Carswell and his acolytes are undoubtedly planning a coup against Nigel. Farage is adored by the vast majority of his party, whereas Carswell's following will be amongst a small band of pseudo-intellectuals. Farage needs to crush Carswell like a gnat. Expel him, saying something like 'I should never have trusted an obvious turncoat like him to begin with.' It will demonstrate that Farage has an inner steel and is beholden to no mortal man.
It will also mean that members like me will leave at the same time. A shame since I have been a member since almost the start of UKIP.
Whilst I can understand why you might not be happy with Farage staying on, I can't get away from the fact that Carswell does look a little bit like a jonny-come-lately.
If the referendum is to be next year I think Farage deserves to be leader of Ukip up to then at the very least.
This is very reminiscent of the Tories 1997-2003. The clash of impressive egos.
That is the problem. If Farage is the leader of UKIP at that point then we are, in all probability, more likely to lose. That is the be all and end all as far as I am concerned.
If he doesn't beat Bubka he may reconsider I think.
"Lord Sebastian Coe - the man for whom London was the second choice, asking to be your first choice"
That wouldn't be a fair criticism and I don't think it would bother Londoners...All Londoners would be bothered about is whether he would do a decent job, and I think the answer to that is yes.
You mean Londoners actually vote onlyfor reasonable reasons and don't respond to unfair criticisms? They really are different from voters everywhere else.
Ken and Boris have both been pretty good Mayors.
Londoners 2 Cynics 0.
I'll take your word for it. Being a small town lad, the life and government of the big city is a mystery to me.
Well Ken did play a prominent and very active role in winning the Olympic bid (despite having zero interest in Sport.)
Boris cleared away a lot of the bullshit at County Hall, and seems to have made it a cleaner and healthier administrative environment.
Both raised the City's profile in a good kind of way.
Why doesn't she just join the Tories and be have with it?
If your views are the kind she's up against she has no chance. Is it Tory to want to support and embrace business? Is it tory to want to levy the optimum levels of tax, and stating that 50p in the pound is not optimal. Is it tory to want a broadly balanced budget (over the cycle)?
Has labour strayed so far away from power that business, opposition to punitive taxation and fiscal responsibility are now uniquely seen as Conservative values?
All that work by mandelson, blair and brown, wasted. You might argue about how well they handled the nation when they obtained power, but they certainly knew what to do to get it.
There's more chance of Steve Bruce being the next manager of Real Madrid than Clegg being next Mayor of London.
Its one thing for a senior LD staffer to idly pretend that Clegg could or would want to run for mayor (and thus hand Sheffield to either tory or labour) - but it is entirely another for a respectable commentator to repeat it.
Emigrating to Seville presents a more odds on prospect.
Why doesn't she just join the Tories and be have with it?
Liz looks like she's attempting to appeal to the centre ground to me, Labour's lack of connecting with any sort of business in the pre-election period cost them alot of credibility.
If Labour want a decade and a half in opposition, they'll go with Burnham,
Pulps- you're a well meaning lad, but Liz Kendell is not the answer to Labour's woes. Burnham has more credibility, in fact a million times more credibility and I'm not a Burnham fan.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
General query - if you had a ballot paper with an X in a box, but with the candidate's name crossed out (perhaps replaced with another name), would you consider that a valid vote? Had about half a dozen like that appear before me like that on the night of the count.
General query - if you had a ballot paper with an X in a box, but with the candidate's name crossed out (perhaps replaced with another name), would you consider that a valid vote? Had about half a dozen like that appear before me like that on the night of the count.
In my experience it's invalid as it's supposed to be an election for the specific candidate not for the party.
General query - if you had a ballot paper with an X in a box, but with the candidate's name crossed out (perhaps replaced with another name), would you consider that a valid vote? Had about half a dozen like that appear before me like that on the night of the count.
The protocol, in my experience, is that the agents of the candidates are asked to agree on ballot papers like this in a gentlemanly or womenly manner. I've never seen a serious argument.
The one result from the General Election I don't understand is Cambridge. How did a long time loser Trade Union candidate like Zeichner increase his vote by 12% and beat a research scientist from the Cavendish with a record everyone seemed to think was exceptional?? Does anyone have any explanation?
The "personal vote" myth got exploded. The left of Cambridge wanted to sure as hell they didn't elect a candidate that might jump into bed with the Conservatives. See Twickenham, Surbiton for examples on the other side. Your rosette needs to have some degree of popular support before personal factors kick in and allow you to hold the seat.
Also, I hear there might have been some people registered there who were unhappy about the whole tuition fee thing.
