It is surely wrong. The out of depth woman who won Heywood and Middleton by-election last year has worked for NHS. The new MPs for Bristol South and Dewsbury worked for NHS at some point of their lives too.
Is anyone else of the opinion that 5 years as leader of the opposition is simply too long a period? Cameron in 2010 and Miliband in 2015 both suffered from losing the 'new' and 'fresh' credentials. Maggie and Blair had much shorter run-ups.
IMHO Labour would be far better off having Harman or another safe pair of hands lead the party for a couple of years and schedule a leadership election for early 2018. The fixed term parliament act also makes this viable.
What we are getting is a clear sense of where David Cameron wants the noise in government to be created. The BBC Charter renewal and the legal profession are going to be noisy subjects.
"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.
We have just seen what became of the numerous SLab idiots inflicted on Westminster in 2010, since their SNP replacements seem to be of similar low quality, there should be another clear out in 2020.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
@David_Cameron: I have appointed John Whittingdale as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
That looks like a declaration of war to me.
Does Cameron have any mates in his Chipping Norton set who might, just hypothetically, have been sacked by the BBC in the past couple of months for thumping producers? Or who work for media groups with rival television stations?
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
Aunty has made great strides to improve biased reporting recently, only this Sunday they had 3 journo’s on the sofa, two of which were from the Guardian – now in the old days it would have been all three..!
Mr. Rob, I posted much the same thing the other day.
Labour should have a prolonged look at its general approach (not specific policies, mind), and then have a proper leadership election, and then a full policy review.
They're putting the cart before the horse. You can't hire someone before you know the job they'll be doing. Is it making socialism acceptable? Is it showing Labour can be trusted with the economy?
Miliband had to go, but he didn't have to go immediately. Just one final cock up from Red Ed.
"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.
If you are in touch please do. To be honest, I would be happy with him making an equivalent amount as a contribution to this site.
I'm not sure which would stick in his craw the most!
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
If you think you're getting tremendous value for money then feel free to buy a subscription, no need to inflict it on everybody with an inefficiently-collected poll tax.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Yep - the Tories may find out that not everybody hates the BBC as much as they do. That said, reform is needed. Having a compulsory licence fee is ridiculous in this day and age. The issue is what should happen instead. With the brand name it has, the BBC would find it relatively easy to raise money in the markets and to attract a good level of advertising revenue - something that would be very bad news for ITV and, potentially, Sky, which may find it has to pay a shed load more to secure broadcasting rights for the sports events it is so dependent on. Unfortunately, it probably means that watching TV will become more expensive for everyone.
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.
Interest rates will also rise.
Probably but not for a while and not by much. With inflation at zero there is no pressure to do so. If we get a recession, of course, they may well come back down again.
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.
Purnell may as well hand in his notice now and run for Labour leader!
Actually I realise I have very likely lost my fiver but it would not surprise me at all if he is Labour leader one day. Labour turning to David Miliband would be guilt by association, Purnell is the ideal choice for DM supporters.
I thought the news had referred to Johnny Mercer as an ex-commando, but that's not backed up anywhere. Anyway, him and Tugendhat have pretty long military careers.
What we are getting is a clear sense of where David Cameron wants the noise in government to be created. The BBC Charter renewal and the legal profession are going to be noisy subjects.
Or The Clarkson Commission, as I hear it will be called.....
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.
Interest rates will also rise.
Probably but not for a while and not by much. With inflation at zero there is no pressure to do so. If we get a recession, of course, they may well come back down again.
I wonder how many people have mortgages that will become unaffordable on even a relatively slight rise in interest rates.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
There is nothing special about the BBC, no matter how loudly and repeatedly BBC executives assert it.
There's no need to talk in terms of 'revenge' or 'screwing' them. It's just time that we looked at where it fits in a world where many people get their entertainment/information from alternative sources and/or alternative means (in our household that's a combination of box sets, Netflix and Prime instant video).
