His policy pronouncements are far too much like Ed's Political Appendix Pronouncements - eg his 2 yr price freeze on energy which the market had offered 3 months previously.
And he reminds me of a Bouncy Labradoodle. Far too satirisible by Urban75.
... it’s difficult to be sure whether the majority of Ukip’s support came from the Tories or Labour. But there is a big clue to Labour defections by looking at Ukip’s support at the expense of Labour in very safe Labour seats.
In Dagenham and Rainham, for example, there was a 12.5% swing from Labour to Ukip despite the popularity of Labour’s excellent MP, Jon Cruddas. In Hartlepool, a 13.9% swing from Labour to Ukip helped the latter to finish in second place.
Labour might not need to win those particular votes back given the size of their majority in each of these "very safe" constituencies. But, if similar shifts are occurring in marginals...
Hunt is a complete non-starter, surely. Burnham is a comfort candidate. Either would be a choice so disastrous that you'd fear for Labour getting 200 seats next time. Any of the other three might have a chance, but Kendall looks the best shot.
I imagine it will be Burnham.
Why is Hunt a non starter. I must admit I haven't followed his career closely but he spoke extremely well on John Peinaar's show on R5 on Sunday morning.
Farage would have a field day against Hunt and Cameron.
Mike's point about the nomination stage is well made. There won't be any "courtesy" nominations this time, and it's effectively the last chance for the MPs to influence the result as Richard Nabavi notes. 15% is a high bar if you're looking to get more than 3 candidates into the contest.
I don't think there's room for both Hunt & Kendall, for example.
Mike's point about the nomination stage is well made. There won't be any "courtesy" nominations this time, and it's effectively the last chance for the MPs to influence the result as Richard Nabavi notes. 15% is a high bar if you're looking to get more than 3 candidates into the contest.
I don't think there's room for both Hunt & Kendall, for example.
Mike's point about the nomination stage is well made. There won't be any "courtesy" nominations this time, and it's effectively the last chance for the MPs to influence the result as Richard Nabavi notes. 15% is a high bar if you're looking to get more than 3 candidates into the contest.
I don't think there's room for both Hunt & Kendall, for example.
Can an MP nominate more than one person?
I don't think so. Last time David Miliband was lending his nominators to Diane Abbott.
Might as well skip the next election if Hunt is in charge. "And the exit poll is in,Norman Lamb has had a slight recovery with the Lib Dems who move to 15, meanwhile disaster for Labour as Tristram Hunt takes them to 7. UKIP are on 200 seats. The SNP lose 3, and Sajid Javid has increased his majority"
... it’s difficult to be sure whether the majority of Ukip’s support came from the Tories or Labour. But there is a big clue to Labour defections by looking at Ukip’s support at the expense of Labour in very safe Labour seats.
In Dagenham and Rainham, for example, there was a 12.5% swing from Labour to Ukip despite the popularity of Labour’s excellent MP, Jon Cruddas. In Hartlepool, a 13.9% swing from Labour to Ukip helped the latter to finish in second place.
Labour might not need to win those particular votes back given the size of their majority in each of these "very safe" constituencies. But, if similar shifts are occurring in marginals...
Good grief, crap analysis from the Guardian - I am shocked, shocked, I tell you. A technical swing from party A to party B does not necessarily mean that party B gained votes at party A's expense. In Dagenham, Cruddas' vote went up very slightly - the UKIP gains were at the expense of the Tories and the LDs.
Unless you live near a station or one of the big tunnel works, I doubt the work will take ten years!
Just made me laugh, it's only 2015!
I live near Amersham, there is a huge tunnel going through this way.
Well that would take a bit longer, yes (as I said in my post!)
I can see the Planning shenanigans taking more than the to me to build it!
My view is build the thing PDQ if necessary breaking the legs of the Home Counties nimbies, but make sure no one has more than say one decade nof their life blighted rather than than 25 or 35 years.
Hunt is a complete non-starter, surely. Burnham is a comfort candidate. Either would be a choice so disastrous that you'd fear for Labour getting 200 seats next time. Any of the other three might have a chance, but Kendall looks the best shot.
I imagine it will be Burnham.
It will, in the end, probably be non of the above and a rank outsider (as far as betting is concerned) will scoop the pot.
... it’s difficult to be sure whether the majority of Ukip’s support came from the Tories or Labour. But there is a big clue to Labour defections by looking at Ukip’s support at the expense of Labour in very safe Labour seats.
