Here's something I didn't think I would ever say (and tim would shoot me for saying it) but I'm ever so slightly warming to George Osborne. Since the election he has come across more personable - I think the key is that he is happier and more relaxed. If he can deliver real benefits for the north of England, then good on him.
I think I'd better lie down now!
Gideon better enjoy it while he can. I'm sure by mid-term things will be looking very different, as they almost always do.
Here's something I didn't think I would ever say (and tim would shoot me for saying it) but I'm ever so slightly warming to George Osborne. Since the election he has come across more personable - I think the key is that he is happier and more relaxed. If he can deliver real benefits for the north of England, then good on him.
I think I'd better lie down now!
Gideon better enjoy it while he can. I'm sure by mid-term things will be looking very different, as they almost always do.
You're misunderestimating the greatest political strategist of our time.
Nothing about owls, it seems, but badgers would have been happier.
I agree with her closing observations:
" Liz Kendall ditches the 50p top tax rate and wants a tougher family benefit cap. Yvette Cooper goes for cutting corporation tax, while Mary Creagh and Andy Burnham ditch the mansion tax as “the politics of envy”. Each wants an emblem to show they understand “aspiration” – but all those only back the aspirations of the rich. The winner should be whoever paints the most powerful image of the future, not the one who tramples hardest on Miliband’s Edstone."
Whether Cameron decides to stand again in 2020 depends almost entirely on him achieving a decisive In result in EU ref and the polling showing he has a chance of another majority as well as the state of the economy being such to allow that possibility. If only a narrow In and Tory splits have started to emerge or an Out vote when he has recommended In he will be gone as he will if Labour have a better leader who has started to build a clear poll lead. Otherwise, having been Tory Leader for 15 years, the second longest post-war leader since Thatcher and PM for 10 years, as long as Blair, he will join SamCam on a beach in Mauritius
Nothing about owls, it seems, but badgers would have been happier.
I agree with her closing observations:
" Liz Kendall ditches the 50p top tax rate and wants a tougher family benefit cap. Yvette Cooper goes for cutting corporation tax, while Mary Creagh and Andy Burnham ditch the mansion tax as “the politics of envy”. Each wants an emblem to show they understand “aspiration” – but all those only back the aspirations of the rich. The winner should be whoever paints the most powerful image of the future, not the one who tramples hardest on Miliband’s Edstone."
A key to improving our society is to understand why we have ended up with an underclass with no aspiration to become educated, get a decent job, and generally do something with their lives. Crack that, and Labour (or anyone else) can make a huge difference in tackling inequality, economic stagnation, criminality, the benefits bill and public health.
There has to be a more acceptable answer than compulsory sterilisation...
@JGForsyth: Chuka’s entire leadership team backing Liz Kendall a big deal, shows she is now a credible candidate which should help her gain more support
@JGForsyth: To stop support bleeding to Yvette as the 'stop Burnham' option, Kendall needed to show that she can win—these endorsements help her do that
@tnewtondunn: Big #Labourleadership moment: @ChukaUmunna endorses @Liz4Leader, plus takes over his whole team too; E Reynolds, S Twigg and J Reynolds.
Talk in the papers today about a possible Tory rebellion against a boundary review. Do you think the review will be dropped? Tories must be reasonably confident of victory without it. The process is protracted and expensive and it'd be shameful if we went through it all a second time and it was voted down again. The govt is in the tricky situation that they might not get a majority to kill the review (Labour might vote against them just in order to inflict a defeat) or to accept it...
Antifrank says "I am in awe of how our host produces two or three threads a day. The sheer workrate is incredible. "
Seconded. I think OGH is kinda unique there.
A website like this is a very enterprising niche. However I think this thread is wide of the mark Clearly some event may interfere but otherwise after 15years Cameron will be happy to go. The tories need to think carefully about his replacement. We must hope the choice is better than the one Labour are faced with.
Talk in the papers today about a possible Tory rebellion against a boundary review. Do you think the review will be dropped? Tories must be reasonably confident of victory without it. The process is protracted and expensive and it'd be shameful if we went through it all a second time and it was voted down again. The govt is in the tricky situation that they might not get a majority to kill the review (Labour might vote against them just in order to inflict a defeat) or to accept it...
It's not immediately obvious to me that the Conservatives have much to gain from a boundary review. They worked the current system so efficiently this time round that all the previous bias to Labour appears to have been squeezed out of it. The familiarity of sticking with the current boundaries may well work in the Conservatives' favour, since they seem to have a deeper understanding of electoral dynamics at a constituency level than Labour, given the results last month.
Talk in the papers today about a possible Tory rebellion against a boundary review. Do you think the review will be dropped? Tories must be reasonably confident of victory without it. The process is protracted and expensive and it'd be shameful if we went through it all a second time and it was voted down again. The govt is in the tricky situation that they might not get a majority to kill the review (Labour might vote against them just in order to inflict a defeat) or to accept it...
It's not immediately obvious to me that the Conservatives have much to gain from a boundary review. They worked the current system so efficiently this time round that all the previous bias to Labour appears to have been squeezed out of it. The familiarity of sticking with the current boundaries may well work in the Conservatives' favour, since they seem to have a deeper understanding of electoral dynamics at a constituency level than Labour, given the results last month.
From the Times article
Before the last aborted boundary review, some Tories were given private assurances that there would be “no man left behind”. One said he had been told that he could replace a retiring MP, or be given a seat in the House of Lords.
More cynical colleagues say that no such consolation prizes will materialise, and Mr Cameron is facing warnings that he could lose a vote to approve the changes. “They will use all the tricks they can,” one Tory MP said. “They’ll say, ‘We will look after you.’ It’s all b******s.”
The Tories would probably lose seats like Gower and Vale of Clwyd if the number of seats is reduced to 600. Wales actually has 10 seats more than it's entitled to at present. It should have 29 or 30 instead of 40.
Scotland has got itself 3 extra seats on a population basis I think with the reduction to 600 seats. The boundary changes will most likely favour the SNP the most I think on a proportional basis.
Sorry but the boundary review needs to go through on a 3 line whip. They are now 15 years out of date and the cons as a party should benefit. There will be surely enough retirements at the election to sort out everyone with a seat that contains part of their old constituency.
Edit. @Pulpstar if true that the SNP could benefit from it, then this might help along the Scotland devo reforms if DC had an ally to hold off the rebels on his own side.
