That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
If a professor said that about Labour-voters then that'd be deemed unacceptable so how is it acceptable in reverse?
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
A total nutter no doubt, but the bitterness of lefties about what happened on Thursday night is quite astonishing really...
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
Despicable stuff. I am baffled at times how people can regard supporters of our main political parties - which have consensus on so many major things and differ in the albeit important details much of the time - as being worthy of such contempt if it differs from their supported party (yes, it does happen toward Labour supporters too).
I am also a little confused by the homophobic label she assigns to the Tories. I know there are plenty of Tories who don't support gay marriage, but even if one accepts that as in itself evidence of homophobia, it's hardly a view that is shared by the entire Tory party.
Essentially what she's saying is 'Other people hold different opinions than me; I must therefore avoid those people as much as possible rather than accept I live in a society where people hold different views'.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
If a professor said that about Labour-voters then that'd be deemed unacceptable so how is it acceptable in reverse?
Naz Shah does seem very impressive and I understand she took a lot of personal abuse in taking down Galloway. If she stood in my constituency I would be happy to vote Labour.
Compare and contrast....
Naz Shah: Bradford West's Labour candidate pens emotional open letter explaining why she wants to be an MP
A very, very hopeful result from Bradford - and also from Tower Hamlets, where another secular Asian woman substantially increased her majority. This is the way to go for Labour.
MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories
I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.
I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
Why would anyone vote for IN ?
We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.
It's our patriotic duty.
Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:
1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
2) Referendums are often treated as a way to kick the party in power, whatever the issue
3) Referendums usually have undecideds breaking for the status quo
4) Polls on the EU exit have noticeably shifted in favour of In.
Lol
1, who gives a shit about Wales, the Jocks or the paddies, they have votes let them cast them
2. The referendum has been declared it's now in play with all the inherent risks
3. certainly, but this is an EU referendum we get to vote lots of times
4. yes so that's why we should vote out to secure the best deal going.
No UK prime minister will want to negotiate to stay in the EU after a No vote, nor would he or she be allowed to by the Commons. This is not a vote on a treaty, on a change to the rules of the union. It is a vote on whether or not the country should stay in the union.
I'd never seen that clip b4 . It totally exposes his inability to deal with questions off the cuff. We really dodged an enormous bullet last Thursday. The Labour P. should hang its head in shame for offering that piece of garbage as our potential PM. I'm not a supporter but the party has had plenty of leaders in the past who were competent and even inspiring. FFS even Kinnock is a giant of intellect, charm and style by comparison. They have a lot of work to do. I hear about Dan Jarvis but let's be clear he has no experience at the top level and while he may look the part in terms of image he'd be a huge gamble. No-one else I've heard over the last few days seems remotely appropriate. not good for British politics.
Dunno, you cover ALL the Tories though with a bet on the err Tories. Who knows which decent candidate they will find, and who wants to bet against the Tory machine at this point ?
MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories
I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.
I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
Why would anyone vote for IN ?
We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.
It's our patriotic duty.
Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:
1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
2) Referendums are often treated as a way to kick the party in power, whatever the issue
3) Referendums usually have undecideds breaking for the status quo
4) Polls on the EU exit have noticeably shifted in favour of In.
Lol
1, who gives a shit about Wales, the Jocks or the paddies, they have votes let them cast them
2. The referendum has been declared it's now in play with all the inherent risks
3. certainly, but this is an EU referendum we get to vote lots of times
4. yes so that's why we should vote out to secure the best deal going.
No UK prime minister will want to negotiate to stay in the EU after a No vote, nor would he or she be allowed to by the Commons. This is not a vote on a treaty, on a change to the rules of the union. It is a vote on whether or not the country should stay in the union.
AS we have learned from the Indyref, none of these votes are actually the last word.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
The Unionist gain from Nationalists was in one of the most agricultural constituencies in the whole of the UK, where the victorious UUP is strongly associated with the Protestant farming vote (like Jim Nicholson). They won't vote Out to quit the CAP.
The in-fighting and protracted bin strike did the Greenies in - they simply couldn't do the business of running a council and paid for it at the first opportunity the voters got.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
The Unionist gain from Nationalists was in one of the most agricultural constituencies in the whole of the UK, where the victorious UUP is strongly associated with the Protestant farming vote (like Jim Nicholson). They won't vote Out to quit the CAP.
The DUP want a referendum, SF are anti EU. Only the SDLP and APNI are pro.
MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories
I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.
I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
Why would anyone vote for IN ?
We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.
It's our patriotic duty.
Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:
1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
2) Referendums are often treated as a way to kick the party in power, whatever the issue
3) Referendums usually have undecideds breaking for the status quo
4) Polls on the EU exit have noticeably shifted in favour of In.
Lol
1, who gives a shit about Wales, the Jocks or the paddies, they have votes let them cast them
2. The referendum has been declared it's now in play with all the inherent risks
3. certainly, but this is an EU referendum we get to vote lots of times
4. yes so that's why we should vote out to secure the best deal going.
No UK prime minister will want to negotiate to stay in the EU after a No vote, nor would he or she be allowed to by the Commons. This is not a vote on a treaty, on a change to the rules of the union. It is a vote on whether or not the country should stay in the union.
AS we have learned from the Indyref, none of these votes are actually the last word.
An Out is the last word. Once you cross that bridge it can't and won't be reversed.
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories
I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the r.
I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
Why would anyone vote for IN ?
We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.
It's our patriotic duty.
Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:
1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
2) Referendums are often treated as a way to kick the party in power, whatever the issue
3) Referendums usually have undecideds breaking for the status quo
4) Polls on the EU exit have noticeably shifted in favour of In.
Lol
1, who gives a shit about Wales, the Jocks or the paddies, they have votes let them cast them
2. The referendum has been declared it's now in play with all the inherent risks
3. certainly, but this is an EU referendum we get to vote lots of times
4. yes so that's why we should vote out to secure the best deal going.
No UK prime minister will want to negotiate to stay in the EU after a No vote, nor would he or she be allowed to by the Commons. This is not a vote on a treaty, on a change to the rules of the union. It is a vote on whether or not the country should stay in the union.
