On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
“I couldn't really understand it. They just wanted to divide Britain and they focussed too much on process. Interesting point that which we saw a little of on here with the premature boasting of Nick Palmer in the weeks before the election.
The interesting point is - was that dissembling on his part or incompetence or was he being fed duff info by Lab HQ? The public polls war giving Labour a chance but what were their private polls saying and who was given the info?
“I couldn't really understand it. They just wanted to divide Britain and they focussed too much on process. Interesting point that which we saw a little of on here with the premature boasting of Nick Palmer in the weeks before the election.
The interesting point is - was that dissembling on his part or incompetence or was he being fed duff info by Lab HQ? The public polls war giving Labour a chance but what were their private polls saying and who was given the info?
Duff polling by HQ.. He must have known what was going on in his own constituency.. You get a feel for these things even if people are not being honest with you.
O/T it's only just occurred to me that, once EVEL goes through, it's probable that the hunting ban in England will be repealed. The Tories have a majority of 107 in England.
I posted the same point on here last Saturday. Not that I like to brag!
IMHO, Cameron will need to propose a licenced form of hunting rather than full repeal to the status quo ante bellum. Otherwise, opposition may be far more fierce and the risk is that Labour would just ban it again once they, eventually, regain office.
I think the ban on foxhunting is like Gay marriage, beyond repeal. It is not possible to go backwards on such issues, whatever the merits of the arguments. Things have moved on.
Rubbish. It's nothing like gay marriage. Doubtless there will
There will be plenty of others (the vast majority) who recognise it was a vindicative and mendacious piece of legislation, pushed through to appease the backbenchers of the Labour Party at the time.
There are some Tories who think that acts like fox hunting and cockfighting are barbaric and are rightly banned. That doesn't make us spineless, it just means we disagree on a matter of conscience (which is why its a free vote not whipped).
Such Tories need to be educated on the facts. The idea that foxhunting is barbaric is totally ignorant and ludicrous. Conflating it with cockfighting is deliberate misrepresentation, and you know it.
There is almost nothing that Labour did in office that irritated me more than the hunting ban, an attack on the countryside and its traditional way of life.
I (and many others) will be watching Tory MPs very carefully on this over the coming months and years. There will be a reckoning for those that go wobbly.
Fox-hunting is not a traditional way of life. It is an anachronistic way of death.
I sincerely hope this Govt. can see it has higher priorities than fox-hunting, even if the legislation left behind by Labour was a hideous mess.
Let Hunts apply for lottery money for drag hunting. Leave reducing the number of foxes to motorists. For more efficient at delivering instant death.
Total rubbish, and spineless. Another Tory ignorant of the facts. What business is it of yours how land management is exercised by those living in the countryside who know what they're doing, every one of whom I've ever met is a caring and passionate animal lover?
"Higher priorities" is code for not risking a vote that you might lose. You are behaving just like a Labourite.
What this shows is the total idiocy of those who know nothing about it.
Mrs Ed Balls or Mr Stafford Hospital - the Tories must be over the moon that these two cohorts of Brown are the favourites.
Seriously Labour, is anyone listening? If the choice was Kendall or Jarvis the government would be worried, as it is they're probably looking forward to the next 5 years of Labour infighting.
Yep...can't help but agree. Lke Nick Clegg, all those associated with Gordon Brown's government are a toxic brand.
And yet those associated with Gordon Brown's machine are most likely to be elected because of it (except those in Scotland, obviously, but that's Miliband's fault).
I'll be very angry if he doesn't vote for repeal. I'm very disappointed you think differently. We will have to have a conversation about it sometime.
I'm aware it's a free vote. I'd expect up to 20 Tories to vote against, and possibly a further 30 to abstain. The rest should (and rightly so) vote for repeal.
I'm happy to have the conversation if you want. I simply don't see any need for reversal of a ban.
I understand two main arguments in favour of allowing it: tradition and pest control. I think pest control is a valid argument to be made, but I don't believe that argument stands on its own merits. Regarding tradition, I don't see tradition alone as an acceptable argument for (re-)legalising animal cruelty.
I don't see many opposition votes in favour of legalisation, but I think that the SNP has pledged to abstain so that will significantly lower the bar - and means there's no need to wait for EVEL if so to deal with this.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
Yes, Cameron is really not going to want to re-open that particular can of worms.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
It's now or never. It's about convincing those uncertain about repeal for abstention, which is why a licenced regime is my preferred option. It has to be seen as reasonable in the long-term.
I think 20 active votes against and a further 20-30 abstentions is containable.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
Yes, Cameron is really not going to want to re-open that particular can of worms.
Re. fox hunting. I'm not really bothered by it either way but if I had a vote I would tend to come down on the side of repeal as I generally think people should be allowed to do what they want with their time (within reason)...
Just because it's something that rich aristocrat's enjoy doing, doesn't mean it should automatically be banned...
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
Yes, Cameron is really not going to want to re-open that particular can of worms.
Manifesto pledge.
Manifesto pledge for a free vote. A free vote failing at an early stage would I imagine be ideal for Cameron, pledge honoured. I'd expect Cameron himself to abstain rather than vote for or against (abstaining is the least worst option).
I think the UK badly needs a Woman as PM again, as I would not like to think that generations would pass by after Thatcher had left office before another was leading the country. Whilst it should always be about ability and not based on sex, I don't think it is healthy for generations of people to see Men mostly as leadership figures.
So yes I would like to see Yvette Cooper or a Tory Woman replace Cameron after the next election. I think Yvette would do a very good job in leading the Labour party, providing that she delegated some of the leadership to others in the party. Ed Miliband failed to change the Labour party around the country and seemed to concentrate too much on Westminster politics. Labour can only win a general election if they rebuild support in Scotland, they invest time in building support in seats around the country and don't go around finding enemies to fight.
Interesting post from Rochdale Pioneers. As that rare bird on PB, a Labour party insider, he/ she seems to confirm my view that there is a strong desire to move away from anyone too closely associate with either Brown or Miliband. That should help my preferred candidate, Liz Kendall, but she has to avoid being pigeon-holed as 'on the right' or as 'Blairite'. Those labels are potentially fatal to her chances - and fwiw, I don't think they're accurate either.
To support Mr Manson's article. Most Labour members are in London. They are more likely to support Cooper over Burnham.
I noted a comment the other day that it was considered the PLP was on the latest election more left wing than ever. This comment was made in a response to a letter circulating among these Labour MPs for signatures demanding an end to austerity. If that is so the more left leaning candidate should win which to my view is Burnham. He looks like he is the unions choice as well never mind how well that went for them last time.
O/T it's only just occurred to me that, once EVEL goes through, it's probable that the hunting ban in England will be repealed. The Tories have a majority of 107 in England.
I posted the same point on here last Saturday. Not that I like to brag!
IMHO, Cameron will need to propose a licenced form of hunting rather than full repeal to the status quo ante bellum. Otherwise, opposition may be far more fierce and the risk is that Labour would just ban it again once they, eventually, regain office.
