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?
Really Salmond should have gone. He's too much of a distraction. The press will have five years of fun under " who really runs the SNP? " . Every so often Sturgeon has to remind us she's in charge; Robertson will have to do the same. When you're continually reminding people of your authority you haven't got it.
A soft ball interview from Neil but she did sort of answer the questions rather than mouthing platitudes. Although they were open questions rather than closed ones, she still did well. But after Ed, any reasonable politician will to look normal.
I think Labour could recover quickly if they pick the right leader. An Angela Eagle/Tom Watson duo would be perfect - for the Tories. If they go for Liz, they'll need an older hand as deputy. If Alan Johnson wanted it, he'd be the one. Not Posho Tristram.
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
Well, I see an "Out" vote as implying support for UKIP. And no one, of any political persuasion, can stop me. (I also see an "In" vote as support for the Tories, so that should save me some time.)
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?
Really Salmond should have gone. He's too much of a distraction. The press will have five years of fun under " who really runs the SNP? " . Every so often Sturgeon has to remind us she's in charge; Robertson will have to do the same. When you're continually reminding people of your authority you haven't got it.
Indeed – as an aside, presumably, once the three leadership contests are done and dusted, there will be by-election held as the respective leaders stand down as MPs? – Can’t see them all hanging on to the bitter end as Gordon Brown did, so what next for Nick, Ed or Nigel?
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the Old Guard to stop appearing on the media. It's a culture shock for them.
Their desire to remain in the spotlight does nothing but hinder the new intake/leaders. It afflicts so many across the Parties that we really notice when someone DOESN'T do it.
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
But politics and life has moved on. The role of the #the45 may be over. Now, former Yes activists have a new target in sight which, as every day goes by and the polls refuse to budge, looks even more likely. The annihilation of Scottish Labour.
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?
Couldn't possibly be. To think that far ahead he'd have to be a master political strategist or something...
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?
Couldn't possibly be. To think that far ahead he'd have to be a master political strategist or something...
Liz Kendall has potential, is it too soon for her in my opinion Miliband should have moved Burnham from shadow health and given it Kendall, a better judgement could have been formed as to just how capable she was in putting the Conservatives on the back foot.
Umunna gets a lot of stick but out of the others listed he is the outstanding candidate. It is for good reason he gets put out to bat every time Labour are on a sticky wicket and he rarely if ever puts a foot wrong. His background will not matter if he were to get Labour moving towards a credible Economic position.
Burnham would be a disaster on the level of the Conservatives and IDS, while he looks the part more than IDS, Burnham is clumsy, not a hugely articulate speaker and temperamentaly very suspect, anybody who has seen him in debate in the commons would see that. Burnham as an attack dog in a role such as shadow Home Secretary could be effective but he is no leader and Miliband's lack of conviction failing to get him away from health was one of his worst errors.
Not a great field to be honest but for the good of the nation we need a good sensible Labour choice, Umunna for me but Kendall might be interesting, hope she has it in her to make the big step up if chosen.
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
Indeed a necessary first step - but nothing more than that.
Well, I see an "Out" vote as implying support for UKIP. And no one, of any political persuasion, can stop me. (I also see an "In" vote as support for the Tories, so that should save me some time.)
Nonsense. An out vote is a vote for a sovereign United Kingdom, where the United Kingdom Parliament makes the decisions which affect the life of the nation, rather than the EU institutions. Some of us are in favour of (relatively) free immigration, but why should we have the right to impose our views on the rest of the population via membership of the European Union? An out vote is a vote for the restoration of British sovereignty and democracy, no more, no less.
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
They have done. No Union block vote in this leadership election.
Morning! Oh crap, looks like my cash on Jarvis will end up in Shadsy's bonus fund. I'm sure CCHQ will be over the moon at the news he isn't standing though, he was easily the candidate with the widest general appeal.
Not a great field to be honest but for the good of the nation we need a good sensible Labour choice, Umunna for me but Kendall might be interesting, hope she has it in her to make the big step up if chosen.
TBF it's a vast improvement on the list of candidates Labour members were lumbered with choosing between in 2010.
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
They have done. No Union block vote in this leadership election.
Still the small matter of several million quid each year in funding with strings attached, and more than half the parliamentary party with union funded offices and/or staff.
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
That's not what the polls say...
...oh, hang on, never mind.
Are there actually any polls that put Osborne as a major plus ? The polls I remember compared him to Balls - not difficult to beat. But I doubt even Osborne is stupid enough to think he can be the frontman for the party. Having "detoxed" with with cuddly Dave, they're hardly going to put Ramsay Bolton as the acceptable face of Conservatism are they ?
There's an old saying ... "A man convinced against his will retains his old opinion still."
There's the risk in making laws against thought crime. And the superior attitude of some law makers doesn't help. Making it illegal isn't the same as persuading people.
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the Old Guard to stop appearing on the media. It's a culture shock for them.
Their desire to remain in the spotlight does nothing but hinder the new intake/leaders. It afflicts so many across the Parties that we really notice when someone DOESN'T do it.
@DPJHodges: People need to calm down. Totally irrelevant what Harriet Harman says/thinks any more.
They don't have it in them to walk away, to most of the left their beliefs are their religion and they can't understand why the rest of the country doesn't agree with them - they can't start to comprehend that they lost.
Take a good look at that photo of Kendall and then see how she transforms her image if elected.
Meantime McBride never changes does he. In The Times he justn happens to mention , about Chucka ''his unsettled personal life will make him a target for tabloid gossip and stings''.
