All this talk about Cammer's twelve-seat majority igonres the elephant-in-the-room: There is no opposition! Just think about it....
The SNP are an agitating fringe party that most people are happy to ignore; Labour need to address their, current, core-constituents and can not be seen to be "anti-English/Welsh" by allying with "Trews" Salmond (despite their want); Lib-Dems are marmite and cannot campaign against an EU referendum; Plaid are vaccuous; UKIP want a referendum and Carswell will expect the 2017 pledge to be honoured; The Ulster-Scots will be more afraid of a UK break-up (and loss of bennies) and will therefore implicitly support the Tories; and As for the Greens - Pfft!
So Cammer's government can be minimalist for the next five years. Git the painful stuff done up-front and spend the rest of the term in thoughtful reform before GE2020: Just address what is obviouslly wrong and don't pander to issues of little interest.
He makes a good point about minor parties indicating who in advance they would support. If the LibDems had gone out to campaign for a continuation of the coalition as a restraint on Cameron, I suspect they would have held much of the SW
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.
Once the exit poll came out, the BBC team genuinely looked shocked, appalled, on the verge of tears in the case of Emily Maitliss. It was as though they had been asked to go to work having just seen their dog run over.
Ordinarily I would have turned away from such a shabby offering. But I was cruelly enjoying their self-evident suffering too much.
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....
Come to think of it, was there anything which the 'PBtories' got hugely wrong.
1) Ed is Crap 2) Ed will never be Prime Minister 3) UKIP would start to hurt labour too 4) The SNP/Labour issue would be a huge problem for labour 5) Osborne knew what he was doing 6) The Brand stunt was stupid 7) The Edstone was Ed's tombstone 8) Phonehacking was a bit of a non-story (in political terms) 7) Turning their backs on the Sun was a huge error for labour
For a very long time the LDs built a *credbility* base in local gov precisely because they had no track record at a national level. This would seem to be the way for Kippers to do the same.
I don't see any reason for them to disappear post-EU Ref as they've shifted their message a lot over the last 18 months. I see them as mostly Blue Labour now outside the Midsomer Murders rural territory.
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.
Or It could just be that people have learned they can split their vote. They may not think that UKIP are a serious enough party for government, but OK for local government. For many people the reason they support a particular party will be based on national issues - economics, attitude to civil liberties, defence etc - not really relevant to local issues.
A friend who worked in the Tory campaign team in Morecambe has written up her thoughts on how it went... A politics academic she has a keen eye for what was happening on the ground... Six weeks out she predicted c. 320 seats to me and had a pretty good rationale for how... In the write-up she talks about good canvass returns and how they firmed up in the last week or so...
Worth a read for anyone interested in how it looked on the ground...
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.
He makes a good point about minor parties indicating who in advance they would support. If the LibDems had gone out to campaign for a continuation of the coalition as a restraint on Cameron, I suspect they would have held much of the SW
yes I think the ld -lab switchers assumed that and voted accordingly yet the LD to cons switchers couldn't be sure so voted tory for surety.
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.
;-)
Indeed Miss P. I may try the same stunt again. :-D
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).
Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration.
Ed and co seemed to be incapable of encouraging it.
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?
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 ?
No. Changing the name would be both pointless and damaging. The nadir of the LD polling was not recent, it was in the first year of the merger of Liberals and SDP. There were genuine philosophical differences as well as the Owenite splitters to deal with.
Paddy Ashdown did a great job in uniting the new party and taking them to the 97 numbers within a decade. It is why he was so tired and emotional on Friday.
The LDs will be back. There is a political space and a political need. Quite a few of my Tory voting friends are sympathetic.
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!
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).
Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration. Ed and co seemed to be incapable of encouraging it.
But what about the workers (working class) who just want a bit better life?
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
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!
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.
He's obviously got the life experience people crave but he's politically inexperienced at the moment. The idea of a former para PM at a time when Britain's future seems possibly on the brink could be hugely appealing. If I was him I would play big on teamwork, an essential in the forces and of course so often lacking when Labour was last in government riven by narcissistic rivalries at the top. It's fairly obvious what a centre-left government in this country will be up against it's insane to think an individual can do it on their own. Is he really ready and what does he actually believe? We'll have to find out.
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 ?
No. Changing the name would be both pointless and damaging. The nadir of the LD polling was not recent, it was in the first year of the merger of Liberals and SDP. There were genuine philosophical differences as well as the Owenite splitters to deal with.
Paddy Ashdown did a great job in uniting the new party and taking them to the 97 numbers within a decade. It is why he was so tired and emotional on Friday.
The LDs will be back. There is a political space and a political need. Quite a few of my Tory voting friends are sympathetic.
