Seems to be a lot of focus on the 'shy' vote. Anything on the genuinely undecided/NOTAs who plumped at the last minute?
Given the number of postal votes out there, it is almost statistically impossible that alot of people were not flat out lieing to the pollsters about voting Conservative. The phone pollsters should be able to check their aggregate data for this.
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
Absolutely. They need a working class northern woman who people can identify with. The problem for Labour is that they are far too London-centric more so than the Tories.
why does anybody join a political party? What do they 'get' out of it nowadays?
It's not what you get out of it, it's what you put into it. You're organising with people of like mind to try to win the debate among the public at large.
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
It's likely IMO that the 5% variance will be loosened a bit. I think everyone was horrified by the sort of ridiculous creations, like 'Mersey Banks", that came about as a result of that 5% limit.
Was that the only example of a two-part constituency, or are there others?
SLAB have achieved in 6 months what it took the Tories over 20 years to achieve. Couldn't believe what I was hearing when Chuka told Andrew Neil that he thought Jim Murphy had done an excellent job.
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
That's an interesting tactical call for Lib and Lab Lords. Do they accept the new law as an improvement on the status quo, or do they hold things up in the hope that Tory backbenchers will veto the new boundaries if they put enough of them out of a job?
The Tories would only lose 9 seats under the new boundaries so I don't think there will be much of a hold up.
It was blindingly obvious that a continuation of the coalition is what we should have campaigned for...Miliband would have been a dreadful PM. The party should have said this and made it clear we would not support him as PM.
While I seem to be one of the few who thought Miliband would probably have been ok - depending on how he handled the SNP situation - a continuation of the coalition would have appealed to me, but I cannot see how that would have helped the LDs any to be honest, as most of their remaining members, even those who did now feel closer to the Tories than Labour, seemed reluctant to commit to such a thing in worry it would cement their reputation as pure Tories alone.
That said, it would have been easier to argue for a return of the coalition as they could just stick to positive messages about how, thanks to them moderating the Tories, it turned out to be great government, rather than trying the subtler and harder message of 'It was great, but the Tories are so awful' which while they are saying the same thing (we can make the Tories better), makes the job seem much harder for the LDs to achieve than if they admitted it was the better option than helping Labour at all.
But in their defence, it looked like Labour might win and they wanted their options open.
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
That's an interesting tactical call for Lib and Lab Lords. Do they accept the new law as an improvement on the status quo, or do they hold things up in the hope that Tory backbenchers will veto the new boundaries if they put enough of them out of a job?
If the boundary changes don't go through, just how old would the boundaries be in 2020? Not sure why MPs should need to vote on it anyway (at least for a periodic review without changing the number of seats)
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
As pointed out below, the dubious change to basing electorate size on electoral registers rather than census data could be a major issue - iis it possible that the significant increase in Scottish representation could increase the number of Scottish seats?
There's a lot of bollocks being written about what Labour has done wrong and how it needs to become a pale imitation of the Tory party to succeed. Why would people vote for that before 2030, when they might be tired of twenty years of the Conservative party in government?
Labour have to stand for something different.
On the theory that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, they need to wait for the Tories to fall over rather than hoping they can make a bold move that will push them. That won't necessarily take until 2030. At that point if they look like a plausible, competent, middle-of-the-road government-in-waiting they can win.
Things look good for the Tories right now, but there's a lot that can go wrong for them between now and 2020. To name a few: 1) They have a teensy majority, so divisions can immediately result in chaotic-looking lost votes. 2) The EU "renegotiation" provides a rich opportunity to disappoint, and whichever way it goes an EU referendum could do for UKIP what the Scottish referendum did for the SNP. 3) Cameron's pre-announced resignation makes him a lame duck as of about a week on Thursday, with trying to undermine each other and impress Tory activists instead of working together to impress swing voters. 4) The next person they pick may not be very good, especially if the party gets over-confident and feels it can indulge itself. 5) If the economy recovers enough that interest rates go up, a nation of leveraged home-owners is going to go ballistic.
6) on current spending plans local councils are going to start going bust
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
That's an interesting tactical call for Lib and Lab Lords. Do they accept the new law as an improvement on the status quo, or do they hold things up in the hope that Tory backbenchers will veto the new boundaries if they put enough of them out of a job?
The Tories would only lose 9 seats under the new boundaries so I don't think there will be much of a hold up.
It's not just the number the party loses, it's also that some Con incumbents will lose Con voters to some other seat. This will be good news for the Con PPC in some neighbouring seat that Con are trying to win, but that person doesn't yet have a vote in parliament.
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
Absolutely. They need a working class northern woman who people can identify with. The problem for Labour is that they are far too London-centric more so than the Tories.
Labour's only bright spot was London. I hope that Labour's next strategic move is to violently alienate Londoners. Just the ticket.
Are we going to have a piece on what the LD's do next?
They have to start again. It may be time to drop the Democrat bit.
I don't see how that helps when they have become so illiberal -their statism has put paid to that. Their leftward shifts to try and make up for being in coalition with the Tories have left them in total no mans land. I think they'd best bequeath the orange bookers to the Tories, the sandal wearers to the greens and the statists, obviously to Labour. Ahsdown on the other hand they should put out to grass - he's been a complete embarassment in the news studios since Thursday.
Yes the statist/socialist theme running through many of the Lib Dem members is so strong that they should change their brand name and either call themselves Social Democrats or just Democrats. They now have very few advocates of classic Liberalism.
Free Trade vs the Protectionist EC?
Personally I want to vote for a Party which believes in European integration, but which devolves power downward as far as possible, which lets business get on with it, but in a socially responsible fashion (and that means regulation in which the regulated have a share), which recognises the need for Trade Unions but isn’t in hock to them.