Sorry but the boundary review needs to go through on a 3 line whip. They are now 15 years out of date and the cons as a party should benefit. There will be surely enough retirements at the election to sort out everyone with a seat that contains part of their old constituency.
I can't imagine Nick Clegg fighting Sheffield Hallam in 2020. (It seems entirely conceivable that his old chum David Cameron might find him something useful to do before then that necessitates a by-election.)
Without Nick Clegg I can't imagine the Lib Dems holding Sheffield Hallam. I'm not sure who wins it, but the Lib Dems don't.
The fact that Labour is only losing 1 more seat than the Tories is supportive of the idea that the boundary changes to 600 are not worth the candle. The Tories should focus on equal sized constituencies instead where the gains are much more obvious.
The House of Commons is too large but it is not a particularly pressing problem. The reduction was a Cameron response to the expenses scandal. I think that need has passed. Let it be.
@MarqueeMark The Conservatives could well win Hallam - it doesn't really feel like a Labour seat except Crookes and Stannington wards. Probably enough of a hardcore liberal element in places like Dore/Totley to allow Labour to win on ~ 35% vote share though.
The ward breakdowns look a bit off to me, I'm struggling to believe Labour didn't win Crookes (Very studenty) and I doubt Labour reached 7300 votes in Fulwood, Dore and Totley (Rich England Middle England) combined.
"I'm not sure I would describe it as Western cowardice: it is just that politicians currently see the risks (and particularly political risks) of heavy action against ISIS/L (within our capabilities) are greater than the risks of letting things continue."
The keywords there are "within our capabilities". Outside of the USA no Western nation has the capability to do anything that will be remotely effective. Its is not just a case of not having the will but also not having the means.
@Thescreamingeagles Tactical Clegg unwind from Conservative voters whilst the Labour vote holds up giving something like
Con 31 Lib Dem 28 Lab 36 ?
If the constituency stays as it is, and Clegg isn't the candidate, Labour wins.
The Sheffield Hallam Lib Dems are very pissed off with the Tories for destroying their party, they won't vote tactically for the Tory.
Are there really that many dyed-in-the-sandals Lib Dems in Sheffield Hallam? If so it must be the one place in Britain where they remain.
Sheffield is a very left wing sort of place. Hallam is a very middle England sort of place. Dore and Totley will have quit alot of lefties that will never be able to bring themselves to vote Labour.
Labour to win, but also Labour sub 40%. The anti-Lab vote will be very well split.
I imagine that DC would like to go at a time of his choosing before the election, probably conference 2018 to give his successor an opportunity to make their mark on the party and country.
Other alternatives are that he allows the party leadership to change while he remains PM until the 2020 election, or a black swan such as a major party split over the EU referendum either forces him out or forces an election. We could also end up in a war with ISlL or a metaphorical war with the EU that leads to calls for him to continue in office. He could also of course fall under a bus.
What is certain is that he will have been in the top job for 8 years, and as party leader for 13. All leaders seem to age remarkably while in office, for all that we criticise them it's undoubtedly a remarkably stressful position. He is deep down a family man and would prefer to retire to spend time with them while possibly allowing Sam to make something of her own career.
I think in the same interview he said, "I wouldn't say enjoy", when asked if he enjoyed being Prime Minister. Instead he said it was an honour and privilege.
I sense he will want to spend more time with Samantha, who he clearly thinks the world of, and his children as soon as he feels his work his done.
I expect that to happen fairly late on in this parliament. Probably in the last 12 months of the parliament.
I agree. There are two obvious options:
1. A Tory leadership election over the summer of 2019, with the new leader to be announced at the Party Conference in October.
2. Cameron standing down at the conference, with the leadership election running through to December.
Any later and it becomes difficult for the new man or woman to sufficiently make their stamp on the general election campaign without undue disruption. Also, either timetable would overshadow the other two conferences without obviously hijacking the news.
When the Labour leadership timetable was announced it was compared unfavourably with the 2005 Conservative leadership election, when the Party Conference was used as a sort of Grand Public Interview for the contenders. Perhaps the situation is different when you are choosing a leader in government, but I would think that would be a possibility.
The other thing to consider is whether Cameron would go early enough that the new leader would get one Queen's Speech and one session of Parliament before the election - so departing in autumn 2018, rather than 2019. I know that Boris has been cited in the media as desiring that Cameron stands aside soon after the EU referendum, rather than soon before the general election.
I agree with you, all candidates were given 20 minute speeches at Conference in 2005 which helped identify the best candidate (Cameron). I'd do the same again, next time and always.
A good candidate will find ways to make a mark, using Conference as a publicity stunt doesn't do that much but using it to help find the right candidate is brilliant.
If Cameron's replacement is chosen in that manner then they won't get a Queen's Speech which helps match Cameron's pledge to serve a full term.
Regarding the boundary review, the Times' analysis doesn't take into account that the second part of individual registration is happening this year. Anyone who didn't match DWP records and didn't respond to letters asking them to register will be removed from the register in December.
Letters were sent last year to 5.5 million people who didn't automatically match. Now some of those will have since registered but I believe there are still quite a lot missing. Now some of those may have moved or died but others may have been fraudulent (cough, cough).
It seems likely to me that the names removed will be proportionately higher in urban areas, which would make the boundaries more favourable to the Tories.
The Tories have to get a review through come what may, whether that be for a 600 seat parliament, 650 seat parliament or something in between.
Regarding the boundary review, the Times' analysis doesn't take into account that the second part of individual registration is happening this year. Anyone who didn't match DWP records and didn't respond to letters asking them to register will be removed from the register in December.
Letters were sent last year to 5.5 million people who didn't automatically match. Now some of those will have since registered but I believe there are still quite a lot missing. Now some of those may have moved or died but others may have been fraudulent (cough, cough).
It seems likely to me that the names removed will be proportionately higher in urban areas, which would make the boundaries more favourable to the Tories.
The Tories have to get a review through come what may, whether that be for a 600 seat parliament, 650 seat parliament or something in between.
"I'm not sure I would describe it as Western cowardice: it is just that politicians currently see the risks (and particularly political risks) of heavy action against ISIS/L (within our capabilities) are greater than the risks of letting things continue."
The keywords there are "within our capabilities". Outside of the USA no Western nation has the capability to do anything that will be remotely effective. Its is not just a case of not having the will but also not having the means.
