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.
What would kill the unions as a political force, but retain their necessary place in the workshop as a representative body, is to further democratise the political levy. When a person joins a union and ticks the box of political levy, the choice of where that levy goes is determined by the member. It could go to any registered political party.
The unions (and labour) would fight hell for leather against it. But it isnt an unreasonable position, and one that could be easily presented by the Government.
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.
Nick, I don't wish to go back on some of the campaign ground you have already covered, but when, if at all, did you feel a bit queasy/uncomfortable about what the eventual outcome might be? Were other neigbouring regional marginals reporting a similar if incohate sense that something was not quite right?
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.
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.
Nick, I don't wish to go back on some of the campaign ground you have already covered, but when, if at all, did you feel a bit queasy/uncomfortable about what the eventual outcome might be? Were other neigbouring regional marginals reporting a similar if incohate sense that something was not quite right?
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.
Exactly. For what its worth, our constituency was a must-win for Labour and would have been won on a 1.4% swing. Even on the exit poll the BBC listed it as an expected Labour seat at 10pm on Thursday. Instead there was a swing from Labour to the Conservatives moving the margin from 2.8% to a 4.6% lead.
(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; "
It might weaken it, but I imagine the SNP will highlight to great effect the statistic which I have already mentioned up thread, namely that the % Tory vote in Scotland is the worst since 1865 (not a typo!)
The monthly Scottish Questions should be fun-Mundell v the 56. No doubt the Scots Tories (England elected) will all turn up to help Mundell, but that is a sight that will probably make it worse for the unionists.
The Scottish Select Committee (or whatever it is called), following the rules of the House, should be significantly majority unionist-plenty of scope for the SNP to point out the farce that is.
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.
hmm
for most of his time Osborne has been in negative territory only recently has he edged up and the major part of that support is tribal voters. Let;s see how he fares this Parlt.
Mildly amused the BBC website has opened comments on Ant and Dec getting a BAFTA, but not on EU migration plans.
Please cut the license fee. Not only is 145 pounds an unpleasantly large amount of money for people on a budget to fork out for but it would be so deserved.
The Scottish Select Committee (or whatever it is called), following the rules of the House, should be significantly majority unionist-plenty of scope for the SNP to point out the farce that is.
Not really. The place for Scottish-only discussion of Scotland is Holyrood. The Scottish Select Comittee (or whatever) is for whatever role Westminster has in Scotland and should follow Westminster rules - or be abolished and have its responsibilities taken by Holyrood.
Is there an English Select Committee. Or an England Office? Simplest solution would be to abolish the Scottish Office.
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.
ConHome are doing their own checks into it and we will read the results of that within a week or two. But on GE day some constituencies stopped using it at certain points. Now was this 5% or 50% of them? The previous system (Merlin) in its design phase in 2005/2006 unbelieveably had deliberately built into it no ability to use the internet for data entry outside of one PC per constituency office. They had to bolt on a temporary workaround in 2008 to enable Branches to run election offices in the Council elections. Madness.
By the way, has anyone in Labour yet noticed the huge elephant trap that George Osborne has already set for 2020?
Do elucidate, please.
Labour spent all of 2010-2015 attacking the coalition's cuts. Then found themselves in 2015 with the public not trusting them to look after the nation's purse strings.
The Conservatives are committed to much greater cuts in this Parliament than Labour was advocating. What are the chances of history repeating itself?
I had not realised they promise to cap skilled immigration from outside the EU at 20,700. Is this a mistake by the BBC? Why would you cap skilled immigration more than unskilled immigration? That does not make any sense.
Mildly amused the BBC website has opened comments on Ant and Dec getting a BAFTA, but not on EU migration plans.
Please cut the license fee. Not only is 145 pounds an unpleasantly large amount of money for people on a budget to fork out for but it would be so deserved.
Or simply privatise the BBC. Let the BBC sink or swim on its own two feet.
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.
Rallying behind Burnham would be totally counter productive, if he were to win it would consign Labour to a wasted 5 years. Ask any Conservative who they would want to win the Labour leadership it would be a huge majority Burnham, same as Eddy, that says everything.
Burnham will stand his ego guarantees that, if he succeeds disaster for his party and not good for the nation, we need higher quality opposition.
Those pre-election polls that showed the LibDem vote down by "only" 75%...
I don't think the polls were wrong - they are a snapshot in time, not a guide to the future - I just think that a lot of people made their decision right at the end. The last (unpublished by Survation) poll was very accurate.
The 'right' (Tory and DNV remarkably steady but with Tories eating into DNV this time). Dave got out the vote where it counts. (If you incl UKIP the 'right' is rampant).
The 'left' remarkably steady for the last three times of asking but collapsed this time. To have any hope they need to win back at least 4 million votes. (and all in middle England).
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...
As an anti-Labour voter I'm hugely encouraged at the tone and flavour of their leadership debate. It's all about which nonentity is the most plausible blank slate with a nice girlfriend, which one can most authentically order curry sauce on his chips, and so on.
What seems to be absent and nowhere in prospect is a process whereby the party figures out what the exam questions are, so the the applicant who gives the best answer gets the job.
