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?
Chuka is painfully superficial.
Well superficial hasn't done David Cameron any harm, and didn't do Tony Blair any harm until Tony decided to start believing in something.
Also, stupidity isn't any major hindrance. Look at 2 time winner Bush.
Intelligence and depth are seriously overrated in politics.
Go Chuka who may well both be superficial and stupid. A winning combination in my opinion.
DavidL ... ''Is this really the best they can do? I blame Brown.'' It does not matter if you are or are not joking because you are right. Where Labour are now is entirely because of Brown who was perhaps the most dissonant politician in British history. Wrong headed about everything. Hilarious, except he ruined Britain at the same time.
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 r
esearchers.
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.
Difficult one. I fully understand Carswell's reluctance to be seen to be wasting taxpayers' money and it does seem a ridiculous number of staff to support one MP.
On the other hand, Ukip is entitled to receive this money, has been counting on this money and some people voted Ukip not in the expectation of returning a Ukip MP to their constituency, but in order to help Ukip access the very funding that has sparked this row:
"UKIP has been quiet about its prospects in the general election. Breitbart London understands this is because senior party officials are more focused on the overall number of votes, as this brings in more cash. They are said to think the money will be a “game changer” as it ends UKIP’s financial problems once and for all." http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/27/farages-plan-to-bag-5m-election-windfall/
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.
I was thinking more of the Tories' recent intake tbh. But yes, obviously Osborne.
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.
I was thinking more of the Tories' recent intake tbh. But yes, obviously Osborne.
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.
5 seats is improbably given their vote share. You need an absolute 5.9% of votes in a region to get a seat (IIRC the maths of D'hondt makes that higher).
To an extent it may well depend on whether the TV companies are stupid enough to invite Coburn for some Entertainment Value when by rights UKIP should never have been near the GE Scottish debates and should not be anywhere near the Holyrood ones.
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?
Chuka is painfully superficial.
Well superficial hasn't done David Cameron any harm, and didn't do Tony Blair any harm until Tony decided to start believing in something.
Also, stupidity isn't any major hindrance. Look at 2 time winner Bush.
Intelligence and depth are seriously overrated in politics. Go Chucky
I think Bush's election is a unique situation. In 2004 he was up against John Kerry..poor America, having to chose between those two.
Blair and Cameron came off as convincing though and masked their superficiality. Chuka is too transparent. That's the problem.
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?
Don't think they're over-blessed with talent either. And I think despite his rapid promotions Javid is seriously over-rated. As a Labour supporter the one possible candidate who does put the fear of God into me is Priti Patel. I could see her as a Thatcher Mark II.
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.
Personally I think it's more about communication. People have written weighty tomes on life outside the EU. But it's no good having the best argument if the other side can shout about 10 times louder.
Difficult one. I fully understand Carswell's reluctance to be seen to be wasting taxpayers' money and it does seem a ridiculous number of staff to support one MP.
On the other hand, Ukip is entitled to receive this money, has been counting on this money and some people voted Ukip not in the expectation of returning a Ukip MP to their constituency, but in order to help Ukip access the very funding that has sparked this row:
So can Mr Carswell prevent UKIP claiming the money it's entitled to, I wonder? If he abandons the party under whose aegis he was elected, does that party forfeit the money?
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 extent matters, as does the ill-gotten gains. A lot of the most beautiful Georgian and Victorian buildings were funded through sharp practice of all sorts.
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?
Actually I would take any of those 3 ahead of anyone on the list (with the possible exception of Kendall who I know so little about).
For the Tories there is Osborne. Probably the most exceptional politician of his generation. Javid. Smart, clever interesting. Boris, a tory that can win Labour London. Hunt, a very safe pair of hands who kept the lid on the NHS throughout the campaign. Hammond, highly competent if a little dull.
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.
5 seats is improbably given their vote share. You need an absolute 5.9% of votes in a region to get a seat (IIRC the maths of D'hondt makes that higher).
To an extent it may well depend on whether the TV companies are stupid enough to invite Coburn for some Entertainment Value when by rights UKIP should never have been near the GE Scottish debates and should not be anywhere near the Holyrood ones.
To an extent it may well depend on whether the TV companies are stupid enough to invite Coburn for some Entertainment Value when by rights UKIP should never have been near the GE Scottish debates and should not be anywhere near the Holyrood ones.
We'll get less votes if he gets on you mean.
No, UKIP will gain votes if he gets on due to the publicity. Even though he is a balloon and hopeless, all publicity is good publicity. Keep UKIP off and hopefully enough of their neanderthals will forget about going out to vote for them.
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.
