"I see the SNP on Twitter are STILL pissing and moaning about where they are going to sit.
Tackle the big issues of the day, not like school kids. At all... 2
The children are on the other side. Why should there be the slightest dispute about the SNP members occupying the seats that the Lib Dems occupied when last in opposition? Why should they have to make a fuss to receive the respect that the electoral result demands of their parliamentary "colleagues"?
Also, I don't see the Beast of Bolsover enjoying retaining his current place as all the SNP members have now been reminded that he was one of those Labour rebels who voted for the infamous 40% rule re the 1979 referendum. I expect the SNP will keep him there as a trophy of their triumph to which in the long term he has contributed :-)
Surely the praise for Dave on this thread is overdone? His notable political success has been to repair much of the damage to the Conservative brand which was cynically and systematically trashed by Alistair Cambell between 1995-2005. But big bad Al's association of 'toxic' with 'conservative party' was always going to lose its sharpness over time.
At GE 2020, the perception of the new conservative leader will be much closer to how his party is rated. That will be healthy for everyone.
I don't think that you can blame Alistair Campbell for making the Tory party toxic. Politicians are always going to paint their opponents in a bad light, but it only tends to stick if the public think it's merited.
Mr Campbell did it with such style and venom, that I think he fully deserves a significant amount of praise/blame for it.
felix: "Burnham may be the best of the current contenders, but I doubt he'll win a single vote south of Watford." Presumably, a single new vote! As to south of Watford - further afield than that, I'd say. Not sure how well a Scouser is going to play in the Midlands. There's not much love for them from what I've seen there, so Burnham starts with a negative.
Its my experience that in Yorkshire the word 'Scouse' is usually followed by words such as 'tw*t' or 'w*nker' and that Scousers are generally assumed to be thieves or layabouts. All those TV comedies about 'cheeky' Liverpool people have created an image.
Harold Wilson was a Yorkshireman in a Liverpool constituency. I think the 'scouse' can be rather overplayed. Indeed I think this style of trashing is thoughtless, massively counter-productive if not to say crass. Whoever wins - the litmus test is how much they support measures to sort out the mess they left rather than knee jerk opportunist opposition. And how much they take Labour with them on that. But the SNP will be salivating as they watch all that as well.
Labour need to stop bashing enterprise, aspiration and profits otherwise they will condemn themselves to another long period out of office.
Labour has many flaws but among the most obnoxious is its preoccupation with what it calls "the rich".
"Rich" to Labour actually means "anyone on a bit more than the average salary" or "anyone who has suffered from house price inflation". "Rich" to me means someone with so much free capital (i.e. not tied up in the roof over their head) that they have an income they can live on without working. A salary however high is just a job and jobs can be lost.
To Labour you are "rich" if you have a private pension pot. To me you are "rich" if you have a pension entitlement. A private pot can be and frequently is robbed.
To Labour the only respectable personal fortune is one earned in the state sector. Anyone who earns a high salary in the private sector is evil.
One of Labour's many problems is that it has forgotten what it used to be for. It used to be for waged labour being exploited by business owners. Its definition of its class enemies now comprehends quite a lot of people it once purported to represent.
Even if the 650 or so is kept, Wales will still have a reduction from its 40 as it has many constituencies in the 50,000s and did not suffer the required reduction last time.
Its always hard to overcome self interest. As I've said before the problem really is that the executive has to come from MPs. Why not try it in stages, 625? However it is vital that foir democracy we have fair boundaries. Again I repeat lets have 750 MPs and no House of Lords. (PS) - or why not see 100 to 150 of the 750 appointed as 'Senators' as well to scrutinise the legislation as the Lords do now?
Andy Burnham seems a bit of a chameleon to me. He's playing to the unions fiddle right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if he rapidly tacked to the centre if he won.
Before Yvette gets too much slagging off, I think collective responsibility is relevant to policy , the main collective responsibility of course was in electing a dork like ED Miliband. I have never wavered in thinking he was a dork and so it proved, next one up better not be or Labour really are screwed.
She is as crap as Ed however, proven to be at best very mediocre.
Mark Serwotka on Today saying how Lab lost because they weren't left-wing enough, banging on about foodbanks, etc..
Long may it last! Let's hope his endorsed candidate (AB?) makes it to leadership. S*d my 5/1 on Yvette I'm thinking of the country here...
His union is not affiliated to Labour.
That is but a technical point in the mind of Joe Public, unfortunate though that may be for Labour.
My guess is that about 0.0005% of the public have any idea at all who he is. Most important, though, is that nothing he says will affect the way that Labour itself decides to proceed.
Maybe
But if I had to name a union person who talks sh1t and annoys the hell out of me, it would be Serwotka every time.
The Tories were surprisingly quiet on the unions during the campaign, perhaps because they are not seen as such a threat or issue by Joe Public any more? In the 70s and 80s the "union influence" issue worried a lot of centrist voters. Maybe not any more - major strikes are few and far between and unions less militant.
Surely the praise for Dave on this thread is overdone? His notable political success has been to repair much of the damage to the Conservative brand which was cynically and systematically trashed by Alistair Cambell between 1995-2005. But big bad Al's association of 'toxic' with 'conservative party' was always going to lose its sharpness over time.
At GE 2020, the perception of the new conservative leader will be much closer to how his party is rated. That will be healthy for everyone.
One would have thought that the toxic association would lose sharpness over time, but in many many areas it is as strong as ever, so I don't think it can be assumed it would stop be effective enough to work had it not been for the efforts of the current leadership. It may be that Cameron personally is not as big a factor as mere time, or Lab failings, and that the current praise is overdone somewhat, but I think it must be remembered that a lot of people on left and right underestimated him and what he could achieve. The shock of his victory, dependent on other factors beyond his control as well, has therefore had to lead to a reevaluation from those who had been writing him off, and an bolstering of those who already thought he was great.
Maybe he's just lucky and in the right time (though being those things is handy on its own), but as some on the left have started asking, perhaps he is actually a significant figure with significant talents. He certainly now has the opportunity to stamp his signature on his party and this country when few expected him to be able to do either. It is probably safe, at present, for us to if not assume he deserves all that praise, at least consider it, given his achievements. We will see how it pans out.
So here is where my thinking has got to - I'm giving up on the notion of the Purity of Opposition; Ed didn't even deliver that (e.g. half-baked fudge on railway renationalisation), and the end result is a Tory government. So I'll be pragmatic - which candidate is best placed to win in 2020, regardless of where they fit within the left-right spectrum of Labour. Also, I think a fresh start needs a leader without too much historical baggage; on that basis I will be reluctant to support Burnham or Cooper. So that leaves Kendall and Creagh - I hope they both make it onto the ballot; I'll then judge what they say, how they perform in interviews and at hustings and then make my choice. If there is some kind of stitch up to keep them out of the race I won't be a happy bunny.