AS we have learned from the Indyref, none of these votes are actually the last word.
An Out is the last word. Once you cross that bridge it can't and won't be reversed.
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
A total nutter no doubt, but the bitterness of lefties about what happened on Thursday night is quite astonishing really...
I am utterly amazed that this sort of posting was allowed on an official Oxford site. It brings the University into disrepute. I pity anyone who is taught by someone with such flawed thinking. She has no place teaching young people and a posting like this is utterly inappropriate, But Oxford as an institution won't take any action. Sadly.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.
The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
They did overspend on historic terms - in 1991 when the previous global recession hit Major's government was running a surplus. Comparing the deficit in 97 with that in 2008 is to ignore the economic cycle, there should have been a surplus or very small deficit after a decade long boom. It made recovery harder, made cuts deeper, prolonged the recession. Bit it didn't cause it - that was caused by the Greenspan/Brown bubble of low interest rates , cheap credit.
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
The last treaty has enough in it to avoid future referendums. The Tory lock is pretty meaningless.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
A total nutter no doubt, but the bitterness of lefties about what happened on Thursday night is quite astonishing really...
The bit about conservatives, uniquely, not being open to rational argument, really is horseshit. What's he a professor in again?
An Out is the last word. Once you cross that bridge it can't and won't be reversed.
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
I admire your scaremongering.
It's not scaremongering. I think the whole country would agree that an Out vote is final. The notion of getting an Out majority in order to encourage a renegotiated In is implausible. Once the countries voted Out its over.
If you're betting on the Labour leadership, it is of the utmost importance not to get distracted by who you think might be a good candidate, which is irrelevant. Instead you should concentrate on the electorate (activists and union members - no MPs' electoral college this time, but unions will still have a big say because they are well organised in influencing their members) and the voting system, which is our old favourite AV. AV favours the least-unpopular candidate, the one whom fewest members and trade unionists will vote against. I can't see Chuka winning in such a system - will northern Labour stalwarts really put him high up their preference lists? Andy B might do well, since he's inexplicably popular throughout the party, even if he's not the winner on first prefs. Dan Jarvis is a blank sheet of paper, with very little political experience; I expect he'll flounder under the spotlight, but I could be wrong. Liz Kendall - maybe, worth a punt at current odds.
On other matters:
- I'm still counting, but the GE was undoubtedly my most successful ever betting gig. Scotland of course was a goldmine, but also on the main result, the discrepancy between constituency and seat-total markets meant it was exceptionally easy to build up a position which would be profitable over a wide range of outcomes.
- Very sorry to hear the news from JackW. I hope he'll be back, hale and hearty, soon.
- Great to bump into Plato at Caroline Ansell's thank-you drinks in Eastbourne yesterday. I can vouch for Plato's sunburn!
- Does anyone know when the period of mourning on the Beeb is scheduled to end?
- UKIP don't seem to have woken up to the fact that the political landscape has just shifted dramatically. They are going to get sidelined in the referendum.
I'd never seen that clip b4 . It totally exposes his inability to deal with questions off the cuff. We really dodged an enormous bullet last Thursday. The Labour P. should hang its head in shame for offering that piece of garbage as our potential PM. I'm not a supporter but the party has had plenty of leaders in the past who were competent and even inspiring. FFS even Kinnock is a giant of intellect, charm and style by comparison. They have a lot of work to do. I hear about Dan Jarvis but let's be clear he has no experience at the top level and while he may look the part in terms of image he'd be a huge gamble. No-one else I've heard over the last few days seems remotely appropriate. not good for British politics.
Labour will come to understand that it dodged a bullet too on Thursday. EdM as PM would have destroyed the centre left in England and Wales for decades to come.
If Dan Jarvis stands he will need time to demonstrate he has the credentials beyond his back-story - and that means an election process that lasts a while and has many hustings, speech-making opportunities etc. If he is the real deal then he is a gift that Labour would be insane to turn down. Political experience is not so much of an issue - Cameron had almost none when he took over - he has plenty of real life experience.
I read Sadiq khan is soon to announce he is running for London mayor,
Looks like things for labour will have to get worse before they get better.
I believe there was another swing against him in Tooting. no guarantee that a by-election there would be won by Labour.
OK I've got it.
Khan runs for mayor, James Purnell takes his seat and the leadership. Miliband Proper is guilty by association with his dimwit brother, but Purnell would be a great choice.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
A total nutter no doubt, but the bitterness of lefties about what happened on Thursday night is quite astonishing really...
The bit about conservatives, uniquely, not being open to rational argument, really is horseshit. What's he a professor in again?
I rather like the first response:
'I’m genuinely shocked at how utterly ill-thought and stupid out this post is.
First, you claim that Conservatives are “racist, sexist, and homophobic”. This is the same party, you’ll remember, that had the first – and only – woman PM; that fielded more BME candidates in the 2015 election than the others; that the Conservatives introduced Gay Marriage and since the last general election had more LGBT MPs than the other parties. Indeed, from what I recall, in 2010 the Conservatives had more LGBT MPS than all the others put together. Claiming that they are racist, sexist, and homophobic is simply untrue – unless you mean that some Conservatives are, but then so are some Labour members. Recall that George Galloway (the anti-semite who says that rape is just bad sexual etiquette) was a Labour politician.
No wonder there is such a problem of political diversity in academia, when you have people like you spouting such intolerance. Readers might be interested in this forthcoming article in Behavioural and Brain Science on political diversity as well as my forthcoming commentary on it (second paragraph here: http://www.jimaceverett.com/publications/). It is posts like this, and people like you, that are to blame for this.
I’m just so shocked that you can so easily insult both the intelligence and morality of vast swathes of the population – including your colleagues – without a care.
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
I admire your scaremongering.
It's not scaremongering. I think the whole country would agree that an Out vote is final. The notion of getting an Out majority in order to encourage a renegotiated In is implausible. Once the countries voted Out its over.
