Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The new one member one vote rules will transform Labour’s l

SystemSystem Posts: 11,698
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The new one member one vote rules will transform Labour’s leadership election

Well we are off in the race to find the next LAB leader. Last night one of the most heavily tipped possible runners, ex-army Major Dan Jarvis, announced that he would not be putting his name forward. A few hours earlier the relatively unknown Liz Kendall told Andrew Neil in a live TV interview that she would (link above).

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,115
    edited May 2015
    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night
  • Options
    The roots of the Labour Party were "people reaching out to help other people?"

    Gosh, as a foreigner, I learn so much watching the news.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    And so it begins...

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/european-commission-migrant-quota-plan-mediterranean-crisis

    The EU’s executive body is to unveil radical new proposals on immigration, imposing migrant quotas on the 28 countries of the union under a distribution “key” system set by Brussels. The plan, which is supported by Germany and will be fiercely resisted by the new Conservative government, will be launched by the European commission on Wednesday in response to migrant boat crisis in the Mediterranean
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Interestingly, Grant Shapps' majority in Welwyn Hatfield went down 6.6%.

    The real Michael Green picked up 216 votes :)
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    Pong said:

    Interestingly, Grant Shapps' majority in Welwyn Hatfield went down 6.6%.

    The real Michael Green picked up 216 votes :)

    Worth £500? :p
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    HYUFD said:

    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night

    Why would it be a betrayal? He has never said he would campaign for Out, only that he would offer a referendum and that he would seek repatriation of certain powers. If he negotiates in good faith on the latter and is good to his word on holding the referendum, it would take a willful misinterpretation of his promises to conclude he had betrayed the Outers.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    “Labour leadership: A scan of runners and riders reveals poor form - or no form at all.”

    [..] in 1992 there was more than a natural successor to Neil Kinnock. In the portly, Sergeant Bilko-esque form of John Smith, there was an inevitable successor with experience, intellect, gravitas, a coherent political philosophy, and both the brogue and leftish perspective to appeal to Scotland.

    As the latest battle for what might charitably be called Labour’s soul commences, things are different. All the candidates are either established second-raters or unknown quantities, while the problems they face are incalculably more immense. Whichever poor sod ends up winning will find him- or herself grappling with questions to which there are no obvious answers, and possibly no answers at all.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-leadership-a-scan-of-runners-and-riders-reveals-poor-form--or-no-form-at-all-10240103.html
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    And so it begins...

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/european-commission-migrant-quota-plan-mediterranean-crisis

    The EU’s executive body is to unveil radical new proposals on immigration, imposing migrant quotas on the 28 countries of the union under a distribution “key” system set by Brussels. The plan, which is supported by Germany and will be fiercely resisted by the new Conservative government, will be launched by the European commission on Wednesday in response to migrant boat crisis in the Mediterranean

    Presumably, this would require substantial amendment or repeal of the Dublin III Regulation (Council and Parliament Regulation 604/2013/EU). The United Kingdom has a veto over any such amendment, and, subject to our right to opt in to a measure, is exempt from the general application of Title V of Part 3 of TFEU (see Protocol 21 to the Treaties). Unless the Commission has come up with an innovative basis for this proposal in the Treaties, we ought to be able to opt out from the measure.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    The people on the last thread wondering about why politicians accept a headline pay increase and then "voluntarily repay' some should look at pensions and other benefits. These are usually based on headline pay...

    FWIW, I think Labour are ill-served by people petitioning for the removal of new ministers, etc. They may not be Labour-people, but the association of the "left" being unwilling to accept the verdict of the people is quite striking

    As for the contenders to the crown, there are none that strike me as having the necessarily skills, experience or gravitas. Labour may get lucky - as the Tories did when they selected the unproven Cameron in 2005 - but they may not. Please let it be Chuka though!! I might even join to vote for him.

    As an aside, I think someone said 50% of Labour members are in London. This could be a challenge for them to the extent that Londoners prefer a candidate who speaks to their interests/style rather than someone with a nationwide appeal
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    The Labour cupboard is bare, the list of candidates is comically poor. EdM looks like a giant compared to these dwarves.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763
    edited May 2015
    Charles said:

    The people on the last thread wondering about why politicians accept a headline pay increase and then "voluntarily repay' some should look at pensions and other benefits. These are usually based on headline pay...

    FWIW, I think Labour are ill-served by people petitioning for the removal of new ministers, etc. They may not be Labour-people, but the association of the "left" being unwilling to accept the verdict of the people is quite striking

    As for the contenders to the crown, there are none that strike me as having the necessarily skills, experience or gravitas. Labour may get lucky - as the Tories did when they selected the unproven Cameron in 2005 - but they may not. Please let it be Chuka though!! I might even join to vote for him.

    As an aside, I think someone said 50% of Labour members are in London. This could be a challenge for them to the extent that Londoners prefer a candidate who speaks to their interests/style rather than someone with a nationwide appeal

    Pah Charles you TPD, Burnham is the man all the righties want. Chuka would only be a disaster whereas Andy would be a total disaster. Get with the programme :-)
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    The Labour cupboard is bare, the list of candidates is comically poor. EdM looks like a giant compared to these dwarves.

    Damning with faint praise indeed, but backing even the lowliest candidate can be profitable.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,981
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    The people on the last thread wondering about why politicians accept a headline pay increase and then "voluntarily repay' some should look at pensions and other benefits. These are usually based on headline pay...

    FWIW, I think Labour are ill-served by people petitioning for the removal of new ministers, etc. They may not be Labour-people, but the association of the "left" being unwilling to accept the verdict of the people is quite striking

    As for the contenders to the crown, there are none that strike me as having the necessarily skills, experience or gravitas. Labour may get lucky - as the Tories did when they selected the unproven Cameron in 2005 - but they may not. Please let it be Chuka though!! I might even join to vote for him.