So here is where my think has got to - I'm giving up on the notion of the Purity of Opposition; Ed didn't even deliver that (e.g. half-baked fudge on railway renationalisation), and the end result is a Tory government. So I'll be pragmatic - which candidate is best placed to win in 2020, regardless of where they fit within the left-right spectrum of Labour. Also, I think a fresh start needs a leader without too much historical baggage; on that basis I will be reluctant to support Burnham or Cooper. So that leaves Kendall and Creagh - I hope they both make it onto the ballot; I'll then judge what they say, how they perform in interviews and at hustings and then make my choice. If there is some kind of stitch up to keep them out of the race I won't be a happy bunny.
You want to be like us Tories were in 2005 when we elected Dave, I suspect for you, you're about to elect your IDS.
A key consideration for 2020 is to remember that the Governing parties shrank in 2015.
The 'push comes to shove' pre-election dynamics look like this to me:
2010: Con 306 + LD 57 + DUP 8 + Sinn Fein 2.5 =373.5 2015: Con 331 + DUP 8 + UUP 2 + SF 2 + LD 4 + UKIP 1 = 348 (Abstention from either a CON QS or a very weak Lab QS for the yellow peril) But bearing in mind there are 8 Lib Dem seats: Gives us 352
Let us assume Carshalton, Southport and perhaps Hallam fall from the Lib Dems (Con vulnerable, Con vulnerable, a weird tactical situation and leader seat at GE2015)
Heading forward with the Governing/tacit governing parties falling back line:
2020 ?: DUP 8; UUP 2;Con 311; UKIP 3 minority admin; 4 SF abstentions = Over the line. So on this basis perhaps a Conservative minority administration looks to be in order.
She is as crap as Ed however, proven to be at best very mediocre.
I am encouraged by the fact that Yvette (and Andy) were prominent members of the team that lost in 2010 and went on to get completely gubbed in 2015
Form is temporary, class is permanent. These people are skilled losers...
We finally agree on something, you can post sensibly when you try to.
EDIT: having no credible opposition party other than the SNP does not help the country, it allows the Tories too much free rein as previously happened with Labour.
Mr. Royale, I wonder if UKIP's ructions are going to cost it a serious opportunity in the 2015-20 Parliament. The Lib Dems have been whittled away to almost nothing, Labour have suffered a shocking defeat, and UKIP got a slew of second places (including in northern seats where the Conservatives would stand little chance at all). But instead of capitalising on this their immediate post-election move has been a hokey-cokey resignation and managing to achieve a backbench rebellion despite having a single MP.
Mr. G, I'd be surprised if Cooper is as rubbish as Ed Miliband.
Mr. Eagles, np. Got a mountain of stuff to-read, so I won't be getting it myself, but it did seem up your street.
MD, given labour's record , I would not be surprised. I have never heard her utter anything that shows she has a clue about anything. She has been taking money under false pretences and is another one of the Labour cronies , not there on talent but on who you know.
So the two front runners are Burnham and Cooper. Burnham is clearly incapable of thinking through a problem based on fact and not emotion. His constant opposing of any use of the private sector in the NHS illustrates that (see the Kirsty Wark interview). As for Yvette Cooper, her shoddy thinking on one little project called HIPs is an example in how she lacks the intellectual discipline to plan for the practical implementation of just one job. Just imagine what a mess she would make in charge of multiple projects and issues.
Indeed - Brave Ms Cooper is attempting to position herself as the pro-business candidate, despite not having said or done anything over the past five years that contridicted Ed's anti-business rhetoric. - Strecthing the idiom that you can fool some of the people, some of the time imho.
All this points to Kendal as the untainted candidate (well least tainted) in the manner of how Thatcher stood against Heath. However in that case it was the MPs themselves who ditched Heath and then stood by Thatcher as the usual suspects then stepped forward in the second ballot. Labour MPs seem to be favouring Burnham.
Mr. G, I'm not saying Cooper's good, merely that Ed Miliband's crapness may well become the measure by which all future rubbishness is measured.
With the possible exception of Hunt, who seems to have failed to reach the start line of the race, it's hard to imagine any contender being as rubbish as Miliband [although I think Umunna's oily slickness would've gone down badly].
Mr. G, I'm not saying Cooper's good, merely that Ed Miliband's crapness may well become the measure by which all future rubbishness is measured.
With the possible exception of Hunt, who seems to have failed to reach the start line of the race, it's hard to imagine any contender being as rubbish as Miliband [although I think Umunna's oily slickness would've gone down badly].
MD , hard to believe I agree but not beyond Labour to achieve it, who would have imagined they could top "The Clunking Fist".
felix: "Burnham may be the best of the current contenders, but I doubt he'll win a single vote south of Watford." Presumably, a single new vote! As to south of Watford - further afield than that, I'd say. Not sure how well a Scouser is going to play in the Midlands. There's not much love for them from what I've seen there, so Burnham starts with a negative.
Its my experience that in Yorkshire the word 'Scouse' is usually followed by words such as 'tw*t' or 'w*nker' and that Scousers are generally assumed to be thieves or layabouts. All those TV comedies about 'cheeky' Liverpool people have created an image.
Harold Wilson was a Yorkshireman in a Liverpool constituency. I think the 'scouse' can be rather overplayed. Indeed I think this style of trashing is thoughtless, massively counter-productive if not to say crass. Whoever wins - the litmus test is how much they support measures to sort out the mess they left rather than knee jerk opportunist opposition. And how much they take Labour with them on that. But the SNP will be salivating as they watch all that as well.
Much as we might like to think we are above "crass", the voters still stubbornly cling to such notions.
Many of the criticisms of Ed were crass. Didn't stop them inflicting huge harm.
Mr. Royale, I wonder if UKIP's ructions are going to cost it a serious opportunity in the 2015-20 Parliament. The Lib Dems have been whittled away to almost nothing, Labour have suffered a shocking defeat, and UKIP got a slew of second places (including in northern seats where the Conservatives would stand little chance at all). But instead of capitalising on this their immediate post-election move has been a hokey-cokey resignation and managing to achieve a backbench rebellion despite having a single MP.
Good questions, and who knows?
What I do think would be a mistake is for the Conservatives to assume UKIP have now 'gone away' and are no longer a threat.
It's that sort of dismissal and complacency that led to their rise in the first place.
Andy Burnham seems a bit of a chameleon to me. He's playing to the unions fiddle right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if he rapidly tacked to the centre if he won.
He used to be a Blairite, after all.
If Burnham does that the largest Labour affiliated Unions will down tools and stop donations. Blair had more moderate union heads and less power concentrated in a few hands.
Mr. G, I'm not saying Cooper's good, merely that Ed Miliband's crapness may well become the measure by which all future rubbishness is measured.
With the possible exception of Hunt, who seems to have failed to reach the start line of the race, it's hard to imagine any contender being as rubbish as Miliband [although I think Umunna's oily slickness would've gone down badly].