Nandy is one of my two long-shot candidates. Seems a strong Northern left candidate. New baby, though, so a withdrawal a la Jarvis isn't out of the question.
Has there been a change on Vanilla? It's now showing all the previous comments nested, rather than the 'show previous comments' bit.
Something seems to have broken, let's hope it's not a permanent change.
Oh Lord, its not one of those "improvements" is it?
With luck it will merely have broken when some other "improvement" to the code was made. Even the average IT guy wouldn't possibly see this as better. I hope.
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?
Actually I would take any of those 3 ahead of anyone on the list (with the possible exception of Kendall who I know so little about).
For the Tories there is Osborne. Probably the most exceptional politician of his generation. Javid. Smart, clever interesting. Boris, a tory that can win Labour London. Hunt, a very safe pair of hands who kept the lid on the NHS throughout the campaign. Hammond, highly competent if a little dull.
Not a bad start.
You need to add in Gove and take away Hammond. Just because he's a rodent with a charisma bypass doesn't mean we should falsely imbue him with a reputation for efficiency.
They also have Redwood, who sadly they'll never use.
Tyson Exactly normally the most telegenic candidate wins, Cameron, Blair, Obama, Bush W, Clinton, Reagan, JFK, Tspiras, Schroder, Hawke whoever, the only time the intelligent but untelegenic win is when they are up against someone equally untelegenic, hence eg Nixon beating Humphrey or Bush beating Dukakis or Carter beating Ford
To an extent it may well depend on whether the TV companies are stupid enough to invite Coburn for some Entertainment Value when by rights UKIP should never have been near the GE Scottish debates and should not be anywhere near the Holyrood ones.
We'll get less votes if he gets on you mean.
No, UKIP will gain votes if he gets on due to the publicity. Even though he is a balloon and hopeless, all publicity is good publicity. Keep UKIP off and hopefully enough of their neanderthals will forget about going out to vote for them.
Aren't the great unwashed terrible? Who gave them the vote anyway?
On a related note, couldn't it actually be Farage in the debates, Sturgeon style? I'd pay for a ticket for that.
To an extent it may well depend on whether the TV companies are stupid enough to invite Coburn for some Entertainment Value when by rights UKIP should never have been near the GE Scottish debates and should not be anywhere near the Holyrood ones.
We'll get less votes if he gets on you mean.
No, UKIP will gain votes if he gets on due to the publicity. Even though he is a balloon and hopeless, all publicity is good publicity. Keep UKIP off and hopefully enough of their neanderthals will forget about going out to vote for them.
Aren't the great unwashed terrible? Who gave them the vote anyway?
On a related note, couldn't it actually be Farage in the debates, Sturgeon style? I'd pay for a ticket for that.
Actually I have just checked the Opinion Polling for 2016.
The higher profile of Coburn appears to have reduced UKIP from about 5% to 6% which might get a list seat or two to 2% to 3% which won't give them a chance anywhere outside of possibly a concentrated Loyalist sectarian vote in Glasgow.
Tyson Exactly normally the most telegenic candidate wins, Cameron, Blair, Obama, Bush W, Clinton, Reagan, JFK, Tspiras, Schroder, Hawke whoever, the only time the intelligent but untelegenic win is when they are up against someone equally untelegenic, hence eg Nixon beating Humphrey or Bush beating Dukakis or Carter beating Ford
But Sarah Palin got beaten by John Mccain to the Republican nomination.
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 ?
I was not as impressed as I was expecting when I heard her on Newsnight. Not quite sure why so would like to see more of her. I think there was a lack of crispness. But let's see.
Why is Umunna in the Labour party? He gives the impression - to me anyway - that he's Labour because he can't be a Tory (because it's not the fashionable party to join) not because he has any view of what the point of Labour is or why he is Labour. Perhaps that's unkind.
But Labour really need to explain to themselves - and then to us - why they need to exist at all.
I still get that frisson of anticipation at this time of night thinking there's going to be a YouGov poll in about half an hour, following by rapidly refreshing at 10.30. Addiction is a sad thing.
They still think they lost despite great candidates and a winning argument.
They didn't. That's the root of their problem. They lost because after 80 years of Labour MPs great swathes of Scotland are comparatively poorer than when they had no Labour MP. They lost because you could go to a factory, pick a random production worker and they would do a better job as an MP than Tom Clarke or Ian Davidson or Margaret Curran or dozens of others. They lost because they keep repeating the basic lie about a £7.9bn hole in Scotland's finances which is an utter fantasy to let Unionists sleep at night witout panicking.
This is going to be a FUN year.
Watching the pressure build on Cameron to negotiate FFA with no ability to dictate the terms on his part is going to be so sweet. Guess this is his 12 months to go grey.
