I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
They'll be taking in plates of chips (known in Scotland as 'cooked vegetable snacks') next week.
One only has to look at rising unemployment numbers north of the border to understand how poorly the Scots are represented in both Parliaments.
In conclusion, Labour lost because old rich people have significantly higher turnouts than poor young people, a major factor is that elections are on a working day instead of a weekend day like most countries, and that favours the wealthy and the old who have more time to vote.
The overly cynical part of me did wonder how many people on zero hours contracts were going to be pleasantly surprised by the late offer of fifteen hours work on the first Thursday in May...
I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.
Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.
Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...
Some former London Lib Dem MPs might decide to give the Mayoral election a shot. The likes of Lynne Featherstone are personally liked and it's hardly as if the two main parties have put up any electrifying candidates yet.
Simon Hughes might have a go. He is well known and well liked and not toxic.
FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.
That's very naughty of you, Mr Flashman (deceased). Earlier this afternoon it was made quite clear that leaking a document that is disobliging of the SNP is considerably more serious than presiding over an institutionally corrupt international organisation.
Michael White will be along shortly to demand Blatter gets another chance is it's all just a witch hunt against him.
I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.
Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.
Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...
Some former London Lib Dem MPs might decide to give the Mayoral election a shot. The likes of Lynne Featherstone are personally liked and it's hardly as if the two main parties have put up any electrifying candidates yet.
Simon Hughes might have a go. He is well known and well liked and not toxic.
I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.
Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.
Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...
Some former London Lib Dem MPs might decide to give the Mayoral election a shot. The likes of Lynne Featherstone are personally liked and it's hardly as if the two main parties have put up any electrifying candidates yet.
Simon Hughes might have a go. He is well known and well liked and not toxic.
If Scottish Ministers do not like the tax and spend decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, the Smith Commission Agreement — and now today’s Bill — gives them the power to do something about it. In short, they will be able to put our money where their mouths are. They can fill what they perceive to be gaps in public spending on welfare and social security. They can create new benefits. They can top-up, for Scots, even those benefits which continue to be reserved to Westminster. And they have the tax powers to pay for it all. This is why the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is finally time for the SNP to put up or shut up. At last, we can move the argument on from nationalists’ bleating that they don’t have sufficient powers to a forensic examination of how they choose to use their powers.
"Mr Webb also revealed he had been asked to consider running for the Liberal Democrat leadership after Nick Clegg stepped down, but as a non-MP cannot do so."
In all seriousness, Jorda getting that gig is a backwards step for women in F1 because she got it on looks, not merit [her racing record is, apparently, not that impressive]. Simona de Silvestro as a Sauber driver would've been nicer to see. Danica Patrick is not a favourite but also not ruled out as a Haas driver next year.
FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.
That's very naughty of you, Mr Flashman (deceased). Earlier this afternoon it was made quite clear that leaking a document that is disobliging of the SNP is considerably more serious than presiding over an institutionally corrupt international organisation.
"The SNP is, by some margin, the most dishonest party in Britain."
The reason she singled out Carmichael’s alleged dishonesty, rather than his breach of confidentiality, is because she doesn’t want anyone to focus on the substance of the memo. Why? Because it was almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador. More fundamentally, it’s hypocritical of the SNP leader to complain about duplicity, given her party’s conduct in the run-up to the referendum.
How has Sturgeon got away with what was "almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador."? Namely that she would prefer Cameron to remain as PM.
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how their political positioning goes down with the Labour/union electorate, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
"Mr Webb also revealed he had been asked to consider running for the Liberal Democrat leadership after Nick Clegg stepped down, but as a non-MP cannot do so."
Hopi Sen has a theory that Steve Webb is the architect of the Tory majority.