I mildly disagree. There were periods of whole weeks during ed's tenure when I feared he might not be as crap as I hoped. And as rubbish political leaders go, he was never in the same league as the quiet man - something tories tend to forget.
felix: "Burnham may be the best of the current contenders, but I doubt he'll win a single vote south of Watford."
Presumably, a single new vote!
As to south of Watford - further afield than that, I'd say. Not sure how well a Scouser is going to play in the Midlands. There's not much love for them from what I've seen there, so Burnham starts with a negative.
Butcher doesn't start with a negative in the Midlands because he's a Scouser. Butcher starts with a negative in the Midlands because mid-Staffs is in the Midlands.
A key consideration for 2020 is to remember that the Governing parties shrank in 2015.
The 'push comes to shove' pre-election dynamics look like this to me:
2010: Con 306 + LD 57 + DUP 8 + Sinn Fein 2.5 =373.5 2015: Con 331 + DUP 8 + UUP 2 + SF 2 + LD 4 + UKIP 1 = 348 (Abstention from either a CON QS or a very weak Lab QS for the yellow peril) But bearing in mind there are 8 Lib Dem seats: Gives us 352
Let us assume Carshalton, Southport and perhaps Hallam fall from the Lib Dems (Con vulnerable, Con vulnerable, a weird tactical situation and leader seat at GE2015)
Heading forward with the Governing/tacit governing parties falling back line:
2020 ?: DUP 8; UUP 2;Con 311; UKIP 3 minority admin; 4 SF abstentions = Over the line. So on this basis perhaps a Conservative minority administration looks to be in order.
I think the Tories need *both* the boundary changes, and not to drop more than 30 seats to stay in power in 2020.
But I'm not sure such a Minority Tory government from 2020 to 2025 (part 2 of 2) would be much fun, and would probably be heavily defeated in GE2025.
One comment I would make about this, regarding the boundary changes.
Regardless of whether they favour the Conservatives in a mean sense, by taking away more seats from the depopulated Labour heartlands, I think they will also favour the Tories because the Tories currently have a campaigning edge. With new boundaries there will be new marginals, and the parties will have to target new swing voters.
The Tories showed this time that they are currently better at that than Labour, out-performing UNS by nine seats, and so the simple process of reshuffling the identity of the marginal constituencies will benefit them as the party best able to refocus their efforts.
These two effects together make it possible for the Tories to retain a majority even with a modest swing to Labour.
There were periods of whole weeks during ed's tenure when I feared he might not be as crap as I hoped. And as rubbish political leaders go, he was never in the same league as the quiet man - something tories tend to forget.
Right, I forgot about IDS unveiling a giant tombstone to his entire political philosophy and career.
Labour need to reach out to people in the centre, people like me who just voted for Cameron rather than those who will always vote Labour.
Blair got this, very few others in the party seem to right now. They just seem to think that it is their right to be elected next time. A stitch-up to keep Kendall off the ballot will be the day Labour lose themselves the 2020 election.
What Blair and New Labour missed is that you need to reach out but at the same time, remain in touch with your base.
Blair won three elections. pretty sure there's not much he missed.
If Lab are to get back in power then they need to be aiming for a 40% strategy. A 35% strategy might displace the Tories but you are then looking at being at the behest of the SNP (unless Scotland has departed the union). The other problem is how they are supposed to produce new laws for England if English votes for English laws has been passed this parliament.
If Labour is to win a majority then the sorts of seats it needs to win are Redditch, Gravesham and Milton Keynes N. Looking at these seats it is clear that gaining votes from the Greens and the remaining LDs is not going to be enough. Either they need to mop up the vast majority of UKIP's votes or they need to gain direct switchers from the Tories.
IMHO they need to aim for the big tent strategy. Try and win over as many Tory voters as possible. In Scotland they should forget about tacking left to win back SNP supporters but try to win over tactical voters from the other unionist parties.
@Morris Dancer - " she added the uses of hashtags such as "kill all white men" on her personal account were "in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves"."
felix: "Burnham may be the best of the current contenders, but I doubt he'll win a single vote south of Watford."
Presumably, a single new vote!
As to south of Watford - further afield than that, I'd say. Not sure how well a Scouser is going to play in the Midlands. There's not much love for them from what I've seen there, so Burnham starts with a negative.
Butcher doesn't start with a negative in the Midlands because he's a Scouser. Butcher starts with a negative in the Midlands because mid-Staffs is in the Midlands.
If mid-Staffs had any electoral traction at all Burnham would not have been shadow health secretary since 2011. It doesn't, except to the Daily Mail.
Labour need to reach out to people in the centre, people like me who just voted for Cameron rather than those who will always vote Labour.
Blair got this, very few others in the party seem to right now. They just seem to think that it is their right to be elected next time. A stitch-up to keep Kendall off the ballot will be the day Labour lose themselves the 2020 election.
What Blair and New Labour missed is that you need to reach out but at the same time, remain in touch with your base.
Blair won three elections. pretty sure there's not much he missed.
If Lab are to get back in power then they need to be aiming for a 40% strategy. A 35% strategy might displace the Tories but you are then looking at being at the behest of the SNP (unless Scotland has departed the union). The other problem is how they are supposed to produce new laws for England if English votes for English laws has been passed this parliament.
If Labour is to win a majority then the sorts of seats it needs to win are Redditch, Gravesham and Milton Keynes N. Looking at these seats it is clear that gaining votes from the Greens and the remaining LDs is not going to be enough. Either they need to mop up the vast majority of UKIP's votes or they need to gain direct switchers from the Tories.
IMHO they need to aim for the big tent strategy. Try and win over as many Tory voters as possible. In Scotland they should forget about tacking left to win back SNP supporters but try to win over tactical voters from the other unionist parties.
Yes -- a big tent strategy. Btw, I am not convinced by the SNP = left-wing meme. Surely the SNP is a very broad church indeed.
So the two front runners are Burnham and Cooper. Burnham is clearly incapable of thinking through a problem based on fact and not emotion. His constant opposing of any use of the private sector in the NHS illustrates that (see the Kirsty Wark interview). As for Yvette Cooper, her shoddy thinking on one little project called HIPs is an example in how she lacks the intellectual discipline to plan for the practical implementation of just one job. Just imagine what a mess she would make in charge of multiple projects and issues.
Therefore I endorse the two leading candidates.
It's slightly worse than that. In the interview her referred to their private contract awards within the NHS were for capacity building only.
Then within a very short period of time the government let out over a billion pounds of contracts which were specifically designed to break down weighting lists that had accumulated. Yet labour briefed this as the biggest ever privatisation in the nation's history.
Andy Burnham: “It is outrageous that large chunks of the NHS are being parcelled up and sold off without the permission of a single person in this country.”
“Jeremy Hunt tries to claim that ‘privatisation isn’t happening’, but the truth is it is happening at speed and scale,” he added. “This now needs to become an election issue. The country has never given its approval for the NHS to be bought and sold in this way."