The fact that it's a regressive tax enforced by draconian means fits with what I hope is a developing theme of helping the poorest in our society.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Yep - the Tories may find out that not everybody hates the BBC as much as they do. That said, reform is needed. Having a compulsory licence fee is ridiculous in this day and age. The issue is what should happen instead. With the brand name it has, the BBC would find it relatively easy to raise money in the markets and to attract a good level of advertising revenue - something that would be very bad news for ITV and, potentially, Sky, which may find it has to pay a shed load more to secure broadcasting rights for the sports events it is so dependent on. Unfortunately, it probably means that watching TV will become more expensive for everyone.
If the BBC is getting more money from advertisers, then it would require less money from viewers. That would make watching TV cheaper, not more expensive.
I said the other day that Dave was a very good PM but only potentially a great politician as he had thus far failed to demonstrate any electoral ability and delivering on his political wishes. Well, today I upgrade my view of him (as I suspect will history). He's a contender for greatness. He's destroyed the left and is laying the base for future strength. Hobbling the Beeb and boundaries may only be the start. Like a scond term US president he may now be looking to his legacy and actually push to achieve meaningful things. Today's reshuffle looks to me very much like a statement of intent. Good!
It looks as if Cameron has failed to abolish some of the more useless Government Departments, or even get rid of the ghastly names Labour gave them ("Energy and Climate Change", "Business, Innovation and Skills", "Culture, Media and Sport" etc.). It would have been a better move to have slimmed down the number of Departments, and reduced the size of the Cabinet.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Yep - the Tories may find out that not everybody hates the BBC as much as they do. That said, reform is needed. Having a compulsory licence fee is ridiculous in this day and age. The issue is what should happen instead. With the brand name it has, the BBC would find it relatively easy to raise money in the markets and to attract a good level of advertising revenue - something that would be very bad news for ITV and, potentially, Sky, which may find it has to pay a shed load more to secure broadcasting rights for the sports events it is so dependent on. Unfortunately, it probably means that watching TV will become more expensive for everyone.
If the BBC is getting more money from advertisers, then it would require less money from viewers. That would make watching TV cheaper, not more expensive.
Hmm - you might want to ask Sky subscribers about that.
Decrepidohn.. I haven't thumped a BBC producer for a long time.. had a few sacked tho.. and I don't live in Chipping Norton, but I totally disagree that someone can be sent to prison for not paying a fee to watch TV.. Absolutely ludicrous.
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it.
I watched the BBC coverage of the spin room after the last TV debate.
The reporter in the studio threw to their reporter in the room (which is fine) but she then threw to another reporter in the same room (and visible in shot behind her). Of course the Newsnight reporter was also in shot, before they finally threw to Nick Robinson outside the venue.
Did it really take 5 different BBC reporters (each with their own crew) to tell us Cameron won by a country mile?
I said the other day that Dave was a very good PM but only potentially a great politician as he had thus far failed to demonstrate any electoral ability and delivering on his political wishes. Well, today I upgrade my view of him (as I suspect will history). He's a contender for greatness. He's destroyed the left and is laying the base for future strength. Hobbling the Beeb and boundaries may only be the start. Like a scond term US president he may now be looking to his legacy and actually push to achieve meaningful things. Today's reshuffle looks to me very much like a statement of intent. Good!
A lot depends on the Union. If Scotland goes that is what Cameron will be remembered for.
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!
I always pay close attention to what canvassers tell us on here (and you have a long track record on here of carefully seeking to give information as fairly as you can). But even you would have to accept that some canvassers can be over-hopeful, and that with a long string of opinion polls suggesting something different, it's not that surprising where the consensus on the likely outcome lay.
I said the other day that Dave was a very good PM but only potentially a great politician as he had thus far failed to demonstrate any electoral ability and delivering on his political wishes. Well, today I upgrade my view of him (as I suspect will history). He's a contender for greatness. He's destroyed the left and is laying the base for future strength. Hobbling the Beeb and boundaries may only be the start. Like a scond term US president he may now be looking to his legacy and actually push to achieve meaningful things. Today's reshuffle looks to me very much like a statement of intent. Good!