My stab at those questions would be:
1/ How does Labour now not lose the northern WWC to UKIP like it has lost the Scotch WWC to the SNP? 2/ How does a future Labour GE campaign get past Labour's actual record in government? 3/ Having lost the centre to Cameron, and now failed from the hard-left, where should Labour now be? 4/ Why actually does Labour want to govern?
These may not be the right questions, although they're pretty obvious ones. Neither Butcher Burnham nor Chuka is the answer, in which case they'll just have to lose elections until the Tories drop the ball.
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.
The problem with the Tory software, sounds like an issue with printer queuing. It seems to have worked otherwise; maybe it had had better algorithms than the one's Labour party workers were crowing about on these very pages.
@paulwaugh: Note huge new media power David Cameron now has. In old days, Lobby + Press Assn wd get Cabinet appointments. Now it's reshuffle by Twitter
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
If the PM wants to clip his wings give him a department of state. How he copes with the first big mess up will be interesting. Will he respond like a statesman or a buffoon. If the former, Cameron has himself a successor, if the latter, it wont be hard to knock him out of any future race.
I hope that if Dave still can't feel able to make me a peer (for services beyond the call of duty on Britain's premier betting site), then at least he will find a place for Dom Raab, ideally as a junior minister at Justice
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
Missing the clean sweep really got under your skin, didn't it?
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.
hmm
for most of his time Osborne has been in negative territory only recently has he edged up and the major part of that support is tribal voters. Let;s see how he fares this Parlt.
I disagree. Osborne has began to get good numbers because he has delivered the fastest growing economy in the west, unemployment is so low we are reaching Full Employment. And despite the 'doom and gloom' about cutting public spending, the sky has not fallen in, and two million more people are in work.
His growth isnt because of tribal voters, its from those who arent tribal.
Looking back those regional polls, like the one showing Conservatives dominating the Lib Dems in tree south west, were more accurate than either national or constituency polling. Interesting
Has Clegg formally resigned from the Government or is he still technically Deputy PM?
I don't think Clegg needs to resign, the only person who ever needs to resign is the Prime Minister. Cameron just doesn't appoint Clegg as DPM in his current reshuffle. There is no DPM currently, though Osborne is now First Secretary of State which is a similar role.
The New Labour wing is demonised by large numbers to the left. Those that are further to the left likely to be unelectable in bulk by UK voters, and are repellent to New Labour types. Is the church wide enough to contain both?
What do we know of the make up of Labour 2015?
Where do the elected MPs stand on the spectrum? There are a reasonable number of new MPs installed at this election. To the left, right, Unions or any other persuasion?
Will either section of the MPs coalesce around one candidate, giving them say 70 nominations? This would reduce the number of candidates, show a preference and concentrate the votes for that wing of the party to the favoured candidate.
Do we know the true health and make up of the constituency parties and the way that they lean politicly? How efficient will Unions be at motivating members to vote for a specific candidate?
It is easy to visualise a lot of angst both before and after the leadership election. Gathering the strands into a coherent platform that keeps all the disparate views contented will not be the easiest job in politics.
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
Missing the clean sweep really got under your skin, didn't it?
O/T Would you like me to send a note to tim about your bet with him? I'm not sure he reads the site anymore and even if he does, is obviously adamantly resolved not to post here.
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
Yeah this is continually ignored. Not a single SNP candidate was selected before the First Ashcroft Constituency Polls for Scotland which showed every single seat in play, Better than UNS swing and a potential wipe out of all other parties.
Take Mhairi Black.
She is FINISHING a four year degree course at 20. I do not know whether she sat her highers at 16 or managed to get a credit year, it is most likely the former. This means she is very, very smart, ahead of the curve intellectually. Going on the lash and hating on Celtic on twitter are not a sign of any intellectual inadequacy - it's does show that while she must be very smart, she is also quite grounded and normal and not a typical HotHouser with no social abiliity or interests outside academia.
The whole media obsession with trawling twitter will fade away as they realise that without Faux Outrage, people generally don't get shocked that anyone in public life might have sworn or got drunk when they were younger.
@David_Cameron: Priti Patel is to be Minister of State for Employment at the Department for Work and Pensions. She will be attending Cabinet.
So not full Cabinet...may be not too much of a surprise as she was the most junior Treasury Minister. Disappointing if Anna, already a Minister of State, doesn't become a member in her own right.
"Not really. The place for Scottish-only discussion of Scotland is Holyrood. The Scottish Select Comittee (or whatever) is for whatever role Westminster has in Scotland and should follow Westminster rules - or be abolished and have its responsibilities taken by Holyrood.
Is there an English Select Committee. Or an England Office? Simplest solution would be to abolish the Scottish Office. "
If you can't see how badly the situation you envisage in your first paragraph is going to play out in Scotland, I really cannot help you. Also, stating what should be the obvious, moving all the responsibilities covered by the Scottish Select Committee to Holyrood requires Scotland to be independent.
Certainly the position of SoS Scotland should be abolished, but I don't see how the monthly Scottish Questions can be abolished without negative flack-so I don't see the Tories depriving Mundell of the fruits of his temporary triumph :-).
Some interesting appointments. Amber Rudd takes no prisoners, so Energy & Climate Change could be in for quite a shake-up. (Brilliant that she held her seat, by the way - and with a substantially increased majority. Local Conservatives had that one down as a likely loss).
Get your punts on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader, if you haven't already done so.