Clearing backlogs was the very basis of the tenuous claim that differentiated fluffly labour good letting of private (they call it 'independent') contracts in the NHS, with evil tory selling it all to their mates privatising, back to the workhouses.
There were periods of whole weeks during ed's tenure when I feared he might not be as crap as I hoped. And as rubbish political leaders go, he was never in the same league as the quiet man - something tories tend to forget.
Right, I forgot about IDS unveiling a giant tombstone to his entire political philosophy and career.
Oh, wait...
Who knows what tomfoolery the Perugian academic would have indulged in had he been allowed to lead the Conservative Party into a general election. I feel quite certain that it would have added greatly to the gaiety of the nation but, alas, we shall have to content ourselves with the garden ornament of doom.
Another benefit of Miliband losing was to gain more grace on the advocacy of absurd identity politics. This is a man who in all seriousness wanted the next *James Bond* to be a woman, and for further criminal measures on criticising Islam.
Outside the M25 - and quite possible for a large number within it - these policies and views were viewed with incredulity.
They have been some encouraging rulings recently on Lutfur Rahman, Rotherham and the 'Gay Cake' bakery, but there is still some way to go to regain full common sense.
Mr. Royale, I agree entirely. Identity politics is thoroughly despicable.
A key test may be Sadiq Khan and has disgraceful desire for ethnic quotas in the workplace.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Notme, waiting*. I sympathise, as my typos are often horrendously homophonic (once wrote 'caught' instead of 'got', and had one typo so vast I couldn't work out what I'd meant to write ['western' instead of something like 'whore' or 'strumpet']).
It's not often that I defend Yvette Cooper (indeed I can't remember ever having done so before), but I think it's completely unfair to criticise her very sensible remarks on Labour's attitude to business on the grounds that she didn't make the same criticisms in public before the election. For a start she wasn't Shadow Business Secretary, and it's the convention of collective responsibility that you don't step outside your brief with criticism of other areas of the party's policy. More importantly, Ed Miliband, not Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls, was the boss, and he set the overall direction of the party. More's the pity, from Labour's point of view, but that was how it was, and it's hardly her fault. The logical conclusion from the criticisms some are now making of her is that no senior politician could ever suggest a change of direction for their own party.
As it happens, I am quite sure that Chuka Umanna, Ed Balls, Yvette, and all the other vaguely sane Labour front-benchers were absolutely horrified at Ed Miliband's loony anti-prosperity stance. I am sure all three of them would have privately urged a different approach, but Ed Miliband was convinced he was right about everything. In fact Chuka made some efforts to try to mitigate the damage, and Ed Balls scarcely bothered to hide his contempt for his boss. The blame lies squarely with Ed Miliband personally, and those who were daft enough to make him leader.
There were periods of whole weeks during ed's tenure when I feared he might not be as crap as I hoped. And as rubbish political leaders go, he was never in the same league as the quiet man - something tories tend to forget.
Right, I forgot about IDS unveiling a giant tombstone to his entire political philosophy and career.
Oh, wait...
Who knows what tomfoolery the Perugian academic would have indulged in had he been allowed to lead the Conservative Party into a general election. I feel quite certain that it would have added greatly to the gaiety of the nation but, alas, we shall have to content ourselves with the garden ornament of doom.
The 2015 artefact that has most capacity to embarrass Labour in the future is not IMHO the Edstone, but those mugs that had "Labour" one side and "Send them all back" (or something) on the other.
That was an actual physical manifestation of utter cynicism. It was a quickening into the physical of the moral and intellectual incompetence of t'Labour Parteh. Dishonesty, disingenuousness and hypocrisy flickered into being, like a strip light coming on, and were then hastily extinguished.
Can one still buy a Labour "Controls on Immigration" mug?
There were periods of whole weeks during ed's tenure when I feared he might not be as crap as I hoped. And as rubbish political leaders go, he was never in the same league as the quiet man - something tories tend to forget.
Right, I forgot about IDS unveiling a giant tombstone to his entire political philosophy and career.
Oh, wait...
Who knows what tomfoolery the Perugian academic would have indulged in had he been allowed to lead the Conservative Party into a general election. I feel quite certain that it would have added greatly to the gaiety of the nation but, alas, we shall have to content ourselves with the garden ornament of doom.
The 2015 artefact that has most capacity to embarrass Labour in the future is not IMHO the Edstone, but those mugs that had "Labour" one side and "Send them all back" (or something) on the other.
That was an actual physical manifestation of utter cynicism. It was a quickening into the physical of the moral and intellectual incompetence of t'Labour Parteh. Dishonesty, disingenuousness and hypocrisy flickered into being, like a strip light coming on, and were then hastily extinguished.
Can one still buy a Labour "Controls on Immigration" mug?
Another benefit of Miliband losing was to gain more grace on the advocacy of absurd identity politics. This is a man who in all seriousness wanted the next *James Bond* to be a woman, and for further criminal measures on criticising Islam.
Outside the M25 - and quite possible for a large number within it - these policies and views were viewed with incredulity.
They have been some encouraging rulings recently on Lutfur Rahman, Rotherham and the 'Gay Cake' bakery, but there is still some way to go to regain full common sense.
NUS Women's Campaign tweeted: 'Whooping is fun for some, but can be super inaccessible for others, so please try not to whoop! Jazz hands work just as well.' They then followed that with: 'Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it's triggering anxiety. Please be mindful! #nuswomen15'.
It's not often that I defend Yvette Cooper (indeed I can't remember ever having done so before), but I think it's completely unfair to criticise her very sensible remarks on Labour's attitude to business on the grounds that she didn't make the same criticisms in public before the election. For a start she wasn't Shadow Business Secretary, and it's the convention of collective responsibility that you don't step outside your brief with criticism of other areas of the party's policy. More importantly, Ed Miliband, not Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls, was the boss, and he set the overall direction of the party. More's the pity, from Labour's point of view, but that was how it was, and it's hardly her fault. The logical conclusion from the criticisms some are now making of her is that no senior politician could ever suggest a change of direction for their own party.
As it happens, I am quite sure that Chuka Umanna, Ed Balls, Yvette, and all the other vaguely sane Labour front-benchers were absolutely horrified at Ed Miliband's loony anti-prosperity stance. I am sure all three of them would have privately urged a different approach, but Ed Miliband was convinced he was right about everything. In fact Chuka made some efforts to try to mitigate the damage, and Ed Balls scarcely bothered to hide his contempt for his boss. The blame lies squarely with Ed Miliband personally, and those who were daft enough to make him leader.
Not good enough, I'm afraid.
If Chuka, EdB and Yvette (which I can well accept) were quietly horrified at EdM's antics then they effing well should have done something about it. And if nothing changed then a) they should have resigned; and/or b) they have no excuses whatsoever to say, afterwards, oh but I really disagreed with those policies..
Another benefit of Miliband losing was to gain more grace on the advocacy of absurd identity politics. This is a man who in all seriousness wanted the next *James Bond* to be a woman, and for further criminal measures on criticising Islam.