I like the Lid dems (I even voted for them in the council elections this time). Its not because of the result they should change their name however its because it is just cumbersome . The Liberals is more catchy ,'with it' and to the point in terms of differentiation. Everybody is a democrat so why add that 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.
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 ?
No. Changing the name would be both pointless and damaging. The nadir of the LD polling was not recent, it was in the first year of the merger of Liberals and SDP. There were genuine philosophical differences as well as the Owenite splitters to deal with.
Paddy Ashdown did a great job in uniting the new party and taking them to the 97 numbers within a decade. It is why he was so tired and emotional on Friday.
The LDs will be back. There is a political space and a political need. Quite a few of my Tory voting friends are sympathetic.
Free radicals?
Seriously, shortening to liberals is worth doing IMO. Surely we can assume they are democrats.
Being a Tory meant I never got any Tory leaflets! I noticed that NPXMP mentioned the quality of the Tory literature compared to Labour's.
I never saw any Labour literature either - not surprising given the demographics here - but the LDs ones were very cheap looking/rather hairshirt, I presume that was deliberate?
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
Most of those ad views are tiny relative to the electorate. The proportion of swing voters they got, minuscule.
It was Liam Byrne wot won it. The week before polling, the attack had been SNP. That softened up a lot of voters. The final week was delivery of a glossy leaflet - comparing where we were 5 years ago - "there is no money" - versus where we are today, one of the strongest economies in the world. It was the PERFECT encapsulation of Labour's weakness.
Liam Byrne may have cost Labour 20 seats. Maybe more.
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 ?
No. Changing the name would be both pointless and damaging. The nadir of the LD polling was not recent, it was in the first year of the merger of Liberals and SDP. There were genuine philosophical differences as well as the Owenite splitters to deal with.
Paddy Ashdown did a great job in uniting the new party and taking them to the 97 numbers within a decade. It is why he was so tired and emotional on Friday.
The LDs will be back. There is a political space and a political need. Quite a few of my Tory voting friends are sympathetic.
I like the Lid dems (I even voted for them in the council elections this time). Its not because of the result they should change their name however its because it is just cumbersome . The Liberals is more catchy ,'with it' and to the point in terms of differentiation. Everybody is a democrat so why add that on?
Would they be allowed to change their name to The Liberal Party? We do currently have a minor party with that name already.
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
Expected. Anyway the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union. Right-wing nutjobs like SeanT will again cry into their soup at the prospect of the end of the Union. You can't have it both ways...
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....
Come to think of it, was there anything which the 'PBtories' got hugely wrong. 1) Ed is Crap 2) Ed will never be Prime Minister 3) UKIP would start to hurt labour too 4) The SNP/Labour issue would be a huge problem for labour 5) Osborne knew what he was doing 6) The Brand stunt was stupid 7) The Edstone was Ed's tombstone 8) Phonehacking was a bit of a non-story (in political terms) 9) Turning their backs on the Sun was a huge error for labour Wisdow in the crowds....wisdom in the crowds
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
Yep, that is exactly how it will play out. Either her bluff gets called or Scotland becomes independent. Either way, the SNP is not going to be as popular in five years time as it is now.
they should merge with the guy in Liverpool West Derby ( a takeover may be too ambitious considering their reduced status!!) and go forth as Liberals!!
The dog whistle about the SNP was a major factor. I heard two women who had voted postally talking about how terrified of the SNP having influence... Can say exactly when it was but it was a good week before the GE.
How helpful of Salmond to be taking about writing the Labour party budget.
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.
Although I'm still feeling deflated by the Tory victory, personally speaking I'm not feeling as bad as 1992. Back then I was more big-p Political. At uni I was in the SDP and a European federalist (ha!) and suchlike. In the 90s I was a member of the LibDems and campaigned for them - just stopped short of becoming a candidate. Ironically, considering how much I'd been looking forward to it, the moment the Tories lost in 97 I moved abroad. By the time I came back I wasn't interested in party politics any more and I was happy in 2010 to see the back of a Labour government that had launched a great social experiment on the British people by opening the immigration floodgates and was spending money like water.
To recall an acronym from the Thatcher days: TINA (there is no alternative) to the Tories. One reason they won is that the country can live with them. I know that's setting the bar very low, but that's politics. Perhaps they got lucky with Cameron but he looks like a leader and he acts like one. And he does seem to acknowledge that we are now in the 21st century, so it does concern me when I hear talk of reducing rights or reintroducing fox-hunting or whatever. The Tories could remain in power for 20 years if they are true conservatives, which means not going back to the past as much as it means not forcing change.
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
Expected. Anyway the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union. Right-wing nutjobs like SeanT will again cry into their soup at the prospect of the end of the Union. You can't have it both ways...