Yep. The scale of what would need doing to tackle ISIS is greater than anything we alone have. It will require a multinational coalition. And we know how well that worked out last time ...
Nothing about owls, it seems, but badgers would have been happier.
I agree with her closing observations:
" Liz Kendall ditches the 50p top tax rate and wants a tougher family benefit cap. Yvette Cooper goes for cutting corporation tax, while Mary Creagh and Andy Burnham ditch the mansion tax as “the politics of envy”. Each wants an emblem to show they understand “aspiration” – but all those only back the aspirations of the rich. The winner should be whoever paints the most powerful image of the future, not the one who tramples hardest on Miliband’s Edstone."
I love the top-rated comment in CiF:
"You forgot to mention:
- A large civil engineering project would be unveiled to re-pave Britain's streets with gold. - A deficit reduction bill would give a Labour government the power to instantly erase the deficit by shutting his eyes tightly and making a wish. - A bill would be introduced to decriminalise the act of setting fire to bankers. - Ed Miliband would, by law, be on hand to comfort your poor, sainted mother on her deathbed. - Following the lead of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, all cabinet ministers would be married off to one another in a Moonies-style mass wedding, in order to spread joy and goodwill amongst the people. - New legislation would require all households to own at least one owl. - A bill would ensure Polly Toynbee, Owen Jones and Aditya Chakrabortty referred to Labour's welfare cuts as "tough, but necessary" rather than "ideological", "divisive" or "driven by a desire to punish the poorest in society". - Michael Gove would be banned by an act of parliament."
I'd love to see the internal churn from the Hallam 2010 -> 2015 result, particularly the number of 2010 LDs voting for Clegg. No higher than 65% I suspect - could be as low as 50%.
Nothing about owls, it seems, but badgers would have been happier.
I agree with her closing observations:
" Liz Kendall ditches the 50p top tax rate and wants a tougher family benefit cap. Yvette Cooper goes for cutting corporation tax, while Mary Creagh and Andy Burnham ditch the mansion tax as “the politics of envy”. Each wants an emblem to show they understand “aspiration” – but all those only back the aspirations of the rich. The winner should be whoever paints the most powerful image of the future, not the one who tramples hardest on Miliband’s Edstone."
I love the top-rated comment in CiF:
"You forgot to mention:
- A large civil engineering project would be unveiled to re-pave Britain's streets with gold. - A deficit reduction bill would give a Labour government the power to instantly erase the deficit by shutting his eyes tightly and making a wish. - A bill would be introduced to decriminalise the act of setting fire to bankers. - Ed Miliband would, by law, be on hand to comfort your poor, sainted mother on her deathbed. - Following the lead of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, all cabinet ministers would be married off to one another in a Moonies-style mass wedding, in order to spread joy and goodwill amongst the people. - New legislation would require all households to own at least one owl. - A bill would ensure Polly Toynbee, Owen Jones and Aditya Chakrabortty referred to Labour's welfare cuts as "tough, but necessary" rather than "ideological", "divisive" or "driven by a desire to punish the poorest in society". - Michael Gove would be banned by an act of parliament."
MM Burnham led with Labour, LD, UKIP voters and more narrowly with Tories in ST's yougov. That may be name recognition and Kendall will be boosted by Umunna's backing but she will need to overturn those numbers by September
Regarding the boundary review, the Times' analysis doesn't take into account that the second part of individual registration is happening this year. Anyone who didn't match DWP records and didn't respond to letters asking them to register will be removed from the register in December.
Letters were sent last year to 5.5 million people who didn't automatically match. Now some of those will have since registered but I believe there are still quite a lot missing. Now some of those may have moved or died but others may have been fraudulent (cough, cough).
It seems likely to me that the names removed will be proportionately higher in urban areas, which would make the boundaries more favourable to the Tories.
The Tories have to get a review through come what may, whether that be for a 600 seat parliament, 650 seat parliament or something in between.
Broxtowe electorate for instance reduced by a couple of hundred, probably due to students only being registered at their home address or some such. The effect thus far seems to have been minimal.
So today we have Chuka and team backing Kendall, and Len trying to threaten Burnham into going hard Left. There seem to be some fundamental differences here, could be an interesting couple of months for Labour as they choose their new leader.
If Mr Stafford resists Len, will we see a new candidate emerge with massive Union support behind them? Could be some value if we can work out who it might be, any ideas?
Oh diddums. Shame your side lost the election isn't it?
Since Sturgeon is the highest paid politician in the UK, perhaps she could volunteer to return some of her ample salary to the public purse to help the needy. Actions speak louder than words, hen.
I just so, so hope Labour keeps on listening to rich, trust-fund loony hypocrites like Polly Toynbee. She is, to paraphrase the Duke of Wellington, worth 40 seats; but not of course to her own side.
@JGForsyth: Chuka’s entire leadership team backing Liz Kendall a big deal, shows she is now a credible candidate which should help her gain more support
It doesn't show she's a credible candidate at all: she's Gerald Ford. She has no discernible positives, except that she isn't Richard Nixon and has not yet failed in post.
Frankly, any of the contenduhs will get taken apart. It's a matter of total indifference which of the various nobodies on offer wins. I still favour Butcher because he can spend five years failing to live down the Mid Staffs Massacre before experiencing his own. In 2020 he and the Labour Party will, in an electoral sense, find out what it is like to drink the water from your flower vase then die of starvation in the workhouse amid your own ordure.
Mr Bumble the Beadle for leader. 24 Hours To Save Labour's Filthy Workhouses. What can go wrong?
It is a structural flaw in the Labour Party that, because it is vehemently anti-merit and pro-quota, it always ends up with a PLP made up largely of identikit nodding dogs. Its women MPs are MPs because they're women, not because they're good. As a result, every Labour leader elected in the last 35 years has with only one exception been a laughable fourth-rate election-losing buffoon. Why would this trend stop?
Andrew Roberts making the case that labour is now something of an anachronism.
If he'd written that article about the Lib Dems, not Labour, I'd be wholeheartedly agreeing with him. At least Labour, as antifrank's post makes clear, has regional support. The Lib Dems don't. And it's regional support that matters for small parties under FPTP as the Greens, UKIP and the Lib Dems have just proved to their cost. But at least the Greens and UKIP have ideological reasons to exist, even if they'll never win anything much at Westminster. The Lib Dems don't.
That's really useful data, thanks. Of real use is the comparison that I've not seen anywhere else between 2005 and 2015. Bookmarked to revisit before the next election.