His pension changes and proposals are what made pensioners and the soon to be pensioners voted so overwhelmingly Tory
Patients were kept like "animals" at a Denbighshire mental health ward, relatives have said. In the report, families described seeing patients "constantly crawling on dirty floors" and being "like a zombie...drugged up". A family told the report's author they found a relative in bed "in a pool of stale urine and it's so stale it was brown".
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how their political positioning goes down with the Labour/union electorate, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.
Apparently Burnham is going to lend Creagh the required nominations. What a hero.
I agree the nominations aren't all that important. All the more reason to be surprised at Cooper's price, imo.
The reason she singled out Carmichael’s alleged dishonesty, rather than his breach of confidentiality, is because she doesn’t want anyone to focus on the substance of the memo. Why? Because it was almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador. More fundamentally, it’s hypocritical of the SNP leader to complain about duplicity, given her party’s conduct in the run-up to the referendum.
How has Sturgeon got away with what was "almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador."? Namely that she would prefer Cameron to remain as PM.
I'm not sure I would go that far. Both she and the ambassador (who doesn't appear to have any reason to lie) have said it's wrong.
However, if she didn't think what the memo actually said, then she's an idiot anyway. Why she thinks that stating the blindingly obvious is somehow damaging I don't know. Doesn't say much for her opinion of the average intelligence and sophistication of Scottish voters.
It's hard to imagine Carmichael would have been in even the slightest trouble if he hadn't lied about it.
But he said that although many held him "ultimately responsible" for Fifa's actions, he could "not monitor everyone all of the time"
Technically true, at leas potentially, but rather missing the point that when so many 'individuals' of Fifa across many decades are accused and in some cases pleading guilty to charges suggesting the the problems are endemic to the organisation, pleading ignorance no longer works as it instead suggests at best the man is entirely and grossly incompetent.
We shall see if the problem is a few apples or the entire orchard in time, but neither reflects well on him.
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
Good. I want to hear from all four candidates, and get a full choice on who to vote for.
It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?
Yes, but it'll help Burnham and Copper to be facing two rather than one 'change' candidates. So, as the withdrawals of Umunna and Hunt were good news for Kendall, the survival of Creagh would be bad news for her.
It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.
What are the rules on Conservative nominations, out of interest? I seem to remember David Davis got dozens last time around (admittedly it was a while ago).
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?
Yes, but it'll help Burnham and Copper to be facing two rather than one 'change' candidates. So, as the withdrawals of Umunna and Hunt were good news for Kendall, the survival of Creagh would be bad news for her.
For Creagh to be a change candidate she'd need to actually articulate something. She'd just be a token candidate and wouldn't have much impact on the dynamics of the campaign. She'd be as likely to take some of the 'time for a female leader' vote off Cooper as to damage Kendall's support.
It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.
What are the rules on Conservative nominations, out of interest? I seem to remember David Davis got dozens last time around (admittedly it was a while ago).
I believe someone mentioned they only need 2 nominations to stand, then a series of ballots to whittle however many candidates down to a final 2. I suppose an upper limit on nominations didn't matter because unlike the Labour 2010 contest there was not going to be any controversy about the party and MPs not voting for the winner, and in fact there is technically no controversy about that for Labour now, with the rules change, it's just because of last time it may be focused on and the higher bar for nominations make it seem more vital.
"Mr Webb also revealed he had been asked to consider running for the Liberal Democrat leadership after Nick Clegg stepped down, but as a non-MP cannot do so."
Hopi Sen has a theory that Steve Webb is the architect of the Tory majority.
His pension changes and proposals are what made pensioners and the soon to be pensioners voted so overwhelmingly Tory
I've seen that theory. It has a basic flaw. The major pension reforms were hatched in the Treasury and Steve Webb reputedly knew nothing about them in advance of the 2014 budget, though in an impressive reversal of most clothes-stealing in the coalition, he managed to take ownership of them the moment he realised how popular they were going to be.
It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.
What are the rules on Conservative nominations, out of interest? I seem to remember David Davis got dozens last time around (admittedly it was a while ago).