Outside the M25 - and quite possible for a large number within it - these policies and views were viewed with incredulity.
They have been some encouraging rulings recently on Lutfur Rahman, Rotherham and the 'Gay Cake' bakery, but there is still some way to go to regain full common sense.
NUS Women's Campaign tweeted: 'Whooping is fun for some, but can be super inaccessible for others, so please try not to whoop! Jazz hands work just as well.' They then followed that with: 'Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it's triggering anxiety. Please be mindful! #nuswomen15'.
They haven't gone away you know.
The NUS have always been and will always be like that.
It's when the LOTO tacitly endorses such lunacy that I start to worry.
Mr. Royale, I wonder if UKIP's ructions are going to cost it a serious opportunity in the 2015-20 Parliament. The Lib Dems have been whittled away to almost nothing, Labour have suffered a shocking defeat, and UKIP got a slew of second places (including in northern seats where the Conservatives would stand little chance at all). But instead of capitalising on this their immediate post-election move has been a hokey-cokey resignation and managing to achieve a backbench rebellion despite having a single MP.
Good questions, and who knows?
What I do think would be a mistake is for the Conservatives to assume UKIP have now 'gone away' and are no longer a threat.
It's that sort of dismissal and complacency that led to their rise in the first place.
The Tories have landed themselves with a EU referendum because they took notice of UKIP and will have to be 'banging on about Europe' until that is out of the way. UKIP had their best chance in this past election and managed to lose 50% of their seats. No prizes for 2nd place, they'll need to control councils too in order to build on their current position - and have you seen the quality of their council candidates? They will now face Labour under a new, perhaps less crap leader, and the LibDems no longer in government so a competitor for protest votes, also under a new leader.
If Chuka, EdB and Yvette (which I can well accept) were quietly horrified at EdM's antics then they effing well should have done something about it. And if nothing changed then a) they should have resigned; and/or b) they have no excuses whatsoever to say, afterwards, oh but I really disagreed with those policies..
And if we didn't have wildly incorrect polls perhaps they would have done, but while Labour were believed to be winning that would have been seen as an act of self-indulgent sabotage.
There were periods of whole weeks during ed's tenure when I feared he might not be as crap as I hoped. And as rubbish political leaders go, he was never in the same league as the quiet man - something tories tend to forget.
Right, I forgot about IDS unveiling a giant tombstone to his entire political philosophy and career.
Oh, wait...
Who knows what tomfoolery the Perugian academic would have indulged in had he been allowed to lead the Conservative Party into a general election. I feel quite certain that it would have added greatly to the gaiety of the nation but, alas, we shall have to content ourselves with the garden ornament of doom.
The 2015 artefact that has most capacity to embarrass Labour in the future is not IMHO the Edstone, but those mugs that had "Labour" one side and "Send them all back" (or something) on the other.
That was an actual physical manifestation of utter cynicism. It was a quickening into the physical of the moral and intellectual incompetence of t'Labour Parteh. Dishonesty, disingenuousness and hypocrisy flickered into being, like a strip light coming on, and were then hastily extinguished.
Can one still buy a Labour "Controls on Immigration" mug?
Polls are still interesting because they show trends, even though the absolute figures need to be treated with caution. An interesting question is why they are generally more accurate in other countries - e.g. in Germany they tend to be spot on. Are we just more volatile?
On Labour's leadership, I agree with Sandy Rentool - within reason, I'm more interested in finding a winner than someone whose precise ideology seems to fit. Burnham is quite popular among East Midlands members because of assiduous attention when there was no apparent motive for it - he's been to Broxtowe more than once, unlike I think all the others, though Liz was due to pay a visit. The accusation that he was somehow personally to blame for mid-Staffs is seen as nonsense by those who are familiar with the case and irrelevant by those who aren't. He's also interested in policy, which is a big plus for some of us - that even leads him into dangerous territory - the "death tax" to finance decent elderly care, cutting NHS spending to boost care spending, etc. On the other hand, there's a pretty strong argument for a fresh ace, and the fans that I've spoken to aren't generally committing to him yet.
Personally I'd be interested in Mary Creagh getting more of a hearing - she struck me up to 2010 as seriously underrated. But whether she'll get near the 35 signatures seems doubtful.
A key consideration for 2020 is to remember that the Governing parties shrank in 2015......
Ever noticed that the SNP are the governing party in Scotland?
Yes, but beyond Berwickshire Roxburgh Selkirk gains look very tricky for non SNP parties in Scotland. The Lib Dems in particular look very artificially strong - tactical unwind in 2020 I suspect will make all the Lib Dem targets safe enough for the SNP.
SNP vulnerable targets (To Labour) Renfrewshire East 3.3% Edinburgh North & Leith 4.8% East Lothian 6.8% Edinburgh South West 7.9%
SNP vulnerable targets (To Lib Dem) Dunbartonshire East 1.9% Edinburgh West 3.0% Fife North East 4.8% Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross 5.6% Ross, Skye & Lochaber 6.2%
I reckon on a poor night for the SNP only the bolded targets re really vulnerable, only really BRS and DCT that effect the Government o n a primary order though. I wouldn't like to call either at this point.
R East has the whole leader/tactical unwind thingy. Cons will be looking to improve there in 2020.
If Chuka, EdB and Yvette (which I can well accept) were quietly horrified at EdM's antics then they effing well should have done something about it. And if nothing changed then a) they should have resigned; and/or b) they have no excuses whatsoever to say, afterwards, oh but I really disagreed with those policies..
And if we didn't have wildly incorrect polls perhaps they would have done, but while Labour were believed to be winning that would have been seen as an act of self-indulgent sabotage.
I chuckled to myself at that.
For vast chunks of the last 5 years, the debate tended to swirl around the following loop
"Christ, Ed's not very good" "Ah, but he's leading in the polls" "But he won't win come the election" "Ah, but he's leading in the polls"
Another benefit of Miliband losing was to gain more grace on the advocacy of absurd identity politics. This is a man who in all seriousness wanted the next *James Bond* to be a woman, and for further criminal measures on criticising Islam.
Outside the M25 - and quite possible for a large number within it - these policies and views were viewed with incredulity.
They have been some encouraging rulings recently on Lutfur Rahman, Rotherham and the 'Gay Cake' bakery, but there is still some way to go to regain full common sense.
Another benefit of Miliband losing was to gain more grace on the advocacy of absurd identity politics. This is a man who in all seriousness wanted the next *James Bond* to be a woman, and for further criminal measures on criticising Islam.
Outside the M25 - and quite possible for a large number within it - these policies and views were viewed with incredulity.
They have been some encouraging rulings recently on Lutfur Rahman, Rotherham and the 'Gay Cake' bakery, but there is still some way to go to regain full common sense.
I;ve read a lot of hand-wringing and “sort of” Eichmann (not me Guv, following orders”) stuff about Rotherham, but so far only about 5 arrests, and they’re all out on bail.
Is anything happening? Doesn’t look as though the Commisioners have moved things along, much, either.