'Stings'? From the ECB? How could anyone in England of all places vote for someone whose name is a confession to a suspect bowling action?
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?
Really Salmond should have gone. He's too much of a distraction. The press will have five years of fun under " who really runs the SNP? " . Every so often Sturgeon has to remind us she's in charge; Robertson will have to do the same. When you're continually reminding people of your authority you haven't got it.
Indeed – as an aside, presumably, once the three leadership contests are done and dusted, there will be by-election held as the respective leaders stand down as MPs? – Can’t see them all hanging on to the bitter end as Gordon Brown did, so what next for Nick, Ed or Nigel?
Nick will get an international post somewhere. Nigel will run for UKIP leader. Ed will stick in Parliament - but hasn't appreciated that IDS earned his way back.
Not the most popular heir-to-a-baronetcy in the realm, surely?
Some might say he is a genius...
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
Whereas UKIP would just settle for a bullet between his eyes?
oof Charles that's a bit harsh. Even I wouldn't ask for that.
However now that the dust has cleared and it's tabula rasa time let's see what he does. The BCC have asked him to do what he promised the last time so get on with it and stop wasting another 5 years.
I'll give him full credit if he gets on with reform, but I won't set my expectations too high :~)
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
That's not what the polls say...
...oh, hang on, never mind.
Are there actually any polls that put Osborne as a major plus ? The polls I remember compared him to Balls - not difficult to beat. But I doubt even Osborne is stupid enough to think he can be the frontman for the party. Having "detoxed" with with cuddly Dave, they're hardly going to put Ramsay Bolton as the acceptable face of Conservatism are they ?
Osborne is a major plus as someone trusted to handle the economy. Whether that translates into being a net plus as a potential leader is another question. I don't believe it does but I've not seen any hard evidence one way or the other.
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?
Really Salmond should have gone. He's too much of a distraction. The press will have five years of fun under " who really runs the SNP? " . Every so often Sturgeon has to remind us she's in charge; Robertson will have to do the same. When you're continually reminding people of your authority you haven't got it.
Indeed – as an aside, presumably, once the three leadership contests are done and dusted, there will be by-election held as the respective leaders stand down as MPs? – Can’t see them all hanging on to the bitter end as Gordon Brown did, so what next for Nick, Ed or Nigel?
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the Old Guard to stop appearing on the media. It's a culture shock for them.
Their desire to remain in the spotlight does nothing but hinder the new intake/leaders. It afflicts so many across the Parties that we really notice when someone DOESN'T do it.
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?
Really Salmond should have gone. He's too much of a distraction. The press will have five years of fun under " who really runs the SNP? " . Every so often Sturgeon has to remind us she's in charge; Robertson will have to do the same. When you're continually reminding people of your authority you haven't got it.
Indeed – as an aside, presumably, once the three leadership contests are done and dusted, there will be by-election held as the respective leaders stand down as MPs? – Can’t see them all hanging on to the bitter end as Gordon Brown did, so what next for Nick, Ed or Nigel?
Nigel isn't an MP. That's why he's quit his Party leadership
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.
Good Lord = MOPOTY - Meanigless post of the year
Are you an Oxford University Philosopher perchance?
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
They have done. No Union block vote in this leadership election.
You clearly don't understand what breaking the link means.
Win back Dan Hodges, and youre on the first step back.
They could do alot worse than pay Hodges to lead their post-mortem. Really. He gets it, has stuck his neck out for ages to say exactly what's wrong and has been 100% vindicated. He is the Go To man for Labour post-mortem advice.
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
That's not what the polls say...
...oh, hang on, never mind.
Are there actually any polls that put Osborne as a major plus ? The polls I remember compared him to Balls - not difficult to beat. But I doubt even Osborne is stupid enough to think he can be the frontman for the party. Having "detoxed" with with cuddly Dave, they're hardly going to put Ramsay Bolton as the acceptable face of Conservatism are they ?
Osborne is a major plus as someone trusted to handle the economy. Whether that translates into being a net plus as a potential leader is another question. I don't believe it does but I've not seen any hard evidence one way or the other.
I don't quite see where you get this major plus from David. The polling I can recall had him with a small positive approval, that's hardly "major". As a Conservative perhaps you like to answer Kay Burleighs question on the Uk v Greek deficit and tell me why that's good ?
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
They have done. No Union block vote in this leadership election.
You clearly don't understand what breaking the link means.
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?
Really Salmond should have gone. He's too much of a distraction. The press will have five years of fun under " who really runs the SNP? " . Every so often Sturgeon has to remind us she's in charge; Robertson will have to do the same. When you're continually reminding people of your authority you haven't got it.
Indeed – as an aside, presumably, once the three leadership contests are done and dusted, there will be by-election held as the respective leaders stand down as MPs? – Can’t see them all hanging on to the bitter end as Gordon Brown did, so what next for Nick, Ed or Nigel?
I wouldn't assume that. In Clegg's case, it could well lead to the loss of the seat for the Lib Dems too.
It's very rare for ex-leaders to disappear straight away. Since WWII, the only ones I can think of that left the Commons for reasons other than death before the next GE were Eden, Kinnock and Blair.
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
They have done. No Union block vote in this leadership election.
You clearly don't understand what breaking the link means.
So what does it mean?
It means the Unions have no consitutional links with the Labour party and establish relations with all political parties on an equal footing.
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?