I very much doubt they would. I also doubt the EU would. History to date shows us the EU would hate losing its second biggest economy and a new set of proposals would be put to the electorate.
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
The last treaty has enough in it to avoid future referendums. The Tory lock is pretty meaningless.
Any new Maastricht-style treaty would have to have a referendum. Not only is the lock there but the principle is there now that the treaties need referendums. That wasn't there before.
Watching Kendall, she talks about Labour not setting out a positive enough alternative, and people liking someone talking about the positive things they are going to do - is that an implicit U-turn that the Tories did have a positive message in addition to their negative attacks?
Liz Kendall had a very canny (and quite typically confident) performance in the Neill interview. She is one ambitious and articulate young woman.
She did state that she thought that positivity and aspiration was the what was missing in Labours campaign, but was careful to speak up for trade unions and their role in society.
I am glad that I topped up last night; odds are shortening on her by the hour.
Also she can think on her feet and has a great sense of humour.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
She ought to be disciplined by her bosses. I believe the Miliband respone would be to pass an anti-conservativephobia law
AS we have learned from the Indyref, none of these votes are actually the last word.
The Irish and Scots voted for no change; but you can always suggest a slightly different version of the change at a later date. But if a majority vote for a specific, positive change in the constitutional arrangements, one can't stall and claim that one doesn't know what the message was. A "Yes" vote is much more unambiguous an instruction than a "No" vote.
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
The last treaty has enough in it to avoid future referendums. The Tory lock is pretty meaningless.
Any new Maastricht-style treaty would have to have a referendum. Not only is the lock there but the principle is there now that the treaties need referendums. That wasn't there before.
Your defence is as reliable as the maginot line. It's nice to know it's there but the Germans will just go round the side.
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
I admire your scaremongering.
It's not scaremongering. I think the whole country would agree that an Out vote is final. The notion of getting an Out majority in order to encourage a renegotiated In is implausible. Once the countries voted Out its over.
I very much doubt they would. I also doubt the EU would. History to date shows us the EU would hate losing its second biggest economy and a new set of proposals would be put to the electorate.
Out voters would be outraged at being ignored and it'd be suicide to ignore them. No nation has ever voted to exit the EU and then been asked to vote again (the Irish have voted again on passing reforms, but the alternative to not passing the reform was keeping the status quo, not exit).
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
The last treaty has enough in it to avoid future referendums. The Tory lock is pretty meaningless.
Any new Maastricht-style treaty would have to have a referendum. Not only is the lock there but the principle is there now that the treaties need referendums. That wasn't there before.
Your defence is as reliable as the maginot line. It's nice to know it's there but the Germans will just go round the side.
Except the British public would never put up with the Germans so our defence will hold.
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
I admire your scaremongering.
It's not scaremongering. I think the whole country would agree that an Out vote is final. The notion of getting an Out majority in order to encourage a renegotiated In is implausible. Once the countries voted Out its over.
I very much doubt they would. I also doubt the EU would. History to date shows us the EU would hate losing its second biggest economy and a new set of proposals would be put to the electorate.
Out voters would be outraged at being ignored and it'd be suicide to ignore them. No nation has ever voted to exit the EU and then been asked to vote again (the Irish have voted again on passing reforms, but the alternative to not passing the reform was keeping the status quo, not exit).
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
The Unionist gain from Nationalists was in one of the most agricultural constituencies in the whole of the UK, where the victorious UUP is strongly associated with the Protestant farming vote (like Jim Nicholson). They won't vote Out to quit the CAP.
The DUP want a referendum, SF are anti EU. Only the SDLP and APNI are pro.
But as they often say here about the SNP, not all its voters agree with the party on Europe. The same is true for the DUP, UUP, Sinn Féin. Catholics, in particular, will not sunder the link with the rest of Ireland embodied by the EU, in the name of a cause associated with pro-Unionist Tories and Ukippers.
I read Sadiq khan is soon to announce he is running for London mayor,
Looks like things for labour will have to get worse before they get better.
I believe there was another swing against him in Tooting. no guarantee that a by-election there would be won by Labour.
Sadly, a tiny swing TO Sadiq, but you're right... we'd love the chance of a by-election.
Golly yes - I should have checked that b4 the post. However, I used to live in the area for many years and slowly but surely Tooting is trending blue - and a new Labour candidate without incumbency could hasten it along.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.
I still remember the fact he couldn't pronounce Worcester correctly. I wonder if that's really someone who's going to go down well outside of London.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.
The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
So it's established.
And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
Really? Graphs and pointers? That'll win people over? Are you Eoin Clarke?
Numbers. Labour increased spending between 2000 and 2010 by 50% in real terms. Unprecedented in peace time.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
Despicable stuff. I am baffled at times how people can regard supporters of our main political parties - which have consensus on so many major things and differ in the albeit important details much of the time - as being worthy of such contempt if it differs from their supported party (yes, it does happen toward Labour supporters too).
I am also a little confused by the homophobic label she assigns to the Tories. I know there are plenty of Tories who don't support gay marriage, but even if one accepts that as in itself evidence of homophobia, it's hardly a view that is shared by the entire Tory party.
Essentially what she's saying is 'Other people hold different opinions than me; I must therefore avoid those people as much as possible rather than accept I live in a society where people hold different views'.
While I don't think Conservatives are this evil thing I really don't think Conservative-inclined people on the Mail and Telegraph comments' section help at all. My grandad votes Conservative, an he's as nice as pie (he reads The Sun for good measure, as well) but many on the Right online really do come across as er....well a bit hateful. I have no idea why these sites attract such types.
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
I admire your scaremongering.
It's not scaremongering. I think the whole country would agree that an Out vote is final. The notion of getting an Out majority in order to encourage a renegotiated In is implausible. Once the countries voted Out its over.
I very much doubt they would. I also doubt the EU would. History to date shows us the EU would hate losing its second biggest economy and a new set of proposals would be put to the electorate.
Out voters would be outraged at being ignored and it'd be suicide to ignore them. No nation has ever voted to exit the EU and then been asked to vote again (the Irish have voted again on passing reforms, but the alternative to not passing the reform was keeping the status quo, not exit).