If the LDs at the EC Parliament and at the HoC and HoL really believed in devolving power downwards, then they would have tackled the problems of the EC gathering more power to its centre. They would be reducing the EC budget as a % of the GDP. But, as one senior (now ex) Lib Dem MEP was reported after a vote saying, "we have defeated the English". That speaks to how the statist view has polluted the Lib Dems. A quasi state the EC being used to overcome the elected representatives from one nation. Reducing the size of the state should be the goal of a party using the term "liberal".
SLAB have achieved in 6 months what it took the Tories over 20 years to achieve. Couldn't believe what I was hearing when Chuka told Andrew Neil that he thought Jim Murphy had done an excellent job.
Jack has asked me to express his gratitude to members of the political betting community for their kind comments last night, some of which were most touching. Thank you.
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
Completely agree. Chuka is a comfort zone candidate. Hunt is not a serious one and I suspect he may bow out as an MP at the next election.
What Labour needs is someone like Jarvis or Kendall. Ideally both of them.
My guess, though, is that Chuka will win. I very much hope to be wrong.
Jack has asked me to express his gratitude to members of the political betting community for their kind comments last night, some of which were most touching. Thank you.
Mrs Jack W
Do pop in from time to time to let us know how he is getting on!
SLAB have achieved in 6 months what it took the Tories over 20 years to achieve. Couldn't believe what I was hearing when Chuka told Andrew Neil that he thought Jim Murphy had done an excellent job.
The current Labour leadership contenders are currently adopting a strategy of saying that Ed M and Jim Murphy are great people who did a fantastic job...but also that the party needs to fundamentally change itself, its policies and its messaging if it is to win again.
I know they don't want to criticise colleagues openly, and they were approving of the strategy until a few days ago, but I don't know that they are presenting a coherent message as a result, as that message makes no sense.
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
It's likely IMO that the 5% variance will be loosened a bit. I think everyone was horrified by the sort of ridiculous creations, like 'Mersey Banks", that came about as a result of that 5% limit.
Was that the only example of a two-part constituency, or are there others?
I think it was but it's a long time since I looked at them.
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
Of course there's nothing wrong with going negative - the Tory attack on a Labour/SNP nightmare probably shifted hundreds of thousands of votes - but there was also a positive element to the Conservative campaign (a good life etc) that was lacking from Labour. Unless I missed it?
Remind me again about the positive element please ?
None so blind as will not see, none so deaf as will not hear, Mr Surbiton.
My offering of positivity: Raising income tax threshold to help the lower paid Supporting the NHS, with whatever it takes Trying to maintain the union (assuming you want to) by countering the threat of nationlism Increase home ownership and use the proceeds to build more houses Ensure that you get out of welfare only if you pay in, excepting those who are elderly or disabled (and therefore can't pay in) Increase training and apprenticeships opportunities Renegotiate relationships with European allies to ensure that we can stay in Europe
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
Absolutely. They need a working class northern woman who people can identify with. The problem for Labour is that they are far too London-centric more so than the Tories.
Labour's only bright spot was London. I hope that Labour's next strategic move is to violently alienate Londoners. Just the ticket.
The parts of London where Labour are strong will stay Labour regardless of who they have in charge. They stuck with Labour in 2005 when Blair was weak and loathed by the intellectual chattering classes and they had a "crusade" in Iraq. They need a leader who can reach out to people that voted UKIP.
He specifically says Labour would have been pushed out of Scotland entirely, but does not say the same for the Tories, so presumably Mundell would still have survived.
SLAB have achieved in 6 months what it took the Tories over 20 years to achieve. Couldn't believe what I was hearing when Chuka told Andrew Neil that he thought Jim Murphy had done an excellent job.
The current Labour leadership contenders are currently adopting a strategy of saying that Ed M and Jim Murphy are great people who did a fantastic job...but also that the party needs to fundamentally change itself, its policies and its messaging if it is to win again.
I know they don't want to criticise colleagues openly, and they were approving of the strategy until a few days ago, but I don't know that they are presenting a coherent message as a result, as that message makes no sense.
yes it makes them sound vacuous and self absorbed (which they probably are).If all they can do is say their own have done fantastic jobs when they clearly haven't it shows why the quiet majority of people don't vote for them.
The tablet of stone thing also proves the point in showing they are full of vague theory and no practicality and when it is combined with the arrogance of saying they will plant it in Downing Street it shows they are not a pleasant party at the top.
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
As pointed out below, the dubious change to basing electorate size on electoral registers rather than census data could be a major issue - iis it possible that the significant increase in Scottish representation could increase the number of Scottish seats?
IIUC this was actually the way it was done before, except that it was all a bit vaguer.
Earlier I tried to work out the current number of registered voters in Scotland as a proportion of the UK to see how many seats you'd expect Scotland to get - I found the number 45,325,078 for the UK, and 4,285,323 for Scotland, but I think the latter number may old, and a bit too high.
If those numbers are comparable (don't think they are), you get: ((4285323/45235078)*650) = 61.58, an increase on their current 59.
That doesn't take into account the special exceptions for very large seats and islands and things, designed for things like preserving a seat for Charles Kennedy. (Doh.)
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
Absolutely. They need a working class northern woman who people can identify with. The problem for Labour is that they are far too London-centric more so than the Tories.
Labour's only bright spot was London. I hope that Labour's next strategic move is to violently alienate Londoners. Just the ticket.