In Dagenham and Rainham, for example, there was a 12.5% swing from Labour to Ukip despite the popularity of Labour’s excellent MP, Jon Cruddas. In Hartlepool, a 13.9% swing from Labour to Ukip helped the latter to finish in second place.
Labour might not need to win those particular votes back given the size of their majority in each of these "very safe" constituencies. But, if similar shifts are occurring in marginals...
Good grief, crap analysis from the Guardian - I am shocked, shocked, I tell you. A technical swing from party A to party B does not necessarily mean that party B gained votes at party A's expense. In Dagenham, Cruddas' vote went up very slightly - the UKIP gains were at the expense of the Tories and the LDs.
"What remains troubling in the long term for Labour is the possibility that it can never win back support from those who left it to vote Ukip."
I've been saying exactly that for weeks on here, though nobody seemed to take notice.
With Scotland and Ukip emerging I genuinely think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Labour Party in it's current existence.
Pulpstar I think Kendall will certainly beat Hunt at least, pity she did not stand for deputy and the ticket could have been Umunna leader, Kendall deputy, as it is could well be Umunna-Creasey
Re. Burnham: I'm not convinced that Mid Staffs is the dealbreaker that some of you appear to think (well, except in Staffordshire perhaps).
Sure, the right-wing press will probably bring it up to try and discredit him, but by 2020, a scandal that happened over a decade ago probably isn't going to seem that relevant to the majority of voters. Plus, who knows what new scandals may arise between now and then given the cuts planned by this government.
The Midstaff scandal was nothing to do with money.
It did not have a great deal to do with Andy Burnham, come to that. However, I cannot see Burnham as an effective leader. He comes across as "lightweight", somehow, unfair as it may be.
Re. Burnham: I'm not convinced that Mid Staffs is the dealbreaker that some of you appear to think (well, except in Staffordshire perhaps).
Sure, the right-wing press will probably bring it up to try and discredit him, but by 2020, a scandal that happened over a decade ago probably isn't going to seem that relevant to the majority of voters. Plus, who knows what new scandals may arise between now and then given the cuts planned by this government.
The Midstaff scandal was nothing to do with money.
It did not have a great deal to do with Andy Burnham, come to that. However, I cannot see Burnham as an effective leader. He comes across as "lightweight", somehow, unfair as it may be.
The aftermath of Mid Staffs *could* hurt Burnham, if there is any justice. Not just for what happened when he was in the department, but for his stupid (and that is putting it politely) that the Mid Staffs Inquiry was not worth it because it hurt the trust's reputation.
I.e. the patients did not matter. And all the time whilst (rightly) campaigning for the Hillsborough inquiry.
Carswell: “I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.” '' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…'' (The Times)
Labour’s National Executive Committee will on Wednesday agree a lengthy timetable for the increasingly tangled party leadership election with plans for a ballot and count ending either in the first weeks of September or as late as October.
It has been agreed that the result should not be announced at the party’s annual conference starting 27 or 28 September but at a special conference a fortnight before or afterwards.
Well, it's the unions. As it's now OMOV and after the Ed Miliband disaster I think it's PB hope, more than anything else that Labour will go more to the left.
Mid Staffs for sure was terrible, but it wasn't directly his fault.
He's a good media performer, he's experienced and is probably as well known as any of the main Labour figures. But not well-known enough to not be seen as new.
He comes across as very normal too, where Ed (sadly for him) didn't.
Carswell: “I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.” '' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…'' (The Times)
I don't understand the short money situation, and on the face of it I don't think I agree with Carswell's decision not to accept it.
But I do think all of this stems from Nigel's refusal to step down.
I recommended when UKIP support first started to plateau before the election that Nigel should step down on a high from the Euros, Suzanne should take his place, and that it would totally wrong foot the other parties in the debates, and allow the party to reach a new level of support. I hold by that.
@benatipsosmori: I love how both parties' advisors had "private" polls that were "right" for months - let's see them boys #ge2015 https://t.co/1UUv1XApG2
On the brightside for UKIP at least all 41 candidates made it to polling day without putting their foot in it.
Well, 40 really. Coburn's foot, and the rest of him, was never out of it.
Good point, other than the elusive Santos candidate for Gordon, I couldn't name any other of the UKIP candidates. They'll likely pick up a couple of list seats in Holyrood, hopefully Coburn won't inflict himself upon us !!
handandmouse Fox launched huge attacks on Obama, he still run, and the prospect of being the UK's first black PM is another factor
People in the UK don't have a bad conscience over Jim Crow or slavery. Hence, there's not the same degree of importance in electing a black PM.