I still get that frisson of anticipation at this time of night thinking there's going to be a YouGov poll in about half an hour, following by rapidly refreshing at 10.30. Addiction is a sad thing.
The Labour party have given us a leadership election to be getting on with though
I still get that frisson of anticipation at this time of night thinking there's going to be a YouGov poll in about half an hour, following by rapidly refreshing at 10.30. Addiction is a sad thing.
The Labour party have given us a leadership election to be getting on with though
To save people reading the article it's because the SNP sucesfully practised mass hypnosis.
More precisely, they encouraged people to "fall out of love with Labour". What possible hope is there for a party which thinks that the default state of affairs is that the electorate is in love with it?
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.
And slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
I still get that frisson of anticipation at this time of night thinking there's going to be a YouGov poll in about half an hour, following by rapidly refreshing at 10.30. Addiction is a sad thing.
The Labour party have given us a leadership election to be getting on with though
I know this is HERESY on pb, but I've actually had enough of politics, for now. The election was intense, the result astounding, the poll-disaster intriguing, the new government will soon be unpopular, the bitter lefty tears are hilarious, and...
MEH.
I detect I am not alone. People are weary. Let the new Tory government get on with governing the country in their modestly competent way. Let the SNP try and push for another referendum (if they do, they might fall foul of this weary mood, I think)
The sun is shining. The cava is chilling. Go away politicians, go away.
Yeah.
As we don't believe VI polls any more, wake me up for the first leader ratings after we have some Lab and Lib leaders to rate.
Lib Dems are claiming 10,000 new members since the election. There generally seems to be coyness about releasing numbers except for the SNP but does anyone know where each of the parties now stands? The Greens were claiming a lot of new members not so long ago.
Frankly I am appalled to hear that there are hypocrites amongst the Labour ranks. Is there a list of those who supported Ed who are now slagging him off?? At least the PB Tories knew for sure he was crap and called it right.
DavidL Hammond, slashing the armed forces to the bone, Hunt who has done nothing to reform the health service, Javid OK, nothing special, Osborne, the Mandelson of the Tories, great backroom operator, would be a disastrous frontman
What a pathetic, hollowed out corpse of a newspaper the Telegraph has become.
Hollowed out or not, and it probably is - are you suggesting that the Telegraph behaved in any way differently that The Mirror in promoting its political leanings?
I know this is HERESY on pb, but I've actually had enough of politics, for now. The election was intense, the result astounding, the poll-disaster intriguing, the new government will soon be unpopular, the bitter lefty tears are hilarious, and...
MEH.
I detect I am not alone. People are weary. Let the new Tory government get on with governing the country in their modestly competent way. Let the SNP try and push for another referendum (if they do, they might fall foul of this weary mood, I think)
The sun is shining. The cava is chilling. Go away politicians, go away.
I think you speak for the majority, people are not weary they were sick and tired before the election.
The labour leadership race compounds this, whoever wins will be their contender for PM in 2020, none of them look remotely capable of mounting a challenge.
Tyson Exactly normally the most telegenic candidate wins, Cameron, Blair, Obama, Bush W, Clinton, Reagan, JFK, Tspiras, Schroder, Hawke whoever, the only time the intelligent but untelegenic win is when they are up against someone equally untelegenic, hence eg Nixon beating Humphrey or Bush beating Dukakis or Carter beating Ford
But Sarah Palin got beaten by John Mccain to the Republican nomination.
Stupidity and lack of depth are fine, but sociopathic tendencies a la Palin tend to get found out. Granted though I find her incredibly attractive but that says more about my age than anything else.
To an extent it may well depend on whether the TV companies are stupid enough to invite Coburn for some Entertainment Value when by rights UKIP should never have been near the GE Scottish debates and should not be anywhere near the Holyrood ones.
We'll get less votes if he gets on you mean.
No, UKIP will gain votes if he gets on due to the publicity. Even though he is a balloon and hopeless, all publicity is good publicity. Keep UKIP off and hopefully enough of their neanderthals will forget about going out to vote for them.
Aren't the great unwashed terrible? Who gave them the vote anyway?
On a related note, couldn't it actually be Farage in the debates, Sturgeon style? I'd pay for a ticket for that.
Actually I have just checked the Opinion Polling for 2016.
The higher profile of Coburn appears to have reduced UKIP from about 5% to 6% which might get a list seat or two to 2% to 3% which won't give them a chance anywhere outside of possibly a concentrated Loyalist sectarian vote in Glasgow.
Let's get Coburn on the TV.
"Actually I have just checked the Opinion Polling...."
They still think they lost despite great candidates and a winning argument.
