According to Wikipedia (and presumably the Times as well) Camilla was on the PPE course with the Prime Minister, so he is hardly challenging the "jobs for cronies" stereotype. Aside from that, she seems quite a brainbox.
I've just heard that tomorrow's edition of Bild is carrying the story that Greece/the IMF/and the Eurogroup are on the verge of reaching an agreement (at least partially due to intense American pressure). Apparently the only sticking point is on the VAT rate, where the IMF is demanding an increase, and the Greek government is resisting.
The only question is: can SYRIZA sign the deal and stay as one party?
No, the other question is where the American pressure is being applied (presumably to the Germans).
According to Wikipedia (and presumably the Times as well) Camilla was on the PPE course with the Prime Minister, so he is hardly challenging the "jobs for cronies" stereotype. Aside from that, she seems quite a brainbox.
I've just heard that tomorrow's edition of Bild is carrying the story that Greece/the IMF/and the Eurogroup are on the verge of reaching an agreement (at least partially due to intense American pressure). Apparently the only sticking point is on the VAT rate, where the IMF is demanding an increase, and the Greek government is resisting.
The only question is: can SYRIZA sign the deal and stay as one party?
No, the other question is where the American pressure is being applied (presumably to the Germans).
I think that's absolutely right. The Germans, the Finns, the IMF have all been under immense pressure from the US to make a deal with Greece. I heard a rumour that there would be a version of Brady Bonds created which would include some degree of US guarantee. (Not 100%, obviously, but something.)
This was not about economic stability, from the US's point of view, it was about ensuring that Greece did not "fall into the Russian camp".
Wow - LIAMT's comments about the possible replacement of Wednesbury unreasonableness in the previous thread are an eye opener and no mistake. Obviously the legal definition of reasonableness is, I've exoerienced, to many people funnily enough unreasonable in its extremity, but the alternative proposed seems cause for worry.
If you want a good example of several angels being made to dance on a pinhead, have a look at paragraph [14] of Lord Sumption JSC's judgment in Hayes v Willoughby[2013] 1 WLR 935, where he distinguishes in some detail between "objective reasonableness", "rationality", and "Wednesbury unreasonableness". His distinctions are so fine that at paragraph [28] the dissenting justice, Lord Reed states that he does not expect a jury could understand them, and confesses he doesn't either!
At least I'm in good company then - honestly, if you make distinctions that fine, what's the point?
I am not convinced that Parliament can have intended that a jury should be expected to understand and apply the sophisticated distinctions which Lord Sumption seeks to draw.
I am not an ardent reader of legal judgements, but that feels like an unsubtle slam to Lord Sumption. 'Sophisticated' as a euphemism for nonsensical or something. I almost hope the pair are like competing academics who for years publish subtle takedowns of the others' position across countless articles and books . But probably it's all very professional in the disagreement.
I'm not sure is it's been mentioned but Sumption is undoubtedly a marmite character. Intellectually he's mîles ahead of the other SC judges. However the fact he jumped straight from the bar without serving his time will rankle some. Together with elevation being delayed to allow him to finish a matter which was to put it mildly a fees bonanza. Reed's cricticism reads like he's saying Sumption's too clever. It's not a argument that I'd be comfortable running.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The public are torn. They dislike "the 1%", but they also dislike the "Metropolitan elite" and their client groups.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
51% voted for right wing parties. But, I fully accept that plenty of UKIP (and DUP) voters aren't right wing, on economic issues. But, social issues pull them away from Labour.
I did assess her credentials: no complaints there. How about you address Cameron's habit of favouring his chums?
And incidentally, the real story is George Osborne's shiny new spin doctor. Surely a pointer that Osborne will stand when Cameron resigns mid-parliament.
According to Wikipedia (and presumably the Times as well) Camilla was on the PPE course with the Prime Minister, so he is hardly challenging the "jobs for cronies" stereotype. Aside from that, she seems quite a brainbox.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
51% voted for right wing parties. But, I fully accept that plenty of UKIP (and DUP) voters aren't right wing, on economic issues. But, social issues pull them away from Labour.
It's all just so insufferably dull - Labour seem intent on convincing themselves that if you add in the dnv's this means they won the argument if not the election. I mean, seriously, - and we're told we need more left-wing contributors for balance - let's hope tomorrow's effort beats our regular lefties on here.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The public are torn. They dislike "the 1%", but they also dislike the "Metropolitan elite" and their client groups.