    As an aside, I think someone said 50% of Labour members are in London. This could be a challenge for them to the extent that Londoners prefer a candidate who speaks to their interests/style rather than someone with a nationwide appeal

    Pah Charles you TPD, Burnham is the man all the righties want. Chuka would only be a disaster whereas Andy would be a total disaster. Get with the programme :-)
    Burnham will play to the safezone, and try to emote his way to victory. But won't destroy Labour in the process. Chuka is a talentless blowhard with an over-inflated sense of his own capabilities. He's more likely to be reckless and make a catastrophic error. Plus, I don't see him going down as well in the gritty Midlands as the likes of Paul Nuttall or Suzanne Evans...
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night

    it would take a willful misinterpretation of his promises to conclude he had betrayed the Outers.
    The BOOers will be forever be 'betrayed' until we are 'out' - similarly with the Nats & Independence - though the funniest thing with Sturgeon is how full independence would only take 18 months, while FFA will take 'several years'....I wonder why? |Innocent Face|
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
    Ironically, it may have been via twitter and youtube that the election was won.

    The specific complaint here seems to be about cover-ups of child sex abuse by the Establishment. The connection with defaced war memorials is spurious.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The people on the last thread wondering about why politicians accept a headline pay increase and then "voluntarily repay' some should look at pensions and other benefits. These are usually based on headline pay...

    FWIW, I think Labour are ill-served by people petitioning for the removal of new ministers, etc. They may not be Labour-people, but the association of the "left" being unwilling to accept the verdict of the people is quite striking

    As for the contenders to the crown, there are none that strike me as having the necessarily skills, experience or gravitas. Labour may get lucky - as the Tories did when they selected the unproven Cameron in 2005 - but they may not. Please let it be Chuka though!! I might even join to vote for him.

    As an aside, I think someone said 50% of Labour members are in London. This could be a challenge for them to the extent that Londoners prefer a candidate who speaks to their interests/style rather than someone with a nationwide appeal

    Pah Charles you TPD, Burnham is the man all the righties want. Chuka would only be a disaster whereas Andy would be a total disaster. Get with the programme :-)
    Burnham will play to the safezone, and try to emote his way to victory. But won't destroy Labour in the process. Chuka is a talentless blowhard with an over-inflated sense of his own capabilities. He's more likely to be reckless and make a catastrophic error. Plus, I don't see him going down as well in the gritty Midlands as the likes of Paul Nuttall or Suzanne Evans...
    yes but everyone knows Chuka is a talentless peacock. Burnham is a man of the left who will tie himself in knots with Labour's contradictions, so when he leads them to defeat again and the formula doesn't work the party may well just disintegrate afterwards.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785

    Charles said:

    The people on the last thread wondering about why politicians accept a headline pay increase and then "voluntarily repay' some should look at pensions and other benefits. These are usually based on headline pay...

    FWIW, I think Labour are ill-served by people petitioning for the removal of new ministers, etc. They may not be Labour-people, but the association of the "left" being unwilling to accept the verdict of the people is quite striking

    As for the contenders to the crown, there are none that strike me as having the necessarily skills, experience or gravitas. Labour may get lucky - as the Tories did when they selected the unproven Cameron in 2005 - but they may not. Please let it be Chuka though!! I might even join to vote for him.

    As an aside, I think someone said 50% of Labour members are in London. This could be a challenge for them to the extent that Londoners prefer a candidate who speaks to their interests/style rather than someone with a nationwide appeal

    Pah Charles you TPD, Burnham is the man all the righties want. Chuka would only be a disaster whereas Andy would be a total disaster. Get with the programme :-)
    And a potentially strong candidate - Jarvis - has ruled himself out - but still has time to come back in a decade or so...

    Stepping back, clearly the model from the Tories is 'posh public school boys rock' - so why not The Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt, FRHistS. I mean, he's got an 'The Honourable' in front of his name and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society - must be posher than Cameron, if such a thing is possible.....
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night

    it would take a willful misinterpretation of his promises to conclude he had betrayed the Outers.
    The BOOers will be forever be 'betrayed' until we are 'out' - similarly with the Nats & Independence - though the funniest thing with Sturgeon is how full independence would only take 18 months, while FFA will take 'several years'....I wonder why? |Innocent Face|
    Unless they pull their fingers out BOO have already lost the referendum. Their best chance is the EU commission do something crass beforehand. I couldn't in all honesty rule that out.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
    Ironically, it may have been via twitter and youtube that the election was won.

    It really wasn’t you know. - The improving economy and employment figures as reported by the MSM played a far greater role than any twitter account.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,981

    The Labour cupboard is bare, the list of candidates is comically poor. EdM looks like a giant compared to these dwarves.

    Damning with faint praise indeed, but backing even the lowliest candidate can be profitable.
    Or laying them as with Jarvis and David Miliband :)
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited May 2015
    Are there any video clips out there of Liz Kendall in a more confrontational setting? Andrew Neil seems uncharacteristically soft-ball in the clip, although maybe part of that is that she's doing a good job at disarming lines of attack before they become overtly hostile.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763


    British Chambers of Commerce have sent Cameron their shopping list. Exactly the same as in 2010. Shows just how little Osborne has done.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Labour need to be careful not to fight the last war. There is a suspiciously rapid consensus in the press that Ed Miliband lost because he was too weird and not Blairite enough. Leave aside that five days ago he looked set for victory, this still seems too pat to me.

    What is clear, however, is that the next Labour leader needs to build a broader coalition. That doesn't necessarily mean moving left or right, it means having a sense of purpose that persuades more people. That can be built in multiple ways, but requires above all a leader who recognises that. It should not be about ticking boxes marked Blairite or left-winger.

    AndyJS's work overnight shows that Labour is more likely than not to require two terms as a minimum to return to power. The choice of leader should reflect that. It would be better to choose someone less experienced but with more vision than someone polished in the familiar losing ways. They're going to have the time to get the experience.

    As a moderately friendly outsider, I believe that the Labour Party has more than one candidate who could do this job well. I also believe that they aren't among most of the frontrunners. Liz Kendall is a possible in my view.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,045

    Charles said:

    The people on the last thread wondering about why politicians accept a headline pay increase and then "voluntarily repay' some should look at pensions and other benefits. These are usually based on headline pay...

