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.
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.
I really do not buy this Union nonsense. It is in the MP's interests to pick the candidate that is most likely to be the winner- first because they want to see a change in Govt, and second they want to be in the winner's tent for their own aspirations. Only MP's with no careerist plans, or post careerist plans will vote elsewhere.
Last time the MP's substantially picked David, but Ed scored well because of the malcontented Brownites. There is no such glaring schism now, just a highly despondent set of MP's wanting to make the right choice. And perhaps that is Andy Burnham?
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
And if you're not one of the 15%, but you still support that candidate, why would you nominate anyone else?
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 think the reality of government is a shock to many. Ideas, manifesto commitments and policies that sounded good at a podium actually often dont work when put to pilot. Blair was sensible and cautious. I think the left dont forgive easily that caution.
With the majority he had he could have legislated for the Socialist Paradise they wanted, but he didnt. He introduced in some ways sensible and thought through measures. Some of the things they did wrong they ended up reversing later on in office.
It was decisions they took from an idealogical perspective which failed.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
The problem is MPs are not entirely, or even mainly, signing on to the candidate they want to be led by - they are calculating who might win and positioning themselves.
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
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
Mrs Balls looks to me to be the middle ground candidate between Burnham and Kendall. Under AV that may well work in her favour. She seems to have the numbers too - something we aren't quite sure of with Liz.
I think her chances improve if Liz makes it through to the next stage also - even though it shouldn't make any difference under AV I can see it being so...
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007... So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
And if you're not one of the 15%, but you still support that candidate, why would you nominate anyone else?
As your second preference! Or, if you believe in party democracy, to allow the membership a chance to choose who they want as party leader out of a list of only 5 possibilities.
In summary, MPs can keep half of the candidates off the ballot, and then anyone off the street can pay £3 to get a vote. Why am I a member again?
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007... So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
That is a demolition job. A richly deserved one too.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
And if you're not one of the 15%, but you still support that candidate, why would you nominate anyone else?
It is, of course, totally possible that you would want to support multiple candidates at this stage - before they have fully set out their positions and been tested through a campaign.
Limiting MPs to nominating just 1 candidate each creates a forced and thus false choice at a point in the selection process where a multiplicity of voices is absolutely vital to a proper debate and giving the membership a real choice.
If Burnham does win in a tainted way, this process will haunt him just as it did with Brown's 'coronation' and Miliband's 'only the unions wanted me' victory.
So he did. However I was talking about Wilson's failures as PM where his weakness over the economy and unions led to 25% inflation. the IMF and eventually under his dumped on successor the winter of discontent, followed by 18 years of Tory government. I am not ruling out Burnham but he needs to fight a proper contest in full glare of public scrutiny rather than try and stitch up things in advance.
@schofieldkevin: Crunch talks to end the War of Skinner's Seat taking place this afternoon between SNP and Labour whips. I'm not making this stuff up.
This is a battle only Dennis Skinner can win.He has custom and practice on his side.It means he has established a contract with the House of Commons that this is his seat and no-one else's.If the SNP's priorities are kicking an 83 year old granddad out of his seat,they are showing themselves up for the big jessies they really are.
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007... So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
That is a demolition job. A richly deserved one too.
Its worth going back and having a look at the Conservative Leadership contest back in 2005, it certainly garnered far more public interest as well as media attention than the subsequent Labour Leadership contest did in 2010. And more importantly, the public certainly seemed to think that the right man won in the end, which is more than can be said when Ed Miliband then won that Labour contest in 2010. It also proves that Cameron was hardly an non-entity in the minds of the public by the time he became Conservative party Leader.
@SouthamObserver I agree with @CarlottaVance. It's not that Davis was a 'middling minister' or Cameron an 'unknown' that is the issue (and I would still disagree, incidentally, that they were nonentities). The issue is that Cooper and Burnham have been around for many years, including long spells at the top of government, and are still hapless nonentities. That was not something that could be said of any of the five candidates in 2005 except possibly Fox.
Cameron was a non-entity. And he became PM. Being a non-entity is no barrier to anything. Being damaged goods is an issue - and one that may be far more pertinent for both Burnham and Cooper. That's why the scrutiny of a proper leadership contest is so important for Labour. Who wins is far less of an issue than the process by which they get there.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree SO. I do not think anyone who went from being a bag-carrier to being party leader in just five years, and then PM in another five, can be considered a nonentity (and I notice you seem reluctant to expand on your reasons for thinking he is one). Whether he is a leader of talent, good judgement and shrewdness is another thing (he clearly isn't) but it suggests he has got something about him. (I would feel the same way about Kendall, incidentally if she wins - not Hunt though, because if he gets on the ballot paper it will be because he's a TV presenter.)