A lot depends on the Union. If Scotland goes that is what Cameron will be remembered for.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Yep - the Tories may find out that not everybody hates the BBC as much as they do. That said, reform is needed. Having a compulsory licence fee is ridiculous in this day and age. The issue is what should happen instead. With the brand name it has, the BBC would find it relatively easy to raise money in the markets and to attract a good level of advertising revenue - something that would be very bad news for ITV and, potentially, Sky, which may find it has to pay a shed load more to secure broadcasting rights for the sports events it is so dependent on. Unfortunately, it probably means that watching TV will become more expensive for everyone.
They won't kill the BBC, they're not stupid. Trimming it, and turning it into a subscription model is a no brainer though.
I said the other day that Dave was a very good PM but only potentially a great politician as he had thus far failed to demonstrate any electoral ability and delivering on his political wishes. Well, today I upgrade my view of him (as I suspect will history). He's a contender for greatness.
@Gary_Bainbridge: I can't believe Cameron has appointed an actual bull as Secretary of State for Crockery and Pottery.
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it.
I watched the BBC coverage of the spin room after the last TV debate.
The reporter in the studio threw to their reporter in the room (which is fine) but she then threw to another reporter in the same room (and visible in shot behind her). Of course the Newsnight reporter was also in shot, before they finally threw to Nick Robinson outside the venue.
Did it really take 5 different BBC reporters (each with their own crew) to tell us Cameron won by a country mile?
If you (or the BBC) have different services, then you will need different reporters. Radio One can't take the same feed as Newsnight.
Mr. Rob, I posted much the same thing the other day.
Labour should have a prolonged look at its general approach (not specific policies, mind), and then have a proper leadership election, and then a full policy review.
They're putting the cart before the horse. You can't hire someone before you know the job they'll be doing. Is it making socialism acceptable? Is it showing Labour can be trusted with the economy?
Miliband had to go, but he didn't have to go immediately. Just one final cock up from Red Ed.
To be honest I think getting Miliband out the way isn't the worst idea at this stage, but the rush to appoint someone so quickly when the next election is such a long time away seems daft.
Is there a rule that says they have to? If they wait till 2017/2018 it'd give someone like Dan Jarvis a chance to grow in his portfolio and public awareness.
On the polling, I don't think the polling was wrong as such. I don't think there are 'shy Tories'. I think it is much simpler than that: it was 'soft Labour' wot did it - people who vaguely support Labour (and told pollsters that) but when push came to shove couldn't bring themselves to actually vote Labour in order to put a clearly incompetent and unready opposition into power - especially into 'power' but in thrall to the SNP.
You only have to look at the Labour supporters here. Almost no-one actually rated Ed Miliband, or championed the Labour policy platform, such as it was. A few tried to improve their own morale by clutching at any straws in the campaign which suggested Ed wasn't quite as bad as they had feared (though even that was hard to do, given Labour's self-inflicted injuries such as the EdStone). But there was no enthusiasm, and no determination.
I said the other day that Dave was a very good PM but only potentially a great politician as he had thus far failed to demonstrate any electoral ability and delivering on his political wishes. Well, today I upgrade my view of him (as I suspect will history). He's a contender for greatness. He's destroyed the left and is laying the base for future strength. Hobbling the Beeb and boundaries may only be the start. Like a scond term US president he may now be looking to his legacy and actually push to achieve meaningful things. Today's reshuffle looks to me very much like a statement of intent. Good!
A lot depends on the Union. If Scotland goes that is what Cameron will be remembered for.
..and is that a positive or a negative???
That will be for history to judge. Becoming the PM of one country and ending up as the PM of another, much smaller one is not a usual event, so we'll have to see. But we do know that Dave wants to keep the Union, so if he doesn't he will have failed on his own terms.
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.
Interest rates will also rise.
Probably but not for a while and not by much. With inflation at zero there is no pressure to do so. If we get a recession, of course, they may well come back down again.
I wonder how many people have mortgages that will become unaffordable on even a relatively slight rise in interest rates.
Very few I think.
Those who have bought their house in the last few years will have had to meet the somewhat nannyish affordability criteria. Those who bought their houses before that will on average have had significant increases in wages in nominal terms and increasingly in real terms since the purchase.