    FWIW, I think Labour are ill-served by people petitioning for the removal of new ministers, etc. They may not be Labour-people, but the association of the "left" being unwilling to accept the verdict of the people is quite striking

    As for the contenders to the crown, there are none that strike me as having the necessarily skills, experience or gravitas. Labour may get lucky - as the Tories did when they selected the unproven Cameron in 2005 - but they may not. Please let it be Chuka though!! I might even join to vote for him.

    As an aside, I think someone said 50% of Labour members are in London. This could be a challenge for them to the extent that Londoners prefer a candidate who speaks to their interests/style rather than someone with a nationwide appeal

    Pah Charles you TPD, Burnham is the man all the righties want. Chuka would only be a disaster whereas Andy would be a total disaster. Get with the programme :-)
    And a potentially strong candidate - Jarvis - has ruled himself out - but still has time to come back in a decade or so...

    Stepping back, clearly the model from the Tories is 'posh public school boys rock' - so why not The Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt, FRHistS. I mean, he's got an 'The Honourable' in front of his name and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society - must be posher than Cameron, if such a thing is possible.....
    Attlee was quite “posh” wasn’t he? Haileybury.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,957
    The new voting rules are very significant and are good news for someone like Liz Kendall. The other key factor, though, is timing. An early contest favours a Burnham or a Cooper; a later one gives less well-known candidates the chance to build a profile.

    As we are talking about Labour here, we can pretty much count on all the wrong choices being made. So expect a July contest with Burnham coming out on top.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
    Ironically, it may have been via twitter and youtube that the election was won.

    It really wasn’t you know. - The improving economy and employment figures as reported by the MSM played a far greater role than any twitter account.
    The election was won by Jim Messina's voter targeting, which is why there were swings to Labour where it did not matter and to the Conservatives where it did. One corollary of this is that the so-called unprecedented swing needed by Labour next time is not insurmountable provided the new leader gets the logistics right and is not surrounded by the same bunch of twerps and chancers as last time.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785

    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
    Ironically, it may have been via twitter and youtube that the election was won.
    Not Twitter:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11590772/Who-won-the-Twitter-campaign-battle.html

    As with SindyRef - Twitter is a giant echo chamber where supporters of a particular view tweet and retweet each other working themselves into paroxysms of excitement - convinced they are changing the world. Meanwhile, the world is changing around them.....
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785

    Are there any video clips out there of Liz Kendall in a more confrontational setting? Andrew Neil seems uncharacteristically soft-ball in the clip, although maybe part of that is that she's doing a good job at disarming lines of attack before they become overtly hostile.

    Yes - perhaps exhaustion after the election marathon - but she also answered the questions quite skilfully.......
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,001
    As a Labour supporter I'm quietly encouraged by what I'm hearing so far. The interventions of grandees such as Mandelson, Johnson, Hutton and Darling have been useful. They're all saying essentially the same thing: there should be no rush to install a new leader. What is needed is investigation into how Miliband got it so catastrophically wrong, while Creasy, Kendall et al. get the chance to prove their potential. There's also recognition of the pressing need to find ways to reconnect with middle-England, Scotland and business.

    What has been very notable is that no-one who counts has come out for Burnham, Cooper or Umunna. They've all been damaged by their association with the Miiband strategy, and I suspect (and very much hope) the new leader will be someone from the next generation.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited May 2015
    antifrank said:

    Labour need to be careful not to fight the last war. There is a suspiciously rapid consensus in the press that Ed Miliband lost because he was too weird and not Blairite enough. Leave aside that five days ago he looked set for victory, this still seems too pat to me.

    What is clear, however, is that the next Labour leader needs to build a broader coalition. That doesn't necessarily mean moving left or right, it means having a sense of purpose that persuades more people. That can be built in multiple ways, but requires above all a leader who recognises that. It should not be about ticking boxes marked Blairite or left-winger.

    AndyJS's work overnight shows that Labour is more likely than not to require two terms as a minimum to return to power. The choice of leader should reflect that. It would be better to choose someone less experienced but with more vision than someone polished in the familiar losing ways. They're going to have the time to get the experience.

    As a moderately friendly outsider, I believe that the Labour Party has more than one candidate who could do this job well. I also believe that they aren't among most of the frontrunners. Liz Kendall is a possible in my view.

    Labour only looked likely to do well if you believed the polls.. Its a huge error to implicitly believe polls. I posted a month before the GE that the polls had to be wrong, every fibre in my body told me so, and so it proved..

    Ed was never going to win or be PM. His strategy meant that the middle ground was ceded before the campaign started and that's before you talk about him as a person.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    edited May 2015

    Charles said:

    The people on the last thread wondering about why politicians accept a headline pay increase and then "voluntarily repay' some should look at pensions and other benefits. These are usually based on headline pay...

    FWIW, I think Labour are ill-served by people petitioning for the removal of new ministers, etc. They may not be Labour-people, but the association of the "left" being unwilling to accept the verdict of the people is quite striking

    As for the contenders to the crown, there are none that strike me as having the necessarily skills, experience or gravitas. Labour may get lucky - as the Tories did when they selected the unproven Cameron in 2005 - but they may not. Please let it be Chuka though!! I might even join to vote for him.

    As an aside, I think someone said 50% of Labour members are in London. This could be a challenge for them to the extent that Londoners prefer a candidate who speaks to their interests/style rather than someone with a nationwide appeal

    Pah Charles you TPD, Burnham is the man all the righties want. Chuka would only be a disaster whereas Andy would be a total disaster. Get with the programme :-)
    And a potentially strong candidate - Jarvis - has ruled himself out - but still has time to come back in a decade or so...