Coming fourth in a contest after a long spell in cabinet, or even being unable to run - that's being a nonentity.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
And if you're not one of the 15%, but you still support that candidate, why would you nominate anyone else?
It is, of course, totally possible that you would want to support multiple candidates at this stage - before they have fully set out their positions and been tested through a campaign.
Limiting MPs to nominating just 1 candidate each creates a forced and thus false choice at a point in the selection process where a multiplicity of voices is absolutely vital to a proper debate and giving the membership a real choice.
If Burnham does win in a tainted way, this process will haunt him just as it did with Brown's 'coronation' and Miliband's 'only the unions wanted me' victory.
The whole point of the nominations process is to limit the membership's choice. This is by design, and is sensible.
@schofieldkevin: Crunch talks to end the War of Skinner's Seat taking place this afternoon between SNP and Labour whips. I'm not making this stuff up.
This is a battle only Dennis Skinner can win.He has custom and practice on his side.It means he has established a contract with the House of Commons that this is his seat and no-one else's.If the SNP's priorities are kicking an 83 year old granddad out of his seat,they are showing themselves up for the big jessies they really are.
The SNP's behaviour since winning so many seats has been very poor. They are entitled to play their full part in the life of Westminster, but they have no right to overturn everything in front of them.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
And if you're not one of the 15%, but you still support that candidate, why would you nominate anyone else?
It is, of course, totally possible that you would want to support multiple candidates at this stage - before they have fully set out their positions and been tested through a campaign.
Limiting MPs to nominating just 1 candidate each creates a forced and thus false choice at a point in the selection process where a multiplicity of voices is absolutely vital to a proper debate and giving the membership a real choice.
If Burnham does win in a tainted way, this process will haunt him just as it did with Brown's 'coronation' and Miliband's 'only the unions wanted me' victory.
TBF even if the Guardian piece checks out they've already got two candidates pretty much confirmed, plus another one very likely. Three candidates isn't a coronation.
I mean, when the Tories do this the members are only allowed to choose between two, and the MPs have been known to plot and scheme to make sure the one the members would like best isn't on the ballot.
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007... So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
That is a demolition job. A richly deserved one too.
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007... So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
That is a demolition job. A richly deserved one too.
Good to see a manifest commitment I welcomed in action (I went to a campaign event for it) - the government is to end the practice of designating a police cell a relevant "place of safety" for those detained on mental health grounds affecting FOUR THOUSAND people a year.
As the written version of May's speech says: "Nobody wins when the police are sent to look after people suffering from mental health problems; vulnerable people don’t get the care they need and deserve, and the police can’t get on with the job they are trained to do."
The whole point of the nominations process is to limit the membership's choice. This is by design, and is sensible.
Limit to no more than six yes (at 15% each). That has a field of choice that is small enough to be debated properly.
I don't think it was intended to limit it to merely one or two only. If that was intended there'd be no need for AV. Signing up 80% rather than 15% flies in the face of having a proper choice.
The whole point of the nominations process is to limit the membership's choice. This is by design, and is sensible.
It is sensible to limit the choice to a reasonable number of candidates (a 10-person field would be unmanageable) but creating a system that effectively creates a coronation-effect is absolutely not sensible.
Cutting off the debate before it has started is absolutely not sensible.
There has to be a better way. This is tainting the process.
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.
My father worked in construction during the New Labour years. Their switch over from compulsory competitive tender to preferred bidder status for new school buildings meant that contractors raised their prices in response, usually by 100%, trousering millions because the Government was too stupid to stop them. I don't doubt this happened in many other service sectors too. You have to accept that regardless of whether you feel spending on frontline services was necessary, very little of that money made it to the frontline, a great deal of it was wasted.
Absolutely agree with you on this, but don't hold your breath about the new intake of SNP MP's behaviour improving. Just look at the previous behaviour of SNP role models they are expected to follow within the SNP Parliamentary Party.
@schofieldkevin: Crunch talks to end the War of Skinner's Seat taking place this afternoon between SNP and Labour whips. I'm not making this stuff up.
This is a battle only Dennis Skinner can win.He has custom and practice on his side.It means he has established a contract with the House of Commons that this is his seat and no-one else's.If the SNP's priorities are kicking an 83 year old granddad out of his seat,they are showing themselves up for the big jessies they really are.
