Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time for Labour to make a clean break from its economic pas

1235

Comments

  • acf2310acf2310 Posts: 141

    grahambc1 said:

    Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.

    It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.

    I'm not sure even his mum would go as far as telegenic looks.
    Burnham would be akin to re-electing Ed. Too many ties to Brown, an NHS record that's just waiting to be demolished, too close to the unions. So as a Tory, I'd love to see him elected.

    Jarvis would be a formidable leader. Kendall seems interesting.

    Umunna would be a disaster -- exudes an arrogance that would turn off Labour's core vote without winning anyone new to replace them.

  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    surbiton said:

    EPG said:

    alex. said:

    Really highly superficial statements about "giving the Scots FFA" are pretty silly anyway. Nobody really knows what it would mean or how it would work. How UK wide expenditure commitments would be funded and what would happen if the UK Govt wanted/needed to change levels of UK expenditure. Especially if the Scottish Govt didn't agree with such changes in expenditure, even though they would presumably be expected to contribute. How would debt be financed. etc etc.

    It's different if just done on a revenue neutral basis - ie. give them control over additional taxes, work out what that would raise on day 1, and alter the Barnett formula accordingly (what is proposed under the Smith commission plans). But move to a point where Scots govt control all revenues, and they are having to transfer funds to the UK, and the whole thing has the potential to fall apart.

    Maybe we need to look at what happens in other federal jurisdictions, there are a couple of obvious examples that are run on common law principles - the USA and Australlia. How does it work there?

    The USA has big federal welfare programmes, but no mechanism explicitly to redistribute among the governments.
    Canada has explicit equalisation payments. Australia is similar. That is a pretty big step and it would be considered fair, I think, to give everyone equal spending power. Surely the SNP and Conservatives could agree on that.
    How will the transition work ? Scotland reputedly gets £2000 more per person. I am not sure how it can be so minutely measured.

    Is spending on the Faslane base an expenditure in Scotland ?
    It's easier in federal countries, where they equalise each state/provincial government's spending power on state/provincial matters. I don't pretend to have the answer for the UK.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.

    If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.

    Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.

    Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.

    Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
    It was pandering. There is no loophole in the law that enables Muslims to be assaulted with impunity.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    edited May 2015

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?

    This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.

    No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
    To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.

    I sympathise with this view, though I also sympathise with the view that attacks against minorities can be especially harmful to a diverse society and can weaken its stability.
    You sound like a Lib Dem. I symapthise with your view but also think the opposite. Which is it? Should all crimes be treated on their own merits, or should some crimes count less?

    Should someone being assaulted unprovoked be considered less of a crime like I was just because the victim was white? I'd rather we punish all criminals.
    I'm not going to apologise to you for being conflicted on some things. I think those who have clear, black-and-white views on everything should experience more of life. I reject your other characterisations as being in equally bad faith.
    If we're debating whether a law should be changed then the answer is either Aye or Nay, there is no other option. Nothing I said was in bad faith, unlike this pathetic pandering over Islamophobia. Either its criminalising that which is legal now like free speech, which is unacceptable, or its just pandering, which is unacceptable. Give his track record on voting to oppose free speech and refusal to rule that out as being what he meant, I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. You're categorically wrong to rule it out, since he didn't.
    there's always the much better option of don't have a law in the first place.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Chameleon said:

    'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.'
    Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.

    He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
    They will give him the benefit of the doubt until he comes back with whatever deal he claims to have secured. At the point my belief is that, unless he says he has not secured enough and is recommending an 'Out' which I think is unlikely, the party will fracture as the Eurosceptics realise they have been fed a line all along. They suspect it now but will do nothing until they have proof. Then I believe Cameron's majority will evaporate.
    I disagree. I think the biggest issue is that there's been no vote on anything about Europe since the seventies. Once Cameron comes back the referendum will be on and that will take people's attention. Once the votes happened, where do you go from there?

    If the public votes to stay in then fair enough, but that's at least its been resolved. I don't think people are going to prefer to storm off and let Labour run the country than respect the outcome of the vote.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Ha! I friend has just posted on FB an Eleanor Roosevelt quote that is probably pretty apposite for this site:

    "Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small minds discuss people."

    I guess that puts most politicians in the small minds category, rising sometimes to average minds and only very rarely to great mind status.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    EPG said:

    Plato said:
    I believe this is a small garden shop. Talk about not knowing your market...
    All small business owners are not natural Tories. It has always been my gripe with Labour leaders why they put "Business" as on entity. There is a million miles between a B&B owner and a f*cking *anker. Some well thought out measures to help "small man" can go a long distance.

    It doesn't have to money always. Relax the rules on ISO9001 for businesses below a certain threshold, for example, and see how they receive it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?

    This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.

    No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
    To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.

    I sympathise with this view, though I also sympathise with the view that attacks against minorities can be especially harmful to a diverse society and can weaken its stability.
    You sound like a Lib Dem. I symapthise with your view but also think the opposite. Which is it? Should all crimes be treated on their own merits, or should some crimes count less?

    Should someone being assaulted unprovoked be considered less of a crime like I was just because the victim was white? I'd rather we punish all criminals.
    I'm not going to apologise to you for being conflicted on some things. I think those who have clear, black-and-white views on everything should experience more of life. I reject your other characterisations as being in equally bad faith.
    If we're debating whether a law should be changed then the answer is either Aye or Nay, there is no other option. Nothing I said was in bad faith, unlike this pathetic pandering over Islamophobia. Either its criminalising that which is legal now like free speech, which is unacceptable, or its just pandering, which is unacceptable. Give his track record on voting to oppose free speech and refusal to rule that out as being what he meant, I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. You're categorically wrong to rule it out, since he didn't.
    there's always the mcuh better option of don't have a law in the first place.
    That's Nay.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2015
    Survation sends us a blog as a mea culpa, perhaps?

    http://survation.com/guest-blog-post-a-very-astute-letter-received-from-emma-greaves-administrator-stay-at-home-mum/

    Of course I don't agree with it. I think poll herding was the problem.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,870
    isam said:

    Nuttall4Nigel

    Farage was an amazing success as Ukip leader and the job is only half done

    https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/597447410730856448

    No thanks. Nigel needs to be set free from being the figurehead. Don't mind him retaining influence behind the scenes.

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    acf2310 said:

    grahambc1 said:

    Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.

    It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.

    I'm not sure even his mum would go as far as telegenic looks.
    Burnham would be akin to re-electing Ed. Too many ties to Brown, an NHS record that's just waiting to be demolished, too close to the unions. So as a Tory, I'd love to see him elected.

    Jarvis would be a formidable leader. Kendall seems interesting.

    Umunna would be a disaster -- exudes an arrogance that would turn off Labour's core vote without winning anyone new to replace them.

