It wasn't by taking net seats off Labour though, it was by taking 27 off the LibDems.
It was gay marriage and increasing our international aid budget that got the Tories a majority, as all those Lib Dems switched to the Tories as they saw, the liberal, compassionate conservatism that David Cameron is the epitome of.
A lot of Lib Dem rural seats were not particularly liberal places. The Conservatives actually didn't push up their vote share by much, in Lib Dem seats, but they didn't have to. The party's vote share crashed by 15% in seats where incumbents were standing, and by 24% (!) in seats where incumbents retired.
Dr. Parma, is Venice (and its surroundings) moving any nearer to independence? I read last year they'd stopped sending tax money to Rome, but haven't heard anything since.
(OT) for Plato and MTimT: I first saw Piff on Penn & Teller a few years ago www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiq-SbIW_Oo
Thanks John. In trying to find the link for Plato, I came across the Penn and Teller video. Alas, his material does not seem to have evolved much. If he becomes more successful, he'll have to develop some new material. But what he does is good.
A question being asked in some quarters is, "What is the point of Labour?". It is highly likely that parts of the electorate were increasingly asking the same question as election day approached.
This question arose because EdM was quite good at diagnosing a problem (e.g. energy prices, wealth disparity etc), but not once did he ever provide a practical solution. This culminated with his Edstone wishlist, which provided absolute proof of not only his incapability but also that he was not in tune with the minds and hopes of the electorate.
When most people visit their doctor with a problem (or even their MP) they expect a correct diagnosis/advice and a practical solution to solve their problem and this happens in most cases. It is for the unfortunate few that the diagnosis leads to an unwanted finality.
It is often said that in a safe Labour seat one could pin a red rosette on a donkey/monkey and it would get elected. Unfortunately the nearer election day became - the more EdM came to resemble that situation.
Just a few stats: in the UK the combined Cons + UKIP vote was 49.5%. In England it was 55.1% and even in Wales it was 40.8%. These are warning lights that Labour needs to discuss before any leader is elected.
The guy who came second on BGT has an excellent trick on similar signed lines - it's very clever
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I read that and thought "they've got a program for Bisexuals, Gays and Trsansexuals? But what about the Lesbians! Won't anyone think of the Lesbians!"
The guy who came second on BGT has an excellent trick on similar signed lines - it's very clever
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I read that and thought "they've got a program for Bisexuals, Gays and Trsansexuals? But what about the Lesbians! Won't anyone think of the Lesbians!"
Similarly, every time the Tories lost between 1997-2005 some in the party blamed it on not being right wing enough. See also: John McCain, Mitt Romney.
There are delusional types in both parties.
You are aware they were both the establishment/oligarch donor choices? Dream candidates for the Democrats, pro war, pro immigration and pro 1%. Jeb Bush is being promoted next and would be as disastrous.
The guy who came second on BGT has an excellent trick on similar signed lines - it's very clever
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I read that and thought "they've got a program for Bisexuals, Gays and Trsansexuals? But what about the Lesbians! Won't anyone think of the Lesbians!"
I'm always thinking about lesbians.
Ahem
I just *knew* you'd be the first to respond to that. ;-)
Interesting question, but I think it would have changed the dynamics rather than the leader, since there wasn't an obviously popular alternative in the wings. What it would have changed was the more or less overt assumption that we could squeak home without taking risks. The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember - essentially it said, "Don't worry, we won't do anything drastic."
Update on the Danish election for those interested: a poll today puts Thorning and the centre-left 1% in front, though another one puts them 3% behind. An average of several polls gives a tiny 1% swing to Thorning since last week, but on average she's still behind by 2%. A TV duel between the leaders last night is rated by a third poll as having been won by Thorning (50-37).
The guy who came second on BGT has an excellent trick on similar signed lines - it's very clever
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I read that and thought "they've got a program for Bisexuals, Gays and Trsansexuals? But what about the Lesbians! Won't anyone think of the Lesbians!"
I'm always thinking about lesbians.
Ahem
You'd enjoy 'Jerry Springer; The Opera':
'Dip me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians'......
The guy who came second on BGT has an excellent trick on similar signed lines - it's very clever
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I read that and thought "they've got a program for Bisexuals, Gays and Trsansexuals? But what about the Lesbians! Won't anyone think of the Lesbians!"
The guy who came second on BGT has an excellent trick on similar signed lines - it's very clever
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I read that and thought "they've got a program for Bisexuals, Gays and Trsansexuals? But what about the Lesbians! Won't anyone think of the Lesbians!"
I'm always thinking about lesbians.
Ahem
I can't imagine why.
I've always been a supporter of gay rights. That's why. Honest
After a couple of years of the public seeing Ed, their view of him was still getting worse. Labour bet the farm on the voters being wrong. That is about as wrong as it gets in politics.
The LibDems did not remove Nick Clegg, or the Tories David Cameron after 2010 when he blew what ought to have been a majority against Gordon Brown.
You do sound as if you are living in an alternate universe. Nick Clegg was not removed because they were in power, something the Lib Dems had wanted for years, and was part of a coalition, something that was at the heart of the Lib Dem's political thinking. Besides, the problem was more the fact of coalition than Clegg himself.