General query - if you had a ballot paper with an X in a box, but with the candidate's name crossed out (perhaps replaced with another name), would you consider that a valid vote? Had about half a dozen like that appear before me like that on the night of the count.
The protocol, in my experience, is that the agents of the candidates are asked to agree on ballot papers like this in a gentlemanly or womenly manner. I've never seen a serious argument.
In this instance none of them objected to accepting them when they went through the 'questionable' pile.
On topic, just no. I've been negative about some of Mike's long odds bets before and he's been right and I've missed out, but seriously ...
- How and why would any Lib Dem score the 30%+ in London that could produce a win. Bear in mind that they didn't score 10% in 2008, before their collapse in vote. - What sort of ground game do the Lib Dems have across the city? My understanding was that they were virtually non-existent across large parts of it. - What does Clegg offer? Yes, he has name recognition but is it of the right sort? Do people like him? Do they think he would do a good job? - Candidates need more than name recognition; they need personality (unless they have a mighty machine behind them and no personalities in the way). Ken had it. Boris has it. Clegg doesn't.
As others have said, Simon Hughes would be a more credible Lib Dem candidate. I still can't see him doing particularly well but at least he has a strong London base to start with and doesn't come with Clegg's negatives.
A further problem for the Lib Dems were they to pick Clegg would be that it would make the new leader's first year in office very difficult, being overshadowed by his predecessor - for whom he'd have to campaign - and tying him into a legacy you'd think he'd be keen to distance himself from.
If he's in a "really bad place", why on earth did he put himself forward as a leadership candidate?
Assuming there's some truth to the rumours, he's just realised he's been outed to his parents. That's one of the most terrifying things that can happen to a man.
If he's in a "really bad place", why on earth did he put himself forward as a leadership candidate?
That sounds awfully like the guy apologising to his wife after the mistress did a kiss and tell - not sorry for what happened but sorry he got caught. He was in a pretty good place only a few days ago, so what happened?
On topic, just no. I've been negative about some of Mike's long odds bets before and he's been right and I've missed out, but seriously ...
- How and why would any Lib Dem score the 30%+ in London that could produce a win. Bear in mind that they didn't score 10% in 2008, before their collapse in vote. - What sort of ground game do the Lib Dems have across the city? My understanding was that they were virtually non-existent across large parts of it. - What does Clegg offer? Yes, he has name recognition but is it of the right sort? Do people like him? Do they think he would do a good job? - Candidates need more than name recognition; they need personality (unless they have a mighty machine behind them and no personalities in the way). Ken had it. Boris has it. Clegg doesn't.
As others have said, Simon Hughes would be a more credible Lib Dem candidate. I still can't see him doing particularly well but at least he has a strong London base to start with and doesn't come with Clegg's negatives.
A further problem for the Lib Dems were they to pick Clegg would be that it would make the new leader's first year in office very difficult, being overshadowed by his predecessor - for whom he'd have to campaign - and tying him into a legacy you'd think he'd be keen to distance himself from.
The bet is for "any" Lib Dem candidate at 100-1, certainly I wouldn't go for Clegg at 1000 right now though.
"Any" is probably a decent bet, not for me though.
Why doesn't she just join the Tories and be have with it?
Liz looks like she's attempting to appeal to the centre ground to me, Labour's lack of connecting with any sort of business in the pre-election period cost them alot of credibility.
If Labour want a decade and a half in opposition, they'll go with Burnham,
Quite. But it seems their electoral system- with half the population of Islington and potentially a couple of million TU members - is set up to choose the most left candidate possible, just as they chose Ed last time.
Does anyone with a long memory recall the process by which Blair was elected after Smith's untimely death? It seems that Labour will be unelectable until they find a way of ending up with someone similar to Jarvis or Kendall as leader.
I find a lot more people willing to grand Clegg respect now that the LDs are so diminished - I guess as they are no longer threat, people feel a) a bit sorry for him (in some cases) and b) more inclined to take a less personal view and consider if there were positives in what he did, even if it turned out horrible. Personally I like the man, but he's as toxic a figure as there exists and the only reason he won't have quit immediately is so the LDs don't lose 12.5% of their parliamentary party. Write a book in the future, 'Tough Choices: The Nick Clegg Story' or something, and in 10-15 years the wider public might reconsider their impression. But I suspect not - just look at how rabid some people can get about Thatcher even now, with competing hyperbolistic interpretations both of which cannot be correct, rather than any kind of reasoned consideration (which might or might not fall more to one side or the other). With strong emotions these things get fixed.
