There are many self-righteous famous people and opinion-formers who claim the moral high ground exclusively for the left, as if the those who support the Conservatives are monsters or having 'wrong' opinions/doing democracy wrong.
They personally agree with the blues but all the 'cool kids' are saying it's wrong.
We saw such nonsense barely days after the vote, with protests against the elected government less than a week after polling day.
I am not saying Cameron is a non-entity. I am saying that he was back in 2005: an ex-SpAd with a PR background who had never achieved anything of note.
Although his abilities inside the Tory party had clearly been recognised - he was briefing the PM/LOTO at one point, and various other elements.
He may not have been known to the wider public, or achieved anything of note outside the political field, but that doesn't mean he's a non-entity to the *electors*
If that article is evidence of his thinking, I can see why he's at an ex-poly and not LBS.
I think he makes some interesting points on where Labour's leadership failed. He seems to think Labour should move more to the left, which seems to be the opposite view of most on here.
It's also right in saying that the new Labour leader would have to show competence in leadership. Although that's hardly an unusual view. ;-)
If Labour elect Burnham as leader, it'll be like replacing Mr Bean with Baldrick.
In fact, it would actually be Mr Bean (Brown) with Wallace (Miliband) and then Baldrick (Burnham)
I think you are unfair:
Blair = Thatcher, hated by the left Brown = Major, staggering on until the bitter end Miliband = Hague playing to the core vote Burnham? = IDS.... (except he'll get to lose an eletion)
Mr. Jessop, I did read a certain leftwinger's views on Twitter, to the effect that English people are bad and our history is just evil, and the electorate are wrong and wicked.
Anyway, that's just leftist clickbait, onanistic literature for masochistic losers who consider people who hold a different democratic opinion to them to be inherently evil and that their own particular perspective is the definition of goodness.
It's not unlike a certain niche of theists, who think God is on their side and whatever they think is (quite literally) divine.
A fact that means I will struggle to support him next time.
If Kendall becomes leader i am more likely to vote Green than Lab in 2020.
Really? That's depressing. Labour need all parts of the left to pull together if it is to win again.
The point is what has Kendall got to do with the Left.
She thinks Lab spent too much on public services that were on their knees after 18 yrs of right of centre wrecking.
Even Blair didnt think twice about that.
She is as much from left and you or I. She may to be the right of you. But the key point is where she sit wrt to the electorate as a whole and the voters.
On the point wrt to spending. Clearly Labour spent too much. But I would argue not on public services. Most of the money was spent mopping after market failures. Some of which could have been avoided.
Regardless, writing her off before the contest has even started is daft.
Hoping she doesnt get 35 MPs .
Although the one bright spot would be that if she does we know Hunt wouldnt!!
If I may be allowed to intrude without displaying too much Schadenfreude, your discussion illustrates well the Lab challenge and is symptomatic to many righties such as myself
Blair, Mandy, the whole of Nu-Lab, etc are dismissed after delivering three election victories and are now vilified.
But election victories = public/voter approval.
Ergo the public has it wrong and if only they could be made to see sense and choose the correct path all would be ok.
Well it is precisely such thinking that delivered GE2015 and will, if repeated, deliver GE2020 to the Cons also
@PickardJE: Rumour of a big name to join the Liz Kendall leadership campaign today. Who could it be?
IOS? He's a proven election winner.
I think it'll be Russell Brand.
Peter Mandleson/ Alan Milburn
Second and third on my most disliked Labour politicians behind the war criminal
Maybe it will be Mr. Blair himself.
That should stop 35 votes dead in its tracks....
Remarkable how the only guy to win Labour an election in 40 years is so toxic within his own.party. The contrast with that other election-winning beast of our times - Maggie in the Tory party - is striking
Although the Tory relationship with Thatcher is not entirely healthy either
I see Unison / RMT are threatening the North Sea oil industry with strikes. Just what it needs with thousands under threat in Aberdeen as a result of the falling oil price.
It's about time the left and Len understood they lost the election and resuming hostilities as the military wing of the Labour Party is going to alienate them, the Labour Party and any new "non entity" leader Len ensures they select even further.
Thanks for this. The scale of Labour's defeat in Scotland is still shocking.
On the war/battle analogy I can't help but view the Unionist victory in the Referendum as being akin to Napoleon's at Borodino. The disintegration of Scottish Labour is on a par* with that of the Grande Armée in the winter of 1812.
Just as Napoleon rushed to Paris to gather forces to resist the Russian advance, so Cameron is now attempting to create a DevoMax settlement that will stem the advance of the SNP in the Scottish electorate. It might be more surprising if defeat for the Union does not come within three years.
* Or possibly worse. On Wikipedia figures almost 4% of the Grande Armée survived to recross the Berezina River. Ian Murray is just 2.4% of Scottish Labour's previous strength.
If that article is evidence of his thinking, I can see why he's at an ex-poly and not LBS.
I think he makes some interesting points on where Labour's leadership failed. He seems to think Labour should move more to the left, which seems to be the opposite view of most on here.
It's also right in saying that the new Labour leader would have to show competence in leadership. Although that's hardly an unusual view. ;-)
If Labour elect Burnham as leader, it'll be like replacing Mr Bean with Baldrick.