Really Salmond should have gone. He's too much of a distraction. The press will have five years of fun under " who really runs the SNP? " . Every so often Sturgeon has to remind us she's in charge; Robertson will have to do the same. When you're continually reminding people of your authority you haven't got it.
Indeed – as an aside, presumably, once the three leadership contests are done and dusted, there will be by-election held as the respective leaders stand down as MPs? – Can’t see them all hanging on to the bitter end as Gordon Brown did, so what next for Nick, Ed or Nigel?
Nigel isn't an MP. That's why he's quit his Party leadership
If the Labour Party is serious – really serious – about learning the lessons of last Thursday, then it will adopt these rules as its own. And it will also understand this:
It is not “Blairite”, “Brownite” or “anyite” for a political party to elect a good communicator as its leader. Or build its programme on a foundation of sound economic competence. Or attempt to make a broad offer that will appeal to a majority of the electorate.
This is not “New Labour politics”. It’s just politics.
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
That's not what the polls say...
...oh, hang on, never mind.
Are there actually any polls that put Osborne as a major plus ? The polls I remember compared him to Balls - not difficult to beat. But I doubt even Osborne is stupid enough to think he can be the frontman for the party. Having "detoxed" with with cuddly Dave, they're hardly going to put Ramsay Bolton as the acceptable face of Conservatism are they ?
Osborne is a major plus as someone trusted to handle the economy. Whether that translates into being a net plus as a potential leader is another question. I don't believe it does but I've not seen any hard evidence one way or the other.
I don't quite see where you get this major plus from David. The polling I can recall had him with a small positive approval, that's hardly "major". As a Conservative perhaps you like to answer Kay Burleighs question on the Uk v Greek deficit and tell me why that's good ?
To have any positive approval while most have major negative approval ratings is major.
However more important than "approval" ratings is the "who do you trust" ratings. The public may not "approve" of everything Osborne does, but they trust him to run the economy. Without that we would not have won a majority, it is a major bonus.
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Win back Dan Hodges, and youre on the first step back.
If Labour follow that advice they will lose as many votes as they gain. In the past there was nowhere else (except the occasional Communist and the even more occasional Trotskyite) for them to go. Now there is - in England the Greens, and in the Celtic nations the Nats.
That is why this isn't 1992, it's 1983. The Tories will increase their majority next time. And yes, I did take money (at 6-1) off William Hill last Thursday. Blair would not have won last week - it was only 18 years of Tory Government that got the centre-left and the left to vote the same way.
Well, I see an "Out" vote as implying support for UKIP. And no one, of any political persuasion, can stop me. (I also see an "In" vote as support for the Tories, so that should save me some time.)
Tony Benn would be surprised to be so classified (were he around to be surprised).
1) Have an all summer leadership election - get everyone fighting and get as many people on the ballot as possible - mostly just no hopers jostling for position. If possible get some MPs to nominate 2-3 people so that everyone gets on the ballot
2) Elect a complete weirdo - who will announce he has no ideas and is starting with a "blank sheet of paper"
3) Set up an interesting policy commission by decent working class thinker MP. Then delay and delay its release then ignore it.
4) Give lots of conference speeches without notes so you can forget important topics.
5) Stay in the safety of the Guardian/Beeb bubble - don't read the Sun.
6) Spend the EU referendum campaign railing that there was no need for a referendum - the voters love that.
7) Ignore Ukip - they will fall away like the SNP did in 2015.
8) Beam the 2020 pledges onto the moon - that will show you are serious.
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Alex Salmond' s not the leader in the HOC and whilst being vocal may not be as prominent and certainly Nicola Sturgeon will be the 'boss'
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
That's not what the polls say...
...oh, hang on, never mind.
Are there actually any polls that put Osborne as a major plus ? The polls I remember compared him to Balls - not difficult to beat. But I doubt even Osborne is stupid enough to think he can be the frontman for the party. Having "detoxed" with with cuddly Dave, they're hardly going to put Ramsay Bolton as the acceptable face of Conservatism are they ?
Osborne is a major plus as someone trusted to handle the economy. Whether that translates into being a net plus as a potential leader is another question. I don't believe it does but I've not seen any hard evidence one way or the other.
I don't quite see where you get this major plus from David. The polling I can recall had him with a small positive approval, that's hardly "major". As a Conservative perhaps you like to answer Kay Burleighs question on the Uk v Greek deficit and tell me why that's good ?
To have any positive approval while most have major negative approval ratings is major.
However more important than "approval" ratings is the "who do you trust" ratings. The public may not "approve" of everything Osborne does, but they trust him to run the economy. Without that we would not have won a majority, it is a major bonus.
LOL this falls into you can fool some of the people some of the time. Which do you think had the bigger impact ; the public trust Osborne; the public didn't Trust Labour and the SNP on the economy ? I'm on the latter.
Just because the public chose shit over shite doesn't mean they have an appetite for crap.
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Salmond may be on the front bench but he'll be below the gangway, won't he?
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Salmond may be on the front bench but he'll be below the gangway, won't he?
Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher in a small party, he'll not get priority in being called.
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
That's not what the polls say...
...oh, hang on, never mind.
Are there actually any polls that put Osborne as a major plus ? The polls I remember compared him to Balls - not difficult to beat. But I doubt even Osborne is stupid enough to think he can be the frontman for the party. Having "detoxed" with with cuddly Dave, they're hardly going to put Ramsay Bolton as the acceptable face of Conservatism are they ?
Osborne is a major plus as someone trusted to handle the economy. Whether that translates into being a net plus as a potential leader is another question. I don't believe it does but I've not seen any hard evidence one way or the other.