I still repudiate the idea that attacking the SNP undermined the Union anymore than it was already undermined. It was legitimate to worry about a party that wants to destroy the Union being influential in determining the affairs of the entire Union, that is not the same as being worried about the Scots in general having influence, as they've always had that anyway through Labour. People conflating the two happened on both sides but are both wrong.
The fatal damage to the Union was that the SNP are now so incredibly popular - if they had not won a landslide, maybe something could be done to save the Union, but they are and they did and were going to no matter what the Tories did. The SNP were going to have this many seats regardless - that is what has sealed the fate of the Union; that the Scottish voters want it sealed by voting SNP.
As with the GE result as a whole, the 'problem' was the voters - the English wanted the Tories in, the Scots wanted the SNP in. We the voters chose the two most opposed sides, it's not the fault of the parties to appealing to us in that sense.
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!
You owe me beer and lunch ;-)
Yes
Who else can honestly say they backed Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats to do badly and lost money doing so? Quite incredible... Although part of me loves backing unlucky losing bets... I need a vehicle for complaint
Whereabouts shall we go? I don't really work in the daytime, hence 15000 posts on here! So anyday suits me really
Mr. Observer, Sturgeon will want to get Scottish sentiment into a position whereby the SNP can win a Holyrood majority in 2016, and win a referendum before 2020.
That will, I suggest, dictate her approach.
She and Salmond are not stupid. They know the high tide of the SNP will recede sooner or later, and if they cannot secure a Yes vote soon then they may lose their chance for decades, possibly forever.
Cameron's task is a fair settlement for Scotland, England and Wales. If he gets that right, the pressure on the union will recede from all quarters. The SNP will seek to avoid this and to stoke up tension [more difficult now they're facing a blue majority rather than a minority Labour government].
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.
He's obviously got the life experience people crave but he's politically inexperienced at the moment. The idea of a former para PM at a time when Britain's future seems possibly on the brink could be hugely appealing. If I was him I would play big on teamwork, an essential in the forces and of course so often lacking when Labour was last in government riven by narcissistic rivalries at the top. It's fairly obvious what a centre-left government in this country will be up against it's insane to think an individual can do it on their own. Is he really ready and what does he actually believe? We'll have to find out.
Teamwork is a fine concept. But hell, look at the team he has to work with! Can you imagine an ex-Para working with an idiot like Lucy Powell?
Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.
The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
In précis form .......
"The English are a race not worth saving"
Jack Straw , Labour Party
Well, if people aren't like that, why do they read those newspapers?
But what do I know. I would no more live in suburban England than I would put out my own eyes. (I can't live in the countryside - I have grand mal and so am not allowed to drive.
And everyone I know is either a graduate or a member of an ethnic minority - except my son.
Simples. Gossip and sport. The politics is just background noise to many people.
Chuka first of the contenders to get a TV interview, in the soft hands of Andrew Marr at 9
Nicola is also on, presumably to explain why she failed to lock the Tories out of Downing Street and how she won't win votes against a majority government. Or not.
Liz Kendal has to wait until 1:30...
...and gets Andrew Neil.
Liz Kendall on Neill will be interesting. See how she gets on with the toughest interviewer. Neill knows how to deliver tough questions, much more so than Paxo.
"How helpful of Salmond to be taking about writing the Labour party budget."
Why do you think he did it? The SNP always wanted a Tory majority as it creates the easiest path to independence. And that is all they are interested in.
Paul Flynn MP: Labour needs leader who is an eloquent, charismatic personality strengthened by intellectual depth and debating skills. Chuka is my choice
"How helpful of Salmond to be taking about writing the Labour party budget."
Why do you think he did it? The SNP always wanted a Tory majority as it creates the easiest path to independence. And that is all they are interested in.
He did it becuase he's a blow-hard who couldn't help himself.
Are pollsterd able to go back to the exacr people they polled to ask whobthey voted for and if different from what they said, then why did they switch? I,d have thought this is the obvious course to take to see why they were " wrong". .
YouGov simply need to ask their panel how they voted and see how representative of the outcome it is, once they have done the weighting they do for opinion polls.
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!
You owe me beer and lunch ;-)
Yes
Who else can honestly say they backed Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats to do badly and lost money doing so? Quite incredible... Although part of me loves backing unlucky losing bets... I need a vehicle for complaint
Whereabouts shall we go? I don't really work in the daytime, hence 15000 posts on here! So anyday suits me really
It was a very fair bet - you nearly won it.
Our orgy of consumption may have to be later in the year. I am not based in London and have a fair bit of travelling to do for the next couple of months. July, somewhere around London Bridge works best for me - unless you ever find yourself in Leamington, of course.