They didn't. That's the root of their problem. They lost because after 80 years of Labour MPs great swathes of Scotland are comparatively poorer than when they had no Labour MP. They lost because you could go to a factory, pick a random production worker and they would do a better job as an MP than Tom Clarke or Ian Davidson or Margaret Curran or dozens of others. They lost because they keep repeating the basic lie about a £7.9bn hole in Scotland's finances which is an utter fantasy to let Unionists sleep at night witout panicking.
This is going to be a FUN year.
Watching the pressure build on Cameron to negotiate FFA with no ability to dictate the terms on his part is going to be so sweet. Guess this is his 12 months to go grey.
I don't know anything about the 7.9bn gbp hole, but I do know that the price of oil is roughly half what it was last summer.
How does that affect Scottish finances? As if the price drop is not enough, North Sea Oil is comparatively expensive to retrieve, and at these prices companies may reduce or cease some production and wait for the price to go up again. That's already happening here.
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.
And slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
Well said, you have to judge any people in the era they were in. The decision to outlaw the practice was unprecedented.
What a pathetic, hollowed out corpse of a newspaper the Telegraph has become.
Hollowed out or not, and it probably is - are you suggesting that the Telegraph behaved in any way differently that The Mirror in promoting its political leanings?
It's one thing to express an opinion and another to provide misleading information.
Lib Dems are claiming 10,000 new members since the election. There generally seems to be coyness about releasing numbers except for the SNP but does anyone know where each of the parties now stands? The Greens were claiming a lot of new members not so long ago.
Lib Dems are just over 50,000 or so (they/we publish the membership figures annually).
In 4th I believe behind Lab, Con, SNP. Lab and Con have always been pretty cloak and dagger about it.
To an extent it's cyclical, elections drive public interest in politics and drive mbrship increases.
Lib Dems are claiming 10,000 new members since the election. There generally seems to be coyness about releasing numbers except for the SNP but does anyone know where each of the parties now stands? The Greens were claiming a lot of new members not so long ago.
Depends which Greens. Different ones either side of Tweed and Solway. The Scottish Greens and the SSP did well out of indyref. Can't remember current figures, but they also had a big boom last year.
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.
And slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
Well said, you have to judge any people in the era they were in. The decision to outlaw the practice was unprecedented.
I think Revolutionary France outlawed slavery before Britain. That was reversed by Napoleon. So in practice it was British action which stopped the slave trade. But, technically, the French got there first.
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.
And slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
The first nation? My memory's waving it's skeptical flag without having chapter and verse to mind.
(Of course definitions are important, slavery was outlawed in Britain itself but continued in various colonies up until 1840 or so I think)
Actually I have just checked the Opinion Polling for 2016.
The higher profile of Coburn appears to have reduced UKIP from about 5% to 6% which might get a list seat or two to 2% to 3% which won't give them a chance anywhere outside of possibly a concentrated Loyalist sectarian vote in Glasgow.
Let's get Coburn on the TV.
"Actually I have just checked the Opinion Polling...."
Shrewdie
Polling for Scotland has been very accurate throughout the GE campaign and the Referendum campaign. Nothing has changed.
What a pathetic, hollowed out corpse of a newspaper the Telegraph has become.
Hollowed out or not, and it probably is - are you suggesting that the Telegraph behaved in any way differently that The Mirror in promoting its political leanings?
It's one thing to express an opinion and another to provide misleading information.
Quite so. you should be asking Nick Palmer why he(IMHO) misled everyone on PB on how things were going in Broxtowe.. I wouldn't trust anything NIck Palmer said on PB ever again.. this is the man who said he never posted anything on PB he knew not to be true.... jeez
Fair play to the Eye which isn't always the greatest admirer of the SNP.
What a pathetic, hollowed out corpse of a newspaper the Telegraph has become.
Hollowed out or not, and it probably is - are you suggesting that the Telegraph behaved in any way differently that The Mirror in promoting its political leanings?
It's one thing to express an opinion and another to provide misleading information.
Just imagine how well the SNP would have done. They must be livid.
I still get that frisson of anticipation at this time of night thinking there's going to be a YouGov poll in about half an hour, following by rapidly refreshing at 10.30. Addiction is a sad thing.
The Labour party have given us a leadership election to be getting on with though
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.
And slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
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.
And slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
Checking Wiki it appears France was the first to do it in 1794, though Napoleon restored it 8 years later. I suppose it might be said that Britain's was a much greater act of moral volition because of its deeper involvement in the trade in the first place.
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.