I think the ban on foxhunting is like Gay marriage, beyond repeal. It is not possible to go backwards on such issues, whatever the merits of the arguments. Things have moved on.
Rubbish. It's nothing like gay marriage. Doubtless there will be a few spineless Tories who think the same as you do.
There will be plenty of others (the vast majority) who recognise it was a vindicative and mendacious piece of legislation, pushed through to appease the backbenchers of the Labour Party at the time.
There are some Tories who think that acts like fox hunting and cockfighting are barbaric and are rightly banned. That doesn't make us spineless, it just means we disagree on a matter of conscience (which is why its a free vote not whipped).
Such Tories need to be educated on the facts. The idea that foxhunting is barbaric is totally ignorant and ludicrous. Conflating it with cockfighting is deliberate misrepresentation, and you know it.
There is almost nothing that Labour did in office that irritated me more than the hunting ban, an attack on the countryside and its traditional way of life.
I (and many others) will be watching Tory MPs very carefully on this over the coming months and years. There will be a reckoning for those that go wobbly.
Fox-hunting is not a traditional way of life. It is an anachronistic way of death.
I sincerely hope this Govt. can see it has higher priorities than fox-hunting, even if the legislation left behind by Labour was a hideous mess.
Let Hunts apply for lottery money for drag hunting. Leave reducing the number of foxes to motorists. For more efficient at delivering instant death.
Agree completely.
If Cameron has any sense he will leave fox-hunting alone.
A shite law, but a booby trap nonetheless. Repeal it and the Tories will be set back twenty years.
What business is it of yours how land management is exercised by those living in the countryside who know what they're doing, every one of whom I've ever met is a caring and passionate animal lover?
Even if you don't accept a correlation between fox hunting and cockfighting, or that fox hunting is animal cruelty, proponents of a ban do believe that. Which means its not about land management.
Do you accept that the government has a right to ban animal cruelty? To ban acts like cockfighting? If so, you ought to argue that fox hunting isn't cruel - not that its "none of your business."
“I couldn't really understand it. They just wanted to divide Britain and they focussed too much on process. Interesting point that which we saw a little of on here with the premature boasting of Nick Palmer in the weeks before the election.
The interesting point is - was that dissembling on his part or incompetence or was he being fed duff info by Lab HQ? The public polls war giving Labour a chance but what were their private polls saying and who was given the info?
I think NickP genuinely believed the national polls, after all most people did.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
Tories should have more important things than fox hunting to be worrying about. If that is their top priority they really are doomed.
Re. fox hunting. I'm not really bothered by it either way but if I had a vote I would tend to come down on the side of repeal as I generally think people should be allowed to do what they want with their time (within reason)...
Just because it's something that rich aristocrat's enjoy doing, doesn't mean it should automatically be banned...
That is so much less true than you think. Even with the poshest hunts the backbone of the hunt (including those on horses) is not rich aristocrats. There's someone I hunt with who I also see quite often in Tesco, where she works on a checkout, and someone else who's a barmaid in the local pub.
O/T it's only just occurred to me that, once EVEL goes through, it's probable that the hunting ban in England will be repealed. The Tories have a majority of 107 in England.
I posted the same point on here last Saturday. Not that I like to brag!
IMHO, Cameron will need to propose a licenced form of hunting rather than full repeal to the status quo ante bellum. Otherwise, opposition may be far more fierce and the risk is that Labour would just ban it again once they, eventually, regain office.
I think the ban on foxhunting is like Gay marriage, beyond repeal. It is not possible to go backwards on such issues, whatever the merits of the arguments. Things have moved on.
Rubbish. It's nothing like gay marriage. Doubtless there will
There will be plenty of others (the vast majority) who recognise it was a vindicative and mendacious piece of legislation, pushed through to appease the backbenchers of the Labour Party at the time.
ed).
it.
There is almost nothing that Labour did in office that irritated me more than the hunting ban, an attack on the countryside and its traditional way of life.
I (and many others) will be watching Tory MPs very carefully on this over the coming months and years. There will be a reckoning for those that go wobbly.
Fox-hunting is not a traditional way of life. It is an anachronistic way of death.
I sincerely hope this Govt. can see it has higher priorities than fox-hunting, even if the legislation left behind by Labour was a hideous mess.
Let Hunts apply for lottery money for drag hunting. Leave reducing the number of foxes to motorists. For more efficient at delivering instant death.
Total rubbish, and spineless. Another Tory ignorant of the facts. What business is it of yours how land management is exercised by those living in the countryside who know what they're doing, every one of whom I've ever met is a caring and passionate animal lover?
"Higher priorities" is code for not risking a vote that you might lose. You are behaving just like a Labourite.
What this shows is the total idiocy of those who know nothing about it.
Er - I own land. I live in the Countryside. I am EXTREMELY well acquainted with the arguments for and against. And the track record of some of those "animal lovers". Many of the same people that turn a blind eye to hen harriers and goshawks and other endangered raptors to being shot on their land.
I'll be very angry if he doesn't vote for repeal. I'm very disappointed you think differently. We will have to have a conversation about it sometime.
I'm aware it's a free vote. I'd expect up to 20 Tories to vote against, and possibly a further 30 to abstain. The rest should (and rightly so) vote for repeal.
I'm happy to have the conversation if you want. I simply don't see any need for reversal of a ban.
I understand two main arguments in favour of allowing it: tradition and pest control. I think pest control is a valid argument to be made, but I don't believe that argument stands on its own merits. Regarding tradition, I don't see tradition alone as an acceptable argument for (re-)legalising animal cruelty.
I don't see many opposition votes in favour of legalisation, but I think that the SNP has pledged to abstain so that will significantly lower the bar - and means there's no need to wait for EVEL if so to deal with this.
It is not about re legalising animal cruelty. This is the fundamental myth that pro-banners keep peddling. It is no more or less inhumane than other forms of pest control. Much less so than shooting or poisoning. And don't forget the 'hunting' that foxes themselves carry out against countless other animals, including rabbits and hens.
I have to go out now but for me this is a libertarian argument and even if you don't live in the countryside, and are an urban dweller, you should be able to accept that if you don't really know that much about it and others do, for whom it is a fundamental way of life, the best thing to do as a Conservative is to leave them be.
I'm not hugely concerned about the issue per se, but fox hunting is obviously something that a lot of rural Conservatives feel very strongly about (including David Cameron, it seems). The "ban" actually seems to be pretty ineffectual, which could be an argument for doing nothing, but on the other hand, bad laws shouldn't be kept on the statute books.
Re. fox hunting. I'm not really bothered by it either way but if I had a vote I would tend to come down on the side of repeal as I generally think people should be allowed to do what they want with their time (within reason)...
Just because it's something that rich aristocrat's enjoy doing, doesn't mean it should automatically be banned...
I think you would be surprised at the number of working class people that sit on them there Gee Gee's.