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
Yeah this is continually ignored. Not a single SNP candidate was selected before the First Ashcroft Constituency Polls for Scotland which showed every single seat in play, Better than UNS swing and a potential wipe out of all other parties.
Take Mhairi Black.
She is FINISHING a four year degree course at 20. I do not know whether she sat her highers at 16 or managed to get a credit year, it is most likely the former. This means she is very, very smart, ahead of the curve intellectually. Going on the lash and hating on Celtic on twitter are not a sign of any intellectual inadequacy - it's does show that while she must be very smart, she is also quite grounded and normal and not a typical HotHouser with no social abiliity or interests outside academia.
The whole media obsession with trawling twitter will fade away as they realise that without Faux Outrage, people generally don't get shocked that anyone in public life might have sworn or got drunk when they were younger.
It shows the degenerated state of SLab that rather than recognising Black was just the sort of candidate they should be trying to attract, they gleefully joined in the manufactured outrage and lumbering witch hunt against her.
You mentioned early on in the campaign that Phillip Hammond had been in your constituency and that when you talked to him he had been quietly confident that things were much better than they seemed. Any change that you can elaborate or is that about the sum of what he said?
Hampshire North East Ranil Jayawardena 65,88 Maidenhead Theresa May 65,83 Windsor Adam Afriyie 63,39 Beaconsfield Dominic Grieve 63,24 Chelsea and Fulham Greg Hands 62,95 Esher and Walton Dominic Raab 62,91 Meon Valley George Hollingbery 61,06 Newbury Richard Benyon 61,03 Arundel and South Downs Nick Herbert 60,79 Hampshire East Damian Hinds 60,67 Mole Valley Sir Paul Beresford 60,63 Maldon John Whittingdale 60,59 Witney David Cameron 60,19 Northamptonshire South Andrea Leadsom 60,15 New Forest West Desmond Swayne 59,95 Surrey South West Jeremy Hunt 59,87 Surrey Heath Michael Gove 59,86 Runnymede and Weybridge Philip Hammond 59,74 Penrith and The Border Rory Stewart 59,66 Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner Nick Hurd 59,59
In 174 constituencies Conservatives polled more than 50%
Liverpool Walton Steve Rotheram 81,30 Knowsley George Howarth 78,12 East Ham Stephen Timms 77,57 Liverpool West Derby Stephen Twigg 75,17 Bootle Peter Dowd 74,46 Birmingham Ladywood Shabana Mahmood 73,63 Liverpool Wavertree Luciana Berger 69,31 Garston and Halewood Maria Eagle 69,08 Walthamstow Stella Creasy 68,86 West Ham Lyn Brown 68,44 Birmingham Hodge Hill Liam Byrne 68,40 Birkenhead Frank Field 67,62 Liverpool Riverside Louise Ellman 67,40 Tottenham David Lammy 67,33 Manchester Gorton Sir Gerald Kaufman 67,08 Ealing Southall Virendra Sharma 64,97 Hackney South and Shoreditch Meg Hillier 64,40 Ilford South Mike Gapes 64,02 Camberwell and Peckham Harriet Harman 63,25 Hackney North and Stoke Newington Diane Abbott 62,86
@David_Cameron: Priti Patel is to be Minister of State for Employment at the Department for Work and Pensions. She will be attending Cabinet.
So not full Cabinet...may be not too much of a surprise as she was the most junior Treasury Minister. Disappointing if Anna, already a Minister of State, doesn't become a member in her own right.
Lets hope this weeks unemployment figures are good otherwise it will be a rough start.
Hopefully Esther McVey can get back into parliament somehow.
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
Yeah this is continually ignored. Not a single SNP candidate was selected before the First Ashcroft Constituency Polls for Scotland which showed every single seat in play, Better than UNS swing and a potential wipe out of all other parties.
Take Mhairi Black.
She is FINISHING a four year degree course at 20. I do not know whether she sat her highers at 16 or managed to get a credit year, it is most likely the former. This means she is very, very smart, ahead of the curve intellectually. Going on the lash and hating on Celtic on twitter are not a sign of any intellectual inadequacy - it's does show that while she must be very smart, she is also quite grounded and normal and not a typical HotHouser with no social abiliity or interests outside academia.
The whole media obsession with trawling twitter will fade away as they realise that without Faux Outrage, people generally don't get shocked that anyone in public life might have sworn or got drunk when they were younger.
It shows the degenerated state of SLab that rather than recognising Black was just the sort of candidate they should be trying to attract, they gleefully joined in the manufactured outrage and lumbering witch hunt against her.
Indeed, with 650+ MPs theres for more than enough room for young people, and they should be encouraged.
Confirmation Number: 29G304043J8424115 Placed on 11 May 2015 Purpose Donation amount Supporting Politicalbetting's infrastructure £19.34 GBP Total Amount: £19.34 GBP ---- Thank you very much for making a One Off Payment of £19.34 to Cats Protection; your generosity will allow us to help cat after cat!
Please check your Gift Aid status below. If you wish to change your status, please contact us.
Your donation details:
Reference Number: 24429 Donation Amount: £19.34 Gift Aid: No Best Regards,
On the Labour leadership contest, I think there is a strong risk (or pehaps I should betting opportunity) of people misreading it. There are two key points:
1. You're not trying to decide who'd be the best candidate. You're trying to decide who a bunch of mainly left-wing Labour activists and trade unionists - and this time without MPs holding a third of the cards - will think is the best candidate. It's a classic Keynsian Beauty Contest.