I don't quite see where you get this major plus from David. The polling I can recall had him with a small positive approval, that's hardly "major". As a Conservative perhaps you like to answer Kay Burleighs question on the Uk v Greek deficit and tell me why that's good ?
A small positive is a huge score for two reasons. Firstly, it's way higher than most politicians score, and politics is a relative not absolute game. Secondly, to win under FPTP, a party needs only about 35%+. 40% will deliver a very comfortable majority. If a politician has a net positive approval (assuming no large number of Don't Knows), that means s/he is reaching out well beyond their party's support and gaining the approval of floating voters and supporters of other parties, or at the worst, gaining a hearing.
Ref the deficit, yes, it's a huge problem, not aided by some politically-driven decisions during the campaign (though necessary, it appears). What is good is that the markets expect the Tories to do something about it; not an opinion they hold of Syriza.
suicide for the conservatives if they do, he's got a face voters want to punch.
That's not what the polls say...
...oh, hang on, never mind.
Are there actually any polls that put Osborne as a major plus ? The polls I remember compared him to Balls - not difficult to beat. But I doubt even Osborne is stupid enough to think he can be the frontman for the party. Having "detoxed" with with cuddly Dave, they're hardly going to put Ramsay Bolton as the acceptable face of Conservatism are they ?
Osborne is a major plus as someone trusted to handle the economy. Whether that translates into being a net plus as a potential leader is another question. I don't believe it does but I've not seen any hard evidence one way or the other.
I don't quite see where you get this major plus from David. The polling I can recall had him with a small positive approval, that's hardly "major". As a Conservative perhaps you like to answer Kay Burleighs question on the Uk v Greek deficit and tell me why that's good ?
To have any positive approval while most have major negative approval ratings is major.
However more important than "approval" ratings is the "who do you trust" ratings. The public may not "approve" of everything Osborne does, but they trust him to run the economy. Without that we would not have won a majority, it is a major bonus.
LOL this falls into you can fool some of the people some of the time. Which do you think had the bigger impact ; the public trust Osborne; the public didn't Trust Labour and the SNP on the economy ? I'm on the latter.
Just because the public chose shit over shite doesn't mean they have an appetite for crap.
I think it was a case of both.
Being able to trust Osborne isn't that significant if you can also trust Miliband/Balls/SNP. Being unable to trust Miliband/Balls/SNP isn't that significant if you don't trust Osborne either.
Being able to trust Osborne but NOT able to trust Miliband/Balls/SNP ... that is major.
The one thing the Tories must not do is lose the public's trust on the economy, like they did on Black Wednesday. Its taken two decades but Osborne has won that trust back - that is no mean feat.
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the Old Guard to stop appearing on the media. It's a culture shock for them.
Their desire to remain in the spotlight does nothing but hinder the new intake/leaders. It afflicts so many across the Parties that we really notice when someone DOESN'T do it.
@DPJHodges: People need to calm down. Totally irrelevant what Harriet Harman says/thinks any more.
Certainly we could do with hearing a lot less of Ashdown's wailings and railings - he needs to take his pants down and go off to bedfordshire for at least 5 years.
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Salmond may be on the front bench but he'll be below the gangway, won't he?
Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher in a small party, he'll not get priority in being called.
Yes he will. Before they went into government, the Lib Dem leader, as leader of the third party (with roughly the same number of MPs as the SNP now have), got two questions per session.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't one of the key qualities required in the next Labour leader the ability to 'de-tox' the Party north of the border? If they limit themselves to trying to win a working majority from England & Wales they're setting themselves an appalling task.
If the Labour Party is serious – really serious – about learning the lessons of last Thursday, then it will adopt these rules as its own. And it will also understand this:
It is not “Blairite”, “Brownite” or “anyite” for a political party to elect a good communicator as its leader. Or build its programme on a foundation of sound economic competence. Or attempt to make a broad offer that will appeal to a majority of the electorate.
This is not “New Labour politics”. It’s just politics.
Win back Dan Hodges, and youre on the first step back.
But who is that person? Hunt, Chukka, Liz?
As I'm known by friends as a complete political anorak, I've been asked several times over the weekend what Labour needs to do next. Hodge is right about a number of things, but Labour might do well to reach back and relook at Harold Wilson. His talk of 'white heat of technology', innovation and a new economy. Labour have got to start acting as if they are the party of a better future rather than a redistribution of the present. Just my two pence worth (which is all I have after losing heavily on bets that tracked the polls!).
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Salmond may be on the front bench but he'll be below the gangway, won't he?
Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher in a small party, he'll not get priority in being called.
Why wont he get the two questions that are given to the leader of the third largest party (when that party is not in government) ?
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
They have done. No Union block vote in this leadership election.
You clearly don't understand what breaking the link means.
So what does it mean?
It means the Unions have no consitutional links with the Labour party and establish relations with all political parties on an equal footing.
Well, breaking one of three links - the most important one by a mile - looks like a start to me.
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Salmond may be on the front bench but he'll be below the gangway, won't he?
Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher in a small party, he'll not get priority in being called.
Yes he will. Before they went into government, the Lib Dem leader, as leader of the third party (with roughly the same number of MPs as the SNP now have), got two questions per session.
That's not Salmond though. Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher. Isn't Angus Robertson the SNP's Commons leader? He'll get the two questions.