In fact, it would actually be Mr Bean (Brown) with Wallace (Miliband) and then Baldrick (Burnham)
I think you are unfair:
Blair = Thatcher, hated by the left Brown = Major, staggering on until the bitter end Miliband = Hague playing to the core vote Burnham? = IDS.... (except he'll get to lose an eletion)
Charles Major is nothing like Brown and certainly did not stagger on to the bitter end. He at least stood for and won a general election . Brown on the other hand......
Thanks for this. The scale of Labour's defeat in Scotland is still shocking.
On the war/battle analogy I can't help but view the Unionist victory in the Referendum as being akin to Napoleon's at Borodino. The disintegration of Scottish Labour is on a par* with that of the Grande Armée in the winter of 1812.
Just as Napoleon rushed to Paris to gather forces to resist the Russian advance, so Cameron is now attempting to create a DevoMax settlement that will stem the advance of the SNP in the Scottish electorate. It might be more surprising if defeat for the Union does not come within three years.
* Or possibly worse. On Wikipedia figures almost 4% of the Grande Armée survived to recross the Berezina River. Ian Murray is just 2.4% of Scottish Labour's previous strength.
Scottish Labour need to rebase their expectations. They are thinking of the 2010 Scottish Labour seats as being on loan to the SNP. There is no evidence that this is a one time switch. Their voter base has defected en masse.
If that article is evidence of his thinking, I can see why he's at an ex-poly and not LBS.
I think he makes some interesting points on where Labour's leadership failed. He seems to think Labour should move more to the left, which seems to be the opposite view of most on here.
It's also right in saying that the new Labour leader would have to show competence in leadership. Although that's hardly an unusual view. ;-)
If Labour elect Burnham as leader, it'll be like replacing Mr Bean with Baldrick.
In fact, it would actually be Mr Bean (Brown) with Wallace (Miliband) and then Baldrick (Burnham)
I think you are unfair:
Blair = Thatcher, hated by the left Brown = Major, staggering on until the bitter end Miliband = Hague playing to the core vote Burnham? = IDS.... (except he'll get to lose an eletion)
Charles Major is nothing like Brown and certainly did not stagger on to the bitter end. He at least stood for and won a general election . Brown on the other hand......
That is the one where my analogy falls apart, but I need it for the continuity
BJO - I understand your position, and was in a similar place myself. However, I have come to the conclusion that we need to be pragmatic, and our first priority is to kick the Tories out in 2020 and have a government enacting at least some policies that we are happy with. Therefore, I will vote for the candidate who I think will have the best chance of winning in 2020.
Thanks for this. The scale of Labour's defeat in Scotland is still shocking.
On the war/battle analogy I can't help but view the Unionist victory in the Referendum as being akin to Napoleon's at Borodino. The disintegration of Scottish Labour is on a par* with that of the Grande Armée in the winter of 1812.
Just as Napoleon rushed to Paris to gather forces to resist the Russian advance, so Cameron is now attempting to create a DevoMax settlement that will stem the advance of the SNP in the Scottish electorate. It might be more surprising if defeat for the Union does not come within three years.
* Or possibly worse. On Wikipedia figures almost 4% of the Grande Armée survived to recross the Berezina River. Ian Murray is just 2.4% of Scottish Labour's previous strength.
How much further can the SNP advance? Unless they gain all the constituency seats at Holyrood , and, because they’re doing so well, start adding Regional seats too.
Or ally with the Peoples Front for the Re-Establishment of Northumbria( or something like that)!.
If that article is evidence of his thinking, I can see why he's at an ex-poly and not LBS.
I think he makes some interesting points on where Labour's leadership failed. He seems to think Labour should move more to the left, which seems to be the opposite view of most on here.
It's also right in saying that the new Labour leader would have to show competence in leadership. Although that's hardly an unusual view. ;-)
If Labour elect Burnham as leader, it'll be like replacing Mr Bean with Baldrick.
In fact, it would actually be Mr Bean (Brown) with Wallace (Miliband) and then Baldrick (Burnham)
I think you are unfair:
Blair = Thatcher, hated by the left Brown = Major, staggering on until the bitter end Miliband = Hague playing to the core vote Burnham? = IDS.... (except he'll get to lose an eletion)
Charles Major is nothing like Brown and certainly did not stagger on to the bitter end. He at least stood for and won a general election . Brown on the other hand......
The Major government was an absolute disgrace at the end. He lost his majority, had to resign his own leadership to attempt to regain authority. The row over publication of the Scott Report was probably the nadir of that government.
What this achieves is to damage and humiliate the other potential candidates to whom the party may have to turn in 2018, and certainly in 2020, when it turns out that AIC. I thought it was the pb tories who never learned.
I am not saying Cameron is a non-entity. I am saying that he was back in 2005: an ex-SpAd with a PR background who had never achieved anything of note.
Although his abilities inside the Tory party had clearly been recognised - he was briefing the PM/LOTO at one point, and various other elements.
He may not have been known to the wider public, or achieved anything of note outside the political field, but that doesn't mean he's a non-entity to the *electors*
Michael Howard recognised Cameron's abilities and encouraged him. He also spun out the timescale of the Leadership Election so Cameron could influence more people.
Charles/Josias Burnham is nothing like IDS, he is actually probably the most telegenic of the candidates with a northern background but Cambridge degree, indeed in 2010 he was actually considered a Blairite (IDS was always a hardline Thatcherite). Although I think Cooper will edge it, and neither are as good as Blair, both would be a significant improvement on Ed Miliband, and with Cameron not running in 2020 anything could happen
I think, as DavidL has alluded to in a previous thread, the union now needs to look for an amicable divorce.