The one's at risk from an increase in rates are overstretched BTL landlords with minimal margins. If an increase forces them to reduce their portfolios and increase supply for actual owner occupiers then it may well do some good.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Yep - the Tories may find out that not everybody hates the BBC as much as they do. That said, reform is needed. Having a compulsory licence fee is ridiculous in this day and age. The issue is what should happen instead. With the brand name it has, the BBC would find it relatively easy to raise money in the markets and to attract a good level of advertising revenue - something that would be very bad news for ITV and, potentially, Sky, which may find it has to pay a shed load more to secure broadcasting rights for the sports events it is so dependent on. Unfortunately, it probably means that watching TV will become more expensive for everyone.
They won't kill the BBC, they're not stupid. Trimming it, and turning it into a subscription model is a no brainer though.
Sure - and that will make it more expensive. I guess it depends on how many people save money by dumping the BBC and keeping their other subscriptions. But as I say, with a slimmed down BBC competing for stuff that at the moment is essentially off limits - live Premier League, the Champions League, test cricket, etc - Sky subscriptions may also have to rise, especially as they (and ITV) will lose ad revenues to the BBC too.
It looks as if Cameron has failed to abolish some of the more useless Government Departments, or even get rid of the ghastly names Labour gave them ("Energy and Climate Change", "Business, Innovation and Skills", "Culture, Media and Sport" etc.). It would have been a better move to have slimmed down the number of Departments, and reduced the size of the Cabinet.
Hopefully this will be done at the 2018 reshuffle when there is less need to make room for new talent in the cabinet. At the moment he has to get enough individuals experience so that they can run for the party leadership in 2019/2020.
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%
"since their SNP replacements seem to be of similar low quality"
If that is the case (which it is not) they disguise it well, given their considerable success in life as evidenced e.g. university qualifications, successful careers etc. etc.
Were you analysis (of course, you have not actually done one, merely expressed an unjustified prejudice) correct, the MSM etc would have succeeded in taking more than the single scalp they managed (allowed the one SLABBER to survive)
Dismissing the SNP at this point in time is the position adopted only by a determined fool :-)
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!
Thanks. Appealing to the undecided means that the Tories need to stay near the centre ground to ensure they retain their support.
A third of all prosecutions against women in England & Wales. Where are the feminists on this issue?
"Proceedings for TV Licence evasion form a high percentage of all prosecutions carried out against women - over a third of all cases against women in England and Wales in 2013 were for this offence.[139] By comparison, TV licence evasion made up around 5% of prosecutions against men in 2013 in England and Wales.[139]
Very few cases in Scotland come to court. Instead of prosecution, in Scotland, TV licence fee evaders are usually asked by the Procurator Fiscal to pay a fiscal fine and a small number are simply given a warning. For example, in 2013-2014, just 10 cases reached the courts whereas 12969 people were asked to pay a fiscal fine," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Prosecution_and_fiscal_fines
SO..The BBC could cut huge numbers from it staff and still produce the same level of programme..The ones left might just have to work a little harder. The difference between producer numbers between the BBC and Independent companies is remarkable...even when the Independent is actually working for the BBC.
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.
I have a feeling that both Clegg or Ed Miliband would rather not languish around on the backbenches for the next five years. But both of them will be constrained from announcing their wishes to step down any time soon, and solely because neither party can really afford the distractions or risks these by-elections might cause.
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.
David Miliband is doing a short interview today, seems v v unlikely he'll run but you never quite know....will keep you posted
ooh ohh... popcorn time!
Doesn't the fact he isn't an MP or a Lord kind of rule him out from becoming Lab leader?
Always a way back. Doncaster North free soon?
It would look pretty unseemly though wouldn't it? Flitting off to America, then coming back and using his constituency purely as a way of having another run at the leadership...
Can't see it myself...
But then again lefties are totally brazen and shameless so who know?
David Miliband is doing a short interview today, seems v v unlikely he'll run but you never quite know....will keep you posted
ooh ohh... popcorn time!