As for the Conservatives after 2010: Cameron won nearly a hundred seats; a success by anyone's standards. The reasons he did not get a majority were because of the low seat base and the fact he was facing the nastiest party ever: the party of McBride.
The Tories did not win a majority in 2010 because the electoral system worked in Labour's favour. This time it did not.
That was part of it, but Labour's campaign in the run-up to 2010 was truly malign.
The Tories got a majority this time on essentially the same vote share as last time.
It wasn't by taking net seats off Labour though, it was by taking 27 off the LibDems.
It is interesting to note that the pollsters got the Lib Dem vote pretty much spot on with the consequences that such a number predicted. It was not the pollsters who deluded themselves into thinking they would do better, it was all of us including me who bet Isam that their vote would recover and exceed UKIP. Even the great antifrank made the same bet.
Crosby saw the reality and the opportunity there ruthlessly deploying his key resources including Cameron into Lib Dem seats, even so called safe ones. It was a brilliant call requiring nerves of steel because it was predicated on Labour getting basically nowhere in the Tory/Labour marginals.
Until Labour/and commentators stop referring to people as Blairite or whatever - it won't really move on. It's the same thing as Wets and Drys in the Tories post-Mrs T.
We just don't hear anyone use those labels anymore and haven't for a very long time.
Mid-term polling normally gives big opposition leads. This time they were always relatively low. The signs were always there about Ed. They chose to believe they could win without a real plan, and with a crap leader. Labour have lost the plot and the current leadership election shows no sign that they're finding it. Why? Because they're only talking to themselves, there's no engagement with the real public.Cooper' s bizarre ranting yesterday highlighted this.
The party is doing what it should have done in 2010
Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
I fear the Labour party is discussing people......which I know can be a proxy for 'ideas' - but I fear is just a proxy for labels; 'Blairite' and so forth.....
I disagree. There are two Blairites and one post-Blairite contesting the election. What is notable is the absence of a left-wing voice. I don't think this is a big battle between differing Labour camps; it is a battle of small differences. Whoever wins will take Labour to the right of where it was under Ed. For the moment, the Labour left is nowhere.
Until Labour/and commentators stop referring to people as Blairite or whatever - it won't really move on. It's the same thing as Wets and Drys in the Tories post-Mrs T.
We just don't hear anyone use those labels anymore and haven't for a very long time.
Mid-term polling normally gives big opposition leads. This time they were always relatively low. The signs were always there about Ed. They chose to believe they could win without a real plan, and with a crap leader. Labour have lost the plot and the current leadership election shows no sign that they're finding it. Why? Because they're only talking to themselves, there's no engagement with the real public.Cooper' s bizarre ranting yesterday highlighted this.
The party is doing what it should have done in 2010
Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
I fear the Labour party is discussing people......which I know can be a proxy for 'ideas' - but I fear is just a proxy for labels; 'Blairite' and so forth.....
I disagree. There are two Blairites and one post-Blairite contesting the election. What is notable is the absence of a left-wing voice. I don't think this is a big battle between differing Labour camps; it is a battle of small differences. Whoever wins will take Labour to the right of where it was under Ed. For the moment, the Labour left is nowhere.
Mr. Eagles, cheers. The acronym's in danger of becoming comically enormous.
It's the asexuals I feel a little sorry for: they're being somewhat forgotten.
A mate at uni was obviously not interested in girls. Mistakenly (and somewhat shamefully) we thought he was gay but in the closet. Only later did we realise that he was asexual.
As it happens he has become very successful. All that time we spent chasing boys and/or girls (delete as applicable) he spent studying and working.
Precisely. And Mandy did an epic job of frightening voters away from the Tories. I vividly recall some of his Jungle Book's Kaa interviews. He was very persuasive. If I didn't know him better, I'd have almost been taken in myself.
But Labour were more loyal, more stupid, or more afraid of the wrath of their paymasters than their political opponents would have been. The Tories and the LibDems were ruthless in "jumping the life to come" and moving out electoral duffers. Or maybe it was a stubbornness, a refusal to react when your opponent constantly advises you to change your leader. Must be really galling to acknowledge they have a point. But that ploughing on regardless has resulted in its worst defeat in a generation.
After a couple of years of the public seeing Ed, their view of him was still getting worse. Labour bet the farm on the voters being wrong. That is about as wrong as it gets in politics.
The LibDems did not remove Nick Clegg, or the Tories David Cameron after 2010 when he blew what ought to have been a majority against Gordon Brown.
You do sound as if you are living in an alternate universe. Nick Clegg was not removed because they were in power, something the Lib Dems had wanted for years, and was part of a coalition, something that was at the heart of the Lib Dem's political thinking. Besides, the problem was more the fact of coalition than Clegg himself.
As for the Conservatives after 2010: Cameron won nearly a hundred seats; a success by anyone's standards. The reasons he did not get a majority were because of the low seat base and the fact he was facing the nastiest party ever: the party of McBride.
The Tories did not win a majority in 2010 because the electoral system worked in Labour's favour. This time it did not.
That was part of it, but Labour's campaign in the run-up to 2010 was truly malign.
I dunno, as Mandelson said early on, they recognised they had no chance of winning. What they had to do was stop the other side from getting a clear win. Job done.
This time around, they had to present something worth voting for.