I think there's a more general psychology thing. We're far more class obsessed than the USA whcih focuses on race more. So we always obsess over what class potential PMs are from.
On the brightside for UKIP at least all 41 candidates made it to polling day without putting their foot in it.
So in one fell swoop over £200k of Mr Desmond's donation to UKIP has gone up in smoke.
I believe non-target seats are largely on their own when it comes to funding their operations. Richard Desmond's money would have gone towards target seats. I believe they were going to use it for online marketing and billboards.
UKIP do need to make their money go further. Expenses such as a rental on high streets in non-target seats would be better used elsewhere.
@benatipsosmori: I love how both parties' advisors had "private" polls that were "right" for months - let's see them boys #ge2015 https://t.co/1UUv1XApG2
Sounds rather bitter....
I don't know about Labour, but are we really doubting the Tories number crunching?
1) It seems they must have had a good idea of what was going on as their efficient targeting appears to have won them the election. They must have had a much better idea in the marginals than shown by the likes of Ashcroft's polling.
2) The Tories had leaks of what they thought for several months prior to GE. Claiming there was cross over and then pulling away in the early part of this year. Then, if you remember 2 days before the GE, there was a leak was a fairly specific number, 306+ I think was the number.
Now you could say well that was all just BS, but then Loud Howard blurted out what Crosby had told him on the actual day of the GE several hours before the polls closed with fairly good predictions (certainly better than the official pollsters).
Well, it's the unions. As it's now OMOV and after the Ed Miliband disaster I think it's PB hope, more than anything else that Labour will go more to the left.
Well it's The Telegraph. I wouldn't worry too much.
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Mid Staffs for sure was terrible, but it wasn't directly his fault.
He's a good media performer, he's experienced and is probably as well known as any of the main Labour figures. But not well-known enough to not be seen as new.
He comes across as very normal too, where Ed (sadly for him) didn't.
I think he has a decent shot.
He's everyone's 2nd choice so has a great shot of the final 2.
I don't see the Mrs Balls kite flying. Too weak, too insipid, too tainted.
Carswell: “I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.” '' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…'' (The Times)
I don't understand the short money situation, and on the face of it I don't think I agree with Carswell's decision not to accept it.
But I do think all of this stems from Nigel's refusal to step down.
I recommended when UKIP support first started to plateau before the election that Nigel should step down on a high from the Euros, Suzanne should take his place, and that it would totally wrong foot the other parties in the debates, and allow the party to reach a new level of support. I hold by that.
I don't get it either. Although I do not know what short money can and can't be used for. £650,000 would go a long way towards hiring researchers.
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Not to mention we had a little bit of a hand in the whole slave trade thing
As the Scotland Votes seat calculator currently doesn't take account of regional splits, the above figures area at best a guide of likely trends based on current polling. Links below:
Kendall is a leading light of the Blairite Progress faction and will have no problem getting 35 nominations. Meanwhile "the left" are talking of the need to have a candidate. That'll be the actual left as opposed to the union-funded centre of the party probably represented by Burnham.
It can't realistically be Abbott again and the hard left will have to compromise with the centre left. I have no money on this but my judgement is that the left candidate, and best trading bet, will be Lisa Nandy.
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Not to mention we had a little bit of a hand in the whole slave trade thing
Correct, the despicable practice had existed from time immemorial until the Royal Navy stamped it out.
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Not to mention we had a little bit of a hand in the whole slave trade thing
Exactly. Britain was actively involved in slavery when it owned its North American colonies. Britain transported African slaves to the West Indies FGS....
Britain has it's own past on the issue of race. I remember my grandparents telling me about the 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs they saw when they came to England in the 1950s.
Carswell: “I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.” '' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…'' (The Times)
I don't understand the short money situation, and on the face of it I don't think I agree with Carswell's decision not to accept it.
But I do think all of this stems from Nigel's refusal to step down.
I recommended when UKIP support first started to plateau before the election that Nigel should step down on a high from the Euros, Suzanne should take his place, and that it would totally wrong foot the other parties in the debates, and allow the party to reach a new level of support. I hold by that.
I don't get it either. Although I do not know what short money can and can't be used for. £650,000 would go a long way towards hiring researchers.