A fair settlement for all four nations will be a fearsomely difficult task. One which all the nations actually agree is fair, whether it is or not, will be more difficult still. I wish Cameron the best, and he's proven a lot of us wrong on here, but one step too many? At least he seems inclined to resist the temptation to become purely an English national party as some on his side would be content with. He'll try at least.
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.
He's obviously got the life experience people crave but he's politically inexperienced at the moment. The idea of a former para PM at a time when Britain's future seems possibly on the brink could be hugely appealing. If I was him I would play big on teamwork, an essential in the forces and of course so often lacking when Labour was last in government riven by narcissistic rivalries at the top. It's fairly obvious what a centre-left government in this country will be up against it's insane to think an individual can do it on their own. Is he really ready and what does he actually believe? We'll have to find out.
Seems like a no-brainer to me: Test the candidates properly, finesse the union issue, involve the membership, sign up a bunch of new people. Don't suppose they'll do it.
In that wonderful way one sometimes can, I've just backed Jon Cruddas to be the next Labour leader with Betfair at odds of 460 for a 3p stake ..... I therefore stand to win £13.77 (less 5% comm'n) if I'm proved right! Reasonable value I thought as he's as short as 33/1 elsewhere! More seriously though I'd fancy backing him being elected Deputy Leader but as yet I can't find a market for this. I know HenryG is a long term fan - it would be interesting to learn his views of Cruddas' chances of landing this particular gig.
Thats really interesting. John Harris has done some really good videos
The candidate says everything that wouldn't win in Nuneaton.
ZHC....empty shops...Sure Start Centre....Immigration is good thing...unfair penalization of people on benefits.....
She comes across a student politician just repeating the Guardian headlines. She doesn't say a single thing that is absolute forefront of inspirational middle Britain. That isn't to say people don't care about others on some of those things, but there wasn't a single thing there that she said which is the #1 priority for your typical person who works hard, plays by the rules and just wants to get on in life.
And the even Harris doesn't get it...he says oh she is the kind of person who would get me to vote Labour...and that is exactly the problem. I highly doubt Nuneaton is a peak Guardianista zone.
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.
In one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in London (Harrow East) the Tories increased their majority because of Indians turning out in huge numbers. Labour's pandering to Muslims with their blasphemy laws has hurt them in at least three constituencies, but helped them pick up Ilford North and strengthen their hold on other parts of East London. If we get results down to the ward level I can imagine Ponders End, Enfield Wash and Enfield Lock were all a very deep shade of red. It is the Islamic vote which drove Labour's "recovery" in London. Divisive politics from Labour.
The Labour MP for Tower Hamlets is secular and is a woman. That has to be the future. Likewise, the woman who defeated Galloway in Bradford.
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.
He's obviously got the life experience people crave but he's politically inexperienced at the moment. The idea of a former para PM at a time when Britain's future seems possibly on the brink could be hugely appealing. If I was him I would play big on teamwork, an essential in the forces and of course so often lacking when Labour was last in government riven by narcissistic rivalries at the top. It's fairly obvious what a centre-left government in this country will be up against it's insane to think an individual can do it on their own. Is he really ready and what does he actually believe? We'll have to find out.
He could make a good deputy for Liz Kendall ;-)
Or vice versa. They'd be a strong joint offering.
But Jarvis needs a long campaign to demonstrate that he is more than a back story. If he is, Labour have a gift they would be mad to turn down. Which probably means they will.
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'm increasingly coming to the view that Scotland isn't so much another country as a parallel universe fuelled by LSD
All this talk about Cammer's twelve-seat majority igonres the elephant-in-the-room: There is no opposition! Just think about it....
The SNP are an agitating fringe party that most people are happy to ignore; Labour need to address their, current, core-constituents and can not be seen to be "anti-English/Welsh" by allying with "Trews" Salmond (despite their want); Lib-Dems are marmite and cannot campaign against an EU referendum; Plaid are vaccuous; UKIP want a referendum and Carswell will expect the 2017 pledge to be honoured; The Ulster-Scots will be more afraid of a UK break-up (and loss of bennies) and will therefore implicitly support the Tories; and As for the Greens - Pfft!
So Cammer's government can be minimalist for the next five years. Git the painful stuff done up-front and spend the rest of the term in thoughtful reform before GE2020: Just address what is obviouslly wrong and don't pander to issues of little interest.
SO Chuka in the Guardian today on where Labour went wrong.
'First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle.
Second, we allowed the impression to arise that we were not on the side of those who are doing well. We talked a lot – quite rightly – about the need to address “irresponsible” capitalism, for more political will to tackle inequality, poverty and injustice (and we must never give the appearance that we are relaxed about them). But we talked too little about those creating wealth and doing the right thing.