In particular Scotland is going to have a very unhealthy one party practically government till at least a second independence referendum is held. The first was once in a generation, but the 2015 GE result in Scotland was a once in a lifetime switch-event too.
bigjohnowls A Farron led LD party will have little effect in Labour-Tory marginals, but it will restore Labour to LD tactical voting in Tory-LD marginals which disappeared under Clegg
I am not saying Cameron is a non-entity. I am saying that he was back in 2005: an ex-SpAd with a PR background who had never achieved anything of note.
Although his abilities inside the Tory party had clearly been recognised - he was briefing the PM/LOTO at one point, and various other elements.
He may not have been known to the wider public, or achieved anything of note outside the political field, but that doesn't mean he's a non-entity to the *electors*
Michael Howard recognised Cameron's abilities and encouraged him. He also spun out the timescale of the Leadership Election so Cameron could influence more people.
So a nonentity with a very powerful backer...
I'm on your side! I think that Cameron was well known inside the Tory parliamentary party, but just hadn't been spotted by the media
Charles/Josias Burnham is nothing like IDS, he is actually probably the most telegenic of the candidates with a northern background but Cambridge degree, indeed in 2010 he was actually considered a Blairite (IDS was always a hardline Thatcherite). Although I think Cooper will edge it, and neither are as good as Blair, both would be a significant improvement on Ed Miliband, and with Cameron not running in 2020 anything could happen
Thanks again. Interesting stuff as ever, but on this occasion I think you've overlooked an elephant which is currently asleep in the room but will very soon wake up: Scottish politics now is about Holyrood 2016. The immediate question for Labour is the degree to which the slaughter of May 7th 2015 will be replicated next year. Of course, the electoral system for Holyrood is such that in seat terms the slaughter won't be as bad, but it might still be very bad indeed in vote-share terms. Given the near-total meltdown in Scottish Labour - not helped by in-fighting at UK level - it's hard to see why Scottish voters should be any more attracted to Labour next year than they were this year.
If we assume that I'm right, and that the Holyrood election will deal another gut-wrenching blow to what's left of Labour's morale and organisational structure in Scotland, then we could see a major realignment of Scottish politics. I've no idea what form that might take, but I do think that extrapolating to 2020 from the results in 2015 is even more fraught in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. There may not even be the same parties on offer to voters.
Oblitus The Bloq Quebecois won over 50 seats in the 1993 Canadian general election and most seats in Quebec at every general election from 1993 to 2011, Quebec is still in Canada. What the average Scot wants is more power not complete independence, much like the average Quebecois
I am not saying Cameron is a non-entity. I am saying that he was back in 2005: an ex-SpAd with a PR background who had never achieved anything of note.
Although his abilities inside the Tory party had clearly been recognised - he was briefing the PM/LOTO at one point, and various other elements.
He may not have been known to the wider public, or achieved anything of note outside the political field, but that doesn't mean he's a non-entity to the *electors*
Michael Howard recognised Cameron's abilities and encouraged him. He also spun out the timescale of the Leadership Election so Cameron could influence more people.
So a nonentity with a very powerful backer...
I'm on your side! I think that Cameron was well known inside the Tory parliamentary party, but just hadn't been spotted by the media
Cameron impressed the unlikely figure of Chris Mullin who refers to him favourably in his diaries.
bigjohnowls A Farron led LD party will have little effect in Labour-Tory marginals, but it will restore Labour to LD tactical voting in Tory-LD marginals which disappeared under Clegg
The extent of the Lib Dem shellacking was such - that alot of those seats you're probably considering as Lib Dem-Tory marginals are in fact not.
Solihull, Taunton Deane, Portsmouth South, Wells, EASTLEIGH !!!, Colchester are all safe Conservative seats now.
A great result for the Lib Dems is recapturing Eastbourne and Lewes in 2020 now, and even those are tough asks with 1st time incumbency for the Conservatives. A strong concern for them is that Hallam, Carshalton and Southport don't drop.
I think, as DavidL has alluded to in a previous thread, the union now needs to look for an amicable divorce.
In particular Scotland is going to have a very unhealthy one party practically government till at least a second independence referendum is held. The first was once in a generation, but the 2015 GE result in Scotland was a once in a lifetime switch-event too.
Pulpstar, that's a misapprehension, surely. If you are talking about Scotland as a whole then its 'government' is split half Tory and half SNP - certainly going on the division of governmental roles. If the UK then it's part of a Tory-ruled UK. And in devolved terms, it's a majority SNP government with a very thin majority.
I think, as DavidL has alluded to in a previous thread, the union now needs to look for an amicable divorce.
In particular Scotland is going to have a very unhealthy one party practically government till at least a second independence referendum is held. The first was once in a generation, but the 2015 GE result in Scotland was a once in a lifetime switch-event too.
Oblitus The Bloq Quebecois won over 50 seats in the 1993 Canadian general election and most seats in Quebec at every general election from 1993 to 2011, Quebec is still in Canada. What the average Scot wants is more power not complete independence, much like the average Quebecois
Perhaps, but Canada was already a federal country, arguably more able to flex to accommodate such changes. The UK is not, and is not likely to become one. This makes it a bit simplistic to read across from Canadian history.