What Labour were offering was decisively rejected at the ballot box. Labour can either learn from that, or roll the dice again and hope offering something similar in GE2020 works the next time.
So far, the evidence seems to be that they think the voters got it wrong and they want to try the latter.
Two weeks on and as one of the vanquished, I'm still coming to terms with what happened. The victors of course have the field for now and seem full of helpful or unhelpful advice for said vanquished.
I'm of the view that Labour probably had very little chance of winning whoever the leader was. Parties coming off a long period of Government have two problems - the external and the internal.
By the External I mean the memory of the period of Government and the failure of that Government and the reminders of that failure. By the Internal I mean both the inability to quickly adapt to a life of Opposition (with all that entails) and the problem of people who had spent often years devoted to a set of policies and ideals having to come to terms not only with the rejection of those ideals but the need to rethink and conceive new ideals.
In truth, Labour in Opposition had a no more coherent economic response in 2015 than the Conservatives in Opposition had in 2001. Yes, you can critique Coalition economic policy and there have been persuasive critiques from the monetarist side of the debate relating to monetary policy and the rationale behinf ring-fencing some aspects of public spending but Labour had nothing at all to offer in terms of a credible alrernative.
Labour has won elections under only three leaders since 1945 - Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Attlee's circumstances were unique, Wilson won as a technocratic modernist pragmatist while Blair won by convincing millions of ex-Tories his Labour Party was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.
In my view, Labour has to do three things to challenge in 2020 - one, they need a mea culpa for the Blair and Brown years. In Blair's defence, it was hard to imagine in June 2001 the event, just three months later, which transformed domestic and global politics and with whose consequences we live today. Second, they need to recognise that aspects of Coalition economic policy were successful and appropriate and Third they need to convince a sceptical rural, suburban and elderly England they will govern for them as much as for the younger urban and metropolitan areas.
At the moment, however, no one is listening or interested but when, not if, the Government hits its midterm trough, Labour need to be in a position to pick up the disaffected and disillusioned Conservatives especially in the marginals and keep them and that will require a superior campaigning operation but I'm sure Labour are already learning the lessons from Messina and others (and will be watching the 2016 Presidential campaign as well).
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
All you are demonstrating is your middle-class, tax-funded, public-sector childhood. Posh areas for you and yours: No reality of life in Sarf' Luhndahn.
- one seeks democratic representation for animals - one compares keeping a pet to slavery [I assume the human owner in the case of cats] - another compares pet keeping with the Holocaust - a current trustee talks about companion pet overpopulation and the final contestant seems fairly normal in comparison.
As soon as the principle that animals are entitled to more protection than other chattels is conceded, this is where it inevitably ends.
What we need is some televised Pro-Am celebrity badger-baiting.
Brits are obsessive animal lovers because we're socially uneasy around other people. We find it much easier to build relationships with animals, and project our desire for simplicity and innocence, and our emotions about that, onto them.
We have so enslaved our dogs that they don't realize they are slaves, and they seem to enjoy it a lot. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting the tail-wagging and rolling over for tummy rubs - maybe they are signs of anger and rebellion.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
Two weeks on and as one of the vanquished, I'm still coming to terms with what happened. The victors of course have the field for now and seem full of helpful or unhelpful advice for said vanquished.
I'm of the view that Labour probably had very little chance of winning whoever the leader was. Parties coming off a long period of Government have two problems - the external and the internal.
By the External I mean the memory of the period of Government and the failure of that Government and the reminders of that failure. By the Internal I mean both the inability to quickly adapt to a life of Opposition (with all that entails) and the problem of people who had spent often years devoted to a set of policies and ideals having to come to terms not only with the rejection of those ideals but the need to rethink and conceive new ideals.
In truth, Labour in Opposition had a no more coherent economic response in 2015 than the Conservatives in Opposition had in 2001. Yes, you can critique Coalition economic policy and there have been persuasive critiques from the monetarist side of the debate relating to monetary policy and the rationale behinf ring-fencing some aspects of public spending but Labour had nothing at all to offer in terms of a credible alrernative.