Clegg is not toxic (OK well possibly), he is stupid. He and the LDs had a chance to be a part of stuffing Labour, keeping most if not all of their tory losses and carrying on in government. They blew it by trashing the govt they were a part of in a misguided effort to stop what actually happened to them. Now its activists are actually happy that they never need be part of any government ever again.
If he's in a "really bad place", why on earth did he put himself forward as a leadership candidate?
No one knows publicly at least, and if a Sunday newspaper doesn't reveal it we will probably never know.
But now we know that Umunna has probably been to some "really bad places" that he shouldn't have, and he was either afraid that journalists will uncover his dark secrets or they have already done so.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
The sine qua non of leadership is knowing where you're going. Liz Kendall is the only one of the candidates that seems able to offer any strategic direction.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
The sine qua non of leadership is knowing where you're going. Liz Kendall is the only one of the candidates that seems able to offer any strategic direction.
As is getting your followers to follow. And having the gravitas and/or charisma to look like a potential PM.
Why doesn't she just join the Tories and be have with it?
Liz looks like she's attempting to appeal to the centre ground to me, Labour's lack of connecting with any sort of business in the pre-election period cost them alot of credibility.
If Labour want a decade and a half in opposition, they'll go with Burnham,
Quite. But it seems their electoral system- with half the population of Islington and potentially a couple of million TU members - is set up to choose the most left candidate possible, just as they chose Ed last time.
Does anyone with a long memory recall the process by which Blair was elected after Smith's untimely death? ...
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
The sine qua non of leadership is knowing where you're going. Liz Kendall is the only one of the candidates that seems able to offer any strategic direction.
If Labour's problems were so superficial that they could be rectified by the right Leader, they wouldn't be in a bad place at all.
On topic, just no. I've been negative about some of Mike's long odds bets before and he's been right and I've missed out, but seriously ...
- How and why would any Lib Dem score the 30%+ in London that could produce a win. Bear in mind that they didn't score 10% in 2008, before their collapse in vote. - What sort of ground game do the Lib Dems have across the city? My understanding was that they were virtually non-existent across large parts of it. - What does Clegg offer? Yes, he has name recognition but is it of the right sort? Do people like him? Do they think he would do a good job? - Candidates need more than name recognition; they need personality (unless they have a mighty machine behind them and no personalities in the way). Ken had it. Boris has it. Clegg doesn't.
As others have said, Simon Hughes would be a more credible Lib Dem candidate. I still can't see him doing particularly well but at least he has a strong London base to start with and doesn't come with Clegg's negatives.
A further problem for the Lib Dems were they to pick Clegg would be that it would make the new leader's first year in office very difficult, being overshadowed by his predecessor - for whom he'd have to campaign - and tying him into a legacy you'd think he'd be keen to distance himself from.
The bet is for "any" Lib Dem candidate at 100-1, certainly I wouldn't go for Clegg at 1000 right now though.
"Any" is probably a decent bet, not for me though.
"Any" is perhaps on the mark at 100/1 but I don't see any value there. The election's less than 12 months away, after all, which is not long to turn things around. I just don't see any credible Lib Dem contender. Even if both the Tory and Labour candidates self-destructed spectacularly, I could still see an opening for an Alan Sugar-type independent candidacy rather than a Lib Dem.
... Does UKIP not have some form of "No Confidence" procedure to remove a leader or trigger a ballot?
http://www.ukip.org/the_constitution 6.23.1 A motion of no confidence in the Party Leader may be proposed before the NEC. etc 6.23.4 In the event of a motion of no confidence in the Party Leader being passed by the NEC, the Party Secretary shall call an EGM of members of the Party, etc 6.24 In the event that: a) the EGM convened under Article 6.23.6 rejects the vote of no confidence in the Party Leader; or b) the Party Leader stands for and is re-elected as Party Leader at an election following a vote of no confidence in him by the NEC, elections shall be held in respect of each of the elected seats on the NEC, etc In summary, UKIP's NEC can oust Farage if they have 9 votes, however that ousting will then have to be approved by the members in an Extraordinary General Meeting, if Farage survives it then the NEC members lose their jobs and are replaced by the members.
If he's in a "really bad place", why on earth did he put himself forward as a leadership candidate?
No one knows publicly at least, and if a Sunday newspaper doesn't reveal it we will probably never know.
But now we know that Umunna has probably been to some "really bad places" that he shouldn't have, and he was either afraid that journalists will uncover his dark secrets or they have already done so.
If hes in a bad place, then on a personal level thats a real shame.
I dont think for me personally and for the majority of people, sexuality or whatever, and we dont know if that's shat it is, if anything, matters at all.
But he was incredibly naive if he thought something wouldnt come out, this guy is standing up to be PM, snd you have to expect to open yourself up.