Plans to complete the election quickly by the summer have been shelved partly because of union leaders. They have admitted they need more time to recruit political levy payers to register as party supporters and so have a vote in the contest.
blackbourn63 Way too early to say that, after 10 years in power the mood is normally for change, even Kinnock would probably have beaten Thatcher had she tried to hang on, he had a huge lead over her in the polls from 1989. Provided Labour doesn't have someone who is a positive turnoff, as sad to say Ed was, they will have a chance in 2020, especially if the Tories return to their sport of choice, bashing each other over Europe post EU ref
What a pathetic, hollowed out corpse of a newspaper the Telegraph has become.
Hollowed out or not, and it probably is - are you suggesting that the Telegraph behaved in any way differently that The Mirror in promoting its political leanings?
It's one thing to express an opinion and another to provide misleading information.
Quite so. you should be asking Nick Palmer why he(IMHO) misled everyone on PB on how things were going in Broxtowe.. I wouldn't trust anything NIck Palmer said on PB ever again.. this is the man who said he never posted anything on PB he knew not to be true.... jeez
I don't believe he was maliciously doing so - which one can most certainly infer for the DT's attempt to subvert democracy in this country/countries (depending on one's point of view). There is no other realistic explanation - though one might also add gross incompetence in its attempt to promote tactical voting.
None of the "metropolitan elite" stuff matters in the slightest. Just as, when push came to shove, none of the "posh / Bullingdon" stuff affected how many people voted Con.
If Labour wants to win the only question is who will be most attractive to middle England, middle income, aspirational voters.
Annoying your own hardcore supporters doesn't matter - the objective is to maximise seats not votes. Blair and Cameron have both illustrated that perfectly - go for the Centre and you easily beat UNS.
Chukka matches the above hands down - way, way more likely to win a GE than Burnham.
Kendall is certainly a possibility but I think the problem with her is that she doesn't look "senior" enough. If a group of people walk into a room the actual boss needs to look like the boss - Kendall doesn't do that.
They still think they lost despite great candidates and a winning argument.
They didn't. That's the root of their problem. They lost because after 80 years of Labour MPs great swathes of Scotland are comparatively poorer than when they had no Labour MP. They lost because you could go to a factory, pick a random production worker and they would do a better job as an MP than Tom Clarke or Ian Davidson or Margaret Curran or dozens of others. They lost because they keep repeating the basic lie about a £7.9bn hole in Scotland's finances which is an utter fantasy to let Unionists sleep at night witout panicking.
This is going to be a FUN year.
Watching the pressure build on Cameron to negotiate FFA with no ability to dictate the terms on his part is going to be so sweet. Guess this is his 12 months to go grey.
Annoying your own hardcore supporters doesn't matter - the objective is to maximise seats not votes. Blair and Cameron have both illustrated that perfectly - go for the Centre and you easily beat UNS.
Chukka matches the above hands down - way, way more likely to win a GE than Burnham.
As long as the unions bankroll it.
If Len takes his chequebook away and starts a rival party, they're both stuffed
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.
Plans to complete the election quickly by the summer have been shelved partly because of union leaders. They have admitted they need more time to recruit political levy payers to register as party supporters and so have a vote in the contest.
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
Scott P If Len wants to bankroll Scargill's Socialist Workers Party 2 let him, fat lot of good his dosh did Ed. In any case some of the Blair and Brown donors would probably return to replace 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.
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.
And slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
Based on one interview I have seen, Liz Kendall looks the best one of those listed in the thread header. She seems genuine and non of the others do at all.. I think Ed Miliband was genuine but had it coached out of him.. his best speech, delivery wise, was his his resignation.
Frankly I am appalled to hear that there are hypocrites amongst the Labour ranks. Is there a list of those who supported Ed who are now slagging him off?? At least the PB Tories knew for sure he was crap and called it right.
Why do we still think Ed is crap? Ed is most definitely NOT crap!
He won more seats for Labour than Foot did in 1983 or Kinnock did in 1987!
None of the "metropolitan elite" stuff matters in the slightest. Just as, when push came to shove, none of the "posh / Bullingdon" stuff affected how many people voted Con.
If Labour wants to win the only question is who will be most attractive to middle England, middle income, aspirational voters.
Annoying your own hardcore supporters doesn't matter - the objective is to maximise seats not votes. Blair and Cameron have both illustrated that perfectly - go for the Centre and you easily beat UNS.
Chukka matches the above hands down - way, way more likely to win a GE than Burnham.
Kendall is certainly a possibility but I think the problem with her is that she doesn't look "senior" enough. If a group of people walk into a room the actual boss needs to look like the boss - Kendall doesn't do that.
Hmm I think Chuka is a bit too London, Burnham a bit too northern. Liz is from Leicester in the midlands where elections are won and lost. Appeal to Nuneaton man and you win !