Having a majority is even more reason to hand over to the next generation before 2020 as it gives the successor a fighting chance of remaining PM rather than the worst job in politics (Loto).
One of the few concrete things we have learnt about Cameron these past few years is that he is not obsessed or ideological about politics in the same way as say Brown and Miliband. He is more like Blair and he will go at the right time rather than shoved out by the electorate or his party.
He may no longer have a majority by 2019 and find his survival dependent on Confidence & Supply from various Unionists.
@JGForsyth: Chuka’s entire leadership team backing Liz Kendall a big deal, shows she is now a credible candidate which should help her gain more support
It doesn't show she's a credible candidate at all: she's Gerald Ford. She has no discernible positives, except that she isn't Richard Nixon and has not yet failed in post.
Frankly, any of the contenduhs will get taken apart. It's a matter of total indifference which of the various nobodies on offer wins. I still favour Butcher because he can spend five years failing to live down the Mid Staffs Massacre before experiencing his own. In 2020 he and the Labour Party will, in an electoral sense, find out what it is like to drink the water from your flower vase then die of starvation in the workhouse amid your own ordure.
Mr Bumble the Beadle for leader. 24 Hours To Save Labour's Filthy Workhouses. What can go wrong?
It is a structural flaw in the Labour Party that, because it is vehemently anti-merit and pro-quota, it always ends up with a PLP made up largely of identikit nodding dogs. Its women MPs are MPs because they're women, not because they're good. As a result, every Labour leader elected in the last 35 years has with only one exception been a laughable fourth-rate election-losing buffoon. Why would this trend stop?
Very well put, Mr Bond. I'm prepared to disagree on Kendall, who could be a good centrist outsider even if she's not the new Blair - but If the party choose Stafford they've lost the next election already.
Having a majority is even more reason to hand over to the next generation before 2020 as it gives the successor a fighting chance of remaining PM rather than the worst job in politics (Loto).
One of the few concrete things we have learnt about Cameron these past few years is that he is not obsessed or ideological about politics in the same way as say Brown and Miliband. He is more like Blair and he will go at the right time rather than shoved out by the electorate or his party.
He may no longer have a majority by 2019 and find his survival dependent on Confidence & Supply from various Unionists.
His auntie may grow balls by 2019, and find she's his uncle.
I think in the same interview he said, "I wouldn't say enjoy", when asked if he enjoyed being Prime Minister. Instead he said it was an honour and privilege.
I sense he will want to spend more time with Samantha, who he clearly thinks the world of, and his children as soon as he feels his work his done.
I expect that to happen fairly late on in this parliament. Probably in the last 12 months of the parliament.
I agree. There are two obvious options:
1. A Tory leadership election over the summer of 2019, with the new leader to be announced at the Party Conference in October.
2. Cameron standing down at the conference, with the leadership election running through to December.
Any later and it becomes difficult for the new man or woman to sufficiently make their stamp on the general election campaign without undue disruption. Also, either timetable would overshadow the other two conferences without obviously hijacking the news.
When the Labour leadership timetable was announced it was compared unfavourably with the 2005 Conservative leadership election, when the Party Conference was used as a sort of Grand Public Interview for the contenders. Perhaps the situation is different when you are choosing a leader in government, but I would think that would be a possibility.
The other thing to consider is whether Cameron would go early enough that the new leader would get one Queen's Speech and one session of Parliament before the election - so departing in autumn 2018, rather than 2019. I know that Boris has been cited in the media as desiring that Cameron stands aside soon after the EU referendum, rather than soon before the general election.
But if Cameron goes early he will be called a liar - having promised to serve a full second term.
Either (a) he really doesn't want the job; or (b) he thinks she will lose and he has the option of running as the 'do change properly' candidate in 2020
I don't have a dog in this fight yet but the list of MP endorsements is interesting for its lack of obvious pattern - not all modernisers or traditionalists or Blairites or left-wingers in any camp:
Yvette getting rather more Shadow Ministers than the others, I think - not much pattern otherwise. Quite a few well-known names haven't endorsed anyone yet.
Bond Attlee won 2 elections, Wilson 4, Blair 3, after 10 Tory years in power and likely divided post EU ref, Labour will have a better leader and the Tories will likely no longer be led by Cameron, the only Tory leader other than Thatcher to have twice won most seats post 1945
The Times say were the number of MPs reduced to 600 from 650 then the Lib Dems would only have 4 (four) MPs under the new boundaries.
Do they have Orkney & Shetland as a hold?
*heads off the meeting, whistling innocently*
Orkney Westmorland Norfolk North Ceredigion
I think.
Westmorland and Lonsdale is the only properly safe seat I reckon.
From the head of Opinium's political polling team
@AGKD123: On seat boundaries, the phrase "the Lib Dems could lose half their seats" doesn't exactly carry as much weight now that it means "lose four"
Ceredigion's electorate is less than 60,000 and so will have to be part of a larger constituency - most likely part of Pembrokeshire which is not so Liberal or PC friendly.
North Pembrokeshire is quite similar to Cardiganshire.
"I'm not contemplating a third term," can simply be taken as a statement that his mind is on the job in the present. I've said before that I think there's enough wiggle room for Cameron that his options remain open.
I don't have a dog in this fight yet but the list of MP endorsements is interesting for its lack of obvious pattern - not all modernisers or traditionalists or Blairites or left-wingers in any camp:
Yvette getting rather more Shadow Ministers than the others, I think - not much pattern otherwise. Quite a few well-known names haven't endorsed anyone yet.
There's something of a pattern when you look at a map...
@JGForsyth: Chuka’s entire leadership team backing Liz Kendall a big deal, shows she is now a credible candidate which should help her gain more support
It doesn't show she's a credible candidate at all: she's Gerald Ford. She has no discernible positives, except that she isn't Richard Nixon and has not yet failed in post.
Frankly, any of the contenduhs will get taken apart. It's a matter of total indifference which of the various nobodies on offer wins. I still favour Butcher because he can spend five years failing to live down the Mid Staffs Massacre before experiencing his own. In 2020 he and the Labour Party will, in an electoral sense, find out what it is like to drink the water from your flower vase then die of starvation in the workhouse amid your own ordure.
Mr Bumble the Beadle for leader. 24 Hours To Save Labour's Filthy Workhouses. What can go wrong?