Back to scaremongering.
How's it "scaremongering" to say that an Out vote will result in Out!!!!!
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
To be fair to pollsters who have had a tough few days, this is part of their problem in finding shy Tories. If Tories ( insert adjective or noun before or after as appropriate - evil, nasty, scum etc) are so vilified, you don't have to be Einstein to work out many will not put their heads above the parapet till they're in the voting booth armed with a mighty pencil.
Take my constituency: won by Labour won Lib's second, Tories a respectable enough third after zero effort ( it was a no hoper), Plaid nowhere. Labour and Lib posters galore dozens and dozens, a smattering of Plaid, Tories zero, nil, nada, but several thousand still emerged from the ether and voted only to melt back into their own lives away from possible vilification by the likes of trendy Lefty academics and "meeja" worthies that seemingly have an in built bias not to accept that maybe many of them are not inherently selfish ( some are doubtless ) but rather have a more elliptical view of the world, that you can only sustainably provide meals on wheels for old ladies and good health care etc etc which we all want, if you don't overly hobble those who want to and can get on. Otherwise the money runs out ( listening Mr Byrne of Birmingham?) and we're all stuffed but especially the old ladies wanting their meals on wheels.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
The Unionist gain from Nationalists was in one of the most agricultural constituencies in the whole of the UK, where the victorious UUP is strongly associated with the Protestant farming vote (like Jim Nicholson). They won't vote Out to quit the CAP.
The DUP want a referendum, SF are anti EU. Only the SDLP and APNI are pro.
But as they often say here about the SNP, not all its voters agree with the party on Europe. The same is true for the DUP, UUP, Sinn Féin. Catholics, in particular, will not sunder the link with the rest of Ireland embodied by the EU, in the name of a cause associated with pro-Unionist Tories and Ukippers.
Yeah I don't think that's how it works. The South can't afford the North it would be a bigger shock to its economy than German unity and nobody in the North wants to take a 30% cut in their standard of living. So it's suck it up and ask theUK taxpayer for more cash.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.
I still remember the fact he couldn't pronounce Worcester correctly. I wonder if that's really someone who's going to go down well outside of London.
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
The last treaty has enough in it to avoid future referendums. The Tory lock is pretty meaningless.
Any new Maastricht-style treaty would have to have a referendum. Not only is the lock there but the principle is there now that the treaties need referendums. That wasn't there before.
Your defence is as reliable as the maginot line. It's nice to know it's there but the Germans will just go round the side.
Except the British public would never put up with the Germans so our defence will hold.
LOL we've taken orders quite happily for the last 20 years and the public have taken it all in their stride.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
It feels like for the first time these sorts of people are getting called out for their ridiculous views. The comments on the blog were interesting.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.
I still remember the fact he couldn't pronounce Worcester correctly. I wonder if that's really someone who's going to go down well outside of London.
What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative. (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.
That's gotta be nice if you're a conservative-voting student at Royal Holloway college: knowing that your professor automatically reviles and despises you, and thinks you are the moral equivalent of a racist, whatever you say or do.
Despicable stuff. I am baffled at times how people can regard sup Tories'.
While I don't think Conservatives are this evil thing I really don't think Conservative-inclined people on the Mail and Telegraph comments' section help at all. My grandad votes Conservative, an he's as nice as pie (he reads The Sun for good measure, as well) but many on the Right online really do come across as er....well a bit hateful. I have no idea why these sites attract such types.
Oh there are plenty of hateful types on the right who villify the left, and outing oneself as a lefty is not a good idea in the comments section of the Telegraph and other places to be sure. It's unacceptable and, more to the point, entirely unreasonable many of the things they come out with.
But those are internet comment sections, the cess pools of the internet and society. You will get some lefty villifying from the right wing papers most certainly, although usually at the far left not the entirety of Labour (while perhaps implying that Labour do not condemn the far left enough), but this is a presumably respected and intelligent academic making nonsensical sweeping generalisations of pure, unmitigated hatred of people with divergent political views with whom it sounds like she feels she should barely be able to stand in the same room of such creatures. And as a lefty (socially at any rate), one thing that has always bugged me is there is undoubtedly a larger body in media and academic willing to demonise the centre right than the reverse.
Labour and the Tories are political parties, ones which thesedays leap all over the political spectrum to find votes. Neither Labour nor Tory is a synonym for 'Good', but as we saw with tactics like Martin Freeman's PEB, that is something Labour still try more often (stuff like 'I'm Labour as I believe in fairness'). The Tories generally seem to stick to saying Labour are idiots, rather than malicious. Still an unfair generalisation of an entire movement, but not as personally offensive and simpler to counter.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.
The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
So it's established.
And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
Really? Graphs and pointers? That'll win people over? Are you Eoin Clarke?
Numbers. Labour increased spending between 2000 and 2010 by 50% in real terms. Unprecedented in peace time.
That is why there is a helpful arrow pointing out when the global financial crisis hit (which was before 2010). It is also why the graph would continue to 2015 to show George Osborne's not unimpressive debt mountain.
I agree that one needs to take account of the voting system and minutiae of the Labour leadership contest. I think Liz* Kendall has been working the room for some time. She did a lot of travelling this election, including campaigning in Scotland. She has been Shadow health and also Shadow community care- both areas with lots of union contacts. She was SPAD to HH herself so has the sisterhood contacts too. State educated too.
I think Chuka will lose, but may be tempted by London Mayor. That would be a better role for him too.
* When will we next get a party leader using their full forename? Dave, Ed, Nick, Tony etc...
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.
The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
I'm sorry but it's not true.
Labour stuck to Tory plans in 1997-2001. I didn't believe they would, but they did. This was actually a surplus every year. From ~2001-2007 they increased spending in real terms by over 40%. (I am looking at a chart showing REAL TERMS spending in 2011-12 prices as £450bn and £640bn in 2000-01 and 2006-07 respectively, but don't think Vanilla lets me post pictures)
In these "good" years the deficit was increasing to 5-6% and we were in a terrible position when the crisis hit, worse than most if not all other countries (although we have been able to print our own currency of course).