I think the UK badly needs a Woman as PM again, as I would not like to think that generations would pass by after Thatcher had left office before another was leading the country. Whilst it should always be about ability and not based on sex, I don't think it is healthy for generations of people to see Men mostly as leadership figures.
So yes I would like to see Yvette Cooper or a Tory Woman replace Cameron after the next election. I think Yvette would do a very good job in leading the Labour party, providing that she delegated some of the leadership to others in the party. Ed Miliband failed to change the Labour party around the country and seemed to concentrate too much on Westminster politics. Labour can only win a general election if they rebuild support in Scotland, they invest time in building support in seats around the country and don't go around finding enemies to fight.
You say it should be based on ability not sex but then make a decision based solely on sex. There is absolutely nothing that links Yvette Cooper and "a Tory Woman" together other than their gender.
Thatcher got the role and won three elections not because she was a woman, but because she was the right person for the job and did well in the job. The greatest tribute one can make to Thatcher is the fact she's remembered for her government did and not the fact she was the first female PM.
I hope the next female PM is in the same league as Thatcher. A woman who's got to the top because she deserves to, not because she's female.
Re. fox hunting. I'm not really bothered by it either way but if I had a vote I would tend to come down on the side of repeal as I generally think people should be allowed to do what they want with their time (within reason)...
Just because it's something that rich aristocrat's enjoy doing, doesn't mean it should automatically be banned...
That is so much less true than you think. Even with the poshest hunts the backbone of the hunt (including those on horses) is not rich aristocrats. There's someone I hunt with who I also see quite often in Tesco, where she works on a checkout, and someone else who's a barmaid in the local pub.
I know, I know. I live in the countryside myself...
That was just the perception the leftie's had when they banned it (Remember Tony saying "Tally-ho" at the Labour conference one year when there was a hunt protest going on outside the venue)
One of my neighbors, who is a mid-wife by day, is strongly into the hunt scene.
If Cameron has any sense he will leave fox-hunting alone.
A shite law, but a booby trap nonetheless. Repeal it and the Tories will be set back twenty years.
Another "tax cuts for millionaires" scenario where Labour only increased it a month before they left office for their own benefit and then used it every second they could for the next 5 years
Interesting post from Rochdale Pioneers. As that rare bird on PB, a Labour party insider, he/ she seems to confirm my view that there is a strong desire to move away from anyone too closely associate with either Brown or Miliband. That should help my preferred candidate, Liz Kendall, but she has to avoid being pigeon-holed as 'on the right' or as 'Blairite'. Those labels are potentially fatal to her chances - and fwiw, I don't think they're accurate either.
I think Liz Kendall does run the risk of being too outspoken, though that is part of what is required. To label her as Right or Blairite is to miss a lot by simple labelling.
A lot depends on whether Labour is serious about winning, or just wants a futher period in righteous opposition.
Burnham is rightly favourite, but will never be Prime Minister.
The leadership issue was quite critical, but AJ did not run and DM did not win. This is the "bargaining" stage of the grief response. snip Kendall's essay is particularly thoughtful. For example: "We also need to tackle a form of dependency that stifles people’s aspiration. Welfare dependency is not, as the Tories claim, the effect of an over-generous benefits system. Anyone working with people on benefits knows how much they struggle to make ends meet and put food on the table. Problems arise when public services take over decision-making about too many key aspects of people’s lives, without properly involving them, slowly sapping their self-reliance and aspiration. The more vulnerable you are, and the more public services you need to to deal with the complex challenges you face, the more pronounced this effect becomes." Quite a revolutionary. Power to the People!
Quite contradictory if you ask me. "We also need to tackle a form of dependency that stifles people’s aspiration. Welfare dependency is not, as the Tories claim, the effect of an over-generous benefits system. '' Her claim is preposterous. 'Welfare makes you dependant - but its not the money folks its... well its... er... you know... them key aspects ... er ... yes they are key.... them aspects... definitely.'
It's instructive to compare the respective bans on hunting and indoor smoking. Hunters see nothing wrong with what they do, so the ban never worked, and hunting remains very popular. Smokers were already half-convinced that they were evil people, so the ban worked.
Interesting post from Rochdale Pioneers. As that rare bird on PB, a Labour party insider, he/ she seems to confirm my view that there is a strong desire to move away from anyone too closely associate with either Brown or Miliband. That should help my preferred candidate, Liz Kendall, but she has to avoid being pigeon-holed as 'on the right' or as 'Blairite'. Those labels are potentially fatal to her chances - and fwiw, I don't think they're accurate either.
I think Liz Kendall does run the risk of being too outspoken, though that is part of what is required. To label her as Right or Blairite is to miss a lot by simple labelling.
A lot depends on whether Labour is serious about winning, or just wants a futher period in righteous opposition.
Burnham is rightly favourite, but will never be Prime Minister.
And yet those associated with Gordon Brown's machine are most likely to be elected because of it (except those in Scotland, obviously, but that's Miliband's fault).
Do we have any membership numbers for Scottish Labour? I wonder how important support from up there will be and how that might differ from the rest of the party.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
Tories should have more important things than fox hunting to be worrying about. If that is their top priority they really are doomed.
Well its only taken just over a week but we're back to malcolm thinking the Tories are doomed. Plus ca change
It is not about re legalising animal cruelty. This is the fundamental myth that pro-banners keep peddling. It is no more or less inhumane than other forms of pest control. Much less so than shooting or poisoning. And don't forget the 'hunting' that foxes themselves carry out against countless other animals, including rabbits and hens.
I have to go out now but for me this is a libertarian argument and even if you don't live in the countryside, and are an urban dweller, you should be able to accept that if you don't really know that much about it and others do, for whom it is a fundamental way of life, the best thing to do as a Conservative is to leave them be.
That's only the case if its genuinely used as pest control and the so-called pests aren't bred, or encouraged to breed in order to then be hunted. In Australia rabbits are a major pest, but they became that way after being deliberately introduced into the wild with the purpose of then being able to hunt them, leading to the eventual deliberate release of myxomatosis.
As a Libertarian I believe its right to leave people to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others. This does IMO and so the ban falls into the "preventing harm" category just as much as cockfighting.
PS got no particular fondness for foxes, but I keep a rabbit as a pet indoors.
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Re Fox Hunting... One of my camera crew .. a working class Geordie, goes riding with the local hunt..loves it ... they have never run down a fox..but he loves riding and the social life.
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Nothing wrong with saying you can poll all you like personally, but can't then present them as a scientific measure of opinion likely to influence others when really they're liable to massive measurement errors.
I think Liz Kendall does run the risk of being too outspoken, though that is part of what is required. To label her as Right or Blairite is to miss a lot by simple labelling. A lot depends on whether Labour is serious about winning, or just wants a futher period in righteous opposition. Burnham is rightly favourite, but will never be Prime Minister.
