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!)
Any Lib Dems who beat uniform national swing on 7 May should feel proud of themselves since even Lib Dems couldn't get negative votes in constituencies where they started with less than 15% of the vote.
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%.
Yes, but 84% of English & Wales LD held seats were within 4% of the UNS swing. The exceptions being a few where they did better (Cambridge) and a few where people were retiring and they did worse.
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?
I suspect Thomas Cook relied on lawyers only for advice. On an apparently open and shut case of negligence.
Whereas Germanwings - the suicide pilot's airline - started paying out at once... and appear to have suffered minimal reputational damage.
Mr. Observer, I do wonder if Miliband made a mistake by immediately resigning. So long as opposition leader took all the shine off of Cameron for 2010, and didn't help Miliband either. Whoever is Labour's next leader will face that same problem [although it may help them when grappling with Cameron's successor].
Mr. Me, indeed. English votes for English laws works as a stopgap, not a lasting settlement. Equality demands an English Parliament.
I disagree with you about the desire for an English Parliament, though. I think such a move would have appeal to the English. The parties are another matter (the left want to balkanise England into petty fiefdoms, the Conservatives appear afraid of emasculating Westminster).
I doubt Hunt will stand for election in 2020. He was never a serious option for leader.
On another note, Thomas Cook could be going through an end of company experience. Has no-one there ever heard of reputation management?
It is a sign of a company run by accountants and lawyers with no marketing intelligence. When it gets that unbalanced they take a decision based on the apparent set of financials without any concept of the value of their image. The new CEO has already shown that he is incapable of understanding that until the Company suffers an amount of damage that could be fatal. A bit like Clegg.
I haven't done a full analysis, but there were seats like Taunton Deane where they mislaid 27.7%, and Somerton & Frome (28.1%)
LDs who stood down averaged a loss of 21.8%
Bath Don Foster 26.9% Berwick-upon-Tweed Alan Beith 14.8% Brent Central Sarah Teather 35.8% Dorset Mid and Poole North Annette Brooke 16.9% Fife North East Sir Menzies Campbell 13.0% Gordon Malcolm Bruce 3.3% Hazel Grove Andrew Stunell 22.6% Portsmouth South Mike Hancock 23.6% Redcar Ian Swales 26.7% Somerton and Frome David Heath 28.1% Taunton Deane Jeremy Browne 27.7%
Yes, but 84% of English & Wales LD held seats were within 4% of the UNS swing. The exceptions being a few where they did better (Cambridge) and a few where people were retiring and they did worse.
But that's exactly the point.
Forget the national swing, it's not relevant to this discussion (not least for the reason antifrank gives). What is relevant is the difference between LibDem defences where the incumbent was standing, and LibDem defences where they had a new candidate.
RN MM As Rcs1000 points out the LD swing was pretty universal, incumbency is only worth 1000 votes at most, if the tide is heading in one way. For other examples, Eastbourne was Tory 39%, LD 38%, Labour 7% (the Labour vote almost doubled since 2010); Colchester had Tory 38%, LD 27%, Labour 16%
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%)
LDs who stood down averaged a loss of 21.8%
Bath Don Foster 26.9% Berwick-upon-Tweed Alan Beith 14.8% Brent Central Sarah Teather 35.8% Dorset Mid and Poole North Annette Brooke 16.9% Fife North East Sir Menzies Campbell 13.0% Gordon Malcolm Bruce 3.3% Hazel Grove Andrew Stunell 22.6% Portsmouth South Mike Hancock 23.6% Redcar Ian Swales 26.7% Somerton and Frome David Heath 28.1% Taunton Deane Jeremy Browne 27.7%
LD who stood again averaged a loss of 14.3%.
I think you are - to some extent - mixing up cause and effect. Many retiring MPs were in seats where the LDs were most likely to perform poorly (Brent Central, Redcar, and don't forget Portsmouth South didn't actually see the MP "retire").
Really, all that chart shows is that Don Foster, Jeremy Browne and David Heath had big personal votes.
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.
Depends what you think is Labour's biggest threat - if it is the potential for UKIP to run riot in Northern Labour seats, 2-3 years of Harriet Harman is definitely not the answer: her upper middle-class, "do as I tell you not as I do", pro-agenda groups reputation repels socially conservative WWC types.
@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
Indeed, and surely this evidence that the long term trajectory of Labour is surely towards extinction.
Labour is about sowing division and then robbing groups it hates to fund those it sucks up to for their votes. It's about curtailing personal prosperity and social mobility because those turn client voters into Conservative voters. If you have to abandon that to gain power what is the point of gaining power?
JohnZims How do you know? Boris does not poll that badly in the north anyway, Labour do not need to win the south, they need to win back marginals in the north, the midlands and wales to be largest party
Yes, but 84% of English & Wales LD held seats were within 4% of the UNS swing. The exceptions being a few where they did better (Cambridge) and a few where people were retiring and they did worse.
But that's exactly the point.
Forget the national swing, it's not relevant to this discussion (not least for the reason antifrank gives). What is relevant is the difference between LibDem defences where the incumbent was standing, and LibDem defences where they had a new candidate.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
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.
Depends what you think is Labour's biggest threat - if it is the potential for UKIP to run riot in Northern Labour seats, 2-3 years of Harriet Harman is definitely not the answer: her upper middle-class, "do as I tell you not as I do", pro-agenda groups reputation repels socially conservative WWC types.