It is a structural flaw in the Labour Party that, because it is vehemently anti-merit and pro-quota, it always ends up with a PLP made up largely of identikit nodding dogs. Its women MPs are MPs because they're women, not because they're good. As a result, every Labour leader elected in the last 35 years has with only one exception been a laughable fourth-rate election-losing buffoon. Why would this trend stop?
Very well put, Mr Bond. I'm prepared to disagree on Kendall, who could be a good centrist outsider even if she's not the new Blair - but If the party choose Stafford they've lost the next election already.
I feel very childish for suggesting this nickname, but... Stafford Crapps?
Bond Attlee won 2 elections, Wilson 4, Blair 3, after 10 Tory years in power and likely divided post EU ref, Labour will have a better leader and the Tories will likely no longer be led by Cameron, the only Tory leader other than Thatcher to have twice won most seats post 1945
Attlee and Wislon were longer ago than the 35 years I gave. The metropolitan liberal north London public-sector quangocrats that make up the PLP today have nothing to say to the voters who elected Wislon four times, mainly because the PLP despises them, the white-van-driving England-flag-waving oiks.
The only reason there has been only one Tory leader to win twice recently is because the period you're looking at is too short. In 1990 only Thatcher had recently won three elections, for example.
Labour had has seven goes at a leader since 1980 and has come up with unelectable loonies on all but one occasion, when they elected an electable loony. In the same way that to get the best idea of what tomorrow's weather will be like you look at today's, it seems logical that the next Labour leader will, like six of the last seven, be abject crap.
There is more prospect of climate change altering the weather by tomorrow than of Labour electing an impressive leader in June - a conclusion of which we can be 100% confident, because we've seen the candidate pool. I cannot think why you think they'll have a better leader. Why would they?
@JGForsyth: Chuka’s entire leadership team backing Liz Kendall a big deal, shows she is now a credible candidate which should help her gain more support
It doesn't show she's a credible candidate at all: she's Gerald Ford. She has no discernible positives, except that she isn't Richard Nixon and has not yet failed in post.
Frankly, any of the contenduhs will get taken apart. It's a matter of total indifference which of the various nobodies on offer wins. I still favour Butcher because he can spend five years failing to live down the Mid Staffs Massacre before experiencing his own. In 2020 he and the Labour Party will, in an electoral sense, find out what it is like to drink the water from your flower vase then die of starvation in the workhouse amid your own ordure.
Mr Bumble the Beadle for leader. 24 Hours To Save Labour's Filthy Workhouses. What can go wrong?
It is a structural flaw in the Labour Party that, because it is vehemently anti-merit and pro-quota, it always ends up with a PLP made up largely of identikit nodding dogs. Its women MPs are MPs because they're women, not because they're good. As a result, every Labour leader elected in the last 35 years has with only one exception been a laughable fourth-rate election-losing buffoon. Why would this trend stop?
Very well put, Mr Bond. I'm prepared to disagree on Kendall, who could be a good centrist outsider even if she's not the new Blair - but If the party choose Stafford they've lost the next election already.
I feel very childish for suggesting this nickname, but... Stafford Crapps?
It's perhaps also significant that the spin about this interview was much more definitive than any quote directly attributable to Cameron.
In the context of speculation about Boris Johnson or someone else taking over, this may just have just been a device to get 'I'm going to serve a full term' onto the record prior to the election which means his position is now unassailable until at least 2019 when Cameron will still hold all the cards himself.
The Times say were the number of MPs reduced to 600 from 650 then the Lib Dems would only have 4 (four) MPs under the new boundaries.
Do they have Orkney & Shetland as a hold?
*heads off the meeting, whistling innocently*
Orkney Westmorland Norfolk North Ceredigion
I think.
Westmorland and Lonsdale is the only properly safe seat I reckon.
From the head of Opinium's political polling team
@AGKD123: On seat boundaries, the phrase "the Lib Dems could lose half their seats" doesn't exactly carry as much weight now that it means "lose four"
Ceredigion's electorate is less than 60,000 and so will have to be part of a larger constituency - most likely part of Pembrokeshire which is not so Liberal or PC friendly.
North Pembrokeshire is quite similar to Cardiganshire.
I agree that North Pemb is quite similar to Cardiganshire, and I don't think Ceredigion is particularly "Liberal" any more. I just think that the anti-PC vote is quite strong there (due to demographic changes), and has coalesced around the Liberal candidate, as the best stop-PC option. Adding North Pemb to the existing electorate would not change that calculation (in my opinion).
I can't imagine Nick Clegg fighting Sheffield Hallam in 2020. (It seems entirely conceivable that his old chum David Cameron might find him something useful to do before then that necessitates a by-election.)
Without Nick Clegg I can't imagine the Lib Dems holding Sheffield Hallam. I'm not sure who wins it, but the Lib Dems don't.
Before Clegg, Richard Allan won the seat for the Lib Dems in 1997 and held it in 2001 with over 50% of the vote. Labour doubled their vote in this election, before that they were in third place with 16% or less. I suggest that 2015 was Labour's best chance with the LibDems unpopular and in Government and the Tories also in Government. Hallam isn't a natural Labour area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Hallam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Bond I remember 10 -15 years ago the Tories getting fewer MPs than Michael Foot in 3 successive elections, it is impossible to firmly predict a week ahead in politics, let alone 5 years
With a tiny majority and everybody in the party angling for his job Cameron should pull a Naoto Kan and say he'll go, but not until they've passed all his legislation.
I don't have a dog in this fight yet but the list of MP endorsements is interesting for its lack of obvious pattern - not all modernisers or traditionalists or Blairites or left-wingers in any camp:
Yvette getting rather more Shadow Ministers than the others, I think - not much pattern otherwise. Quite a few well-known names haven't endorsed anyone yet.
Danczuk, Hunt, Hodge
Tells me all i need to know about the Blair Witch Project
I think in the same interview he said, "I wouldn't say enjoy", when asked if he enjoyed being Prime Minister. Instead he said it was an honour and privilege.
I sense he will want to spend more time with Samantha, who he clearly thinks the world of, and his children as soon as he feels his work his done.
I expect that to happen fairly late on in this parliament. Probably in the last 12 months of the parliament.
I agree. There are two obvious options:
1. A Tory leadership election over the summer of 2019, with the new leader to be announced at the Party Conference in October.