    When I think of Burnham, I think of a face perpetually on the brink of bursting into tears. Not what I want in a leader. Wrong as that analysis may be.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    EPG said:

    Plato said:
    I believe this is a small garden shop. Talk about not knowing your market...
    Either a stunt or someone wanting to go out of business fairly soon. Either way, idiotic
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kingbongo said:

    Chameleon said:

    'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.'
    Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.

    He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
    I think considering what was achieved by Cameron and the failure of UKIP to turn votes into seats Cameron can get the backbenches to either back him or keep schtum on pretty much any issue - he has given them what they used to moan he hadn't in 2010 - too many pundits taking the 1992 metaphor too far - this is nothing like it from a parliamentary standpoint
    Absolutely. Far from UKIP surging to victory in a slate of seats, even Carswell only got a rather weak majority. The Conservatives will like their chances in regaining Clacton next time and I can't see many more MP's being so ... Reckless
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    As the MSM is giving the impression that 50 new SNP MPs are about to start running amock in London, I thought I would share this picture of the 4 Fife MPs - they all look like they'll fit right in:

    https://twitter.com/DougChapmanSNP/status/596999128015642624
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,870
    notme said:

    isam said:

    Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.

    Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.

    She actually wrong footed him by asking him questions back!

    Seems like a regular person rather than a phoney, which is always a good thing
    You dont get regular people running the country. You need exceptional and talented people.
    Don't be absurd, we haven't had an exceptional and talented person running the country since 1990.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    MikeK said:

    Survation sends us a blog as a mea culpa, perhaps?

    http://survation.com/guest-blog-post-a-very-astute-letter-received-from-emma-greaves-administrator-stay-at-home-mum/

    Of course I don't agree with it. I think poll herding was the problem.

    Interesting letter, but its conclusion is backed by zero evidence save the writer's own view.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Sean_F said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.

    If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.

    Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.

    Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.

    Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
    It was pandering. There is no loophole in the law that enables Muslims to be assaulted with impunity.
    Lots of people agree with you about special punishments for things like attacking police officers or racial minorities, and lots don't. But Miliband proposed nothing out of line with contemporary laws, and it certainly wasn't blasphemy like many here were saying.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Has anyone seen a spreadsheet anywhere which I can download ? I downloaded the 2010 results which the PA put up on their website. But they haven't done so for 2015 yet.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    calum said:

    As the MSM is giving the impression that 50 new SNP MPs are about to start running amock in London, I thought I would share this picture of the 4 Fife MPs - they all look like they'll fit right in:

    https://twitter.com/DougChapmanSNP/status/596999128015642624

    the MSM didn't give that impression by themselves they reported what the SNP were saying.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    calum said:

    As the MSM is giving the impression that 50 new SNP MPs are about to start running amock in London, I thought I would share this picture of the 4 Fife MPs - they all look like they'll fit right in:

    twitter.com/DougChapmanSNP/status/596999128015642624

    "In the year of Our Lord 2015, Scottish patriots, starving and outnumbered, charged the Lobbies of Westminster.

    "They voted like warrior-poets. They voted like Scotsmen. And they won their Freedom!"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    calum said:

    As the MSM is giving the impression that 50 new SNP MPs are about to start running amock in London, I thought I would share this picture of the 4 Fife MPs - they all look like they'll fit right in:

    https://twitter.com/DougChapmanSNP/status/596999128015642624

    the MSM didn't give that impression by themselves they reported what the SNP were saying.
    Large boos in the pub when Salmond came on the Telly, he's got the pantomine villain schtick down to a T.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    calum said:

    As the MSM is giving the impression that 50 new SNP MPs are about to start running amock in London, I thought I would share this picture of the 4 Fife MPs - they all look like they'll fit right in:

    twitter.com/DougChapmanSNP/status/596999128015642624

    "In the year of Our Lord 2015, Scottish patriots, starving and outnumbered, charged the Lobbies of Westminster.

    "They voted like warrior-poets. They voted like Scotsmen. And they won their Freedom!"
    Thanks for voting for Wes btw, I owe you a beer for helping that bet to hack up :D
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    acf2310 said:

    grahambc1 said:

    Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.

    It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.

    I'm not sure even his mum would go as far as telegenic looks.
    Burnham would be akin to re-electing Ed. Too many ties to Brown, an NHS record that's just waiting to be demolished, too close to the unions. So as a Tory, I'd love to see him elected.

    Jarvis would be a formidable leader. Kendall seems interesting.

    Umunna would be a disaster -- exudes an arrogance that would turn off Labour's core vote without winning anyone new to replace them.

    I still "fancy" Rachel :)
  • kingbongo said:

    Chameleon said:

    'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.'
    Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.

    He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
    I think considering what was achieved by Cameron and the failure of UKIP to turn votes into seats Cameron can get the backbenches to either back him or keep schtum on pretty much any issue - he has given them what they used to moan he hadn't in 2010 - too many pundits taking the 1992 metaphor too far - this is nothing like it from a parliamentary standpoint
    With the demise of Reckless and Carswell now in a marginal, a UKIP with one MP is an unattractive home for potential Conservative MPs wishing to defect.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,870

    kingbongo said:

    Chameleon said:

    'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.'
    Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.

    He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
    I think considering what was achieved by Cameron and the failure of UKIP to turn votes into seats Cameron can get the backbenches to either back him or keep schtum on pretty much any issue - he has given them what they used to moan he hadn't in 2010 - too many pundits taking the 1992 metaphor too far - this is nothing like it from a parliamentary standpoint
    Absolutely. Far from UKIP surging to victory in a slate of seats, even Carswell only got a rather weak majority. The Conservatives will like their chances in regaining Clacton next time and I can't see many more MP's being so ... Reckless
    Conversely, he has no 'party of in' to act as enforcers/excusers of a supine line on Europe, and must depend instead on his own backbenchers and then NI unionists.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MikeK said:

    Survation sends us a blog as a mea culpa, perhaps?

    http://survation.com/guest-blog-post-a-very-astute-letter-received-from-emma-greaves-administrator-stay-at-home-mum/

    Of course I don't agree with it. I think poll herding was the problem.

    I don't buy this last minute nonsense. I believe sampling the whole country is a waste of time.

    They should go back to the 70's and 80's and do what they used to do. It was always like "face to face interview with 1010 people in 103 constituencies"

    I suggest they make up large database in 125 marginal seats [ 50 opposition held and 75 government held ]. Ironically, online sampling can help here. If they have the "voter"'s post code then even better.

    Mimic the exit poll as far as they can. Don't waste time on getting two responses from Sunderland Central or NE Hampshire.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    surbiton said:

    EPG said:

    Plato said:
    I believe this is a small garden shop. Talk about not knowing your market...
    All small business owners are not natural Tories. It has always been my gripe with Labour leaders why they put "Business" as on entity. There is a million miles between a B&B owner and a f*cking *anker. Some well thought out measures to help "small man" can go a long distance.