That’s why I’ve always argued you cannot be pro-business by beating up on the terms and conditions of their workers and the TRADE unions that play an important role representing them.'
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.
In one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in London (Harrow East) the Tories increased their majority because of Indians turning out in huge numbers. Labour's pandering to Muslims with their blasphemy laws has hurt them in at least three constituencies, but helped them pick up Ilford North and strengthen their hold on other parts of East London. If we get results down to the ward level I can imagine Ponders End, Enfield Wash and Enfield Lock were all a very deep shade of red. It is the Islamic vote which drove Labour's "recovery" in London. Divisive politics from Labour.
The Labour MP for Tower Hamlets is secular and is a woman. That has to be the future. Likewise, the woman who defeated Galloway in Bradford.
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.
No! They a middle class middle England bloke.
Yeah, but do Labour have one other than Dan Jarvis?
Boris is surely the big loser of the election. No longer can he be the Tories' saviour after Cameron led them to defeat in 2015, and presumably his day job as Mayor of London rules him out of ministerial office, so that when Cameron does retire in a year or two, Boris will have no Cabinet experience to offer against Osborne, May or anyone else.
The next Labour leader needs to be as untainted by association with the Brown years as possible (so not Burnham, Cooper, DM) and appeal to the WWC (not Umunna, Hunt or Creasy).
In that wonderful way one sometimes can, I've just backed Jon Cruddas to be the next Labour leader with Betfair at odds of 460 for a 3p stake ..... I therefore stand to win £13.77 (less 5% comm'n) if I'm proved right! Reasonable value I thought as he's as short as 33/1 elsewhere! More seriously though I'd fancy backing him being elected Deputy Leader but as yet I can't find a market for this. I know HenryG is a long term fan - it would be interesting to learn his views of Cruddas' chances of landing this particular gig.
I've taken the £5 at 450, also have laid David Miliband in this market.
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!
You owe me beer and lunch ;-)
Yes
Who else can honestly say they backed Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats to do badly and lost money doing so? Quite incredible... Although part of me loves backing unlucky losing bets... I need a vehicle for complaint
Whereabouts shall we go? I don't really work in the daytime, hence 15000 posts on here! So anyday suits me really
It was a very fair bet - you nearly won it.
Our orgy of consumption may have to be later in the year. I am not based in London and have a fair bit of travelling to do for the next couple of months. July, somewhere around London Bridge works best for me - unless you ever find yourself in Leamington, of course.
Ok London Bridge is easy for me , I'll leave it for you to set the date
A fair settlement for all four nations will be a fearsomely difficult task. One which all the nations actually agree is fair, whether it is or not, will be more difficult still. I wish Cameron the best, and he's proven a lot of us wrong on here, but one step too many? At least he seems inclined to resist the temptation to become purely an English national party as some on his side would be content with. He'll try at least.
Having rejected independence in September, but endorsing the SNP last week, Scots have effectively asked for devo-max. In many ways this would suit the Conservatives too. The final MP numbers are pretty perfect to negotiate this. The SNP cannot dictate terms at Westminster but cannot be ignored either. The unionists parties will want to regain seats at Holyrood next year so have a real motive not to drive through a settlement unpopular in Scotland.
The biggest threat to the union is now the euro-ref. If England votes Out while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote IN, then Holyrood will have the legitimacy for a further indyref. This will be a major issue at the Euro-ref and will be one factor that will win it for In.
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
Yep, that is exactly how it will play out. Either her bluff gets called or Scotland becomes independent. Either way, the SNP is not going to be as popular in five years time as it is now.
Surely there'll eventually be a split in the SNP. Apparently the SNP is to the Left of Labour, but its voters aren't, at least most of them aren't. The government (and Scottish Labour, for that matter) needs to make sure that split happens and that requires a charm offensive. Cameron needs to get up there as often as possible, shaking hands, giving speeches, pretending there's another referendum next week. He might not get a good reception, but that's the point. The nicer he is and the angrier the loony nats get, the more likely that the SNP will split, or at least that it'll lose the 10-20% of additional support it needs to create a drive for a new referendum.
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union.
If anything has imperilled the Union it is the mullering of the biggest Unionist party in Scotland.
Paul Flynn MP: Labour needs leader who is an eloquent, charismatic personality strengthened by intellectual depth and debating skills. Chuka is my choice
Just NO
How about the Guardian Metro branch of Labour put up with a working class leader this time rather than vice versa
The next Labour leader needs to be as untainted by association with the Brown years as possible (so not Burnham, Cooper, DM) and appeal to the WWC (not Umunna, Hunt or Creasy).
there's no-one left after that.