Oh no - BIRFBWNBPM ! ''A lot depends on whether Labour is serious about winning, or just wants a further period in righteous opposition.'' - hmm, a bit like the libdems then... May I just point out to people just how much space the extra paragraph spacing takes up under the new regime of these hopeless embedded links? It a real pain editing them out.
ShhhhhhIs don't mention the working class pastime of fishing
LOL I agree entirely with this! I've got a Facebook friend who posts virtually every weekend a picture of himself holding his "catch of the day", then during the election he posted an article about the evil Tories wanting to hurt animals by legalising hunting. Don't get that hypocrisy at all.
Great contrast with smoking there Sean. Its interesting when I go overseas to holiday resorts popular with Brits in nations where indoors smoking is still allowed, many smokers now go outdoors somewhat by default. The culture has changed with that ban.
Cooper: Too close to Balls and to close to the Brownite faction. Does not come across well in the media. Machine politician.
Burnham: Eye-liner issue. Failed to land any serious blows as Shadow Health Secretary, despite having a fair bit to go with. Stafford Hospital.
Kendall: Lightweight but has clearly thought things through at a deeper level than her opponents.
Creagh: My MP, though not by much. What does she offer? Wholly invisible for the last five years. If her offerings to the Wakefield Express are anything to go by, will only trouble the Tories in that she'll provide so many counter-attack lines.
Hunt: Far too full of himself. Empty political vessel making much noise. Undoubtedly clever but that does not necessarily a good politician make.
But I don't have a vote so they won't be (and aren't) appealing to me.
Who they are appealing to is the Labour electorate and so working out who's likely to win means understanding their views. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that this is an AV election: transfers matter, which means dislikeability matters.
I agree with the bookies and other commentators that Cooper and Burnham are rightly out front. The questions are which is ahead and which will be best able to pick up transfers? I'm far from well-placed to answer that. My instinct is that Kendall is an election early. She's offering the Portillo prescription that Cameron eventually won with, at a time when it wanted an IDS solution (not that the personalities match, so we shouldn't carry that analogy too far). On the other hand, Hunt and Creagh seem to offer nothing at all.
So it's down to the other two. So which speaks the language of the membership better, and which is best placed to reach them? On both counts, I think Cooper probably edges it. Is that offset by the Balls factor? I think probably not, not least because it makes her the continuity candidate and my impression is that much of Labour wants a continuity candidate because it doesn't believe there was anything fundamentally wrong with Labour's approach for 2015, just with its messenger/s. Yes, Balls was one of those messengers but Cooper isn't him. I agree with Henry: 9/4 strikes me as excellent value.
[Crosby] names four people who he says were integral to the operation: Andrew Feldman, the Tory chairman who “built the party over 10 years”; Stephen Gilbert, who was head of the field campaign; Mr Oliver, who ran the press operation; and Jim Messina, another veteran of Barack Obama’s campaigns in America.
If Cameron has any sense he will leave fox-hunting alone.
A shite law, but a booby trap nonetheless. Repeal it and the Tories will be set back twenty years.
Another "tax cuts for millionaires" scenario where Labour only increased it a month before they left office for their own benefit and then used it every second they could for the next 5 years
And, much good it did Labour. No doubt the Tories would face a twitter storm if they repealed the ban, but this election showed Twitter is a paper tiger.
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Nothing wrong with saying you can poll all you like personally, but can't then present them as a scientific measure of opinion likely to influence others when really they're liable to massive measurement errors.
A ban on polling wouldn't last five minutes in this era of the internet and social media.
May I just point out to people just how much space the extra paragraph spacing takes up under the new regime of these hopeless embedded links? It a real pain editing them out.
Under current circumstances conciseness is a virtue.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
Tories should have more important things than fox hunting to be worrying about. If that is their top priority they really are doomed.
Just because you do something, it doesn't mean it's your top priority.
FWIW, I'd vote against repeal. We seem to have a wonderfully British compromise at the moment which works well. The opponents can pretend there's a ban and the hunters can pretend there isn't.
I think if he survives it could well cause a full blown civil war to break out and if Labour are not careful we could see a breakaway group of MSPs. I think Labours London head office has yet again taken its eye off the Scotland ball, as they focus everything on the national leadership race.
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Nothing wrong with saying you can poll all you like personally, but can't then present them as a scientific measure of opinion likely to influence others when really they're liable to massive measurement errors.
A ban on polling wouldn't last five minutes in this era of the internet and social media.
If you make it illegal for the mainstream media to report polls, they will stop paying for polls, and there will be no polls.
Dan HodgesVerified account @DPJHodges Understand we should expect very significant Labour leadership announcement this morning. Will re-shape perceptions of the race. Reply Retweet Favorite More
Dan Hodges knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing Starmer or Johnson.
If anyone is interested in betting on the next UKIP leader, I'd like to offer to lay bets on Carswell at better than bookies odds (best odds available 11/8). The deal would be:
Odds - 6/4 T&C - Applies to next permanent leader. Permanent leader is either the first person (other than Farage) to win a leadership election OR the first person (other than Farage) to hold the post of leader for 6 months despite not being elected to it.
Any takers? Happy to negotiate amount and terms/odds to some extent.
Please PM me as well as any responses here. I'll try to check this thread for any replies but might miss some.
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Nothing wrong with saying you can poll all you like personally, but can't then present them as a scientific measure of opinion likely to influence others when really they're liable to massive measurement errors.
Influence whom to do what? The only people doing anything are the parties, who under Crosby's new regime, will have their own polling. Where Crosby might be mischief-making is the smaller parties cannot afford extensive private polling, so banning the public polls will increase the advantage of the Labour and Conservative Parties.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
It's now or never. It's about convincing those uncertain about repeal for abstention, which is why a licenced regime is my preferred option. It has to be seen as reasonable in the long-term.
I think 20 active votes against and a further 20-30 abstentions is containable.
It's such a shame that whilst "call me Dave" was talking about extra investment for health and extra childcare we didn't get to see more of the swivel eyed Casino's in the campaign.
That is the thing about the Tories- I can cope with the reasonable part, but the loony brigade who are fixated on issues like repealing the fox hunting ban, taking out the BBC, the human rights act, obsessed by Europe and EVEL, attacking unions on every point- they worry me.
Dan HodgesVerified account @DPJHodges Understand we should expect very significant Labour leadership announcement this morning. Will re-shape perceptions of the race. Reply Retweet Favorite More
Dan Hodges knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing Starmer or Johnson.
Dan HodgesVerified account @DPJHodges Understand we should expect very significant Labour leadership announcement this morning. Will re-shape perceptions of the race. Reply Retweet Favorite More
Dan Hodges knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing Starmer or Johnson.
An aside: bought some clippers earlier this year [I needed to boost my aerodynamic efficiency]. The lubricating oil's run out. The manufacturer doesn't appear to sell it on Amazon [despite selling many other things] so I'm going to buy another firm's instead.
Baffles me why they'd do that. It's like a printer firm selling printers but not ink.
A ban on polling wouldn't last five minutes in this era of the internet and social media.