Thanks again. Interesting stuff as ever, but on this occasion I think you've overlooked an elephant which is currently asleep in the room but will very soon wake up: Scottish politics now is about Holyrood 2016. The immediate question for Labour is the degree to which the slaughter of May 7th 2015 will be replicated next year. Of course, the electoral system for Holyrood is such that in seat terms the slaughter won't be as bad, but it might still be very bad indeed in vote-share terms. Given the near-total meltdown in Scottish Labour - not helped by in-fighting at UK level - it's hard to see why Scottish voters should be any more attracted to Labour next year than they were this year.
If we assume that I'm right, and that the Holyrood election will deal another gut-wrenching blow to what's left of Labour's morale and organisational structure in Scotland, then we could see a major realignment of Scottish politics. I've no idea what form that might take, but I do think that extrapolating to 2020 from the results in 2015 is even more fraught in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. There may not even be the same parties on offer to voters.
Every time that Scottish Labour seem to hit rock bottom they seem to find another trap door. I agree that Scottish politics is going to be in a greater state of ferment than the rest of the UK. It's hard to see how this is going to disrupt the SNP's dominance, but nothing is impossible.
Obviously all of these initial surveys are for amusement only. Projecting forward five years is something only a fool would attempt. Which I suppose is why I'm doing it.
I think, as DavidL has alluded to in a previous thread, the union now needs to look for an amicable divorce.
In particular Scotland is going to have a very unhealthy one party practically government till at least a second independence referendum is held. The first was once in a generation, but the 2015 GE result in Scotland was a once in a lifetime switch-event too.
If Unionists had been required to win 50% of the electorate, rather than 50% of the votes, to preserve the Union that might have been preferable.
A fact that means I will struggle to support him next time.
If Kendall becomes leader i am more likely to vote Green than Lab in 2020.
Really? That's depressing. Labour need all parts of the left to pull together if it is to win again.
The point is what has Kendall got to do with the Left.
She thinks Lab spent too much on public services that were on their knees after 18 yrs of right of centre wrecking.
Even Blair didnt think twice about that.
She is as much from left and you or I. She may to be the right of you. But the key point is where she sit wrt to the electorate as a whole and the voters.
On the point wrt to spending. Clearly Labour spent too much. But I would argue not on public services. Most of the money was spent mopping after market failures. Some of which could have been avoided.
Regardless, writing her off before the contest has even started is daft.
The structural deficit existed before the crash, so cannot be explained by it. The expansion in spending was not predominantly on hospitals and schools either (most of that was PFI so off the balance sheet). The excess spending was mostly on increased pay and expansion in numbers in the public services, and expansion of welfare benefits such as tax credits.
Both of these can produce economic growth, in that if people have money then they spend it on consumer goods, but neither is real investment in the economy or social infrastructure. The purpose of the significant payrise for doctors was to push through the marketisation of the NHS by stuffing our mouths with gold.
bigjohnowls A Farron led LD party will have little effect in Labour-Tory marginals, but it will restore Labour to LD tactical voting in Tory-LD marginals which disappeared under Clegg
The extent of the Lib Dem shellacking was such - that alot of those seats you're probably considering as Lib Dem-Tory marginals are in fact not.
Solihull, Taunton Deane, Portsmouth South, Wells, EASTLEIGH !!!, Colchester are all safe Conservative seats now.
A great result for the Lib Dems is recapturing Eastbourne and Lewes in 2020 now, and even those are tough asks with 1st time incumbency for the Conservatives. A strong concern for them is that Hallam, Carshalton and Southport don't drop.
LibDems had more than 25% of the vote in 48 seats, despite being at the nadir of their recent popularity. There is room for a recovery, but one that will need to start with council and other elections.
I think, as DavidL has alluded to in a previous thread, the union now needs to look for an amicable divorce.
In particular Scotland is going to have a very unhealthy one party practically government till at least a second independence referendum is held. The first was once in a generation, but the 2015 GE result in Scotland was a once in a lifetime switch-event too.
Charles As I think Cooper will just edge Burnham to be leader anyway that is rather a moot bet, but either would be better than Ed Miliband. Miliband was Labour's IDS, Hague the Tories Foot
bigjohnowls A Farron led LD party will have little effect in Labour-Tory marginals, but it will restore Labour to LD tactical voting in Tory-LD marginals which disappeared under Clegg
The extent of the Lib Dem shellacking was such - that alot of those seats you're probably considering as Lib Dem-Tory marginals are in fact not.
Solihull, Taunton Deane, Portsmouth South, Wells, EASTLEIGH !!!, Colchester are all safe Conservative seats now.
A great result for the Lib Dems is recapturing Eastbourne and Lewes in 2020 now, and even those are tough asks with 1st time incumbency for the Conservatives. A strong concern for them is that Hallam, Carshalton and Southport don't drop.
It's all about the LibDem vote share (as it was in 2015). If they get 14%, they will gain quite a few seats. If they get 6%, they will lose rather a lot.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
Charles As I think Cooper will just edge Burnham to be leader anyway that is rather a moot bet, but either would be better than Ed Miliband. Miliband was Labour's IDS, Hague the Tories Foot
IDS did rather better than Miliband in those elections he contested
RichardN There will be Tory tactical voting in the likes of Edinburgh for Labour to stop a second SNP majority and make indyref2 more difficult, Tories can still vote Tory on the list. Most of the seats the SNP won in 2015 they had already won in 2011 anyway.
bigjohnowls A Farron led LD party will have little effect in Labour-Tory marginals, but it will restore Labour to LD tactical voting in Tory-LD marginals which disappeared under Clegg
The extent of the Lib Dem shellacking was such - that alot of those seats you're probably considering as Lib Dem-Tory marginals are in fact not.