Shouldn't the aim for the Libdems in the mayoral election in London be finishing 3rd and trying to back to say 10% of the vote? I see that they have never got more than 15% that Simon Hughes achieved in 2004. Out of the defeated MPs from London last time, whilst Cable probably has the biggest name recognition, Hughes seems the best bet to get reasonable result for the Libdems. Also I wonder if Bennett will stand for the Greens having contested a London seat at the GE and at least will have some name recognition amongst the electorate.
Look.... Ed was a dork looked a dork acted a dork.. policies of a dork.. Chukka did not.. If the media have intruded into his private life to a point of unacceptableness then I have sympathy for him. Don't like Chukka and his bollox about Labour reaching out to the business community and failing.. but he was bus secretary ffs.. WTF was that all about.
Why doesn't she just join the Tories and be have with it?
Liz looks like she's attempting to appeal to the centre ground to me, Labour's lack of connecting with any sort of business in the pre-election period cost them alot of credibility.
If Labour want a decade and a half in opposition, they'll go with Burnham,
Pulps- you're a well meaning lad, but Liz Kendell is not the answer to Labour's woes. Burnham has more credibility, in fact a million times more credibility and I'm not a Burnham fan.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
Some interesting bits in that interview. She is a real fighter and will animate what could otherwise turgid contest.
"Justifying her uncompromising language, Kendall said: “I will tell it like it is.” She added: “I reject turning party unity into an article of faith – real unity cannot be achieved by trying to fudge the issues or dodge the difficult questions about the causes of our defeat.”"
Look.... Ed was a dork looked a dork acted a dork.. policies of a dork.. Chukka did not.. If the media have intruded into his private life to a point of unacceptableness then I have sympathy for him.
As would I, but sadly we currently live in a world where he would know perfectly well going in that would happen, hence some skepticism about that being the principle being the reason for pulling out. If he was not prepared to face an onslaught, he should not have put himself or his families through even a few days of it unless this was a really coldly calculating way of preparing the ground for a run in a few years 'the man the media forced out of being the leader Labour needed' or something, and I don't get that sort of feel from him.
In Biblical terms Farage is to UKIP what Moses was for the Jews, and Carswell is Joshua.
Are you sure Farage is not John the Baptist? We all know what happened to him.
Well Farage has lead UKIP to the cusp of the promised land of electoral success, but just 2-3% short of what they need to win seats. Carswell might have a better approach to get UKIP above the 15% they need.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
The sine qua non of leadership is knowing where you're going. Liz Kendall is the only one of the candidates that seems able to offer any strategic direction.
As is getting your followers to follow. And having the gravitas and/or charisma to look like a potential PM.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
The sine qua non of leadership is knowing where you're going. Liz Kendall is the only one of the candidates that seems able to offer any strategic direction.
As is getting your followers to follow. And having the gravitas and/or charisma to look like a potential PM.
Exactly David. On that front Liz Kendell fails. As did Ed and Gordon previously. As did Hague, IDS and Michael Howard.
Sounds to me like Kendall seems more appealing as Lab leader to those outside Labour than within.
Well the next election is going to be very boring if its deciding on whether to go for the Conservative 350-375 or 375-400 band with Burnham in charge.
Sounds to me like Kendall seems more appealing as Lab leader to those outside Labour than within.
Yes. I imagine Blair was quite different to the others at the time, too.
The problem is the electorate for the leadership election is different to the electorate for the GE, the candidates and the journalists interviewing them seem to forget that. Those voting in the leadership election most certainly do.
“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.”
Sounds to me like Kendall seems more appealing as Lab leader to those outside Labour than within.
She appeals more like to Tory obsessives who'll never vote Labour in the first place.
I don't think it's that simplistic (although also probably the case). I've never voted Tory, but someone appearing at least to go after the centre would appeal to me more. Enough to vote Labour, well, who knows, and I leave it to current Labour voters to make the determination if Kendall or any of them can bring in more centrish voters without losing the ones they currently have.
Just got the following e-mail from a neighbour. Labour needs to listen to guys like this - you can feel the anger, pain and frustration.
" I confess that I was somewhat less (99% less) than enthusiastic about five years of two 'Eds, but my real gripe is that it was so bloody obvious he was a loser and not one of the Labour grandees had the guts to get him out. In similar circumstances the Tories would have done just that.
I thus, after giving donations and campaigning locally, resigned my membership on the dot of close-of-polls on May 7 before I knew the results."
Sounds to me like Kendall seems more appealing as Lab leader to those outside Labour than within.
Yes. I imagine Blair was quite different to the others at the time, too.