The parts of London where Labour are strong will stay Labour regardless of who they have in charge. They stuck with Labour in 2005 when Blair was weak and loathed by the intellectual chattering classes and they had a "crusade" in Iraq. They need a leader who can reach out to people that voted UKIP.
That's the kind of thinking that led to Labour's recent disaster in Scotland.
I'll get no credit for saying this but for all the Guardian/Observer gets mocked on here I think the 3 pieces today by Andrew Rawnsley, Nick Cohen and Will Hutton are excellent and prove that the liberal left intelligentsia in London don't all hate the English, business andwhite working class. the likes of David Hare should take note.
There's a lot of bollocks being written about what Labour has done wrong and how it needs to become a pale imitation of the Tory party to succeed. Why would people vote for that before 2030, when they might be tired of twenty years of the Conservative party in government?
Labour have to stand for something different.
On the theory that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, they need to wait for the Tories to fall over rather than hoping they can make a bold move that will push them. That won't necessarily take until 2030. At that point if they look like a plausible, competent, middle-of-the-road government-in-waiting they can win.
Things look good for the Tories right now, but there's a lot that can go wrong for them between now and 2020. To name a few: 1) They have a teensy majority, so divisions can immediately result in chaotic-looking lost votes. 2) The EU "renegotiation" provides a rich opportunity to disappoint, and whichever way it goes an EU referendum could do for UKIP what the Scottish referendum did for the SNP. 3) Cameron's pre-announced resignation makes him a lame duck as of about a week on Thursday, with trying to undermine each other and impress Tory activists instead of working together to impress swing voters. 4) The next person they pick may not be very good, especially if the party gets over-confident and feels it can indulge itself. 5) If the economy recovers enough that interest rates go up, a nation of leveraged home-owners is going to go ballistic.
6) on current spending plans local councils are going to start going bust
Councils cannot go bust, they are legally required to balance their budgets, and are a long way from cutting down only to their statutory services only. The 2% cap needs to be removed. Localism should include the power to ramp up council tax, or seek out other sources of funding.
a couple of points on the election coverage from the BBC - It used to be very good and was until 2010. What happened to 2015!! David Dimbleby was awful ,seemingly confused a lot of the time and letting the interviews drift into politics rather than concentrating on results. They missed a lot of significant results as a result and Emily Maitlis seemed flat as did Andrew Marr (both have shown in the past they can be quite dynamic and informative imo).
Yes the SNP did well but surely the coverage of this was OTT compared to the more relevant and surprising story of a tory majority.
It was terrible imo
Peston's bit was good though ,kept to the practicality and numbers
Do we have a wider feel for councils vs MP seat changes?
I know Eastbourne stayed LD at a council level but returned a Tory MP.
IIRC the Tories are up 30 councils and c500 councilors - and 23 went from NOC so I presume a fair number of these are in the Tory column now bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/councils
The LDs are in even more serious trouble - down another 4 councils and 360 councilors
This would seem to imply that the Con voters the polls hadn't seen, who probably mostly switched on the day, all came from Lib and Lab VI.
Another possibility would be that there were more Kippers out there than the polls found, but some of them switched at the last minute, like Lib and Lab VI.
Survation consistently found a right of centre vote share of 50% or so, which turned out to be correct. But, they had UKIP on 16-18%. I think there may have been a late switch from Blue Kippers back to the Tories, while Red and Yellow Kippers remained in place. In the local elections, I think UKIP "won" Thurrock, Thanet South, and Boston, suggesting some tactical voting at Parliamentary level.
I would say that there were shy kippers, but they were balanced out by those who got up on the morning of polling day fully intending to vote UKIP, telling pollsters they intended to vote UKIP, but got to the polling station and found they just couldn't help themselves but vote tactically.
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
a couple of points on the election coverage from the BBC - It used to be very good and was until 2010. What happened to 2015!! David Dimbleby was awful ,seemingly confused a lot of the time and letting the interviews drift into politics rather than concentrating on results. They missed a lot of significant results as a result and Emily Maitlis seemed flat as did Andrew Marr (both have shown in the past they can be quite dynamic and informative imo).
Yes the SNP did well but surely the coverage of this was OTT compared to the more relevant and surprising story of a tory majority.
It was terrible imo
Peston's bit was good though ,kept to the practicality and numbers
The BBC coverage was abysmal. It gave every impression of being done on the cheap. Sky and ITN were better, but only in comparison. All the TV channels were much worse than they had been in 2010. Maybe they were all expecting a different result, had planned for it and were unable to react when it did not happen. Very poor.
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
I don't know whether this applies to everyone who's currently saying this but a lot of Labour members were supporting electoral reform all the way through the Blair years, including when they had large majorities on 35%.
SLAB have achieved in 6 months what it took the Tories over 20 years to achieve. Couldn't believe what I was hearing when Chuka told Andrew Neil that he thought Jim Murphy had done an excellent job.
The current Labour leadership contenders are currently adopting a strategy of saying that Ed M and Jim Murphy are great people who did a fantastic job...but also that the party needs to fundamentally change itself, its policies and its messaging if it is to win again.
I know they don't want to criticise colleagues openly, and they were approving of the strategy until a few days ago, but I don't know that they are presenting a coherent message as a result, as that message makes no sense.
yes it makes them sound vacuous and self absorbed (which they probably are).If all they can do is say their own have done fantastic jobs when they clearly haven't it shows why the quiet majority of people don't vote for them.
The tablet of stone thing also proves the point in showing they are full of vague theory and no practicality and when it is combined with the arrogance of saying they will plant it in Downing Street it shows they are not a pleasant party at the top.
There is a need not to rub salt in wounds and show a bit of loyalty.