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
What a pathetic, hollowed out corpse of a newspaper the Telegraph has become.
Hollowed out or not, and it probably is - are you suggesting that the Telegraph behaved in any way differently that The Mirror in promoting its political leanings?
It's one thing to express an opinion and another to provide misleading information.
Quite so. you should be asking Nick Palmer why he(IMHO) misled everyone on PB on how things were going in Broxtowe.. I wouldn't trust anything NIck Palmer said on PB ever again.. this is the man who said he never posted anything on PB he knew not to be true.... jeez
I don't believe he was maliciously doing so - which one can most certainly infer for the DT's attempt to subvert democracy in this country/countries (depending on one's point of view). There is no other realistic explanation - though one might also add gross incompetence in its attempt to promote tactical voting.
You are far too charitable. The best presentation is that his canvass returns were inept.. Trust is a thing once lost is hard to regain. Palmer may refute it, but AFAIAC he misled people and that's not forgiveable in my book. Better to say nothing than what he came out with.
Like Mike and Hopisen, I think that the only real obstacle to Liz Kendall is the nominations. I have certainly puffed Liz Kendall on this blog for over a year.
Remember in the One Person One Vote system, the advantage lies with the membership and registered supporters have the final say. Liz Kendall will do well with these people, particularly with a longish campaign. She has a natural media style of disarming charm that will go down very well well with regular supporters. She is one clever and ambitious woman who got a Cambridge first from a non-selective school. She is hot stuff.
The quickest way to lose the next election is for Labour to not have her on the ballot by a nominations stitch up. I think Liz knows this, which is why she grabbed the attention by setting out her stall first with none of the false coyness of the others. I suspect that she is smart enough to have her nominations sorted in advance. She certainly knows how to work a room. Just read Hopisens article...
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
So as a country, it seems Iceland got there first.
Funded by the Icelandic banks, no doubt :-)
How's Zopher doing?
Bored out of his brain. He is not allowed to play at all until Saturday, but he is constantly chucking his jolly ball at me to throw for him. Can't let him out with Aoife - she's too rough with him. So, in sum, he is making an amazing recovery. Just have to keep giving him the pain killers so he is not miserable.
I guess we won't know for sure, but it looks for the moment as though the surgery worked. Hoping it has not metastasized.
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
So as a country, it seems Iceland got there first.
Venice wasn't a country?
LOL. I was counting it as a city state, but it was probably larger, and certainly more important on the international scene, than Iceland.
Venice was an independent Republic, so arguably a country in modern terms, just a physically small one. Though as trade is concerned, definitely don't underestimate it. The Fourth Crusade was largely instigated by Venice.
Pulpstar The last time we had a PM from the West Midlands was Neville Chamberlain, not sure that premise holds. Cameron won more seats in Yorkshire than Hague, Blair more seats in Wales than Kinnock
None of the "metropolitan elite" stuff matters in the slightest. Just as, when push came to shove, none of the "posh / Bullingdon" stuff affected how many people voted Con.
If Labour wants to win the only question is who will be most attractive to middle England, middle income, aspirational voters.
Annoying your own hardcore supporters doesn't matter - the objective is to maximise seats not votes. Blair and Cameron have both illustrated that perfectly - go for the Centre and you easily beat UNS.
Chukka matches the above hands down - way, way more likely to win a GE than Burnham.
Kendall is certainly a possibility but I think the problem with her is that she doesn't look "senior" enough. If a group of people walk into a room the actual boss needs to look like the boss - Kendall doesn't do that.
Hmm I think Chuka is a bit too London, Burnham a bit too northern. Liz is from Leicester in the midlands where elections are won and lost. Appeal to Nuneaton man and you win !
None of the "metropolitan elite" stuff matters in the slightest. Just as, when push came to shove, none of the "posh / Bullingdon" stuff affected how many people voted Con.
If Labour wants to win the only question is who will be most attractive to middle England, middle income, aspirational voters.
Annoying your own hardcore supporters doesn't matter - the objective is to maximise seats not votes. Blair and Cameron have both illustrated that perfectly - go for the Centre and you easily beat UNS.
Chukka matches the above hands down - way, way more likely to win a GE than Burnham.
Kendall is certainly a possibility but I think the problem with her is that she doesn't look "senior" enough. If a group of people walk into a room the actual boss needs to look like the boss - Kendall doesn't do that.
Hmm I think Chuka is a bit too London, Burnham a bit too northern. Liz is from Leicester in the midlands where elections are won and lost. Appeal to Nuneaton man and you win !
Liz is from Watford, adopted to Leicester. She understands middle England because she comes from it. She is part of the 90% of the population who do not go to a private school.