Solihull, Taunton Deane, Portsmouth South, Wells, EASTLEIGH !!!, Colchester are all safe Conservative seats now.
A great result for the Lib Dems is recapturing Eastbourne and Lewes in 2020 now, and even those are tough asks with 1st time incumbency for the Conservatives. A strong concern for them is that Hallam, Carshalton and Southport don't drop.
It's all about the LibDem vote share (as it was in 2015). If they get 14%, they will gain quite a few seats. If they get 6%, they will lose rather a lot.
I'm more negative than you on the LibDems.
In many ways I think they were perceived by the voters as a collection of independents with different constituencies voting for individuals for different reasons. However, the overall brand toxicity overwhelmed the independent positioning in 2015.
However, unless you can maintain those local networks and run with the same candidate in 2020, I don't think you can automatically assume that they can easily get back to 2010 levels in every consistency (or that there is even a correlation). They need to find and develop new pockets of strength, building out from where they have redoubts still.
Oblitus With the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and NI Assemblies we are arguably now a federal country, especially if EVEL comes in too. Quebec got some more powers after 1980'S referendum, but it was only after the second Quebec referendum in 1995 (51-49 No) that Quebec got effectively FFA
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
You're ignoring the massive contribution to the LibDem total of the personal vote for people like Vince and Norman Baker. (Lots of people who identified even as Conservative used to tell Conservative canvassers in Lewes that 'they'd vote for Norman'). That ain't coming back. They've got a mountain to climb - it's much worse for the LibDems than the raw Tory majorities would suggest.
In any case I'm not even sure that the tactical votes are coming back. The LibDems are not going to be significant enough to attract tactical votes in the way that they used to.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
So does Torbay, but I can't see the LibDems recapturing it. A lot of natural Tories were lost to the personal vote of Adrian Sanders. Assuming he doesn't stand again (as with VInce and others) they will probably revert to 5 figure blue majorities. Newbury is a signpost of how these former LibDem seats revert to type over a couple of elections.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
You're ignoring the massive contribution to the LibDem total of the personal vote for people like Vince and Norman Baker. (Lots of people who identified even as Conservative used to tell Conservative canvassers in Lewes that 'they'd vote for Norman'). That ain't coming back. They've got a mountain to climb - it's much worse for the LibDems than the raw Tory majorities would suggest.
In any case I'm not even sure that the tactical votes are coming back. The LibDems are not going to be significant enough to attract tactical votes in the way that they used to.
I would have thought that Vince Cable would have a negative personal vote...
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
So does Torbay, but I can't see the LibDems recapturing it. A lot of natural Tories were lost to the personal vote of Adrian Sanders. Assuming he doesn't stand again (as with VInce and others) they will probably revert to 5 figure blue majorities. Newbury is a signpost of how these former LibDem seats revert to type over a couple of elections.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
You're ignoring the massive contribution to the LibDem total of the personal vote for people like Vince and Norman Baker. (Lots of people who identified even as Conservative used to tell Conservative canvassers in Lewes that 'they'd vote for Norman'). That ain't coming back. They've got a mountain to climb - it's much worse for the LibDems than the raw Tory majorities would suggest.
In any case I'm not even sure that the tactical votes are coming back. The LibDems are not going to be significant enough to attract tactical votes in the way that they used to.
Tomorrow's post on the Lib Dems has the working title "The Dolorous Stroke". This is one of the reasons why.
bigjohnowls A Farron led LD party will have little effect in Labour-Tory marginals, but it will restore Labour to LD tactical voting in Tory-LD marginals which disappeared under Clegg
The extent of the Lib Dem shellacking was such - that alot of those seats you're probably considering as Lib Dem-Tory marginals are in fact not.
Solihull, Taunton Deane, Portsmouth South, Wells, EASTLEIGH !!!, Colchester are all safe Conservative seats now.
A great result for the Lib Dems is recapturing Eastbourne and Lewes in 2020 now, and even those are tough asks with 1st time incumbency for the Conservatives. A strong concern for them is that Hallam, Carshalton and Southport don't drop.
It's all about the LibDem vote share (as it was in 2015). If they get 14%, they will gain quite a few seats. If they get 6%, they will lose rather a lot.
I'm more negative than you on the LibDems.
In many ways I think they were perceived by the voters as a collection of independents with different constituencies voting for individuals for different reasons. However, the overall brand toxicity overwhelmed the independent positioning in 2015.
However, unless you can maintain those local networks and run with the same candidate in 2020, I don't think you can automatically assume that they can easily get back to 2010 levels in every consistency (or that there is even a correlation). They need to find and develop new pockets of strength, building out from where they have redoubts still.
I'm not saying they are going to go back to 14%, or that they're going to gain seats. They could easily - especially if the Conservatives move towards the centre right - end up on zero.
But just as almost everyone was convinced that personal vote and a 60 by-election strategy would save a bunch of seats last time, everyone now seems convinced the LibDems are heading towards zero as their (allegedly) popular MPs are no longer in power.
I merely think that the results next time will depend almost entirely on their total vote.