Chuka was vacuous. Mandy was venomous. It will be interesting to see how Liz Kendall handles it on Sunday Politics.
As for why the tories performed better than the polls suggested its to do with the economy imo.
The economy is not that flash. You can show you care by talking about the NHS or schools and you can show you are intelligent and 'with it' by talking about green technology etc . This was the background to when polls were made but when it comes to actual voting most people then consider the economy I think in those reflective moments walking to the poll stations and if its done well reward the governing party.
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
Quite - I support electoral reform, but the Tories weren't offering it and they won; they don't have a mandate to do it, let alone the desire. Of course, parties can change their minds after an election, but its hard at the moment to see why they would any time soon.
I do wonder if those protestors would have turned out in quite such numbers at a Labour government of some stripe. If they were genuinely about anti-austerity they certainly should have. Actually I don't wonder, because they wouldn't have, not in the same numbers.
Yes TSE, on the kipper vote you are largely right, as I wrote early yesterday somewhere on PB. I really thought that the polls were suppressing UKIP, whereas they were they were downgrading the Tories.
However the Kipper vote was much more damaging to the northern Labour seats than any to the southern Tories. Just think. if the UKIP vote had reached, say 17%/18% instead of 13% the Tories might have had a landslide of perhaps a comfortable 60 seat majority instead of a miserable 12 seats which is always bound to be a problem.
One other fact that PB tories dismissed as false, was the UKIP notion that they were picking up more votes from Labour than Tories, which has been born out by the results.
Have to disagree. Id say if Ukip had got 17% it would have been the Tories that wanted to vote Ukip but were scared off by the thought of letting in Ed and particularly Sturgeon. Most people I know who voted Tory would happily have voted Ukip but for that. They prefer Farage to Cameron but the vote Farage get Ed/Nicola line was an absolute killer for us
I would say that there were shy kippers, but they were balanced out by those who got up on the morning of polling day fully intending to vote UKIP, telling pollsters they intended to vote UKIP, but got to the polling station and found they just couldn't help themselves but vote tactically.
As for why the tories performed better than the polls suggested its to do with the economy imo.
The economy is not that flash. You can show you care by talking about the NHS or schools and you can show you are intelligent and 'with it' by talking about green technology etc . This was the background to when polls were made but when it comes to actual voting most people then consider the economy I think in those reflective moments walking to the poll stations and if its done well reward the governing party.
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
A lot of us having been calling for electoral reform forever and agree that the 2005 result was a shocker. Electoral reform currently would firmly cement a right wing majority in the Commons, so it is not exactly self-serving for left wingers to advocate it.
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
Quite - I support electoral reform, but the Tories weren't offering it and they won; they don't have a mandate to do it, let alone the desire. Of course, parties can change their minds after an election, but its hard at the moment to see why they would any time soon.
I do wonder if those protestors would have turned out in quite such numbers at a Labour government of some stripe. If they were genuinely about anti-austerity they certainly should have. Actually I don't wonder, because they wouldn't have.
Do you not remember the annual Take the City riots and the G20 one in 2009?
SLab is dead in Scotland until the constitutional issue is properly resolved. The fight back can only really begin then.
Labour had problems not least with its leader's appeal. But the collapse in Scotland and the impact of the SNP on English voters was probably the killer. The trouble is that this is a problem that won't go away. As long as Labour can't recover in Scotland then a potential Labour government will torn to pieces on the basis that they'll have to do a deal with the Tory-hating SNP. They'd need 330 MPs in England and Wales, a majority of 77 I think.
SLAB have achieved in 6 months what it took the Tories over 20 years to achieve. Couldn't believe what I was hearing when Chuka told Andrew Neil that he thought Jim Murphy had done an excellent job.
The current Labour leadership contenders are currently adopting a strategy of saying that Ed M and Jim Murphy are great people who did a fantastic job...but also that the party needs to fundamentally change itself, its policies and its messaging if it is to win again.
I know they don't want to criticise colleagues openly, and they were approving of the strategy until a few days ago, but I don't know that they are presenting a coherent message as a result, as that message makes no sense.
yes it makes them sound vacuous and self absorbed (which they probably are).If all they can do is say their own have done fantastic jobs when they clearly haven't it shows why the quiet majority of people don't vote for them.
The tablet of stone thing also proves the point in showing they are full of vague theory and no practicality and when it is combined with the arrogance of saying they will plant it in Downing Street it shows they are not a pleasant party at the top.
There is a need not to rub salt in wounds and show a bit of loyalty. .
It's a delicate line they have to walk, admittedly. They may have not liked the way Ed did things, but they cannot say that as then they have to admit they did nothing about it because they wanted personal advancement. But it becomes absurd when they talk about how great a campaign Ed M had when the measure of how great a campaign is has to at least partly be shown in the result, which was terrible. I can't see how to square that circle to be honest.
Big mistake. His resignation speech used some of the right words but the tone was unrepentant - he will be a thorn in the side of any sensible leader they might choose and if he has any influence in the eventual winner it would not be good for Labour.
@surbiton was asking about the London result and advocating regional polls excluding London. The London results were very variable for Labour - some big swings for in the East and of course in Ilford north but also swings against Labour in the 3 north London marginals they missed. In south London the swing was also much more variable and they only won Ealing and Brentford by whiskers. I think London wide polling for a GE would be nigh on impossible to be reliable - last Thursday it was a city of many paces - which actually is no surprise for anyone who has lived there. Overall they did far less well there than the polls suggested although it was their best result overall., but I think that in part was down to demographic changes rather than a successful campaign.