They just need a nominator & a seconder. But only two candidates end up getting put to the membership.
Regarding the EU - this is what noted fruitcake Steve Hilton has to say about it in the Spectator:
'Renegotiating our membership of the EU is, to Hilton, very much part of it. I ask him about a study he is said to have commissioned, which looked at how much of government work is conducted at the behest of Brussels. Is it true that a third of what No. 10 did had nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s agenda?
‘No, it was the other way round,’ he says. ‘Only a third was our agenda. The rest wasn’t. You read about that theory, and it is pretty staggering when you get into government.’'
Only a 3rd. That situation is insupportable, all the more because the electorate have no idea, and politicians, the media, and a minority of idiot supporters have connived to portray Europe as a 'side issue', and something we shouldn't be 'obsessed' with.
I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
All you need to get on the political ladder up there is three months party membership and a Primark polyester trouser suit.
Never mind the minders, surely it won't be long before their constituents realise just how crap they are. The hordes of wiped-out ScotsLab were too complacent but probably somewhat more competent.
I set off for work at 5:45am each weekday, I don't receive a penny in benefits and I never open my front curtains. I live in a ground floor flat in a terraced house. My only front window is my bedroom so I'm not going to open the curtains to that. I just open my back curtains which only look out onto my garden. I don't really care if it looks to the outside world like I'm a layabout. I know that I'm working hard 10 to 12 hours a day.
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?
Yes, but it'll help Burnham and Copper to be facing two rather than one 'change' candidates. So, as the withdrawals of Umunna and Hunt were good news for Kendall, the survival of Creagh would be bad news for her.
For Creagh to be a change candidate she'd need to actually articulate something. She'd just be a token candidate and wouldn't have much impact on the dynamics of the campaign. She'd be as likely to take some of the 'time for a female leader' vote off Cooper as to damage Kendall's support.
It's going to be a long campaign and there will be plenty of time for articulating a vision. As things stand I would vote for Kendall, but I will listen closely to what all the candidates have to say, and I may change my mind. I also have no notion at the moment about who I'd be voting for as second or third preference.
I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
... surely it won't be long before their constituents realise just how crap they are.
Even if they are crap (and calm down any SNP watchers I'm not saying they are, as I have no idea), I think that's pretty optimistic thinking for the anti-SNP crowd, that 'surely' people will notice and get fed up before too long. For one thing, the pro-SNP wave is still riding very high and will carry a lot of crap before it begins to be diminished, and for another, many no doubt crap MPs have managed to retain seats for very long periods. Most people won't encounter their MP, and unless there is some major disaster, it might take an awful lot before general awareness of an MPs ineptness sinks through to most people. With many SNP seats now pretty darn comfortable excepting any swings of sizable proportions (not out of the question given recent history, but not something that can be relied upon), a crap MP might just have their majority dented as a warning shot to the party to replace them before the seat is actually at risk again.
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.
Ipsos Mori had Labour only ahead with 34 and under. That said I do believe in the baby boomers being a left leaning cohort, the ones who thought Blair was cool.
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
If Scottish Ministers do not like the tax and spend decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, the Smith Commission Agreement — and now today’s Bill — gives them the power to do something about it. In short, they will be able to put our money where their mouths are. They can fill what they perceive to be gaps in public spending on welfare and social security. They can create new benefits. They can top-up, for Scots, even those benefits which continue to be reserved to Westminster. And they have the tax powers to pay for it all. This is why the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is finally time for the SNP to put up or shut up. At last, we can move the argument on from nationalists’ bleating that they don’t have sufficient powers to a forensic examination of how they choose to use their powers.
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
According to the last paragraph of this article, she's already ahead on organising her campaign amongst members as well:
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.
Crazy price, you wonder if people are putting too much emphasis on her past health issues.
I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
... surely it won't be long before their constituents realise just how crap they are.