Labour are in the same position as the Tories post Mrs T. Brown has suppressed all the talent and the surviving yes men are looking about and waiting for orders. Need a new generation.
Boris is surely the big loser of the election. No longer can he be the Tories' saviour after Cameron led them to defeat in 2015, and presumably his day job as Mayor of London rules him out of ministerial office, so that when Cameron does retire in a year or two, Boris will have no Cabinet experience to offer against Osborne, May or anyone else.
Thats politics...
As skillful and as great a communicator Boris is, I think the tories have dodged a bullet over him and the leadership.
A fair settlement for all four nations will be a fearsomely difficult task. One which all the nations actually agree is fair, whether it is or not, will be more difficult still. I wish Cameron the best, and he's proven a lot of us wrong on here, but one step too many? At least he seems inclined to resist the temptation to become purely an English national party as some on his side would be content with. He'll try at least.
A constitutional convention, followed by a new settlement put to all voters in the UK. If the Scots say No, they get independence.
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!
You owe me beer and lunch ;-)
Yes
Who else can honestly say they backed Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats to do badly and lost money doing so? Quite incredible... Although part of me loves backing unlucky losing bets... I need a vehicle for complaint
Whereabouts shall we go? I don't really work in the daytime, hence 15000 posts on here! So anyday suits me really
I've got a couple of bets with you: the 4x UKIP/Lib Dem one (which I won) and a £10 charity bet from a couple of days ago that I remember nothing about!
Can you recall the details /how do you want to settle up?
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
Expected. Anyway the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union. Right-wing nutjobs like SeanT will again cry into their soup at the prospect of the end of the Union. You can't have it both ways...
I still repudiate the idea that attacking the SNP undermined the Union anymore than it was already undermined. It was legitimate to worry about a party that wants to destroy the Union being influential in determining the affairs of the entire Union, that is not the same as being worried about the Scots in general having influence, as they've always had that anyway through Labour. People conflating the two happened on both sides but are both wrong.
The fatal damage to the Union was that the SNP are now so incredibly popular - if they had not won a landslide, maybe something could be done to save the Union, but they are and they did and were going to no matter what the Tories did. The SNP were going to have this many seats regardless - that is what has sealed the fate of the Union; that the Scottish voters want it sealed by voting SNP.
As with the GE result as a whole, the 'problem' was the voters - the English wanted the Tories in, the Scots wanted the SNP in. We the voters chose the two most opposed sides, it's not the fault of the parties to appealing to us in that sense.
kle4, what is more amazing is the stupidity of some people on here gloating that the SNP have no influence , etc , etc. The result is the best they could have possibly got or hoped for and probably what they were planning for. Hence the boasting etc of writing Ed's budget to rile voters in England. Cameron helped them get the result that suited them best. A Labour victory would have been far more difficult and left them as Labour's little helpers.
I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.
the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union.
If anything has imperilled the Union it is the mullering of the biggest Unionist party in Scotland.
Yet, somehow, this is the Tories fault?
With logic that I cannot quite follow, because the Tories attacked the soon to be hugely successful Indy party, it is their fault that that Indy party won, or at least there is an assumption that somehow the Union would be in great shape after the SNP won a landslide, if only the Tories had not attacked them.
In that wonderful way one sometimes can, I've just backed Jon Cruddas to be the next Labour leader with Betfair at odds of 460 for a 3p stake ..... I therefore stand to win £13.77 (less 5% comm'n) if I'm proved right! Reasonable value I thought as he's as short as 33/1 elsewhere! More seriously though I'd fancy backing him being elected Deputy Leader but as yet I can't find a market for this. I know HenryG is a long term fan - it would be interesting to learn his views of Cruddas' chances of landing this particular gig.
I've taken the £5 at 450, also have laid David Miliband in this market.
I think I'm due a small commission should you land this one!
In that wonderful way one sometimes can, I've just backed Jon Cruddas to be the next Labour leader with Betfair at odds of 460 for a 3p stake ..... I therefore stand to win £13.77 (less 5% comm'n) if I'm proved right! Reasonable value I thought as he's as short as 33/1 elsewhere! More seriously though I'd fancy backing him being elected Deputy Leader but as yet I can't find a market for this. I know HenryG is a long term fan - it would be interesting to learn his views of Cruddas' chances of landing this particular gig.
I've taken the £5 at 450, also have laid David Miliband in this market.
Hard to see Brand Miliband recovering for quite some years. It has been Ratnerised.
Expected. Anyway the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union. Right-wing nutjobs like SeanT will again cry into their soup at the prospect of the end of the Union. You can't have it both ways...
Here endith the lesson of the protaganist "Tears-for-Tamil-Tiger-Terrorists": All weep...!
"How helpful of Salmond to be taking about writing the Labour party budget."