    It doesn't have to money always. Relax the rules on ISO9001 for businesses below a certain threshold, for example, and see how they receive it.
    Labour had a policy to reduce small business rates which I think is necessary to save the high street in many towns, but the problem is that they proposed to pay for it by raising the corporation tax rate for big business. Labour needed much bolder moves with business like Blair and Mandy if they want to reassure people they are not going to cost the country jobs and growth.

    Whatever you say or think about the coalition, they did oversee a formidable amount of job creation.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    MaxPB said:

    Most accurate poll goes to:

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ANP-150427MONX-Full-data-tables.pdf

    From a week before the election. Looks like an ICM as well judging by the questions.

    Yes, Lord Ashcroft national poll, fieldwork end 26th April

    Con 36
    Lab 30
    UKIP 11
    LD 9
    Grn 7


    Also, there was an Ipsos MORI ending 29th April

    Con 35
    Lab 30
    UKIP 10
    LD 8
    Grn 8

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    acf2310 said:

    grahambc1 said:

    Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.

    It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.

    I'm not sure even his mum would go as far as telegenic looks.
    Burnham would be akin to re-electing Ed. Too many ties to Brown, an NHS record that's just waiting to be demolished, too close to the unions. So as a Tory, I'd love to see him elected.

    Jarvis would be a formidable leader. Kendall seems interesting.

    Umunna would be a disaster -- exudes an arrogance that would turn off Labour's core vote without winning anyone new to replace them.

    I still "fancy" Rachel :)
    Miliband's voice replaced with that one. You like the nasal stuff - admit it !
  • tyson said:

    @JohnO

    First, I still thought Nick was going to win his seat right until the 10.00 exit poll. When that came out I knew he'd lose, and by a few thousand. I thought that Tory waverers would be going to UKIP in the same numbers as I saw in the Broxtowe Labour heartlands- a kind of plague on your houses sentiment. In hindsight though, Ed Miliband was the Tories greatest weapon- and I am sure the GOTV operations deployed him beautifully on election day.

    I agree with you I don't think David Miliband will go for it for the reasons you said. But he is by far Labour's most formidable politician, and now has a great back story too which would capture the imagination of the public. And probably he's more rounded for doing a normal job for some years.

    But for David to have any chance of winning the Labour party Leadership, some Labour MP has to give up their seat and very soon and fast to give him a chance of returning to the HoC. Perhaps the Honourable Member for Doncaster North would oblige ..... I don't see it happening somehow.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    surbiton said:

    EPG said:

    Plato said:
    I believe this is a small garden shop. Talk about not knowing your market...
    All small business owners are not natural Tories. It has always been my gripe with Labour leaders why they put "Business" as on entity. There is a million miles between a B&B owner and a f*cking *anker. Some well thought out measures to help "small man" can go a long distance.
    Indeed. A former work colleague who was a London labour activist used to bemoan the fact that the labour party did nothing to attract and support the small self-employed person - the baker, the retailer, the plumber. In France, he said, they would all vote Socialist.

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    SeanT said:

    EPG said:

    Plato said:
    I believe this is a small garden shop. Talk about not knowing your market...
    Either a stunt or someone wanting to go out of business fairly soon. Either way, idiotic
    Along with that mad academic from Royal Holloway, it is, however, further evidence that the Left is experiencing a monumental, sudden, nasty, collective breakdown.

    Heh.
    I tell ya, this is their 1997. Their defeat in 2010 was not big enough, it looked like power was going to swing right back to them. Now they are looking into the abyss.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kingbongo said:

    Chameleon said:

    'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.'
    Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.

    He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
    I think considering what was achieved by Cameron and the failure of UKIP to turn votes into seats Cameron can get the backbenches to either back him or keep schtum on pretty much any issue - he has given them what they used to moan he hadn't in 2010 - too many pundits taking the 1992 metaphor too far - this is nothing like it from a parliamentary standpoint
    Absolutely. Far from UKIP surging to victory in a slate of seats, even Carswell only got a rather weak majority. The Conservatives will like their chances in regaining Clacton next time and I can't see many more MP's being so ... Reckless
    Conversely, he has no 'party of in' to act as enforcers/excusers of a supine line on Europe, and must depend instead on his own backbenchers and then NI unionists.
    But why would he want to enforce/excuse a supine line on Europe?

    In hindsight a referendum on Maastricht 23 years ago might have avoided decades of splits, let the public decide rather than fight it out between ourselves in the party. Either way though, the party is now united on letting the public decide and a referendum will happen.

    Once it has, where does anyone go from there? I think all but the most hardcore on any side will respect the public's choice.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    MikeK said:

    Survation sends us a blog as a mea culpa, perhaps?

    http://survation.com/guest-blog-post-a-very-astute-letter-received-from-emma-greaves-administrator-stay-at-home-mum/

    Of course I don't agree with it. I think poll herding was the problem.

    I'm not sure of the cause, but the explanation is crap. If it was a late swing, nothing at all was picked up by the polls and in fact my average has a small move towards Labour in the last day or two.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    EPG said:

    Sean_F said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.

    If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.

    Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.

    Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.

    Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
    It was pandering. There is no loophole in the law that enables Muslims to be assaulted with impunity.
    Lots of people agree with you about special punishments for things like attacking police officers or racial minorities, and lots don't. But Miliband proposed nothing out of line with contemporary laws, and it certainly wasn't blasphemy like many here were saying.
    My google-foo is weak so please can you point me to a document that supports your assertion? It looks to me as though Miliband made an ill-thought out comment when being interviewed and not even he knew what he meant. However, you seem so sure that you do know that I assume you have seen some authoritative document that sets out what he did mean.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653

    EPG said:

    Sean_F said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.

    If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.

    Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.

    Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.

    Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
    It was pandering. There is no loophole in the law that enables Muslims to be assaulted with impunity.
    Lots of people agree with you about special punishments for things like attacking police officers or racial minorities, and lots don't. But Miliband proposed nothing out of line with contemporary laws, and it certainly wasn't blasphemy like many here were saying.
    My google-foo is weak so please can you point me to a document that supports your assertion? It looks to me as though Miliband made an ill-thought out comment when being interviewed and not even he knew what he meant. However, you seem so sure that you do know that I assume you have seen some authoritative document that sets out what he did mean.
    He spoke about Islamophobic attacks
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.

    If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.

    I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
    Scotland is already fed up subsidising England.