The problem is the electorate for the leadership election is different to the electorate for the GE, the candidates and the journalists interviewing them seem to forget that. Those voting in the leadership election most certainly do.
She is great at hustings, and interviews very well. If she gets the nominations to stand then she will do well in the ballot. A lot of union members will be voting, but it is a OMOV system. The union barons only have so much influence, and are quite to the left of their own membership.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
“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.”
Now he will devote more time to gardening
That's Brian Donohoe, former MP for Ayrshire Central.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
The sine qua non of leadership is knowing where you're going. Liz Kendall is the only one of the candidates that seems able to offer any strategic direction.
As is getting your followers to follow. And having the gravitas and/or charisma to look like a potential PM.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
The sine qua non of leadership is knowing where you're going. Liz Kendall is the only one of the candidates that seems able to offer any strategic direction.
As is getting your followers to follow. And having the gravitas and/or charisma to look like a potential PM.
Exactly David. On that front Liz Kendell fails. As did Ed and Gordon previously. As did Hague, IDS and Michael Howard.
Getting others to follow is indeed the sine qua non. On that, I love this explanation:
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
A masterpiece of understatement from Carswell. ie - ''At times, Ukip has failed to strike the right tone'' He is in the wrong party.
Ironically he was in the right party with the Conservatives. The Conservatives and Labour are both broad churches that can host a wide array of views; the Conservatives are a party that can find a home for both Dan Hannan and Ken Clarke, while letting both speak their minds.
As UKIP have expanded it now seems to still be a narrow church for a set view with little room for deviation. If UKIP are to grow to be a serious party, they need to be able to tolerate some diversity of both personality and beliefs. A party has a core of guiding principles but not everyone is going to be a carbon copy of each other, a drone cut from an identikit.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
Well that seems to me to be the implication of what has happened. The McBride M.O. probably didn't disappear when he left.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
We do not yet know what the issue was that caused him to withdraw. It could be something awful and beyond the pale, or something quite trivial but personal.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
Those issues have been talked about for some time. Long before the start of this campaign.
On topic: A great opportunity to quote SeanT's classic comment of September 12th 2008, when Mike suggested another 'long-shot' bet (Could Kitty Usher be Labour’s salvation?):
No.
No no no no no no no
No.
No. NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO. Nyet. Non. Nein. Nnnnnnnnnnoh! No.
A masterpiece of understatement from Carswell. ie - ''At times, Ukip has failed to strike the right tone'' He is in the wrong party.
Ironically he was in the right party with the Conservatives. The Conservatives and Labour are both broad churches that can host a wide array of views; the Conservatives are a party that can find a home for both Dan Hannan and Ken Clarke, while letting both speak their minds.
As UKIP have expanded it now seems to still be a narrow church for a set view with little room for deviation. If UKIP are to grow to be a serious party, they need to be able to tolerate some diversity of both personality and beliefs. A party has a core of guiding principles but not everyone is going to be a carbon copy of each other, a drone cut from an identikit.
Poor choice of politicians. Supposedly Hannan turned down an offer to join UKIP as they could not guarantee him first place on the London list for the EU elections. Gerard Batten wouldn't budge so Hannan didn't join.
If indeed it is something personal yet trivial that has led to Chukka withdrawing, that will be a bit confounding, as if it is so it shouldn't be a problem with the public, and yet if it is the reason, he should definitely have been prepared for that level of intrusion so why announce at all.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
We do not yet know what the issue was that caused him to withdraw. It could be something awful and beyond the pale, or something quite trivial but personal.
Whatever it was/is, someone put it out there - and quickly. Umunna was silly to think that he could avoid scrutiny - so his judgment on this probably shows that he's not best suited to being leader. But now that he's withdrawn there really is no need to know anymore about whatever it was, is there?
Who put it out there and why, on the other hand, might very well be interesting.
Just because they call themselves friend and comrades doesn't mean that they're not a nest of vipers.
All that work by mandelson, blair and brown, wasted. You might argue about how well they handled the nation when they obtained power, but they certainly knew what to do to get it.
Was thinking about this today. Rather off topic, but when Blair took over in 1994, Labour was already hugely ahead in the polls, and in fact they ended in 1997 very slightly below where they were when he took over. See:
We'll never know what would have happened had John Smith lived, but I think it is most likely that almost anyone could have beaten the Conservatives handsomely in 1997. And in 2001, they won again by not screwing up the economy that the Conservatives had left them, and the 2005 election was won by the electoral system - had it been unbiased between Labour and the Conservatives there would have been a hung Parliament.