Lord Mandelson didn't waste time dancing on Ed Miliband's grave, but even taking into account all the family history, he might reasonably have hoped that his brother would refrain.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Yep - the Tories may find out that not everybody hates the BBC as much as they do. That said, reform is needed. Having a compulsory licence fee is ridiculous in this day and age. The issue is what should happen instead. With the brand name it has, the BBC would find it relatively easy to raise money in the markets and to attract a good level of advertising revenue - something that would be very bad news for ITV and, potentially, Sky, which may find it has to pay a shed load more to secure broadcasting rights for the sports events it is so dependent on. Unfortunately, it probably means that watching TV will become more expensive for everyone.
They won't kill the BBC, they're not stupid. Trimming it, and turning it into a subscription model is a no brainer though.
Sure - and that will make it more expensive. I guess it depends on how many people save money by dumping the BBC and keeping their other subscriptions. But as I say, with a slimmed down BBC competing for stuff that at the moment is essentially off limits - live Premier League, the Champions League, test cricket, etc - Sky subscriptions may also have to rise, especially as they (and ITV) will lose ad revenues to the BBC too.
In the proposed scenario:
- The total spending of TV stations would probably be less (the same amount for Sky and others, and less for the BBC because they have to exercise restraint). - The total advertising revenue for TV stations would be larger (while there is some competition, there are also just more places to advertise to customers) - That means the amount of revenue raised from viewers would therefore be lower
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.
I haven't heard of John Whittingdale either. Obviously I am either not listening to radio 4 enough, or my memory is slipping.
He is awesome, top bloke, former Civil Servant to Margaret Thatcher when she was PM.
I'm pretty sure his name is too similar to "John Inverdale" to have stuck in my mind, that or he's always referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named" by the BBC...
I think the Great British Public have made it quite clear that we don't want a Miliband as PM thank you very much. Labour would have to be batsh1t to choose the other one.
Is anyone else of the opinion that 5 years as leader of the opposition is simply too long a period? Cameron in 2010 and Miliband in 2015 both suffered from losing the 'new' and 'fresh' credentials. Maggie and Blair had much shorter run-ups.
IMHO Labour would be far better off having Harman or another safe pair of hands lead the party for a couple of years and schedule a leadership election for early 2018. The fixed term parliament act also makes this viable.
Haha, I remember Labour types like McBride thinking Cameron had already gone past his sell-by date (7 years was it?) at the time of the last election and he just won a majority!
Mr. Rob, I posted much the same thing the other day.
Labour should have a prolonged look at its general approach (not specific policies, mind), and then have a proper leadership election, and then a full policy review.
They're putting the cart before the horse. You can't hire someone before you know the job they'll be doing. Is it making socialism acceptable? Is it showing Labour can be trusted with the economy?
Miliband had to go, but he didn't have to go immediately. Just one final cock up from Red Ed.
To be honest I think getting Miliband out the way isn't the worst idea at this stage, but the rush to appoint someone so quickly when the next election is such a long time away seems daft.
Is there a rule that says they have to? If they wait till 2017/2018 it'd give someone like Dan Jarvis a chance to grow in his portfolio and public awareness.
The Labour Party is currently in the throes of depression, panic and anger. These are not conducive to making a sensible decision about someone to lead the party for, possibly, the next decade.
It would be better to take a few months to reflect, to debate and think hard about what the Labour party is for, what the role of a left of centre party should be, to do - in short - all the things they failed to do in the last five years. Worrying about whether someone is good on television is far too superficial. Sure they need to have someone who can communicate but they need to have something worthwhile to communicate. It's the latter which is lacking. Until they fill that hole the party will get nowhere.
And, to be frank, shouting about "fairness" won't cut it. What is fair is more complicated than Labour sometimes makes out.
It would be sensible to allow those who want to be leader to present their case at the party conference and it would be good if those who make the decision took account of what those who are not Labour voters think. It is, after all, those people that they will need to persuade.
What we are getting is a clear sense of where David Cameron wants the noise in government to be created. The BBC Charter renewal and the legal profession are going to be noisy subjects.
Liberal metropolitan luvvie subjects to distract Labour with while Osborne is left unmolested to do what he will with the budget and the economy.
EDIT: The same is true of the EU referendum. Lots of sound and fury on that for the next 28 months at the same time that the most severe cuts are scheduled.
Did I see a suggestion somewhere that Geoffrey Robinson, who was reputedly strongly thinking about standing down before this election, is now thinking of doing so to give Ed Balls a route back to Parliament?