I sense a theme developing... @MrHarryCole: Harman clear where the blame lies: pollsters. @MrHarryCole: “@Herald_Editor: Ashdown: The Lib Dems were killed by the inaccuracy of the pre-election opinion polls http://t.co/cuYKT3SvLe” course mate
Why were their canvassing operations so useless? In many ways that is a bigger failing than the pollsters since neither party had accurate information from the ground. A truly shocking situation. I have not read anything from either party on this. Labour boasted of 4 million conversations a bigger sample than any pollster yet they were clearly mislead by their own research. The Conservatives software was so bad that they had to ignore it.
I'm surprised Dan Jarvis isn't standing. Even if he doesn't win, he could run a supremely positive, centrist campaign and hugely increase his profile.
I'm not. Maybe he wants to be PM. This result is a Tories 1997 level catastrophe for Labour. Who wants to become their William Hague? The next leader of Labour will NOT become PM. They will become the next Kinnock - a leader who prepares the way for a subsequent Blair. I suspect Jarvis doesn't want the poison chalice now. He'll let an Umunna or a Kendall take the hits now and come through after Labour lose in 2020.
A few thoughts on everything (apologies for the length):
Labour's future
Labour could go the way of the Liberals in the 1930s as:
(1) Many of the WWC constituency now see UKIP as the natural expression of their views, not Labour. If you are UKIP, the message you should get from this election is that going "Red" rather than "Blue" is the way forward as the latter are prone to head back to the Conservatives if the fear of Labour is great enough. Worryingly for Labour, I heard time and time again the expression from people in Labour areas that they would vote UKIP "if they thought UKIP had a chance". After this election result, they will.
(2) If the Greens get their act together (no guarantee they will), then Labour will face competition for its middle-class, Guardianista supportes (look at the Guardian website - the comments section is getting more like the left-wing equivalent of UKIP supporters invading the Daily Mail website).
(3) Scotland is not coming back. The SNP has successfully trashed Labour's brand there and, as Scottish Conservatives can tell you, that takes a very long time to recover from, if at all (the same is now happening in the North).
(4) Labour is now being seen as having a nasty element to it, that sneers at those who do not agree with its message. We are now only at the early stages of this being recognised, but expect more of it. Again, that tars the brand.
(5) The membership is far too obsessed with identity politics. The branches are stuffed with middle-class activists who push their own views. There is no interest in having WWC types involved in policy discussions.
Labour's leadership
What is Labour's problem and who would be best to fix that problem. On that basis, no Burnham, Chukka, Hunt or Stella Creasey (a new Lucy Powell). Liz Kendall looks normal but would benefit first from having a portfolio to run. A good transitional leader for Labour (i.e. get them through the next two to three years) would be Graham Stringer MP who exactly understands the threat Labour faces (look him up; ex-leader Manchester City Council). Labour then can elect someone more permanent to contest 2020.
Scotland and the Conservatives:
(1) One of the most important results as far as the Union was concerned was Mundell being re-elected in DCT: if he had not, it would have allowed the SNP to claim the Conservatives had absolutely no right to tell Scotland what to do as they had no MPs there. By keeping that one seat, it weakens that argument;
(2) The election result is a heaven-sent opportunity to rebuild the Scottish Conservatives. There are many seats that should be naturally Conservative constituencies (BRS, Argyll and Bute, West Aberdeenshire etc) but where the Conservatives were held back by their brand. With the SNP positioning itself to the left and Labour and the Lib Dems in Scotland routed, the Conservatives have a small but firm base from which to advance.
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Salmond may be on the front bench but he'll be below the gangway, won't he?
Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher in a small party, he'll not get priority in being called.
Yes he will. Before they went into government, the Lib Dem leader, as leader of the third party (with roughly the same number of MPs as the SNP now have), got two questions per session.
He might not be a runner this time, but my respect for Dan Jarvis has now risen to very high levels. He already has two of the three "Fs" of a good Conservative: flag and family.
What will the first PQs be like. With Balls et al gone, I was hoping for less name calling and more ordered Q & As. However, with Salmond lurking on the front bench I can see it as disorderly as usual.
Salmond may be on the front bench but he'll be below the gangway, won't he?
Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher in a small party, he'll not get priority in being called.
Yes he will. Before they went into government, the Lib Dem leader, as leader of the third party (with roughly the same number of MPs as the SNP now have), got two questions per session.
That's not Salmond though. Salmond is just an ordinary backbencher. Isn't Angus Robertson the SNP's Commons leader? He'll get the two questions.
No, Salmond is an extraordinary backbencher (apologies for Die Hard). I don't expect the pre-election roles to remain for long. Six months tops.
(And now I must go so apologies for not being able to respond).
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't one of the key qualities required in the next Labour leader the ability to 'de-tox' the Party north of the border? If they limit themselves to trying to win a working majority from England & Wales they're setting themselves an appalling task.
Tough call. If Scotland leaves the union or gets full devolution and mostly can't vote in Westminster, what's the point?
I can't remember which Labourite said it but made me LOL when he noted that more men had walked on the Moon than were Labour MPs in the E, SE and SW put together
1) Have an all summer leadership election - get everyone fighting and get as many people on the ballot as possible - mostly just no hopers jostling for position. If possible get some MPs to nominate 2-3 people so that everyone gets on the ballot
2) Elect a complete weirdo - who will announce he has no ideas and is starting with a "blank sheet of paper"
3) Set up an interesting policy commission by decent working class thinker MP. Then delay and delay its release then ignore it.
4) Give lots of conference speeches without notes so you can forget important topics.
5) Stay in the safety of the Guardian/Beeb bubble - don't read the Sun.