Does she not look like the boss? Well neither did Maggie in 1976. She has Maggies drive but a hell of a lot more people skills.
Remember: It is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog. (Not that Liz is a dog. No Siree!)
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade. 1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102). 1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5] 1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
So as a country, it seems Iceland got there first.
Venice wasn't a country?
LOL. I was counting it as a city state, but it was probably larger, and certainly more important on the international scene, than Iceland.
Venice was an independent Republic, so arguably a country in modern terms, just a physically small one. Though as trade is concerned, definitely don't underestimate it. The Fourth Crusade was largely instigated by Venice.
Was that the one that ended up sacking Constantinople?
Based on one interview I have seen, Liz Kendall looks the best one of those listed in the thread header. She seems genuine and non of the others do at all.. I think Ed Miliband was genuine but had it coached out of him.. his best speech, delivery wise, was his his resignation.
What was it in that which you respected?
I thought the only resignation speech that was impressive was Cleggs. Considering how the result went he must have been distraught but he gave a very gracious speech addressing the work the party had done, stuff to be proud of, respect for the voters and issues for the future. It was a very measured and respectful speech.
I found Milibands by contrast to be very small minded and self-regarding. Which I wouldn't hold too much against him given again how upset he must have been, but I didn't find anything genuine in it.
Comments
Well superficial hasn't done David Cameron any harm, and didn't do Tony Blair any harm until Tony decided to start believing in something.
Also, stupidity isn't any major hindrance. Look at 2 time winner Bush.
Intelligence and depth are seriously overrated in politics.
Go Chuka who may well both be superficial and stupid. A winning combination in my opinion.
It does not matter if you are or are not joking because you are right. Where Labour are now is entirely because of Brown who was perhaps the most dissonant politician in British history. Wrong headed about everything.
Hilarious, except he ruined Britain at the same time.
On the other hand, Ukip is entitled to receive this money, has been counting on this money and some people voted Ukip not in the expectation of returning a Ukip MP to their constituency, but in order to help Ukip access the very funding that has sparked this row:
"UKIP has been quiet about its prospects in the general election. Breitbart London understands this is because senior party officials are more focused on the overall number of votes, as this brings in more cash. They are said to think the money will be a “game changer” as it ends UKIP’s financial problems once and for all."
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/27/farages-plan-to-bag-5m-election-windfall/
Just noticed that on Thursday the BNP got 1,667 votes nationally. The Monster Raving Loony Party got 3,898.
Good one from Dan
To an extent it may well depend on whether the TV companies are stupid enough to invite Coburn for some Entertainment Value when by rights UKIP should never have been near the GE Scottish debates and should not be anywhere near the Holyrood ones.
Blair and Cameron came off as convincing though and masked their superficiality. Chuka is too transparent. That's the problem.
It's now showing all the previous comments nested, rather than the 'show previous comments' bit.
For the Tories there is
Osborne. Probably the most exceptional politician of his generation.
Javid. Smart, clever interesting.
Boris, a tory that can win Labour London.
Hunt, a very safe pair of hands who kept the lid on the NHS throughout the campaign.
Hammond, highly competent if a little dull.
Not a bad start.
TTFN
They also have Redwood, who sadly they'll never use.
Still the annoying advert has disappeared.
The nested comments are not really helpful since its hard to see whose made them most of the time.
On a related note, couldn't it actually be Farage in the debates, Sturgeon style? I'd pay for a ticket for that.
The higher profile of Coburn appears to have reduced UKIP from about 5% to 6% which might get a list seat or two to 2% to 3% which won't give them a chance anywhere outside of possibly a concentrated Loyalist sectarian vote in Glasgow.
Let's get Coburn on the TV.
Why is Umunna in the Labour party? He gives the impression - to me anyway - that he's Labour because he can't be a Tory (because it's not the fashionable party to join) not because he has any view of what the point of Labour is or why he is Labour. Perhaps that's unkind.
But Labour really need to explain to themselves - and then to us - why they need to exist at all.
https://twitter.com/flashboy/status/598123568090714112
What a pathetic, hollowed out corpse of a newspaper the Telegraph has become.
They still think they lost despite great candidates and a winning argument.
They didn't. That's the root of their problem. They lost because after 80 years of Labour MPs great swathes of Scotland are comparatively poorer than when they had no Labour MP. They lost because you could go to a factory, pick a random production worker and they would do a better job as an MP than Tom Clarke or Ian Davidson or Margaret Curran or dozens of others. They lost because they keep repeating the basic lie about a £7.9bn hole in Scotland's finances which is an utter fantasy to let Unionists sleep at night witout panicking.
This is going to be a FUN year.