If you make it illegal for the mainstream media to report polls, they will stop paying for polls, and there will be no polls.
Except that the media aren't the only ones who commission polls. Remember the storm over the LD's leaked internal polling? That was somewhat less taken seriously due to the volume of "proper polls" but if there were no mainstream polls expect leaked polls to step into the void.
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Nothing wrong with saying you can poll all you like personally, but can't then present them as a scientific measure of opinion likely to influence others when really they're liable to massive measurement errors.
Influence whom to do what? The only people doing anything are the parties, who under Crosby's new regime, will have their own polling. Where Crosby might be mischief-making is the smaller parties cannot afford extensive private polling, so banning the public polls will increase the advantage of the Labour and Conservative Parties.
Yes, I'm sure the smaller parties took massive strategic benefit from having access to a series of entirely incorrect public polls.
Given Labour's struggle to turn out the vote, they'd have been hit even harder if the polls were showing a strong Tory win the lead in. Pretending polls don't influence voting intention and turnout for some of the electorate is just silly.
A ban on polling wouldn't last five minutes in this era of the internet and social media.
If you make it illegal for the mainstream media to report polls, they will stop paying for polls, and there will be no polls.
Except that the media aren't the only ones who commission polls. Remember the storm over the LD's leaked internal polling? That was somewhat less taken seriously due to the volume of "proper polls" but if there were no mainstream polls expect leaked polls to step into the void.
And then twitter would whip itself in to a fury and approximately 1% of the electorate would ever hear.
ShhhhhhIs don't mention the working class pastime of fishing
LOL I agree entirely with this! I've got a Facebook friend who posts virtually every weekend a picture of himself holding his "catch of the day", then during the election he posted an article about the evil Tories wanting to hurt animals by legalising hunting. Don't get that hypocrisy at all.
Great contrast with smoking there Sean. Its interesting when I go overseas to holiday resorts popular with Brits in nations where indoors smoking is still allowed, many smokers now go outdoors somewhat by default. The culture has changed with that ban.
I think every European country (bar Croatia) now has a smoking ban. But, the ban is widely ignored in countries where smokers feel no guilt about their behaviour.
On fox hunting I don't have strong feelings either way but there's no realistic chance of repeal in this Parliament. At least 40 or so Tory MPs will vote against.
It's now or never. It's about convincing those uncertain about repeal for abstention, which is why a licenced regime is my preferred option. It has to be seen as reasonable in the long-term.
I think 20 active votes against and a further 20-30 abstentions is containable.
It's such a shame that whilst "call me Dave" was talking about extra investment for health and extra childcare we didn't get to see more of the swivel eyed Casino's in the campaign.
That is the thing about the Tories- I can cope with the reasonable part, but the loony brigade who are fixated on issues like repealing the fox hunting ban, taking out the BBC, the human rights act, obsessed by Europe and EVEL, attacking unions on every point- they worry me.
But you're not the target audience. While most of the country isn't 'fixated' on any of those issues, a large number do broadly support the government's stance (hunting is the exception). And the reason why we have politicians is to be able to delegate to them issues which the public care about but not enough to get actively involved in.
Dan HodgesVerified account @DPJHodges Understand we should expect very significant Labour leadership announcement this morning. Will re-shape perceptions of the race. Reply Retweet Favorite More
Dan Hodges knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing Starmer or Johnson.
No it's names behind Burnham.
Don't think that's what Hodges meant. It's hardly exciting that Owen Smith and Lord Falconer have endorsed Burnham, and Hodges doesn't tend to talk up dull stuff.
And yet those associated with Gordon Brown's machine are most likely to be elected because of it (except those in Scotland, obviously, but that's Miliband's fault).
Do we have any membership numbers for Scottish Labour? I wonder how important support from up there will be and how that might differ from the rest of the party.
last comment was maybe 15000, but that will count social club members I bet
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Nothing wrong with saying you can poll all you like personally, but can't then present them as a scientific measure of opinion likely to influence others when really they're liable to massive measurement errors.
Influence whom to do what? The only people doing anything are the parties, who under Crosby's new regime, will have their own polling. Where Crosby might be mischief-making is the smaller parties cannot afford extensive private polling, so banning the public polls will increase the advantage of the Labour and Conservative Parties.
Yes, I'm sure the smaller parties took massive strategic benefit from having access to a series of entirely incorrect public polls.
Given Labour's struggle to turn out the vote, they'd have been hit even harder if the polls were showing a strong Tory win the lead in. Pretending polls don't influence voting intention and turnout for some of the electorate is just silly.
The smaller parties benefit from not having to pay for polling. That's the point.
Crosby is not saying ban polls. He is saying ban public polls. And I dare say if private polls did show a big lead, friendly newspapers might be tipped the wink.
As a Libertarian I believe its right to leave people to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others. This does IMO and so the ban falls into the "preventing harm" category just as much as cockfighting.
PS got no particular fondness for foxes, but I keep a rabbit as a pet indoors.
There is no "libertarian" principle that you can do what you like only insofar as it does not harm other animals. That is a principle of the authoritarian left. Fox hunting causes no harm to any person. In fact, it is an enormously pleasurable and fulfilling pursuit for a very large number of people in the countryside. It is an Englishman's birthright to hunt foxes, which was improperly curtailed by the Hunting Act 2004. The fact that there is anyone in the Conservative Party who could contemplate voting against the repeal of the 2004 Act merely shows how authoritarian the party has become.
If you missed it - Lynton Crosby in the Telegraph takes few prisoners, notably Tim Montie.
Lynton also lambastes the pollsters and say's that they are having too much influence.
His remedy is to ban polling for the final three week's of the campaign... Personally, I think that's OTT and the simpler solution is just to have a serious reduction in the number of polls being conducted - The ridiculous number of polls in the last Parliament became far, far too much.
It's encouraging, there-fore, that since polling day we've only had one published poll and News International appear to have binned that bloody YouGov tracker...
The media and pollsters should be aiming for half the polls in the last Parliament, IMO.
All of that silly "day of poll polling" needs to go as well... Not sure how that's creeped in but no way should pollsters be influencing what's happening on polling day itself...
Either Crosby is mischief-making or he gave an off-the-cuff response to a reporter's question, because he seems to be saying that polls should be banned because they influence the campaign, except for private polls which, of course, directly affect parties' behaviour.
Nothing wrong with saying you can poll all you like personally, but can't then present them as a scientific measure of opinion likely to influence others when really they're liable to massive measurement errors.
Influence whom to do what? The only people doing anything are the parties, who under Crosby's new regime, will have their own polling. Where Crosby might be mischief-making is the smaller parties cannot afford extensive private polling, so banning the public polls will increase the advantage of the Labour and Conservative Parties.
Yes, I'm sure the smaller parties took massive strategic benefit from having access to a series of entirely incorrect public polls.
Given Labour's struggle to turn out the vote, they'd have been hit even harder if the polls were showing a strong Tory win the lead in. Pretending polls don't influence voting intention and turnout for some of the electorate is just silly.