If the LibDems get 14% - or, I suspect, anything more than 11%, then they will almost certainly gain seats. Don't forget 14% is a near doubling of their support.
LibDem held seats - with a few exceptions, mostly in Scotland - performed very much in line with UNS in 2015. Why would it be different in 2020?
The sisterhood and Progress could unite around Yvette Cooper-that's the only way Andy Burnham will get a contest.The way the rules are drawn limit it to 2-way contest.The NEC could have agreed an all-woman shortlist.Looks like a caretaker manager either way.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
So does Torbay, but I can't see the LibDems recapturing it. A lot of natural Tories were lost to the personal vote of Adrian Sanders. Assuming he doesn't stand again (as with VInce and others) they will probably revert to 5 figure blue majorities. Newbury is a signpost of how these former LibDem seats revert to type over a couple of elections.
Kevin will be the father of the house in 2065 or so. He's going nowhere.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
So does Torbay, but I can't see the LibDems recapturing it. A lot of natural Tories were lost to the personal vote of Adrian Sanders. Assuming he doesn't stand again (as with VInce and others) they will probably revert to 5 figure blue majorities. Newbury is a signpost of how these former LibDem seats revert to type over a couple of elections.
Kevin will be the father of the house in 2065 or so. He's going nowhere.
But that also assumes that you won't see people like Lynne Featherstone come out of nowhere and capture previously safe seats of some description.
LibDem held seats - with a few exceptions, mostly in Scotland - performed very much in line with UNS in 2015.
No, there was a marked difference between the seats where the incumbent was standing and seats where the LibDems had a new candidate - IIRC Sean Fear quoted a 9 point difference in the drop in the vote share.
Mr. Observer, it's certainly been very badly handled by Thomas Cook, perplexingly so.
For example, the apology. Why have the family learn that through the press?
I also wonder about giving £1.5m or so to charity rather than the family. If that were at the request of the family, fair enough, but otherwise, I would've thought the family ought to be the beneficiaries.
May 7th wiped out a quarter of a century of LibDem election and by-election gains. Assuming they can even get the funding to get back in the game - which must be a material concern - it is going to be a long, hard, slow road back for them.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
So does Torbay, but I can't see the LibDems recapturing it. A lot of natural Tories were lost to the personal vote of Adrian Sanders. Assuming he doesn't stand again (as with VInce and others) they will probably revert to 5 figure blue majorities. Newbury is a signpost of how these former LibDem seats revert to type over a couple of elections.
Kevin will be the father of the house in 2065 or so. He's going nowhere.
Nice idea. But there's a wee Scottish lass who could be in the House for the next 60 years - if Scotland doesn't get independence first....
Mr. Mark, maybe. Rapid rises an can be mirrored by rapid falls, and vice versa. When Scots grow tired of the SNP and if the English/Welsh grow tired of the Conservatives but don't trust Labour, that could provide a springboard for a surprisingly swift return to decent numbers for the Lib Dems.
LibDem held seats - with a few exceptions, mostly in Scotland - performed very much in line with UNS in 2015.
No, there was a marked difference between the seats where the incumbent was standing and seats where the LibDems had a new candidate - IIRC Sean Fear quoted a 9 point difference in the drop in the vote share.
LibDem held seats - with a few exceptions, mostly in Scotland - performed very much in line with UNS in 2015.
No, there was a marked difference between the seats where the incumbent was standing and seats where the LibDems had a new candidate - IIRC Sean Fear quoted a 9 point difference in the drop in the vote share.
The LibDem vote share fell by around 16%.
Vince Cable's vote fell by 16.4%. Ed Davey's vote fell by 15.3%. David Law's vote fell by 22.6%. Lynne Featherstone's vote fell by 14.7%
Where the LibDem candidates beat the 16% drop was either: - in Scotland, where they benefited from anti-SNP tactical voting or - against Labour where there was substantial Conservative tactical votes to squeeze (i.e. Cambridge -4.3%)
Mr. Observer, it's certainly been very badly handled by Thomas Cook, perplexingly so.
For example, the apology. Why have the family learn that through the press?
I also wonder about giving £1.5m or so to charity rather than the family. If that were at the request of the family, fair enough, but otherwise, I would've thought the family ought to be the beneficiaries.
Incidentally, who's your pick for Labour leader?
Kendall looks the best bet to me. But the most important thing from my perspective is that the process itself is competitive and allows a full debate. None of the candidates comes close to being as crap as EdM, but neither is any of them outstanding. A properly contested leadership election gives one or more of them a chance to make a mark and to set themselves up for what is going to be a very hard five years.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
So does Torbay, but I can't see the LibDems recapturing it. A lot of natural Tories were lost to the personal vote of Adrian Sanders. Assuming he doesn't stand again (as with VInce and others) they will probably revert to 5 figure blue majorities. Newbury is a signpost of how these former LibDem seats revert to type over a couple of elections.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
You're ignoring the massive contribution to the LibDem total of the personal vote for people like Vince and Norman Baker. (Lots of people who identified even as Conservative used to tell Conservative canvassers in Lewes that 'they'd vote for Norman'). That ain't coming back. They've got a mountain to climb - it's much worse for the LibDems than the raw Tory majorities would suggest.
In any case I'm not even sure that the tactical votes are coming back. The LibDems are not going to be significant enough to attract tactical votes in the way that they used to.
