It could happen by accident. Labour might be about to elect their IDS. If Burnham is polling terribly in 2018 then they might finally learn the art of regicide.
Also what I suggested this morning. And almost certainly not what they will do
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
That's close to what I suggested this morning. Whoever is crowned in September should step down a year or two before the next election, and a new leader should take over once they know what they are fighting and how
Yeah..that aint going to happen.
But its a reasonable idea, it usually takes a year or two for new leader to lose sheen/shininess/energy. One reason why the SNP have done so well with Sturgeon, she's still new in the job.
any labour leader will, like Ed have had 5 years in the job, and thats not always a good thing.
It depends what they do with the five years. Cameron spent five years setting the agenda, as silly as some may look now in hindsight overall he looked like a man with a plan. Ed spent five years trying to avoid a mistake and looked like he just hoping to inherit the job of PM as if by right.
What did Ed stand for besides a string of populist measures and being anti-business? Who can say after five years.
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
Can't see it now that everyone has declared. In any case Labour need a proper barney of a leadership contest.
Didn't see that, but great minds & all that
They need to take some serious time out to look at who they are as a party, and what they stand for. They also need anyone who was close to Blair and Brown well out of the way if they're to appeal to the wider population in advance of the election.
In my largely uninformed opinion it will be between Andy Burnham and one other, whoever breaks through from the rest.
My preference would have been a senior bod (say AJ), cast in the Michael Howard role, to nurture a winner (from a set of hopefuls) and give air cover for a genuine policy rethink.
Interesting response, thanks.
On the second point, I think this is probably right, both for the reason you give, and because new leaders get a honeymoon boost. If Labour go for Yvette or Andy, by 2020 they will be led by someone who has been around for donkey's years. Less so for the other current main candidates, of course, but even so the novelty will have worn off, as it had for Cameron by 2010. Parties would in general be well advised to switch leaders later after an election defeat than they tend to do.
I can't be the only person who thinks Cooper is electoral suicide (again)? She's not just associated politically with economic mismanagement - she liked it so much she married it!
Burnham is the obvious choice - quite telegenic, regional accent, experienced... but on reflection, I'm leaning Hunt-ward. A new, (relatively) untainted and eloquent voice.
So much for the frontman - the policies need to follow...
Hunt is not exactly setting the world alight in Stoke. Only gained 0.5% share of the vote and saw a slightly reduced majority
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
That's close to what I suggested this morning. Whoever is crowned in September should step down a year or two before the next election, and a new leader should take over once they know what they are fighting and how
It could happen by accident. Labour might be about to elect their IDS. If Burnham is polling terribly in 2018 then they might finally learn the art of regicide.
Ed was Foot. Labour would be lucky to elect their Kinnock now.
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
Would be sensible if it looked like actually working out that way. In practice, I suspect it would just ensure the candidates spent the next three years trying stitch up the union vote for themselves, and Butcher would still win.
Meanwhile this process would furnish the Tories with a whole load of quotes to throw at them in the GE, like the Balls-Miliband non-dom fiasco.
Indeed, i'm not sure the labour party could survive 3 years of open warfare with people trying to build power-bases.
What am I saying? Thats basically the labour party anyway.
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
That's close to what I suggested this morning. Whoever is crowned in September should step down a year or two before the next election, and a new leader should take over once they know what they are fighting and how
What's interesting is that if Cameron goes the full length of this parliament, then in theory, the Tories should be able to pick a new leader who is able to deal with any weaknesses of the Labour leader and will be a relatively fresh face.
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
Can't see it now that everyone has declared. In any case Labour need a proper barney of a leadership contest.
Didn't see that, but great minds & all that
They need to take some serious time out to look at who they are as a party, and what they stand for. They also need anyone who was close to Blair and Brown well out of the way if they're to appeal to the wider population in advance of the election.
Well, we know what they stand for - envy, identity politics, and rewarding special interests. The challenge is not to figure "what they stand for" so much as to figure what they can claim to stand for instead of that, and to persuade some of the people some of the time.
What makes this especially hard is the obvious problem that arises should they decide, say, that being funded by Unite is an obsolete model.
If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces.
If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
No. If they refuse to say they overspent then they have the note thrown in their faces and are disbelieved.
To move on they need to accept they overspent and make out like they've learned their lessons. Otherwise it could take 18 years to find someone who accepts the lesson.
It could happen by accident. Labour might be about to elect their IDS. If Burnham is polling terribly in 2018 then they might finally learn the art of regicide.