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
There is nothing special about the BBC, no matter how loudly and repeatedly BBC executives assert it.
There's no need to talk in terms of 'revenge' or 'screwing' them. It's just time that we looked at where it fits in a world where many people get their entertainment/information from alternative sources and/or alternative means (in our household that's a combination of box sets, Netflix and Prime instant video).
The fact that it's a regressive tax enforced by draconian means fits with what I hope is a developing theme of helping the poorest in our society.
Decrepidohn.. I haven't thumped a BBC producer for a long time.. had a few sacked tho.. and I don't live in Chipping Norton, but I totally disagree that someone can be sent to prison for not paying a fee to watch TV.. Absolutely ludicrous.
Wasnt it Lady Thatcher who criminalised the license fee?
Leader ratings made undecideds switch to SNP inthe ballot box.
The Glasgow NE Ashcroft was terribly inaccurate.
In fairness, there seems to have been a swing in such seats from Labour to the SNP after it was taken.
I'm indulgent of his Lordship on this matter because Glasgow North East was a little gem for me (though not as good as Rutherglen & Hamilton West).
In the middle of October I put £10 on each Glasgow seat (and a couple of Glasgow seats). Glasgow NE was 5/1, Glasgow South West was 11/2.
Understanding that I missed the pre-Indyref awesomeness that was available my absolute screamer was the £20 I put on the SNP in Dundee West IN January at 2/5. That was criminal.
SO..The BBC could cut huge numbers from it staff and still produce the same level of programme..The ones left might just have to work a little harder. The difference between producer numbers between the BBC and Independent companies is remarkable...even when the Independent is actually working for the BBC.
Of course. But if the BBC is going to be financed through subscription and advertising it will become a direct competitor with other broadcasters for revenue. What it will do is cut all the stuff that makes no money - the regional services, the websites, the national event coverage, a lot of the radio output - and focus on what does make money: sport, drama, comedy, news, light entertainment etc. That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more.
Did I see a suggestion somewhere that Geoffrey Robinson, who was reputedly strongly thinking about standing down before this election, is now thinking of doing so to give Ed Balls a route back to Parliament?
Just when Cameron's week couldn't get any better...
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
I get very poor value from the BBC - just Top Gear (until recently) and occasionally good episodes of QI (gone downhill since they mandated unfunny female comedians every week).
I've long given up on the rest of their propaganda
TimT Miliband and Murphy never said they would campaign for Yes either, did not stop them being blamed for its defeat, if the UK narrowly votes IN eurosceptics could do the same to Cameron
Did I see a suggestion somewhere that Geoffrey Robinson, who was reputedly strongly thinking about standing down before this election, is now thinking of doing so to give Ed Balls a route back to Parliament?
It was merely speculation on someone's part.
Along the lines of "I wouldn't be surprised if..."
But the Libdems also had MP's elected right across the UK when they were the third party, so this could well scupper the hopes of the SNP to be automatically awarded a weekly questions slot at PMQ's.
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.
SO..The BBC could cut huge numbers from it staff and still produce the same level of programme..The ones left might just have to work a little harder. The difference between producer numbers between the BBC and Independent companies is remarkable...even when the Independent is actually working for the BBC.
Of course. But if the BBC is going to be financed through subscription and advertising it will become a direct competitor with other broadcasters for revenue. What it will do is cut all the stuff that makes no money - the regional services, the websites, the national event coverage, a lot of the radio output - and focus on what does make money: sport, drama, comedy, news, light entertainment etc. That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more.
Why will it definitely cut all the stuff that doesn't make money? Sky I believe is now spending more money on Arts programmes than ever before and more into homegrown drama. Channel 4 manages to make plenty of niche programmes, that aren't aimed at the masses.
I said the other day that Dave was a very good PM but only potentially a great politician as he had thus far failed to demonstrate any electoral ability and delivering on his political wishes. Well, today I upgrade my view of him (as I suspect will history). He's a contender for greatness.
@Gary_Bainbridge: I can't believe Cameron has appointed an actual bull as Secretary of State for Crockery and Pottery.