If it does all have to spent on a parliamentary team, I can see him not wanting that - I wouldn't want 15 spotty kippers under my feet either. But if it can just go in the coffers, why deprive UKIP of what the Lib Dems/SNP etc. on a fraction of the vote, will benefit from?
Kendall is a leading light of the Blairite Progress faction and will have no problem getting 35 nominations. Meanwhile "the left" are talking of the need to have a candidate. That'll be the actual left as opposed to the union-funded centre of the party probably represented by Burnham.
It can't realistically be Abbott again and the hard left will have to compromise with the centre left. I have no money on this but my judgement is that the left candidate, and best trading bet, will be Lisa Nandy.
Hilarious how Liz Kendall and formerly Dan Jarvis are widely considered great candidates whilst the obvious names are looked down on.
I remember watching Ed on QT 7 or 8 years ago and reading about how well he performed. The grass is always greener, especially when no one has trodden on it yet.
Yes - that is a very good point. I saw the protoEd being interviewed when in government and he seemed to perform well enough. I almost founded Do Not Underestimate Ed. But as soon as he became Leader, phew...
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
But, we didn't have government-mandated racial discrimination in living memory. That's the big difference. No one feels they have to prove they aren't racist by voting for a Black candidate. It's a big error to think that US attitudes to race mirror our attitudes to race.
WRT Cheltenham, it's obvious that the voters dodged a wide bullet in 1992.
Mid Staffs for sure was terrible, but it wasn't directly his fault.
He's a good media performer, he's experienced and is probably as well known as any of the main Labour figures. But not well-known enough to not be seen as new.
He comes across as very normal too, where Ed (sadly for him) didn't.
I think he has a decent shot.
Correct.
You can't attack Labour (or anyone in it, including Burnham) on the NHS. More relevantly for present purposes, Labour believe (correctly) that you cannot attack Labour (or anyone in it, including Burnham) on the NHS. Mid Staffs, and NHS Wales, are two rare instances of pb tories being wrong, and never learning. They have no traction at all.
On the brightside for UKIP at least all 41 candidates made it to polling day without putting their foot in it.
Well, 40 really. Coburn's foot, and the rest of him, was never out of it.
UKIP got more votes than the total number of votes cast in Scotland.
Based on current Holyrood 2016 polling UKIP should get around 5 out of 129 seats. Does seem rather bazaar that its only in Scotland where UKIP gets treated fairly.
Moniker Corporeal Apocalypse Indeed, Wilberforce and Pitt did stamp out the slave trade, nut there is no doubt Britain played a part in it for centuries
Chuka has the x factor, and as sad and shallow and pathetic as that seems, that is the most important quality and he'll be getting my vote. I don't get the Kendell praise- she's just a bit lightweight. Yvette Cooper is bright, and Burnham is good too. Hunt, I don't know what to say. If there are any other worse performing MP's, I'd like to see them.
SeanF Oh I agree, the segregation issue and the Civil War means it was a bigger deal in the US, but that does not mean the election of a black PM would not exorcise some ghosts here either, and regardless of Lord Taylor's expenses problems there is almost certainly no doubt his skin colour played a part in his defeat in 1992
On the brightside for UKIP at least all 41 candidates made it to polling day without putting their foot in it.
Well, 40 really. Coburn's foot, and the rest of him, was never out of it.
UKIP got more votes than the total number of votes cast in Scotland.
Based on current Holyrood 2016 polling UKIP should get around 5 out of 129 seats. Does seem rather bazaar that its only in Scotland where UKIP gets treated fairly.
Chuka has the x factor, and as sad and shallow and pathetic as that seems, that is the most important quality and he'll be getting my vote. I don't get the Kendell praise- she's just a bit lightweight. Yvette Cooper is bright, and Burnham is good too. Hunt, I don't know what to say. If there are any other worse performing MP's, I'd like to see them.
I think Kendall comes off as quite genuine and authentic - Umunna, by contrast comes off incredibly fake. Too fake for anyone to actually buy into him.
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Not to mention we had a little bit of a hand in the whole slave trade thing
Exactly. Britain was actively involved in slavery when it owned its North American colonies. Britain transported African slaves to the West Indies FGS....
Britain has it's own past on the issue of race. I remember my grandparents telling me about the 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs they saw when they came to England in the 1950s.
And, the UK also played a major role in ending slavery. My point is, that the British State did not impose racial discrimination in the UK in living memory. The fact that some White British people were prejudiced against Black people doesn't leave most White British people feeling embarrassed. Hence, there's no special reason why people would feel the need to support Chuka Ummunna.