Labour has won elections under only three leaders since 1945 - Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Attlee's circumstances were unique, Wilson won as a technocratic modernist pragmatist while Blair won by convincing millions of ex-Tories his Labour Party was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.
In my view, Labour has to do three things to challenge in 2020 - one, they need a mea culpa for the Blair and Brown years. In Blair's defence, it was hard to imagine in June 2001 the event, just three months later, which transformed domestic and global politics and with whose consequences we live today. Second, they need to recognise that aspects of Coalition economic policy were successful and appropriate and Third they need to convince a sceptical rural, suburban and elderly England they will govern for them as much as for the younger urban and metropolitan areas.
At the moment, however, no one is listening or interested but when, not if, the Government hits its midterm trough, Labour need to be in a position to pick up the disaffected and disillusioned Conservatives especially in the marginals and keep them and that will require a superior campaigning operation but I'm sure Labour are already learning the lessons from Messina and others (and will be watching the 2016 Presidential campaign as well).
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
Of course, the Conservatives did exactly the same in 2001 when choosing IDS over Clarke and Portillo and that ended incredibly well for them.
Who was it who said "those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - apart from me just now ?
Portillo wasn't trusted (with good reason) which is why he didn't make it into the final two.
Given the tensions on the UK's possible membership of the euro at the time, and the strong consensus within the Conservative party for that to be opposed, Ken Clarke was always going to struggle with the membership. Further, Clarke's campaign literature was supremely arrogant, even when I tried to keep an open mind it put me off, and IDS at least tried to campaign and make a convincing case as to why to vote for him.
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
Still genuinely undecided who to vote for in the Labour leader election. Am leaning towards the female candidates so I hope that at least one of them really comes to the fore over the next couple of months. At least the Daily Mail may go a bit easier on a woman than any male candidate.
This, and what others have commented. I voted for Burnham in 2010, think he's a decent bloke and not the union creature he's characterised as - he's also very popular in the part of the world I'm currently working for entirely decent reasons which have little to do with politics. However I'm minded to vote for a candidate who offers a complete break and a genuinely new approach and so every Kinnock or union bod who backs Burnham sends me off in the other direction.
In answer to Dan Hodges' point, I'm not exactly a Milibandite, but thought he often had a point and could've won. I was wrong. Badly wrong, as my view of him as a fairly moderate force wasn't shared by the wider public who painted their own fears on to him. 'Red Tory' in the north, Red Ed in the south. I'm not quite sure how Labour wins in 2020, but I know it isn't by attempting to mollify the useful idiots on the left of the party and by not having a proper dust-up with people who care more about their own ego than actually trying to appeal to those who can win Labour a majority.
The problem for Labour was not that Milliband was a bad leader. He had firm convictions, and a clear and coherent view of the way forward, after 2008.
But, more people rejected that view than supported it, and the different elements of the Labour coalition are pulling them apart.
Labour's problem is that they don't think the people did reject that view.
The polling doesn't say that people rejected that view either.
(Admittedly polling now comes with a great caveat, but still.)
What's your reason for dismissing the polling? Bearing in mind it is weighted to the real election results.
What's your reason for dismissing the election result? Bearing in mind it is weighted to the real election results.
Not dismissing it at all, but we're discussing the reasons for them losing. Did the Tories' defeat in 2005 mean the public disapproved of reductions in immigration?
Labour need three Cs to get a shot at taking power again in 2020: competence, coherence and clarity. The individual policies that they put forward are less important.
Labour had a superabundance of popular policies in the run-up to the election. They did them no good at all, because policy was not where the public perceived Labour to be weak.
Equally, junking those same policies won't do them any good either without some rationale for doing so. Indeed, it will make them look fickle and unprincipled. They need to think about the coherence first. None of the candidates has yet done very much of that.
According to Wikipedia (and presumably the Times as well) Camilla was on the PPE course with the Prime Minister, so he is hardly challenging the "jobs for cronies" stereotype. Aside from that, she seems quite a brainbox.
According to the story I read they were not in the same cohort (she is younger) so although they "did the same course" they were not "on the same course"
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
According to Wikipedia (and presumably the Times as well) Camilla was on the PPE course with the Prime Minister, so he is hardly challenging the "jobs for cronies" stereotype. Aside from that, she seems quite a brainbox.