All those reasons are why HH would make a rubbish leader to take Labour into a general election, but the public wont really care who's running Labour for the next few years, Ed was rubbish but Labour still managed to hit 40% poll ratings in 2012/13.
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.
Isn't it much worse than that because the SNP, Greens and UKIP are there to take the "none of the above" vote? I have been scratching my balding head to see how the LDs can come back without some kind of miracle and I can't. Contrast this with SLAB, where at least they are the only serious opposition party, so it is just about possible that, if the SNP screws up enough, they could stage something of a comeback.
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.
Isn't it much worse than that because the SNP, Greens and UKIP are there to take the "none of the above" vote? I have been scratching my balding head to see how the LDs can come back without some kind of miracle and I can't. Contrast this with SLAB, where at least they are the only serious opposition party, so it is just about possible that, if the SNP screws up enough, they could stage something of a comeback.
SNP can't be a NOTA vote, they have been the party of government for 8 years now.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
If you're going to start cherry-picking particular seats (and I agree that every seat is different), then you need to do the same on the other side of the coin. You also need to adjust for seats like Berwick-upon-Tweed where Anne-Marie Trevelyan had already spent years chipping away at Sir Alan's personal vote.
The big picture, though, is that there was a ratchet effect on the LibDems' rise, and there will be a ratchet effect in their fall. They, more than any other party, were reliant on incumbency, and they more than any other party will be hit next time by the first-time-incumbency advantage of their opponents.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
But where they stayed and took their medicine against Labour they only lost 13.7% on average. Obviously some tactical Tories there, too.
An important couple of weeks for Ms May and Ms Morgan - do they slide in hard, or be more conciliatory?
As regards education, the answer must be the latter and a good start has been made when Morgan said this would not be an era of further upheavals. But surely she will be challenged to stick to that and to strike a tone that reflects it.
May has been dealt a slightly stronger hand with the Police Federation to talk about - how unrepresentative it was, how it should reduce membership fees, and so on. Hopefully she can keep ordinary police onside in the years to come.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
If you're going to start cherry-picking particular seats (and I agree that every seat is different), then you need to do the same on the other side of the coin. You also need to adjust for seats like Berwick-upon-Tweed where Anne-Marie Trevelyan had already spent years chipping away at Sir Alan's personal vote.
The big picture, though, is that there was a ratchet effect on the LibDem's rise, and there will be a ratchet effect in their fall. They, more than any other party, were reliant on incumbency, and they more than any other party will be hit next time by the first-time-incumbency advantage of their opponents.
Bah, I might as well not bother writing tomorrow's post, you're saying it all.
The Lib Dems are so much more screwed than has been generally appreciated.
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.
Isn't it much worse than that because the SNP, Greens and UKIP are there to take the "none of the above" vote? I have been scratching my balding head to see how the LDs can come back without some kind of miracle and I can't. Contrast this with SLAB, where at least they are the only serious opposition party, so it is just about possible that, if the SNP screws up enough, they could stage something of a comeback.
We'll see over the next four years of local elections.
But so much is out of the LibDem's hands. If the Conservatives move right to "head off" UKIP, then they create a space in the centre for the LibDems. On the other hand, if the Conservatives decide to occupy the centre-right ground and let UKIP alone (on the basis that a 12% vote share to the right of the Conservative Party is worth it for the detoxifying effect), then the LibDems will have little space to occupy.
Likewise, if the Labour Party moves even more stridently "anti-austerity" to head off the Greens, then it creates a centre-left position for the LibDems. And if it elects Kendall and heads to the centre, then it squeezes the LibDems even harder.
My contention is not that the LibDems will gain, or that they will lose, in 2020. It is merely that their performance, in terms of seats, will depend - as it did in 2015 - almost entirely on their vote share.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
But where they stayed and took their medicine against Labour they only lost 13.7% on average. Obviously some tactical Tories there, too.
There weren't tactical Tories to squeeze in Redcar or Brent Central. There were in Cambridge.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
If you're going to start cherry-picking particular seats (and I agree that every seat is different), then you need to do the same on the other side of the coin. You also need to adjust for seats like Berwick-upon-Tweed where Anne-Marie Trevelyan had already spent years chipping away at Sir Alan's personal vote.
The big picture, though, is that there was a ratchet effect on the LibDems' rise, and there will be a ratchet effect in their fall. They, more than any other party, were reliant on incumbency, and they more than any other party will be hit next time by the first-time-incumbency advantage of their opponents.
Shall we have a small bet. I say that if the LDs add 3% or more to their national vote share in 2020, then they will gain seats. That is all I am saying,
Of course, they may very well not get to 11% (it's what, a 30% chance?_). But I reckon that if they do, they will gain seats.
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?
I suspect Thomas Cook relied on lawyers only for advice. On an apparently open and shut case of negligence.
Whereas Germanwings - the suicide pilot's airline - started paying out at once... and appear to have suffered minimal reputational damage.
I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. ISTR there are treaties that mean that *initial* payments are given out to relatives of the deceased in plane crashes immediately, in order to deal with the logistics (e.g. flying out to the scene).
Some time (sometimes long) after this the final payments are given out (with amounts differing according to where the relatives live. Sadly American lives are more 'valuable' than Asian or African ones.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
But where they stayed and took their medicine against Labour they only lost 13.7% on average. Obviously some tactical Tories there, too.
There weren't tactical Tories to squeeze in Redcar or Brent Central. There were in Cambridge.