2. Understand the voting system before looking at the market. It's AV, and electorate are the said activists and union members. AV favours the least-unpopular candidate, not the one who can win on the first round. The nature of the electorate favours union-approved candidates - in fact I think unions will have more, not less, influence this time, given that the restraining voice of MPs has been neutralised.
Clacton 44,43 Boston and Skegness 33,79 Thanet South 32,44 Heywood and Middleton 32,20 Thurrock 31,71 Castle Point 31,19 Rochester and Strood 30,48 Rotherham 30,18 Dagenham and Rainham 29,85 Rother Valley 28,08 Hartlepool 27,99 Basildon South and East Thurrock 26,53 Thanet North 25,71 Hornchurch and Upminster 25,30 West Bromwich West 25,23 Mansfield 25,11 Great Grimsby 24,95 Wentworth and Dearne 24,85 Sittingbourne and Sheppey 24,82 Stoke-on-Trent North 24,69
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
Yeah this is continually ignored. Not a single SNP candidate was selected before the First Ashcroft Constituency Polls for Scotland which showed every single seat in play, Better than UNS swing and a potential wipe out of all other parties.
Take Mhairi Black.
She is FINISHING a four year degree course at 20. I do not know whether she sat her highers at 16 or managed to get a credit year, it is most likely the former. This means she is very, very smart, ahead of the curve intellectually. Going on the lash and hating on Celtic on twitter are not a sign of any intellectual inadequacy - it's does show that while she must be very smart, she is also quite grounded and normal and not a typical HotHouser with no social abiliity or interests outside academia.
The whole media obsession with trawling twitter will fade away as they realise that without Faux Outrage, people generally don't get shocked that anyone in public life might have sworn or got drunk when they were younger.
I did that (finishing an honours degree at 20) so it is not a sign of being particularly bright. But I did think her speech on election night was excellent and said so at the time.
I think it is inevitable that so many new MPs will be something of a mixed bag and that there will be some who just don't get the HoC.
EVEL is going to be a key issue. If that passes in any substantial way then being a Scottish MP is going to be a strictly part time activity and we all know what the devil does with idle hands.
In the parallel universe of the Westminster bubble and SLAB's branch bubble somewhere in Glasgow, Murphy or should I say Jim McFly is still being lauded by party figures living in both bubbles as a great success as leader. I sometimes wonder what planet these guys are on, the longer Jim hangs on the more of its much reduced credibility SLAB is losing.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the SLAB constituency MSPs are contemplating defecting to the SNP as things appear to be going from bad to worse for SLAB.
On the Labour leadership contest, I think there is a strong risk (or pehaps I should betting opportunity) of people misreading it. There are two key points:
1. You're not trying to decide who'd be the best candidate. You're trying to decide who a bunch of mainly left-wing Labour activists and trade unionists - and this time without MPs holding a third of the cards - will think is the best candidate. It's a classic Keynsian Beauty Contest.
2. Understand the voting system before looking at the market. It's AV, and electorate are the said activists and union members. AV favours the least-unpopular candidate, not the one who can win on the first round. The nature of the electorate favours union-approved candidates - in fact I think unions will have more, not less, influence this time, given that the restraining voice of MPs has been neutralised.
Sounds like Burnham is the man to beat, on that basis.
On the Labour leadership contest, I think there is a strong risk (or pehaps I should betting opportunity) of people misreading it. There are two key points:
1. You're not trying to decide who'd be the best candidate. You're trying to decide who a bunch of mainly left-wing Labour activists and trade unionists - and this time without MPs holding a third of the cards - will think is the best candidate. It's a classic Keynsian Beauty Contest.
2. Understand the voting system before looking at the market. It's AV, and electorate are the said activists and union members. AV favours the least-unpopular candidate, not the one who can win on the first round. The nature of the electorate favours union-approved candidates - in fact I think unions will have more, not less, influence this time, given that the restraining voice of MPs has been neutralised.
None of my posts on the subject so far have been betting posts. I've tried to be helpful to Labour supporters.
I'm sadly expecting them to make a poor choice based on a misreading of what went wrong on each of the last two occasions. They shouldn't fight yesterday's battles, but they probably will.
You mentioned early on in the campaign that Phillip Hammond had been in your constituency and that when you talked to him he had been quietly confident that things were much better than they seemed. Any change that you can elaborate or is that about the sum of what he said?
Cheers
He added that the top campaign team appreciated that the polling at the time - over two weeks before election day - was close but as the day drew near they were absolutely confident that the undecideds would fall decisively to the Conservatives and so there was no sense of anxiety. It was all going as anticipated.
And so it proved in the event, but for myself, bearing his words in my mind, as the polls did not reflect any discernible improvement (and as we know on May 7th itself appeared to be showing a shift to Lavour), I had my own minor wobbly Thursday where the expectation of victory was instinct than evidence!
The outlook for Labour is indeed poor. The economy will obviously dictate the political narrative as we go forward. If the Tories don't mess up the economy and if they don't tear themselves part over Europe, they will comfortably win the next GE (the old adage that Governments lose elections rather than Oppositions winning elections stands true as it ever did).