Possibly, but if they can't defenestrate Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband, it's hard to see how they could defenestrate anyone. In any case none of the four leading contenders, or any other plausible candidate, could possibly be as mind-numbingly bad at the job as Ed. I can't see Chuka ordering a limestone tombstone, or Yvette getting herself into a scrape with a bacon butty at her own staged photo-call, or Andy saying that he felt 'Respect!' when he saw a white van, or Liz rambling on about random people she'd met on Hampstead Heath, or indeed any of them spending 5 years coming up with a blank sheet of paper.
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
That's close to what I suggested this morning. Whoever is crowned in September should step down a year or two before the next election, and a new leader should take over once they know what they are fighting and how
It could happen by accident. Labour might be about to elect their IDS. If Burnham is polling terribly in 2018 then they might finally learn the art of regicide.
Ed was Foot. Labour would be lucky to elect their Kinnock now.
Point of order. Ed got 232 seats, whereas Foot got only 209
Any way of laying that 8/1? The bank don't pay me 12.5% interest...
I was thinking the same thing - also if someone bets with a pber, the cash is not tied up on either side for a year.
I'll lay £20 at 8-1 for any reputable PBer that wants the bet.
Indeed. Baring a black swan, there is no event which will trigger Cameron going.
Isn't it simply a conflation of two different possible events? One, that Cameron will resign following a successful EU referendum and two that the referendum could be brought forward to 2016.
Personally, I think that bringing the EU referendum forward to 2016 is one way for Cameron to head off any thought that he would go after it, rather than in 2019, but I can see why people might conflate the two.
If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces.
If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
No. If they refuse to say they overspent then they have the note thrown in their faces and are disbelieved.
To move on they need to accept they overspent and make out like they've learned their lessons. Otherwise it could take 18 years to find someone who accepts the lesson.
Possibly. They need to leave the refuting of that charge to economists and historians if they want. This is one of those times going against their own beliefs may be necessary.
"And then the real biggie: the world economy is – to use the correct technical term – about to go tits-up: the global bond market is creaking; the smart money has fled the stock market; a huge crash is coming; and because interest rates are already so low and the deficit is still so high, there’s nothing the Tories can do about it. Cue a worse recession than 2008, while Labour say: “We told you so.”"
Love the high degree of introspection he manages there.
On topic, I wonder that the next Labour leader is not anyone we've discussed so far, but rather an old party Grandee in the Michael Howard mold?
Not someone that will go to a 2020 election them self but will develop the younger talent in the party and choose a successor in late 2018 or early 2019, after the party has decided what it stands for.
Hattie or the Postman could do it, who else has sufficient respect among the whole party? Nominations don't close until August, so it could be done at the last minute.
That's close to what I suggested this morning. Whoever is crowned in September should step down a year or two before the next election, and a new leader should take over once they know what they are fighting and how
It could happen by accident. Labour might be about to elect their IDS. If Burnham is polling terribly in 2018 then they might finally learn the art of regicide.
Ed was Foot. Labour would be lucky to elect their Kinnock now.
Point of order. Ed got 232 seats, whereas Foot got only 209
Foot was the last opposition leader before Ed to lose seats and see the government gain them. Impressive track record those two have. Hague didn't make much progress but at least gained a seat and saw Blair lose five, he didn't continue the rot.
On the UKIP -Farage war I have to say that it is critical for a party to be able to have a life of it's own beyond it's leader, same goes for countries, empires, companies, any organization.
A successful change of UKIP leadership is a test to prove that UKIP can indeed survive beyond Farage (and since Farage won't live forever it is the most crucial thing).
In my opinion Farage should keep his word and retire from the leadership, he should be made honorable UKIP president or something like that and let a new generation take over.
As for the 8/1 of Damian McBride, I don't think so, Major needed 3 years after 1992 to come to the cusp of being thrown out, although the US economy is showing severe strain lately from competition with Germany (that devalued euro) the FED will do everything to try and keep things afloat till after the Presidential election (though in 2008 it failed spectacularly). But Britain's economy is in a worse shape than in 2007 so any crash will be much greater and the government won't have much room to stabilize things with the deficit and debt being sky high already.
Privately I believe that Cameron will be in greatest danger in 2017 but he will retire before things go belly up and give the leadership to Boris to handle his mess.
I see where Damian McBride is coming from (though economists have predicted five of the last three recessions and David Cameron has proved to be astonishingly adroit at sidestepping well-signposted elephant traps).
It's best, however, if you read his piece with this track playing in the background:
If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces.
If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
But they are not pitching to ordinary voters - they are pitching to Labour activists and politically-active union members whose view of what went wrong under the last Labour government is that the only mistake was not to spend more.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
But they are not pitching to ordinary voters - they are pitching to Labour activists and politically-active union members whose view of what went wrong under the last Labour government is that the only mistake was not to spend more.