Even if they are crap (and calm down any SNP watchers I'm not saying they are, as I have no idea), I think that's pretty optimistic thinking for the anti-SNP crowd, that 'surely' people will notice and get fed up before too long. For one thing, the pro-SNP wave is still riding very high and will carry a lot of crap before it begins to be diminished, and for another, many no doubt crap MPs have managed to retain seats for very long periods. Most people won't encounter their MP, and unless there is some major disaster, it might take an awful lot before general awareness of an MPs ineptness sinks through to most people. With many SNP seats now pretty darn comfortable excepting any swings of sizable proportions (not out of the question given recent history, but not something that can be relied upon), a crap MP might just have their majority dented as a warning shot to the party to replace them before the seat is actually at risk again.
It's surprising to note how optimistic the Liberals were in 1913 that they would win several of the seats Labour currently held because of the 'low grade' of MP it produced.
When the next multiparty election was held, in 1922, Labour got 142 seats. Still the Liberals, with 163 in total, thought it would not last.
By 1925, the Liberals had a grand total of 40 seats...there or thereabouts they have stayed for the last 90 years.
I am not saying that the SNP candidates are brilliant - I don't know enough either way to judge. What I do say is that simply waiting for a party of protest to implode rather removing the causes of that protest is about as likely to be effective as King Cnut's famous coastal erosion prevention strategy.
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.
I agree. I have not understood her odds from day one of the contest. She used to top the poll of MPs every year and so be automatically in shadow cabinet. Plus, presumably, the old Balls/Brown networks are humming like mad in the background now. I'm not saying she can't be beaten, but the odds seem wrong to me.
On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social media
On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social media
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.
Ipsos Mori had Labour only ahead with 34 and under. That said I do believe in the baby boomers being a left leaning cohort, the ones who thought Blair was cool.
You say that, but anyone hitting 65 now would have been in their 30s during the Thatcher revolution. I don't recall that group being raving for her back then, yet the Tories now have whopping leads with that group. You could make similar observations about teenagers in the 60s and the 'summer of love' generation.
The whole cohort has (in general) moved sharply Right as it has aged.
On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social media
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.
It may well have contributed in some areas for all we know, but I do wonder if the result falling their way means a lot more is being ascribed to it than is deserved. It may be that the underlying factors in the general public consciousness which aided the Tories - high ratings on the economy etc - simply ended up being even more effective in the crucial seats than anyone expected, and the campaigning was as limited in effectiveness as everyone anticipated, it just didn't matter.
If it really was down to those two, then they deserve a much higher commission than whatever they got this time.
If Scottish Ministers do not like the tax and spend decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, the Smith Commission Agreement — and now today’s Bill — gives them the power to do something about it. In short, they will be able to put our money where their mouths are. They can fill what they perceive to be gaps in public spending on welfare and social security. They can create new benefits. They can top-up, for Scots, even those benefits which continue to be reserved to Westminster. And they have the tax powers to pay for it all. This is why the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is finally time for the SNP to put up or shut up. At last, we can move the argument on from nationalists’ bleating that they don’t have sufficient powers to a forensic examination of how they choose to use their powers.
I am shocked, shocked that Prof Tomkins thinks it's time for the SNP to shut up and be destroyed. An amazing change of pace for him.
It continues to astonish me that the Loyalist media and political types continue to fail to address their own issues and try to continue with "SNP Bad" even when it is obvious to everyone that the tactic is simply not working.
Having now watched several of the Maiden Speeches of the SNP's new MPs as well as today's Adjournment debate on Trident, they should be getting very, very worried about the calibre of their new opponents. If they continue with their current strategy of "SNP Bad" and assuming the new MPs will embarrass Scotland, they are in for a substantial shock over the coming years.
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am. .
Perhaps their algorithms correctly identified you as an unpersuadable curmudgeon who wasn't worth the hassle?
On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social media
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.