The smaller parties benefit from not having to pay for polling. That's the point.
Crosby is not saying ban polls. He is saying ban public polls. And I dare say if private polls did show a big lead, friendly newspapers might be tipped the wink.
You might as well say the benefit from not having to pay for a pile of rubble.
The Public polls were worse than useless. They actively, if unintentionally, misled.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
My own take on the candidates would be: etc etc snip
All very possibly true. However in all these elections I do not think we should take the newer younger ie less likely ones, too seriously as contenders. They are setting out their stall. They are marking themselves out for the future and of course by standing they hope to command some sort of suitable place and influence at Labour's top table. And BTW (as I'm sure you realise) what they feel they have to say to get elected may not be what they actually want to say or will do once elected. The leader now of course can pick his own shadow cabinet (?). I am fed up with giving Labour advice but for free I can tell them I am still fuming at Coogan's PPB. Meantime we have another budget to look forward to. It promises to be interesting and put some flesh on the bones of anti tax avoidance and welfare 'proposals'. Who is Labour's shadow chancellor BTW?
As a Libertarian I believe its right to leave people to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others. This does IMO and so the ban falls into the "preventing harm" category just as much as cockfighting.
PS got no particular fondness for foxes, but I keep a rabbit as a pet indoors.
There is no "libertarian" principle that you can do what you like only insofar as it does not harm other animals. That is a principle of the authoritarian left. Fox hunting causes no harm to any person. In fact, it is an enormously pleasurable and fulfilling pursuit for a very large number of people in the countryside. It is an Englishman's birthright to hunt foxes, which was improperly curtailed by the Hunting Act 2004. The fact that there is anyone in the Conservative Party who could contemplate voting against the repeal of the 2004 Act merely shows how authoritarian the party has become.
The old hunting rights have allowed hunts to go through private land and, despite assurances, causing damage and scaring livestock.
I am thoroughly baffled that the government would want a battle over repealing the Hunting Act, even if they are now pledged to allow a free vote on it. Like others I'd assumed it was completely ineffective and that hunts happened in any case, and it's an issue there will be Tory dissenters on, so why kick up a fuss on such a minor issue if you do not have to?
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
I think Jim has already failed to shine when he suffered what must be one of the greatest ever political defeats, losing all but one seat, I think if he had at least held his own seat then that would have been something. As SLABs rules require the leader to be a serving parliamentarian his resignation should have been automatic.
Personally I would prefer for Jim to linger on and lead SLAB into a further defeat in May 2016, where they would likely lose at least half of their 37 seats at Holyrood, given Jims track record in Scotland he would likely add to the scale of SLABs defeat. The party is at risk of disintegrating as SLAB MSPs fight to save their skins, suffice to say Jim is now putting his career before party and country.
Dan HodgesVerified account @DPJHodges Understand we should expect very significant Labour leadership announcement this morning. Will re-shape perceptions of the race. Reply Retweet Favorite More
Dan Hodges knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing Starmer or Johnson.
No it's names behind Burnham.
Don't think that's what Hodges meant. It's hardly exciting that Owen Smith and Lord Falconer have endorsed Burnham, and Hodges doesn't tend to talk up dull stuff.
Tragically, since he left the Commons at this election, it can't be the resurrection of the Dream Ticket - Bob Ainsworth and Angela Eagles.....
As a Libertarian I believe its right to leave people to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others. This does IMO and so the ban falls into the "preventing harm" category just as much as cockfighting.
PS got no particular fondness for foxes, but I keep a rabbit as a pet indoors.
There is no "libertarian" principle that you can do what you like only insofar as it does not harm other animals. That is a principle of the authoritarian left. Fox hunting causes no harm to any person. In fact, it is an enormously pleasurable and fulfilling pursuit for a very large number of people in the countryside. It is an Englishman's birthright to hunt foxes, which was improperly curtailed by the Hunting Act 2004. The fact that there is anyone in the Conservative Party who could contemplate voting against the repeal of the 2004 Act merely shows how authoritarian the party has become.
Oh don't be so daft. The notion that parliament cannot pass a law just because of some self-asserted 'right' is as anti-democratic as Scargill flouting the union balloting legislation in the 1980s; all the more so when (as with him), the country backed the legislation and when the governing party had a manifesto commitment to introduce it.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
Cooper would just provide an open goal for the Tory Press, who will constantly imply that Ed2 is pulling her strings. Please no.
Burnham would be a bit better, but also comes with baggage. I'm not sure Creagh is really leadership material.
Kendall is the one I quite like the look of. Has little baggage and a libertarian streak that appeals to me. A female leader opposite will be a real challenge for Dave and his 'woman problem'.
As a Libertarian I believe its right to leave people to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others. This does IMO and so the ban falls into the "preventing harm" category just as much as cockfighting.
PS got no particular fondness for foxes, but I keep a rabbit as a pet indoors.
There is no "libertarian" principle that you can do what you like only insofar as it does not harm other animals. That is a principle of the authoritarian left. Fox hunting causes no harm to any person. In fact, it is an enormously pleasurable and fulfilling pursuit for a very large number of people in the countryside. It is an Englishman's birthright to hunt foxes, which was improperly curtailed by the Hunting Act 2004. The fact that there is anyone in the Conservative Party who could contemplate voting against the repeal of the 2004 Act merely shows how authoritarian the party has become.
Of course there is. We have had laws regulating animal cruelty for centuries. Are you saying they should all be abolished? That there is no libertarian argument against cockfighting, against animal torture, against animal sacrifices - that as far as animals are concerned we can't say a word? That's anarchy, not libertarian.
In the aftermath of the election Peter Kellner tackled the proposal to ban public polls before the election. He said the polling companies would make MORE money during a ban because banks, big companies etc would be desperate to know how things were going.
The old hunting rights have allowed hunts to go through private land and, despite assurances, causing damage and scaring livestock.
If the hunters exceed the ordinary and reasonable user of their rights, they will be liable in trespass (Hickman v Maisey [1900] 1 QB 752). In any event, this is at best an argument for reform to certain rights over others' land. [I think they have fairly recently ceased to be overriding interests and now must be registered?] The Hunting Act 2004 applies to persons hunting foxes on their own land, where this point can have no application.
Interesting post from Rochdale Pioneers. As that rare bird on PB, a Labour party insider, he/ she seems to confirm my view that there is a strong desire to move away from anyone too closely associate with either Brown or Miliband. That should help my preferred candidate, Liz Kendall, but she has to avoid being pigeon-holed as 'on the right' or as 'Blairite'. Those labels are potentially fatal to her chances - and fwiw, I don't think they're accurate either.
Lord help us all if I'm a "Labour party insider"! I am an elected town councillor and a minor party functionary locally. BTW where I differ from many on this site is that I don't just talk about politics I get out there and do it (and having people say "I'm voting for you" when you knock on the door is very nice...!) - but I don't bet.