Sure, but there weren't many Tories in Burnley (-6.3%) or Birmingham Yardley (-14.0%) either. And even in Withington the fall was kept to 21% instead of 27% or 36%.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
If you're going to start cherry-picking particular seats (and I agree that every seat is different), then you need to do the same on the other side of the coin. You also need to adjust for seats like Berwick-upon-Tweed where Anne-Marie Trevelyan had already spent years chipping away at Sir Alan's personal vote.
The big picture, though, is that there was a ratchet effect on the LibDems' rise, and there will be a ratchet effect in their fall. They, more than any other party, were reliant on incumbency, and they more than any other party will be hit next time by the first-time-incumbency advantage of their opponents.
I am cherry picking seats because the average for non-incumbent LibDems is skewed by a few seats. Two which were traditionally Labour seats and where there was no Conservative vote to squeeze. The MPs realised they would be massacred and stood down accordingly.
Shall we have a small bet. I say that if the LDs add 3% or more to their national vote share in 2020, then they will gain seats. That is all I am saying,
Of course, they may very well not get to 11% (it's what, a 30% chance?_). But I reckon that if they do, they will gain seats.
£20?
I don't necessarily disagree with that, I'm looking at the difficulty of a significant recovery rather than the odd seat here and there.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
But where they stayed and took their medicine against Labour they only lost 13.7% on average. Obviously some tactical Tories there, too.
There weren't tactical Tories to squeeze in Redcar or Brent Central. There were in Cambridge.
Sure, but there weren't many Tories in Burnley (-6.3%) or Birmingham Yardley (-14.0%) either. And even in Withington the fall was kept to 21% instead of 27% or 36%.
Both Redcar and Brent Central have merely reverted to their pre-2010 results. They would have reverted irrespective of who the candidate was.
The incumbents knew they were going to get slaughtered and stepped down.
I am cherry picking seats because the average for non-incumbent LibDems is skewed by a few seats. Two which were traditionally Labour seats and where there was no Conservative vote to squeeze. The MPs realised they would be massacred and stood down accordingly.
You are confusing cause and effect.
7 losses to the Tories, 2 each to Lab & SNP. Looks fairly representative of the larger picture to me.
Oblitus No, the English do not care much if they get a new Parliament or not, especially as the Tories now have a majority in England and at Westminster anyway, nor do the Scots. What the Scots want is more powers, ultimately FFA, if they get it then the union probably stays, if not they may well go, an English Parliament is irrelevant either way
Shall we have a small bet. I say that if the LDs add 3% or more to their national vote share in 2020, then they will gain seats. That is all I am saying,
Of course, they may very well not get to 11% (it's what, a 30% chance?_). But I reckon that if they do, they will gain seats.
£20?
I don't necessarily disagree with that, I'm looking at the difficulty of a significant recovery rather than the odd seat here and there.
Then we are arguing at cross purposes. My contention - as it was in the run up to the 2015 elections - was that LibDem seats would move roughly in-line with UNS. In 2015 that led me to believe they would do significantly worse than expected.
If the LibDems get 14% in 2020, I would expect them to make half a dozen gains. But that's a very big 'if', and much of it depends on the decisions of the leaders of the Conservative and Labour Parties (as well as 'events').
rcs1000 If eu ref produces a narrow In and the Tories have to move right to keep sceptic Out voters on board and not in UKIP then that creates a space for the LDs, as does the fact Farron will get Labour tactical votes in a way Clegg could not
Bond/MM Attlee is revered by Labour and Thatcher is the Tory equivalent of Attlee, both shifted the centre ground left or right respectively and won elections. Blair is the equivalent of Cameron, both tolerated as long as they win, but the Tory base are not exactly in love with Cameron either and certainly will not be if he leads the In campaign to a narrow win in EU ref, Europe could be Cameron's Iraq if it goes wrong
I am cherry picking seats because the average for non-incumbent LibDems is skewed by a few seats. Two which were traditionally Labour seats and where there was no Conservative vote to squeeze. The MPs realised they would be massacred and stood down accordingly.
You are confusing cause and effect.
7 losses to the Tories, 2 each to Lab & SNP. Looks fairly representative of the larger picture to me.
The question is the issue of causality. I believe that incumbents who believed they were more at risk of losing were much more likely to stand down.
I would argue that the two most likely LibDem losses in 2015, irrespective of the nationwide LibDem vote share and 'incumbency', were Brent Central and Redcar. And that the near certainty of defeat influenced the decision of the candidates to stand down.
rcs1000 If eu ref produces a narrow In and the Tories have to move right to keep sceptic Out voters on board and not in UKIP then that creates a space for the LDs, as does the fact Farron will get Labour tactical votes in a way Clegg could not
I am cherry picking seats because the average for non-incumbent LibDems is skewed by a few seats. Two which were traditionally Labour seats and where there was no Conservative vote to squeeze. The MPs realised they would be massacred and stood down accordingly.
You are confusing cause and effect.
7 losses to the Tories, 2 each to Lab & SNP. Looks fairly representative of the larger picture to me.
The question is the issue of causality. I believe that incumbents who believed they were more at risk of losing were much more likely to stand down.
I would argue that the two most likely LibDem losses in 2015, irrespective of the nationwide LibDem vote share and 'incumbency', were Brent Central and Redcar. And that the near certainty of defeat influenced the decision of the candidates to stand down.
Norwich South was, as per the odds, even more of an obvious loss than those two. As was Argyll & Bute (but Scotland was qualitatively different for obvious reasons).