If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces.
If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
Don't quite see how this finesses the question at all. It would be extraordinary for any voter to believe the British economy is the engine of the global economy. So the only economic management issue that a British government has is to manage the British economy in the context of the global economy, especially how position it so as to be able to mitigate major shocks from the global economy.
If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces.
If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
They shouldn't finesse it (concede and move on...) but if they do the obvious approach is surely to admit the deficit was too large - not the spending which was necessary investment blah blah blah - and they should have introduced the 50p rate earlier. Surely this isn't beyond the wit of Yvette or Andy?
If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces.
If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
Don't quite see how this finesses the question at all. It would be extraordinary for any voter to believe the British economy is the engine of the global economy. So the only economic management issue that a British government has is to manage the British economy in the context of the global economy, especially how position it so as to be able to mitigate major shocks from the global economy.
The engine room of the global economy is still the US.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
But they are not pitching to ordinary voters - they are pitching to Labour activists and politically-active union members whose view of what went wrong under the last Labour government is that the only mistake was not to spend more.
Yes, it's the same problem as US Presidential candidates in that the electorate for the party's nomination is very different to the electorate at the General Election. The voters in the first election need to think of the second. Historically they don't.
They shouldn't finesse it (concede and move on...) but if they do the obvious approach is surely to admit the deficit was too large - not the spending which was necessary investment blah blah blah - and they should have introduced the 50p rate earlier. Surely this isn't beyond the wit of Yvette or Andy?
Have you thought of applying for the job? You seem to have a better grasp of what's required than the candidates who've put their CVs in so far!
shadsy has taken a radically different view of the most seats market from other bookies, with the result that one can back the Conservatives at 8/11 with Ladbrokes and Labour at 2/1 elsewhere.
Given the size of the swing that Labour require to get most seats, which has been achieved in roughly 1 in 5 elections since the Second World War, shadsy seems to be expecting the Conservatives to screw up royally.
Right now I'd prefer to back the 8/11 rather than the 2/1. But five years is a long time to wait to collect.
Labour leaders are trapped in a dilemma:- If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces. If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
Don't quite see how this finesses the question at all. It would be extraordinary for any voter to believe the British economy is the engine of the global economy. snip
The engine room of the global economy is still the US.
...and Brown allowed us to import its bad debts. Labour - a - stood by idle whilst our banks exposed themselves to a mass of sub-prime debts and crass takeovers and too clever by half accounting and borrowing practices. b - Brown and Labour increased public spending by over 50% in real terms between 2000 and 2010.
The real solution for Labour is to defenestrate Brown. Amongst the many thousands of words scattergunned out following Labour's defeat in Scotland, I note none of them came from Gordon Brown.
They shouldn't finesse it (concede and move on...) but if they do the obvious approach is surely to admit the deficit was too large - not the spending which was necessary investment blah blah blah - and they should have introduced the 50p rate earlier. Surely this isn't beyond the wit of Yvette or Andy?
Have you thought of applying for the job? You seem to have a better grasp of what's required than the candidates who've put their CVs in so far!
I don't think I'd get past Red Len's scrutiny committee.
@Casino Royale: (FPT) - you described Farage as "actually quite a sensitive and self-centred guy and isn't very good at managing people."
That pretty much describes a lot of City traders, which is of course what he was.
But he seems to think himself indispensable. And he isn't. No-one is. The cemeteries of this world are full of people who thought themselves indispensable.
If UKIP is to develop as a party other people need to come to the fore. Otherwise it will perpetually remain a home for protest votes but never make any sort of breakthrough and will undermine the BOO campaign.
I have no dog in this fight as it is a party I cannot ever see myself voting for.
shadsy has taken a radically different view of the most seats market from other bookies, with the result that one can back the Conservatives at 8/11 with Ladbrokes and Labour at 2/1 elsewhere.
Given the size of the swing that Labour require to get most seats, which has been achieved in roughly 1 in 5 elections since the Second World War, shadsy seems to be expecting the Conservatives to screw up royally.
Right now I'd prefer to back the 8/11 rather than the 2/1. But five years is a long time to wait to collect.
Something or other will happen to take the price over Evens at some point I reckon too. Boris getting trounced by Chuka at PMQs...
Yes, it's the same problem as US Presidential candidates in that the electorate for the party's nomination is very different to the electorate at the General Election. The voters in the first election need to think of the second. Historically they don't.
One quirk of the German system with the CDU/CSU split which Angela Merkel cannily exploited is that the Chancellor candidate is not necessarily the party leader, despite it being the parliamentary majority that counts. She stood aside and let Edmund Stoiber lose against Schroeder before imposing herself when the time was right.