An interesting question is why they are generally more accurate in other countries - e.g. in Germany they tend to be spot on.
They were wildly out in 2005 when all the polls predicted a comfortable CDU/CSU win and the exit poll and final result was a virtual dead-heat between them and the SDP, giving Schroeder hope of staying in office.
Mr. Royale, I wonder if UKIP's ructions are going to cost it a serious opportunity in the 2015-20 Parliament. The Lib Dems have been whittled away to almost nothing, Labour have suffered a shocking defeat, and UKIP got a slew of second places (including in northern seats where the Conservatives would stand little chance at all). But instead of capitalising on this their immediate post-election move has been a hokey-cokey resignation and managing to achieve a backbench rebellion despite having a single MP.
Good questions, and who knows?
What I do think would be a mistake is for the Conservatives to assume UKIP have now 'gone away' and are no longer a threat.
It's that sort of dismissal and complacency that led to their rise in the first place.
The Tories have landed themselves with a EU referendum because they took notice of UKIP and will have to be 'banging on about Europe' until that is out of the way. UKIP had their best chance in this past election and managed to lose 50% of their seats. No prizes for 2nd place, they'll need to control councils too in order to build on their current position - and have you seen the quality of their council candidates? They will now face Labour under a new, perhaps less crap leader, and the LibDems no longer in government so a competitor for protest votes, also under a new leader.
If UKIP fade it can only be good for the Tories. A lot of UKIP votes were piled up in safe northern seats so their returning to Labour will make no difference.
What will make a difference is if there is no harm in prospect to England from an SNP:Labour axis. If that is no longer a concern then the emergency recedes and there is less need for a Conservative government.
With that said this Conservative government will only be completing its first term in 2020 so can reasonably expect re-election for a second.
As an organisation we struggled to adapt to the devolved settlement. Our Scottish Party became too insular and our UK Party too frightened of accusations of interference to provide the support and solidarity Scottish Labour so desperately needed. We now have a generation of MPs at Westminster who have never stepped foot in Scotland for fear of being accused of starting a turf war and a group of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament that few outside Scotland recognise.
In this context the SNP haven’t needed to win the argument about independence. They simply needed to convince the electorate they were a better alternative to us. More socialist. More radical. The fact that they are neither of those things was immaterial – all they had to do was provide more hope.
"research that shows Scotland now has the lowest rate of grants in western Europe; that spending on income-related student grants has almost halved in real terms since the SNP took office in 2007; and that Scotland is the only part of the UK where borrowing is highest among students from poorer backgrounds."
The accusation that he was somehow personally to blame for mid-Staffs is seen as nonsense by those who are familiar with the case and irrelevant by those who aren't.
Straw man Nick.
The reason mid-Staffs is toxic for Butcher is because his instinct, when the lethal brutality, cruelty and systematic neglect of mid-Staffs were exposed, was to cover it up to protect the producer interest, who are Labour clients.
If that's how he thinks, he'll do it again, and a damaging pattern will attach to him.
Blair was accused of dishonesty from 1997 by the Tories and everything he did was eventually seen to fit that template. Nobody now seriously doubts their characterisation of him as untrustworthy, greedy and habitually untruthful.
This process has not even started on Burnham. It will.
@Nickpalmer - I think a lot of declarations about politics in this country is bound up with our general reserve and social uneasiness. It's like how we say 'sorry' when someone gets in our way, say 'the meal's fine' (when it isn't) and always answer 'I'm fine' when asked how we are, even if we're at death's door.
The primary British (English?) social mode is to keep ourselves to ourselves, and avoid awkwardness and confrontation. There's a lot of values signalling going on and a bit of class identification when political declarations are made. Because we are still totally obsessive about class.
What happens in the ballot box is, of course, often different.
An interesting question is why they are generally more accurate in other countries - e.g. in Germany they tend to be spot on.
They were wildly out in 2005 when all the polls predicted a comfortable CDU/CSU win and the exit poll and final result was a virtual dead-heat between them and the SDP, giving Schroeder hope of staying in office.
The German system is more proportional so they 'only' need to get the percentages right, in the UK they have to guess the marginals too.
A Labour shadow cabinet minister has called for the leadership candidates to offer the party the chance to get rid of them in 2018 if they are underperforming.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Labour leader in the House of Lords, is one of a number of senior figures who would like the option of a “break clause” to prevent the party going into the 2020 election with a weak leader if it feels the wrong choice has been made.
Mr. Royale, I wonder if UKIP's ructions are going to cost it a serious opportunity in the 2015-20 Parliament. The Lib Dems have been whittled away to almost nothing, Labour have suffered a shocking defeat, and UKIP got a slew of second places (including in northern seats where the Conservatives would stand little chance at all). But instead of capitalising on this their immediate post-election move has been a hokey-cokey resignation and managing to achieve a backbench rebellion despite having a single MP.
Good questions, and who knows?
What I do think would be a mistake is for the Conservatives to assume UKIP have now 'gone away' and are no longer a threat.
It's that sort of dismissal and complacency that led to their rise in the first place.
The Tories have landed themselves with a EU referendum because they took notice of UKIP and will have to be 'banging on about Europe' until that is out of the way. UKIP had their best chance in this past election and managed to lose 50% of their seats. No prizes for 2nd place, they'll need to control councils too in order to build on their current position - and have you seen the quality of their council candidates? They will now face Labour under a new, perhaps less crap leader, and the LibDems no longer in government so a competitor for protest votes, also under a new leader.
If UKIP fade it can only be good for the Tories. A lot of UKIP votes were piled up in safe northern seats so their returning to Labour will make no difference.
What will make a difference is if there is no harm in prospect to England from an SNP:Labour axis. If that is no longer a concern then the emergency recedes and there is less need for a Conservative government.
With that said this Conservative government will only be completing its first term in 2020 so can reasonably expect re-election for a second.
What will make a difference in the North is a party in second place that isn't associated with Maggie Thatcher. Suddenly those safest of Labour seats will become harder for Labour as hardcore anyone but Tory vote has another option....
Looking back Carswell accidently wrecked UKIP by ensuring they fought two by-elections at the same time. If UKIP had won Heywood and Middleton it would have shown that UKIP was a party that could win in the north and Labour would be in a far worse state....
If Chuka, EdB and Yvette (which I can well accept) were quietly horrified at EdM's antics then they effing well should have done something about it. And if nothing changed then a) they should have resigned; and/or b) they have no excuses whatsoever to say, afterwards, oh but I really disagreed with those policies..
And if we didn't have wildly incorrect polls perhaps they would have done, but while Labour were believed to be winning that would have been seen as an act of self-indulgent sabotage.
Also, these are professional politicians, supposedly at the top of their game. Yet, we now find they're utterly clueless, and out of touch with the electorate, totally reliant on polls for information rather than instinct. Extraordinary.