    Stepping back, clearly the model from the Tories is 'posh public school boys rock' - so why not The Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt, FRHistS. I mean, he's got an 'The Honourable' in front of his name and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society - must be posher than Cameron, if such a thing is possible.....
    Attlee was quite “posh” wasn’t he? Haileybury.
    Yep - and not only did he 'kiss a Tory' - he married one - I love the stories of Violet Attlee scaring the willies out of Special Branch as she drove Clement around during Election campaigns.....they regularly struggled to keep up....
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Are there any video clips out there of Liz Kendall in a more confrontational setting? Andrew Neil seems uncharacteristically soft-ball in the clip, although maybe part of that is that she's doing a good job at disarming lines of attack before they become overtly hostile.

    Liz Kendall also answered Andrew Neil's questions rather than stonewalling or making completely unrelated points as most politicians do. Perhaps she skipped media training.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited May 2015
    RobD said:

    Pong said:

    Interestingly, Grant Shapps' majority in Welwyn Hatfield went down 6.6%.

    The real Michael Green picked up 216 votes :)

    Worth £500? :p
    lol.

    I proposed a bet on here that he would get under 25,000 votes which no-one took me up on.

    I would have very narrowly lost - He got 25,281.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
    Ironically, it may have been via twitter and youtube that the election was won.

    It really wasn’t you know. - The improving economy and employment figures as reported by the MSM played a far greater role than any twitter account.
    The election was won by Jim Messina's voter targeting, which is why there were swings to Labour where it did not matter and to the Conservatives where it did. One corollary of this is that the so-called unprecedented swing needed by Labour next time is not insurmountable provided the new leader gets the logistics right and is not surrounded by the same bunch of twerps and chancers as last time.
    The election was not won via Twitter and Youtube, period.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    LabourList content to go on losing...
    Then there is the problem of Labour’s lack of economic credibility. A short, simple answer to the charge of having “spent too much” was never found. Few serious economists really think the last Labour government adopted a reckless fiscal position.
    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/forward-not-back/
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,957

    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
    Ironically, it may have been via twitter and youtube that the election was won.

    It really wasn’t you know. - The improving economy and employment figures as reported by the MSM played a far greater role than any twitter account.
    The election was won by Jim Messina's voter targeting, which is why there were swings to Labour where it did not matter and to the Conservatives where it did. One corollary of this is that the so-called unprecedented swing needed by Labour next time is not insurmountable provided the new leader gets the logistics right and is not surrounded by the same bunch of twerps and chancers as last time.

    I agree with this. The new Labour leader needs to learn the lesson that Messina and Crosby clearly understood - there are 630 individual contests to fight and in a FPTP, multi-party system small swings can deliver very big results. The Labour vote went up by 700,000, there was a slight overall swing to Labour, yet the Tories got an overall majority and Labour lost seats. Increasingly, it seems, elections will be won in front of computer screens.

    Other factors to bear in mind: Scotland is likely to be far less of a factor next time - either the Tories will have lost the Union or there will be a new constitutional settlement, with all that implies for the SNP; we will have a Tory majority government with no-one else to blame for the decisions it makes - that could work out well for them, or a lot of people may switch back to the anti-Tory camp; Ed will not be Labour leader, Dave will not be Tory leader; higher interest rates and, therefore, mortgage payments; the likelihood of a recession; the UK's poor economic fundamentals - productivity, low exports, etc - cannot continue to be hidden by other factors; and so on.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,360
    Labour lost for a number of reasons of which Ed's alleged weirdness was only one. If they are to change their fortunes they need to reflect carefully on why they lost before they choose another leader who will immediately be attacked as weird, extreme, not up to it, incoherent, etc etc

    For me, the big issue was the economy. Ed seemed to have 2 responses to the economy. Firstly he wanted to regulate it, whether it was energy bills, rents, banks, ZHCs, wage levels, it just went on and on.

    Secondly, if it was making money (or actually whether it was making money or not) he wanted to tax it, especially our successful banking sector.

    What he never seemed to have was any vision of how to help it grow and create jobs for people. Indeed there was a constant decrying and belittling of the growth of employment during the Coalition, one of their indisputable successes. He was not really helped in this by Balls who was obsessed with fiscal policy and the same sorts of sleight of hand that had worked so well under Brown. We will balance the current budget in the next Parliament was a typical example.

    Surely there are people in the Labour party who care about the real economy. We still have over 4m working in the public sector but we have more than 26m working in the private sector. Many of these are poorly paid, poorly trained, poorly qualified and dependent on state benefits to get anywhere near a living wage. A Labour leader can find a lot to say about this and get a hearing if they make it clear that they recognise the importance of making money to pay for public services.

    For me Burnham not only doesn't get this, he simply has no concept of it. He is entirely concerned with the 4m instead of the 26m, with the protection of and featherbedding of the public sector workforce. Labour cannot win elections that way.

    Chuka seems to have a better understanding of business but he is another London metropolitan. I think this makes him a good bet given that 50% of the electorate fall into that category but it will not necessarily make him a good leader.

    The lack of talent in Labour's ranks is painful. They are not alone in this respect. Politics has become ever more brutal and unattractive to those with talent to match their ego. But I think that Labour really need not to rush to judgement on this choice.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955
    edited May 2015
    Pulpstar said:
    The worst thing of all - being Michael Gove.
  • Options
    Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    edited May 2015
    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night

    .... it would take a willful misinterpretation of his promises ...
    I think you will find that is the Kippers' forte
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,957

    Are there any video clips out there of Liz Kendall in a more confrontational setting? Andrew Neil seems uncharacteristically soft-ball in the clip, although maybe part of that is that she's doing a good job at disarming lines of attack before they become overtly hostile.

    Neil is brilliant at dissecting a particular line or policy - especially when figures are involved - this was a much more abstract conversation, which I imagine all politicians prefer. Kendall did well, though. I liked the way she leaned towards him, showing that she was really engaged and not just totting off platitudes.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    edited May 2015
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The worst thing of all - being Michael Gove.
    "He is only guilty of being Michael Gove. That is his crime, it is also his punishment"
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955
    Scott_P said:

    LabourList content to go on losing...