IRVINE'S former MP says he's glad he can now tell his ex-constituents to "f*** off" - after they booted him out...
..."I’m of an age where I can now turn round with the greatest delight and tell people to ‘f*** off!’ which I haven’t been able to do for a hell of a long time in both my trade union life and also in this one. You have to take all sorts coming through the door and be kind, considerate and generous with your time and sometimes you wonder why. But at the end of it you’re there and I’ve always made the pledge as an MP that I wasn’t just there to represent the people who voted for me, I was there to help."'
Thanks very much for your election review and your numerous articles before then on your blog.
I thought you were unduly hard on yourself, although not as hard as the first commenter!
You were the trigger for most of my Scottish Constituency bets so a very big thank you for those which were a large chunk of my winnings.
Other decent wins were a few short priced Conservative wins that I think you tipped up along with a few others I thought were buying money. Luckiest one was nicking 5/1 in Thurrock for quite decent money towards the end!
For your amusement, these were my only real losses:
1. Labour 251-275 seats. I only did this as I had £50 at 12's on Labour 226-250 seats and thought I should hedge some. At one stage I thought I was in danger on the low side!
2. Lib Dems - I had them nicely covered between 21 and 40 seats. Near the end I panicked a bit and took the 4/1 on 11-20 "just in case". I laughed in the end when all 3 seat bands were too high!!
shadsy has taken a radically different view of the most seats market from other bookies, with the result that one can back the Conservatives at 8/11 with Ladbrokes and Labour at 2/1 elsewhere.
Given the size of the swing that Labour require to get most seats, which has been achieved in roughly 1 in 5 elections since the Second World War, shadsy seems to be expecting the Conservatives to screw up royally.
Right now I'd prefer to back the 8/11 rather than the 2/1. But five years is a long time to wait to collect.
Isn't that more Shadsy expecting the SNP to screw up royally and the Tories a little bit?
They might recover surprisingly swiftly if either Conservatives or Labour decline, and their status as the only properly pro-EU might serve them well if In wins.
Mr. Divvie, unwise as well as petulant from that chap.
So in the Champions League Final, Luis Suarez will face 1) The third chap he bit on a football field and 2) The Chap he was found guilty of racially abusing.
Hello Sandpit The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say. In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Hello Sandpit The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say. In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Shocking rewriting of history there.
Kenneth Clarke won the parliamentary party, it was the members who chose IDS over Ken Clarke.
Hello Sandpit The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say. In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Shocking rewriting of history there.
Kenneth Clarke won the parliamentary party, it was the members who chose IDS over Ken Clarke.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Hello Sandpit The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say. In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Shocking rewriting of history there.
Kenneth Clarke won the parliamentary party, it was the members who chose IDS over Ken Clarke.
Yep. I'd have everything the other way round for both parties - get the membership (+ unions in Lab case) to narrow it down to 2 [ideally without giving away their preference] and then have the Parliamentary Party decide between them. IDS and Ed have shown that it's not tenable to lead a Parliamentary party who doesn't believe in you.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
Hello Sandpit The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say. In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Shocking rewriting of history there.
Kenneth Clarke won the parliamentary party, it was the members who chose IDS over Ken Clarke.
Well, yesssss...but I think it is commonly accepted that a number of IDS supporters in the Parliamentary party 'loaned' Ken their votes so that he would be in the main ballot rather than Portillo who would have likely defeated their man.
The rules for electing the leader were not changed in 2005. There was certianly a view - and at very senior level - that the system should revert back to MPs having the final say, but the outcry was so intense that it was ignominously withdrawn. And the membership conclusively demonstrated their maturity and good judgment by choosing David Cameron over you know who!
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I certainly don't see any reason to expect it to be significantly better.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
If you scan a lot of the LD blogs/outlets they remain markedly sanguine, verging on Panglossian.
Of the very small field of runners, Farron is best placed to capitalise on this backs-to-the-wall ebulliance and mobilise the (now hugely-expanding) member base. He's also less tainted by the coalition.
They're bound to see some improvements in council and European elections; who knows, a luckily-situated by-election could even see them increasing their seats by 12.5%...
Hello Sandpit The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say. In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Shocking rewriting of history there.
Kenneth Clarke won the parliamentary party, it was the members who chose IDS over Ken Clarke.
Well, yesssss...but I think it is commonly accepted that a number of IDS supporters in the Parliamentary party 'lent' Ken their votes so that he would be in the main ballot rather than Portillo who would have likely defeated their man.
The rules for electing the leader were not changed in 2005. There was certianly a view - and at very senior level - that the system should revert back to MPs having the final say, but the outcry was so intense that it was ignominously withdrawn. And the membership conclusively demonstrated their maturity and good judgment by choosing David Cameron over you know who!