According to the story I read they were not in the same cohort (she is younger) so although they "did the same course" they were not "on the same course"
Camilla always talks sense, very good appointment. Hope Cameron listens.
But if Labour are not of the left, and shouldn't have trade unions trying to swing the vote, then what is the point of them? We already have center and right of center parties.
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
And a crap, incompetent government.
Governments lose elections, oppositions seldom win them
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
But if Labour are not of the left, and shouldn't have trade unions trying to swing the vote, then what is the point of them? We already have center and right of center parties.
One of the problems for Labour though is that plenty of the less well off have nothing to do with trade unions. There was a frightening map of the election result which basically showed Labour doing well in cities and former coal mining areas. And that's about it. We need a party committed to fairness but it won't work if you are seen as favouring particular groups for special treatment - Scots being the main disaster in the election.
Labour need three Cs to get a shot at taking power again in 2020: competence, coherence and clarity. The individual policies that they put forward are less important.
Labour had a superabundance of popular policies in the run-up to the election. They did them no good at all, because policy was not where the public perceived Labour to be weak.
Equally, junking those same policies won't do them any good either without some rationale for doing so. Indeed, it will make them look fickle and unprincipled. They need to think about the coherence first. None of the candidates has yet done very much of that.
And (4) Conservative cock-up - it's theirs to lose. Though there's plenty of scope for that with a referendum and leadership election.
The next Tory Leader and possibly next PM has just taken out a leadership rival. Huzzah for Sajid Javid
A plan by the home secretary to introduce counter-extremism powers to vet British broadcasters’ programmes before they are transmitted has been attacked in the bluntest terms as a threat to freedom of speech by one of her own Conservative cabinet colleagues, the Guardian has learned.
Sajid Javid wrote to David Cameron to say that, as culture secretary, he was unable to support Theresa May’s proposal to give Ofcom the new powers to take pre-emptive action against programmes that included “extremist content,” in a letter sent just before the start of the general election campaign.
Well, I don't regard myself as capable of judging how well she will play with the party or the public, but fair play to Kendall for managing to seemingly stake out a clear position, if reports are any indication. Not something that should be all that difficult, but apparently people have trouble knowing what politicians think all the time, so she seems to be throwing out ideas early on.
Can't believe it's already two weeks since VE Day (Victory over Ed Day).
Rejoice, rejoice just rejoice at that.
Actually:
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our Forces and the Marines PB Tories! Rejoice!
Well perhaps. But history may show this to have been a good election to lose.
They said that about the 2010 General Election, but Dave used it as a springboard for a majority five years later, and in the process hollowed out the Lib Dems and helped destroy Labour in Scotland for a generation.
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
Unions are important to Labour. Lots of guff in the media about them. Put in brass tacks they provide competent people who can organise. Most union folk in Labour are as solid as a rock.
The public are torn. They dislike "the 1%", but they also dislike the "Metropolitan elite" and their client groups.
Can we have a political party for the 1% please?
Alas, it would only get 1%.
Lots of people think they can become the 1%.
In fact most people vastly over estimate what percentile of wealth/earnings they are in.
Conversely, a lot of people feel guilty they are in the 1% and might vote against such a party.
To be in the 1%, you need about £500k in assets or wealth (net, so no mortgage etc.).
You need alot more than that.
I think he means of the world, not of the UK (or at least his figure might be right for that)
Yup, that's the entry bar to the 'global 1%' everyone rails against. It's a kosher figure; heard it on More Or Less originally; I'd look it up but am on an idiosyncratic phone that doesn't make it easy.
She certainly has the gift of defining the terms of the debate and getting people talking about her. Whatever anyone in Labour thinks of her it's blindingly obvious that she is by far the leader most likely to confound the Tories.
Can't believe it's already two weeks since VE Day (Victory over Ed Day).
Rejoice, rejoice just rejoice at that.
Actually:
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our Forces and the Marines PB Tories! Rejoice!
Well perhaps. But history may show this to have been a good election to lose.
They said that about the 2010 General Election, but Dave used it as a springboard for a majority five years later, and in the process hollowed out the Lib Dems and helped destroy Labour in Scotland for a generation.
Yeah but that was after the crash that could be blamed on Labour. No-one could have foretold how helpful the Lib Dems would turn out to be. But they're on their own now.