    If the Tories are expecting Scotland to continue paying £12bn per annum in fiscal transfers to England after FFA they have another thing coming. Subsidies are coming to an end and it's time for England to stand on her own two feet.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    tyson said:

    @JohnO

    First, I still thought Nick was going to win his seat right until the 10.00 exit poll. When that came out I knew he'd lose, and by a few thousand. I thought that Tory waverers would be going to UKIP in the same numbers as I saw in the Broxtowe Labour heartlands- a kind of plague on your houses sentiment. In hindsight though, Ed Miliband was the Tories greatest weapon- and I am sure the GOTV operations deployed him beautifully on election day.

    I agree with you I don't think David Miliband will go for it for the reasons you said. But he is by far Labour's most formidable politician, and now has a great back story too which would capture the imagination of the public. And probably he's more rounded for doing a normal job for some years.

    But for David to have any chance of winning the Labour party Leadership, some Labour MP has to give up their seat and very soon and fast to give him a chance of returning to the HoC. Perhaps the Honourable Member for Doncaster North would oblige ..... I don't see it happening somehow.
    It seems far-fetched to me. If the NEC decide that this should be long campaign and persuade Harriet to be interim leader for 6 months then maybe something could be engineered. Miliband major might be better to wait. Five years of grinding opposition await.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    EPG said:

    Sean_F said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.

    If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.

    Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.

    Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.

    Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
    It was pandering. There is no loophole in the law that enables Muslims to be assaulted with impunity.
    Lots of people agree with you about special punishments for things like attacking police officers or racial minorities, and lots don't. But Miliband proposed nothing out of line with contemporary laws, and it certainly wasn't blasphemy like many here were saying.
    My google-foo is weak so please can you point me to a document that supports your assertion? It looks to me as though Miliband made an ill-thought out comment when being interviewed and not even he knew what he meant. However, you seem so sure that you do know that I assume you have seen some authoritative document that sets out what he did mean.
    Yo Llama man, how's things ?

    Rejoicing as we head to those sunny uplands yet ? :-)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/how-long-might-labours-leadership-contest-be/

    I'm thinking the last item in this list looks sensible; allow the contenders to address conference and set out their stalls.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Just as well we have a freedom loving Home Secretary who would never introduce an Islamophobia law:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html

    Oh wait...
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,929
    Dair said:

    Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.

    If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.

    I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
    Scotland is already fed up subsidising England.

    If the Tories are expecting Scotland to continue paying £12bn per annum in fiscal transfers to England after FFA they have another thing coming. Subsidies are coming to an end and it's time for England to stand on her own two feet.
    If the subsidy is from Scotland to England why don't the SNP want immediate FFA? Are you worried about cutting the poor English off too quickly?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    I note the SNP are continuing their generations old habit of reaching for Nazi comparisons for people they don't like. This weekend it is not Quisling or Gauleiter, instead:

    "Rather than take on Farage and his bierkeller candidates, Miliband famously unveiled his own political tombstone. It read: “Controls on immigration”."

    This is George Kerevan, one of the new SNP MPs, writing in The National, yesterday.

    http://www.thenational.scot/news/george-kerevan-federalism-or-bust-snp-mandate-now-goes-far-beyond-smith-powers.2787

    Lovely people.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Cannel 4 doorstep Cameron at the VE day event

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL3CL9cVui8
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Dair said:

    Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.

    If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.

    I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
    Scotland is already fed up subsidising England.

    If the Tories are expecting Scotland to continue paying £12bn per annum in fiscal transfers to England after FFA they have another thing coming. Subsidies are coming to an end and it's time for England to stand on her own two feet.
    Yeah Yeah we;ve heard it all before.

    Scotland has a bigger economy than China and England steals it off you.

    How's the oil price ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    More background on Dan J:

    http://www.nottinghampost.com/Election-2015-ex-Rushcliffe-School-pupil-Dan/story-26474739-detail/story.html

    Interesting that John Mann argues in this piece that new leader needs to pass the 'Boris Test' i.e. they expect Boris to be the PM in 2020 and Labour leader needs to be able to take him on.

  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486

    Just as well we have a freedom loving Home Secretary who would never introduce an Islamophobia law:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html

    Oh wait...

    I wonder if THIS will be discussed at length for days on here or OH LOOK A SQUIRREL
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,870
    MattW said:

    I note the SNP are continuing their generations old habit of reaching for Nazi comparisons for people they don't like. This weekend it is not Quisling or Gauleiter, instead:

    "Rather than take on Farage and his bierkeller candidates, Miliband famously unveiled his own political tombstone. It read: “Controls on immigration”."

    This is George Kerevan, one of the new SNP MPs, writing in The National, yesterday.

    http://www.thenational.scot/news/george-kerevan-federalism-or-bust-snp-mandate-now-goes-far-beyond-smith-powers.2787

    Lovely people.

    Slightly hypocritical considering the history of their party too.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    I see from an earlier thread that Ed want to "be like IDS" and come back in a future Labour cabinet.

    The gift that refuses to stop giving...

    Of course IDS went on a pilgrimage to Glasgow, a place where people were never going to vote for him, to gain wisdom and enlightenment.

    Ed would need to make a similar journey to somewhere that would never, ever vote for him. Ever.

    He might try Glasgow perhaps?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    Freggles said:

    Just as well we have a freedom loving Home Secretary who would never introduce an Islamophobia law:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html

    Oh wait...

    I wonder if THIS will be discussed at length for days on here or OH LOOK A SQUIRREL
    I'm afraid the last squirrel siting was 1 second before the exit poll appeared - since then they have become extinct.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.

    If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.

    I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
    Scotland is already fed up subsidising England.

    If the Tories are expecting Scotland to continue paying £12bn per annum in fiscal transfers to England after FFA they have another thing coming. Subsidies are coming to an end and it's time for England to stand on her own two feet.
    If the subsidy is from Scotland to England why don't the SNP want immediate FFA? Are you worried about cutting the poor English off too quickly?
    Because there are contentious questions of the fair extent of the fiscal transfer. There obviously should be some for common services. But then there's big questions over a fair Defense share, a fair contribution to Debt Interest (if any), and the big Canard of the Treasury's bloated "UK WIde Infrastructure" allocation where Scotland pays directly for English spending not allocated to English regions.

    The more reticent the SNP are, the more demands Cameron will face from his backbench and the media to ensure it goes through - he is therefore forced to concede more than might otherwise be the case.

    He is being Forked by an SNP Morton.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Sean_F said:

    EPG said:

    MaxPB said:

    The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.

    If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.

    Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.

    Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.

    Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
    It was pandering. There is no loophole in the law that enables Muslims to be assaulted with impunity.
    Lots of people agree with you about special punishments for things like attacking police officers or racial minorities, and lots don't. But Miliband proposed nothing out of line with contemporary laws, and it certainly wasn't blasphemy like many here were saying.
    My google-foo is weak so please can you point me to a document that supports your assertion? It looks to me as though Miliband made an ill-thought out comment when being interviewed and not even he knew what he meant. However, you seem so sure that you do know that I assume you have seen some authoritative document that sets out what he did mean.
    He spoke about Islamophobic attacks
    So you don't really know what he was proposing to do, any more than anyone else. You are just applying your own interpretation, an interpretation which I note is not shared by the "Muslim World Journal".
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    Freggles said:

    Just as well we have a freedom loving Home Secretary who would never introduce an Islamophobia law:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html

    Oh wait...

    I wonder if THIS will be discussed at length for days on here or OH LOOK A SQUIRREL
    But that isn't a new law, it is just about recording the crime. Ed wanted to introduce a whole new law.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Cameron should offer Nicola FFA and watch her MPs vote it down

    Dave "Here's the FFA you asked for"

    Nicola "No thanks"

    Dave "But you said you wanted it, and would vote for it, live on national TV"

    Nicola "Mebbes Aye, mebbes Naw. What about the Union dividend and fiscal transfers?"

    Dave "No problem. With FFA there is no Barnett formula, but if you are a bit short there are 2 things you can do. You can borrow from UK HMG at market rates plus 2 points (you're a bad credit risk), or you can have a Scottish hardship fund, henceforth to be called 'The English Subsidise the Spendthrift Scots Payments' for as long as you need"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2015
    Freggles said:

    Just as well we have a freedom loving Home Secretary who would never introduce an Islamophobia law:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html

    Oh wait...

    I wonder if THIS will be discussed at length for days on here or OH LOOK A SQUIRREL
    The Tell Mama project on islamophobia was founded under the Coalition too:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html

    Interesting to see that 57% of the 212 "islamophobic" incidents recorded after the Lee Rigby Murder were online. Nasty, I am sure, but not exactly mobs with pitchforks.

    Probably the best way of stopping islamophobia would be for radical islamists stopping their murderous activities at home and abroad. It is quite noticeable that we do not have a problem with Hinduophobic, Sikhophobic, Bhuddaphobic crimes...
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Freggles said:

    Just as well we have a freedom loving Home Secretary who would never introduce an Islamophobia law:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html

    Oh wait...

    I wonder if THIS will be discussed at length for days on here or OH LOOK A SQUIRREL
    Christ, I am sick of lefties complaining here about the paucity, both in quantity and quality, of lefty contributions. I agree about the paucity, but whose fault is it? You want it discussed, why don't you fecking discuss it? We can't write your posts for you. At least we could, and better than you do, but you need to learn to stand on your own two feet.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH

    Not judge-led? Disappointing.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Scottish Labour, the country's dominant political force for more than half a century, had lost 39 of its 40 seats to the SNP, including in Murphy's East Renfrewshire constituency. Some of Murphy's supporters were quick to absolve him of blame for the terrible state of his party.

    Since 1999, they said Scottish Labour had failed to adapt to devolution, elected a succession of bad leaders, selected dud candidates, produced shoddy manifestos and watched as the party's MPs treated MSPs like second-class citizens.

    The lessons from Labour's defeats at the hands of the SNP at the last two Holyrood elections were also ignored and the referendum, which saw the party haemorrhage votes to the SNP, accelerated the decline.

    However, other party insiders - candidates, elected representatives and activists - say the new leader made the toxic legacy he inherited worse, not better. "He snatched catastrophe from the jaws of defeat," said one.
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scottish-labour-inside-the-campaign-from-hell.125560928
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH

    "For Labour this has been five wasted years. It’s gone backwards in terms of seats and has failed to build any foundations for future renewal"


    Lawson, chair of the Compass pressure group says this as tho it's a bad thing :lol:
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Scott_P said:

    Cameron should offer Nicola FFA and watch her MPs vote it down

    Dave "Here's the FFA you asked for"

    Nicola "No thanks"

    Dave "But you said you wanted it, and would vote for it, live on national TV"

    Nicola "Mebbes Aye, mebbes Naw. What about the Union dividend and fiscal transfers?"

    Dave "No problem. With FFA there is no Barnett formula, but if you are a bit short there are 2 things you can do. You can borrow from UK HMG at market rates plus 2 points (you're a bad credit risk), or you can have a Scottish hardship fund, henceforth to be called 'The English Subsidise the Spendthrift Scots Payments' for as long as you need"

    Dave's options are too limited to impose a settlement.

    If his goal is to maintain the Union and the only way he can do that is by agreeing a negotiated settlement including the extent of Fiscal Transfers.

    The alternative is, as you say, to impose a settlement, the exact value of the Fiscal Transfer stops being theoretical and becomes physical, the Scottish Government can even call it the "England Subsidy" and highlight it in every bit of material they send out and every budget they set. This only leads to one outcome. Independence passed by a massive majority and ending the fiscal transfer in its entirety.

    It's actually worse for Dave. He could end up having no net Fiscal Transfer from Scotland and end up agreeing to pay a few billion a year to make up for investment spending Scotland should have had between 1980 and 2014 but didn't have because we were subsidising England.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Scott_P said:

    Cannel 4 doorstep Cameron at the VE day event

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL3CL9cVui8

    Stay Classy....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Almost laughing too hard to type...
    Banning political opinion polls in the run-up to elections or referendums should be given serious consideration, according to former ministers.

    Calls to radically rethink how both the media and politicians rely on polls came as YouGov’s president admitted all the major pollsters had passed over signs of a looming Tory victory, and continued to indicate that the parties were neck-and-neck in the run-up to election day.

    Lord Foulkes, a former Labour Scotland minister, has published a bill, which he will put to the new ballot system in the House of Lords, calling for the establishment of an Ofcom-style independent regulator of the polling industry, which would then rule on whether to ban or restrict political polling in the run-up to elections.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/former-labour-ministers-call-for-ban-on-pre-election-polls-to-be-considered
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH

    "striking of a German style CDU/CSU relationship with the SNP"

    Unbelievable. The CSU doesn't want independence for Bavaria. These guys must take the British public for complete fools to even consider this idea. Labour just got thumped on the back of a possible partnership with the SNP and these guys want to legitimise it. What on earth are they thinking. Worse than Cornerstone these lot.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    Pulpstar said:

    calum said:

    As the MSM is giving the impression that 50 new SNP MPs are about to start running amock in London, I thought I would share this picture of the 4 Fife MPs - they all look like they'll fit right in:

    twitter.com/DougChapmanSNP/status/596999128015642624

    "In the year of Our Lord 2015, Scottish patriots, starving and outnumbered, charged the Lobbies of Westminster.