The SNP's behaviour since winning so many seats has been very poor. They are entitled to play their full part in the life of Westminster, but they have no right to overturn everything in front of them.
The whole point of the nominations process is to limit the membership's choice. This is by design, and is sensible.
Limit to no more than six yes (at 15% each). That has a field of choice that is small enough to be debated properly.
I don't think it was intended to limit it to merely one or two only. If that was intended there'd be no need for AV. Signing up 80% rather than 15% flies in the face of having a proper choice.
If you set the bar at 15%, you'd need a very equal field to get more than four candidates, or, per last time, notional nominees only.
A party that was serious about reviving itself would also be rethinking how it chooses its leaders, because the old models are bust and politics needs to change. Not change in a let’s make speeches with the word change in every paragraph fashion. Not change as in let’s have a conference on a Saturday morning in central London and talk to each other about change. Something much more radical is required. Even the most recent reforms of Labour’s electoral college do not go far enough. Why not seek a proper public vote? With public hustings and a televised run-off, X Factor style, Labour might find that someone such as Liz Kendall connects with voters and captures their attention as the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon and Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson have done in Scotland.
The whole point of the nominations process is to limit the membership's choice. This is by design, and is sensible.
It is sensible to limit the choice to a reasonable number of candidates (a 10-person field would be unmanageable) but creating a system that effectively creates a coronation-effect is absolutely not sensible.
Cutting off the debate before it has started is absolutely not sensible.
There has to be a better way. This is tainting the process.
If the choice is ultimately Burnham vs Cooper vs Kendall then that seems fair enough. It will make the hustings (and presumably some sort of TV debate) much more focussed and useful, too.
Theresa May is giving a brilliant headmistress-style telling-off to the Police Federation:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007... So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
That is a demolition job. A richly deserved one too.
2,000 police officers were found badly bruised and unconscious in their cells. The Home Secretary said they were like that when she got there and the bleeding from her knuckles was caused by her catching her hand repeatedly on the cell wall.
The whole point of the nominations process is to limit the membership's choice. This is by design, and is sensible.
Limit to no more than six yes (at 15% each). That has a field of choice that is small enough to be debated properly.
I don't think it was intended to limit it to merely one or two only. If that was intended there'd be no need for AV. Signing up 80% rather than 15% flies in the face of having a proper choice.
No-one's doing that (other than Brown). Labour are going to get 3 candidates put to the membership and that seems like a good number. The Tories did very well out of having just two - it made their process (and move to the centre that DC represented) seem more decisive.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
Although that would deprive the members of valuable signalling information about how strongly the MP community feels that someone is the best candidate.
Labour are going to get 3 candidates put to the membership and that seems like a good number. The Tories did very well out of having just two - it made their process (and move to the centre that DC represented) seem more decisive.
The issue Labour have (that the Tories didn't really) is it is not clear if any of those 3 have the faintest clue what they need to do to revive a moribund party.
A different selection process might yield 3 better options for the membership to choose from.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
Although that would deprive the members of valuable signalling information about how strongly the MP community feels that someone is the best candidate.
Look at how well the voters in the electoral college took that advice last time...
Their switch over from compulsory competitive tender to preferred bidder status for new school buildings meant that contractors raised their prices in response, usually by 100%, trousering millions because the Government was too stupid to stop them.
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).
15% is a reasonable bar.
As others have suggested, let them sign up 15% - and then stop. One candidate with 86% of MPs nominating them is not a democratic process.
Although that would deprive the members of valuable signalling information about how strongly the MP community feels that someone is the best candidate.
Labour are going to get 3 candidates put to the membership and that seems like a good number. The Tories did very well out of having just two - it made their process (and move to the centre that DC represented) seem more decisive.
The issue Labour have (that the Tories didn't really) is it is not clear if any of those 3 have the faintest clue what they need to do to revive a moribund party.
A different selection process might yield 3 better options for the membership to choose from.
Although whatever your selection process - they have to come from the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party... which might be the first problem.
Absolutely agree with you on this, but don't hold your breath about the new intake of SNP MP's behaviour improving. Just look at the previous behaviour of SNP role models they are expected to follow within the SNP Parliamentary Party.
@schofieldkevin: Crunch talks to end the War of Skinner's Seat taking place this afternoon between SNP and Labour whips. I'm not making this stuff up.