I'd change it the leadership election, so we have an electoral college.
MPs section equals 50% and the us members votes is worth 50%
Hello Sandpit The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say. In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Shocking rewriting of history there.
Kenneth Clarke won the parliamentary party, it was the members who chose IDS over Ken Clarke.
IDS never lost a General Election as Leader!!
Shocking memory on my part. I would have sworn Howard oversaw changes to the rules that brought in the membership. Glad I'm not a betting man.
I don't suppose there's any hope of persuading the bookies that, when I bet on Ed Balls as next Labour leader, I of course meant Mrs Ed Balls, is there?
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I am right in thinking in 2003 Stuart Wheeler called for IDS to be replaced as leader and within a week he was, and today he's calling for Farage to go as leader....
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Sure, it's an almost impossible task to lead them right now, and the best case is likely that they do not simply disappear entirely...but think of the acclaim if you could turn things around really swiftly!
Not going to happen, but in any case when you've picked your tribe these are the sorts of things you have to step up for in a crisis event.
I might just join the Lib Dems (from 2009) and explains Dappy's endorsement
Tinchy Stryder is Britain's hottest new rapper. Norman Lamb is a Liberal Democrat MP who helped launch his career. They reveal how the unlikely collaboration came about
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
The interesting ones might be those places which they didn't lose in 2015 but could take with enough push in 2020.
Hmm... top of that list appears to be Montgomeryshire with a required swing of 7.89%, OxWestandAb at 8.37% and Bosworth at 10.25%. Maybe not that interesting or likely then...
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
If you scan a lot of the LD blogs/outlets they remain markedly sanguine, verging on Panglossian.
Of the very small field of runners, Farron is best placed to capitalise on this backs-to-the-wall ebulliance and mobilise the (now hugely-expanding) member base. He's also less tainted by the coalition.
They're bound to see some improvements in council and European elections; who knows, a luckily-situated by-election could even see them increasing their seats by 12.5%...
Could Farage please step down now? It's just going to be too confusing having two party leaders called Farron and a Farage ;-).
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I certainly don't see any reason to expect it to be significantly better.
They are no longer in Government and will be under a new leader, so can receive NOTA votes. Also they were pretty good at by-elections, generally much better swings than UKIP ever achieved. They were especially good against Tory governments.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
The interesting ones might be those places which they didn't lose in 2015 but could take with enough push in 2020.
Hmm... top of that list appears to be Montgomeryshire with a required swing of 7.89%, OxWestandAb at 8.37% and Bosworth at 10.25%. Maybe not that interesting or likely then...
The Lib Dems aren't running for Gov't so won't really get any swing for against them "in the ballot box", WYSIWG with the LD opinion polling so the UNS will probably be accurate. Everyone adjusted their Lib Dem totals this time round - incorrectly.
Eastbourne looks like target #1 for the yellow peril.
"If anyone wants to listen to the so-called “shy Tories”, what you will often hear is not talk of aspiration but a desire to be left alone by the state – even a deep suspicion of it. This contradiction for anyone on the left has long been apparent. Imagining that all good reform comes from the state and everything bad from outside just does not correspond to people’s lived experience."
"I think of my flag-waving mother, who nursed my “uncle” when he had Aids, who was half of a mixed-race couple when that was much frowned upon. She believed that the Tories would enable her to do things and that Labour would stop her doing them. "
Labour will never - and never deserve to - succeed if it is seen as the party of stopping people doing things.
People generally prefer Cavaliers to Puritans.
And Labour comes across as the Puritan party with its prim censorious finger-wagging we know best for you bossiness. As if Mary Whitehouse had joined a union and gone into politics.
Eastbourne looks like target #1 for the yellow peril.
It probably willl be (subject to boundary changes - I'm not sure what effect those would have on Eastbourne). Despite losing the constituency, they did well in the local elections, actually gaining a couple of seats.
However, they'll have lost the incumbency advantage, and Caroline Ansell will have the first-term incumbency boost. I think they'll have trouble regaining even this kind of seat.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I certainly don't see any reason to expect it to be significantly better.
They are no longer in Government and will be under a new leader, so can receive NOTA votes. Also they were pretty good at by-elections, generally much better swings than UKIP ever achieved. They were especially good against Tory governments.
1) With MPs being much younger nowadays, by-elections are much rarer than they used to be. There were 21 in the last Parliament, with four of those following on from court proceedings of one sort or another, one from Parliamentary misdeeds and two resulting from resignations on principle. Four by-elections were caused by incumbents seeking new political office and two more were caused by incumbents leaving the country. These numbers are likely to be lower in this Parliament, giving fewer opportunities for by-election upsets.