2. Cameron standing down at the conference, with the leadership election running through to December.
Any later and it becomes difficult for the new man or woman to sufficiently make their stamp on the general election campaign without undue disruption. Also, either timetable would overshadow the other two conferences without obviously hijacking the news.
When the Labour leadership timetable was announced it was compared unfavourably with the 2005 Conservative leadership election, when the Party Conference was used as a sort of Grand Public Interview for the contenders. Perhaps the situation is different when you are choosing a leader in government, but I would think that would be a possibility.
The other thing to consider is whether Cameron would go early enough that the new leader would get one Queen's Speech and one session of Parliament before the election - so departing in autumn 2018, rather than 2019. I know that Boris has been cited in the media as desiring that Cameron stands aside soon after the EU referendum, rather than soon before the general election.
But if Cameron goes early he will be called a liar - having promised to serve a full second term.
I think everyone recognises that Cameron's successor will need a little time to get their feet under the desk, and the definition of "a little time" is usefully elastic.
If he has delivered on manifesto commitments then I think he will be forgiven a bit of flexibility on timing.
WG If Cameron wins a big In vote in 2017 and Labour does not have a clear poll lead and the economic situation is very strong Cameron may consider running again, if not, he won't but will head off to a Mauritius beach with SamCam having been the second longest serving Tory leader after Thatcher since the war and matched Blair's time in office
Sandpit Sunday's yougov had Stafford the favoured choice of Labour, LD, UKIP voters and even Tories, albeit with Kendall not far behind, it may be name recognition and Kendall could catch up but it certainly suggests the voters are more willing to listen to Stafford than some pbTories
I can't imagine Nick Clegg fighting Sheffield Hallam in 2020. (It seems entirely conceivable that his old chum David Cameron might find him something useful to do before then that necessitates a by-election.)
Without Nick Clegg I can't imagine the Lib Dems holding Sheffield Hallam. I'm not sure who wins it, but the Lib Dems don't.
Before Clegg, Richard Allan won the seat for the Lib Dems in 1997 and held it in 2001 with over 50% of the vote. Labour doubled their vote in this election, before that they were in third place with 16% or less. I suggest that 2015 was Labour's best chance with the LibDems unpopular and in Government and the Tories also in Government. Hallam isn't a natural Labour area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Hallam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
It's not, but the Lib Dem vote isn't exactly a "natural" Lib Dem vote right now, either. The Conservatives have a long way to come back from to take it in 1 electoral cycle though. My best guess would be 2020: Labour take on ~ 34% of the vote or so. 2025 Con Gain.
If UKIP take Hallam, it'll mean they are on over 600 seats.
I don't have a dog in this fight yet but the list of MP endorsements is interesting for its lack of obvious pattern - not all modernisers or traditionalists or Blairites or left-wingers in any camp:
Yvette getting rather more Shadow Ministers than the others, I think - not much pattern otherwise. Quite a few well-known names haven't endorsed anyone yet.
There's something of a pattern when you look at a map...
Shokking ommishun of SLab mp's view on the leadership.
Having a majority is even more reason to hand over to the next generation before 2020 as it gives the successor a fighting chance of remaining PM rather than the worst job in politics (Loto).
One of the few concrete things we have learnt about Cameron these past few years is that he is not obsessed or ideological about politics in the same way as say Brown and Miliband. He is more like Blair and he will go at the right time rather than shoved out by the electorate or his party.
He may no longer have a majority by 2019 and find his survival dependent on Confidence & Supply from various Unionists.
His auntie may grow balls by 2019, and find she's his uncle.
Have you been tested for dementia or were you simply not around at the time of the 1992 - 1997 Parliament?
Bond I remember 10 -15 years ago the Tories getting fewer MPs than Michael Foot in 3 successive elections, it is impossible to firmly predict a week ahead in politics, let alone 5 years
Perhaps, but then they were up against the biggest, bloodiest liar UK politics has seen since Lloyd George. Blair lied to borrow votes; now those votes are being paid back. I have high hopes that he'll turn out to be Labour's Lloyd George figure, i.e. their last-ever PM,
Labour never really changed, but every generation has to learn for itself about Labour, which is that it fosters race and class division, taxes people it hates and envies, and then wrecks the economy. That's it; that's what they do. Blair was an interlude they tolerated, because he got them back in, but a lot of Labourites couldn't really see the point of being in power on Blair's terms. If they couldn't foster race and class division, tax people they hate and envy, and then wreck the economy, what's the point of being in power, exactly?
Labour now is actually back in 1995. It is often misremembered that the Tories lost their reputation for economic competence in September 1992, but IIRC the polls didn't go anywhere much when that happened; nothing that was inconsistent with the usual mid-term blues. What changed was when Blair came along, stopped peddling envy, and started lying about sleaze. In a way he was right about Tory sleaze being disgraceful - it wasn't even trying to be the kind of top-down sleaze he had in mind.
Unlike 1995, Labour doesn't have the Blair option any more. They have fewer MPs - wasn't Major already a minority when Blair became leader? - and the MPs they do have are poorer, being largely selected on racist and sexist lines rather than on merit. To the extent they do, most of Labour still hates Blair. So what we'll get is another John Smith.
I really don't know where Labour goes from here because leftism loses them elections, but they bitterly hate the centre. Polly still thinks their policies were popular FGS...
I can't imagine Nick Clegg fighting Sheffield Hallam in 2020. (It seems entirely conceivable that his old chum David Cameron might find him something useful to do before then that necessitates a by-election.)
Without Nick Clegg I can't imagine the Lib Dems holding Sheffield Hallam. I'm not sure who wins it, but the Lib Dems don't.
Before Clegg, Richard Allan won the seat for the Lib Dems in 1997 and held it in 2001 with over 50% of the vote. Labour doubled their vote in this election, before that they were in third place with 16% or less. I suggest that 2015 was Labour's best chance with the LibDems unpopular and in Government and the Tories also in Government. Hallam isn't a natural Labour area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Hallam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
It's not, but the Lib Dem vote isn't exactly a "natural" Lib Dem vote right now, either. The Conservatives have a long way to come back from to take it in 1 electoral cycle though. My best guess would be 2020: Labour take on ~ 34% of the vote or so. 2025 Con Gain.
If UKIP take Hallam, it'll mean they are on over 600 seats.