With all the reports of it being struggle for anyone other than Burnham or Cooper to even get on the ballot, I guess she's decided to take a big swing at this, not much to lose, she'd already been characterized as the type of candidate they would not feel like promoting.
But if Labour are not of the left, and shouldn't have trade unions trying to swing the vote, then what is the point of them? We already have center and right of center parties.
One of the problems for Labour though is that plenty of the less well off have nothing to do with trade unions. There was a frightening map of the election result which basically showed Labour doing well in cities and former coal mining areas. And that's about it. We need a party committed to fairness but it won't work if you are seen as favouring particular groups for special treatment - Scots being the main disaster in the election.
You say 'committed to fairness' which screams 'tax and spend'. You need to be pro-business, pro-wealth creation. The best unemployment policy is a JOB. For that business needs to invest and grow. You start on the fairness and business will run a mile.
You have an existential problem - a trade union based party is about 50 years out of date.
With all the reports of it being struggle for anyone other than Burnham or Cooper to even get on the ballot, I guess she's decided to take a big swing at this, not much to lose, she'd already been characterized as the type of candidate they would not feel like promoting.
If you think that's weird, George Osborne was born a year after Ken Clarke first became an MP.
Amusing when you think George was Ken's successor as Tory Chancellor
if Labour MPs are any guide to the membership, the Labour party is going to select a leader on the assumption that it needs to refight all the battles it won and abandon the battle it lost. The party is preparing a political strategy of quite unfathomable stupidity.
You have an existential problem - a trade union based party is about 50 years out of date.
One of the most interesting things about Kendall's approach is that she is reframing the existential problem in terms of the unions themselves, rather than Labour's links with them.
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
Unions are important to Labour. Lots of guff in the media about them. Put in brass tacks they provide competent people who can organise. Most union folk in Labour are as solid as a rock.
Indeed they are important to Labour - just not to anybody else. If union folk in Labour are 'solid as a rock' - and I have no reason to doubt you - then let them join the party as individual members.
In other words, to Labour they are important - but to everyone else they try to fix the leadership contest and impose their preferred policies on the party.
As someone just said, you are reduced to cities and former mining areas - you have an existential problem which cannot be fixed by merely electing a new leader.
But if Labour are not of the left, and shouldn't have trade unions trying to swing the vote, then what is the point of them? We already have center and right of center parties.
One of the problems for Labour though is that plenty of the less well off have nothing to do with trade unions. There was a frightening map of the election result which basically showed Labour doing well in cities and former coal mining areas. And that's about it. We need a party committed to fairness but it won't work if you are seen as favouring particular groups for special treatment - Scots being the main disaster in the election.
You say 'committed to fairness' which screams 'tax and spend'. You need to be pro-business, pro-wealth creation. The best unemployment policy is a JOB. For that business needs to invest and grow. You start on the fairness and business will run a mile.
You have an existential problem - a trade union based party is about 50 years out of date.
Eh? Committed to fairness can mean all sorts of things. Even politicians on the right have been known to use the language from time to time. Britain has become one of the most unequal countries in the western world and yet we haven't closed the income gap with the leading OECD countries. The answer isn't obvious but plainly things aren't working the way things are.
Stodge Sunil Indeed and the Tories picked Hague over Clarke in 1997 too. Other examples are Labour picking Foot over Healey or the Tories Home over Butler
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 47s47 seconds ago @TSEofPB Saw this at London #Marylebone on Sunday and thought of you! #Chiltern #class68 Loco 68008 'Avenger'
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
Unions are important to Labour. Lots of guff in the media about them. Put in brass tacks they provide competent people who can organise. Most union folk in Labour are as solid as a rock.
Indeed they are important to Labour - just not to anybody else. If union folk in Labour are 'solid as a rock' - and I have no reason to doubt you - then let them join the party as individual members.
In other words, to Labour they are important - but to everyone else they try to fix the leadership contest and impose their preferred policies on the party.
As someone just said, you are reduced to cities and former mining areas - you have an existential problem which cannot be fixed by merely electing a new leader.
Oh FFS, not that long ago the Tories were in a far worse state. Reduced to far fewer rural areas. It happens.
The Tory Party was once reduced to 165 seats. It went on, albeit nearly two decades later, to win a majority. So writing obituaries for parties that big or bigger is a mug's game.