Tomorrow's post on the Lib Dems has the working title "The Dolorous Stroke". This is one of the reasons why.
Crikey! Any LibDem revival dependent upon a successful end to the Grail Quest?
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
So does Torbay, but I can't see the LibDems recapturing it. A lot of natural Tories were lost to the personal vote of Adrian Sanders. Assuming he doesn't stand again (as with VInce and others) they will probably revert to 5 figure blue majorities. Newbury is a signpost of how these former LibDem seats revert to type over a couple of elections.
Pulpstar Seats like Lewes and Twickenham and St Ives all have bigger Labour votes than Tory majorities, they could fall back to the LDs if tactical voting returns
You're ignoring the massive contribution to the LibDem total of the personal vote for people like Vince and Norman Baker. (Lots of people who identified even as Conservative used to tell Conservative canvassers in Lewes that 'they'd vote for Norman'). That ain't coming back. They've got a mountain to climb - it's much worse for the LibDems than the raw Tory majorities would suggest.
In any case I'm not even sure that the tactical votes are coming back. The LibDems are not going to be significant enough to attract tactical votes in the way that they used to.
Tomorrow's post on the Lib Dems has the working title "The Dolorous Stroke". This is one of the reasons why.
Crikey! Any LibDem revival dependent upon a successful end to the Grail Quest?
LibDem held seats - with a few exceptions, mostly in Scotland - performed very much in line with UNS in 2015.
No, there was a marked difference between the seats where the incumbent was standing and seats where the LibDems had a new candidate - IIRC Sean Fear quoted a 9 point difference in the drop in the vote share.
The LibDem vote share fell by around 16%.
Vince Cable's vote fell by 16.4%. Ed Davey's vote fell by 15.3%. David Law's vote fell by 22.6%. Lynne Featherstone's vote fell by 14.7%
Where the LibDem candidates beat the 16% drop was either: - in Scotland, where they benefited from anti-SNP tactical voting or - against Labour where there was substantial Conservative tactical votes to squeeze (i.e. Cambridge -4.3%)
I haven't done a full analysis, but there were seats like Taunton Deane where they mislaid 27.7%, and Somerton & Frome (28.1%)
Oblitus With the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and NI Assemblies we are arguably now a federal country, especially if EVEL comes in too. Quebec got some more powers after 1980'S referendum, but it was only after the second Quebec referendum in 1995 (51-49 No) that Quebec got effectively FFA
I think EVEL is very different to being properly Federal, with a separate English Parliament [or regional Parliaments] with its own election.
If England is serious about maintaining the Union then it has to establish its own Parliament[s], rather than treat Scottish MPs as unwelcome guests in a Westminster Parliament that is only part time a UK Parliament.
I think it's a pretty big difference which will see Scotland ending the Union [because the English don't want another Parliament with more politicians].
Norman Baker -16.1% (exactly in like with UNS) Adrian Sanders -13.2% (marginally beat UNS...) Paul Burstow -12.0% (ditto) Andrew George -9.6% (definitely beat UNS!)
Mr. Observer, it's certainly been very badly handled by Thomas Cook, perplexingly so.
For example, the apology. Why have the family learn that through the press?
I also wonder about giving £1.5m or so to charity rather than the family. If that were at the request of the family, fair enough, but otherwise, I would've thought the family ought to be the beneficiaries.
Incidentally, who's your pick for Labour leader?
Kendall looks the best bet to me. But the most important thing from my perspective is that the process itself is competitive and allows a full debate. None of the candidates comes close to being as crap as EdM, but neither is any of them outstanding. A properly contested leadership election gives one or more of them a chance to make a mark and to set themselves up for what is going to be a very hard five years.
I keep coming back to the point that having this leadership election now is a terrible idea. Harman is a decent commons performer and a very safe pair of hands to keep things ticking over for the next 2/3 years while the party decides what it stands for.
2020 is going to end up like another re-run of 92 if Labour insist on a leadership election now. It's the Tories that'll have the new shiny exciting leader by then like Major was in 92.
Comments
It will keep Labour out of power for at least another 10 years if you do.
Georgia and Serbia too.
"The country is screwed, the electorate is evil."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/election-2015-stuart-heritage-nine-reasons-to-be-cheerful
He may not have been known to the wider public, or achieved anything of note outside the political field, but that doesn't mean he's a non-entity to the *electors*
Blair = Thatcher, hated by the left
Brown = Major, staggering on until the bitter end
Miliband = Hague playing to the core vote
Burnham? = IDS.... (except he'll get to lose an eletion)
Anyway, that's just leftist clickbait, onanistic literature for masochistic losers who consider people who hold a different democratic opinion to them to be inherently evil and that their own particular perspective is the definition of goodness.
It's not unlike a certain niche of theists, who think God is on their side and whatever they think is (quite literally) divine.
(*Thorpe on Macmillian)
Blair, Mandy, the whole of Nu-Lab, etc are dismissed after delivering three election victories and are now vilified.
But election victories = public/voter approval.
Ergo the public has it wrong and if only they could be made to see sense and choose the correct path all would be ok.
Well it is precisely such thinking that delivered GE2015 and will, if repeated, deliver GE2020 to the Cons also
Quite funny, really.
It's about time the left and Len understood they lost the election and resuming hostilities as the military wing of the Labour Party is going to alienate them, the Labour Party and any new "non entity" leader Len ensures they select even further.