2) For the Lib Dems to do well in by-elections, they need to be in potentially fertile terrain. Given the Lib Dems' performance last week, by-elections would now need to come in some very specific places.
3) The competition for the NOTA vote is much more intense than it used to be. UKIP and the Greens have made this a crowded market.
4) What is the Lib Dems' pitch going to be to attract the flighty voter?
I might just join the Lib Dems (from 2009) and explains Dappy's endorsement
Tinchy Stryder is Britain's hottest new rapper. Norman Lamb is a Liberal Democrat MP who helped launch his career. They reveal how the unlikely collaboration came about
Nate Silver has always been pretty up front that he is not a political pundit, but a number cruncher pure and simple. If the input numbers are wrong, his analysis will be. I have always cautioned against taking his word as gospel, because inevitably at some unknowable points the numbers will be wrong.
I don't think this is really true. You have to know which numbers to crunch; Nate Silver's number-crunching is informed by a good understanding of the US political landscape, which is why he does so much better at American elections than British ones.
Richard Nabavi "I can't see Chuka ordering a limestone tombstone, or Yvette getting herself into a scrape with a bacon butty at her own staged photo-call, or Andy saying that he felt 'Respect!' when he saw a white van, or Liz rambling on about random people she'd met on Hampstead Heath, or indeed any of them spending 5 years coming up with a blank sheet of paper."
I think you will find Chukstone will be made of finest Italian marble.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I certainly don't see any reason to expect it to be significantly better.
They are no longer in Government and will be under a new leader, so can receive NOTA votes. Also they were pretty good at by-elections, generally much better swings than UKIP ever achieved. They were especially good against Tory governments.
1) With MPs being much younger nowadays, by-elections are much rarer than they used to be. There were 21 in the last Parliament, with four of those following on from court proceedings of one sort or another, one from Parliamentary misdeeds and two resulting from resignations on principle. Four by-elections were caused by incumbents seeking new political office and two more were caused by incumbents leaving the country. These numbers are likely to be lower in this Parliament, giving fewer opportunities for by-election upsets.
2) For the Lib Dems to do well in by-elections, they need to be in potentially fertile terrain. Given the Lib Dems' performance last week, by-elections would now need to come in some very specific places.
3) The competition for the NOTA vote is much more intense than it used to be. UKIP and the Greens have made this a crowded market.
4) What is the Lib Dems' pitch going to be to attract the flighty voter?
1) - I agree. Also Cameron will try to avoid them due to his small majority. 2) - Not necessarily true a 29% swing can do a lot of damage from a lowish start. 3) - Greens don't have the organisation and UKIP is self destructing. 4) - Good question.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I certainly don't see any reason to expect it to be significantly better.
They are no longer in Government and will be under a new leader, so can receive NOTA votes. Also they were pretty good at by-elections, generally much better swings than UKIP ever achieved. They were especially good against Tory governments.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I certainly don't see any reason to expect it to be significantly better.
They are no longer in Government and will be under a new leader, so can receive NOTA votes. Also they were pretty good at by-elections, generally much better swings than UKIP ever achieved. They were especially good against Tory governments.
On topic, why would anyone want to be leader of the Lib Dems right now?
Things can only get better for them.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
Are you sure? Boundary changes might kill off the remaining defences, with the exception of Orkney (protected) and Ceredigion (PC useless). They're up against first-time incumbents everywhere else.
Well there is that, Could 2020 be a worse result for the Lib Dems than 2015?
I certainly don't see any reason to expect it to be significantly better.
They are no longer in Government and will be under a new leader, so can receive NOTA votes. Also they were pretty good at by-elections, generally much better swings than UKIP ever achieved. They were especially good against Tory governments.
Comments
What did Ed stand for besides a string of populist measures and being anti-business? Who can say after five years.
What am I saying? Thats basically the labour party anyway.
Labour leaders are trapped in a dilemma:-
If they say Labour overspent, then they have the "no money left" note thrown in the faces.
If they refuse to say Labour overspent, then they are disbelieved.
What's interesting is that if Cameron goes the full length of this parliament, then in theory, the Tories should be able to pick a new leader who is able to deal with any weaknesses of the Labour leader and will be a relatively fresh face.
What makes this especially hard is the obvious problem that arises should they decide, say, that being funded by Unite is an obsolete model.
To move on they need to accept they overspent and make out like they've learned their lessons. Otherwise it could take 18 years to find someone who accepts the lesson.