Is there no chance of Chris Leslie standing? I've always thought he's done a good job in interviews and they must have put him forward for a reason. Anyone who seems half normal on TV seems to be getting an airing, so what about him?
Kendall is a leading light of the Blairite Progress faction and will have no problem getting 35 nominations. Meanwhile "the left" are talking of the need to have a candidate. That'll be the actual left as opposed to the union-funded centre of the party probably represented by Burnham.
It can't realistically be Abbott again and the hard left will have to compromise with the centre left. I have no money on this but my judgement is that the left candidate, and best trading bet, will be Lisa Nandy.
Abbott !
CCHQ will die of laughter if that happens.
Diane Abbot was my first choice when I voted in the leadership election 5 years ago.
@benatipsosmori: I love how both parties' advisors had "private" polls that were "right" for months - let's see them boys #ge2015 https://t.co/1UUv1XApG2
See that tweet prior to polls closing stating the tories would win 316.
No word on Stella Creasy ? She is good on telly, and is said to be ambitious. Perhaps its not yet her time. After a term in government with Ed as PM might have suited her better. Maybe deputy ?
Kendall is a leading light of the Blairite Progress faction and will have no problem getting 35 nominations. Meanwhile "the left" are talking of the need to have a candidate. That'll be the actual left as opposed to the union-funded centre of the party probably represented by Burnham.
It can't realistically be Abbott again and the hard left will have to compromise with the centre left. I have no money on this but my judgement is that the left candidate, and best trading bet, will be Lisa Nandy.
Abbott !
CCHQ will die of laughter if that happens.
Diane Abbot was my first choice when I voted in the leadership election 5 years ago.
This is how Murphy got elected in Scotland isn't it xD !
No word on Stella Creasy ? She is good on telly, and is said to be ambitious. Perhaps its not yet her time. After a term in government with Ed as PM might have suited her better. Maybe deputy ?
Carswell: “I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.” '' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…'' (The Times)
I don't understand the short money situation, and on the face of it I don't think I agree with Carswell's decision not to accept it.
But I do think all of this stems from Nigel's refusal to step down.
I recommended when UKIP support first started to plateau before the election that Nigel should step down on a high from the Euros, Suzanne should take his place, and that it would totally wrong foot the other parties in the debates, and allow the party to reach a new level of support. I hold by that.
I don't get it either. Although I do not know what short money can and can't be used for. £650,000 would go a long way towards hiring researchers.
If it does all have to spent on a parliamentary team, I can see him not wanting that - I wouldn't want 15 spotty kippers under my feet either. But if it can just go in the coffers, why deprive UKIP of what the Lib Dems/SNP etc. on a fraction of the vote, will benefit from?
Here's an explanation of short money:
This so called “short money” was introduced in 1975 to assist a party in carrying out its Parliamentary business, for research and opposing the government of the day. The current rate payable to Opposition parties is £16,689.13 for every MP plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party at the last General Election.
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Not to mention we had a little bit of a hand in the whole slave trade thing
Exactly. Britain was actively involved in slavery when it owned its North American colonies. Britain transported African slaves to the West Indies FGS....
Britain has it's own past on the issue of race. I remember my grandparents telling me about the 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs they saw when they came to England in the 1950s.
And, the UK also played a major role in ending slavery. My point is, that the British State did not impose racial discrimination in the UK in living memory. The fact that some White British people were prejudiced against Black people doesn't leave most White British people feeling embarrassed. Hence, there's no special reason why people would feel the need to support Chuka Ummunna.
The whole UK economy was heavily dependent on slavery and closely related trades (textiles, sugar) for centuries, and we shipped more Africans across the Atlantic than anyone except possibly Portugal. Bigging ourselves up over Wilberforce always strikes me as a bit like praising those arsonists who start fires so they can be heroes rescuing people.
No word on Stella Creasy ? She is good on telly, and is said to be ambitious. Perhaps its not yet her time. After a term in government with Ed as PM might have suited her better. Maybe deputy ?
She said on Newsnight last night that she might go for the deputy leadership.
@benatipsosmori: I love how both parties' advisors had "private" polls that were "right" for months - let's see them boys #ge2015 https://t.co/1UUv1XApG2
So: both crap at polling, and unable to understand "private". But good at digging.
