. You're seriously writing on PB that you want specific people to die. Just to change a government.
Its becoming clear what the Tories were up with all the Facebook months ago now. Crosby basically says that evidence shows you can't just convince somebody in a campaign. No matter how much better Ed might be doing to exception during the debates, unless you have already built some sort of rapport well in advance, you are asking too much.
Messina's voter-targeting and social media work were at least as important as Crosby's messaging. I'd suggested this a few times on pb and yet on polling day I still believed the polls and backed Labour at 4/1 for a "true" even-money shot. What it did mean is that after the polls closed I was willing to believe the analysis of AndyJS and others on pb of the early results, and jump on Con maj to get out of trouble. Messina, not Crosby, won this election.
Having watched the video I linked, it seems like one needs the other.
Look at the increased seats/votes efficiency on the Conservative side. Around half a percentage point increase in Tory votes has delivered a thumping majority. That's targeted messaging. If Crosby delivered universal truths, we'd have seen a greater increase in aggregate vote.
[snip] And finally, a quick note to my fans, although they seem thin on the ground right now [snip]
Do not mistake the demented banshee howls of a miserable few embittered lefties for a lack of genuine fans, Scott. The demise of the Like button makes it harder to hat-tip contributions these days but yours are appreciated by many.
Interesting insightful comment from the pub tonight. A guy said ‘ Ironical that on the very day we commemorate 70 years since VE Day that the British people reveals the extent of its inherent nastiness’. I tend to agree with that.
A majority of 12 is certainly far from by-election proof – as Major discovered post 1992 when he started off with a majority of 21. Many people will now look forward to news of Tory MPs ‘popping their clogs’ in the hope that his majority eventually disappears.
Really. You're seriously writing on PB that you want specific people to die. Just to change a government.
You are a sick individual.
Perhaps you should read what I actually said. 'Many people'. I don't doubt that is true.
I just got back from having a drink with someone who works at a fairly high level in the European Commission. There's a mood of despair in the EC at the UK result, as they were really hoping to avoid the headache of British demands for renegotiation.
Apparently, the current thinking in the Commission is that they want to fob off Cameron with a memorandum clarifying some aspects of the treaties, and they think he'll buckle if they refuse to countenance actual treaty change. They want this to use a memorandum because then it can easily be reversed if there is a future more "pro-European" leader and they can get the UK back on the track of integration into a federal Europe.
This sounds like a big mistake if true. Cameron now has the wind at his back and I can't believe he would accept anything less than a permanent treaty change. Both because he genuinely wants the UK to get off the integrationist train on a permanent basis, and also because it would be a betrayal of his party to have a false renegotiation.
When you say he wouldn't accept it, what are you suggesting he'd do?
Its becoming clear what the Tories were up with all the Facebook months ago now. Crosby basically says that evidence shows you can't just convince somebody in a campaign. No matter how much better Ed might be doing to exception during the debates, unless you have already built some sort of rapport well in advance, you are asking too much.
Messina's voter-targeting and social media work were at least as important as Crosby's messaging. I'd suggested this a few times on pb and yet on polling day I still believed the polls and backed Labour at 4/1 for a "true" even-money shot. What it did mean is that after the polls closed I was willing to believe the analysis of AndyJS and others on pb of the early results, and jump on Con maj to get out of trouble. Messina, not Crosby, won this election.
Having watched the video I linked, it seems like one needs the other.
Look at the increased seats/votes efficiency on the Conservative side. Around half a percentage point increase in Tory votes has delivered a thumping majority. That's targeted messaging. If Crosby delivered universal truths, we'd have seen a greater increase in aggregate vote.
Not saying you're wrong about Con having effective targetting, but: 1) It's a great result for them, but a majority of a couple of seats isn't thumping. 2) Nearly all the Con gains are from the LibDems. You don't need a big gain if your opponent suffers a big drop.
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
There's no evidence at all to support this. They've just recorded their lowest Scottish vote share of all time, while the trend at Holyrood is ever-downwards.
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
There's no evidence at all to support this. They've just recorded their lowest Scottish vote share of all time, while the trend at Holyrood is ever-downwards.
I could see it happening, with two forces behind it. First, some of those who used to vote LibDem in Scotland may think that Con is now a better vote. That could easily have pushed Con over the line in Berwick on Thursday. Second, if SNP now get tax-raising power, and nature hating a vacuum, there has to be room for a right-of-SNP party to do reasonably well. Not sure why that would be SLAB rather than Con.
I just want to repeat too something I posted earlier. This 12 seat majority is not the same as if Cameron was facing a 290 strong Labour opposition. The opposition benches are disparate and scattered, almost literally. The opposition would have a devil of a job marshalling all their forces to oppose anything the Gov't will put through. The practical working majority is therefore probably nearer 30 or 40.
Interesting thought but the main substantial difference is the size of the SNP, amd presumably Labour used to have to coordinate their ambushes with them back in the day. I suppose it's possible that the SNP will turn out to have a poor work ethic, but it's not immediately obvious why they should.
I guess the other issue is just whether there are interesting things for backbenchers to rebel over. If it's the EU Cameron can tell them they'll have their referendum, then after the referendum that it was settled in the referendum. Tactically this might be a good time for Labour to develop an uncharacteristic enthusiasm for civil liberties...