The guy who came second on BGT has an excellent trick on similar signed lines - it's very clever
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I read that and thought "they've got a program for Bisexuals, Gays and Trsansexuals? But what about the Lesbians! Won't anyone think of the Lesbians!"
General Elections are not won by the campaign of a few weeks that precedes them. Elections are won by the presentation of the image of the party over the lifetime of the previous parliament.
The period 2010-2015 was the first since time the late 1980's that the most intelligent Labour strategists, Philip Gould and Peter Mandelson, had not been at the core of Labour decision making These two were the leading modernisers who were mostly responsible for building the New Labour election winning machine.
If you have not already read it, I heartily recommend "The Unfinished Revolution" (2011 edition) by Philip Gould. (P.S. Gould's motto was "Crede Populo" - how apt)
I don't think it's been mentioned on here, but perhaps the most important election this year is being held in Turkey in a few day's time. And yes, it is potentially more important than the one we have just held.
If PM Davutoğlu (a member of Erdogan's AKP) gets over 330 seats they will be able to alter the country's constitution via a referendum; if they get over ?360? they will be able to alter it without a referendum. They have a little over 300 at the moment.
Given the trouble on the country's borders, it is a massively important election.
(As an aside, they have a ban on opinion polls for a little over a week before the election).
Mr. Eagles, cheers. The acronym's in danger of becoming comically enormous.
It's the asexuals I feel a little sorry for: they're being somewhat forgotten.
A mate at uni was obviously not interested in girls. Mistakenly (and somewhat shamefully) we thought he was gay but in the closet. Only later did we realise that he was asexual.
As it happens he has become very successful. All that time we spent chasing boys and/or girls (delete as applicable) he spent studying and working.
I have heard of QUILTBAG (Queer, Intersex, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual, asexual, gay). I'm not sure that all those groups have much in common.
Mr. Jessop, I was considering mentioning asexuality, but I imagine those who feel that way would be glad not to be included.
Edited extra bit: I think something like 1% (I did have a link to an asexual organisation or other, but have misplaced it) could be considered asexual, which is a small minority but still a pretty large number overall.
Looking at the polls following the election last time, it was November when Labour started taking the lead.
I was wondering if there wouldn't be an election boost this time though because the SNP and Ed Miliband aspects have been removed and so people may be thinking who they support generally now.
I've a couple of asexual friends who married each other so they could just be a couple with no sex stressing. I was surprised by how common it was to just not be at all interested.
Mr. Eagles, cheers. The acronym's in danger of becoming comically enormous.
It's the asexuals I feel a little sorry for: they're being somewhat forgotten.
A mate at uni was obviously not interested in girls. Mistakenly (and somewhat shamefully) we thought he was gay but in the closet. Only later did we realise that he was asexual.
As it happens he has become very successful. All that time we spent chasing boys and/or girls (delete as applicable) he spent studying and working.
Interesting question, but I think it would have changed the dynamics rather than the leader, since there wasn't an obviously popular alternative in the wings. What it would have changed was the more or less overt assumption that we could squeak home without taking risks. The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember - essentially it said, "Don't worry, we won't do anything drastic."
Our political system is clearly presidential whether we like it or not.
A party needs someone attractive and interesting to lead it and then it needs something attractive and interesting for them to say.
Mr. Eagles, cheers. The acronym's in danger of becoming comically enormous.
The most comically enormous acronym is The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society
That's not actually an acronym but an initialism as my children continually pointed out over the weekend. Acronyms need to create words that can be pronounced (say NASA), initialisms cannot be pronounced and therefore are not acronyms (eg FBI, CIA)...
Their Nan (a former english teacher) spent hours claiming they were acronyms until we hit the internet and wikipedia. That wasn't good enough for her but the Oxford English dictionary finally saw her admit defeat.
Mr. Jessop, I was considering mentioning asexuality, but I imagine those who feel that way would be glad not to be included.
Edited extra bit: I think something like 1% (I did have a link to an asexual organisation or other, but have misplaced it) could be considered asexual, which is a small minority but still a pretty large number overall.
It's a vast number of people, many of whom are sometimes seen as being a bit 'odd' because they do not do what the rest of us do.
I'm not particularly proud of the fact that we thought of him in that manner. The follies of youth.
Edited extra bit: indeed, Miss Plato. I think that sounds like a good solution.
I have to be very careful what I say about Turkish elections. However the Economist has had a few interesting articles recently if you want background information.
Interesting question, but I think it would have changed the dynamics rather than the leader, since there wasn't an obviously popular alternative in the wings. What it would have changed was the more or less overt assumption that we could squeak home without taking risks. The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember - essentially it said, "Don't worry, we won't do anything drastic."
Our political system is clearly presidential whether we like it or not.
A party needs someone attractive and interesting to lead it and then it needs something attractive and interesting for them to say.
I guess you need a plausible if bland frontman, with the strength of the team behind them (we must hope, as they seem to hide them away) as the driving brains behind most matters.
@Sean_F, what is most interesting about the Italian elections is that the right seems to be converging around La Lega and its sister party "Us with Salvini".
"The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember."
That was Ed's fault but to be fair to him, he was always insecure. Having craved the job, he did the dirty on is brother yet knew the party wasn't really behind him. A real Shakespearean villain. What else would he be but a dictatorial 'feartie' (as our Scottish colleagues would say).