Why do you think he did it? The SNP always wanted a Tory majority as it creates the easiest path to independence. And that is all they are interested in.
One thing that I have been thinking about is that if the Lib Dem situation is indeed terminal the Tories just got another 50 safe seats made up of the seats they have gained and the seats where they were under threat from the yellow peril.
Add this to marginal tory seats that became less so in the election and the shattering effect of losing their Scottish battalions and the next Labour leader has got a hell of a job on his hands.
If these seats in the south and south west are to become competitive again in any way it is likely to be with UKIP who are somewhat unlikely partners for Labour (unlike the Lib Dems). Once any boundary changes settle down it will be interesting to see how many seats Labour are genuinely competitive in. I think they will need a very high percentage of these to get a majority.
"How helpful of Salmond to be taking about writing the Labour party budget."
Why do you think he did it? The SNP always wanted a Tory majority as it creates the easiest path to independence. And that is all they are interested in.
He did it becuase he's a blow-hard who couldn't help himself.
I can't believe that people think Chuka Ummuna has intellectual depth and debating skills. Every time I've seen an interviewer put him under even slight pressure he starts huffing and rolling his eyes and coming over dreadfully. Same people that think David and Ed Milliband are towering intellects I suppose. I think Labour are so used to second rate they think it's the norm.
Comments
PS what if a trans Mx person stood, how would Harpy person's rules operate?
The SNP are an agitating fringe party that most people are happy to ignore;
Labour need to address their, current, core-constituents and can not be seen to be "anti-English/Welsh" by allying with "Trews" Salmond (despite their want);
Lib-Dems are marmite and cannot campaign against an EU referendum;
Plaid are vaccuous;
UKIP want a referendum and Carswell will expect the 2017 pledge to be honoured;
The Ulster-Scots will be more afraid of a UK break-up (and loss of bennies) and will therefore implicitly support the Tories; and
As for the Greens - Pfft!
So Cammer's government can be minimalist for the next five years. Git the painful stuff done up-front and spend the rest of the term in thoughtful reform before GE2020: Just address what is obviouslly wrong and don't pander to issues of little interest.
:simples:
Ordinarily I would have turned away from such a shabby offering. But I was cruelly enjoying their self-evident suffering too much.
1) Ed is Crap
2) Ed will never be Prime Minister
3) UKIP would start to hurt labour too
4) The SNP/Labour issue would be a huge problem for labour
5) Osborne knew what he was doing
6) The Brand stunt was stupid
7) The Edstone was Ed's tombstone
8) Phonehacking was a bit of a non-story (in political terms)
7) Turning their backs on the Sun was a huge error for labour
Wisdow in the crowds....wisdom in the crowds
I don't see any reason for them to disappear post-EU Ref as they've shifted their message a lot over the last 18 months. I see them as mostly Blue Labour now outside the Midsomer Murders rural territory.
Ed and co seemed to be incapable of encouraging it.
Paddy Ashdown did a great job in uniting the new party and taking them to the 97 numbers within a decade. It is why he was so tired and emotional on Friday.
The LDs will be back. There is a political space and a political need. Quite a few of my Tory voting friends are sympathetic.
so it's the electorates fault....
Seriously, shortening to liberals is worth doing IMO. Surely we can assume they are democrats.
I never saw any Labour literature either - not surprising given the demographics here - but the LDs ones were very cheap looking/rather hairshirt, I presume that was deliberate?
That would create an incentive for parties to GOTV in their safe seats as well.
Straight into Black Knight mode "we have 3,000 more members".
they should merge with the guy in Liverpool West Derby ( a takeover may be too ambitious considering their reduced status!!) and go forth as Liberals!!
It clearly got serious cut-through. Thank Heaven's that the Tories got a Maj so there's no chance of it now.
To recall an acronym from the Thatcher days: TINA (there is no alternative) to the Tories. One reason they won is that the country can live with them. I know that's setting the bar very low, but that's politics. Perhaps they got lucky with Cameron but he looks like a leader and he acts like one. And he does seem to acknowledge that we are now in the 21st century, so it does concern me when I hear talk of reducing rights or reintroducing fox-hunting or whatever. The Tories could remain in power for 20 years if they are true conservatives, which means not going back to the past as much as it means not forcing change.
The fatal damage to the Union was that the SNP are now so incredibly popular - if they had not won a landslide, maybe something could be done to save the Union, but they are and they did and were going to no matter what the Tories did. The SNP were going to have this many seats regardless - that is what has sealed the fate of the Union; that the Scottish voters want it sealed by voting SNP.
As with the GE result as a whole, the 'problem' was the voters - the English wanted the Tories in, the Scots wanted the SNP in. We the voters chose the two most opposed sides, it's not the fault of the parties to appealing to us in that sense.