Sarah Teather stood down because she didn't believe in the LDs any more. Is it any wonder her constituents agreed?!
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].
I think they'd also be a lot of merit in moving the English Parliament out of London.
I quite like Manchester as an idea. Northern Powerhouse and all that
I am in Belgium for a day for business next month, but due in the Torquay for the weekend that evening. Brussels Airlines are quoting over €300 euros for a one way fair to Bristol which seems outrageously expensive, and i cant see any way to get to Exeter airport either.
Anybody have any ideas that don't involve the eurostar back to London then back on the train from Paddington?
I am cherry picking seats because the average for non-incumbent LibDems is skewed by a few seats. Two which were traditionally Labour seats and where there was no Conservative vote to squeeze. The MPs realised they would be massacred and stood down accordingly.
You are confusing cause and effect.
7 losses to the Tories, 2 each to Lab & SNP. Looks fairly representative of the larger picture to me.
The question is the issue of causality. I believe that incumbents who believed they were more at risk of losing were much more likely to stand down.
I would argue that the two most likely LibDem losses in 2015, irrespective of the nationwide LibDem vote share and 'incumbency', were Brent Central and Redcar. And that the near certainty of defeat influenced the decision of the candidates to stand down.
Norwich South was, as per the odds, even more of an obvious loss than those two. As was Argyll & Bute (but Scotland was qualitatively different for obvious reasons).
Sarah Teather stood down because she didn't believe in the LDs any more. Is it any wonder her constituents agreed?!
Most LD losses were simply because the LDs lost more than two-thirds of their vote.
Where they beat the swing, it was usually because they benefitted from tactical voting (i.e. Scotland, and a few seats where Conservative voters lend their votes).
The LDs may - or may not - stage a recovery in 2020. If they rebuild their councillor base over the next four years, I'd expect an improvement in 2020. If they do not, then it could be curtains.
As I've said downthread, whether the circumstances for a recovery exist or not is largely out of their hands.
Bond/MM Attlee is revered by Labour and Thatcher is the Tory equivalent of Attlee, both shifted the centre ground left or right respectively and won elections. Blair is the equivalent of Cameron, both tolerated as long as they win, but the Tory base are not exactly in love with Cameron either and certainly will not be if he leads the In campaign to a narrow win in EU ref, Europe could be Cameron's Iraq if it goes wrong
Yes, but 84% of English & Wales LD held seats were within 4% of the UNS swing. The exceptions being a few where they did better (Cambridge) and a few where people were retiring and they did worse.
But that's exactly the point.
Forget the national swing, it's not relevant to this discussion (not least for the reason antifrank gives). What is relevant is the difference between LibDem defences where the incumbent was standing, and LibDem defences where they had a new candidate.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
I doubt Hunt will stand for election in 2020. He was never a serious option for leader.
On another note, Thomas Cook could be going through an end of company experience. Has no-one there ever heard of reputation management?
Its sad. The day after the Glasgow airport terrorist strike I was supposed to be flying out on holiday in the morning with my family. The airport was shut initially but the story was it was going to open so we all got shuttled up there from our various hotels. They had to drop us off a good distance away because on the stable door principle no vehicles were being allowed close.
My son, who was about 3 at the time, was on the news marching up the road to go on his holidays with his wee trolley case behind him. When we got to the airport the queue to get in was right across the entire carpark area and out onto a roundabout. After about half an hour Thomas Cook reps came and directed us to terminal 2 which they used. We left the huge queue and went down there. Less than half an hour after the airport had officially opened every single checking in point for Thomas Cook was manned with staff who just could not have been more helpful.
It was an incredible achievement and I have used Thomas Cook ever since.
This case, unfortunately, is an example of what happens when lawyers stop being advisors and get too near the decision making process.
Bond/MM Attlee is revered by Labour and Thatcher is the Tory equivalent of Attlee, both shifted the centre ground left or right respectively and won elections. Blair is the equivalent of Cameron, both tolerated as long as they win, but the Tory base are not exactly in love with Cameron either and certainly will not be if he leads the In campaign to a narrow win in EU ref, Europe could be Cameron's Iraq if it goes wrong
And if Cameron leads a 3:1 vote to stay in?
His Falklands?
I think a 3:1 win for in would allow Cameron to ignore UKIP completely and stake out the centre right ground. It would be a disaster for the LibDems.
On the other hand, a narrow "in" would lead to civil war in the Conservatives and possibly a move rightwards.
I am cherry picking seats because the average for non-incumbent LibDems is skewed by a few seats. Two which were traditionally Labour seats and where there was no Conservative vote to squeeze. The MPs realised they would be massacred and stood down accordingly.
You are confusing cause and effect.
7 losses to the Tories, 2 each to Lab & SNP. Looks fairly representative of the larger picture to me.
The question is the issue of causality. I believe that incumbents who believed they were more at risk of losing were much more likely to stand down.
I would argue that the two most likely LibDem losses in 2015, irrespective of the nationwide LibDem vote share and 'incumbency', were Brent Central and Redcar. And that the near certainty of defeat influenced the decision of the candidates to stand down.
Norwich South was, as per the odds, even more of an obvious loss than those two. As was Argyll & Bute (but Scotland was qualitatively different for obvious reasons).
Sarah Teather stood down because she didn't believe in the LDs any more. Is it any wonder her constituents agreed?!
Most LD losses were simply because the LDs lost more than two-thirds of their vote.
Where they beat the swing, it was usually because they benefitted from tactical voting (i.e. Scotland, and a few seats where Conservative voters lend their votes).