This is a battle only Dennis Skinner can win.He has custom and practice on his side.It means he has established a contract with the House of Commons that this is his seat and no-one else's.If the SNP's priorities are kicking an 83 year old granddad out of his seat,they are showing themselves up for the big jessies they really are.
The SNP's behaviour since winning so many seats has been very poor. They are entitled to play their full part in the life of Westminster, but they have no right to overturn everything in front of them.
They need to grow up.
If there are no written rules, tough. They can do what they like...
Could anyone assist me in resolving the fact that the quote trees do not "fold" (i.e. collapse) as per my settings?
That's a general Vanilla problem, I'm afraid - though it has been raised to them by the powers that be.
However if you are using Firefox then Edmund has just provided a solution as per the below link (you will need to install the GreaseMonkey extension first).
Isn't this just the nomination phase? Once 35 names are gained - the real campaigns begin.
Bear in mind that this is Labour. Failing to back the winning candidate is rather like falling asleep in the North Korean Politburo meeting. It was the same when Gordon was annointed.
The whole point of the nominations process is to limit the membership's choice. This is by design, and is sensible.
Limit to no more than six yes (at 15% each). That has a field of choice that is small enough to be debated properly.
I don't think it was intended to limit it to merely one or two only. If that was intended there'd be no need for AV. Signing up 80% rather than 15% flies in the face of having a proper choice.
It is astounding that Labour still doesn't get this simple point. Brown's coronation makes him, AFAIK, the only PM in the last 100-odd years who did not have to face any sort of contested election to attain that office. He got there by sabotaging any contest under the rules by getting 85% + 1 nominations.
I simply do not see how Labour sorts its act out as currently configured. What they ought to be doing is working out what they think they are for, then electing a leader who can take them there. Instead, as with EIC, they appoint the leader off a shortlist compiled by a PLP stuffed with talentless quota nobodies. The leader gives Cruddas (or whoever) a blank sheet of paper and when Cruddas starts to fill it in with stuff EIC doesn't like, it gets rubbed out and remains a blank sheet of paper.
Assuming Butcher gets in, we already know that the producer interest is paramount. So we can be absolutely sure that nothing to prevent, for example, another Mid-Staffs Massacre will be contemplated under Butcher.
I honestly think Neil Kinnock would do better than Butcher or Mrs Balls. They should reappoint him for two more election defeats so that someone with half a brain can fluke their way into the HoC as a Labour MP, then start from there.
Could anyone assist me in resolving the fact that the quote trees do not "fold" (i.e. collapse) as per my settings?
That's a general Vanilla problem, I'm afraid - though it has been raised to them by the powers that be.
However if you are using Firefox then Edmund has just provided a solution as per the below link (you will need to install the GreaseMonkey extension first).
Thanks. I already have greasemonkey, I'll take a look. (If I had more time, I could probably port it for tampermonkey on Chrome, but alas, there is never enough time.)
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.
If the Tories swing right, UKIP are already right, it would mean that the political centre of gravity would shift, so left and 'centre' would also shift right. So I can't see how any more space would be created.
In the hustings Yvette and Liz will probably outperform him but I think Burnham will still win as he is already well-liked by Labour members because of his NHS association and working-class Northern roots.
Some members would like a female leader but I think they will plump for Liz rather than Yvette because of baggage.But who knows?Yvette could charm them into voting for her.
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.
If the Tories swing right, UKIP are already right, it would mean that the political centre of gravity would shift, so left and 'centre' would also shift right. So I can't see how any more space would be created.
Their switch over from compulsory competitive tender to preferred bidder status for new school buildings meant that contractors raised their prices in response, usually by 100%, trousering millions because the Government was too stupid to stop them.
There seems to be a running theme here.
The spending on the NHS was poorly focussed. We were told that we needed to bring in the private sector ro increase capacity (much of it via PFI and sweetheart ISTC deals). The obvious approach of training and employing more doctors and nurses was not followed. Indeed the disastrous reorganisation of postgraduate medical training by Patricia Hewitt led to the biggest wave of medical emigration in British history.
There are many lessons to be learned, but Labour squandered a lot of money by focussing on the wrong things.
In the hustings Yvette and Liz will probably outperform him but I think Burnham will still win as he is already well-liked by Labour members because of his NHS association and working-class Northern roots.
Some members would like a female leader but I think they will plump for Liz rather than Yvette because of baggage.But who knows?Yvette could charm them into voting for her.
Surely nearly all the members will use AV properly?