And don't forget that IDS spent 5+ years outside the front line, rebuilding his reputation and "owning" welfare reform as an issue
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
A lot of us having been calling for electoral reform forever and agree that the 2005 result was a shocker. Electoral reform currently would firmly cement a right wing majority in the Commons, so it is not exactly self-serving for left wingers to advocate it.
Fairness is only fair when it shafts the tories?
To be fair this is one reason why electoral reform is so tough, only the people which benefit from the status quo have the power to change it.
Tories should grasp the nettle of the House of Lords, at the very least though
SLab is dead in Scotland until the constitutional issue is properly resolved. The fight back can only really begin then.
Labour had problems not least with its leader's appeal. But the collapse in Scotland and the impact of the SNP on English voters was probably the killer. The trouble is that this is a problem that won't go away. As long as Labour can't recover in Scotland then a potential Labour government will torn to pieces on the basis that they'll have to do a deal with the Tory-hating SNP. They'd need 330 MPs in England and Wales, a majority of 77 I think.
I'd have thought that the constitutional issue will be resolved in Scotland one way or the other by 2020.
The boundary changes to 600 and 5% varience are enshrined in law, so to change them new legislation would need to be passed quickly.
The boundary commission will work off December 2015 electoral registers and report in 2018.
That's an interesting tactical call for Lib and Lab Lords. Do they accept the new law as an improvement on the status quo, or do they hold things up in the hope that Tory backbenchers will veto the new boundaries if they put enough of them out of a job?
If the boundary changes don't go through, just how old would the boundaries be in 2020? Not sure why MPs should need to vote on it anyway (at least for a periodic review without changing the number of seats)
If you think that's bad, Japanese boundaries have repeatedly been declared unconstitutional (or some weird wording like "in a state of unconstitutionality") by the Supreme Court. They just carry on using them anyway, correctly assuming the Supreme Court isn't going to void a general election result.
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
Completely agree. Chuka is a comfort zone candidate. Hunt is not a serious one and I suspect he may bow out as an MP at the next election.
What Labour needs is someone like Jarvis or Kendall. Ideally both of them.
My guess, though, is that Chuka will win. I very much hope to be wrong.
Don't know much about Dan Jarvis but I don't think a good back story is enough on its own
Jon Cruddas is authentic old school labour and a open minded thinker as well, he would be the best choice by a mile
Paul Flynn MP: Labour needs leader who is an eloquent, charismatic personality strengthened by intellectual depth and debating skills. Chuka is my choice
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
Quite - I support electoral reform, but the Tories weren't offering it and they won; they don't have a mandate to do it, let alone the desire. Of course, parties can change their minds after an election, but its hard at the moment to see why they would any time soon.
I do wonder if those protestors would have turned out in quite such numbers at a Labour government of some stripe. If they were genuinely about anti-austerity they certainly should have. Actually I don't wonder, because they wouldn't have.
Do you not remember the annual Take the City riots and the G20 one in 2009?
I have amended my comments to include 'in the same numbers'. The protests yesterday were highly anti-Tory focused, not primarily anti-FPTP focused with a particular focus on the Tories. Some hate the system, but some dislike the system but hate the result in particular. Some would still have been there, you get the crazies out, but not as many. F*** Tory scum does not speak to a dislike primarily of the system to me, it speaks to hatred of the result.
But no, I don't remember the Take the City riots I'll admit.
Frank Field is a bit too old for a leadership challenge, and unfortunately for Labour, he's not mainstream. I stopped voting Labour in the late nineties but I'd happily return if he were leader. He will never be.
He'd be an interesting leader candidate for Ukip, though.
An interesting scenario could be Cameron calling him in as an advisor and telling Frank "to think the unthinkable" and then NOT sacking him when he does.
I'll get no credit for saying this but for all the Guardian/Observer gets mocked on here I think the 3 pieces today by Andrew Rawnsley, Nick Cohen and Will Hutton are excellent and prove that the liberal left intelligentsia in London don't all hate the English, business andwhite working class. the likes of David Hare should take note.
Andrew Rawnsley said : "This government will not be popular for long. In fact, the Tories were not popular on polling day: 63% voted for someone else. The Tories are not liked, even by quite a lot of those who voted for them. Many did so only because they fancied the alternative even less. His fragile majority will be acutely vulnerable to rebellions, ambushes and blackmail by a handful or two of backbenchers. That will get worse when the majority is eroded as byelection losses take their toll. By announcing that he has fought his last general election, he has put a sell-by-date on his premiership."
This strikes me as correct. Will Cameron take the honeymoon period then hand over to BoJo two years in after a couple of by-election losses?
Labour's problem is not what but where. They are now largely confined to London, Wales and the Core Cities. That's nowhere near a majority. They need to extend their geographical reach dramatically. That means picking a leader who can reach into new areas.
For me that rules out Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt for starters.
Completely agree. Chuka is a comfort zone candidate. Hunt is not a serious one and I suspect he may bow out as an MP at the next election.
What Labour needs is someone like Jarvis or Kendall. Ideally both of them.
My guess, though, is that Chuka will win. I very much hope to be wrong.
Don't know much about Dan Jarvis but I don't think a good back story is enough on its own
Jon Cruddas is authentic old school labour and a open minded thinker as well, he would be the best choice by a mile
Jarvis gets Labour a hearing from people who would not bother with people like Ed and Chuka. Labour needs to go beyond that, of course, but it's the place you have to start. My guess is that a lot of Labour switchers to UKIP did it because they felt their identities and values were not respected by Ed and what he represented, I doubt that they will feel that way about Jarvis. I don't know if he will stand, but if he does he will need a longer process so that he can show he is more than a back story.