But if Labour are not of the left, and shouldn't have trade unions trying to swing the vote, then what is the point of them? We already have center and right of center parties.
One of the problems for Labour though is that plenty of the less well off have nothing to do with trade unions. There was a frightening map of the election result which basically showed Labour doing well in cities and former coal mining areas. And that's about it. We need a party committed to fairness but it won't work if you are seen as favouring particular groups for special treatment - Scots being the main disaster in the election.
You say 'committed to fairness' which screams 'tax and spend'. You need to be pro-business, pro-wealth creation. The best unemployment policy is a JOB. For that business needs to invest and grow. You start on the fairness and business will run a mile.
You have an existential problem - a trade union based party is about 50 years out of date.
Eh? Committed to fairness can mean all sorts of things. Even politicians on the right have been known to use the language from time to time. Britain has become one of the most unequal countries in the western world and yet we haven't closed the income gap with the leading OECD countries. The answer isn't obvious but plainly things aren't working the way things are.
The answer is, actually, fairly obvious: social mobility.
And for that you need excellent education available to all.
Hence free schools: breaking kids free from the producer interests that have Labour in their steely grip.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 47s47 seconds ago @TSEofPB Saw this at London #Marylebone on Sunday and thought of you! #Chiltern #class68 Loco 68008 'Avenger'
twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/601503878237020160
If you could take a picture of Black Widow.
I'd do horrible, unforgivable things for a chance to swing my hammer at her.
The Tory Party was once reduced to 165 seats. It went on, albeit nearly two decades later, to win a majority. So writing obituaries for parties that big or bigger is a mug's game.
165 seats is not a death, any other party besides the big two would be delighted to get that many.
There is a natural pendulum to politics, there must always be a government and ultimately an opposition who can turn into a government. The parties can change but no party will ever be in government forever and realistically only a party on the same side of the pendulum can displace one of the big parties.
She certainly has the gift of defining the terms of the debate and getting people talking about her. Whatever anyone in Labour thinks of her it's blindingly obvious that she is by far the leader most likely to confound the Tories.
How so, since the shadow ministers she would be in charge of would be diametrically opposed to her. In any event the tories are in govt and it's up to the opposition to define themselves whilst the tories do it by governing.
Comments
Knowing someone at college - really? Get over yourself.
This was not about economic stability, from the US's point of view, it was about ensuring that Greece did not "fall into the Russian camp".
And incidentally, the real story is George Osborne's shiny new spin doctor. Surely a pointer that Osborne will stand when Cameron resigns mid-parliament.
In fact most people vastly over estimate what percentile of wealth/earnings they are in.
Hashtag bored sh*tless of Greece....
So far, the evidence seems to be that they think the voters got it wrong and they want to try the latter.
Two weeks on and as one of the vanquished, I'm still coming to terms with what happened. The victors of course have the field for now and seem full of helpful or unhelpful advice for said vanquished.
I'm of the view that Labour probably had very little chance of winning whoever the leader was. Parties coming off a long period of Government have two problems - the external and the internal.
By the External I mean the memory of the period of Government and the failure of that Government and the reminders of that failure. By the Internal I mean both the inability to quickly adapt to a life of Opposition (with all that entails) and the problem of people who had spent often years devoted to a set of policies and ideals having to come to terms not only with the rejection of those ideals but the need to rethink and conceive new ideals.
In truth, Labour in Opposition had a no more coherent economic response in 2015 than the Conservatives in Opposition had in 2001. Yes, you can critique Coalition economic policy and there have been persuasive critiques from the monetarist side of the debate relating to monetary policy and the rationale behinf ring-fencing some aspects of public spending but Labour had nothing at all to offer in terms of a credible alrernative.
Labour has won elections under only three leaders since 1945 - Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Attlee's circumstances were unique, Wilson won as a technocratic modernist pragmatist while Blair won by convincing millions of ex-Tories his Labour Party was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.
In my view, Labour has to do three things to challenge in 2020 - one, they need a mea culpa for the Blair and Brown years. In Blair's defence, it was hard to imagine in June 2001 the event, just three months later, which transformed domestic and global politics and with whose consequences we live today. Second, they need to recognise that aspects of Coalition economic policy were successful and appropriate and Third they need to convince a sceptical rural, suburban and elderly England they will govern for them as much as for the younger urban and metropolitan areas.