Is he Lib Dem vote in Sheffield Hallam likely to go down or up from now? It could be argued that 2015 is the nadir as they were in coalition supporting the Tories and now are no longer in that position. If Labour couldn't take Hallam this year I still think that they are less likely to in 2020. I suspect that they will come third trending back towards the 16% they got in 2010 and the 12.6% they got in 2005, Tories 2nd and Lib Dems holding on again.
Bond I remember 10 -15 years ago the Tories getting fewer MPs than Michael Foot in 3 successive elections, it is impossible to firmly predict a week ahead in politics, let alone 5 years
Perhaps, but then they were up against the biggest, bloodiest liar UK politics has seen since Lloyd George. Blair lied to borrow votes; now those votes are being paid back. I have high hopes that he'll turn out to be Labour's Lloyd George figure, i.e. their last-ever PM,
Labour never really changed, but every generation has to learn for itself about Labour, which is that it fosters race and class division, taxes people it hates and envies, and then wrecks the economy. That's it; that's what they do. Blair was an interlude they tolerated, because he got them back in, but a lot of Labourites couldn't really see the point of being in power on Blair's terms. If they couldn't foster race and class division, tax people they hate and envy, and then wreck the economy, what's the point of being in power, exactly?
Labour now is actually back in 1995. It is often misremembered that the Tories lost their reputation for economic competence in September 1992, but IIRC the polls didn't go anywhere much when that happened; nothing that was inconsistent with the usual mid-term blues. What changed was when Blair came along, stopped peddling envy, and started lying about sleaze. In a way he was right about Tory sleaze being disgraceful - it wasn't even trying to be the kind of top-down sleaze he had in mind.
Unlike 1995, Labour doesn't have the Blair option any more. They have fewer MPs - wasn't Major already a minority when Blair became leader? - and the MPs they do have are poorer, being largely selected on racist and sexist lines rather than on merit. To the extent they do, most of Labour still hates Blair. So what we'll get is another John Smith.
I really don't know where Labour goes from here because leftism loses them elections, but they bitterly hate the centre. Polly still thinks their policies were popular FGS...
You clearly are a dementia sufferer. Labour had a huge poll lead before John Smith's death - just look at the 1994 local elections/ 1994 Euroelections and the trio of byelections held on the same day. Moreover having started with a majority of 21 - or 23 if Kilfedder was included - Major did not lose his majority until the beginning of 1997.
Oh diddums. Shame your side lost the election isn't it?
Since Sturgeon is the highest paid politician in the UK, perhaps she could volunteer to return some of her ample salary to the public purse to help the needy. Actions speak louder than words, hen.
Comments
Osborne's a genius I'll have you know
Thanks for yet another excellent article, these should be regular threads on PB.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/queens-speech-miliband
Nothing about owls, it seems, but badgers would have been happier.
I agree with her closing observations:
" Liz Kendall ditches the 50p top tax rate and wants a tougher family benefit cap. Yvette Cooper goes for cutting corporation tax, while Mary Creagh and Andy Burnham ditch the mansion tax as “the politics of envy”. Each wants an emblem to show they understand “aspiration” – but all those only back the aspirations of the rich. The winner should be whoever paints the most powerful image of the future, not the one who tramples hardest on Miliband’s Edstone."
I am in awe of how our host produces two or three threads a day. The sheer workrate is incredible.
There has to be a more acceptable answer than compulsory sterilisation...
"I am in awe of how our host produces two or three threads a day. The sheer workrate is incredible. "
Seconded. I think OGH is kinda unique there.
@tnewtondunn: Big #Labourleadership moment: @ChukaUmunna endorses @Liz4Leader, plus takes over his whole team too; E Reynolds, S Twigg and J Reynolds.
She's still a big gamble for Labour. But you think maybe they have to go all in - Burnham and Cooper are losing hands for sure.
And politicians, word of advice: you can't bluff the electorate. They've got all your tells sussed....
Clearly some event may interfere but otherwise after 15years Cameron will be happy to go. The tories need to think carefully about his replacement. We must hope the choice is better than the one Labour are faced with.
Ceredigion
Orkney and Shetland
Westmorland and Lonsdale (Southport will be the NW seat going)
One of Leeds NW/S Hallam, but not Norfolk North.
Before the last aborted boundary review, some Tories were given private assurances that there would be “no man left behind”. One said he had been told that he could replace a retiring MP, or be given a seat in the House of Lords.
More cynical colleagues say that no such consolation prizes will materialise, and Mr Cameron is facing warnings that he could lose a vote to approve the changes. “They will use all the tricks they can,” one Tory MP said. “They’ll say, ‘We will look after you.’ It’s all b******s.”
Con 31 Lib Dem 28 Lab 36 ?
Edit. @Pulpstar if true that the SNP could benefit from it, then this might help along the Scotland devo reforms if DC had an ally to hold off the rebels on his own side.
Time for the dodgy bar charts and "LibDems: Losing Here!"
SimonDanczuk: @LabourEoin Threatening to publish lies about me unless I back Burnham? I won't be bullied.
Without Nick Clegg I can't imagine the Lib Dems holding Sheffield Hallam. I'm not sure who wins it, but the Lib Dems don't.
The House of Commons is too large but it is not a particularly pressing problem. The reduction was a Cameron response to the expenses scandal. I think that need has passed. Let it be.
The Sheffield Hallam Lib Dems are very pissed off with the Tories for destroying their party, they won't vote tactically for the Tory.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.pl?seat=Sheffield Hallam
The ward breakdowns look a bit off to me, I'm struggling to believe Labour didn't win Crookes (Very studenty) and I doubt Labour reached 7300 votes in Fulwood, Dore and Totley (Rich England Middle England) combined.
"I'm not sure I would describe it as Western cowardice: it is just that politicians currently see the risks (and particularly political risks) of heavy action against ISIS/L (within our capabilities) are greater than the risks of letting things continue."
The keywords there are "within our capabilities". Outside of the USA no Western nation has the capability to do anything that will be remotely effective. Its is not just a case of not having the will but also not having the means.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/queens-speech-miliband
Labour to win, but also Labour sub 40%. The anti-Lab vote will be very well split.
I imagine that DC would like to go at a time of his choosing before the election, probably conference 2018 to give his successor an opportunity to make their mark on the party and country.
Other alternatives are that he allows the party leadership to change while he remains PM until the 2020 election, or a black swan such as a major party split over the EU referendum either forces him out or forces an election. We could also end up in a war with ISlL or a metaphorical war with the EU that leads to calls for him to continue in office. He could also of course fall under a bus.