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
@Sean_F, what is most interesting about the Italian elections is that the right seems to be converging around La Lega and its sister party "Us with Salvini".
That seems a good deal more sensible than uniting around the need to keep Berlusconi out of jail.
The Conservatives ran a far more right wing campaign in 2015 than they did in 2010 thanks to pressure from our friends in UKIP. </blockquote
Are you sure about that, Mr Flag? I thought they fought a "Continuation of the Coalition" campaign, but without the Lib Dems. They hardly mentioned the right-wing policies they are now bringing forward.
Interesting question, but I think it would have changed the dynamics rather than the leader, since there wasn't an obviously popular alternative in the wings. What it would have changed was the more or less overt assumption that we could squeak home without taking risks. The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember - essentially it said, "Don't worry, we won't do anything drastic."
Our political system is clearly presidential whether we like it or not.
A party needs someone attractive and interesting to lead it and then it needs something attractive and interesting for them to say.
Yes, well put.
It's actually quite difficult for any leader to be generally (i.e. not just among supporters) seen as attractive and interesting, because the standard media approach is to debunk. Apart from Tony Blair during (roughly) 1996-2000, can anyone think of any in recent times? Cameron? Brown? Howard? Hague? Home? Thatcher? Heath? Wilson? Boris, up to a point, but a lot of people like him more for entertainment value than because they really think he's an attractive potential PM.
A substitute is to seem determined and interesting. Thatcher and Blair 2000-2007 managed that - lots of people no longer liked them if they ever had, but they credited them with having relentless drive.
Interesting question, but I think it would have changed the dynamics rather than the leader, since there wasn't an obviously popular alternative in the wings. What it would have changed was the more or less overt assumption that we could squeak home without taking risks. The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember - essentially it said, "Don't worry, we won't do anything drastic."
Our political system is clearly presidential whether we like it or not.
A party needs someone attractive and interesting to lead it and then it needs something attractive and interesting for them to say.
I guess you need a plausible if bland frontman, with the strength of the team behind them (we must hope, as they seem to hide them away) as the driving brains behind most matters.
"Plausible" is a good word, but in addition to attractive and interesting. You need all three to stand a chance.
Interesting question, but I think it would have changed the dynamics rather than the leader, since there wasn't an obviously popular alternative in the wings. What it would have changed was the more or less overt assumption that we could squeak home without taking risks. The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember - essentially it said, "Don't worry, we won't do anything drastic."
Our political system is clearly presidential whether we like it or not.
A party needs someone attractive and interesting to lead it and then it needs something attractive and interesting for them to say.
Yes, well put.
It's actually quite difficult for any leader to be generally (i.e. not just among supporters) seen as attractive and interesting, because the standard media approach is to debunk. Apart from Tony Blair during (roughly) 1996-2000, can anyone think of any in recent times? Cameron? Brown? Howard? Hague? Home? Thatcher? Heath? Wilson? Boris, up to a point, but a lot of people like him more for entertainment value than because they really think he's an attractive potential PM.
A substitute is to seem determined and interesting. Thatcher and Blair 2000-2007 managed that - lots of people no longer liked them if they ever had, but they credited them with having relentless drive.
I would say that to those that voted for them, Cameron, Thatcher and Wilson were seen as both attractive and interesting. Cameron has a look that plays well to potential Tories. Wilson and That her were both charismatic.
Of course they also had their detractors elsewhere, but that's not the point. If you appeal to your 40%, the rest do not matter.
An interesting exercise IMO would be to take the 2015 results and increase the turnout in Labour seats by 2 or 3 points and see to what extent that affects the overall vote share figures. Alternatively one could take the seats where turnout dropped and instead assume it had remained the same as 2010 and see what happens with the vote shares.
Mr. Eagles, cheers. The acronym's in danger of becoming comically enormous.
The most comically enormous acronym is The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society
That's not actually an acronym but an initialism as my children continually pointed out over the weekend. Acronyms need to create words that can be pronounced (say NASA), initialisms cannot be pronounced and therefore are not acronyms (eg FBI, CIA)...
Their Nan (a former english teacher) spent hours claiming they were acronyms until we hit the internet and wikipedia. That wasn't good enough for her but the Oxford English dictionary finally saw her admit defeat.
Read out TSE's acronym again. It can be pronounced. Though I suspect it is a rather modern backronym rather than an acronym.
Baxtering that Sun poll we get a Tory majority of 46 with the following gains:
Barrow and Furness Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Brentford and Isleworth Carshalton and Wallington Chester, City of Dewsbury Ealing Central and Acton Enfield North Halifax Hampstead and Kilburn Hove Ilford North Lancaster and Fleetwood Newcastle-under-Lyme Southport Wirral West Wolverhampton South West
(and Ynys Mon to PC).
In practice it will surely be easier for the Tories to gain the "one more heave" seats such as BRS, Halifax, Southport & Newcastle-under-Lyme rather than the ones they have just lost, owing to incumbency factors. A modest incumbency adjustment (and double for first-time incumbency) would really improve Baxter.
My response to the thesis forming this thread is "well, quite" followed by "what about William Hague ?". It's all very well getting rid of a Party leader but the second question is who, among the contenders, would improve the party's fortunes significantly.