At the moment, however, no one is listening or interested but when, not if, the Government hits its midterm trough, Labour need to be in a position to pick up the disaffected and disillusioned Conservatives especially in the marginals and keep them and that will require a superior campaigning operation but I'm sure Labour are already learning the lessons from Messina and others (and will be watching the 2016 Presidential campaign as well).
All you are demonstrating is your middle-class, tax-funded, public-sector childhood. Posh areas for you and yours: No reality of life in Sarf' Luhndahn.
:think-first:
Of course, the Conservatives did exactly the same in 2001 when choosing IDS over Clarke and Portillo and that ended incredibly well for them.
Who was it who said "those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - apart from me just now ?
Who was it who said "those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - apart from me just now ?
Longfellow (at least he had the better phrased version "those who the Gods would destroy")
Who was it who said "those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - apart from me just now ?
Portillo wasn't trusted (with good reason) which is why he didn't make it into the final two.
Given the tensions on the UK's possible membership of the euro at the time, and the strong consensus within the Conservative party for that to be opposed, Ken Clarke was always going to struggle with the membership. Further, Clarke's campaign literature was supremely arrogant, even when I tried to keep an open mind it put me off, and IDS at least tried to campaign and make a convincing case as to why to vote for him.
I voted for IDS. I felt I had no other choice.
Who was it who said "those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - apart from me just now ?
I prefer, "those who the gods would destroy, they first grant their dreams"
Which could apply to the LibDems
Labour had a superabundance of popular policies in the run-up to the election. They did them no good at all, because policy was not where the public perceived Labour to be weak.
Equally, junking those same policies won't do them any good either without some rationale for doing so. Indeed, it will make them look fickle and unprincipled. They need to think about the coherence first. None of the candidates has yet done very much of that.
Blimey.
I thought it was Euripides?
Who was it who said "those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - apart from me just now ?
Rubbish! IDS never lost a General Election while leader!
A leader that moves quicker than the critics
A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories
All parts of the movement working together.
An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
Governments lose elections, oppositions seldom win them
Who was it who said "those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - apart from me just now ?
Please don't remind me of those dark days.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our
Forces and the MarinesPB Tories! Rejoice!A plan by the home secretary to introduce counter-extremism powers to vet British broadcasters’ programmes before they are transmitted has been attacked in the bluntest terms as a threat to freedom of speech by one of her own Conservative cabinet colleagues, the Guardian has learned.
Sajid Javid wrote to David Cameron to say that, as culture secretary, he was unable to support Theresa May’s proposal to give Ofcom the new powers to take pre-emptive action against programmes that included “extremist content,” in a letter sent just before the start of the general election campaign.
http://bit.ly/1R7M1lq
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
You have an existential problem - a trade union based party is about 50 years out of date.
Amusing when you think George was Ken's successor as Tory Chancellor
Regularly misattributed to him.
In Longfellow's poem it's Prometheus who says the words
In other words, to Labour they are important - but to everyone else they try to fix the leadership contest and impose their preferred policies on the party.
As someone just said, you are reduced to cities and former mining areas - you have an existential problem which cannot be fixed by merely electing a new leader.
@TSEofPB Saw this at London #Marylebone on Sunday and thought of you! #Chiltern #class68 Loco 68008 'Avenger'
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/601503878237020160
Struggling to come up with others.
http://order-order.com/2015/05/21/silvio-berlusconi-joins-instagram/#_@/dj9SQP5Q_KimyA
And for that you need excellent education available to all.
Hence free schools: breaking kids free from the producer interests that have Labour in their steely grip.
I'd do horrible, unforgivable things for a chance to swing my hammer at her.
There is a natural pendulum to politics, there must always be a government and ultimately an opposition who can turn into a government. The parties can change but no party will ever be in government forever and realistically only a party on the same side of the pendulum can displace one of the big parties.
It's an allllriiiigghhht plan for Labour if you ask me.
15% is a low threshold - to fail it basically means Burnham and Cooper need over 85% between them - that would be an extraordinarily high number.
Some may nominate Creagh but assuming she fails her nomination won't go in and these people can then switch to Kendall if necessary.
I don't need to tell you who do I...