What is certain is that he will have been in the top job for 8 years, and as party leader for 13. All leaders seem to age remarkably while in office, for all that we criticise them it's undoubtedly a remarkably stressful position. He is deep down a family man and would prefer to retire to spend time with them while possibly allowing Sam to make something of her own career.
A good candidate will find ways to make a mark, using Conference as a publicity stunt doesn't do that much but using it to help find the right candidate is brilliant.
If Cameron's replacement is chosen in that manner then they won't get a Queen's Speech which helps match Cameron's pledge to serve a full term.
Letters were sent last year to 5.5 million people who didn't automatically match. Now some of those will have since registered but I believe there are still quite a lot missing. Now some of those may have moved or died but others may have been fraudulent (cough, cough).
It seems likely to me that the names removed will be proportionately higher in urban areas, which would make the boundaries more favourable to the Tories.
The Tories have to get a review through come what may, whether that be for a 600 seat parliament, 650 seat parliament or something in between.
Plenty of Sandal wearing mung bean munchers round here.
Oh diddums. Shame your side lost the election isn't it?
Andrew Roberts making the case that labour is now something of an anachronism.
"You forgot to mention:
- A large civil engineering project would be unveiled to re-pave Britain's streets with gold.
- A deficit reduction bill would give a Labour government the power to instantly erase the deficit by shutting his eyes tightly and making a wish.
- A bill would be introduced to decriminalise the act of setting fire to bankers.
- Ed Miliband would, by law, be on hand to comfort your poor, sainted mother on her deathbed.
- Following the lead of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, all cabinet ministers would be married off to one another in a Moonies-style mass wedding, in order to spread joy and goodwill amongst the people.
- New legislation would require all households to own at least one owl.
- A bill would ensure Polly Toynbee, Owen Jones and Aditya Chakrabortty referred to Labour's welfare cuts as "tough, but necessary" rather than "ideological", "divisive" or "driven by a desire to punish the poorest in society".
- Michael Gove would be banned by an act of parliament."
I'd love to see the internal churn from the Hallam 2010 -> 2015 result, particularly the number of 2010 LDs voting for Clegg. No higher than 65% I suspect - could be as low as 50%.
Broxtowe electorate for instance reduced by a couple of hundred, probably due to students only being registered at their home address or some such. The effect thus far seems to have been minimal.
If Mr Stafford resists Len, will we see a new candidate emerge with massive Union support behind them? Could be some value if we can work out who it might be, any ideas?
Worth a look.
Frankly, any of the contenduhs will get taken apart. It's a matter of total indifference which of the various nobodies on offer wins. I still favour Butcher because he can spend five years failing to live down the Mid Staffs Massacre before experiencing his own. In 2020 he and the Labour Party will, in an electoral sense, find out what it is like to drink the water from your flower vase then die of starvation in the workhouse amid your own ordure.
Mr Bumble the Beadle for leader. 24 Hours To Save Labour's Filthy Workhouses. What can go wrong?
It is a structural flaw in the Labour Party that, because it is vehemently anti-merit and pro-quota, it always ends up with a PLP made up largely of identikit nodding dogs. Its women MPs are MPs because they're women, not because they're good. As a result, every Labour leader elected in the last 35 years has with only one exception been a laughable fourth-rate election-losing buffoon. Why would this trend stop?
UK 70985
England 72415
Scotland 68257
Wales 57431
Northern Ireland 67687
But average Scottish numbers may have gone up considerably since then. So rather than Scottish seats going down, it could be going up.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/list-mps-endorsements-labour-leadership-candidates
Yvette getting rather more Shadow Ministers than the others, I think - not much pattern otherwise. Quite a few well-known names haven't endorsed anyone yet.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/603156891980693504
The only reason there has been only one Tory leader to win twice recently is because the period you're looking at is too short. In 1990 only Thatcher had recently won three elections, for example.
Labour had has seven goes at a leader since 1980 and has come up with unelectable loonies on all but one occasion, when they elected an electable loony. In the same way that to get the best idea of what tomorrow's weather will be like you look at today's, it seems logical that the next Labour leader will, like six of the last seven, be abject crap.
There is more prospect of climate change altering the weather by tomorrow than of Labour electing an impressive leader in June - a conclusion of which we can be 100% confident, because we've seen the candidate pool. I cannot think why you think they'll have a better leader. Why would they?
In the context of speculation about Boris Johnson or someone else taking over, this may just have just been a device to get 'I'm going to serve a full term' onto the record prior to the election which means his position is now unassailable until at least 2019 when Cameron will still hold all the cards himself.
I suggest that 2015 was Labour's best chance with the LibDems unpopular and in Government and the Tories also in Government. Hallam isn't a natural Labour area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Hallam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Tells me all i need to know about the Blair Witch Project
If he has delivered on manifesto commitments then I think he will be forgiven a bit of flexibility on timing.
If UKIP take Hallam, it'll mean they are on over 600 seats.
Huzzah for Marcus Roberts
New Thread
Labour never really changed, but every generation has to learn for itself about Labour, which is that it fosters race and class division, taxes people it hates and envies, and then wrecks the economy. That's it; that's what they do. Blair was an interlude they tolerated, because he got them back in, but a lot of Labourites couldn't really see the point of being in power on Blair's terms. If they couldn't foster race and class division, tax people they hate and envy, and then wreck the economy, what's the point of being in power, exactly?
Labour now is actually back in 1995. It is often misremembered that the Tories lost their reputation for economic competence in September 1992, but IIRC the polls didn't go anywhere much when that happened; nothing that was inconsistent with the usual mid-term blues. What changed was when Blair came along, stopped peddling envy, and started lying about sleaze. In a way he was right about Tory sleaze being disgraceful - it wasn't even trying to be the kind of top-down sleaze he had in mind.
Unlike 1995, Labour doesn't have the Blair option any more. They have fewer MPs - wasn't Major already a minority when Blair became leader? - and the MPs they do have are poorer, being largely selected on racist and sexist lines rather than on merit. To the extent they do, most of Labour still hates Blair. So what we'll get is another John Smith.
I really don't know where Labour goes from here because leftism loses them elections, but they bitterly hate the centre. Polly still thinks their policies were popular FGS...
I suspect that they will come third trending back towards the 16% they got in 2010 and the 12.6% they got in 2005, Tories 2nd and Lib Dems holding on again.