The BBC even had its own tablet of stone moment in their coverage by getting Sophie Raworth to orchestrate a giant jigsaw puzzle as though it was some kind of 'Take Art' programme. Jesus the amount of time the bbc switched to watch somebody put a tile down on it and by doing so missed significant results was tedious and ridiculous.
Just as Ed insulted our intelligence with the tablet of stone the BBC does with this sort of stunt that even looks dumbed down on Sports Personality of the Year never mind election coverage
Labours selling points...Pink Bus..Large slab of stone..Brand..THE Hobbitt..class envy..wealth envy..the undefined mansion tax..the increase in benefits ..TAX RISES..Envy politics.. The possibility of joining a failing currency..no EU REF.. gimmicks and negativity all the way through.
No,no Mr Dodd. You're wrong.
The Tories were the negative ones, pointing out the patently obvious issues (to anyone with a brain) with Labour horse trading with the SNP to gain power.
Everything you wrote didn't happen. I know that, Dianne Abbott told me.
With a Labour leadership election due soon is there a reliable record anywhere that summarises the make up of the parliamentary party on a left right basis compared to pre election?
I seem to remember they were very proud of increasing party membership over the last couple of years. Do we know the drivers of this? As it is purported to be one member one vote analysis would be interesting.
I think the main driver was £1 for annual membership and you get cheap beer for 12 months.
Out of interest aside from the back-story, how do people thing Dan Jarvis looks and sounds? I think he's quite impressive.
I also liked Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, so this should be considered a serious warning sign.
I know nothing about him but if he is ex army(?) that will automatically command respect amongst a sizable portion of swing voters. Compare to Ed Miliband!
Yes TSE, on the kipper vote you are largely right, as I wrote early yesterday somewhere on PB. I really thought that the polls were suppressing UKIP, whereas they were they were downgrading the Tories.
However the Kipper vote was much more damaging to the northern Labour seats than any to the southern Tories. Just think. if the UKIP vote had reached, say 17%/18% instead of 13% the Tories might have had a landslide of perhaps a comfortable 60 seat majority instead of a miserable 12 seats which is always bound to be a problem.
One other fact that PB tories dismissed as false, was the UKIP notion that they were picking up more votes from Labour than Tories, which has been born out by the results.
I don't think the PB tories dismissed it - there were a few who made that point. It was the PB Kinnocks who rubbished the concept.
One other fact that PB tories dismissed as false, was the UKIP notion that they were picking up more votes from Labour than Tories, which has been born out by the results.
PB Tories frequently pointed out that UKIP was a Labour problem too - to hoots of derision from Labour supporters....
I don't know why, but I find the idea of someone specifically running to be a deputy leader quite funny. Like someone saying 'I have ambition, but not that much'.
I remember quite liking Burnham in 2010, but don't really recall him making much impact in the past 5 years. Jarvis I know nothing about. Cooper comes across better than Balls, but has also been surprisingly low key (seriously, where was the visibility for senior figures on both sides in this election) as far as I can tell. Umunna rubs me the wrong way, he has that manner a lot of newer politicians have of being supremely irritated by anybody questioning him (a reaction I would guess going too far as a result of the overly pushy style of interviewing). Kendall and the others I've been aware of but have no impression of.
SLAB have achieved in 6 months what it took the Tories over 20 years to achieve. Couldn't believe what I was hearing when Chuka told Andrew Neil that he thought Jim Murphy had done an excellent job.
The current Labour leadership contenders are currently adopting a strategy of saying that Ed M and Jim Murphy are great people who did a fantastic job...but also that the party needs to fundamentally change itself, its policies and its messaging if it is to win again.
I know they don't want to criticise colleagues openly, and they were approving of the strategy until a few days ago, but I don't know that they are presenting a coherent message as a result, as that message makes no sense.
yes it makes them sound vacuous and self absorbed (which they probably are).If all they can do is say their own have done fantastic jobs when they clearly haven't it shows why the quiet majority of people don't vote for them.
The tablet of stone thing also proves the point in showing they are full of vague theory and no practicality and when it is combined with the arrogance of saying they will plant it in Downing Street it shows they are not a pleasant party at the top.
There is a need not to rub salt in wounds and show a bit of loyalty.
There is no need to talk about the Liberal Democrats like that. Apparently, they did their "national duty". Sadly, no one remembered that !
Time for a name change ? Free Democrats anyone ? Free Liberals ?
Yes TSE, on the kipper vote you are largely right, as I wrote early yesterday somewhere on PB. I really thought that the polls were suppressing UKIP, whereas they were they were downgrading the Tories.
However the Kipper vote was much more damaging to the northern Labour seats than any to the southern Tories. Just think. if the UKIP vote had reached, say 17%/18% instead of 13% the Tories might have had a landslide of perhaps a comfortable 60 seat majority instead of a miserable 12 seats which is always bound to be a problem.
One other fact that PB tories dismissed as false, was the UKIP notion that they were picking up more votes from Labour than Tories, which has been born out by the results.
Have to disagree. Id say if Ukip had got 17% it would have been the Tories that wanted to vote Ukip but were scared off by the thought of letting in Ed and particularly Sturgeon. Most people I know who voted Tory would happily have voted Ukip but for that. They prefer Farage to Cameron but the vote Farage get Ed/Nicola line was an absolute killer for us
Labour (and LDs too) got both barrells on Thursday. The kippers got their voters fairly evenly from all three of Lab, LD and Con as well as others. This made little net effect on many seats. The second barrell was the Greens, which hardly touched the Cons but significantly hit Lab and LD. It is not coincidence that the Lab gains in the North from the Tories were where there was no Green candidate such as Chester: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000640
One question that may have profound impact on the next five years: what is the state of the parties finances after this GE?