6) Spend the EU referendum campaign railing that there was no need for a referendum - the voters love that.
7) Ignore Ukip - they will fall away like the SNP did in 2015.
8) Beam the 2020 pledges onto the moon - that will show you are serious.
@faisalislam: Incredible that George Osborne managed to communicate more vision in election about north of England than Labour...- as Dan Jarvis suggested
Potential future leader there. And so is the other one...
He might not be a runner this time, but my respect for Dan Jarvis has now risen to very high levels. He already has two of the three "Fs" of a good Conservative: flag and family.
Agreed.
He is also a pragmatist rather than an idealist - politics could really do with a period of pragmatism rather than confrontation, for a couple of years at least. Cameron and Jarvis would I imagine have quite a lot in common and could get through a number of things that need to be done on a bipartisan basis, as they are so politically unpopular.
We will also be getting more than enough of the confrontation in this Parliament from a couple of fishy sounding Scots!
I can't remember which Labourite said it but made me LOL when he noted that more men had walked on the Moon than were Labour MPs in the E, SE and SW put together
Win back Dan Hodges, and youre on the first step back.
If Labour follow that advice they will lose as many votes as they gain. In the past there was nowhere else (except the occasional Communist and the even more occasional Trotskyite) for them to go. Now there is - in England the Greens, and in the Celtic nations the Nats.
That is why this isn't 1992, it's 1983. The Tories will increase their majority next time. And yes, I did take money (at 6-1) off William Hill last Thursday. Blair would not have won last week - it was only 18 years of Tory Government that got the centre-left and the left to vote the same way.
Thats the debate labour need. Are they left-wing or centerist, and how can find a way to getting a coalition on which all of those can get on board.
Not sure how that works with freedom of movement. I do not think it will necessarily be cheered by the 1922 Committee.
Quite obviously, it doesn't. As soon as the migrants get citizenship in Romania or Latvia, they'll be making a fast trip to Stockholm or London. And then countries like the UK will have to deal with the unintegrated second generation. It shows how serious the European Commission is about the UK's concerns: as Cameron negotiates to reduce immigration to the UK, they propose increasing it.
OGH "the party’s electoral system has been radically changed" True. But what if the Unions get 20% of circa 2.5m members registered? 500k members would swamp the existing membership. By going that extra step of registration they are also more likely to vote than the typical union political fee paying member who only had an 8% turnout. In 2010 247,000 of the union members did vote.
I sense a theme developing... @MrHarryCole: Harman clear where the blame lies: pollsters. @MrHarryCole: “@Herald_Editor: Ashdown: The Lib Dems were killed by the inaccuracy of the pre-election opinion polls http://t.co/cuYKT3SvLe” course mate
Why were their canvassing operations so useless? In many ways that is a bigger failing than the pollsters since neither party had accurate information from the ground. A truly shocking situation. I have not read anything from either party on this. Labour boasted of 4 million conversations a bigger sample than any pollster yet they were clearly mislead by their own research. The Conservatives software was so bad that they had to ignore it.
I'm not surprised, I was one of the 4 million conversations. I live in the most Labour ward, of a Conservative-held marginal constituency that Labour were expected to take. One day Labour flooded our estate with multiple canvassers in red rosettes and knocked on my door. I took as much pleasure in telling them that I'm a Conservative as I do in telling Jehovah's Witnesses that I'm an atheist but I know most others won't do that. They were visibly shocked and horrified to have come upon a Tory. I suspect I wasn't the only one, I was just the only one willing to tell them.
If you act domineering on people's doorsteps then I think most people will simply tell you what they want to hear. Most people don't want to be rude or upset people, but also there's a subliminal feeling that they "know where you live" since they're at your door so why say something else.
Its not about quantity of conversations, its about the quality of them. You need to be subtler and politer if you want to get told the truth and not just what you want to hear. Otherwise canvassing with a gang of people in a red rosette is no better than an opinion pollster saying "Hi I'm calling from the Labour party for an opinion poll - if there was an election tomorrow would you vote for the good Labour party, the evil Conservatives or some wasted vote?" That's not going to be taken seriously as an opinion poll but that's how they were canvassing.
Some early encouraging signs that Labour might have a proper rethink about everything as they stare into the void. But what likelihood to PB'ers ascribe to them actually, really learning the lessons they need to learn and responding appropriately? This implies some major, major comfort zones are going to need to be be popped. The left has an astonishingly poor record in this regard. Some shiboleths are not to be challenged.
They should break the links with the Unions.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
They have done. No Union block vote in this leadership election.
You clearly don't understand what breaking the link means.
So what does it mean?
It means the Unions have no consitutional links with the Labour party and establish relations with all political parties on an equal footing.
I think I have mentioned this before but in Germany the unions are right of centre and want to improve workers conditions so that business as a whole can be improved.
I sense a theme developing... @MrHarryCole: Harman clear where the blame lies: pollsters. @MrHarryCole: “@Herald_Editor: Ashdown: The Lib Dems were killed by the inaccuracy of the pre-election opinion polls http://t.co/cuYKT3SvLe” course mate
Why were their canvassing operations so useless? In many ways that is a bigger failing than the pollsters since neither party had accurate information from the ground. A truly shocking situation. I have not read anything from either party on this. Labour boasted of 4 million conversations a bigger sample than any pollster yet they were clearly mislead by their own research. The Conservatives software was so bad that they had to ignore it.
Several posts on here from Tory canvassers show they had a much clearer picture of what would happen than you suggest. At the top Lynton Crosby predicted 306 which was way higher than anyone else here or in the Lab P believed to be possible. The Conservative software had some minor glitches - in the main it worked very well.