@kiranstacey: Is @MichaelLCrick outside the restaurant where Nigel Farage is lunching? I do hope so. https://t.co/ZkDlHEX2ha
The BBC are so bloated, biased and arrogant they think they can subvert the electoral process:
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/david-keighley-pub-landlord-did-not-act-alone-against-farage-he-got-a-little-help-from-bbc-friends/
Personally, I think that bringing the EU referendum forward to 2016 is one way for Cameron to head off any thought that he would go after it, rather than in 2019, but I can see why people might conflate the two.
"And then the real biggie: the world economy is – to use the correct technical term – about to go tits-up: the global bond market is creaking; the smart money has fled the stock market; a huge crash is coming; and because interest rates are already so low and the deficit is still so high, there’s nothing the Tories can do about it. Cue a worse recession than 2008, while Labour say: “We told you so.”"
Love the high degree of introspection he manages there.
A successful change of UKIP leadership is a test to prove that UKIP can indeed survive beyond Farage (and since Farage won't live forever it is the most crucial thing).
In my opinion Farage should keep his word and retire from the leadership, he should be made honorable UKIP president or something like that and let a new generation take over.
As for the 8/1 of Damian McBride, I don't think so, Major needed 3 years after 1992 to come to the cusp of being thrown out, although the US economy is showing severe strain lately from competition with Germany (that devalued euro) the FED will do everything to try and keep things afloat till after the Presidential election (though in 2008 it failed spectacularly).
But Britain's economy is in a worse shape than in 2007 so any crash will be much greater and the government won't have much room to stabilize things with the deficit and debt being sky high already.
Privately I believe that Cameron will be in greatest danger in 2017 but he will retire before things go belly up and give the leadership to Boris to handle his mess.
It's best, however, if you read his piece with this track playing in the background:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj44stHz49g
They can finesse the question by saying that while Labour overspending didn't lead to the global recession, their lack of prudence meant we were ill equipped to deal with the consequences. I think this would be enough for most people.
Labour's only crime is they cared too much....
You could take the Shadow Cabinet before, subtract Balls, Alexander etc and would they be absent?
I'd love it if Butcher tries that line. I suspect I won't be disappointed - I reckon every Milikinnock line will get another outing.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats
shadsy has taken a radically different view of the most seats market from other bookies, with the result that one can back the Conservatives at 8/11 with Ladbrokes and Labour at 2/1 elsewhere.
Given the size of the swing that Labour require to get most seats, which has been achieved in roughly 1 in 5 elections since the Second World War, shadsy seems to be expecting the Conservatives to screw up royally.
Right now I'd prefer to back the 8/11 rather than the 2/1. But five years is a long time to wait to collect.
Labour -
a - stood by idle whilst our banks exposed themselves to a mass of sub-prime debts and crass takeovers and too clever by half accounting and borrowing practices.
b - Brown and Labour increased public spending by over 50% in real terms between 2000 and 2010.
The real solution for Labour is to defenestrate Brown.
Amongst the many thousands of words scattergunned out following Labour's defeat in Scotland, I note none of them came from Gordon Brown.
That pretty much describes a lot of City traders, which is of course what he was.
But he seems to think himself indispensable. And he isn't. No-one is. The cemeteries of this world are full of people who thought themselves indispensable.
If UKIP is to develop as a party other people need to come to the fore. Otherwise it will perpetually remain a home for protest votes but never make any sort of breakthrough and will undermine the BOO campaign.
I have no dog in this fight as it is a party I cannot ever see myself voting for.
Then will be the time to invest.
'Donohoe's four-letter farewell
IRVINE'S former MP says he's glad he can now tell his ex-constituents to "f*** off" - after they booted him out...
..."I’m of an age where I can now turn round with the greatest delight and tell people to ‘f*** off!’ which I haven’t been able to do for a hell of a long time in both my trade union life and also in this one. You have to take all sorts coming through the door and be kind, considerate and generous with your time and sometimes you wonder why. But at the end of it you’re there and I’ve always made the pledge as an MP that I wasn’t just there to represent the people who voted for me, I was there to help."'
http://tinyurl.com/nrmaesz
Thanks very much for your election review and your numerous articles before then on your blog.
I thought you were unduly hard on yourself, although not as hard as the first commenter!
You were the trigger for most of my Scottish Constituency bets so a very big thank you for those which were a large chunk of my winnings.
Other decent wins were a few short priced Conservative wins that I think you tipped up along with a few others I thought were buying money. Luckiest one was nicking 5/1 in Thurrock for quite decent money towards the end!
For your amusement, these were my only real losses:
1. Labour 251-275 seats. I only did this as I had £50 at 12's on Labour 226-250 seats and thought I should hedge some. At one stage I thought I was in danger on the low side!
2. Lib Dems - I had them nicely covered between 21 and 40 seats. Near the end I panicked a bit and took the 4/1 on 11-20 "just in case". I laughed in the end when all 3 seat bands were too high!!