A Labour shadow cabinet minister has called for the leadership candidates to offer the party the chance to get rid of them in 2018 if they are underperforming.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Labour leader in the House of Lords, is one of a number of senior figures who would like the option of a “break clause” to prevent the party going into the 2020 election with a weak leader if it feels the wrong choice has been made.
Comments
"I see the SNP on Twitter are STILL pissing and moaning about where they are going to sit.
Tackle the big issues of the day, not like school kids. At all... 2
The children are on the other side. Why should there be the slightest dispute about the SNP members occupying the seats that the Lib Dems occupied when last in opposition? Why should they have to make a fuss to receive the respect that the electoral result demands of their parliamentary "colleagues"?
Also, I don't see the Beast of Bolsover enjoying retaining his current place as all the SNP members have now been reminded that he was one of those Labour rebels who voted for the infamous 40% rule re the 1979 referendum. I expect the SNP will keep him there as a trophy of their triumph to which in the long term he has contributed :-)
And Roger.
Which does however set the bar at a fairly low level.......
Yup, the SNP don't sound like school kids, at all...
(Repeat for 5 years)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dynasty-Tom-Holland/dp/1408703378/
If that is the standard of response from the opponents of the SNP, expect 59/59 next time.
"Rich" to Labour actually means "anyone on a bit more than the average salary" or "anyone who has suffered from house price inflation". "Rich" to me means someone with so much free capital (i.e. not tied up in the roof over their head) that they have an income they can live on without working. A salary however high is just a job and jobs can be lost.
To Labour you are "rich" if you have a private pension pot. To me you are "rich" if you have a pension entitlement. A private pot can be and frequently is robbed.
To Labour the only respectable personal fortune is one earned in the state sector. Anyone who earns a high salary in the private sector is evil.
One of Labour's many problems is that it has forgotten what it used to be for. It used to be for waged labour being exploited by business owners. Its definition of its class enemies now comprehends quite a lot of people it once purported to represent.
However it is vital that foir democracy we have fair boundaries. Again I repeat lets have 750 MPs and no House of Lords.
(PS) - or why not see 100 to 150 of the 750 appointed as 'Senators' as well to scrutinise the legislation as the Lords do now?
He used to be a Blairite, after all.
But if I had to name a union person who talks sh1t and annoys the hell out of me, it would be Serwotka every time.
The Tories were surprisingly quiet on the unions during the campaign, perhaps because they are not seen as such a threat or issue by Joe Public any more? In the 70s and 80s the "union influence" issue worried a lot of centrist voters. Maybe not any more - major strikes are few and far between and unions less militant.
Maybe he's just lucky and in the right time (though being those things is handy on its own), but as some on the left have started asking, perhaps he is actually a significant figure with significant talents. He certainly now has the opportunity to stamp his signature on his party and this country when few expected him to be able to do either. It is probably safe, at present, for us to if not assume he deserves all that praise, at least consider it, given his achievements. We will see how it pans out.
Form is temporary, class is permanent. These people are skilled losers...
Mr. Eagles, np. Got a mountain of stuff to-read, so I won't be getting it myself, but it did seem up your street.
I agree with you. Labour don't have to win big in 2020, just enough for the Conservatives to lose. And, as you show, that can happen very easily.
The 'push comes to shove' pre-election dynamics look like this to me:
2010: Con 306 + LD 57 + DUP 8 + Sinn Fein 2.5 =373.5
2015: Con 331 + DUP 8 + UUP 2 + SF 2 + LD 4 + UKIP 1 = 348 (Abstention from either a CON QS or a very weak Lab QS for the yellow peril)
But bearing in mind there are 8 Lib Dem seats: Gives us 352
Let us assume Carshalton, Southport and perhaps Hallam fall from the Lib Dems (Con vulnerable, Con vulnerable, a weird tactical situation and leader seat at GE2015)
Heading forward with the Governing/tacit governing parties falling back line:
2020 ?: DUP 8; UUP 2;Con 311; UKIP 3 minority admin; 4 SF abstentions = Over the line.
So on this basis perhaps a Conservative minority administration looks to be in order.
EDIT: having no credible opposition party other than the SNP does not help the country, it allows the Tories too much free rein as previously happened with Labour.
Therefore I endorse the two leading candidates.
With the possible exception of Hunt, who seems to have failed to reach the start line of the race, it's hard to imagine any contender being as rubbish as Miliband [although I think Umunna's oily slickness would've gone down badly].
Many of the criticisms of Ed were crass. Didn't stop them inflicting huge harm.
What I do think would be a mistake is for the Conservatives to assume UKIP have now 'gone away' and are no longer a threat.
It's that sort of dismissal and complacency that led to their rise in the first place.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/600580286120886272
But I'm not sure such a Minority Tory government from 2020 to 2025 (part 2 of 2) would be much fun, and would probably be heavily defeated in GE2025.
Regardless of whether they favour the Conservatives in a mean sense, by taking away more seats from the depopulated Labour heartlands, I think they will also favour the Tories because the Tories currently have a campaigning edge. With new boundaries there will be new marginals, and the parties will have to target new swing voters.
The Tories showed this time that they are currently better at that than Labour, out-performing UNS by nine seats, and so the simple process of reshuffling the identity of the marginal constituencies will benefit them as the party best able to refocus their efforts.
These two effects together make it possible for the Tories to retain a majority even with a modest swing to Labour.
Oh, wait...
Being IIRC both mixed-race and a woman, you'd think she'd have gained more traction, but I guess that quota was already filled.
Who is the obvious candidate? Isn't it Yvette?
I'd rather Butcher, but it doesn't really matter as either will lose.
If Labour is to win a majority then the sorts of seats it needs to win are Redditch, Gravesham and Milton Keynes N. Looking at these seats it is clear that gaining votes from the Greens and the remaining LDs is not going to be enough. Either they need to mop up the vast majority of UKIP's votes or they need to gain direct switchers from the Tories.
IMHO they need to aim for the big tent strategy. Try and win over as many Tory voters as possible. In Scotland they should forget about tacking left to win back SNP supporters but try to win over tactical voters from the other unionist parties.
I don't doubt that for a second.
I'd be interested to read the judgement.
They just simply don't have "gay cake" in their product offering.
His larger problem is that he sounds like an emotive victim.
Then within a very short period of time the government let out over a billion pounds of contracts which were specifically designed to break down weighting lists that had accumulated. Yet labour briefed this as the biggest ever privatisation in the nation's history.
Andy Burnham:
“It is outrageous that large chunks of the NHS are being parcelled up and sold off without the permission of a single person in this country.”
“Jeremy Hunt tries to claim that ‘privatisation isn’t happening’, but the truth is it is happening at speed and scale,” he added. “This now needs to become an election issue. The country has never given its approval for the NHS to be bought and sold in this way."
Clearing backlogs was the very basis of the tenuous claim that differentiated fluffly labour good letting of private (they call it 'independent') contracts in the NHS, with evil tory selling it all to their mates privatising, back to the workhouses.