The LDs may - or may not - stage a recovery in 2020. If they rebuild their councillor base over the next four years, I'd expect an improvement in 2020. If they do not, then it could be curtains.
As I've said downthread, whether the circumstances for a recovery exist or not is largely out of their hands.
I agree with a lot that has been said above, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the need for a 'liberal' party. Regardless of whether the LibDems fulfil that role, there is a constituency that has a social conscience and doesn't want Toryism but rejects the Labour top down 'we know best' attitude. I suspect that we are at about the core vote of 8% for those electors.
rcs1000/MM A 3:1 in vote would be a Cameron triumph , but will only occur if Juncker decides to rename the EU the Common Market again and restore all powers over migrants, fishing quotas etc to Westminster, which is about as likely as Juncker joining UKIP. An Out vote would settle the matter, but I think the voters will hold back from that, a token renegotiation with a narrow In vote is most likely in my view and as rcs1000 suggests that would lead to Tory splits and a move right post Cameron
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.
Absolutely and well done btw in calling the GE more accurately than most.
People are already unfairly calling Kendall a non-entity but of course we need a proper contest to see what these people are really made of. My fear with Burnham is that he is a Wilsonian figure that will cave in when the going gets tough as Harold did to the unions while dumping on Barbara Castle.
madasfish Even Burnham has been saying Labour needs to talk more about aspiration
The idea that Burnham is a some kind of lunatic leftie is far-fetched, to say the least. Like Cooper, he is very much New Labour. There is no left-wing candidate standing (for now, at least) for the Labour leadership this time. What makes Kendall interesting to me is that she is not really part of the old New Labour crowd. Yesterday's solutions and arguments belong to yesterday. And New Labour - with its triangulations, accommodations and lack of boldness - is not really what the centre-left now needs. That said, any one of the three will be a substantial improvement ion the last leader and maybe the a proper contest will draw some more out of them than has been revealed up to now.
I got annoyed enough with scrolling this massive page of expanded quotes to add a couple of CSS rules to the widget. This collapses everything below the second quote and just leaves a line where it used to be, but you can expand it by hovering over the line.
I think it only works on Firefox nowadays (with the Greasemonkey extension) because security.
Only tested on Linux but probably works on all Firefoxes. YMMV.
I think you're mixing cause and effect. The incumbents stood down in Brent Central and Redcar because they knew that those were seats where - thanks to the coalition - they were going to see 25% swings against them.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
If you're going to start cherry-picking particular seats (and I agree that every seat is different), then you need to do the same on the other side of the coin. You also need to adjust for seats like Berwick-upon-Tweed where Anne-Marie Trevelyan had already spent years chipping away at Sir Alan's personal vote.
The big picture, though, is that there was a ratchet effect on the LibDem's rise, and there will be a ratchet effect in their fall. They, more than any other party, were reliant on incumbency, and they more than any other party will be hit next time by the first-time-incumbency advantage of their opponents.
Bah, I might as well not bother writing tomorrow's post, you're saying it all.
The Lib Dems are so much more screwed than has been generally appreciated.
That is probably true and unfortunately so much is out of their hands now. One consolation is their strength in the House of Lords where there are in excess of 100 LD peers with power to add in the dissolution honours. They will also have a good chance to rebuild locally now the spotlight's off.
I am in Belgium for a day for business next month, but due in the Torquay for the weekend that evening. Brussels Airlines are quoting over €300 euros for a one way fair to Bristol which seems outrageously expensive, and i cant see any way to get to Exeter airport either.
Anybody have any ideas that don't involve the eurostar back to London then back on the train from Paddington?
Depends what time you need to be in Torquay. Potentially a London City to Exeter flight (8:10pm depart City, 9:25pm arrive Exeter). Would think that Eurostar Belgium to London then that flight might work?
I'm sure she's easily over the line. Here's what Tristram Hunt said a few minutes ago:
Like other potential candidates in recent days I have made a lot of calls to potential supporters among my parliamentary colleagues.
I found that the bulk of MPs are already committed to just a couple of candidates.
(And from the context it's clear that Liz isn't one of them)
This electoral system is pathetic. There are only five potential candidates, not 55. Get them all on the ballot and give members a chance to vote for who WE want. If only Burnham and Cooper make it onto the ballot, then what's the point?
I am in Belgium for a day for business next month, but due in the Torquay for the weekend that evening. Brussels Airlines are quoting over €300 euros for a one way fair to Bristol which seems outrageously expensive, and i cant see any way to get to Exeter airport either.
Anybody have any ideas that don't involve the eurostar back to London then back on the train from Paddington?
Flybe have a daily flight from Amsterdam to Exeter, but it is due in to Exeter at 22:10, which is just 36 minutes before the last train from Exeter St Davids to Torquay.
This should be enough time if the plane is not delayed and you don't have any checked baggage, but be sure to book a taxi ahead, because the taxi[s] on the rank at Exeter Airport tend to hang around to wait for several passengers.
I assume making it from Brussels to Amsterdam airport will be relatively easy, but have never done that.
I got annoyed enough with scrolling this massive page of expanded quotes to add a couple of CSS rules to the widget. This collapses everything below the second quote and just leaves a line where it used to be, but you can expand it by hovering over the line.
I think it only works on Firefox nowadays (with the Greasemonkey extension) because security.
Only tested on Linux but probably works on all Firefoxes. YMMV.