    "They voted like warrior-poets. They voted like Scotsmen. And they won their Freedom!"
    Thanks for voting for Wes btw, I owe you a beer for helping that bet to hack up :D
    You're very welcome.
    As long as I can switch for something non-alcoholic :lol:
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    If Dair is right (he's not) why have Nicola and this morning Hosey said in every interview since the oil price fell they don't want FFA?

    They're f*cked, and they know it.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Cameron should offer Nicola FFA and watch her MPs vote it down

    Dave "Here's the FFA you asked for"

    Nicola "No thanks"

    Dave "But you said you wanted it, and would vote for it, live on national TV"

    Nicola "Mebbes Aye, mebbes Naw. What about the Union dividend and fiscal transfers?"

    Dave "No problem. With FFA there is no Barnett formula, but if you are a bit short there are 2 things you can do. You can borrow from UK HMG at market rates plus 2 points (you're a bad credit risk), or you can have a Scottish hardship fund, henceforth to be called 'The English Subsidise the Spendthrift Scots Payments' for as long as you need"

    Dave's options are too limited to impose a settlement.

    If his goal is to maintain the Union and the only way he can do that is by agreeing a negotiated settlement including the extent of Fiscal Transfers.

    ... This only leads to one outcome. Independence ...

    We can but hope. If I were in Cameron's shoes I'd pass a law making it mandatory for the Scots to have a referendum every year until they voted the right way.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    edited May 2015
    surbiton said:

    acf2310 said:

    grahambc1 said:

    Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.

    It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.

    I'm not sure even his mum would go as far as telegenic looks.
    Burnham would be akin to re-electing Ed. Too many ties to Brown, an NHS record that's just waiting to be demolished, too close to the unions. So as a Tory, I'd love to see him elected.

    Jarvis would be a formidable leader. Kendall seems interesting.

    Umunna would be a disaster -- exudes an arrogance that would turn off Labour's core vote without winning anyone new to replace them.

    I still "fancy" Rachel :)
    Miliband's voice replaced with that one. You like the nasal stuff - admit it !
    But having said that, Liz looks OK :)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Re. David Miliband.

    On the 26th September 2010, I wrote the following on my blog about why David Miliband would never be PM. That was immediately after he lost to his brother, and before he resigned his seat. How things change ...

    ====

    So, after what feels like an eternity, the Labour party has a new leader. The years of strife and division under Gordon Brown can hopefully be put behind them. Whatever else you say about him, Ed Miliband is not Gordon Brown.

    He inherits a bruised party, but one that is in a far better state than the Tories were after 1997. Labour's defeat in the election was nowhere near as great, and although the electorate did not want Labour, they did not want the Tories much either. After 1997 Labour had the New Labour experiment and Tony Blair, which was virtually bullet-proof for the first few years, whilst Labour have the all-too-evident fractures within the coalition to work on. New Labour inherited a glowing fiscal position; the coalition have inherited a mess. All of this means that it is perfectly feasible for there to be a Labour PM in 2015.

    So whilst Miliband junior has problems facing him, it is nothing compared to those that faced William Hague in 1997. It will be interesting to see what happens next. However, I am more intrigued by his brother's situation.

    David must have been devastated on Saturday. The media have been talking of him as the next Labour leader for years, even before the various failed coups against Brown. He was the most obvious 'heir to Blair', and, as Foreign Secretary, had filled one of the major offices of state. He is a serious political operator, bananas excepted.

    So will he ever become PM? Personally I doubt it. He is 45, easily young enough to be PM sometime in the next twenty years. However politics is getting younger; the leaders of the main three political parties are the first, second and fourth least experienced leaders of their parties in history in terms of time as an MP. Ed Miliband has only been an MP for five years, and has only fulfilled relatively minor cabinet positions. One thing appears to be clear: the public like young politicians (or, worse, politicians believe that the media think the public want young politicians). The days of the elder-statesman PMs appear to be long gone, killed off by Brown.

    (cont)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Part 2:

    It seems probable that Ed Miliband will be leader of the Labour party at the next election, probably to be held in 2015. If he wins, then it is likely he will serve several terms, meaning that Labour will next want a leader in the 2025 timescale. By that time David Miliband will be sixty. Too old, perhaps? Or would he still be keen after he sees the travails his brother, like all leaders, face. Politics has the habit of chewing people up and spitting them out the other side.

    So what happens if Labour loses in 2015? Well, Ed may stay on (Kinnock stayed on after the 1987 loss). If he does go, then would the Labour Party really want the failed leader replaced with his elder brother? One of the great valid criticisms facing Labour in the Blair to Brown handover was that it was a coronation; replacing Miliband Junior with Senior would seem more like an inheritance. Additionally, if David is a part of his brother's cabinet, then the failure will also reflect on him.

    Perhaps that problem would be overcome by having another leader serve in between the two brothers, but that would push back the time that David Miliband can become leader. Whatever happens, I cannot see him becoming Labour leader - yet alone PM - before 2020. And several other young and hungry Labour MPs will be snapping at his heels by then.

    For these reasons I doubt that he will ever become PM, barring any serious changed in circumstances. And that has to be a personal tragedy for him.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Scott_P said:

    Scottish Labour, the country's dominant political force for more than half a century, had lost 39 of its 40 seats to the SNP, including in Murphy's East Renfrewshire constituency. Some of Murphy's supporters were quick to absolve him of blame for the terrible state of his party.

    Since 1999, they said Scottish Labour had failed to adapt to devolution, elected a succession of bad leaders, selected dud candidates, produced shoddy manifestos and watched as the party's MPs treated MSPs like second-class citizens.

    The lessons from Labour's defeats at the hands of the SNP at the last two Holyrood elections were also ignored and the referendum, which saw the party haemorrhage votes to the SNP, accelerated the decline.

    However, other party insiders - candidates, elected representatives and activists - say the new leader made the toxic legacy he inherited worse, not better. "He snatched catastrophe from the jaws of defeat," said one.
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scottish-labour-inside-the-campaign-from-hell.125560928

    Some seats naturally fell off the radar at Labour headquarters, but in the latter stages of the campaign insiders believed favouritism trumped effort as resources were diverted to the established "sons and daughters" - code for Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander and Margaret Curran, the latter of whom was believed to be an undeserving resource-hogger.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @stephenkb: The worst type of Labour arrogance to assume that what every non-Tory party *really* wants is to be is the Labour Party.

    @stephenkb: The votes for the SNP, Greens, Ukip, Left Unity et al were not votes for Labour in disguise. They were votes for other parties.
  • Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH

    "For Labour this has been five wasted years. It’s gone backwards in terms of seats and has failed to build any foundations for future renewal"


    Lawson, chair of the Compass pressure group says this as tho it's a bad thing :lol:
    Has there been any calls for an independent judge led inquiry yet?