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
Jeez the first call for a Scottish Tory surge. At least wait until the Scottish elections are out the way.
If Cameron gives them FFA and they accept it in a referendum, followed by the SNP having to make massive cuts then lots of the vote could amass around the Tories. Or more likely, not.
Sturgeon would be wise to ensure that FFA required a uk wide referendum.
With a view to stopping it?
With a view of Scotland voting yes and the rest of the UK voting no.
Boom, instant reason to call and win second IndyRef.
Interesting article, the last picture is very telling as it shows what a lot of us have been saying, Labour were building up votes in safe seats and the Tories would have a more efficient vote this time because UKIP taking votes away from them where they were either very safe or where they had no chance.
Interesting insightful comment from the pub tonight. A guy said ‘ Ironical that on the very day we commemorate 70 years since VE Day that the British people reveals the extent of its inherent nastiness’. I tend to agree with that.
A majority of 12 is certainly far from by-election proof – as Major discovered post 1992 when he started off with a majority of 21. Many people will now look forward to news of Tory MPs ‘popping their clogs’ in the hope that his majority eventually disappears.
Really. You're seriously writing on PB that you want specific people to die. Just to change a government.
You are a sick individual.
Perhaps you should read what I actually said. 'Many people'. I don't doubt that is true.
You are a disgusting piece of work and should be utterly ashamed of your post.
It is interesting to look at the relative performance of the pollsters / academic forecasters against the betting markets to shed light on who performed well on which election prediction. To the pollsters credit, and academic forecasters who turned their 'snapshots' into predictions, they did get one important facet of the election right - early on - leading the betting markets on this front. This was the impending landslide for the SNP in Scotland. They were also more accurate on Ukip seat projections than the betting markets (going low), although this may have been through luck rather than judgement.
Unfortunately, they misled horribly on the chances of a hung parliament, and the associated balance between Con and Labour support. Interestingly, towards the end of the election campaign, the betting markets may have started to discount the value of the static polls (See fig 3 in the research linked below). This could have caused the increasing divergence between the betting markets and opinion poll based predictions for Con seat totals, as May the 7th drew closer. I am conducting further research on this idea. These points are discussed in more detail in my research here: http://alberttapper.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/predicting-ge-2015-which-group-should_7.html (My background is as a PhD student at Royal Holloway and a researcher to Dr Matthew Goodwin as part of his most recent book project on the rise of Ukip and the 2015 GE. I have also worked at Sporting Index as a political market trader, and Ladbrokes and Betfair). I haven't had a political bet since losing £15k+ in a sell of Lib Dem seats in 1997 @30 (when I worked at Sporting).
Comments
Apparently, the current thinking in the Commission is that they want to fob off Cameron with a memorandum clarifying some aspects of the treaties, and they think he'll buckle if they refuse to countenance actual treaty change. They want this to use a memorandum because then it can easily be reversed if there is a future more "pro-European" leader and they can get the UK back on the track of integration into a federal Europe.
This sounds like a big mistake if true. Cameron now has the wind at his back and I can't believe he would accept anything less than a permanent treaty change. Both because he genuinely wants the UK to get off the integrationist train on a permanent basis, and also because it would be a betrayal of his party to have a false renegotiation.
Chukka would be a very bad choice. He comes across as a male version of Emily Thornberry
Jarvis looks good on paper but has not really be tested. Could be a star could be a dud.
Cooper always comes across as a safe pair of hands to me but not very inspiring
If I were Lab I would pick Burnham (despite Stafford)
Just to change a government.
You are a sick individual.
1) It's a great result for them, but a majority of a couple of seats isn't thumping.
2) Nearly all the Con gains are from the LibDems. You don't need a big gain if your opponent suffers a big drop.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596863875275948032
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596863407774654464
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596863047102267392
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596862677290459136
I guess the other issue is just whether there are interesting things for backbenchers to rebel over. If it's the EU Cameron can tell them they'll have their referendum, then after the referendum that it was settled in the referendum. Tactically this might be a good time for Labour to develop an uncharacteristic enthusiasm for civil liberties...
Boom, instant reason to call and win second IndyRef.
Interesting article, the last picture is very telling as it shows what a lot of us have been saying, Labour were building up votes in safe seats and the Tories would have a more efficient vote this time because UKIP taking votes away from them where they were either very safe or where they had no chance.
Unfortunately, they misled horribly on the chances of a hung parliament, and the associated balance between Con and Labour support. Interestingly, towards the end of the election campaign, the betting markets may have started to discount the value of the static polls (See fig 3 in the research linked below). This could have caused the increasing divergence between the betting markets and opinion poll based predictions for Con seat totals, as May the 7th drew closer. I am conducting further research on this idea. These points are discussed in more detail in my research here: http://alberttapper.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/predicting-ge-2015-which-group-should_7.html (My background is as a PhD student at Royal Holloway and a researcher to Dr Matthew Goodwin as part of his most recent book project on the rise of Ukip and the 2015 GE. I have also worked at Sporting Index as a political market trader, and Ladbrokes and Betfair). I haven't had a political bet since losing £15k+ in a sell of Lib Dem seats in 1997 @30 (when I worked at Sporting).