On the war/battle analogy I can't help but view the Unionist victory in the Referendum as being akin to Napoleon's at Borodino. The disintegration of Scottish Labour is on a par* with that of the Grande Armée in the winter of 1812.
Just as Napoleon rushed to Paris to gather forces to resist the Russian advance, so Cameron is now attempting to create a DevoMax settlement that will stem the advance of the SNP in the Scottish electorate. It might be more surprising if defeat for the Union does not come within three years.
* Or possibly worse. On Wikipedia figures almost 4% of the Grande Armée survived to recross the Berezina River. Ian Murray is just 2.4% of Scottish Labour's previous strength.
Major is nothing like Brown and certainly did not stagger on to the bitter end. He at least stood for and won a general election . Brown on the other hand......
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/three-big-challenges-the-next-leader-of-the-labour-party-faces/
Her Paso Doble, ruined Wild Thing for me, forever.
http://youtu.be/1dtNlEh3nW0
I'm actually rather a fan of John's.
Or ally with the Peoples Front for the Re-Establishment of Northumbria( or something like that)!.
So a nonentity with a very powerful backer...
In particular Scotland is going to have a very unhealthy one party practically government till at least a second independence referendum is held. The first was once in a generation, but the 2015 GE result in Scotland was a once in a lifetime switch-event too.
What terms would you offer?
Ten more years!
If we assume that I'm right, and that the Holyrood election will deal another gut-wrenching blow to what's left of Labour's morale and organisational structure in Scotland, then we could see a major realignment of Scottish politics. I've no idea what form that might take, but I do think that extrapolating to 2020 from the results in 2015 is even more fraught in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. There may not even be the same parties on offer to voters.
Solihull, Taunton Deane, Portsmouth South, Wells, EASTLEIGH !!!, Colchester are all safe Conservative seats now.
A great result for the Lib Dems is recapturing Eastbourne and Lewes in 2020 now, and even those are tough asks with 1st time incumbency for the Conservatives. A strong concern for them is that Hallam, Carshalton and Southport don't drop.
I'm just wondering what the various options are if funding what's seen as a national Party isn't acceptable in the future?
Obviously all of these initial surveys are for amusement only. Projecting forward five years is something only a fool would attempt. Which I suppose is why I'm doing it.
Has now moved to Dubai...
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/unite-boss-len-mccluskey-warns-of-break-from-labour-if-party-appoints-the-wrong-uk-leader.3083
If they get 14%, they will gain quite a few seats.
If they get 6%, they will lose rather a lot.
Tristram Hunt will not stand for leadership of UK's Labour Party http://bbc.in/1FnponM
In many ways I think they were perceived by the voters as a collection of independents with different constituencies voting for individuals for different reasons. However, the overall brand toxicity overwhelmed the independent positioning in 2015.
However, unless you can maintain those local networks and run with the same candidate in 2020, I don't think you can automatically assume that they can easily get back to 2010 levels in every consistency (or that there is even a correlation). They need to find and develop new pockets of strength, building out from where they have redoubts still.
In any case I'm not even sure that the tactical votes are coming back. The LibDems are not going to be significant enough to attract tactical votes in the way that they used to.
Darwinian selection does at last seem to be applying to the Labour Party.
But just as almost everyone was convinced that personal vote and a 60 by-election strategy would save a bunch of seats last time, everyone now seems convinced the LibDems are heading towards zero as their (allegedly) popular MPs are no longer in power.
I merely think that the results next time will depend almost entirely on their total vote.
If the LibDems get 14% - or, I suspect, anything more than 11%, then they will almost certainly gain seats. Don't forget 14% is a near doubling of their support.
LibDem held seats - with a few exceptions, mostly in Scotland - performed very much in line with UNS in 2015. Why would it be different in 2020?
On another note, Thomas Cook could be going through an end of company experience. Has no-one there ever heard of reputation management?
For example, the apology. Why have the family learn that through the press?
I also wonder about giving £1.5m or so to charity rather than the family. If that were at the request of the family, fair enough, but otherwise, I would've thought the family ought to be the beneficiaries.
Incidentally, who's your pick for Labour leader?
Or they could be screwed forever. We'll see.
That would sort of make sense.
Vince Cable's vote fell by 16.4%.
Ed Davey's vote fell by 15.3%.
David Law's vote fell by 22.6%.
Lynne Featherstone's vote fell by 14.7%
Where the LibDem candidates beat the 16% drop was either:
- in Scotland, where they benefited from anti-SNP tactical voting
or
- against Labour where there was substantial Conservative tactical votes to squeeze (i.e. Cambridge -4.3%)
'Burnham is nothing like IDS, he is actually probably the most telegenic of the candidates with a northern background'
With about as much appeal south of Watford as Boris has on Merseyside..
If England is serious about maintaining the Union then it has to establish its own Parliament[s], rather than treat Scottish MPs as unwelcome guests in a Westminster Parliament that is only part time a UK Parliament.
I think it's a pretty big difference which will see Scotland ending the Union [because the English don't want another Parliament with more politicians].
Norman Baker -16.1% (exactly in like with UNS)
Adrian Sanders -13.2% (marginally beat UNS...)
Paul Burstow -12.0% (ditto)
Andrew George -9.6% (definitely beat UNS!)
2020 is going to end up like another re-run of 92 if Labour insist on a leadership election now. It's the Tories that'll have the new shiny exciting leader by then like Major was in 92.