So I'm not sure that Blair was some election-winning super-genius - he was probably just lucky.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
We do not yet know what the issue was that caused him to withdraw. It could be something awful and beyond the pale, or something quite trivial but personal.
Whatever it was/is, someone put it out there - and quickly. Umunna was silly to think that he could avoid scrutiny - so his judgment on this probably shows that he's not best suited to being leader. But now that he's withdrawn there really is no need to know anymore about whatever it was, is there?
Who put it out there and why, on the other hand, might very well be interesting.
Just because they call themselves friend and comrades doesn't mean that they're not a nest of vipers.
A major scandal might lead to a resignation - and thus a by-election in a very safe seat. Who, I wonder, might be looking for a swift return to Westminster?
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony! That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader. I don't give two hoots about his private life. etc...
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
Those issues have been talked about for some time. Long before the start of this campaign.
Long before Michael Portillo's campaign even . We have gone nowhere in the intervening years. I sense that a by election looms.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony!
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
Well that seems to me to be the implication of what has happened. The McBride M.O. probably didn't disappear when he left.
Cui bono?
The spin though is already all about the nasty media...this will get dumped on the Daily Mail or whatever as them being nasty. It appears that claims about doorstepping his granny aren't true, but still reported on the front of the Times as fact.
If it is his sexuality or as suggested by some in the media who are in know something a bit spicier about this private life, that really shouldn't matter in this day and age. Two Tories ministers came out last parliament, one with wife and kids, and nobody battered an eye lid.
What did for David Laws, wasn't the fact he was gay (I mean come on, didn't everybody know that already), it was his expenses that related to his relationship that were the problem.
It's interesting to note that the exit poll was apparently showing a swing to the Conservatives in the East Midlands sufficient to allow them to pick up seats from Labour, but in fact the actual regional swing of 0.20% to the Tories wouldn't have been enough to pick up any seats. In the event they did take Derby North but not Gedling, Nottingham South, Derbyshire NE as the exit poll was implying.
The interesting thing about the Chukka story is that it is so obvious that it is his enemies in the Labour party who have done this to him - and used the press to do it, the wicked press that they wanted to control a la Leveson to prevent this sort of stuff happening. Oh, the irony! That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader. I don't give two hoots about his private life. etc...
If it is true that members of his own party have raised issues about his sexuality to destroy his campaign, then that would reflect extremely badly on Labour. It seems to have gone feral.
Those issues have been talked about for some time. Long before the start of this campaign.
Long before Michael Portillo's campaign even . We have gone nowhere in the intervening years. I sense that a by election looms.
Why doesn't she just join the Tories and be have with it?
Liz looks like she's attempting to appeal to the centre ground to me, Labour's lack of connecting with any sort of business in the pre-election period cost them alot of credibility.
If Labour want a decade and a half in opposition, they'll go with Burnham,
Pulps- you're a well meaning lad, but Liz Kendell is not the answer to Labour's woes. Burnham has more credibility, in fact a million times more credibility and I'm not a Burnham fan.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
Some interesting bits in that interview. She is a real fighter and will animate what could otherwise turgid contest.
"Justifying her uncompromising language, Kendall said: “I will tell it like it is.” She added: “I reject turning party unity into an article of faith – real unity cannot be achieved by trying to fudge the issues or dodge the difficult questions about the causes of our defeat.”"
Indeed - I don't want to live in a world where apparently Andy Burnham has more credibility than Liz Kendall.
Just got surveyed about how I would have voted if I was asked to rank the candidates in my constituency at the GE. Someone trying to determine if there's appetite for voting reform by seeing if outcomes would have changed perhaps.
Who leaked something on Chuka? We do not know, and it is more likely to be some casual chancer than a political rival. Apart from anything else it is very risky to leak such things in terms of blowback. McBride got himself sacked for spreading stories. Probably some anonymous twitter accounts generating a meme would be the easiest way.
If there were rumors about Chukka before he stood, and now has withdrawn because of the scrutiny, isn't that blood in the water for the press because it almost looks like he has something he doesn't want made public at any cost.
Or he could be telling the truth, but it just doesn't sound right somehow
It's interesting to note that the exit poll was apparently showing a swing to the Conservatives in the East Midlands sufficient to allow them to pick up seats from Labour, but in fact the actual regional swing of 0.20% to the Tories wouldn't have been enough to pick up any seats. In the event they did take Derby North but not Gedling, Nottingham South, Derbyshire NE as the exit poll was implying.
All that work by mandelson, blair and brown, wasted. You might argue about how well they handled the nation when they obtained power, but they certainly knew what to do to get it.