My frustration is that "One Nation" was the right approach. The battle was always how to bridge the alleged "middle class" (the Mail would INSIST I was middle class. I don't think anyone is) with our declining roots in the public sector and our core vote. One nation could have done that - whilst I am a loud critic of Blair its for what he turned into post 2003 not the New Labour project. We were an extremely effective radical government in the first term - rediscovering that radicalism was the need especially when the deregulated economic system had bust itself.
The problem was that in the 18 months before the election we quietly dropped it and didn't flesh out any policies other that ones at the very top and very bottom. For people like me with a good job we said very little - if anything at all. Ask most people how they feel about how society works and they will list a pile of things they don't like - our mission is to listen to those and rebuild a policy vision that will change them.
A starter for 10. Investment has become a dirty word associated with "subsidy" which in turn suggests "failure". This country is desperate for a massive investment into infrastructure - roads, railways, airports, housing, fibre optics, power generating capacity to name a few. The market doesn't want to step in and do so. Government can borrow money at near 0% interest rates AND investors worldwide are desperate for something solid to spend their money on. All these projects pay a good ROI both in the short term as the money is spent and in the long term as they make our economy stronger and more competitive. In previous generations we would have been investing in all of these things, but this generation won't and no politician wants to challenge the "investment is subsidy is failure" narrative. Why not?
Of course there is. We have had laws regulating animal cruelty for centuries. Are you saying they should all be abolished? That there is no libertarian argument against cockfighting, against animal torture, against animal sacrifices - that as far as animals are concerned we can't say a word? That's anarchy, not libertarian.
You are conflating practice with principle. It is certainly true that there have been laws regulating the use and disposal of animals for a very long time. The existence of those laws does not demonstrate that they were enacted pursuant to a libertarian or any other agenda, since we do not live in a libertarian utopia. It is gross hyperbole to argue that it would be anarchy if there were no laws regulating the use and disposal of animals. In any event, I am not advocating that. A man's animals ought to be protected by the law in the same way as his other personal property, no more, no less.
Cooper would just provide an open goal for the Tory Press, who will constantly imply that Ed2 is pulling her strings. Please no. Burnham would be a bit better, but also comes with baggage. I'm not sure Creagh is really leadership material. Kendall is the one I quite like the look of. Has little baggage and a libertarian streak that appeals to me. A female leader opposite will be a real challenge for Dave and his 'woman problem'.
Cameron does not have a 'woman problem'. Lets hope Labour keep going with that one. I think dealing with Cooper would be child's play considering all the practice Cameron will be getting with Sturgeon. (I hope that comes across right!). To be frank, I think Sturgeon and her hectoring manner is rather queering the pitch for female politicians.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
Turd's cannot be polished
Actually they can. Don't you watch "Mythbusters"? And Lion poop polishes better than Ostrich poop. The same episode also showed that "hitting the ground running" is not all it's cracked up to be either :-)
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY
The public polls war giving Labour a chance but what were their private polls saying and who was given the info?
"Higher priorities" is code for not risking a vote that you might lose. You are behaving just like a Labourite.
What this shows is the total idiocy of those who know nothing about it.
I understand two main arguments in favour of allowing it: tradition and pest control. I think pest control is a valid argument to be made, but I don't believe that argument stands on its own merits. Regarding tradition, I don't see tradition alone as an acceptable argument for (re-)legalising animal cruelty.
I don't see many opposition votes in favour of legalisation, but I think that the SNP has pledged to abstain so that will significantly lower the bar - and means there's no need to wait for EVEL if so to deal with this.
I think 20 active votes against and a further 20-30 abstentions is containable.
Just because it's something that rich aristocrat's enjoy doing, doesn't mean it should automatically be banned...
So yes I would like to see Yvette Cooper or a Tory Woman replace Cameron after the next election. I think Yvette would do a very good job in leading the Labour party, providing that she delegated some of the leadership to others in the party. Ed Miliband failed to change the Labour party around the country and seemed to concentrate too much on Westminster politics. Labour can only win a general election if they rebuild support in Scotland, they invest time in building support in seats around the country and don't go around finding enemies to fight.
Yup, it's David Burnham to win I think
:-)
If Cameron has any sense he will leave fox-hunting alone.
A shite law, but a booby trap nonetheless. Repeal it and the Tories will be set back twenty years.
Do you accept that the government has a right to ban animal cruelty? To ban acts like cockfighting? If so, you ought to argue that fox hunting isn't cruel - not that its "none of your business."
So bugger off with your hectoring bollocks.
I have to go out now but for me this is a libertarian argument and even if you don't live in the countryside, and are an urban dweller, you should be able to accept that if you don't really know that much about it and others do, for whom it is a fundamental way of life, the best thing to do as a Conservative is to leave them be.
Thatcher got the role and won three elections not because she was a woman, but because she was the right person for the job and did well in the job. The greatest tribute one can make to Thatcher is the fact she's remembered for her government did and not the fact she was the first female PM.
I hope the next female PM is in the same league as Thatcher. A woman who's got to the top because she deserves to, not because she's female.
That was just the perception the leftie's had when they banned it (Remember Tony saying "Tally-ho" at the Labour conference one year when there was a hunt protest going on outside the venue)
One of my neighbors, who is a mid-wife by day, is strongly into the hunt scene.
If Cameron has any sense he will leave fox-hunting alone.
A shite law, but a booby trap nonetheless. Repeal it and the Tories will be set back twenty years.
Another "tax cuts for millionaires" scenario where Labour only increased it a month before they left office for their own benefit and then used it every second they could for the next 5 years
A lot depends on whether Labour is serious about winning, or just wants a futher period in righteous opposition.
Burnham is rightly favourite, but will never be Prime Minister.
"We also need to tackle a form of dependency that stifles people’s aspiration. Welfare dependency is not, as the Tories claim, the effect of an over-generous benefits system. ''
Her claim is preposterous. 'Welfare makes you dependant - but its not the money folks its... well its... er... you know... them key aspects ... er ... yes they are key.... them aspects... definitely.'
As a Libertarian I believe its right to leave people to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others. This does IMO and so the ban falls into the "preventing harm" category just as much as cockfighting.
PS got no particular fondness for foxes, but I keep a rabbit as a pet indoors.
''A lot depends on whether Labour is serious about winning, or just wants a further period in righteous opposition.'' - hmm, a bit like the libdems then...
May I just point out to people just how much space the extra paragraph spacing takes up under the new regime of these hopeless embedded links? It a real pain editing them out.
Great contrast with smoking there Sean. Its interesting when I go overseas to holiday resorts popular with Brits in nations where indoors smoking is still allowed, many smokers now go outdoors somewhat by default. The culture has changed with that ban.
Cooper: Too close to Balls and to close to the Brownite faction. Does not come across well in the media. Machine politician.
Burnham: Eye-liner issue. Failed to land any serious blows as Shadow Health Secretary, despite having a fair bit to go with. Stafford Hospital.