Margaret Thatcher was deposed (and if you'd told a Conservative backbencher in June 1987 what would happen in November 1990 they would have laughed) because it appeared that with Michael Heseltine and then John Major the party had a chance of overcoming the deficit to Labour.
The likes of William Hague, Nick Clegg and even Gordon Brown weren't deposed because there was no one else who would have made a significant difference. IDS was deposed because almost anyone else would have been better.
The Conservatives will be well aware that an integral part of the victory three weeks ago was that group of electors who voted for David Cameron rather than the Conservative party. That group will be instrumental in the EU Referendum as they will support David Cameron whatever he proposes.
The converse of that is that if there comes a point when Cameron is seen as an electoral liability rather than an asset and the polls look bad the pressure from MPs with small majorities for a change of leader will rapidly escalate.
There seems to be an assumption that the LD’s won’t recover. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, since the anti-Civil Liberties attitude of the Conservative Government will cause some concerns in the Party
Way back in the 80s, I had a most flamboyant gay boss who delighted in meeting as many eye-candy male candidates as possible. He insisted that we wrote window posters up with "if you have any queeries, ask for David".
He really should've been in showbiz - he was hilarious company and not at all camp until he turned it on - then was shameless.
On Topic. When was the last time that the Labour UK party removed or forced out a |UK Leader who looked like that they would not win? Does Blair count, as it was really driven by Brown's ambition? If the answer is none or pre WW2, then whatever the polls state Labour are incapable of defenestration.
Mr. Antifrank, yet more foolish divisiveness. I wonder if Yorkshire First will ally with them as well.
Both Yorkshire First and Labour are likely to see their clothes stolen by George Osborne on this topic.
It is absurd that Scotland, which has far fewer people and a far smaller economy than London, should have far more extensive powers of self-government.
On topic: Changing leader is not a cost-free, risk-free option, or even one where you can quantify the cost. It's not like getting a new dishwasher because your current one doesn't wash the dishes very well. It's particularly difficult and dangerous when you're in government - which is why it was possible to make money by betting on Gordon Brown not being defenestrated - but even in opposition it's a leap in to the dark.
In the particular case of Ed Miliband, there was no real mechanism for defenestrating him, and no obvious replacement candidate. It would not have been a smooth, clinical transition. The replacement of IDS by Michael Howard was a rare example of that; usually it's much messier, and you can't be sure in advance that it won't be very messy indeed.
In practice, there was only one person who could have got rid of Ed Miliband, and that was Ed Miliband. But his self-belief, misplaced though it was, was enormous. He wasn't going anywhere of his own accord.
What is interesting in current Labour politics is that a myth is developing that this was all Ed Miliband's fault, and that therefore they don't need to do much different other than switch leader. Unfortunately from their point of view, they seem to have given themselves a choice between two experienced mediocrities and one largely unknown contender who is saying sensible things they don't want to hear, but whose leadership qualities are unclear. It's not looking very promising for them.
"Andy Burnham, one of the four people in the running to be the next Labour leader, is the first candidate to reveal that he’s gone over the 35 endorsement mark.
Burnham has now passed this number, as today he’s announcing he has another eight MPs to add to his list of supporters. These eight are all from the 2015 intake and Burnham is arguing that they show the diversity of support he has received. The full list of these new MPs reads as follows: Angela Rayner, MP for Ashton, Droylsden & Failsworth Peter Dowd, MP for Bootle Justin Madders, MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston Nick Thomas-Symonds, MP for Torfaen Harry Harpham, MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central Louise Haigh, MP for Sheffield Heeley Rebecca Long-Bailey, MP for Salford and EcclesThis is in addition to two other MPs from the 2015 who announced they’d be supporting Burnham earlier in the week: Anna Turley (MP for Redcar) and Conor McGinn (MP for St Helens North)......
31 MPs have come forward to publicly back Yvette Cooper so it's expected she'll cross the threshold pretty soon. Whereas it's thought Liz Kendall, who has 21 endorsers who've gone public, will also have the numbers. That leaves Mary Creagh, currently on 5 endorsements."
Interesting that the poll today has both Tories and UKIP up on the election result. More evidence that UKIP are continuing to damage parties other than the Conservatives.
I suppose being asexual nowadays is as much as a problem as being queer back in the day.
I remember sitting with a work colleague in a pub when he was discussing the finer points of chemistry. There was a Sky programme on the telly and he must have noticed that I was more engrossed in the finer points of Kirsty Gallagher who was fronting (so to speak) the programme.
"Never been interested," he suddenly said. I looked round. "Football?" "No,sex," he said.
He must have been researching it as he reckoned between one and two percent of the population have the same problem (if it is a problem). But he was a very hard worker and lived for the job.
There seems to be an assumption that the LD’s won’t recover. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, since the anti-Civil Liberties attitude of the Conservative Government will cause some concerns in the Party
Why would anyone who is committed to the liberty of the subject vote for the Liberal Democrats? The party voted for the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (control orders-lite), and then for control orders proper (Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, Part 2). It also supported the introduction of closed material procedures into all civil proceedings bar inquests (Justice and Security Act 2013), and increases in the state's power to intercept communications (Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014). To top it all off, they voted to give the executive a power of exile enforceable by criminal penalties, for restrictions on free speech in the universities, and for Orwellian "panels" to assess individuals' vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism (2015 Act, Chapter 2 of Part 1, and Part 5). No one in their right mind who is committed to individual liberty could ever vote Lib Dem. At least the Tories and Labour do not pretend to be in favour of civil liberties.