Was thinking about this today. Rather off topic, but when Blair took over in 1994, Labour was already hugely ahead in the polls, and in fact they ended in 1997 very slightly below where they were when he took over. See:
We'll never know what would have happened had John Smith lived, but I think it is most likely that almost anyone could have beaten the Conservatives handsomely in 1997. And in 2001, they won again by not screwing up the economy that the Conservatives had left them, and the 2005 election was won by the electoral system - had it been unbiased between Labour and the Conservatives there would have been a hung Parliament.
So I'm not sure that Blair was some election-winning super-genius - he was probably just lucky.
Almost anyone could have beaten the only government to oversee a decline in household living standards and the only fractious coalition government since postwar austerity.
Thanks. I believe it is originally from a TED talk. I think it very funny, and all too true. I always wondered how the David Koresh's, Charlie Mansons and Jim Jones of the world managed it. This makes a lot of sense. It does not matter if the leader is a crackpot, so long as there is that first and second follower...
"Ummuna...had been distressed by newspapers pursuing relatives of his girlfriend, including her 102-year-old grandmother" might have something to do with it
The BBC were very poor on the Jubillee events. They used people like Richard E Granf who knew nothing and cared less about Royalty or boats. If they have lost favour then I am not surprised.
Who leaked something on Chuka? We do not know, and it is more likely to be some casual chancer than a political rival. Apart from anything else it is very risky to leak such things in terms of blowback. McBride got himself sacked for spreading stories. Probably some anonymous twitter accounts generating a meme would be the easiest way.
Damien McBride only got caught / sacked because of Dummy Draper, a man who could f##k up making a cup of tea. Until he decided to get him involved, he operated extremely successfully. Look at how piss poor the Labour leadership line up is and how many leading Labour politicians had mysteriously bad stories printed in the papers when it looked like they might be making a move to get rid of Brown.
Comments
Thanks
SR
Boris cleared away a lot of the bullshit at County Hall, and seems to have made it a cleaner and healthier administrative environment.
Both raised the City's profile in a good kind of way.
Has labour strayed so far away from power that business, opposition to punitive taxation and fiscal responsibility are now uniquely seen as Conservative values?
All that work by mandelson, blair and brown, wasted. You might argue about how well they handled the nation when they obtained power, but they certainly knew what to do to get it.
Emigrating to Seville presents a more odds on prospect.
Labour needs a leader who is a leader first and foremost. Brown played to middle England voters and look where that got him because he was a hopeless leader. Ed was a duffer of the highest calibre. Kendall is worse than ED IMO.
Political career over!!
I called it!!!
A bit like when Steve Coogan got outed...
- How and why would any Lib Dem score the 30%+ in London that could produce a win. Bear in mind that they didn't score 10% in 2008, before their collapse in vote.
- What sort of ground game do the Lib Dems have across the city? My understanding was that they were virtually non-existent across large parts of it.
- What does Clegg offer? Yes, he has name recognition but is it of the right sort? Do people like him? Do they think he would do a good job?
- Candidates need more than name recognition; they need personality (unless they have a mighty machine behind them and no personalities in the way). Ken had it. Boris has it. Clegg doesn't.
As others have said, Simon Hughes would be a more credible Lib Dem candidate. I still can't see him doing particularly well but at least he has a strong London base to start with and doesn't come with Clegg's negatives.
A further problem for the Lib Dems were they to pick Clegg would be that it would make the new leader's first year in office very difficult, being overshadowed by his predecessor - for whom he'd have to campaign - and tying him into a legacy you'd think he'd be keen to distance himself from.
Has it happened before??
Will LAB win any seats next time???
"Any" is probably a decent bet, not for me though.
Does anyone with a long memory recall the process by which Blair was elected after Smith's untimely death? It seems that Labour will be unelectable until they find a way of ending up with someone similar to Jarvis or Kendall as leader.
But now we know that Umunna has probably been to some "really bad places" that he shouldn't have, and he was either afraid that journalists will uncover his dark secrets or they have already done so.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/577470/Fears-EU-reform-minister-rushed-WITHOUT-treaty-change
On the other hand lots of us really appreciate them lending a hand to a stable government
I dont think for me personally and for the majority of people, sexuality or whatever, and we dont know if that's shat it is, if anything, matters at all.
But he was incredibly naive if he thought something wouldnt come out, this guy is standing up to be PM, snd you have to expect to open yourself up.
Out of the defeated MPs from London last time, whilst Cable probably has the biggest name recognition, Hughes seems the best bet to get reasonable result for the Libdems.
Also I wonder if Bennett will stand for the Greens having contested a London seat at the GE and at least will have some name recognition amongst the electorate.