I sense a theme developing... @MrHarryCole: Harman clear where the blame lies: pollsters. @MrHarryCole: “@Herald_Editor: Ashdown: The Lib Dems were killed by the inaccuracy of the pre-election opinion polls http://t.co/cuYKT3SvLe” course mate
Why were their canvassing operations so useless? In many ways that is a bigger failing than the pollsters since neither party had accurate information from the ground. A truly shocking situation. I have not read anything from either party on this. Labour boasted of 4 million conversations a bigger sample than any pollster yet they were clearly mislead by their own research. The Conservatives software was so bad that they had to ignore it.
Very nice counter-questioning of Neal. Dan Jarvis's endorsement will help her a lot and should make her co-favourite, though I still would like to see Creasey standing. The left will want a candidate to rally behind - maybe Burnham.
Comments
I think Labour could recover quickly if they pick the right leader. An Angela Eagle/Tom Watson duo would be perfect - for the Tories. If they go for Liz, they'll need an older hand as deputy. If Alan Johnson wanted it, he'd be the one. Not Posho Tristram.
Speaking of power struggles, Galloway seems set to launch a legal challenge to his defeat in Bradford.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844
Their desire to remain in the spotlight does nothing but hinder the new intake/leaders. It afflicts so many across the Parties that we really notice when someone DOESN'T do it.
Good for Labour putting the past behind them and better for the TU movement not to have the distraction of politics. The TUs might actually do something sensible like concentrate on improving their members T&Cs
Professor Ed
Lord Farage
But politics and life has moved on. The role of the #the45 may be over. Now, former Yes activists have a new target in sight which, as every day goes by and the polls refuse to budge, looks even more likely. The annihilation of Scottish Labour.
https://davidjosephknowles.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/understanding-the45/
Umunna gets a lot of stick but out of the others listed he is the outstanding candidate. It is for good reason he gets put out to bat every time Labour are on a sticky wicket and he rarely if ever puts a foot wrong. His background will not matter if he were to get Labour moving towards a credible Economic position.
Burnham would be a disaster on the level of the Conservatives and IDS, while he looks the part more than IDS, Burnham is clumsy, not a hugely articulate speaker and temperamentaly very suspect, anybody who has seen him in debate in the commons would see that. Burnham as an attack dog in a role such as shadow Home Secretary could be effective but he is no leader and Miliband's lack of conviction failing to get him away from health was one of his worst errors.
Not a great field to be honest but for the good of the nation we need a good sensible Labour choice, Umunna for me but Kendall might be interesting, hope she has it in her to make the big step up if chosen.
...oh, hang on, never mind.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11596073/Labour-forgot-the-golden-rules-of-politics.html
Win back Dan Hodges, and youre on the first step back.
There's an old saying ... "A man convinced against his will retains his old opinion still."
There's the risk in making laws against thought crime. And the superior attitude of some law makers doesn't help. Making it illegal isn't the same as persuading people.
Meantime McBride never changes does he. In The Times he justn happens to mention , about Chucka ''his unsettled personal life will make him a target for tabloid gossip and stings''.
'Stings'? From the ECB? How could anyone in England of all places vote for someone whose name is a confession to a suspect bowling action?
However now that the dust has cleared and it's tabula rasa time let's see what he does. The BCC have asked him to do what he promised the last time so get on with it and stop wasting another 5 years.
I'll give him full credit if he gets on with reform, but I won't set my expectations too high :~)
Are you an Oxford University Philosopher perchance?
@MrHarryCole: Harman clear where the blame lies: pollsters.
@MrHarryCole: “@Herald_Editor: Ashdown: The Lib Dems were killed by the inaccuracy of the pre-election opinion polls http://t.co/cuYKT3SvLe” course mate
It's very rare for ex-leaders to disappear straight away. Since WWII, the only ones I can think of that left the Commons for reasons other than death before the next GE were Eden, Kinnock and Blair.
However more important than "approval" ratings is the "who do you trust" ratings. The public may not "approve" of everything Osborne does, but they trust him to run the economy. Without that we would not have won a majority, it is a major bonus.
That is why this isn't 1992, it's 1983. The Tories will increase their majority next time. And yes, I did take money (at 6-1) off William Hill last Thursday. Blair would not have won last week - it was only 18 years of Tory Government that got the centre-left and the left to vote the same way.
1) Have an all summer leadership election - get everyone fighting and get as many people on the ballot as possible - mostly just no hopers jostling for position. If possible get some MPs to nominate 2-3 people so that everyone gets on the ballot
2) Elect a complete weirdo - who will announce he has no ideas and is starting with a "blank sheet of paper"
3) Set up an interesting policy commission by decent working class thinker MP. Then delay and delay its release then ignore it.
4) Give lots of conference speeches without notes so you can forget important topics.
5) Stay in the safety of the Guardian/Beeb bubble - don't read the Sun.
6) Spend the EU referendum campaign railing that there was no need for a referendum - the voters love that.
7) Ignore Ukip - they will fall away like the SNP did in 2015.
8) Beam the 2020 pledges onto the moon - that will show you are serious.
9) Lose badly in 2020.
Just because the public chose shit over shite doesn't mean they have an appetite for crap.
Those pre-election polls that showed the LibDem vote down by "only" 75%...
But what about Chris Leslie?
Leslie always worries me when he's on telly, he's good at hitting the Tories on the economy - much better than Chuka.