The Electoral Commission publish party financial data. EC data fall into these categories * Money in (donations, loans and public funds) * Money out (party spending, candidae spending, third party spending) * Accounts
As for timeliness * "money out" is delayed: we don't know how much is spent until after the election * "accounts" are also delayed: the latest available accounts are (I think) at least a year old * However, "money in" is timely. That data can be downloaded from http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/
If we focus on the "donations" part of "money in", we see that Labour were donated to lots, as were the Conservatives (although not as much, oddly) with Libs bringing up the rear, although UKIP donations began to match the Libs towards the end. Labour are well funded.
I do not draw conclusions from this: "donations" is not all of "money in", and "money in" may not be a proxy for "money out". Please accept this on an unwarranted basis, therefore.
Also, to all the various lefties around the country calling for electoral reform because the Tories have a slim majority with 37% of the vote, were they saying the same in 2005 when Labour had a much larger majority with 35% of the vote and just a 2.8% lead over the next party?
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
Quite - I support electoral reform, but the Tories weren't offering it and they won; they don't have a mandate to do it, let alone the desire. Of course, parties can change their minds after an election, but its hard at the moment to see why they would any time soon.
I do wonder if those protestors would have turned out in quite such numbers at a Labour government of some stripe. If they were genuinely about anti-austerity they certainly should have. Actually I don't wonder, because they wouldn't have.
Do you not remember the annual Take the City riots and the G20 one in 2009?
I have amended my comments to include 'in the same numbers'. The protests yesterday were highly anti-Tory focused, not primarily anti-FPTP focused with a particular focus on the Tories. Some hate the system, but some dislike the system but hate the result in particular. Some would still have been there, you get the crazies out, but not as many. F*** Tory scum does not speak to a dislike primarily of the system to me, it speaks to hatred of the result.
But no, I don't remember the Take the City riots I'll admit.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
It was Jim Messina what won it, as Conservative/Ukip waverers could be targeted with SNP-pwns-Labour attacks.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25 53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29 61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58 67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49 84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45 88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14 89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19 174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41 420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Jim Messina couldn't have won it if SLAB hadn't put in the groundwork of villainising everything Tory and English. They slit their own throats.
Scottish Labour has spent the last 3 elections fighting the wrong enemy.
See my post about Alistair Darling's wholly negative, anti-Scots Better Together campaign.
Really ? Anti Scots ? In Scotland ?
It looks like the Nat disease of conflating 'Scots and 'Scotland' with 'the SNP' is contagious.....
I have parents that voted Labour for 60 years and a sibling representing Labour so I do have a little insight into the red camp! What if Labour is suffering from two major mistakes? 1. They are continuing to alienate growing numbers of the working people's (C1s,C2s, D etc) through mass immigration and failing to tackle the ill of Idleness. (Fault of New Labour) 2. They have alienated large segments of the aspirational/middle class after the spending binges of Brown and the last 5 years policies. (Fault of EDM & lefties).
One other fact that PB tories dismissed as false, was the UKIP notion that they were picking up more votes from Labour than Tories, which has been born out by the results.
PB Tories frequently pointed out that UKIP was a Labour problem too - to hoots of derision from Labour supporters....
Tim and I argued for days on end about it...he simply wouldn't believe it. Same for 'Hugh'... He thought I was a Tory boy who ran a business exploiting my staff! I wish
Shame they're not here to gloat to... Or to ask for money!
Comments
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
She just said "Samantha Cameron inserted the passion pump into Dave"
I'm going to need years of therapy.
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/597173415116681216
While I seem to be one of the few who thought Miliband would probably have been ok - depending on how he handled the SNP situation - a continuation of the coalition would have appealed to me, but I cannot see how that would have helped the LDs any to be honest, as most of their remaining members, even those who did now feel closer to the Tories than Labour, seemed reluctant to commit to such a thing in worry it would cement their reputation as pure Tories alone.
That said, it would have been easier to argue for a return of the coalition as they could just stick to positive messages about how, thanks to them moderating the Tories, it turned out to be great government, rather than trying the subtler and harder message of 'It was great, but the Tories are so awful' which while they are saying the same thing (we can make the Tories better), makes the job seem much harder for the LDs to achieve than if they admitted it was the better option than helping Labour at all.
But in their defence, it looked like Labour might win and they wanted their options open.
Mrs Jack W
What Labour needs is someone like Jarvis or Kendall. Ideally both of them.
My guess, though, is that Chuka will win. I very much hope to be wrong.
I know they don't want to criticise colleagues openly, and they were approving of the strategy until a few days ago, but I don't know that they are presenting a coherent message as a result, as that message makes no sense.
Wales 29.49; NI 15.98
England 502
Scotland 53
Wales 29
NI 16
My offering of positivity:
Raising income tax threshold to help the lower paid
Supporting the NHS, with whatever it takes
Trying to maintain the union (assuming you want to) by countering the threat of nationlism
Increase home ownership and use the proceeds to build more houses
Ensure that you get out of welfare only if you pay in, excepting those who are elderly or disabled (and therefore can't pay in)
Increase training and apprenticeships opportunities
Renegotiate relationships with European allies to ensure that we can stay in Europe
Any of that you fundamentally disagree with?
Best wishes to him, and to you.
The tablet of stone thing also proves the point in showing they are full of vague theory and no practicality and when it is combined with the arrogance of saying they will plant it in Downing Street it shows they are not a pleasant party at the top.