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH

    "striking of a German style CDU/CSU relationship with the SNP"

    Unbelievable. The CSU doesn't want independence for Bavaria. These guys must take the British public for complete fools to even consider this idea. Labour just got thumped on the back of a possible partnership with the SNP and these guys want to legitimise it. What on earth are they thinking. Worse than Cornerstone these lot.
    I missed that gem....
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Scott_P said:

    If Dair is right (he's not) why have Nicola and this morning Hosey said in every interview since the oil price fell they don't want FFA?

    They're f*cked, and they know it.

    Do you usually negotiate by making it clear you are desperate for an outcome or do you play it cool and get the best possible deal?

    I guess maybe you do the former.
  • Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Cameron should offer Nicola FFA and watch her MPs vote it down

    Dave "Here's the FFA you asked for"

    Nicola "No thanks"

    Dave "But you said you wanted it, and would vote for it, live on national TV"

    Nicola "Mebbes Aye, mebbes Naw. What about the Union dividend and fiscal transfers?"

    Dave "No problem. With FFA there is no Barnett formula, but if you are a bit short there are 2 things you can do. You can borrow from UK HMG at market rates plus 2 points (you're a bad credit risk), or you can have a Scottish hardship fund, henceforth to be called 'The English Subsidise the Spendthrift Scots Payments' for as long as you need"

    Dave's options are too limited to impose a settlement.

    If his goal is to maintain the Union and the only way he can do that is by agreeing a negotiated settlement including the extent of Fiscal Transfers.

    The alternative is, as you say, to impose a settlement, the exact value of the Fiscal Transfer stops being theoretical and becomes physical, the Scottish Government can even call it the "England Subsidy" and highlight it in every bit of material they send out and every budget they set. This only leads to one outcome. Independence passed by a massive majority and ending the fiscal transfer in its entirety.

    It's actually worse for Dave. He could end up having no net Fiscal Transfer from Scotland and end up agreeing to pay a few billion a year to make up for investment spending Scotland should have had between 1980 and 2014 but didn't have because we were subsidising England.
    I think we should go for a fully federal UK. A UK parliament in westminster and 4 national ones with clear distinction over the powers for each level). A UK level tax base should be raised to fund all federal stuff (defense, foreign, treasury, etc) plus around 20% GDP to distribute as equal block grants per capita to the nations to spend as they will. Any nation wishing to spend more can tax more locally without limit. No nation level borrowing - the UK deficit to be the key competence of the UK parliament.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    edited May 2015
    EPG said:

    He spoke about Islamophobic attacks

    It seems he did no such thing. Here is how it is reported in the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-labour-will-toughen-hate-crimes-legislation-surrounding-islamophobia-10203918.html
    Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party will make Islamophobia an aggravated crime, toughing existing hate crime legislation.

    Mr Miliband also said that his party intended to ensure that instances of Islamophobia were marked on peoples’ records, in an interview with The Muslim News.

    Although Islamophobia already falls under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006, whereby it is punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, Mr Miliband’s proposal would allow authorities to hand down tougher sentences for similar crimes.

    “We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” he said.
    This does not clearly state that he is going to make "Islamophobic assault" an aggravated crime of violence, he talks about Islamophobia in general. Is is quite possibly meaningless crap, but certainly vague enough for people to interpret it as an attack on freedom of speech, making it an offence to criticise Islam, etc.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited May 2015

    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH

    "For Labour this has been five wasted years. It’s gone backwards in terms of seats and has failed to build any foundations for future renewal"


    Lawson, chair of the Compass pressure group says this as tho it's a bad thing :lol:
    Has there been any calls for an independent judge led inquiry yet?

    Give it time Mr Pubgoer, give it time :lol:

    Some of the bleating from Labour is down right pittiful, I fear we shall see a lot more nonesense before they realise they had no one to blame but themselves. Oh and Ed really was crap btw..!
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,929

    Freggles said:

    Just as well we have a freedom loving Home Secretary who would never introduce an Islamophobia law:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html

    Oh wait...

    I wonder if THIS will be discussed at length for days on here or OH LOOK A SQUIRREL
    The Tell Mama project on islamophobia was founded under the Coalition too:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html

    Interesting to see that 57% of the 212 "islamophobic" incidents recorded after the Lee Rigby Murder were online. Nasty, I am sure, but not exactly mobs with pitchforks.

    Probably the best way of stopping islamophobia would be for radical islamists stopping their murderous activities at home and abroad. It is quite noticeable that we do not have a problem with Hinduophobic, Sikhophobic, Bhuddaphobic crimes...
    Anti-semitism? Islamophobia is a problematic term but it seems to me that attacks against Muslims should be taken very seriously. Ed's mistake from what I could tell was that he singled it out on its own, although he might have said anti-semitism aswell. But if a change in the law was needed it should surely be a general religious hate law that applies to everyone. It might be attacks on Jews or Muslims that seem most likely but you can't single them out as somehow more important than attacks on Christians, Sikhs and Hindus.

    Where do you draw the line with freedom of speech and expression? Should we turn a blind eye to people painting swastikas on Synagogues or kill the Muslims on Mosques?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Dair said:

    Do you usually negotiate by making it clear you are desperate for an outcome or do you play it cool and get the best possible deal?

    Do you start by saying live on National TV, "I want it, I will vote for it", before saying "Well I really don't want it now..." ?

    I guess so
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    Scott_P said:

    Almost laughing too hard to type...

    Banning political opinion polls in the run-up to elections or referendums should be given serious consideration, according to former ministers.

    Calls to radically rethink how both the media and politicians rely on polls came as YouGov’s president admitted all the major pollsters had passed over signs of a looming Tory victory, and continued to indicate that the parties were neck-and-neck in the run-up to election day.

    Lord Foulkes, a former Labour Scotland minister, has published a bill, which he will put to the new ballot system in the House of Lords, calling for the establishment of an Ofcom-style independent regulator of the polling industry, which would then rule on whether to ban or restrict political polling in the run-up to elections.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/former-labour-ministers-call-for-ban-on-pre-election-polls-to-be-considered

    Labour you lost can you stop trying to ban things for five minutes.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    surbiton said:

    acf2310 said:

    grahambc1 said:

    Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.

    It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.

    I'm not sure even his mum would go as far as telegenic looks.
    Burnham would be akin to re-electing Ed. Too many ties to Brown, an NHS record that's just waiting to be demolished, too close to the unions. So as a Tory, I'd love to see him elected.

    Jarvis would be a formidable leader. Kendall seems interesting.

    Umunna would be a disaster -- exudes an arrogance that would turn off Labour's core vote without winning anyone new to replace them.

    I still "fancy" Rachel :)
    Miliband's voice replaced with that one. You like the nasal stuff - admit it !
    But having said that, Liz looks OK :)
    As I have pointed out on a number of occasions!