    Then there is the problem of Labour’s lack of economic credibility. A short, simple answer to the charge of having “spent too much” was never found. Few serious economists really think the last Labour government adopted a reckless fiscal position.
    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/forward-not-back/
    We didn't spend too much, it was just too soon and it was the papers fault. That appears to be part of their.attitude. Could be true I guess but not helpful if that guess is wrong
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited May 2015

    Are there any video clips out there of Liz Kendall in a more confrontational setting? Andrew Neil seems uncharacteristically soft-ball in the clip, although maybe part of that is that she's doing a good job at disarming lines of attack before they become overtly hostile.

    Neil is brilliant at dissecting a particular line or policy - especially when figures are involved - this was a much more abstract conversation, which I imagine all politicians prefer. Kendall did well, though. I liked the way she leaned towards him, showing that she was really engaged and not just totting off platitudes.
    I watched the interview, Kendall’s forte was that she sounded (and looked) normal – after what went before, that alone should tie her in good stead.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Michael Gove's abrasiveness is exactly what is needed to shake up the legal establishment. If we don't hear squealing louder than piggies in an abattoir, he'll seriously disappoint me.

    It is a pointer that David Cameron does not intend Justice to be a quiet department.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    LabourList content to go on losing...

    Then there is the problem of Labour’s lack of economic credibility. A short, simple answer to the charge of having “spent too much” was never found. Few serious economists really think the last Labour government adopted a reckless fiscal position.
    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/forward-not-back/
    We didn't spend too much, it was just too soon and it was the papers fault. That appears to be part of their.attitude. Could be true I guess but not helpful if that guess is wrong


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/10-delusions-about-labour-defeat-watch-out
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    RobD said:
    Don't you understand?

    What matters these days is Twitter and YouTube...

    ...and if the ignorant ungrateful proles get their votes wrong, you deface war memorials......
    Ironically, it may have been via twitter and youtube that the election was won.

    It really wasn’t you know. - The improving economy and employment figures as reported by the MSM played a far greater role than any twitter account.
    The election was won by Jim Messina's voter targeting, which is why there were swings to Labour where it did not matter and to the Conservatives where it did. One corollary of this is that the so-called unprecedented swing needed by Labour next time is not insurmountable provided the new leader gets the logistics right and is not surrounded by the same bunch of twerps and chancers as last time.
    The election was not won via Twitter and Youtube, period.
    If you think that is the extent of Messina's work, then perhaps you were part of Miliband's inept team.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    I have spent much of the past 48 hours lying in bed staring at the ceiling, reading despairing, four-letter posts on social media and trying to work out how on earth this happened, as if anyone with half a brain doesn't know. The political elites closed ranks and capitulated to a politics of fear, first in Scotland, and then across the nation.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/dont-give-angry-population-hard-govern-depressed-population-easy
  • Options
    JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 378
    Tories have an overall UK majority but achieve their worst result (% vote) in Scotland since 1865 (not a typo!)

    Perhaps Theresa May was right after all :-)
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    Labour List thoughts on who Harriet will have on the Front Bench:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/what-should-we-expect-from-harriet-harmans-mini-reshuffle/

    I'm all for more exposure of Captain Underpants Chris Bryant (may be ambiguous - ed.)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS: Labour's acting leader @HarrietHarman warns against "scape goating and blame gaming" in leadership contest

    How's that working out for you, hun?

    @politicshome: Alistair Darling: We had no economic policy under Miliband http://t.co/y8meW3sGVG http://t.co/Tr1I2C1aFc
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,360
    Given this is their moment of triumph it is also worth looking ahead to see where this government is going to come seriously unstuck, not least since this is what will give Labour their opportunity.

    The European Referendum.(5/5 tripability). Unbelievably difficult. Dave has to put together a coherent package that he can sell to the British public. He will have to do so when his government is less popular and when he is on the way out. And he has to find a way that allows him to campaign for In without losing his small majority. If he manages this he will truly and properly regarded as a genius for the ages.

    The economy (4/5). Economic competence was the key to success but the economic cycle helped a great deal in that. In this Parliament there will be a recession, hopefully a mild one, during which borrowing will again increase from whatever level it is then at. Will probably adversely affect Osborne's chances.

    Scotland. (4/5). Doing a deal with the SNP and holding the Union together is going to be incredibly difficult. I don't think anyone appreciates how irrational and profound the hatred of tories is in the SNP. Sturgeon is much more comfortably in that mind set than Salmond ever was. She will be very, very hard to deal with.

    ECHR (2/5). The policy of withdrawing from the ECHR always struck me as one of the tories' silliest. There are limits about the extent to which it can be done within the EU for which it has always been a proxy amongst the minority who appreciated that it was not in fact the same. I like Gove but I recognise this puts me in a minority. His ability to wreak chaos in this area is not to be underrated.

    Team management (3/5). Party management was never a particular strength of Cameron's. He really cannot be bothered with the irrational and the obsessive. With a comfortable Coalition majority he got away with it, mainly. Now with a small majority and less of a ready excuse in the Lib Dems he will have problems in this area, especially because of 1 and 4 above. The fact that he will stand down in this Parliament won't help either.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    JPJ2 said:

    Tories have an overall UK majority but achieve their worst result (% vote) in Scotland since 1865 (not a typo!)

    How do the Lab & Lib Dem numbers look, for perspective?
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,499
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    LabourList content to go on losing...

    Then there is the problem of Labour’s lack of economic credibility. A short, simple answer to the charge of having “spent too much” was never found. Few serious economists really think the last Labour government adopted a reckless fiscal position.
    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/forward-not-back/
    We didn't spend too much, it was just too soon and it was the papers fault. That appears to be part of their.attitude. Could be true I guess but not helpful if that guess is wrong


    The problem is that they did overspend.

    If a person has racked up lots of debt, then loses their job, until they find a new one they will have to make significant cutbacks on what they spend.

    If a person has put a little bit of money away, then loses their job, they will have a bit more money to support themselves, to help them before they get a new job.

    The public gets this. Labour doesn't. Of course economics doesn't work quite the same way as a personal or household budget.. But there are enough parallels that it becomes very useful in shaping public narrative.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    The navel gazing by the Labour Party is going to be entertaining.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    antifrank said:

    Michael Gove's abrasiveness is exactly what is needed to shake up the legal establishment. If we don't hear squealing louder than piggies in an abattoir, he'll seriously disappoint me.