Outside the M25 - and quite possible for a large number within it - these policies and views were viewed with incredulity.
They have been some encouraging rulings recently on Lutfur Rahman, Rotherham and the 'Gay Cake' bakery, but there is still some way to go to regain full common sense.
A key test may be Sadiq Khan and has disgraceful desire for ethnic quotas in the workplace.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Notme, waiting*. I sympathise, as my typos are often horrendously homophonic (once wrote 'caught' instead of 'got', and had one typo so vast I couldn't work out what I'd meant to write ['western' instead of something like 'whore' or 'strumpet']).
As it happens, I am quite sure that Chuka Umanna, Ed Balls, Yvette, and all the other vaguely sane Labour front-benchers were absolutely horrified at Ed Miliband's loony anti-prosperity stance. I am sure all three of them would have privately urged a different approach, but Ed Miliband was convinced he was right about everything. In fact Chuka made some efforts to try to mitigate the damage, and Ed Balls scarcely bothered to hide his contempt for his boss. The blame lies squarely with Ed Miliband personally, and those who were daft enough to make him leader.
That was an actual physical manifestation of utter cynicism. It was a quickening into the physical of the moral and intellectual incompetence of t'Labour Parteh. Dishonesty, disingenuousness and hypocrisy flickered into being, like a strip light coming on, and were then hastily extinguished.
Can one still buy a Labour "Controls on Immigration" mug?
http://radical-labour.co.uk/index.html
https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-4-mug-controls-on-immigration-551/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010872/Students-told-wave-jazz-hands-conference-speakers-whooping-clapping-scary.html
NUS Women's Campaign tweeted: 'Whooping is fun for some, but can be super inaccessible for others, so please try not to whoop! Jazz hands work just as well.'
They then followed that with: 'Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it's triggering anxiety. Please be mindful! #nuswomen15'.
They haven't gone away you know.
If Chuka, EdB and Yvette (which I can well accept) were quietly horrified at EdM's antics then they effing well should have done something about it. And if nothing changed then a) they should have resigned; and/or b) they have no excuses whatsoever to say, afterwards, oh but I really disagreed with those policies..
It's when the LOTO tacitly endorses such lunacy that I start to worry.
UKIP had their best chance in this past election and managed to lose 50% of their seats. No prizes for 2nd place, they'll need to control councils too in order to build on their current position - and have you seen the quality of their council candidates?
They will now face Labour under a new, perhaps less crap leader, and the LibDems no longer in government so a competitor for protest votes, also under a new leader.
https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-6-mug-homes-to-buy-and-action-on-rents-572/
Have they been reduced?
They should really have done these as mouse mats as well.
On Labour's leadership, I agree with Sandy Rentool - within reason, I'm more interested in finding a winner than someone whose precise ideology seems to fit. Burnham is quite popular among East Midlands members because of assiduous attention when there was no apparent motive for it - he's been to Broxtowe more than once, unlike I think all the others, though Liz was due to pay a visit. The accusation that he was somehow personally to blame for mid-Staffs is seen as nonsense by those who are familiar with the case and irrelevant by those who aren't. He's also interested in policy, which is a big plus for some of us - that even leads him into dangerous territory - the "death tax" to finance decent elderly care, cutting NHS spending to boost care spending, etc. On the other hand, there's a pretty strong argument for a fresh ace, and the fans that I've spoken to aren't generally committing to him yet.
Personally I'd be interested in Mary Creagh getting more of a hearing - she struck me up to 2010 as seriously underrated. But whether she'll get near the 35 signatures seems doubtful.
Swings up to 8%:
SNP targets:
1. DCT 0.8%
2. O&S 1.8%
3. Edi S 2.7%
SNP vulnerable targets (To Conservatives)
1. BRS 0.6%
2. DG 5.8%
3. WAK 7.4%
SNP vulnerable targets (To Labour)
Renfrewshire East 3.3%
Edinburgh North & Leith 4.8%
East Lothian 6.8%
Edinburgh South West 7.9%
SNP vulnerable targets (To Lib Dem)
Dunbartonshire East 1.9%
Edinburgh West 3.0%
Fife North East 4.8%
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross 5.6%
Ross, Skye & Lochaber 6.2%
I reckon on a poor night for the SNP only the bolded targets re really vulnerable, only really BRS and DCT that effect the Government o n a primary order though. I wouldn't like to call either at this point.
R East has the whole leader/tactical unwind thingy. Cons will be looking to improve there in 2020.
For vast chunks of the last 5 years, the debate tended to swirl around the following loop
"Christ, Ed's not very good"
"Ah, but he's leading in the polls"
"But he won't win come the election"
"Ah, but he's leading in the polls"
HUZZAH for the rubbish polls.
Is anything happening? Doesn’t look as though the Commisioners have moved things along, much, either.
Or have I missed something
What will make a difference is if there is no harm in prospect to England from an SNP:Labour axis. If that is no longer a concern then the emergency recedes and there is less need for a Conservative government.
With that said this Conservative government will only be completing its first term in 2020 so can reasonably expect re-election for a second.
Strangely silent. http://t.co/N0zokoDOHO
http://www.capx.co/joe-stiglitz-is-talking-rubbish/
"research that shows Scotland now has the lowest rate of grants in western Europe; that spending on income-related student grants has almost halved in real terms since the SNP took office in 2007; and that Scotland is the only part of the UK where borrowing is highest among students from poorer backgrounds."
The reason mid-Staffs is toxic for Butcher is because his instinct, when the lethal brutality, cruelty and systematic neglect of mid-Staffs were exposed, was to cover it up to protect the producer interest, who are Labour clients.
If that's how he thinks, he'll do it again, and a damaging pattern will attach to him.
Blair was accused of dishonesty from 1997 by the Tories and everything he did was eventually seen to fit that template. Nobody now seriously doubts their characterisation of him as untrustworthy, greedy and habitually untruthful.
This process has not even started on Burnham. It will.
A court says a bakery that refused to ice a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan discriminated on grounds of sexual orientation.
http://news.sky.com/story/1486774/gay-cake-bakery-guilty-of-discrimination
Eagles is this that CCHQ errm "source" again ?
The primary British (English?) social mode is to keep ourselves to ourselves, and avoid awkwardness and confrontation. There's a lot of values signalling going on and a bit of class identification when political declarations are made. Because we are still totally obsessive about class.
What happens in the ballot box is, of course, often different.
The Germans don't have that.
@BBCNormanS: There was a deficit..ideally it shd have been in surplus - @YvetteCooperMP
@BBCNormanS: It was right at time but now there shd be a review of policy on Mansion tax - @YvetteCooperMP
Fantasy, historical revisionism and naked ambition.
Vote Yvette!
Looking back Carswell accidently wrecked UKIP by ensuring they fought two by-elections at the same time. If UKIP had won Heywood and Middleton it would have shown that UKIP was a party that could win in the north and Labour would be in a far worse state....
Perhaps some sort of metric- not 10pts ahead with Survation..