Mr. CD13, due to the nature of it, one imagines it could make someone feel rather isolated and even abnormal [quite wrongly, of course]. I'd guess the vast majority have never even heard of the term.
There seems to be an assumption that the LD’s won’t recover. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, since the anti-Civil Liberties attitude of the Conservative Government will cause some concerns in the Party
Why would anyone who is committed to the liberty of the subject vote for the Liberal Democrats? The party voted for the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (control orders-lite), and then for control orders proper (Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, Part 2). It also supported the introduction of closed material procedures into all civil proceedings bar inquests (Justice and Security Act 2013), and increases in the state's power to intercept communications (Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014). To top it all off, they voted to give the executive a power of exile enforceable by criminal penalties, for restrictions on free speech in the universities, and for Orwellian "panels" to assess individuals' vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism (2015 Act, Chapter 2 of Part 1, and Part 5). No one in their right mind who is committed to individual liberty could ever vote Lib Dem. At least the Tories and Labour do not pretend to be in favour of civil liberties.
Unfortunately in a Coalition you don't get to pick and choose what you vote for. As part of the Coalition, the LDs got enacted some things that the Conservatives wouldn't have freely supported and vice versa.
As to whether Clegg should have used this as a reason for ending the Coalition, I don't know, Many in the Party would have backed him if he had - I suspect reaction elsewhere would have been less favourable and as it turned out had the election been held at any time between 2012 and 2015 the net result for the LDs would probably have been the same.
Two unrelated observations about Labour's performance last month:
1) Hove is the real outlier seat for Labour. It's not metropolitan, northern or a university seat.
2) Labour had much-publicised constituency problems in Falkirk, Bradford West and Halifax. But even so, of these they only lost Falkirk in what was a bad year for them, and that doesn't seem to have been particularly related to the infighting. It seems that internecine warfare is not necessarily fatal for Labour constituencies.
Two unrelated observations about Labour's performance last month:
1) Hove is the real outlier seat for Labour. It's not metropolitan, northern or a university seat.
2) Labour had much-publicised constituency problems in Falkirk, Bradford West and Halifax. But even so, of these they only lost Falkirk in what was a bad year for them, and that doesn't seem to have been particularly related to the infighting. It seems that internecine warfare is not necessarily fatal for Labour constituencies.
Brighton & Hove are pretty much London-by-Sea in some respects, aren't they? A Tory incumbent might just have held on - as it was the Tory share grew fairly considerably from 36.7% to 39.9% but this wasn't enough as the Labour share increased by 9.3% (LD's -19.0%).
Two unrelated observations about Labour's performance last month:
1) Hove is the real outlier seat for Labour. It's not metropolitan, northern or a university seat.
2) Labour had much-publicised constituency problems in Falkirk, Bradford West and Halifax. But even so, of these they only lost Falkirk in what was a bad year for them, and that doesn't seem to have been particularly related to the infighting. It seems that internecine warfare is not necessarily fatal for Labour constituencies.
Nor for Tory; look at the Isle of Wight.
Re. this thread, surely we are told that the main parties had accurate private polls and knew that the public polls were wrong, hence Miliband's panicked moves and Tory canvassing of unexpected marginals. Is this so?
We also had a series of constituency predictions on here from Jack W. They looked wrong at the time to most of us but they looked remarkably accurate in hindsight.
There seems to be an assumption that the LD’s won’t recover. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, since the anti-Civil Liberties attitude of the Conservative Government will cause some concerns in the Party
Why would anyone who is committed to the liberty of the subject vote for the Liberal Democrats? The party voted for the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (control orders-lite), and then for control orders proper (Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, Part 2). It also supported the introduction of closed material procedures into all civil proceedings bar inquests (Justice and Security Act 2013), and increases in the state's power to intercept communications (Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014). To top it all off, they voted to give the executive a power of exile enforceable by criminal penalties, for restrictions on free speech in the universities, and for Orwellian "panels" to assess individuals' vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism (2015 Act, Chapter 2 of Part 1, and Part 5). No one in their right mind who is committed to individual liberty could ever vote Lib Dem. At least the Tories and Labour do not pretend to be in favour of civil liberties.
"Some" or "all", Mr Town?
Some Liberal Democrats found themselves in government in the last parliament, and they were seriously contaminated by their association with authoritarian Tories. Such is the consequence of coalition.
The rest of us were worried about this contamination over the whole five-year period. Quite rightly as it turns out. But we still stand by our long-term beliefs. We know what we want, and what we do not want. So Mr Cole is quite correct.
Andrew Rawnsley has written an article in the Observer complaining about the Tories winning with 37%, but did he say the same thing when Blair won in 2005 with 36%?
I did :-)
Why didn't Labour change the voting system when they had a huge majority between 1997 and 2005? The only answer I can think of is that they honestly believed they could go on winning elections indefinitely and therefore there wasn't any need to do so. They must have seriously overdosed on hubris if that was their thinking at the time.