Other governments around the world were hardly paragons, but none was as profligate in these years, and in any case our economic growth was largely based on consumer credit and house prices.
I fear that the last bit is still true, certainly Osborne has the bulk of his famed "rebalancing" still to do, and he and the tories were no better in the years I mention either. The difference is that they have at least realised their mistakes - witness the setting up of the OBR, and the hard facts of deficit reduction from 2010, albeit at a slow pace.
Labour on the other hand still deny they did anything wrong. Whatever your or my views, a large and crucial part of the electorate don't think this is a good look.
There is an argument to be made that Labour did not overspend but that they undertaxed. if you want to have that level of "investment" in public services the quid pro quo has to be much higher levels of taxation.
Personally, I think this would be economically disastrous (as France has found to a certain extent although their record is not as bad as it is sometimes painted) but at least it would be honest. It really does not do to invent taxes like the mansion tax and 50p rates and then claim that is more money to spend when we still have an £85bn deficit 7 years on from the recession. It just sounds ridiculous.
There is a case to be made that we should have a more Nordic approach to tax and spend; that the level of inequality has reached unacceptable levels (although statistically it fell under the Coalition) and that a government needs to do more to protect the more vulnerable in our society. It is just completely dishonest to say that we can have all of that and lower taxes by dumping the debt on our children.
Labour have run scared of more tax since 1992 and the famous bomb poster. But they have refused to run scared of spending the money that they are too scared to ask for. If they want higher spending they need someone that can make that argument, not in the election period but consistently over the next 5 years.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lot five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
So it's established.
And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or e it won't be as effective)
Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have he global crisis hit.
Really? Graphs and pointers? That'll win people over? Are you Eoin Clarke?
Numbers. Labour increased spending between 2000 and 2010 by 50% in real terms. Unprecedented in peace time.
That is why there is a helpful arrow pointing out when the global financial crisis hit (which was before 2010). It is also why the graph would continue to 2015 to show George Osborne's not unimpressive debt mountain.
Osborne has a massive debt mountain but you're not in a position to point this out.
a. you deny your own debt mountain exists b you call Osborne debt mountain austerity
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
The last treaty has enough in it to avoid future referendums. The Tory lock is pretty meaningless.
Any new Maastricht-style treaty would have to have a referendum. Not only is the lock there but the principle is there now that the treaties need referendums. That wasn't there before.
Your defence is as reliable as the maginot line. It's nice to know it's there but the Germans will just go round the side.
Except the British public would never put up with the Germans so our defence will hold.
LOL we've taken orders quite happily for the last 20 years and the public have taken it all in their stride.
Oh really? That will be why we're in the eurozone then right now?
What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative. (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.
Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
I agree that one needs to take account of the voting system and minutiae of the Labour leadership contest. I think Liz* Kendall has been working the room for some time. She did a lot of travelling this election, including campaigning in Scotland. She has been Shadow health and also Shadow community care- both areas with lots of union contacts. She was SPAD to HH herself so has the sisterhood contacts too. State educated too.
I think Chuka will lose, but may be tempted by London Mayor. That would be a better role for him too.
Yes, I think Liz Kendall is a distinct possibility, unless she's seen as too 'Blairite'.
If Labour have any sense they'll make Chuka Shadow Chancellor. I'm not sure they do have any sense.
If I was the Labour Party I'd leave Harriet in charge for six months to give time to road-test the others. They need to avoid any possibility of another EdM fiasco. I'm already unimpressed wth Hunt and Burnham and they're supposed to be among the favourites. Yvette Cooper is pretty good but too, I don't know, anonymous. Reeves is good but is she too much of a Cockney for the voters of Spenborough? Umunna has the potential to be great or be sh** - my image of him is "a guy in a suit" which isn't exactly inspiring but who knows?
I suppose him and Burnham are the sensible bets but Hunt seems far too long at 14-1 so I've had a small punt.
It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.
Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.
The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
And comparing the Labour deficits with Tory ones is not a fair comparison - they did not start from remotely the same place!
In order for the tories to have only borrowed as much as labour from 97-2010 they would have had to eliminate the deficit altogether by ~2013 and balance the books thereafter. Imagine the scale of cuts that would have entailed, and ask yourself honestly if you would have supported them.
Oh there are plenty of hateful types on the right who villify the left, and outing oneself as a lefty is not a good idea in the comments section of the Telegraph and other places to be sure. It's unacceptable and, more to the point, entirely unreasonable many of the things they come out with.
But those are internet comment sections, the cess pools of the internet and society. You will get some lefty villifying from the right wing papers most certainly, although usually at the far left not the entirety of Labour (while perhaps implying that Labour do not condemn the far left enough), but this is a presumably respected and intelligent academic making nonsensical sweeping generalisations of pure, unmitigated hatred of people with divergent political views with whom it sounds like she feels she should barely be able to stand in the same room of such creatures. And as a lefty (socially at any rate), one thing that has always bugged me is there is undoubtedly a larger body in media and academic willing to demonise the centre right.
I think that the body in academia who demonise the centre-right relates back to the Thatcher era, where the Conservatives really were a divisive party who alienated many groups such as ethnic minorities, LGBT people et al. However, to his credit Cameron has tried - despite the efforts of many on the very right of the Tory party - to bring them into the 21st century, and promoting more ethnic minorities, women, LGBTs, into the Conservative party. One of my close friends is a Conservative, and she's quite socially liberal (although we have our disagreements on feminism), and I think it is unfair to judge those who vote Conservative before you even got to know them. Not every Tory is Philip Davies (thankfully).
Glad you agree on the DM/Telegraph. I think their extreme views are in the very minority.
I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1
Maybe it really was just me !
I will admit to losing the following GE bets. Sutton and Cheam LD, €20. Galloway, €20. A couple of other Lib Dems combined, €20. EdM PM €50. A trio of longshot Labour seats after the good SNP polls in Scotland: about €10 total. However, many of those were covered with net-profitable bets in the other direction. More than made up for by large profits on NI Unionists, Tories in Lib Dem seats in the West Country, Tories in constituencies where Ukip was depressing the odds like Blackpool, the SNP in their seats between 1/2 and 2/1, and my one unhedged Labour constituency bet in Wirral West.