    It is a pointer that David Cameron does not intend Justice to be a quiet department.

    It's a pointer that Gove's short-lived reign as Chief Whip was merely a ruse to cover his panicked removal from Education.

    At Justice, withdrawal from the ECHR is bound to be controversial even in the Conservative Party as well as amongst lawyers and you will of course be aware that in the Hungarian language, ECHR is an anagram of Eurosausage.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,955

    I have spent much of the past 48 hours lying in bed staring at the ceiling, reading despairing, four-letter posts on social media and trying to work out how on earth this happened, as if anyone with half a brain doesn't know. The political elites closed ranks and capitulated to a politics of fear, first in Scotland, and then across the nation.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/dont-give-angry-population-hard-govern-depressed-population-easy

    Gods it makes angry. Cameron won mandate she says, immediately followed by blaming it on political elites and so infantilising the public and the choice they made.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @tnewtondunn: Seven senior Labour MPs fight it out for the leadership - as party civil war erupts between Blairites and unions http://t.co/d0vxFaqT8w
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @HTScotPol: Good .@euanmccolm piece in MoS about party gag on #SNP MPs. How can they speak for Scotland if they can't even speak for themselves?
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night

    it would take a willful misinterpretation of his promises to conclude he had betrayed the Outers.
    The BOOers will be forever be 'betrayed' until we are 'out' - similarly with the Nats & Independence - though the funniest thing with Sturgeon is how full independence would only take 18 months, while FFA will take 'several years'....I wonder why? |Innocent Face|
    Utter rubbish.

    I said on the previous thread that as a Kipper all I want is a fair referendum, if the country votes to stay in then fair enough, that's deomcracy.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,499
    Scott_P said:

    @tnewtondunn: Seven senior Labour MPs fight it out for the leadership - as party civil war erupts between Blairites and unions http://t.co/d0vxFaqT8w

    Well at least one of them won't get on the ballot as they need 35 signatures each. And assuming one or two of them hoover up a lot more, there may only be room for four max.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,981
    Green deposit watch:

    The party to suffer the most was the Greens who lost 444 deposits after the votes had been counted

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-candidates-general-election-2015-9218904

    Stood in 568 seats overall.

    Not sure of the EW/Scottish split though...
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:

    @HTScotPol: Good .@euanmccolm piece in MoS about party gag on #SNP MPs. How can they speak for Scotland if they can't even speak for themselves?

    With landslides, as in 1983 and 1997, there will always be a few new MPs completely unprepared, who thought they were place-holders in no-hope seats. This should add to the gaiety of the nation.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Are there any video clips out there of Liz Kendall in a more confrontational setting? Andrew Neil seems uncharacteristically soft-ball in the clip, although maybe part of that is that she's doing a good job at disarming lines of attack before they become overtly hostile.

    Liz Kendall also answered Andrew Neil's questions rather than stonewalling or making completely unrelated points as most politicians do. Perhaps she skipped media training.
    There are some excellent youtube clips of her on BBCQT. The one with Hammond was particularly good. She does well on interviews so I suspect has had some media training, but her natural charm and sense of humour is quite disarming, but underneath lies a very focussed and ambitious woman.

    @Mike

    I have just contributed 10% of my winnings to your excellent site. Thanks for all the effort that you put into it.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    Scott_P said:

    @tnewtondunn: Seven senior Labour MPs fight it out for the leadership - as party civil war erupts between Blairites and unions http://t.co/d0vxFaqT8w

    Is it possible for Chuka to look any more smug than he does in that photo?

    A man clearly grieving over the loss of the election. Not.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited May 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Green deposit watch:

    The party to suffer the most was the Greens who lost 444 deposits after the votes had been counted

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-candidates-general-election-2015-9218904

    Stood in 568 seats overall.

    Not sure of the EW/Scottish split though...

    Wow, so they retained just over 20%?

    Surprised I lost that bet...
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    The navel gazing by the Labour Party is going to be entertaining.

    It is important to let off steam, and not judge people too much on it. Paddy Ashdown was visibly distraught on Friday. He had a right to be tired and emotional.

    Just don't dwell on it. Fight the next battle not the last.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Scott_P said:

    @tnewtondunn: Seven senior Labour MPs fight it out for the leadership - as party civil war erupts between Blairites and unions http://t.co/d0vxFaqT8w

    Well at least one of them won't get on the ballot as they need 35 signatures each. And assuming one or two of them hoover up a lot more, there may only be room for four max.
    The Lib Dems are much more egalitarian. Each MP now could nominate himself for leader if he really wanted to get on the ballot.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,981
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Green deposit watch:

    The party to suffer the most was the Greens who lost 444 deposits after the votes had been counted

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-candidates-general-election-2015-9218904

    Stood in 568 seats overall.

    Not sure of the EW/Scottish split though...

    Wow, so they retained just over 20%?

    Surprised I lost that bet...
    It's still not settled, the E&W split may be 0-20% - not sure how many deposits they retained in Scotland. I got on both 0-20 and 21-30 but £82 profit less with 21-30
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Scott_P said:

    @tnewtondunn: Seven senior Labour MPs fight it out for the leadership - as party civil war erupts between Blairites and unions http://t.co/d0vxFaqT8w

    Is it possible for Chuka to look any more smug than he does in that photo?

    A man clearly grieving over the loss of the election. Not.
    Beware the power of the picture editor. It is always possible to select photos to show someone inappropriately smiling or gurning over a bacon sandwich. That is why, in the early days of New Labour, Tony Blair had a fixed rictus grin and affected a "power walk" stance, until someone belatedly realised that however good these ensured he looked in still photographs in newspapers, he looked a right twat on the telly.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    If you missed Nick Cohen's piece - it's pithy as ever. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labour-left-miliband-hating-english
    It could not because Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.

    The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Labour's acting leader @HarrietHarman warns against "scape goating and blame gaming" in leadership contest

    How's that working out for you, hun?