Who else can honestly say they backed Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats to do badly and lost money doing so? Quite incredible... Although part of me loves backing unlucky losing bets... I need a vehicle for complaint
Whereabouts shall we go? I don't really work in the daytime, hence 15000 posts on here! So anyday suits me really
That will, I suggest, dictate her approach.
She and Salmond are not stupid. They know the high tide of the SNP will recede sooner or later, and if they cannot secure a Yes vote soon then they may lose their chance for decades, possibly forever.
Cameron's task is a fair settlement for Scotland, England and Wales. If he gets that right, the pressure on the union will recede from all quarters. The SNP will seek to avoid this and to stoke up tension [more difficult now they're facing a blue majority rather than a minority Labour government].
Just perfect!
Why do you think he did it? The SNP always wanted a Tory majority as it creates the easiest path to independence. And that is all they are interested in.
I presume this is the autopsy phase.
Our orgy of consumption may have to be later in the year. I am not based in London and have a fair bit of travelling to do for the next couple of months. July, somewhere around London Bridge works best for me - unless you ever find yourself in Leamington, of course.
https://labourlist.org/2015/05/lets-not-rush-this-it-needs-to-be-a-primary/
Seems like a no-brainer to me: Test the candidates properly, finesse the union issue, involve the membership, sign up a bunch of new people. Don't suppose they'll do it.
Wow!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdtqsLQxB0I
One was 90 minutes wonder, the other is a football club.
More seriously though I'd fancy backing him being elected Deputy Leader but as yet I can't find a market for this. I know HenryG is a long term fan - it would be interesting to learn his views of Cruddas' chances of landing this particular gig.
ZHC....empty shops...Sure Start Centre....Immigration is good thing...unfair penalization of people on benefits.....
She comes across a student politician just repeating the Guardian headlines. She doesn't say a single thing that is absolute forefront of inspirational middle Britain. That isn't to say people don't care about others on some of those things, but there wasn't a single thing there that she said which is the #1 priority for your typical person who works hard, plays by the rules and just wants to get on in life.
And the even Harris doesn't get it...he says oh she is the kind of person who would get me to vote Labour...and that is exactly the problem. I highly doubt Nuneaton is a peak Guardianista zone.
But Jarvis needs a long campaign to demonstrate that he is more than a back story. If he is, Labour have a gift they would be mad to turn down. Which probably means they will.
'First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle.
Second, we allowed the impression to arise that we were not on the side of those who are doing well. We talked a lot – quite rightly – about the need to address “irresponsible” capitalism, for more political will to tackle inequality, poverty and injustice (and we must never give the appearance that we are relaxed about them). But we talked too little about those creating wealth and doing the right thing.
That’s why I’ve always argued you cannot be pro-business by beating up on the terms and conditions of their workers and the TRADE unions that play an important role representing them.'
Absolutely not a comfort zone candidate
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labours-first-step-to-regaining-power-is-to-recognise-the-mistakes-we-made
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11458810/Murderers-daughter-Naz-Shah-tells-why-she-is-standing-for-Parliament.html
It was a truly superb outcome. And a very hopeful one.
Boris is surely the big loser of the election. No longer can he be the Tories' saviour after Cameron led them to defeat in 2015, and presumably his day job as Mayor of London rules him out of ministerial office, so that when Cameron does retire in a year or two, Boris will have no Cabinet experience to offer against Osborne, May or anyone else.
"Labour have a gift they would be mad to turn down. Which probably means they will."
Exactly. They replaced Mrs Rochester with Krusty the Clown.
The biggest threat to the union is now the euro-ref. If England votes Out while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote IN, then Holyrood will have the legitimacy for a further indyref. This will be a major issue at the Euro-ref and will be one factor that will win it for In.
Yet, somehow, this is the Tories fault?
How about the Guardian Metro branch of Labour put up with a working class leader this time rather than vice versa
http://www.liberal.org.uk/
Labour are in the same position as the Tories post Mrs T. Brown has suppressed all the talent and the surviving yes men are looking about and waiting for orders. Need a new generation.
As skillful and as great a communicator Boris is, I think the tories have dodged a bullet over him and the leadership.
Can you recall the details /how do you want to settle up?
???
Add this to marginal tory seats that became less so in the election and the shattering effect of losing their Scottish battalions and the next Labour leader has got a hell of a job on his hands.
If these seats in the south and south west are to become competitive again in any way it is likely to be with UKIP who are somewhat unlikely partners for Labour (unlike the Lib Dems). Once any boundary changes settle down it will be interesting to see how many seats Labour are genuinely competitive in. I think they will need a very high percentage of these to get a majority.