I am cherry picking seats because the average for non-incumbent LibDems is skewed by a few seats. Two which were traditionally Labour seats and where there was no Conservative vote to squeeze. The MPs realised they would be massacred and stood down accordingly.
You are confusing cause and effect.
7 losses to the Tories, 2 each to Lab & SNP. Looks fairly representative of the larger picture to me.
The question is the issue of causality. I believe that incumbents who believed they were more at risk of losing were much more likely to stand down.
I would argue that the two most likely LibDem losses in 2015, irrespective of the nationwide LibDem vote share and 'incumbency', were Brent Central and Redcar. And that the near certainty of defeat influenced the decision of the candidates to stand down.
Norwich South was, as per the odds, even more of an obvious loss than those two. As was Argyll & Bute (but Scotland was qualitatively different for obvious reasons).
Sarah Teather stood down because she didn't believe in the LDs any more. Is it any wonder her constituents agreed?!
Most LD losses were simply because the LDs lost more than two-thirds of their vote.
Where they beat the swing, it was usually because they benefitted from tactical voting (i.e. Scotland, and a few seats where Conservative voters lend their votes).
The LDs may - or may not - stage a recovery in 2020. If they rebuild their councillor base over the next four years, I'd expect an improvement in 2020. If they do not, then it could be curtains.
As I've said downthread, whether the circumstances for a recovery exist or not is largely out of their hands.
I agree with a lot that has been said above, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the need for a 'liberal' party. Regardless of whether the LibDems fulfil that role, there is a constituency that has a social conscience and doesn't want Toryism but rejects the Labour top down 'we know best' attitude. I suspect that we are at about the core vote of 8% for those electors.
I'd just like to point out the logical fallacy in your argument.
It is possible to have a social conscience and want Toryism
I got annoyed enough with scrolling this massive page of expanded quotes to add a couple of CSS rules to the widget. This collapses everything below the second quote and just leaves a line where it used to be, but you can expand it by hovering over the line.
This electoral system is pathetic. There are only five potential candidates, not 55. Get them all on the ballot and give members a chance to vote for who WE want. If only Burnham and Cooper make it onto the ballot, then what's the point?
The point, presumably, is to ensure that any candidate has enough support amongst MPs to be a realistic choice of leader. Seems sensible enough.
[description of the cabinet members individually] The talking haemorrhoid. The mafia dentist. The Devouring Moon. Spidergran. The shimmering fatberg. The little angry Lego man. Chalkie the Presbyterian ghost. “Bugsy Malign”. The puckered gland. That one who looks like a giggling spring onion. The whole bastard Bash Street gang of them.
I can't imagine any credible right wing paper describing the Labour front bench in such terms. Truly the Guardian has some nasty people writing for it.
I am in Belgium for a day for business next month, but due in the Torquay for the weekend that evening. Brussels Airlines are quoting over €300 euros for a one way fair to Bristol which seems outrageously expensive, and i cant see any way to get to Exeter airport either.
Anybody have any ideas that don't involve the eurostar back to London then back on the train from Paddington?
Flybe have a daily flight from Amsterdam to Exeter, but it is due in to Exeter at 22:10, which is just 36 minutes before the last train from Exeter St Davids to Torquay.
This should be enough time if the plane is not delayed and you don't have any checked baggage, but be sure to book a taxi ahead, because the taxi[s] on the rank at Exeter Airport tend to hang around to wait for several passengers.
I assume making it from Brussels to Amsterdam airport will be relatively easy, but have never done that.
Brussels -> Amsterdam is further than you think. It's a minimum 2 hours 15 on the train, plus you need to get to (and navigate) Schipol.
I'm sure she's easily over the line. Here's what Tristram Hunt said a few minutes ago:
Like other potential candidates in recent days I have made a lot of calls to potential supporters among my parliamentary colleagues.
I found that the bulk of MPs are already committed to just a couple of candidates.
(And from the context it's clear that Liz isn't one of them)
This electoral system is pathetic. There are only five potential candidates, not 55. Get them all on the ballot and give members a chance to vote for who WE want. If only Burnham and Cooper make it onto the ballot, then what's the point?
Rubbish. If the MPs don't want to be led by someone, why force them? And they are much better placed than members to know whether or not the individual has the capacity to lead (setting aside policies).
This electoral system is pathetic. There are only five potential candidates, not 55. Get them all on the ballot and give members a chance to vote for who WE want. If only Burnham and Cooper make it onto the ballot, then what's the point?
The point, presumably, is to ensure that any candidate has enough support amongst MPs to be a realistic choice of leader. Seems sensible enough.
The interesting thing is whilst the election moved from the electoral college to a OMOV system (though a very bizarre one where membership has a whole series of meanings), the nomination process was left largely untouched.
Burnham winning without facing at least 3 candidates will be a very tainted victory. And we know how badly the last 2 guys did under those circumstances.
I can't imagine any credible right wing paper describing the Labour front bench in such terms. Truly the Guardian has some nasty people writing for it.
I think the author is the guy described as "swearing consultant" on The Thick of It, and these descriptions are meant to be interpreted humorously
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)
You can hardly compare Major 'won an election' with Brown......
SO I would agree with that, Abbott was a genuine leftwing candidate in 2010 and even Ed Miliband was more leftwing than the candidates standing this time
I am in Belgium for a day for business next month, but due in the Torquay for the weekend that evening. Brussels Airlines are quoting over €300 euros for a one way fair to Bristol which seems outrageously expensive, and i cant see any way to get to Exeter airport either.