If someone gets up the opposition's nose it's a sign they are good.
Is he not seen as leadership potential?
Ref the deficit, yes, it's a huge problem, not aided by some politically-driven decisions during the campaign (though necessary, it appears). What is good is that the markets expect the Tories to do something about it; not an opinion they hold of Syriza.
Being able to trust Osborne isn't that significant if you can also trust Miliband/Balls/SNP.
Being unable to trust Miliband/Balls/SNP isn't that significant if you don't trust Osborne either.
Being able to trust Osborne but NOT able to trust Miliband/Balls/SNP ... that is major.
The one thing the Tories must not do is lose the public's trust on the economy, like they did on Black Wednesday. Its taken two decades but Osborne has won that trust back - that is no mean feat.
But who is that person? Hunt, Chukka, Liz?
As I'm known by friends as a complete political anorak, I've been asked several times over the weekend what Labour needs to do next. Hodge is right about a number of things, but Labour might do well to reach back and relook at Harold Wilson. His talk of 'white heat of technology', innovation and a new economy. Labour have got to start acting as if they are the party of a better future rather than a redistribution of the present. Just my two pence worth (which is all I have after losing heavily on bets that tracked the polls!).
In many ways that is a bigger failing than the pollsters since neither party had accurate information from the ground. A truly shocking situation. I have not read anything from either party on this. Labour boasted of 4 million conversations a bigger sample than any pollster yet they were clearly mislead by their own research. The Conservatives software was so bad that they had to ignore it.
Labour's future
Labour could go the way of the Liberals in the 1930s as:
(1) Many of the WWC constituency now see UKIP as the natural expression of their views, not Labour. If you are UKIP, the message you should get from this election is that going "Red" rather than "Blue" is the way forward as the latter are prone to head back to the Conservatives if the fear of Labour is great enough. Worryingly for Labour, I heard time and time again the expression from people in Labour areas that they would vote UKIP "if they thought UKIP had a chance". After this election result, they will.
(2) If the Greens get their act together (no guarantee they will), then Labour will face competition for its middle-class, Guardianista supportes (look at the Guardian website - the comments section is getting more like the left-wing equivalent of UKIP supporters invading the Daily Mail website).
(3) Scotland is not coming back. The SNP has successfully trashed Labour's brand there and, as Scottish Conservatives can tell you, that takes a very long time to recover from, if at all (the same is now happening in the North).
(4) Labour is now being seen as having a nasty element to it, that sneers at those who do not agree with its message. We are now only at the early stages of this being recognised, but expect more of it. Again, that tars the brand.
(5) The membership is far too obsessed with identity politics. The branches are stuffed with middle-class activists who push their own views. There is no interest in having WWC types involved in policy discussions.
Labour's leadership
What is Labour's problem and who would be best to fix that problem. On that basis, no Burnham, Chukka, Hunt or Stella Creasey (a new Lucy Powell). Liz Kendall looks normal but would benefit first from having a portfolio to run. A good transitional leader for Labour (i.e. get them through the next two to three years) would be Graham Stringer MP who exactly understands the threat Labour faces (look him up; ex-leader Manchester City Council). Labour then can elect someone more permanent to contest 2020.
Scotland and the Conservatives:
(1) One of the most important results as far as the Union was concerned was Mundell being re-elected in DCT: if he had not, it would have allowed the SNP to claim the Conservatives had absolutely no right to tell Scotland what to do as they had no MPs there. By keeping that one seat, it weakens that argument;
(2) The election result is a heaven-sent opportunity to rebuild the Scottish Conservatives. There are many seats that should be naturally Conservative constituencies (BRS, Argyll and Bute, West Aberdeenshire etc) but where the Conservatives were held back by their brand. With the SNP positioning itself to the left and Labour and the Lib Dems in Scotland routed, the Conservatives have a small but firm base from which to advance.
(And now I must go so apologies for not being able to respond).
Did you all get that? sorry for screeching
Potential future leader there. And so is the other one...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mb2iroir0odk1h/2015results.csv?dl=0
Is a CSV file of all the results from the this general election
He is also a pragmatist rather than an idealist - politics could really do with a period of pragmatism rather than confrontation, for a couple of years at least. Cameron and Jarvis would I imagine have quite a lot in common and could get through a number of things that need to be done on a bipartisan basis, as they are so politically unpopular.
We will also be getting more than enough of the confrontation in this Parliament from a couple of fishy sounding Scots!
True. But what if the Unions get 20% of circa 2.5m members registered? 500k members would swamp the existing membership. By going that extra step of registration they are also more likely to vote than the typical union political fee paying member who only had an 8% turnout. In 2010 247,000 of the union members did vote.
If you act domineering on people's doorsteps then I think most people will simply tell you what they want to hear. Most people don't want to be rude or upset people, but also there's a subliminal feeling that they "know where you live" since they're at your door so why say something else.
Its not about quantity of conversations, its about the quality of them. You need to be subtler and politer if you want to get told the truth and not just what you want to hear. Otherwise canvassing with a gang of people in a red rosette is no better than an opinion pollster saying "Hi I'm calling from the Labour party for an opinion poll - if there was an election tomorrow would you vote for the good Labour party, the evil Conservatives or some wasted vote?" That's not going to be taken seriously as an opinion poll but that's how they were canvassing.
They could have done a lot worse, and knowing Labour they probably will.
This account is well worth reading from a canvasser heavily involved in the GE2015 campaign in Morecambe. http://www.viewtoahill.com/?p=211