Watching the pressure build on Cameron to negotiate FFA with no ability to dictate the terms on his part is going to be so sweet. Guess this is his 12 months to go grey.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
#Chukatrading
Only the unbalanced could say that Britain's participation in the Slave Trade was not hugely outweighed by its decision to outlaw the practice - the first nation on Earth to do so, and the catalyst which led to slavery's eradication throughout the 'civilised' world.
As we don't believe VI polls any more, wake me up for the first leader ratings after we have some Lab and Lib leaders to rate.
Is there a list of those who supported Ed who are now slagging him off??
At least the PB Tories knew for sure he was crap and called it right.
The labour leadership race compounds this, whoever wins will be their contender for PM in 2020, none of them look remotely capable of mounting a challenge.
Shrewdie
How does that affect Scottish finances? As if the price drop is not enough, North Sea Oil is comparatively expensive to retrieve, and at these prices companies may reduce or cease some production and wait for the price to go up again. That's already happening here.
In 4th I believe behind Lab, Con, SNP. Lab and Con have always been pretty cloak and dagger about it.
To an extent it's cyclical, elections drive public interest in politics and drive mbrship increases.
(Of course definitions are important, slavery was outlawed in Britain itself but continued in various colonies up until 1840 or so I think)
New post: Liz Kendall for Prime Minister http://wp.me/p1Vf1s-1Hf
I wouldn't trust anything NIck Palmer said on PB ever again.. this is the man who said he never posted anything on PB he knew not to be true.... jeez
I've never seen so much debate of what he word 'interesting' means in a tweet.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
I suppose it might be said that Britain's was a much greater act of moral volition because of its deeper involvement in the trade in the first place.
Plans to complete the election quickly by the summer have been shelved partly because of union leaders. They have admitted they need more time to recruit political levy payers to register as party supporters and so have a vote in the contest.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/12/labour-shelves-plans-to-complete-leadership-election-by-summer-union-levt-payers
None of the "metropolitan elite" stuff matters in the slightest. Just as, when push came to shove, none of the "posh / Bullingdon" stuff affected how many people voted Con.
If Labour wants to win the only question is who will be most attractive to middle England, middle income, aspirational voters.
Annoying your own hardcore supporters doesn't matter - the objective is to maximise seats not votes. Blair and Cameron have both illustrated that perfectly - go for the Centre and you easily beat UNS.
Chukka matches the above hands down - way, way more likely to win a GE than Burnham.
Kendall is certainly a possibility but I think the problem with her is that she doesn't look "senior" enough. If a group of people walk into a room the actual boss needs to look like the boss - Kendall doesn't do that.
According to the BBC!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
If Len takes his chequebook away and starts a rival party, they're both stuffed
Very unsatisfactory. A political party hoping to gain the trust of the electorate cannot be seen to be under the control of a vested interest
960: Doge of Venice Pietro IV Candiano reconvened the popular assembly and had it approve of a law prohibiting the slave trade.
1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102).
1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.[5]
1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan; it was never widespread and mostly involved captives taken in civil wars.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
So as a country, it seems Iceland got there first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan#World_War_II
He won more seats for Labour than Foot did in 1983 or Kinnock did in 1987!
How's Zopher doing?
Trust is a thing once lost is hard to regain. Palmer may refute it, but AFAIAC he misled people and that's not forgiveable in my book. Better to say nothing than what he came out with.
Remember in the One Person One Vote system, the advantage lies with the membership and registered supporters have the final say. Liz Kendall will do well with these people, particularly with a longish campaign. She has a natural media style of disarming charm that will go down very well well with regular supporters. She is one clever and ambitious woman who got a Cambridge first from a non-selective school. She is hot stuff.
The quickest way to lose the next election is for Labour to not have her on the ballot by a nominations stitch up. I think Liz knows this, which is why she grabbed the attention by setting out her stall first with none of the false coyness of the others. I suspect that she is smart enough to have her nominations sorted in advance. She certainly knows how to work a room. Just read Hopisens article...
I guess we won't know for sure, but it looks for the moment as though the surgery worked. Hoping it has not metastasized.
Does she not look like the boss? Well neither did Maggie in 1976. She has Maggies drive but a hell of a lot more people skills.
Remember: It is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog. (Not that Liz is a dog. No Siree!)
I thought the only resignation speech that was impressive was Cleggs. Considering how the result went he must have been distraught but he gave a very gracious speech addressing the work the party had done, stuff to be proud of, respect for the voters and issues for the future. It was a very measured and respectful speech.
I found Milibands by contrast to be very small minded and self-regarding. Which I wouldn't hold too much against him given again how upset he must have been, but I didn't find anything genuine in it.