The sheer complacency of Alanbrooke and Charles on Chuka is rather ridiculous, many commentators believed Obama could never win Middle America, but he did
SO..Assuming there is a market and need for all those services the BBC would have to give up then it is an opportunity for some other folk to pick them up and run with them..maybe even the misplaced Journos,..why should the taxpayer pay for them and face a prison term if they fail to do so..ridiculous in the extreme..
Leader ratings made undecideds switch to SNP inthe ballot box.
The Glasgow NE Ashcroft was terribly inaccurate.
In fairness, there seems to have been a swing in such seats from Labour to the SNP after it was taken.
I'm indulgent of his Lordship on this matter because Glasgow North East was a little gem for me (though not as good as Rutherglen & Hamilton West).
In the middle of October I put £10 on each Glasgow seat (and a couple of Glasgow seats). Glasgow NE was 5/1, Glasgow South West was 11/2.
Understanding that I missed the pre-Indyref awesomeness that was available my absolute screamer was the £20 I put on the SNP in Dundee West IN January at 2/5. That was criminal.
Criminal that you put so little on ?
I feel the same way about some of my SW bets on the Tories tbh !
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
I get very poor value from the BBC - just Top Gear (until recently) and occasionally good episodes of QI (gone downhill since they mandated unfunny female comedians every week).
I've long given up on the rest of their propaganda
So you watch only two programmes a week. Now, I do not know the answer to this, but how much would (say) Netflix charge for two programmes a week?
If he does it, he better not show up again at CLP meetings...or some will try to kill him. It won't be difficult to miss them given that in the SoPN he gives an home address from Surrey NW....
Comments
IMHO Labour would be far better off having Harman or another safe pair of hands lead the party for a couple of years and schedule a leadership election for early 2018. The fixed term parliament act also makes this viable.
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/05/how-accurate-were-the-general-election-polls-in-scotland/
http://youtu.be/Q6kUlG4242M
'@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'
And North Cornwall has an ex postman as their new Tory MP.
Labour should have a prolonged look at its general approach (not specific policies, mind), and then have a proper leadership election, and then a full policy review.
They're putting the cart before the horse. You can't hire someone before you know the job they'll be doing. Is it making socialism acceptable? Is it showing Labour can be trusted with the economy?
Miliband had to go, but he didn't have to go immediately. Just one final cock up from Red Ed.
I'm not sure which would stick in his craw the most!
The Glasgow NE Ashcroft was terribly inaccurate.
Actually I realise I have very likely lost my fiver but it would not surprise me at all if he is Labour leader one day. Labour turning to David Miliband would be guilt by association, Purnell is the ideal choice for DM supporters.
I thought the news had referred to Johnny Mercer as an ex-commando, but that's not backed up anywhere. Anyway, him and Tugendhat have pretty long military careers.
There's no need to talk in terms of 'revenge' or 'screwing' them. It's just time that we looked at where it fits in a world where many people get their entertainment/information from alternative sources and/or alternative means (in our household that's a combination of box sets, Netflix and Prime instant video).
The fact that it's a regressive tax enforced by draconian means fits with what I hope is a developing theme of helping the poorest in our society.
I'm indulgent of his Lordship on this matter because Glasgow North East was a little gem for me (though not as good as Rutherglen & Hamilton West).
The reporter in the studio threw to their reporter in the room (which is fine) but she then threw to another reporter in the same room (and visible in shot behind her). Of course the Newsnight reporter was also in shot, before they finally threw to Nick Robinson outside the venue.
Did it really take 5 different BBC reporters (each with their own crew) to tell us Cameron won by a country mile?
@bbclaurak: David Miliband is doing a short interview today, seems v v unlikely he'll run but you never quite know....will keep you posted
David Miliband is doing a short interview today, seems v v unlikely he'll run but you never quite know....will keep you posted
ooh ohh... popcorn time!
Is there a rule that says they have to? If they wait till 2017/2018 it'd give someone like Dan Jarvis a chance to grow in his portfolio and public awareness.