Ideally, Labour needs a leader who can unite the left, centre-left and centre (or cut anyway WWC, left-leaning middle Englanders and the metropolitan left leaning folk). Unfortunately no such candidate exists so what's the next best option?
I know he's not perfect but my choice would be Chuka Umuna - he's got the look, good on TV and has some charisma. To balance things out a working class northerner as deputy leader would be ideal (aka Blair/Prescott).
Equally important as the leader is the direction and vision of the party. I am not a fan of labels such as New Labour, Brownite, Blairite, Wilsonite - all this just washes over normal folk. What Labour simply needs to do is reconnect with the people that have traditionally supported it - It must be the party of the opportunity, aspiration, social mobility and compassion.
What this election has taught me is that leadership really matters. Thinking you can wing-it with a sub-optimal leader is doomed to failure.
I will always be on the side of progressive politics - I hope the Labour party make the right decisions going forward but the omens are not promising.
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.
Yup, i called it at at least 37% with a possible small increase. Which is *exactly* what our canvassing called (not that percent, but relative to national vote). I found it hugely puzzeling as this was a region that was supposed to have a bigger swing against than the rest of the country. This patter was repeated in other marginals in the same region.
Our canvassing showed close to no switch from people who supported us in 2010. Labour vote surprisingly soft, UKIP eating Labour as much as eating us, if not more so. Every session we would encounter people switching to us. People noted down as probable supportes and undecideds, where when canvassed later on in the campaign falling to us maybe 60/40. If it wasnt for the national polls i would have called it a clear win.
My argument was that Labour would, with the libdem vote coalescing around them would manage to win in many of the marginals, and the Con vote remain the same.
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.
There was a general refusal on this site to accept that:
1. The canvassing returns being disclosed were anything other than over-hopeful amateurs talking up their game.
2. The Labour Uncut article about very poor Labour postal vote returns had any validity.
There was plenty of stuff on here about specific seats in play. I remember reading that Amber Valley and several adjacent seats were looking very good for the Tories. That the Tory vote in Yorkshire was solid on 2010 numbers. I relayed messages from Con canvassers that Gloucester was safe, that Cheltenham was looking good and that even Yeovil was close (although possibly a bridge too far this time).
And just to blow my own trumpet a little, about 4 weeks before poling, I reckoned Torbay was in the range of 37-39% Con, 35-37% LibDem. A few days before poling, my best guess at the final result was a Con majority of 1,000 - 2,000. In the end I was a tad pessimistic - the vote was 40.7% Con, 33.8% LD with a Con majority of 3,286. Spin on that, your Lordship!
On the Labour leadership contest, I think there is a strong risk (or pehaps I should betting opportunity) of people misreading it. There are two key points:
1. You're not trying to decide who'd be the best candidate. You're trying to decide who a bunch of mainly left-wing Labour activists and trade unionists - and this time without MPs holding a third of the cards - will think is the best candidate. It's a classic Keynsian Beauty Contest.
2. Understand the voting system before looking at the market. It's AV, and electorate are the said activists and union members. AV favours the least-unpopular candidate, not the one who can win on the first round. The nature of the electorate favours union-approved candidates - in fact I think unions will have more, not less, influence this time, given that the restraining voice of MPs has been neutralised.
This is excellent news. Dave will be well chuffed!
Huzzah, John Whittingdale the new Culture Secretary.
He's going to hammer the BBC, expect the license fee to be reduced to £20 per year.
Good move. But it will not be that low. 1. End criminalisation of fee dodgers 2. End Govt funds for the free licences (80s) 3. Freeze the fee for 4 years 4. End the fee in 2020...... BBC to fund itself from subscriptions and adverts etc. Just like Netflix, Nowtv,Sky, BTTV, C4 etc 5. Sell off Channel 4 and raise a £1billion
By the way, has anyone in Labour yet noticed the huge elephant trap that George Osborne has already set for 2020?
Do elucidate, please.
Labour spent all of 2010-2015 attacking the coalition's cuts. Then found themselves in 2015 with the public not trusting them to look after the nation's purse strings.
The Conservatives are committed to much greater cuts in this Parliament than Labour was advocating. What are the chances of history repeating itself?
But in the last Parliament we had fairly consistent growth, turning into fairly rapid growth latterly (the way that Osborne got the economy at a peak for the election in a FTP will be analysed for years). In this Parliament we will have a recession and the argument that it has been caused by too many cuts (as opposed to, say, the economic cycle) might just carry a little more weight.
On the Labour leadership contest, I think there is a strong risk (or pehaps I should betting opportunity) of people misreading it. There are two key points:
1. You're not trying to decide who'd be the best candidate. You're trying to decide who a bunch of mainly left-wing Labour activists and trade unionists - and this time without MPs holding a third of the cards - will think is the best candidate. It's a classic Keynsian Beauty Contest.
2. Understand the voting system before looking at the market. It's AV, and electorate are the said activists and union members. AV favours the least-unpopular candidate, not the one who can win on the first round. The nature of the electorate favours union-approved candidates - in fact I think unions will have more, not less, influence this time, given that the restraining voice of MPs has been neutralised.
Sounds like Burnham is the man to beat, on that basis.