Thanks again and keep blogging!
They might recover surprisingly swiftly if either Conservatives or Labour decline, and their status as the only properly pro-EU might serve them well if In wins.
Mr. Divvie, unwise as well as petulant from that chap.
Just imagine if you were the Lib Dem leader that doubled, or even tripled their number of MPs.
I'd want 3 trillion to one, and maybe not even then.
60 match ban coming up?
The driving force of Howard's election as leader was that the Parliamentary Party (a small rump) saw fit to elect IDS who turned out to be totally unsuited. Thus they needed to unite behind Howard (who at least had political nous) to shore up their core vote. Howard then changed the rules to give the party membership the final say.
In this instance if the Labour Party membership vote for a dummy then they are really stuffed. Hmm... what's their track record on that?
Kenneth Clarke won the parliamentary party, it was the members who chose IDS over Ken Clarke.
The rules for electing the leader were not changed in 2005. There was certianly a view - and at very senior level - that the system should revert back to MPs having the final say, but the outcry was so intense that it was ignominously withdrawn. And the membership conclusively demonstrated their maturity and good judgment by choosing David Cameron over you know who!
2/1 worse
10/1 tie
Ties were such profitable bets this election.
SCON v SLAB
And
Greens vs UKIP
Of the very small field of runners, Farron is best placed to capitalise on this backs-to-the-wall ebulliance and mobilise the (now hugely-expanding) member base. He's also less tainted by the coalition.
They're bound to see some improvements in council and European elections; who knows, a luckily-situated by-election could even see them increasing their seats by 12.5%...
MPs section equals 50% and the us members votes is worth 50%
Not going to happen, but in any case when you've picked your tribe these are the sorts of things you have to step up for in a crisis event.
Tinchy Stryder is Britain's hottest new rapper. Norman Lamb is a Liberal Democrat MP who helped launch his career. They reveal how the unlikely collaboration came about
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jul/25/tinchy-stryder-rapper
Hmm... top of that list appears to be Montgomeryshire with a required swing of 7.89%, OxWestandAb at 8.37% and Bosworth at 10.25%. Maybe not that interesting or likely then...
It's just going to be too confusing having two party leaders called Farron and a Farage ;-).
Also they were pretty good at by-elections, generally much better swings than UKIP ever achieved. They were especially good against Tory governments.
Eastbourne looks like target #1 for the yellow peril.
@TSE
Do you know why all the nested previous quotes are always showing?
Is this a permanent change - it's difficult to read.
Two quotes will suffice: -
"If anyone wants to listen to the so-called “shy Tories”, what you will often hear is not talk of aspiration but a desire to be left alone by the state – even a deep suspicion of it. This contradiction for anyone on the left has long been apparent. Imagining that all good reform comes from the state and everything bad from outside just does not correspond to people’s lived experience."
"I think of my flag-waving mother, who nursed my “uncle” when he had Aids, who was half of a mixed-race couple when that was much frowned upon. She believed that the Tories would enable her to do things and that Labour would stop her doing them. "
Labour will never - and never deserve to - succeed if it is seen as the party of stopping people doing things.
People generally prefer Cavaliers to Puritans.
And Labour comes across as the Puritan party with its prim censorious finger-wagging we know best for you bossiness. As if Mary Whitehouse had joined a union and gone into politics.
It just dawned on me boundary changes and reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 could really shaft the Lib Dems.
You might be able to fit them all in a rickshaw in 2020
However, they'll have lost the incumbency advantage, and Caroline Ansell will have the first-term incumbency boost. I think they'll have trouble regaining even this kind of seat.
Lamb certainly isn't.
2) For the Lib Dems to do well in by-elections, they need to be in potentially fertile terrain. Given the Lib Dems' performance last week, by-elections would now need to come in some very specific places.
3) The competition for the NOTA vote is much more intense than it used to be. UKIP and the Greens have made this a crowded market.
4) What is the Lib Dems' pitch going to be to attract the flighty voter?
Richard Nabavi
"I can't see Chuka ordering a limestone tombstone, or Yvette getting herself into a scrape with a bacon butty at her own staged photo-call, or Andy saying that he felt 'Respect!' when he saw a white van, or Liz rambling on about random people she'd met on Hampstead Heath, or indeed any of them spending 5 years coming up with a blank sheet of paper."
I think you will find Chukstone will be made of finest Italian marble.
2) - Not necessarily true a 29% swing can do a lot of damage from a lowish start.
3) - Greens don't have the organisation and UKIP is self destructing.
4) - Good question.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/537299284639899649
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_East_by-election,_2003
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/550716028293251073