I wonder whether Yvette might end up being the Condorcet winner (i.e. she would beat either of the other two head-to-head) but actually be the first eliminated under AV.
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.
If the Tories swing right, UKIP are already right, it would mean that the political centre of gravity would shift, so left and 'centre' would also shift right. So I can't see how any more space would be created.
I also think it's unlikely that they will do so in the short to medium term. But if they were to do so, I don't think it would help ease up more ground in the 'centre', as the centre is merely a triangulation (or whatever it is when you have something equidistant between two points).
Comments
For the record, I've not used any of them.
Last time the MP's substantially picked David, but Ed scored well because of the malcontented Brownites. There is no such glaring schism now, just a highly despondent set of MP's wanting to make the right choice. And perhaps that is Andy Burnham?
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
There's more in the same vein - see 12.06 here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/may/20/nigel-farage-claims-eu-referendum-will-be-held-in-may-next-year-politics-live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32812577
With the majority he had he could have legislated for the Socialist Paradise they wanted, but he didnt. He introduced in some ways sensible and thought through measures. Some of the things they did wrong they ended up reversing later on in office.
It was decisions they took from an idealogical perspective which failed.
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/600978286907400193
I think her chances improve if Liz makes it through to the next stage also - even though it shouldn't make any difference under AV I can see it being so...
In summary, MPs can keep half of the candidates off the ballot, and then anyone off the street can pay £3 to get a vote. Why am I a member again?
Limiting MPs to nominating just 1 candidate each creates a forced and thus false choice at a point in the selection process where a multiplicity of voices is absolutely vital to a proper debate and giving the membership a real choice.
If Burnham does win in a tainted way, this process will haunt him just as it did with Brown's 'coronation' and Miliband's 'only the unions wanted me' victory.
Blimey - what a performance. Good for her.
They need to grow up.
Ergo Burnham is not a leader.
Burnham looks like a shmock.
Ergo Burnham is a shmock.
If Labour elects a shmock they will be in the wilderness for years.
I mean, when the Tories do this the members are only allowed to choose between two, and the MPs have been known to plot and scheme to make sure the one the members would like best isn't on the ballot.
As the written version of May's speech says: "Nobody wins when the police are sent to look after people suffering from mental health problems; vulnerable people don’t get the care they need and deserve, and the police can’t get on with the job they are trained to do."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/20/may-police-bill-provide-beds-mentally-ill-end-detention-cells
I don't think it was intended to limit it to merely one or two only. If that was intended there'd be no need for AV. Signing up 80% rather than 15% flies in the face of having a proper choice.
Cutting off the debate before it has started is absolutely not sensible.
There has to be a better way. This is tainting the process.
2,000 police officers were found badly bruised and unconscious in their cells. The Home Secretary said they were like that when she got there and the bleeding from her knuckles was caused by her catching her hand repeatedly on the cell wall.
A different selection process might yield 3 better options for the membership to choose from.
However if you are using Firefox then Edmund has just provided a solution as per the below link (you will need to install the GreaseMonkey extension first).
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/edmundedgar/greasemonkey-widgets/master/pb/pb_vanilla_edmund_widget.user.js
I simply do not see how Labour sorts its act out as currently configured. What they ought to be doing is working out what they think they are for, then electing a leader who can take them there. Instead, as with EIC, they appoint the leader off a shortlist compiled by a PLP stuffed with talentless quota nobodies. The leader gives Cruddas (or whoever) a blank sheet of paper and when Cruddas starts to fill it in with stuff EIC doesn't like, it gets rubbed out and remains a blank sheet of paper.
Assuming Butcher gets in, we already know that the producer interest is paramount. So we can be absolutely sure that nothing to prevent, for example, another Mid-Staffs Massacre will be contemplated under Butcher.
I honestly think Neil Kinnock would do better than Butcher or Mrs Balls. They should reappoint him for two more election defeats so that someone with half a brain can fluke their way into the HoC as a Labour MP, then start from there.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Nearly 2,000 people have signed a petition calling for Ed Miliband to return as Labour leader https://t.co/Y5tc3FrNkj http://t.co/dIY6bojxPK
56 foxes @Alexand52329781 now48 seconds ago
Tourists coming to Scotland,don't worry about the road signs we don't understand them either.
Some members would like a female leader but I think they will plump for Liz rather than Yvette because of baggage.But who knows?Yvette could charm them into voting for her.
There are many lessons to be learned, but Labour squandered a lot of money by focussing on the wrong things.
About time we had an AV thread, eh TSE?