Like Southam I'm going to wait on the result before deciding whether to re-join the party. Of that list it would be a definite 'no' if the winner is Burnham, Cooper or Hunt. Umunna would at least help the party reconnect with business and thus take the first vital steps to restoring credibility on the economy. Kendall looks good so far, but I wouldn't want to endorse solely on the basis of one decent performance in an interview with Andrew Neil. We'll need to hear a lot more from her in the coming weeks.
Carswell: “I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.” '' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…'' (The Times)
I don't understand the short money situation, and on the face of it I don't think I agree with Carswell's decision not to accept it.
But I do think all of this stems from Nigel's refusal to step down.
I recommended when UKIP support first started to plateau before the election that Nigel should step down on a high from the Euros, Suzanne should take his place, and that it would totally wrong foot the other parties in the debates, and allow the party to reach a new level of support. I hold by that.
I don't get it either. Although I do not know what short money can and can't be used for. £650,000 would go a long way towards hiring researchers.
If it does all have to spent on a parliamentary team, I can see him not wanting that - I wouldn't want 15 spotty kippers under my feet either. But if it can just go in the coffers, why deprive UKIP of what the Lib Dems/SNP etc. on a fraction of the vote, will benefit from?
Here's an explanation of short money:
This so called “short money” was introduced in 1975 to assist a party in carrying out its Parliamentary business, for research and opposing the government of the day. The current rate payable to Opposition parties is £16,689.13 for every MP plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party at the last General Election.
The second part of the equation is clearly very favourable to UKIP. Tricky one for a man of conscience like Carswell.
I might add, when I voted UKIP last week, I knew my vote was worth 16p to the Party and I never considered that they wouldn't get it. That said, turning the money down, would give Carswell a very strong hand if wants to campaign against small gov't and waste, but that would obviously invite scrutiny of UKIP expenses across the piste, which no party wants - see the stories about politicians buying i-pads today.
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Not to mention we had a little bit of a hand in the whole slave trade thing
Exactly. Britain was actively involved in slavery when it owned its North American colonies. Britain transported African slaves to the West Indies FGS....
Britain has it's own past on the issue of race. I remember my grandparents telling me about the 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs they saw when they came to England in the 1950s.
And, the UK also played a major role in ending slavery. My point is, that the British State did not impose racial discrimination in the UK in living memory. The fact that some White British people were prejudiced against Black people doesn't leave most White British people feeling embarrassed. Hence, there's no special reason why people would feel the need to support Chuka Ummunna.
The whole UK economy was heavily dependent on slavery and closely related trades (textiles, sugar) for centuries, and we shipped more Africans across the Atlantic than anyone except possibly Portugal. Bigging ourselves up over Wilberforce always strikes me as a bit like praising those arsonists who start fires so they can be heroes rescuing people.
Pulpstar I think Kendall will certainly beat Hunt at least, pity she did not stand for deputy and the ticket could have been Umunna leader, Kendall deputy, as it is could well be Umunna-Creasey
Chuka-Stella would have the most pun potential for headline writers.
The lack of talent in Labour is positively depressing.
Chuka is painfully superficial. Burnham is borderline stupid, he really is. Cooper is seriously smart but has a major personality bypass. Kendall I don't know much about; is that enough? Hunt is just completely ridiculous. The Education questions between him and Gove used to be hilarious.
Is this really the best they can do? I blame Brown.
The lack of talent in Labour is positively depressing.
Chuka is painfully superficial. Burnham is borderline stupid, he really is. Cooper is seriously smart but has a major personality bypass. Kendall I don't know much about; is that enough? Hunt is just completely ridiculous. The Education questions between him and Gove used to be hilarious.
Is this really the best they can do? I blame Brown.
Stella Creasy, Rachel Reeves, potentially Dan Jarvis.
Out of interest who are the talents' the Tories have?
SeanF True, but we still had the Smethwick by-election 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour', the defeat of the black Tory candidate at Cheltenham in 1992, Enoch Powell and the National Front, no blacks at guesthouses etc Our history is not perfect either
Not to mention we had a little bit of a hand in the whole slave trade thing
Exactly. Britain was actively involved in slavery when it owned its North American colonies. Britain transported African slaves to the West Indies FGS....
Britain has it's own past on the issue of race. I remember my grandparents telling me about the 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs they saw when they came to England in the 1950s.
And, the UK also played a major role in ending slavery. My point is, that the British State did not impose racial discrimination in the UK in living memory. The fact that some White British people were prejudiced against Black people doesn't leave most White British people feeling embarrassed. Hence, there's no special reason why people would feel the need to support Chuka Ummunna.