Oh its ok, the academic clarifies in the comments:
I don’t claim that Conservatives are racist, sexist, and homophobic – I claim that supporting their policies is as objectionable as holding racist, sexist, or homophobic views.
I didn't vote Conservative, but that is clearly nonsense. She is saying that no reasonable person could therefore vote Conservative, just as we would say no reasonable person would be racist, sexist or homophobic. Therefore, millions of people who are decent, reasonable, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic people, are deemed just as bad as racists, sexists and homophobes because they hold a divergent political opinion, which belittles and insults those millions of voters, casting them as either idiots or malicious.
That is why there is a helpful arrow pointing out when the global financial crisis hit (which was before 2010). It is also why the graph would continue to 2015 to show George Osborne's not unimpressive debt mountain.
So you'd print a graph showing that there was a deficit for seven years prior to the crisis hitting and think that will show people that you didn't overspend.
And that Osborne is simultaneously cutting spending too fast and not fast enough.
Off Topic: US Presidential 2016. Very good piece from CNN of all places on what Hillary should be doing at this point to stop the rot on the trust issue.
What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative. (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.
Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
same when, like me you did a doctorate in the Education Department at Oxford - the idea of you not being a hardcore lefty just doesn't enter anyone's head - actually gets pretty wearing after a while
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.
The other reason to expect an In vote to close down the EU vote for a while is that a second In/Out referendum timescale is known. Next time the EU wants a reform treaty, it needs to be passed by referendum now.
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
The last treaty has enough in it to avoid future referendums. The Tory lock is pretty meaningless.
Any new Maastricht-style treaty would have to have a referendum. Not only is the lock there but the principle is there now that the treaties need referendums. That wasn't there before.
Your defence is as reliable as the maginot line. It's nice to know it's there but the Germans will just go round the side.
Except the British public would never put up with the Germans so our defence will hold.
LOL we've taken orders quite happily for the last 20 years and the public have taken it all in their stride.
Oh really? That will be why we're in the eurozone then right now?
You're in cloud cuckoo land.
so that Juncker chappy isn't president of the commssion and dave got all that re-negotaition stuff from Angela and the City doesn't have to conform to EU rules ? Good to know.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
The Unionist gain from Nationalists was in one of the most agricultural constituencies in the whole of the UK, where the victorious UUP is strongly associated with the Protestant farming vote (like Jim Nicholson). They won't vote Out to quit the CAP.
The DUP want a referendum, SF are anti EU. Only the SDLP and APNI are pro.
But as they often say here about the SNP, not all its voters agree with the party on Europe. The same is true for the DUP, UUP, Sinn Féin. Catholics, in particular, will not sunder the link with the rest of Ireland embodied by the EU, in the name of a cause associated with pro-Unionist Tories and Ukippers.
Yeah I don't think that's how it works. The South can't afford the North it would be a bigger shock to its economy than German unity and nobody in the North wants to take a 30% cut in their standard of living. So it's suck it up and ask theUK taxpayer for more cash.
It's not a referendum on Irish unity, it's a referendum on staying in Europe or ditching one of the two political connections to Ireland, the other being the Good Friday Agreement.
And the NI parties are one thing, but it's also important to remember the large voter bloc alienated by all NI parties: prosperous middle-class people who feel like they can't win against SF/DUP. They'd vote in a referendum, and would probably vote to stay In.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.
Lol right you're pushing polls ? Good luck.
I foresee many times in the coming years where we all ignore the polls because of this GE, which are then proven right. It will probably happen when the Tories are down in the polls, and we all assume they are being understated, and then they aren't.
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.
Lol right you're pushing polls ? Good luck.
I foresee many times in the coming years where we all ignore the polls because of this GE, which are then proven right. It will probably happen when the Tories are down in the polls, and we all assume they are being understated, and then they aren't.
what comes round goes around and I have no doubt pollsters will improve their accuracy, but I couldn't help smiling at Carnyx.
I agree that one needs to take account of the voting system and minutiae of the Labour leadership contest. I think Liz* Kendall has been working the room for some time. She did a lot of travelling this election, including campaigning in Scotland. She has been Shadow health and also Shadow community care- both areas with lots of union contacts. She was SPAD to HH herself so has the sisterhood contacts too. State educated too.
I think Chuka will lose, but may be tempted by London Mayor. That would be a better role for him too.
* When will we next get a party leader using their full forename? Dave, Ed, Nick, Tony etc...
What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative. (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.
Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....
I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1
Maybe it really was just me !
Nope, you can add me Isam. I won £20 from Peter from Putney but lost my Tory minority bet, and I never dreamt my Lib Dems 11-20 would lose on the low side.
Carswell or Pickles Deputy PM would make some up but unlikely.
Purnell next Labour leader at 100/1 to redeem myself!
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.
Lol right you're pushing polls ? Good luck.
Not pushing at all. Just remarking on some data which seemed to go contrary to the above comment. .
Anyway it's far too early to draw conclusions - we have a lot of politics to get through before we can see if the devomaxers who voted no to give the Union a chance are satisfied (and no I don't know what the answer will be).
JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.
Lol right you're pushing polls ? Good luck.
Ye I agree, I think "Yes/Out" will waltz it. If there is one thing in Scotland it is an anti-Conservative majority. I can see "In/No" just not showing up this time.
If I was the Labour Party I'd leave Harriet in charge for six months to give time to road-test the others. They need to avoid any possibility of another EdM fiasco. I'm already unimpressed wth Hunt and Burnham and they're supposed to be among the favourites. Yvette Cooper is pretty good but too, I don't know, anonymous. Reeves is good but is she too much of a Cockney for the voters of Spenborough? Umunna has the potential to be great or be sh** - my image of him is "a guy in a suit" which isn't exactly inspiring but who knows?