Kendall: Lightweight but has clearly thought things through at a deeper level than her opponents.
Creagh: My MP, though not by much. What does she offer? Wholly invisible for the last five years. If her offerings to the Wakefield Express are anything to go by, will only trouble the Tories in that she'll provide so many counter-attack lines.
Hunt: Far too full of himself. Empty political vessel making much noise. Undoubtedly clever but that does not necessarily a good politician make.
But I don't have a vote so they won't be (and aren't) appealing to me.
Who they are appealing to is the Labour electorate and so working out who's likely to win means understanding their views. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that this is an AV election: transfers matter, which means dislikeability matters.
I agree with the bookies and other commentators that Cooper and Burnham are rightly out front. The questions are which is ahead and which will be best able to pick up transfers? I'm far from well-placed to answer that. My instinct is that Kendall is an election early. She's offering the Portillo prescription that Cameron eventually won with, at a time when it wanted an IDS solution (not that the personalities match, so we shouldn't carry that analogy too far). On the other hand, Hunt and Creagh seem to offer nothing at all.
So it's down to the other two. So which speaks the language of the membership better, and which is best placed to reach them? On both counts, I think Cooper probably edges it. Is that offset by the Balls factor? I think probably not, not least because it makes her the continuity candidate and my impression is that much of Labour wants a continuity candidate because it doesn't believe there was anything fundamentally wrong with Labour's approach for 2015, just with its messenger/s. Yes, Balls was one of those messengers but Cooper isn't him. I agree with Henry: 9/4 strikes me as excellent value.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11608589/Lynton-Crosby-the-so-called-experts-have-lost-touch-with-ordinary-people.html
[Crosby] names four people who he says were integral to the operation: Andrew Feldman, the Tory chairman who “built the party over 10 years”; Stephen Gilbert, who was head of the field campaign; Mr Oliver, who ran the press operation; and Jim Messina, another veteran of Barack Obama’s campaigns in America.
And, much good it did Labour. No doubt the Tories would face a twitter storm if they repealed the ban, but this election showed Twitter is a paper tiger.
FWIW, I'd vote against repeal. We seem to have a wonderfully British compromise at the moment which works well. The opponents can pretend there's a ban and the hunters can pretend there isn't.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/d-day-for-murphy-as-he-faces-no-confidence-vote.126238274
I think if he survives it could well cause a full blown civil war to break out and if Labour are not careful we could see a breakaway group of MSPs. I think Labours London head office has yet again taken its eye off the Scotland ball, as they focus everything on the national leadership race.
You have:
Cameron
Osborne
Boris
May
Hammond
Plus others
All of which, to a greater or lesser level could walk into the job tomorrow and you feel they could do it.
Following
Dan HodgesVerified account
@DPJHodges
Understand we should expect very significant Labour leadership announcement this morning. Will re-shape perceptions of the race.
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Dan Hodges knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing Starmer or Johnson.
If anyone is interested in betting on the next UKIP leader, I'd like to offer to lay bets on Carswell at better than bookies odds (best odds available 11/8). The deal would be:
Odds - 6/4
T&C - Applies to next permanent leader. Permanent leader is either the first person (other than Farage) to win a leadership election OR the first person (other than Farage) to hold the post of leader for 6 months despite not being elected to it.
Any takers? Happy to negotiate amount and terms/odds to some extent.
Please PM me as well as any responses here. I'll try to check this thread for any replies but might miss some.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
That is the thing about the Tories- I can cope with the reasonable part, but the loony brigade who are fixated on issues like repealing the fox hunting ban, taking out the BBC, the human rights act, obsessed by Europe and EVEL, attacking unions on every point- they worry me.
An aside: bought some clippers earlier this year [I needed to boost my aerodynamic efficiency]. The lubricating oil's run out. The manufacturer doesn't appear to sell it on Amazon [despite selling many other things] so I'm going to buy another firm's instead.
Baffles me why they'd do that. It's like a printer firm selling printers but not ink.
Given Labour's struggle to turn out the vote, they'd have been hit even harder if the polls were showing a strong Tory win the lead in. Pretending polls don't influence voting intention and turnout for some of the electorate is just silly.
Crosby is not saying ban polls. He is saying ban public polls. And I dare say if private polls did show a big lead, friendly newspapers might be tipped the wink.
The Public polls were worse than useless. They actively, if unintentionally, misled.
Meantime we have another budget to look forward to. It promises to be interesting and put some flesh on the bones of anti tax avoidance and welfare 'proposals'. Who is Labour's shadow chancellor BTW?
@timothy_stanley Yep. And it is big.
Hodges confirms that the Burnham thing is the big announcement. He's disapppointed me.
Personally I would prefer for Jim to linger on and lead SLAB into a further defeat in May 2016, where they would likely lose at least half of their 37 seats at Holyrood, given Jims track record in Scotland he would likely add to the scale of SLABs defeat. The party is at risk of disintegrating as SLAB MSPs fight to save their skins, suffice to say Jim is now putting his career before party and country.
Burnham would be a bit better, but also comes with baggage. I'm not sure Creagh is really leadership material.
Kendall is the one I quite like the look of. Has little baggage and a libertarian streak that appeals to me. A female leader opposite will be a real challenge for Dave and his 'woman problem'.
Pretty boring, though.
Dugher will run Bunrham's campaign
Lord Falconer, Owen Smith and Luciana Berger joins his campaign team too
http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet
My frustration is that "One Nation" was the right approach. The battle was always how to bridge the alleged "middle class" (the Mail would INSIST I was middle class. I don't think anyone is) with our declining roots in the public sector and our core vote. One nation could have done that - whilst I am a loud critic of Blair its for what he turned into post 2003 not the New Labour project. We were an extremely effective radical government in the first term - rediscovering that radicalism was the need especially when the deregulated economic system had bust itself.
The problem was that in the 18 months before the election we quietly dropped it and didn't flesh out any policies other that ones at the very top and very bottom. For people like me with a good job we said very little - if anything at all. Ask most people how they feel about how society works and they will list a pile of things they don't like - our mission is to listen to those and rebuild a policy vision that will change them.
A starter for 10. Investment has become a dirty word associated with "subsidy" which in turn suggests "failure". This country is desperate for a massive investment into infrastructure - roads, railways, airports, housing, fibre optics, power generating capacity to name a few. The market doesn't want to step in and do so. Government can borrow money at near 0% interest rates AND investors worldwide are desperate for something solid to spend their money on. All these projects pay a good ROI both in the short term as the money is spent and in the long term as they make our economy stronger and more competitive. In previous generations we would have been investing in all of these things, but this generation won't and no politician wants to challenge the "investment is subsidy is failure" narrative. Why not?
What you propose is an honest choice, and i cant understand why politicans dont keep it that simple
Don't you watch "Mythbusters"?
And Lion poop polishes better than Ostrich poop.
The same episode also showed that "hitting the ground running" is not all it's cracked up to be either :-)
Get on now if you haven't already done so.