Union members can only vote if they've explicitly signed up to be Labour supporters, with the associated cost. The party membership is largely left of the PLP average, but they also want to win. My CLP has lots of people who really like Andy, including me, but I've yet to meet one who is committed to support him - the sense that we need someone who is fairly new to the public is quite strong. I'd make Andy joint favourite, but no more than that at this stage.
The Labour cupboard is bare, the list of candidates is comically poor. EdM looks like a giant compared to these dwarves.
Mhhh not sure about that (EdM looking like a giant)
Whoever gets the gig may surprise on the upside.
Personally I think Jarvis ruling himself out is a bit of a result for the conservatives as he really does have some life experience (and his comments today seemed remarkably honest as regards Labours failings).
By the way, has anyone in Labour yet noticed the huge elephant trap that George Osborne has already set for 2020?
Do elucidate, please.
Labour spent all of 2010-2015 attacking the coalition's cuts. Then found themselves in 2015 with the public not trusting them to look after the nation's purse strings.
The Conservatives are committed to much greater cuts in this Parliament than Labour was advocating. What are the chances of history repeating itself?
But in the last Parliament we had fairly consistent growth, turning into fairly rapid growth latterly (the way that Osborne got the economy at a peak for the election in a FTP will be analysed for years). In this Parliament we will have a recession and the argument that it has been caused by too many cuts (as opposed to, say, the economic cycle) might just carry a little more weight.
Comments
The unions (and labour) would fight hell for leather against it. But it isnt an unreasonable position, and one that could be easily presented by the Government.
"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; "
It might weaken it, but I imagine the SNP will highlight to great effect the statistic which I have already mentioned up thread, namely that the % Tory vote in Scotland is the worst since 1865 (not a typo!)
The monthly Scottish Questions should be fun-Mundell v the 56. No doubt the Scots Tories (England elected) will all turn up to help Mundell, but that is a sight that will probably make it worse for the unionists.
The Scottish Select Committee (or whatever it is called), following the rules of the House, should be significantly majority unionist-plenty of scope for the SNP to point out the farce that is.
for most of his time Osborne has been in negative territory only recently has he edged up and the major part of that support is tribal voters. Let;s see how he fares this Parlt.
I reckon Dave's gonna appoint him Party Chairman
Is there an English Select Committee. Or an England Office? Simplest solution would be to abolish the Scottish Office.
The Conservatives are committed to much greater cuts in this Parliament than Labour was advocating. What are the chances of history repeating itself?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32683869
I had not realised they promise to cap skilled immigration from outside the EU at 20,700. Is this a mistake by the BBC? Why would you cap skilled immigration more than unskilled immigration? That does not make any sense.
ooh yea, I forgot about that. Here's the thread;
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/2039/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-farage-in-trouble-in-thanet-s-while-clegg-could-be-struggli/p3
Burnham will stand his ego guarantees that, if he succeeds disaster for his party and not good for the nation, we need higher quality opposition.
Year Lab+LibDem Con+DNV
2001 15.5 26.7
2005 15.5 25.9
2010 15.4 26.6
2015 11.8 26.4
The 'right' (Tory and DNV remarkably steady but with Tories eating into DNV this time). Dave got out the vote where it counts. (If you incl UKIP the 'right' is rampant).
The 'left' remarkably steady for the last three times of asking but collapsed this time. To have any hope they need to win back at least 4 million votes. (and all in middle England).
What seems to be absent and nowhere in prospect is a process whereby the party figures out what the exam questions are, so the the applicant who gives the best answer gets the job.
My stab at those questions would be:
1/ How does Labour now not lose the northern WWC to UKIP like it has lost the Scotch WWC to the SNP?
2/ How does a future Labour GE campaign get past Labour's actual record in government?
3/ Having lost the centre to Cameron, and now failed from the hard-left, where should Labour now be?
4/ Why actually does Labour want to govern?
These may not be the right questions, although they're pretty obvious ones. Neither Butcher Burnham nor Chuka is the answer, in which case they'll just have to lose elections until the Tories drop the ball.
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/597686059485372416
Do you still want it to go to charity? if so, lemme know where you want me to wire the monies....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA3zhzT1wDo
"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. "
An understandable but incorrect analysis.
All SNP candidates were selected after the Referendum and after opinion polls had shown the SNP miles clear. No SNP candidate will have thought he/she had no chance, not even the 3 who lost, 2 by less that a thousand votes, and one after a largely false demonization by the MSM and SLAB.
His growth isnt because of tribal voters, its from those who arent tribal.
The New Labour wing is demonised by large numbers to the left. Those that are further to the left likely to be unelectable in bulk by UK voters, and are repellent to New Labour types. Is the church wide enough to contain both?
What do we know of the make up of Labour 2015?
Where do the elected MPs stand on the spectrum? There are a reasonable number of new MPs installed at this election. To the left, right, Unions or any other persuasion?
Will either section of the MPs coalesce around one candidate, giving them say 70 nominations? This would reduce the number of candidates, show a preference and concentrate the votes for that wing of the party to the favoured candidate.
Do we know the true health and make up of the constituency parties and the way that they lean politicly? How efficient will Unions be at motivating members to vote for a specific candidate?
It is easy to visualise a lot of angst both before and after the leadership election. Gathering the strands into a coherent platform that keeps all the disparate views contented will not be the easiest job in politics.