Earlier I tried to work out the current number of registered voters in Scotland as a proportion of the UK to see how many seats you'd expect Scotland to get - I found the number 45,325,078 for the UK, and 4,285,323 for Scotland, but I think the latter number may old, and a bit too high.
If those numbers are comparable (don't think they are), you get:
((4285323/45235078)*650) = 61.58, an increase on their current 59.
That doesn't take into account the special exceptions for very large seats and islands and things, designed for things like preserving a seat for Charles Kennedy. (Doh.)
Her, Kendall, Creasy and Flint can all open doors that were shut tight to Ed.
Who gave such order? Party HQ? Regional party?
Very new words from Tristram Hunt there... the lefties wont like that,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/10/labour-must-embrace-one-nation-politics
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labour-left-miliband-hating-english
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/10/cameron-sweet-victory-short-lived
How did the "basing seats on registers" approach get around the issue of people (especially students) registering in two places?
Yes the SNP did well but surely the coverage of this was OTT compared to the more relevant and surprising story of a tory majority.
It was terrible imo
Peston's bit was good though ,kept to the practicality and numbers
I know Eastbourne stayed LD at a council level but returned a Tory MP.
IIRC the Tories are up 30 councils and c500 councilors - and 23 went from NOC so I presume a fair number of these are in the Tory column now bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/councils
The LDs are in even more serious trouble - down another 4 councils and 360 councilors
I know it's a bit mad, but to be fair to the Tories it's been done this way for a long time, they didn't just dream it up.
Hypocrites, the lot of them. 13 years Labour had to implement electoral reform.
Chuka was vacuous. Mandy was venomous. It will be interesting to see how Liz Kendall handles it on Sunday Politics.
The economy is not that flash. You can show you care by talking about the NHS or schools and you can show you are intelligent and 'with it' by talking about green technology etc . This was the background to when polls were made but when it comes to actual voting most people then consider the economy I think in those reflective moments walking to the poll stations and if its done well reward the governing party.
I do wonder if those protestors would have turned out in quite such numbers at a Labour government of some stripe. If they were genuinely about anti-austerity they certainly should have. Actually I don't wonder, because they wouldn't have, not in the same numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_and_Outwood_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
The UKIP effect.
Labour should just spend the rest of the year having a long long hard thing.
Pnarfff
They really don't get business, do they
To be fair this is one reason why electoral reform is so tough, only the people which benefit from the status quo have the power to change it.
Tories should grasp the nettle of the House of Lords, at the very least though
6 in the bag, 1 driver, and one riding shot gun and trying to grab the wheel
Did Axelrod even bother to turn up ?
Jon Cruddas is authentic old school labour and a open minded thinker as well, he would be the best choice by a mile
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/may/06/nuneaton-election-2015-scottish-get-in-with-labour-were-done-for
But no, I don't remember the Take the City riots I'll admit.
"This government will not be popular for long. In fact, the Tories were not popular on polling day: 63% voted for someone else. The Tories are not liked, even by quite a lot of those who voted for them. Many did so only because they fancied the alternative even less. His fragile majority will be acutely vulnerable to rebellions, ambushes and blackmail by a handful or two of backbenchers. That will get worse when the majority is eroded as byelection losses take their toll. By announcing that he has fought his last general election, he has put a sell-by-date on his premiership."
This strikes me as correct. Will Cameron take the honeymoon period then hand over to BoJo two years in after a couple of by-election losses?
I also liked Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, so this should be considered a serious warning sign.
Just as Ed insulted our intelligence with the tablet of stone the BBC does with this sort of stunt that even looks dumbed down on Sports Personality of the Year never mind election coverage
The Tories were the negative ones, pointing out the patently obvious issues (to anyone with a brain) with Labour horse trading with the SNP to gain power.
Everything you wrote didn't happen. I know that, Dianne Abbott told me.
I remember quite liking Burnham in 2010, but don't really recall him making much impact in the past 5 years. Jarvis I know nothing about. Cooper comes across better than Balls, but has also been surprisingly low key (seriously, where was the visibility for senior figures on both sides in this election) as far as I can tell. Umunna rubs me the wrong way, he has that manner a lot of newer politicians have of being supremely irritated by anybody questioning him (a reaction I would guess going too far as a result of the overly pushy style of interviewing). Kendall and the others I've been aware of but have no impression of.
Time for a name change ? Free Democrats anyone ? Free Liberals ?
* Money in (donations, loans and public funds)
* Money out (party spending, candidae spending, third party spending)
* Accounts
As for timeliness
* "money out" is delayed: we don't know how much is spent until after the election
* "accounts" are also delayed: the latest available accounts are (I think) at least a year old
* However, "money in" is timely. That data can be downloaded from http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/
If we focus on the "donations" part of "money in", we see that Labour were donated to lots, as were the Conservatives (although not as much, oddly) with Libs bringing up the rear, although UKIP donations began to match the Libs towards the end. Labour are well funded.
I do not draw conclusions from this: "donations" is not all of "money in", and "money in" may not be a proxy for "money out". Please accept this on an unwarranted basis, therefore.
http://www.urban75.org/j18/j18_r13.html
Just been scanning Bonnie Greer's Twitter feed. Bloody electorate, voting wrong. That's the problem with democracy.
Also, we're now living in the ninth circle of Hell.
What if Labour is suffering from two major mistakes?
1. They are continuing to alienate growing numbers of the working people's (C1s,C2s, D etc) through mass immigration and failing to tackle the ill of Idleness. (Fault of New Labour)
2. They have alienated large segments of the aspirational/middle class after the spending binges of Brown and the last 5 years policies. (Fault of EDM & lefties).
Shame they're not here to gloat to... Or to ask for money!