    @politicshome: Alistair Darling: We had no economic policy under Miliband http://t.co/y8meW3sGVG http://t.co/Tr1I2C1aFc

    You've got to love Darling's refusal to accept there was anything wrong with the economy he bequeathed to the nation in 2010....
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2015

    Labour List thoughts on who Harriet will have on the Front Bench:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/what-should-we-expect-from-harriet-harmans-mini-reshuffle/

    I'm all for more exposure of Captain Underpants Chris Bryant (may be ambiguous - ed.)

    A key one is Liz Kendall. If she gets a good post from HH (she was her SPAD) then she will have been annointed by the sisterhood.

    HH will want a strong female leadership contender. Will it be Liz?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785

    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night

    it would take a willful misinterpretation of his promises to conclude he had betrayed the Outers.
    The BOOers will be forever be 'betrayed' until we are 'out' - similarly with the Nats & Independence - though the funniest thing with Sturgeon is how full independence would only take 18 months, while FFA will take 'several years'....I wonder why? |Innocent Face|
    Utter rubbish.

    I said on the previous thread that as a Kipper all I want is a fair referendum, if the country votes to stay in then fair enough, that's deomcracy.
    Good for you!

    I trust your fellow Kippers are as accepting of the will of the people.....

    .....just like the Nats.....
  • Options
    antifrank said:

    Michael Gove's abrasiveness is exactly what is needed to shake up the legal establishment. If we don't hear squealing louder than piggies in an abattoir, he'll seriously disappoint me.

    It is a pointer that David Cameron does not intend Justice to be a quiet department.

    Agreed. The key item on Gove's desk in this Session will be the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. Grayling was a poor Lord Chancellor and came up with incoherent proposals which were unfortunately contained in the Conservative Manifesto. Any attempt to change the 1998 Act will be met with wailing by the usual suspects but there is a grave danger that the proposed British Bill of Rights will contain all the fundamental flaws of 1998 Act. If the Conservatives enact, as looks likely, another charter for litigation, legal uncertainty and judicial supremacism, they will have only themselves to blame.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited May 2015

    The navel gazing by the Labour Party is going to be entertaining.

    It is important to let off steam, and not judge people too much on it. Paddy Ashdown was visibly distraught on Friday. He had a right to be tired and emotional.

    Just don't dwell on it. Fight the next battle not the last.
    Well I think a bit of gazing at the discomfort of other parties is ok for a week or two.. Balls losing his seat is the sort of thing that springs to mind ;)
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    She still looked shell-shocked on Sky just now. For someone always sent out to man the barricades, she's had the stuffing knocked out of her this time.

    When she stands down, Labour will have lost a very strong media performer - she's not my cup of tea, but she's got steel in her spine - Margaret Beckett was another.
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Labour's acting leader @HarrietHarman warns against "scape goating and blame gaming" in leadership contest

    How's that working out for you, hun?

    @politicshome: Alistair Darling: We had no economic policy under Miliband http://t.co/y8meW3sGVG http://t.co/Tr1I2C1aFc

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    antifrank said:

    Michael Gove's abrasiveness is exactly what is needed to shake up the legal establishment. If we don't hear squealing louder than piggies in an abattoir, he'll seriously disappoint me.

    It is a pointer that David Cameron does not intend Justice to be a quiet department.

    Agreed. The key item on Gove's desk in this Session will be the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. Grayling was a poor Lord Chancellor and came up with incoherent proposals which were unfortunately contained in the Conservative Manifesto. Any attempt to change the 1998 Act will be met with wailing by the usual suspects but there is a grave danger that the proposed British Bill of Rights will contain all the fundamental flaws of 1998 Act. If the Conservatives enact, as looks likely, another charter for litigation, legal uncertainty and judicial supremacism, they will have only themselves to blame.
    I want a proper bill of rights enshrining USA style freedom of speech, religion and assembly. Perhaps draw the line at firearms, though these were in turn derived from our own 1689 Bill of Rights.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Plato said:

    If you missed Nick Cohen's piece - it's pithy as ever. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labour-left-miliband-hating-english

    It could not because Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.

    The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
    All of which may be true but the right made the same complaints about the Cameroons, and the left did about the Blairites, so it is not necessarily the case that any of this explains Labour's defeat. (At least Tony Blair recognised the problem and took countermeasures.)
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    Good morning, everyone.

    Surprised I got as high as 28th on the previous thread's table.

    EU migrant quota scheme proposed:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32685942

    Not sure how that works with freedom of movement. I do not think it will necessarily be cheered by the 1922 Committee.
  • Options

    I want a proper bill of rights enshrining USA style freedom of speech, religion and assembly. Perhaps draw the line at firearms, though these were in turn derived from our own 1689 Bill of Rights.

    The problem with this suggestion is that everyone (sensible) agrees that those "rights" are qualified rather than absolute. No one has the right to engage in incitement to violence, even if they can find some scriptural passage to justify their behaviour. The next question therefore is whether the extent of the permissible qualifications to those "rights" ought to be decided by Parliament or by the courts. Since the importance to be attached, for example, to one individual's privacy against another's ability to express himself is an exercise of weighing incommensurable factors and is not susceptible to judicial analysis, it ought to be for Parliament, not the courts. The qualified rights given effect to by Human Rights Act 1998 represent an attempt to turn philosophical statements into justiciable rights, and have enriched lawyers, undermined legal certainty and increased the power of the judiciary at the expense of democratically-accountable bodies. The British Bill of Rights will likely have the same effect.
  • Options
    Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    If people aren't sexist, racist and homophobic why do they read the ""Mail"? We are all programmed to read "otherness" as dangerous & have to be educated out of it. However education only reaches the brain, not the heart which is where both religion and psychology tell us we really operate from.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:


    The economy (4/5). Economic competence was the key to success but the economic cycle helped a great deal in that. In this Parliament there will be a recession, hopefully a mild one, during which borrowing will again increase from whatever level it is then at. Will probably adversely affect Osborne's chances.