Take Mhairi Black.
She is FINISHING a four year degree course at 20. I do not know whether she sat her highers at 16 or managed to get a credit year, it is most likely the former. This means she is very, very smart, ahead of the curve intellectually. Going on the lash and hating on Celtic on twitter are not a sign of any intellectual inadequacy - it's does show that while she must be very smart, she is also quite grounded and normal and not a typical HotHouser with no social abiliity or interests outside academia.
The whole media obsession with trawling twitter will fade away as they realise that without Faux Outrage, people generally don't get shocked that anyone in public life might have sworn or got drunk when they were younger.
Is that a good thing for someone heading up The Department of Energy and Climate Change?
"Not really. The place for Scottish-only discussion of Scotland is Holyrood. The Scottish Select Comittee (or whatever) is for whatever role Westminster has in Scotland and should follow Westminster rules - or be abolished and have its responsibilities taken by Holyrood.
Is there an English Select Committee. Or an England Office? Simplest solution would be to abolish the Scottish Office. "
If you can't see how badly the situation you envisage in your first paragraph is going to play out in Scotland, I really cannot help you. Also, stating what should be the obvious, moving all the responsibilities covered by the Scottish Select Committee to Holyrood requires Scotland to be independent.
Certainly the position of SoS Scotland should be abolished, but I don't see how the monthly Scottish Questions can be abolished without negative flack-so I don't see the Tories depriving Mundell of the fruits of his temporary triumph :-).
Get your punts on Sajid Javid for next Conservative leader, if you haven't already done so.
Robert Halfon Deputy Chair of the Tory Party.
You mentioned early on in the campaign that Phillip Hammond had been in your constituency and that when you talked to him he had been quietly confident that things were much better than they seemed. Any change that you can elaborate or is that about the sum of what he said?
Cheers
Hampshire North East Ranil Jayawardena 65,88
Maidenhead Theresa May 65,83
Windsor Adam Afriyie 63,39
Beaconsfield Dominic Grieve 63,24
Chelsea and Fulham Greg Hands 62,95
Esher and Walton Dominic Raab 62,91
Meon Valley George Hollingbery 61,06
Newbury Richard Benyon 61,03
Arundel and South Downs Nick Herbert 60,79
Hampshire East Damian Hinds 60,67
Mole Valley Sir Paul Beresford 60,63
Maldon John Whittingdale 60,59
Witney David Cameron 60,19
Northamptonshire South Andrea Leadsom 60,15
New Forest West Desmond Swayne 59,95
Surrey South West Jeremy Hunt 59,87
Surrey Heath Michael Gove 59,86
Runnymede and Weybridge Philip Hammond 59,74
Penrith and The Border Rory Stewart 59,66
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner Nick Hurd 59,59
In 174 constituencies Conservatives polled more than 50%
Huzzah.
Liverpool Walton Steve Rotheram 81,30
Knowsley George Howarth 78,12
East Ham Stephen Timms 77,57
Liverpool West Derby Stephen Twigg 75,17
Bootle Peter Dowd 74,46
Birmingham Ladywood Shabana Mahmood 73,63
Liverpool Wavertree Luciana Berger 69,31
Garston and Halewood Maria Eagle 69,08
Walthamstow Stella Creasy 68,86
West Ham Lyn Brown 68,44
Birmingham Hodge Hill Liam Byrne 68,40
Birkenhead Frank Field 67,62
Liverpool Riverside Louise Ellman 67,40
Tottenham David Lammy 67,33
Manchester Gorton Sir Gerald Kaufman 67,08
Ealing Southall Virendra Sharma 64,97
Hackney South and Shoreditch Meg Hillier 64,40
Ilford South Mike Gapes 64,02
Camberwell and Peckham Harriet Harman 63,25
Hackney North and Stoke Newington Diane Abbott 62,86
In 106 constituencies Labour polled more than 50%
Hopefully Esther McVey can get back into parliament somehow.
It seems quite likely that the Tories simply had better systems. Quality versus quantity. Or the smart bomb versus carpet bombing.
Confirmation Number: 29G304043J8424115 Placed on 11 May 2015
Purpose Donation amount
Supporting Politicalbetting's infrastructure £19.34 GBP
Total Amount: £19.34 GBP
----
Thank you very much for making a One Off Payment of £19.34 to Cats Protection; your generosity will allow us to help cat after cat!
Please check your Gift Aid status below. If you wish to change your status, please contact us.
Your donation details:
Reference Number: 24429
Donation Amount: £19.34
Gift Aid: No
Best Regards,
Cats Protection
1. You're not trying to decide who'd be the best candidate. You're trying to decide who a bunch of mainly left-wing Labour activists and trade unionists - and this time without MPs holding a third of the cards - will think is the best candidate. It's a classic Keynsian Beauty Contest.
2. Understand the voting system before looking at the market. It's AV, and electorate are the said activists and union members. AV favours the least-unpopular candidate, not the one who can win on the first round. The nature of the electorate favours union-approved candidates - in fact I think unions will have more, not less, influence this time, given that the restraining voice of MPs has been neutralised.
"Missing the clean sweep really got under your skin, didn't it? "
I was devastated by the failure, but console myself with the thought of further pleasure merely deferred.