Self-interest. Labour can only win a majority under a FPTP system and it's the system that keeps most Labour MPs in parliament. Exactly the same applies to the Tories. It will be interesting to see whether the SNP maintains its support for PR now that it has delivered them over 90% of Scottish seats on a 50% vote. I guess they can in the knowledge that the big two will not change. If one of them does, though, it will give the SNP some serious thinking to do. One of the great - and delicious - ironies of Labour's wipe-out in Scotland was that so many of the MPs up there opposed PR on the basis that they believed they had jobs for life.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IacmQkxLKa0
Incidentally, have the Conservatives altered their logo? Just wondering why there's a union flag/jack/who cares on it rather than greenery.
This question arose because EdM was quite good at diagnosing a problem (e.g. energy prices, wealth disparity etc), but not once did he ever provide a practical solution. This culminated with his Edstone wishlist, which provided absolute proof of not only his incapability but also that he was not in tune with the minds and hopes of the electorate.
When most people visit their doctor with a problem (or even their MP) they expect a correct diagnosis/advice and a practical solution to solve their problem and this happens in most cases. It is for the unfortunate few that the diagnosis leads to an unwanted finality.
It is often said that in a safe Labour seat one could pin a red rosette on a donkey/monkey and it would get elected. Unfortunately the nearer election day became - the more EdM came to resemble that situation.
Just a few stats: in the UK the combined Cons + UKIP vote was 49.5%. In England it was 55.1% and even in Wales it was 40.8%. These are warning lights that Labour needs to discuss before any leader is elected.
Ahem
Update on the Danish election for those interested: a poll today puts Thorning and the centre-left 1% in front, though another one puts them 3% behind. An average of several polls gives a tiny 1% swing to Thorning since last week, but on average she's still behind by 2%. A TV duel between the leaders last night is rated by a third poll as having been won by Thorning (50-37).
Mr. Jessop, selflessly, I shall think of the lesbians.
Saw a video in the Youtube sidebar the other day which had the acronym LGBTI. Not sure about the final letter. Intersex?
'Dip me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians'......
Veneto (4.431 out 4.742 reported)
Lega/Forza Italia/FdI 50.38%
PD and allies 22.7%
5 Stars 11.8%
Lega splinter 11.6%
Liguria (1.786 out of 1.790 )
Forza Italia/Lega/Fdi 34.47%
PD 27.83%
5 Stars 24.84%
PD splinter 9.4%
Umbria (complete)
PD/SEL 42.78%
Forza Italia/Lega/FdI 39.27%
5 Stars 14.3%
Left List 1.58%
Campania (5.392 out of 5.835)
PD and & Co 40.9%
Forza Italia/FdI 38.32%
5 Stars 17.76%
Left list 2.23%
Tuscany (3965 out of 3969)
PD 48.03%
Lega/FdI 20.01%
5 Stars 15.05%
Forza Italia 9.09%
Left list 6.28%
Marche (complete)
PD/SEL 41.07%
5 Stars 21.78%
Lega/FdI 18.98%
Forza Italia (running PD former incumbent) 14.2%
Left list 3.96%
Puglia (3162 out of 4016)
PD/SEL 47.39%
5 Stars 18.16%
Forza Italia's splinter 17.97%
Forza Italia 14.68%
We just don't hear anyone use those labels anymore and haven't for a very long time.
Blatter makes Berlusconi look like a monk.
A mate at uni was obviously not interested in girls. Mistakenly (and somewhat shamefully) we thought he was gay but in the closet. Only later did we realise that he was asexual.
As it happens he has become very successful. All that time we spent chasing boys and/or girls (delete as applicable) he spent studying and working.
In terms of vote share, yes, disappointing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32955818
The period 2010-2015 was the first since time the late 1980's that the most intelligent Labour strategists, Philip Gould and Peter Mandelson, had not been at the core of Labour decision making These two were the leading modernisers who were mostly responsible for building the New Labour election winning machine.
If you have not already read it, I heartily recommend "The Unfinished Revolution" (2011 edition) by Philip Gould.
(P.S. Gould's motto was "Crede Populo" - how apt)
If PM Davutoğlu (a member of Erdogan's AKP) gets over 330 seats they will be able to alter the country's constitution via a referendum; if they get over ?360? they will be able to alter it without a referendum. They have a little over 300 at the moment.
Given the trouble on the country's borders, it is a massively important election.
(As an aside, they have a ban on opinion polls for a little over a week before the election).
Edited extra bit: I think something like 1% (I did have a link to an asexual organisation or other, but have misplaced it) could be considered asexual, which is a small minority but still a pretty large number overall.
I was wondering if there wouldn't be an election boost this time though because the SNP and Ed Miliband aspects have been removed and so people may be thinking who they support generally now.
A party needs someone attractive and interesting to lead it and then it needs something attractive and interesting for them to say.
Turkey seems to be drifting constantly backwards.
Edited extra bit: indeed, Miss Plato. I think that sounds like a good solution.
Their Nan (a former english teacher) spent hours claiming they were acronyms until we hit the internet and wikipedia. That wasn't good enough for her but the Oxford English dictionary finally saw her admit defeat.
I'm not particularly proud of the fact that we thought of him in that manner. The follies of youth.
Mr. Jessop, sounds ominous.
"The manifesto was the most cautious of any major party that I can remember."