    There were comments in the press over the w/e that the referendum would be brought forward to 2016, that Hammond/Osborne were due to fly to Berlin to do a deal & that there have been concilliatory noises from various Europeans already ("waiting for a constructive list of peoposals from Britain")

    I wonder if getting the referendum done in 2016, and Cameron presumably standing down at that point, thereby before any cyclical recession, might benefit anyone in particular?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    For the past five years the Labour Party has been staring at goats. When Ed Miliband was elected leader he claimed he could recast political physics. He would construct a “new politics” and “rewrite” the conventional political rules. And then at 10pm on Thursday evening, he got up from his desk and walked slap-bang into his office wall.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11596073/Labour-forgot-the-golden-rules-of-politics.html
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:


    The economy (4/5). Economic competence was the key to success but the economic cycle helped a great deal in that. In this Parliament there will be a recession, hopefully a mild one, during which borrowing will again increase from whatever level it is then at. Will probably adversely affect Osborne's chances.

    There were comments in the press over the w/e that the referendum would be brought forward to 2016, that Hammond/Osborne were due to fly to Berlin to do a deal & that there have been concilliatory noises from various Europeans already ("waiting for a constructive list of peoposals from Britain")

    I wonder if getting the referendum done in 2016, and Cameron presumably standing down at that point, thereby before any cyclical recession, might benefit anyone in particular?
    Not the most popular heir-to-a-baronetcy in the realm, surely? :D
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome: Former EU chief Barroso: 'Better conditions' now for David Cameron to get EU reforms http://t.co/tVDTNvjnFG http://t.co/CdLHwseEym
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fitalass (Last thread) As soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Scottish Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories for No. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose

    It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government and the eventual Labour Party leader looks like a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night

    it would take a willful misinterpretation of his promises to conclude he had betrayed the Outers.
    The BOOers will be forever be 'betrayed' until we are 'out' - similarly with the Nats & Independence - though the funniest thing with Sturgeon is how full independence would only take 18 months, while FFA will take 'several years'....I wonder why? |Innocent Face|
    Utter rubbish.

    I said on the previous thread that as a Kipper all I want is a fair referendum, if the country votes to stay in then fair enough, that's deomcracy.
    Good for you!

    I trust your fellow Kippers are as accepting of the will of the people.....

    .....just like the Nats.....
    I can't speak for the Nats but I cannot see why Kippers would not accept a democratic decision one way or the other.

    All we ask for is a fair referendum, that's all.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    RobD said:

    Not the most popular heir-to-a-baronetcy in the realm, surely? :D

    Some might say he is a genius...
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I can't speak for the Nats but I cannot see why Kippers would not accept a democratic decision one way or the other.

    All we ask for is a fair referendum, that's all.

    @wallaceme: I really hope @DouglasCarswell's advice on UKIP's part in the Out campaign wins through. http://t.co/XqNBhmHxoO http://t.co/JwRutivnoy
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,905

    antifrank said:

    Michael Gove's abrasiveness is exactly what is needed to shake up the legal establishment. If we don't hear squealing louder than piggies in an abattoir, he'll seriously disappoint me.

    It is a pointer that David Cameron does not intend Justice to be a quiet department.

    Agreed. The key item on Gove's desk in this Session will be the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. Grayling was a poor Lord Chancellor and came up with incoherent proposals which were unfortunately contained in the Conservative Manifesto. Any attempt to change the 1998 Act will be met with wailing by the usual suspects but there is a grave danger that the proposed British Bill of Rights will contain all the fundamental flaws of 1998 Act. If the Conservatives enact, as looks likely, another charter for litigation, legal uncertainty and judicial supremacism, they will have only themselves to blame.
    Gove might be the one to get it right.

    On a related note, it was fun to read a lot of wailing in the Solicitors Journal about the big drop in Employment Tribunal claims.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Not the most popular heir-to-a-baronetcy in the realm, surely? :D

    Some might say he is a genius...
    A master strategist...
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    DavidL said:

    Scotland. (4/5). Doing a deal with the SNP and holding the Union together is going to be incredibly difficult. I don't think anyone appreciates how irrational and profound the hatred of tories is in the SNP. Sturgeon is much more comfortably in that mind set than Salmond ever was. She will be very, very hard to deal with

    So don't deal. Devolve enough that 10-15% of Scottish voters can live with things, preferable bits that hand the SNP rope to hang itself with and stand back. They won't have votes in Westminster to force anything and won't win a referendum in Scotland.

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS: Its understood @AlexSalmond has given his backing to @ARobertsonSNP to remain as leader of @theSNP at westminster

    @BBCNormanS: Its understood that @ARobertsonSNP will be re-elected leader of @theSNP at Westminster unopposed

    @BBCNormanS: In the Commons @thesnp will take up the front row benches formerly taken by @LibDems

    Smart move by Eck. Now that the SNP are impotent, doesn't want to be seen as a duffer. I wonder if there is a market on the timing of his inevitable Palace coup?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    And for anyone who claimed (wrongly) that EdStone didn't have cut through...

    @IainMcGill: British press hunt giant Miliband tablet dubbed 'heaviest suicide note in history' - The Times of India http://t.co/c3bP4KvwZ3
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Conorpope: I think the Labour sources briefing against leadership candidates for starting 'too early' need to get a grip. http://t.co/1krjg6iPHM
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Hattie on r4 explaining the move to OMOV (or rather OPOV being Hattie). What confuses me is that the reforms look like a knee-jerk reaction to the ed debacle, but were passed over a year ago, with his support. The only clue I can find is a suggestion on Labourlist that the reforms were part of a too-clever plan to wrong foot the tories over political funding.

    She also says she doesn't know where the EdStone is.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ishmael_X said:

    She also says she doesn't know where the EdStone is.

    As if the EdStone itself wasn't bad enough, the narrative "Labour spent thirty grand on a gimmick, and then lost it" is not likely to enhance their reputation for fiscal probity and sound management.

    The gift that will keep on giving long after Ed's name has been forgotten
This discussion has been closed.