Ipsos Mori had Labour only ahead with 34 and under. That said I do believe in the baby boomers being a left leaning cohort, the ones who thought Blair was cool.
You say that, but anyone hitting 65 now would have been in their 30s during the Thatcher revolution. I don't recall that group being raving for her back then, yet the Tories now have whopping leads with that group. You could make similar observations about teenagers in the 60s and the 'summer of love' generation.
The whole cohort has (in general) moved sharply Right as it has aged.
Even if the Right is not as, well, Right, as it was back then (I don't know if that's true, but it'd be interesting to see how different they are) and so might seem more appealing to those people, I love the idea that they were told then they would turn more Right as they aged, and I bet they were horrified and offended at the very idea, from the more angry lefties at any rate.
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.
Crazy price, you wonder if people are putting too much emphasis on her past health issues.
About a week or so ago Yvette Cooper looked like yesterday's candidate, with the contest being a straight Burnham vs Kendall (Unions vs Blairite) struggle for the soul of the Labour party.
I still don't particularly see what Yvette Cooper stands for, but not being a Blairite and not being Len McCluskey's homunculus might be enough. After all Ed Miliband pretty much won the leadership by not being a Blairite (ie David Miliband) and not being a Brownite (ie Ed Balls).
On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social media
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am. .
Perhaps their algorithms correctly identified you as an unpersuadable curmudgeon who wasn't worth the hassle?
Out of curiosity, what hassle is involved in telling a computer to add another name to a mailshot?
Comments
One only has to look at rising unemployment numbers north of the border to understand how poorly the Scots are represented in both Parliaments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32920794
Hear, hear!! He can F right off. I don't want this beautiful City of mine to be polluted by people like him.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CF9uiMPWYAAL-Mu.jpg
Remember, no party identifiers on the ballot paper then!
In unrelated news, been present-shopping for junior relatives. A tiny Spongebob Lego set costs more than The Witcher 3! Bloody outrageous.
If Scottish Ministers do not like the tax and spend decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, the Smith Commission Agreement — and now today’s Bill — gives them the power to do something about it. In short, they will be able to put our money where their mouths are. They can fill what they perceive to be gaps in public spending on welfare and social security. They can create new benefits. They can top-up, for Scots, even those benefits which continue to be reserved to Westminster. And they have the tax powers to pay for it all. This is why the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is finally time for the SNP to put up or shut up. At last, we can move the argument on from nationalists’ bleating that they don’t have sufficient powers to a forensic examination of how they choose to use their powers.
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-smith-commission-agreement-and-the-scotland-bill/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8851d280-fb0a-11e4-84f3-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bMIGYzt2
"Mr Webb also revealed he had been asked to consider running for the Liberal Democrat leadership after Nick Clegg stepped down, but as a non-MP cannot do so."
@GustavoYacaman: Hoy cumple 27 años esta obra de arte. Que les parece @CarmenJorda? Wapaaaaaaa http://t.co/bJQthyh2Q7
In all seriousness, Jorda getting that gig is a backwards step for women in F1 because she got it on looks, not merit [her racing record is, apparently, not that impressive]. Simona de Silvestro as a Sauber driver would've been nicer to see. Danica Patrick is not a favourite but also not ruled out as a Haas driver next year.
@BBCJonSopel: People hold me responsible, but i can't watch everything. However I am responsible for fixing it - the kernel of #Blatter argument #FIFA
@BBCJonSopel: "We now must earn trust back," says #Blatter - clearly implying with him remaining at the head of #FIFA
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.
How has Sturgeon got away with what was "almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador."? Namely that she would prefer Cameron to remain as PM.
NSFW.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagging
His pension changes and proposals are what made pensioners and the soon to be pensioners voted so overwhelmingly Tory
Patients were kept like "animals" at a Denbighshire mental health ward, relatives have said. In the report, families described seeing patients "constantly crawling on dirty floors" and being "like a zombie...drugged up". A family told the report's author they found a relative in bed "in a pool of stale urine and it's so stale it was brown".