I suppose him and Burnham are the sensible bets but Hunt seems far too long at 14-1 so I've had a small punt.
Miliband was incredibly selfish to have resigned in the way he did. He wasn't an ex-PM going like Brown or Major, he was a Leader of the Opposition. Howard lost in 2005 and triggered a leadership election but stayed on for six months until after the Conference season allowing the leadership rivals to have a dignified election with a gap away from the election. It allowed the election results and lessons to sink in before the leadership vote was held and allowed the leadership contenders to stand and shine or not fully with Conference giving each an opportunity to stand up. The result is we then selected a double election winner.
Miliband has done his party no favours whatsoever by vanishing the next day. Its pathetic and selfish and yet another reason to give him no respect whatsoever.
Maybe vanish quickly if a second election this year was expected and he thought he was in the way, but we know its five years until the next election. Going to quickly is totally unnecessary.
I agree that one needs to take account of the voting system and minutiae of the Labour leadership contest. I think Liz* Kendall has been working the room for some time. She did a lot of travelling this election, including campaigning in Scotland. She has been Shadow health and also Shadow community care- both areas with lots of union contacts. She was SPAD to HH herself so has the sisterhood contacts too. State educated too.
I think Chuka will lose, but may be tempted by London Mayor. That would be a better role for him too.
Yes, I think Liz Kendall is a distinct possibility, unless she's seen as too 'Blairite'.
If Labour have any sense they'll make Chuka Shadow Chancellor. I'm not sure they do have any sense.
I think London Mayor would be a good fit for Chuka as well. It is a role he would do well in, he understands the importance of capital and he knows that London needs a vibrant financial services sector. The only downside is that it would require him to leave Parliament and would have to sit out 2016-2024 if he served two terms like Boris and Labour may be ramping up for power in 2025 which he will only be an MP for rather than possible leader. He may fall into the Boris trap.
That is why there is a helpful arrow pointing out when the global financial crisis hit (which was before 2010). It is also why the graph would continue to 2015 to show George Osborne's not unimpressive debt mountain.
So you'd print a graph showing that there was a deficit for seven years prior to the crisis hitting and think that will show people that you didn't overspend.
And that Osborne is simultaneously cutting spending too fast and not fast enough.
Yet you wonder why you lost?
The deficit was small by both international and historical comparison (hence the pretty graph showing the deficit inherited from the Conservatives and continued by the Conservatives).
Comments
WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday
Stoke Central
Labour Tristram Hunt 12,220 39.3 +0.5
UKIP Mick Harold 7,041 22.7 +18.3
Conservative Liam Marshall-Ascough 7,008 22.5 +1.5
I am also a little confused by the homophobic label she assigns to the Tories. I know there are plenty of Tories who don't support gay marriage, but even if one accepts that as in itself evidence of homophobia, it's hardly a view that is shared by the entire Tory party.
Essentially what she's saying is 'Other people hold different opinions than me; I must therefore avoid those people as much as possible rather than accept I live in a society where people hold different views'.
Top month so far!
WATFORD up
CON up
QPR down!!!
The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
The timescale of a second Scottish indyref on the other hand was and still is never known.
On other matters:
- I'm still counting, but the GE was undoubtedly my most successful ever betting gig. Scotland of course was a goldmine, but also on the main result, the discrepancy between constituency and seat-total markets meant it was exceptionally easy to build up a position which would be profitable over a wide range of outcomes.
- Very sorry to hear the news from JackW. I hope he'll be back, hale and hearty, soon.
- Great to bump into Plato at Caroline Ansell's thank-you drinks in Eastbourne yesterday. I can vouch for Plato's sunburn!
- Does anyone know when the period of mourning on the Beeb is scheduled to end?
- UKIP don't seem to have woken up to the fact that the political landscape has just shifted dramatically. They are going to get sidelined in the referendum.
If Dan Jarvis stands he will need time to demonstrate he has the credentials beyond his back-story - and that means an election process that lasts a while and has many hustings, speech-making opportunities etc. If he is the real deal then he is a gift that Labour would be insane to turn down. Political experience is not so much of an issue - Cameron had almost none when he took over - he has plenty of real life experience.
Khan runs for mayor, James Purnell takes his seat and the leadership. Miliband Proper is guilty by association with his dimwit brother, but Purnell would be a great choice.
They have to get him in somehow.
'I’m genuinely shocked at how utterly ill-thought and stupid out this post is.
First, you claim that Conservatives are “racist, sexist, and homophobic”. This is the same party, you’ll remember, that had the first – and only – woman PM; that fielded more BME candidates in the 2015 election than the others; that the Conservatives introduced Gay Marriage and since the last general election had more LGBT MPs than the other parties. Indeed, from what I recall, in 2010 the Conservatives had more LGBT MPS than all the others put together. Claiming that they are racist, sexist, and homophobic is simply untrue – unless you mean that some Conservatives are, but then so are some Labour members. Recall that George Galloway (the anti-semite who says that rape is just bad sexual etiquette) was a Labour politician.
No wonder there is such a problem of political diversity in academia, when you have people like you spouting such intolerance. Readers might be interested in this forthcoming article in Behavioural and Brain Science on political diversity as well as my forthcoming commentary on it (second paragraph here: http://www.jimaceverett.com/publications/). It is posts like this, and people like you, that are to blame for this.
I’m just so shocked that you can so easily insult both the intelligence and morality of vast swathes of the population – including your colleagues – without a care.
Yours,
A Gay, Disabled, Working Class, Conservative.'
Labour increased spending between 2000 and 2010 by 50% in real terms. Unprecedented in peace time.
Take my constituency: won by Labour won Lib's second, Tories a respectable enough third after zero effort ( it was a no hoper), Plaid nowhere. Labour and Lib posters galore dozens and dozens, a smattering of Plaid, Tories zero, nil, nada, but several thousand still emerged from the ether and voted only to melt back into their own lives away from possible vilification by the likes of trendy Lefty academics and "meeja" worthies that seemingly have an in built bias not to accept that maybe many of them are not inherently selfish ( some are doubtless ) but rather have a more elliptical view of the world, that you can only sustainably provide meals on wheels for old ladies and good health care etc etc which we all want, if you don't overly hobble those who want to and can get on. Otherwise the money runs out ( listening Mr Byrne of Birmingham?) and we're all stuffed but especially the old ladies wanting their meals on wheels.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/spain-post-race-analysis.html
Wichita is actually quite a nice place.