Clacton 44,43
Boston and Skegness 33,79
Thanet South 32,44
Heywood and Middleton 32,20
Thurrock 31,71
Castle Point 31,19
Rochester and Strood 30,48
Rotherham 30,18
Dagenham and Rainham 29,85
Rother Valley 28,08
Hartlepool 27,99
Basildon South and East Thurrock 26,53
Thanet North 25,71
Hornchurch and Upminster 25,30
West Bromwich West 25,23
Mansfield 25,11
Great Grimsby 24,95
Wentworth and Dearne 24,85
Sittingbourne and Sheppey 24,82
Stoke-on-Trent North 24,69
In 69 constituencies UKIP polled more than 20%
I think it is inevitable that so many new MPs will be something of a mixed bag and that there will be some who just don't get the HoC.
EVEL is going to be a key issue. If that passes in any substantial way then being a Scottish MP is going to be a strictly part time activity and we all know what the devil does with idle hands.
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/labour-go-back-to-the-future-as-top-figures-call-for-return-of-new-labour.2819
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the SLAB constituency MSPs are contemplating defecting to the SNP as things appear to be going from bad to worse for SLAB.
I'm sadly expecting them to make a poor choice based on a misreading of what went wrong on each of the last two occasions. They shouldn't fight yesterday's battles, but they probably will.
He's going to hammer the BBC, expect the license fee to be reduced to £20 per year.
And so it proved in the event, but for myself, bearing his words in my mind, as the polls did not reflect any discernible improvement (and as we know on May 7th itself appeared to be showing a shift to Lavour), I had my own minor wobbly Thursday where the expectation of victory was instinct than evidence!
The outlook for Labour is indeed poor. The economy will obviously dictate the political narrative as we go forward. If the Tories don't mess up the economy and if they don't tear themselves part over Europe, they will comfortably win the next GE (the old adage that Governments lose elections rather than Oppositions winning elections stands true as it ever did).
Ideally, Labour needs a leader who can unite the left, centre-left and centre (or cut anyway WWC, left-leaning middle Englanders and the metropolitan left leaning folk). Unfortunately no such candidate exists so what's the next best option?
I know he's not perfect but my choice would be Chuka Umuna - he's got the look, good on TV and has some charisma. To balance things out a working class northerner as deputy leader would be ideal (aka Blair/Prescott).
Equally important as the leader is the direction and vision of the party. I am not a fan of labels such as New Labour, Brownite, Blairite, Wilsonite - all this just washes over normal folk. What Labour simply needs to do is reconnect with the people that have traditionally supported it - It must be the party of the opportunity, aspiration, social mobility and compassion.
What this election has taught me is that leadership really matters. Thinking you can wing-it with a sub-optimal leader is doomed to failure.
I will always be on the side of progressive politics - I hope the Labour party make the right decisions going forward but the omens are not promising.
Our canvassing showed close to no switch from people who supported us in 2010. Labour vote surprisingly soft, UKIP eating Labour as much as eating us, if not more so. Every session we would encounter people switching to us. People noted down as probable supportes and undecideds, where when canvassed later on in the campaign falling to us maybe 60/40. If it wasnt for the national polls i would have called it a clear win.
My argument was that Labour would, with the libdem vote coalescing around them would manage to win in many of the marginals, and the Con vote remain the same.
1. The canvassing returns being disclosed were anything other than over-hopeful amateurs talking up their game.
2. The Labour Uncut article about very poor Labour postal vote returns had any validity.
There was plenty of stuff on here about specific seats in play. I remember reading that Amber Valley and several adjacent seats were looking very good for the Tories. That the Tory vote in Yorkshire was solid on 2010 numbers. I relayed messages from Con canvassers that Gloucester was safe, that Cheltenham was looking good and that even Yeovil was close (although possibly a bridge too far this time).
And just to blow my own trumpet a little, about 4 weeks before poling, I reckoned Torbay was in the range of 37-39% Con, 35-37% LibDem. A few days before poling, my best guess at the final result was a Con majority of 1,000 - 2,000. In the end I was a tad pessimistic - the vote was 40.7% Con, 33.8% LD with a Con majority of 3,286. Spin on that, your Lordship!
I know this is a difficult time, but I'm afraid there is a matter I must raise with you. http://t.co/iH1qSUwBIo
@Thatcherite4: The number of NHS workers-turned-Tory MP's increased again this election. Labour STILL has 0 ex-NHS MP's. http://t.co/sS0QkHl69d
Beeb very afraid.
1. End criminalisation of fee dodgers
2. End Govt funds for the free licences (80s)
3. Freeze the fee for 4 years
4. End the fee in 2020...... BBC to fund itself from subscriptions and adverts etc. Just like Netflix, Nowtv,Sky, BTTV, C4 etc
5. Sell off Channel 4 and raise a £1billion
Whoever gets the gig may surprise on the upside.
Personally I think Jarvis ruling himself out is a bit of a result for the conservatives as he really does have some life experience (and his comments today seemed remarkably honest as regards Labours failings).
The British Obama might be a laugh though.......
'Huzzah, John Whittingdale the new Culture Secretary.
He's going to hammer the BBC, expect the license fee to be reduced to £20 per year.'
That will be especially popular with Labour voters,an example of Ed's vested interests, cost of living theme, fat cats et al.