The whole UK economy was heavily dependent on slavery and closely related trades (textiles, sugar) for centuries, and we shipped more Africans across the Atlantic than anyone except possibly Portugal. Bigging ourselves up over Wilberforce always strikes me as a bit like praising those arsonists who start fires so they can be heroes rescuing people.
There's no reason to feel particularly good or bad over the issue. All nations have practised slavery at some stage.
The lack of talent in Labour is positively depressing.
Chuka is painfully superficial. Burnham is borderline stupid, he really is. Cooper is seriously smart but has a major personality bypass. Kendall I don't know much about; is that enough? Hunt is just completely ridiculous. The Education questions between him and Gove used to be hilarious.
Is this really the best they can do? I blame Brown.
Stella Creasy, Rachel Reeves, potentially Dan Jarvis.
Out of interest who are the talents' the Tories have?
Osborne is pretty damn good at laying elephant traps.
Carswell: “I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.” '' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…'' (The Times)
I don't understand the short money situation, and on the face of it I don't think I agree with Carswell's decision not to accept it.
But I do think all of this stems from Nigel's refusal to step down.
I recommended when UKIP support first started to plateau before the election that Nigel should step down on a high from the Euros, Suzanne should take his place, and that it would totally wrong foot the other parties in the debates, and allow the party to reach a new level of support. I hold by that.
I don't get it either. Although I do not know what short money can and can't be used for. £650,000 would go a long way towards hiring researchers.
If it does all have to spent on a parliamentary team, I can see him not wanting that - I wouldn't want 15 spotty kippers under my feet either. But if it can just go in the coffers, why deprive UKIP of what the Lib Dems/SNP etc. on a fraction of the vote, will benefit from?
Here's an explanation of short money:
This so called “short money” was introduced in 1975 to assist a party in carrying out its Parliamentary business, for research and opposing the government of the day. The current rate payable to Opposition parties is £16,689.13 for every MP plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party at the last General Election.
The second part of the equation is clearly very favourable to UKIP. Tricky one for a man of conscience like Carswell.
Having read that, it would seem sensible for UKIP to start a research arm that could develop sophisticated proposals on what a Brexit would look like and what the EU is costing us. They could get several quality researchers for that money that could start counteracting the pro-EU research.
The lack of talent in Labour is positively depressing.
Chuka is painfully superficial. Burnham is borderline stupid, he really is. Cooper is seriously smart but has a major personality bypass. Kendall I don't know much about; is that enough? Hunt is just completely ridiculous. The Education questions between him and Gove used to be hilarious.
Is this really the best they can do? I blame Brown.
Comments
His policy pronouncements are far too much like Ed's Political Appendix Pronouncements - eg his 2 yr price freeze on energy which the market had offered 3 months previously.
And he reminds me of a Bouncy Labradoodle. Far too satirisible by Urban75.
HS2 Construction Route
Expect delays 2018-2028
I live near Amersham, there is a huge tunnel going through this way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11600856/Union-bosses-demand-next-Labour-leader-be-more-left-wing-than-Ed-Miliband.html
I don't think there's room for both Hunt & Kendall, for example.
Politicians are often compared to predecessors, Obama compared himself to JFK, Cameron to Blair etc
And Labour had more lost deposits than the Tories.
In Scotland.
Kendall 7
Chuka 6.5
Burnham 6
Cooper 5
Might as well skip the next election if Hunt is in charge. "And the exit poll is in,Norman Lamb has had a slight recovery with the Lib Dems who move to 15, meanwhile disaster for Labour as Tristram Hunt takes them to 7. UKIP are on 200 seats. The SNP lose 3, and Sajid Javid has increased his majority"
A technical swing from party A to party B does not necessarily mean that party B gained votes at party A's expense.
In Dagenham, Cruddas' vote went up very slightly - the UKIP gains were at the expense of the Tories and the LDs.
My view is build the thing PDQ if necessary breaking the legs of the Home Counties nimbies, but make sure no one has more than say one decade nof their life blighted rather than than 25 or 35 years.
They won't hold a grudge for 700 years.
I've been saying exactly that for weeks on here, though nobody seemed to take notice.
With Scotland and Ukip emerging I genuinely think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Labour Party in it's current existence.
By voting down TTIP.
I.e. the patients did not matter. And all the time whilst (rightly) campaigning for the Hillsborough inquiry.