If he can't pronounce a well known English place name his qualifications for leadership are dubious.
(a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative.
(b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.
But those are internet comment sections, the cess pools of the internet and society. You will get some lefty villifying from the right wing papers most certainly, although usually at the far left not the entirety of Labour (while perhaps implying that Labour do not condemn the far left enough), but this is a presumably respected and intelligent academic making nonsensical sweeping generalisations of pure, unmitigated hatred of people with divergent political views with whom it sounds like she feels she should barely be able to stand in the same room of such creatures. And as a lefty (socially at any rate), one thing that has always bugged me is there is undoubtedly a larger body in media and academic willing to demonise the centre right than the reverse.
Labour and the Tories are political parties, ones which thesedays leap all over the political spectrum to find votes. Neither Labour nor Tory is a synonym for 'Good', but as we saw with tactics like Martin Freeman's PEB, that is something Labour still try more often (stuff like 'I'm Labour as I believe in fairness'). The Tories generally seem to stick to saying Labour are idiots, rather than malicious. Still an unfair generalisation of an entire movement, but not as personally offensive and simpler to counter.
I agree that one needs to take account of the voting system and minutiae of the Labour leadership contest. I think Liz* Kendall has been working the room for some time. She did a lot of travelling this election, including campaigning in Scotland. She has been Shadow health and also Shadow community care- both areas with lots of union contacts. She was SPAD to HH herself so has the sisterhood contacts too. State educated too.
I think Chuka will lose, but may be tempted by London Mayor. That would be a better role for him too.
* When will we next get a party leader using their full forename? Dave, Ed, Nick, Tony etc...
Maybe it really was just me !
Labour stuck to Tory plans in 1997-2001. I didn't believe they would, but they did. This was actually a surplus every year. From ~2001-2007 they increased spending in real terms by over 40%. (I am looking at a chart showing REAL TERMS spending in 2011-12 prices as £450bn and £640bn in 2000-01 and 2006-07 respectively, but don't think Vanilla lets me post pictures)
In these "good" years the deficit was increasing to 5-6% and we were in a terrible position when the crisis hit, worse than most if not all other countries (although we have been able to print our own currency of course).
Other governments around the world were hardly paragons, but none was as profligate in these years, and in any case our economic growth was largely based on consumer credit and house prices.
I fear that the last bit is still true, certainly Osborne has the bulk of his famed "rebalancing" still to do, and he and the tories were no better in the years I mention either. The difference is that they have at least realised their mistakes - witness the setting up of the OBR, and the hard facts of deficit reduction from 2010, albeit at a slow pace.
Labour on the other hand still deny they did anything wrong. Whatever your or my views, a large and crucial part of the electorate don't think this is a good look.
Personally, I think this would be economically disastrous (as France has found to a certain extent although their record is not as bad as it is sometimes painted) but at least it would be honest. It really does not do to invent taxes like the mansion tax and 50p rates and then claim that is more money to spend when we still have an £85bn deficit 7 years on from the recession. It just sounds ridiculous.
There is a case to be made that we should have a more Nordic approach to tax and spend; that the level of inequality has reached unacceptable levels (although statistically it fell under the Coalition) and that a government needs to do more to protect the more vulnerable in our society. It is just completely dishonest to say that we can have all of that and lower taxes by dumping the debt on our children.
Labour have run scared of more tax since 1992 and the famous bomb poster. But they have refused to run scared of spending the money that they are too scared to ask for. If they want higher spending they need someone that can make that argument, not in the election period but consistently over the next 5 years.
a. you deny your own debt mountain exists
b you call Osborne debt mountain austerity
go figure
You're in cloud cuckoo land.
If Labour have any sense they'll make Chuka Shadow Chancellor. I'm not sure they do have any sense.
I suppose him and Burnham are the sensible bets but Hunt seems far too long at 14-1 so I've had a small punt.
In order for the tories to have only borrowed as much as labour from 97-2010 they would have had to eliminate the deficit altogether by ~2013 and balance the books thereafter. Imagine the scale of cuts that would have entailed, and ask yourself honestly if you would have supported them.
Thought not...
Glad you agree on the DM/Telegraph. I think their extreme views are in the very minority.
I don’t claim that Conservatives are racist, sexist, and homophobic – I claim that supporting their policies is as objectionable as holding racist, sexist, or homophobic views.
I didn't vote Conservative, but that is clearly nonsense. She is saying that no reasonable person could therefore vote Conservative, just as we would say no reasonable person would be racist, sexist or homophobic. Therefore, millions of people who are decent, reasonable, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic people, are deemed just as bad as racists, sexists and homophobes because they hold a divergent political opinion, which belittles and insults those millions of voters, casting them as either idiots or malicious.
And that Osborne is simultaneously cutting spending too fast and not fast enough.
Yet you wonder why you lost?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/opinions/borger-hillary-trustworthy/index.html
And the NI parties are one thing, but it's also important to remember the large voter bloc alienated by all NI parties: prosperous middle-class people who feel like they can't win against SF/DUP. They'd vote in a referendum, and would probably vote to stay In.
Carswell or Pickles Deputy PM would make some up but unlikely.
Purnell next Labour leader at 100/1 to redeem myself!
Anyway it's far too early to draw conclusions - we have a lot of politics to get through before we can see if the devomaxers who voted no to give the Union a chance are satisfied (and no I don't know what the answer will be).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000998
Miliband has done his party no favours whatsoever by vanishing the next day. Its pathetic and selfish and yet another reason to give him no respect whatsoever.
Maybe vanish quickly if a second election this year was expected and he thought he was in the way, but we know its five years until the next election. Going to quickly is totally unnecessary.
You really should get out more.