Anybody have any ideas that don't involve the eurostar back to London then back on the train from Paddington?
Flybe have a daily flight from Amsterdam to Exeter, but it is due in to Exeter at 22:10, which is just 36 minutes before the last train from Exeter St Davids to Torquay.
This should be enough time if the plane is not delayed and you don't have any checked baggage, but be sure to book a taxi ahead, because the taxi[s] on the rank at Exeter Airport tend to hang around to wait for several passengers.
I assume making it from Brussels to Amsterdam airport will be relatively easy, but have never done that.
Brussels -> Amsterdam is further than you think. It's a minimum 2 hours 15 on the train, plus you need to get to (and navigate) Schipol.
Why not simply charter a plane to Exeter?
Has anyone done Uber for planes yet? Like the online equivalent of writing "Virgin Airlines, $29" on a blackboard.
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)
Though Thatcher was hated by her opposition that she defeated three times. Blair is hated by his own side that he won for three times.
If the left want to count Blair as a Tory it means the country has chosen a Tory-led government in every elected in the last forty years - a rather bizarre claim to make. You don't see her own side repudiating Thatcher.
I am in Belgium for a day for business next month, but due in the Torquay for the weekend that evening. Brussels Airlines are quoting over €300 euros for a one way fair to Bristol which seems outrageously expensive, and i cant see any way to get to Exeter airport either.
Anybody have any ideas that don't involve the eurostar back to London then back on the train from Paddington?
Depends what time you need to be in Torquay. Potentially a London City to Exeter flight (8:10pm depart City, 9:25pm arrive Exeter). Would think that Eurostar Belgium to London then that flight might work?
Didn't realise there was a London City to Exeter flight actually. Sounds like a good solution Cheers.
I hate the FGW service down to Newton Abbott, horrible long distance service, so I try and avoid if I can.
Comments
I suspect Thomas Cook relied on lawyers only for advice. On an apparently open and shut case of negligence.
Whereas Germanwings - the suicide pilot's airline - started paying out at once... and appear to have suffered minimal reputational damage.
Mr. Me, indeed. English votes for English laws works as a stopgap, not a lasting settlement. Equality demands an English Parliament.
I disagree with you about the desire for an English Parliament, though. I think such a move would have appeal to the English. The parties are another matter (the left want to balkanise England into petty fiefdoms, the Conservatives appear afraid of emasculating Westminster).
Bath Don Foster 26.9%
Berwick-upon-Tweed Alan Beith 14.8%
Brent Central Sarah Teather 35.8%
Dorset Mid and Poole North Annette Brooke 16.9%
Fife North East Sir Menzies Campbell 13.0%
Gordon Malcolm Bruce 3.3%
Hazel Grove Andrew Stunell 22.6%
Portsmouth South Mike Hancock 23.6%
Redcar Ian Swales 26.7%
Somerton and Frome David Heath 28.1%
Taunton Deane Jeremy Browne 27.7%
LD who stood again averaged a loss of 14.3%.
Somerton and Frome 28.1
Taunton Deane 28.1
Bath 26.9
Camborne and Redruth 25
Truro and Falmouth 24
Portsmouth South 23.6
One that appears to buck the trend slightly:
Mid Dorset and North Poole 16.9 !!!
Perhaps there was a bit of a 'buzz' around there for the yellow peril.
He didn't choose his Christian names.
Forget the national swing, it's not relevant to this discussion (not least for the reason antifrank gives). What is relevant is the difference between LibDem defences where the incumbent was standing, and LibDem defences where they had a new candidate.
Really, all that chart shows is that Don Foster, Jeremy Browne and David Heath had big personal votes.
Labour is about sowing division and then robbing groups it hates to fund those it sucks up to for their votes. It's about curtailing personal prosperity and social mobility because those turn client voters into Conservative voters. If you have to abandon that to gain power what is the point of gaining power?
Edit: AntiFrank beat me to it.
Remove those and Portsmouth South (where Mike Hancock was standing against the LibDems and picked up 9% or so), and you get an almost identical swing in incumbent and non-incumbent seats.
The big picture, though, is that there was a ratchet effect on the LibDems' rise, and there will be a ratchet effect in their fall. They, more than any other party, were reliant on incumbency, and they more than any other party will be hit next time by the first-time-incumbency advantage of their opponents.
As regards education, the answer must be the latter and a good start has been made when Morgan said this would not be an era of further upheavals. But surely she will be challenged to stick to that and to strike a tone that reflects it.
May has been dealt a slightly stronger hand with the Police Federation to talk about - how unrepresentative it was, how it should reduce membership fees, and so on. Hopefully she can keep ordinary police onside in the years to come.
The Lib Dems are so much more screwed than has been generally appreciated.
But so much is out of the LibDem's hands. If the Conservatives move right to "head off" UKIP, then they create a space in the centre for the LibDems. On the other hand, if the Conservatives decide to occupy the centre-right ground and let UKIP alone (on the basis that a 12% vote share to the right of the Conservative Party is worth it for the detoxifying effect), then the LibDems will have little space to occupy.
Likewise, if the Labour Party moves even more stridently "anti-austerity" to head off the Greens, then it creates a centre-left position for the LibDems. And if it elects Kendall and heads to the centre, then it squeezes the LibDems even harder.
My contention is not that the LibDems will gain, or that they will lose, in 2020. It is merely that their performance, in terms of seats, will depend - as it did in 2015 - almost entirely on their vote share.