I agree the nominations aren't all that important. All the more reason to be surprised at Cooper's price, imo.
However, if she didn't think what the memo actually said, then she's an idiot anyway. Why she thinks that stating the blindingly obvious is somehow damaging I don't know. Doesn't say much for her opinion of the average intelligence and sophistication of Scottish voters.
It's hard to imagine Carmichael would have been in even the slightest trouble if he hadn't lied about it.
But he said that although many held him "ultimately responsible" for Fifa's actions, he could "not monitor everyone all of the time"
Technically true, at leas potentially, but rather missing the point that when so many 'individuals' of Fifa across many decades are accused and in some cases pleading guilty to charges suggesting the the problems are endemic to the organisation, pleading ignorance no longer works as it instead suggests at best the man is entirely and grossly incompetent.
We shall see if the problem is a few apples or the entire orchard in time, but neither reflects well on him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32923104
Different pollsters do the groupings differently, but there's a bit (red) wedge where Tory support drops, after having increased with each age group.
'Renegotiating our membership of the EU is, to Hilton, very much part of it. I ask him about a study he is said to have commissioned, which looked at how much of government work is conducted at the behest of Brussels. Is it true that a third of what No. 10 did had nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s agenda?
‘No, it was the other way round,’ he says. ‘Only a third was our agenda. The rest wasn’t. You read about that theory, and it is pretty staggering when you get into government.’'
Only a 3rd. That situation is insupportable, all the more because the electorate have no idea, and politicians, the media, and a minority of idiot supporters have connived to portray Europe as a 'side issue', and something we shouldn't be 'obsessed' with.
Never mind the minders, surely it won't be long before their constituents realise just how crap they are. The hordes of wiped-out ScotsLab were too complacent but probably somewhat more competent.
Will Greece make it the second country in the next few days?
Liam Byrne
Ruth Cadbury
Judith Cummins
Virenda Sharma
Marie Rimmer
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/28/vile-homophobe-tory-councillor-goes-on-anti-gay-rant-at-the-kremlin/
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/yvette-coopers-policy-interventions-should-spice-up-the-labour-leadership-contest/
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.
Happy to be corrected.
When the next multiparty election was held, in 1922, Labour got 142 seats. Still the Liberals, with 163 in total, thought it would not last.
By 1925, the Liberals had a grand total of 40 seats...there or thereabouts they have stayed for the last 90 years.
I am not saying that the SNP candidates are brilliant - I don't know enough either way to judge. What I do say is that simply waiting for a party of protest to implode rather removing the causes of that protest is about as likely to be effective as King Cnut's famous coastal erosion prevention strategy.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/movie-scientsts/35486/20-excellent-scientists-in-mainstream-film-and-tv
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.
The whole cohort has (in general) moved sharply Right as it has aged.
If it really was down to those two, then they deserve a much higher commission than whatever they got this time.
Having now watched several of the Maiden Speeches of the SNP's new MPs as well as today's Adjournment debate on Trident, they should be getting very, very worried about the calibre of their new opponents. If they continue with their current strategy of "SNP Bad" and assuming the new MPs will embarrass Scotland, they are in for a substantial shock over the coming years.
If I were Cameron I'd buy it and stick it outside the front door to Number Ten to cheer himself up whenever things are a bit tricky.
I still don't particularly see what Yvette Cooper stands for, but not being a Blairite and not being Len McCluskey's homunculus might be enough. After all Ed Miliband pretty much won the leadership by not being a Blairite (ie David Miliband) and not being a Brownite (ie Ed Balls).
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u/serial-protester-facing-criminal-charges-for-jim-murphy-hijackings-lawyer-claims.1432817396
"would be charged and reported to the procurator fiscal for breaches of section 38 and section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010."
Seems a lovely chap as well..