    You would have to take on her 6'8" partner though:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Davies

    Another bit of Kendall trivia: she was at school with another MP, sometimes touted as a potential Conservative leader, Pritti Patel. Despite its name, Watford Grammar School for Girls was a non-selective school at the time.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ok, I am having trouble keeping up with this now.

    We had the feast.

    We had the waffer theen meent

    We discussed the cherry on the icing of the cake, but we forgot the postprandial brandy...

    @georgegalloway: We've begun legal proceedings seeking to have result of the Bfd West election set aside. I cannot therefor discuss my own election for now.

    The cigars are on standby
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Cameron should offer Nicola FFA and watch her MPs vote it down

    Dave "Here's the FFA you asked for"

    Nicola "No thanks"

    Dave "But you said you wanted it, and would vote for it, live on national TV"

    Nicola "Mebbes Aye, mebbes Naw. What about the Union dividend and fiscal transfers?"

    Dave "No problem. With FFA there is no Barnett formula, but if you are a bit short there are 2 things you can do. You can borrow from UK HMG at market rates plus 2 points (you're a bad credit risk), or you can have a Scottish hardship fund, henceforth to be called 'The English Subsidise the Spendthrift Scots Payments' for as long as you need"

    Dave's options are too limited to impose a settlement.

    If his goal is to maintain the Union and the only way he can do that is by agreeing a negotiated settlement including the extent of Fiscal Transfers.

    ... This only leads to one outcome. Independence ...

    We can but hope. If I were in Cameron's shoes I'd pass a law making it mandatory for the Scots to have a referendum every year until they voted the right way.
    Smart move Mr L on that basis they'd always vote to stay in just to piss the english off:-)
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Magnificent way to deal with dissonance of defeat: contract out the "betrayal" phase to an independent inquiry http://t.co/t69KXoqNwH

    "In light of the existential crisis it faces it should consider changing its name to something more appropriate for the 21st century"

    Benefits?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    At least is not as bad as the loony Sion Simon who was as deluded as its possible to get

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045

    Scott_P said:

    Almost laughing too hard to type...

    Banning political opinion polls in the run-up to elections or referendums should be given serious consideration, according to former ministers.

    Calls to radically rethink how both the media and politicians rely on polls came as YouGov’s president admitted all the major pollsters had passed over signs of a looming Tory victory, and continued to indicate that the parties were neck-and-neck in the run-up to election day.

    Lord Foulkes, a former Labour Scotland minister, has published a bill, which he will put to the new ballot system in the House of Lords, calling for the establishment of an Ofcom-style independent regulator of the polling industry, which would then rule on whether to ban or restrict political polling in the run-up to elections.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/former-labour-ministers-call-for-ban-on-pre-election-polls-to-be-considered
    Labour you lost can you stop trying to ban things for five minutes.

    They are going to ban losing at elections, perhaps :D
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    Seems Ed has offered himself to the new shadow cabinet - the test of a new leader will be to say NO - it's beyond belief that he thinks he can contribute, but that kind of misguided self belief was a huge element in labour's downfall
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015
    Scott_P said:

    Ok, I am having trouble keeping up with this now.

    We had the feast.

    We had the waffer theen meent

    We discussed the cherry on the icing of the cake, but we forgot the postprandial brandy...

    @georgegalloway: We've begun legal proceedings seeking to have result of the Bfd West election set aside. I cannot therefor discuss my own election for now.

    The cigars are on standby

    I really hope that brewery he had a run in with has a nice surprise for him....

    Edit: Just checked their twitter and they are rather enjoying the election result :-)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    I'm sure Mr Jarvis reminds me of a children's TV character. Which one?

    image
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    See that they believe that independent Boundary Commission updating the boundaries is "gerrymandering." They should not judge others by their own actions and desires.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Here's my solution to the Scotland question. I'd make the Scots have another independence referendum but with a twist. If they vote no again that would be the end of devolution and we'd go back to being one nation.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Scott_P said:

    Dair said:

    Do you usually negotiate by making it clear you are desperate for an outcome or do you play it cool and get the best possible deal?

    Do you start by saying live on National TV, "I want it, I will vote for it", before saying "Well I really don't want it now..." ?

    I guess so
    You play it exactly as the SNP are playing it.

    You make it a clear and defined goal. You wait for your opponents to be forced into offering it and the more likely it gets and the more pressure your opponents get from their supporters, you start to sound as if you are reticent. As the pressure builds on your opponent they are then negotiating from a weak position and believe your position is stronger than they think.

    It's a very clear strategy if you understand the fundamental numbers underneath. The Scottish Deficity is ~£7.6bn and Fiscal Transfers from Scotland to England are ~£12bn.
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    alex.

    Get used to it. Your guys took one hell of a beating.

    Everything the SNP have done has been played on the Salmond game book - a magnificent 10.

    1) Backing devo in 1997
    2) Oposition in Scottish Palrimament 1999
    3) Standing down in 2000.
    4) Return with Nicola Sturgeon 2004
    5) Minority Government 2007
    6) Majority Government 2011
    7) Referendum starts at 30% YES finishes 45% YES
    8) Resignation to pave way for La Sturgeon
    9) Stands for Westminster 2015 - 9th straight victory in four different constituencies!
    10) 2016 Will run the Tories ragged on EU poll.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Dair said:


    You play it exactly as the SNP are playing it.

    you start by saying live on National TV, "I want it, I will vote for it", before saying "Well I really don't want it now..."

    Ok, got it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Jim Messina, looking like a pudgier Beck, explains the victory on American TV. http://bit.ly/1zUm1FM
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    scotslass said:

    alex.

    Get used to it. Your guys took one hell of a beating.

    Everything the SNP have done has been played on the Salmond game book - a magnificent 10.

    1) Backing devo in 1997
    2) Oposition in Scottish Palrimament 1999
    3) Standing down in 2000.
    4) Return with Nicola Sturgeon 2004
    5) Minority Government 2007
    6) Majority Government 2011
    7) Referendum starts at 30% YES finishes 45% YES
    8) Resignation to pave way for La Sturgeon
    9) Stands for Westminster 2015 - 9th straight victory in four different constituencies!
    10) 2016 Will run the Tories ragged on EU poll.

    How? Do you really expect the EU not to give enough fig leave concessions to force Cameron to campaign to leave Europe....

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    Just watching the start of the BAFTAs... Norton's speech is just typical of comedy on the BBC. Tory bashing
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @gabyhinsliff: Nothing says forlorn like a 'LibDems Winning Here!' poster outside house whose owner presumably didn't have the heart to take it down

    I drove through Witney today. The only posters still visible were UKIP...
This discussion has been closed.