Of course, they may very well not get to 11% (it's what, a 30% chance?_). But I reckon that if they do, they will gain seats.
£20?
Some time (sometimes long) after this the final payments are given out (with amounts differing according to where the relatives live. Sadly American lives are more 'valuable' than Asian or African ones.
You are confusing cause and effect.
The incumbents knew they were going to get slaughtered and stepped down.
If the LibDems get 14% in 2020, I would expect them to make half a dozen gains.
But that's a very big 'if', and much of it depends on the decisions of the leaders of the Conservative and Labour Parties (as well as 'events').
I would argue that the two most likely LibDem losses in 2015, irrespective of the nationwide LibDem vote share and 'incumbency', were Brent Central and Redcar. And that the near certainty of defeat influenced the decision of the candidates to stand down.
Sarah Teather stood down because she didn't believe in the LDs any more. Is it any wonder her constituents agreed?!
Rather you than me...
Thanks.
Is she close to 35 MPs ?
I quite like Manchester as an idea. Northern Powerhouse and all that
I am in Belgium for a day for business next month, but due in the Torquay for the weekend that evening. Brussels Airlines are quoting over €300 euros for a one way fair to Bristol which seems outrageously expensive, and i cant see any way to get to Exeter airport either.
Anybody have any ideas that don't involve the eurostar back to London then back on the train from Paddington?
What terms?
Where they beat the swing, it was usually because they benefitted from tactical voting (i.e. Scotland, and a few seats where Conservative voters lend their votes).
The LDs may - or may not - stage a recovery in 2020. If they rebuild their councillor base over the next four years, I'd expect an improvement in 2020. If they do not, then it could be curtains.
As I've said downthread, whether the circumstances for a recovery exist or not is largely out of their hands.
Like Leeds.
His Falklands?
Like other potential candidates in recent days I have made a lot of calls to potential supporters among my parliamentary colleagues.
I found that the bulk of MPs are already committed to just a couple of candidates.
(And from the context it's clear that Liz isn't one of them)
Took £50 at 5.1 - I think she should be second favourite tbh perhaps 3-1 at the longest.
Best city in the world and site of the we're alllllriiiggghhhttt speech by Kinnock in 1992
My son, who was about 3 at the time, was on the news marching up the road to go on his holidays with his wee trolley case behind him. When we got to the airport the queue to get in was right across the entire carpark area and out onto a roundabout. After about half an hour Thomas Cook reps came and directed us to terminal 2 which they used. We left the huge queue and went down there. Less than half an hour after the airport had officially opened every single checking in point for Thomas Cook was manned with staff who just could not have been more helpful.
It was an incredible achievement and I have used Thomas Cook ever since.
This case, unfortunately, is an example of what happens when lawyers stop being advisors and get too near the decision making process.
On the other hand, a narrow "in" would lead to civil war in the Conservatives and possibly a move rightwards.
An "out" on the other hand...
I suspect that we are at about the core vote of 8% for those electors.
People are already unfairly calling Kendall a non-entity but of course we need a proper contest to see what these people are really made of. My fear with Burnham is that he is a Wilsonian figure that will cave in when the going gets tough as Harold did to the unions while dumping on Barbara Castle.
@patrickwintour: Anguish written down. "You’re now 37% Tory. So am I. And if you don’t agree, you’re in denial" http://t.co/56WwHCGJUD
Geographically, it does work, and there's a nice sense of history there [founded by the Romans as the capital of Britannia Minor, I think].
I also agree ABWNBPM as I think Yvette Cooper will be next Labour leader anyway, the odds on her are getting a little more tempting
I got annoyed enough with scrolling this massive page of expanded quotes to add a couple of CSS rules to the widget. This collapses everything below the second quote and just leaves a line where it used to be, but you can expand it by hovering over the line.
I think it only works on Firefox nowadays (with the Greasemonkey extension) because security.
Only tested on Linux but probably works on all Firefoxes. YMMV.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/edmundedgar/greasemonkey-widgets/master/pb/pb_vanilla_edmund_widget.user.js
Airport and HS2 on the doorstep. Slap bang in the middle of the Motorway network, and security should be relatively easy too.
This should be enough time if the plane is not delayed and you don't have any checked baggage, but be sure to book a taxi ahead, because the taxi[s] on the rank at Exeter Airport tend to hang around to wait for several passengers.
I assume making it from Brussels to Amsterdam airport will be relatively easy, but have never done that.
It is possible to have a social conscience and want Toryism
[description of the cabinet members individually] The talking haemorrhoid. The mafia dentist. The Devouring Moon. Spidergran. The shimmering fatberg. The little angry Lego man. Chalkie the Presbyterian ghost. “Bugsy Malign”. The puckered gland. That one who looks like a giggling spring onion. The whole bastard Bash Street gang of them.
I can't imagine any credible right wing paper describing the Labour front bench in such terms. Truly the Guardian has some nasty people writing for it.
Why not simply charter a plane to Exeter?
15% is a reasonable bar.
Burnham winning without facing at least 3 candidates will be a very tainted victory. And we know how badly the last 2 guys did under those circumstances.
I think I went for Minor because, as one does, I was perusing the Wikipedia page on prenomen the other day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenomen
If the left want to count Blair as a Tory it means the country has chosen a Tory-led government in every elected in the last forty years - a rather bizarre claim to make. You don't see her own side repudiating Thatcher.
I hate the FGW service down to Newton Abbott, horrible long distance service, so I try and avoid if I can.