Don't like Chukka and his bollox about Labour reaching out to the business community and failing.. but he was bus secretary ffs.. WTF was that all about.
"Justifying her uncompromising language, Kendall said: “I will tell it like it is.” She added: “I reject turning party unity into an article of faith – real unity cannot be achieved by trying to fudge the issues or dodge the difficult questions about the causes of our defeat.”"
Carswell might have a better approach to get UKIP above the 15% they need.
Goodnight.
The problem is the electorate for the leadership election is different to the electorate for the GE, the candidates and the journalists interviewing them seem to forget that. Those voting in the leadership election most certainly do.
Goodnight.
Great tennis match btw with Nadal tonight in Rome.
ie - ''At times, Ukip has failed to strike the right tone''
He is in the wrong party.
“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.”
Now he will devote more time to gardening
" I confess that I was somewhat less (99% less) than enthusiastic about five years of two 'Eds, but my real gripe is that it was so bloody obvious he was a loser and not one of the Labour grandees had the guts to get him out. In similar circumstances the Tories would have done just that.
I thus, after giving donations and campaigning locally, resigned my membership on the dot of close-of-polls on May 7 before I knew the results."
That doesn't bode well for future harmony within Labour even once they've chosen a leader.
I don't give two hoots about his private life. It's a shame if it's something that he felt he couldn't tell his family. The only thing I would say is that parents and family often know or guess more than you might think and - unless they are complete bastards - are far more forgiving and accepting than you might anticipate. I hope so, for his sake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ
As UKIP have expanded it now seems to still be a narrow church for a set view with little room for deviation. If UKIP are to grow to be a serious party, they need to be able to tolerate some diversity of both personality and beliefs. A party has a core of guiding principles but not everyone is going to be a carbon copy of each other, a drone cut from an identikit.
Cui bono?
GN!!!!
No.
No no no no no no no
No.
No. NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO. Nyet. Non. Nein. Nnnnnnnnnnoh!
No.
Nope.
Nopey nope.
No.
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO.
nO. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
Nah.
by seanT September 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Loved the youtube clip
Who put it out there and why, on the other hand, might very well be interesting.
Just because they call themselves friend and comrades doesn't mean that they're not a nest of vipers.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997
We'll never know what would have happened had John Smith lived, but I think it is most likely that almost anyone could have beaten the Conservatives handsomely in 1997. And in 2001, they won again by not screwing up the economy that the Conservatives had left them, and the 2005 election was won by the electoral system - had it been unbiased between Labour and the Conservatives there would have been a hung Parliament.
So I'm not sure that Blair was some election-winning super-genius - he was probably just lucky.
As someone said, cui bono?
If it is his sexuality or as suggested by some in the media who are in know something a bit spicier about this private life, that really shouldn't matter in this day and age. Two Tories ministers came out last parliament, one with wife and kids, and nobody battered an eye lid.
What did for David Laws, wasn't the fact he was gay (I mean come on, didn't everybody know that already), it was his expenses that related to his relationship that were the problem.
East Midlands region:
2015:
Con: 969,379 (43.46%)
Lab: 705,787 (31.64%)
UKIP: 351,777 (15.77%)
LD: 124,039 (5.56%)
Greens: 66,239 (2.97%)
Others: 13,201 (0.59%)
TOTAL: 2,230,422
2010:
Con: 915,933 (41.18%)
Lab: 661,813 (29.76%)
LD: 462,988 (20.82%)
UKIP: 72,659 (3.27%)
Greens: 11,667 (0.52%)
Others: 99,083 (4.45%)
TOTAL: 2,224,143
Changes:
Con: +2.28%
Lab: +1.89%
UKIP: +12.50%
LD: -15.26%
Greens: +2.45%
Others: -3.86%
Swing, Lab to Con: 0.20%
It's interesting to note that the exit poll was apparently showing a swing to the Conservatives in the East Midlands sufficient to allow them to pick up seats from Labour, but in fact the actual regional swing of 0.20% to the Tories wouldn't have been enough to pick up any seats. In the event they did take Derby North but not Gedling, Nottingham South, Derbyshire NE as the exit poll was implying.
A spectacular pageant involving more than 600 horses and 1,200 people at Windsor Castle will be broadcast live by ITV instead.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3083691/It-s-ITV-One-Queen-snubs-BBC-coverage-90th-birthday-celebrations-criticism-Jubilee-farce.html
One has told the BBC to go f##k themselves...
Or he could be telling the truth, but it just doesn't sound right somehow
How many regions have you done, Andy?
East Midlands ideological split:
Right-wing parties 59.2
Left-wing parties 34.6
Centre/others 6.2