He's scum who should be nowhere near power.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873911/Outcry-Burnham-claims-Mid-Staffs-probe-mistake-Labour-accused-insulting-victims-saying-better-report-never-published.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9875660/Mid-Staffs-Labour-Government-ignored-MP-requests-for-public-inquiry-into-deaths.html
The DEMs I assume ?
“I am not a senator, for goodness’ sake. I don’t need 15 staff.”
'' He has said that Ukip should accept just £350,000, arguing that it would be hypocritical for the anti-establishment party to “get on the gravy train”.…''
(The Times)
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/598206826367295491
Has he done something to piss off Dave? As far as I know, he hasn't had any Lammy-esque moments or anything like that.
Coburn's foot, and the rest of him, was never out of it.
Mid Staffs for sure was terrible, but it wasn't directly his fault.
He's a good media performer, he's experienced and is probably as well known as any of the main Labour figures. But not well-known enough to not be seen as new.
He comes across as very normal too, where Ed (sadly for him) didn't.
I think he has a decent shot.
But I do think all of this stems from Nigel's refusal to step down.
I recommended when UKIP support first started to plateau before the election that Nigel should step down on a high from the Euros, Suzanne should take his place, and that it would totally wrong foot the other parties in the debates, and allow the party to reach a new level of support. I hold by that.
@benatipsosmori: I love how both parties' advisors had "private" polls that were "right" for months - let's see them boys
UKIP do need to make their money go further. Expenses such as a rental on high streets in non-target seats would be better used elsewhere.
I don't know about Labour, but are we really doubting the Tories number crunching?
1) It seems they must have had a good idea of what was going on as their efficient targeting appears to have won them the election. They must have had a much better idea in the marginals than shown by the likes of Ashcroft's polling.
2) The Tories had leaks of what they thought for several months prior to GE. Claiming there was cross over and then pulling away in the early part of this year. Then, if you remember 2 days before the GE, there was a leak was a fairly specific number, 306+ I think was the number.
Now you could say well that was all just BS, but then Loud Howard blurted out what Crosby had told him on the actual day of the GE several hours before the polls closed with fairly good predictions (certainly better than the official pollsters).
I don't see the Mrs Balls kite flying. Too weak, too insipid, too tainted.
SNP 71 (+2)
SLAB 25 (-12)
Tories 11 (-4)
LibDem 6 (+1)
Greens 11 (+9)
UKIP 5 (+5)
Total Seats 129 (65 for a majority)
As the Scotland Votes seat calculator currently doesn't take account of regional splits, the above figures area at best a guide of likely trends based on current polling. Links below:
http://www.scotlandvotes.com/
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Final-Record-April-Tables.pdf
Start planning your betting strategy now !!
It can't realistically be Abbott again and the hard left will have to compromise with the centre left. I have no money on this but my judgement is that the left candidate, and best trading bet, will be Lisa Nandy.
Britain has it's own past on the issue of race. I remember my grandparents telling me about the 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs they saw when they came to England in the 1950s.
CCHQ will die of laughter if that happens.
WRT Cheltenham, it's obvious that the voters dodged a wide bullet in 1992.
You can't attack Labour (or anyone in it, including Burnham) on the NHS. More relevantly for present purposes, Labour believe (correctly) that you cannot attack Labour (or anyone in it, including Burnham) on the NHS. Mid Staffs, and NHS Wales, are two rare instances of pb tories being wrong, and never learning. They have no traction at all.
The Left is trying to get Trickett or Lavery on the ballot
Yvette Cooper is bright, and Burnham is good too.
Hunt, I don't know what to say. If there are any other worse performing MP's, I'd like to see them.
My first post after weeks of being entertained by this site.
This so called “short money” was introduced in 1975 to assist a party in carrying out its Parliamentary business, for research and opposing the government of the day. The current rate payable to Opposition parties is £16,689.13 for every MP plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party at the last General Election.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/will-ukip-get-westminster-short-money/
The second part of the equation is clearly very favourable to UKIP. Tricky one for a man of conscience like Carswell.
Rouleur Tristram as leader and Harriet as deputy would be rather amusing
Chuka is painfully superficial.
Burnham is borderline stupid, he really is.
Cooper is seriously smart but has a major personality bypass.
Kendall I don't know much about; is that enough?
Hunt is just completely ridiculous. The Education questions between him and Gove used to be hilarious.
Is this really the best they can do? I blame Brown.
Out of interest who are the talents' the Tories have?
Best rerun the election.