You only have to look at the Labour supporters here. Almost no-one actually rated Ed Miliband, or championed the Labour policy platform, such as it was. A few tried to improve their own morale by clutching at any straws in the campaign which suggested Ed wasn't quite as bad as they had feared (though even that was hard to do, given Labour's self-inflicted injuries such as the EdStone). But there was no enthusiasm, and no determination.
Those who have bought their house in the last few years will have had to meet the somewhat nannyish affordability criteria. Those who bought their houses before that will on average have had significant increases in wages in nominal terms and increasingly in real terms since the purchase.
The one's at risk from an increase in rates are overstretched BTL landlords with minimal margins. If an increase forces them to reduce their portfolios and increase supply for actual owner occupiers then it may well do some good.
Maybe another woman?
Cameron: "The YouGov poll, the level pegging poll, I'm going to sue them for my ulcers"
wikipedia
"since their SNP replacements seem to be of similar low quality"
If that is the case (which it is not) they disguise it well, given their considerable success in life as evidenced e.g. university qualifications, successful careers etc. etc.
Were you analysis (of course, you have not actually done one, merely expressed an unjustified prejudice) correct, the MSM etc would have succeeded in taking more than the single scalp they managed (allowed the one SLABBER to survive)
Dismissing the SNP at this point in time is the position adopted only by a determined fool :-)
Thanks. Appealing to the undecided means that the Tories need to stay near the centre ground to ensure they retain their support.
"Proceedings for TV Licence evasion form a high percentage of all prosecutions carried out against women - over a third of all cases against women in England and Wales in 2013 were for this offence.[139] By comparison, TV licence evasion made up around 5% of prosecutions against men in 2013 in England and Wales.[139]
Very few cases in Scotland come to court. Instead of prosecution, in Scotland, TV licence fee evaders are usually asked by the Procurator Fiscal to pay a fiscal fine and a small number are simply given a warning. For example, in 2013-2014, just 10 cases reached the courts whereas 12969 people were asked to pay a fiscal fine,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Prosecution_and_fiscal_fines
The difference between producer numbers between the BBC and Independent companies is remarkable...even when the Independent is actually working for the BBC.
Can't see it myself...
But then again lefties are totally brazen and shameless so who know?
- The total spending of TV stations would probably be less (the same amount for Sky and others, and less for the BBC because they have to exercise restraint).
- The total advertising revenue for TV stations would be larger (while there is some competition, there are also just more places to advertise to customers)
- That means the amount of revenue raised from viewers would therefore be lower
It would be better to take a few months to reflect, to debate and think hard about what the Labour party is for, what the role of a left of centre party should be, to do - in short - all the things they failed to do in the last five years. Worrying about whether someone is good on television is far too superficial. Sure they need to have someone who can communicate but they need to have something worthwhile to communicate. It's the latter which is lacking. Until they fill that hole the party will get nowhere.
And, to be frank, shouting about "fairness" won't cut it. What is fair is more complicated than Labour sometimes makes out.
It would be sensible to allow those who want to be leader to present their case at the party conference and it would be good if those who make the decision took account of what those who are not Labour voters think. It is, after all, those people that they will need to persuade.
EDIT: The same is true of the EU referendum. Lots of sound and fury on that for the next 28 months at the same time that the most severe cuts are scheduled.
Understanding that I missed the pre-Indyref awesomeness that was available my absolute screamer was the £20 I put on the SNP in Dundee West IN January at 2/5. That was criminal.
Gordo's free tv licence wheeze is ludicrously expensive and should have gone years ago.
Balls could lose - easily.
I've long given up on the rest of their propaganda
Along the lines of "I wouldn't be surprised if..."
https://twitter.com/JasonCowleyNS/status/597483138261131264
1) Tory Majority - check
2) Reckless losing - check
3) Ed Balls losing - check
4) Vince Cable losing - check
Only thing that would have added the cherry to the parfait was Scotland electing three or more Tory MPs and thus me winning that Pandas bet.
I feel the same way about some of my SW bets on the Tories tbh !
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UK-2015-General-Election-Results-Live-Stitch-Finished-Piece-/251953999804
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/08/general-election-opinion-polls-brief-post-mortem/
It won't be difficult to miss them given that in the SoPN he gives an home address from Surrey NW....