That was Ed's fault but to be fair to him, he was always insecure. Having craved the job, he did the dirty on is brother yet knew the party wasn't really behind him. A real Shakespearean villain. What else would he be but a dictatorial 'feartie' (as our Scottish colleagues would say).
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
It's actually quite difficult for any leader to be generally (i.e. not just among supporters) seen as attractive and interesting, because the standard media approach is to debunk. Apart from Tony Blair during (roughly) 1996-2000, can anyone think of any in recent times? Cameron? Brown? Howard? Hague? Home? Thatcher? Heath? Wilson? Boris, up to a point, but a lot of people like him more for entertainment value than because they really think he's an attractive potential PM.
A substitute is to seem determined and interesting. Thatcher and Blair 2000-2007 managed that - lots of people no longer liked them if they ever had, but they credited them with having relentless drive.
Of course they also had their detractors elsewhere, but that's not the point. If you appeal to your 40%, the rest do not matter.
I suppose asexuality would be a plus for a Catholic priest. That and a belief in God.
I think Q is for Questioning. Ie those Questioning their own sexuality (not willing/ready to either come out or adopt a firm term for themselves yet).
My Student Union when I was at union had LBGTQ with Q for Questioning at the end.
Barrow and Furness
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Brentford and Isleworth
Carshalton and Wallington
Chester, City of
Dewsbury
Ealing Central and Acton
Enfield North
Halifax
Hampstead and Kilburn
Hove
Ilford North
Lancaster and Fleetwood
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Southport
Wirral West
Wolverhampton South West
(and Ynys Mon to PC).
In practice it will surely be easier for the Tories to gain the "one more heave" seats such as BRS, Halifax, Southport & Newcastle-under-Lyme rather than the ones they have just lost, owing to incumbency factors. A modest incumbency adjustment (and double for first-time incumbency) would really improve Baxter.
My response to the thesis forming this thread is "well, quite" followed by "what about William Hague ?". It's all very well getting rid of a Party leader but the second question is who, among the contenders, would improve the party's fortunes significantly.
Margaret Thatcher was deposed (and if you'd told a Conservative backbencher in June 1987 what would happen in November 1990 they would have laughed) because it appeared that with Michael Heseltine and then John Major the party had a chance of overcoming the deficit to Labour.
The likes of William Hague, Nick Clegg and even Gordon Brown weren't deposed because there was no one else who would have made a significant difference. IDS was deposed because almost anyone else would have been better.
The Conservatives will be well aware that an integral part of the victory three weeks ago was that group of electors who voted for David Cameron rather than the Conservative party. That group will be instrumental in the EU Referendum as they will support David Cameron whatever he proposes.
The converse of that is that if there comes a point when Cameron is seen as an electoral liability rather than an asset and the polls look bad the pressure from MPs with small majorities for a change of leader will rapidly escalate.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/30/i-want-the-city-state-of-london-to-join-the-other-nations-reshaping-the-union
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
He really should've been in showbiz - he was hilarious company and not at all camp until he turned it on - then was shameless.
When was the last time that the Labour UK party removed or forced out a |UK Leader who looked like that they would not win? Does Blair count, as it was really driven by Brown's ambition?
If the answer is none or pre WW2, then whatever the polls state Labour are incapable of defenestration.
It is absurd that Scotland, which has far fewer people and a far smaller economy than London, should have far more extensive powers of self-government.
Just as long as London doesn't steal/run off with Yorkshire's Helen
In the particular case of Ed Miliband, there was no real mechanism for defenestrating him, and no obvious replacement candidate. It would not have been a smooth, clinical transition. The replacement of IDS by Michael Howard was a rare example of that; usually it's much messier, and you can't be sure in advance that it won't be very messy indeed.
In practice, there was only one person who could have got rid of Ed Miliband, and that was Ed Miliband. But his self-belief, misplaced though it was, was enormous. He wasn't going anywhere of his own accord.
What is interesting in current Labour politics is that a myth is developing that this was all Ed Miliband's fault, and that therefore they don't need to do much different other than switch leader. Unfortunately from their point of view, they seem to have given themselves a choice between two experienced mediocrities and one largely unknown contender who is saying sensible things they don't want to hear, but whose leadership qualities are unclear. It's not looking very promising for them.
"Andy Burnham, one of the four people in the running to be the next Labour leader, is the first candidate to reveal that he’s gone over the 35 endorsement mark.
Burnham has now passed this number, as today he’s announcing he has another eight MPs to add to his list of supporters. These eight are all from the 2015 intake and Burnham is arguing that they show the diversity of support he has received. The full list of these new MPs reads as follows:
Angela Rayner, MP for Ashton, Droylsden & Failsworth
Peter Dowd, MP for Bootle
Justin Madders, MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston
Nick Thomas-Symonds, MP for Torfaen
Harry Harpham, MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough
Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central
Louise Haigh, MP for Sheffield Heeley
Rebecca Long-Bailey, MP for Salford and EcclesThis is in addition to two other MPs from the 2015 who announced they’d be supporting Burnham earlier in the week: Anna Turley (MP for Redcar) and Conor McGinn (MP for St Helens North)......
31 MPs have come forward to publicly back Yvette Cooper so it's expected she'll cross the threshold pretty soon. Whereas it's thought Liz Kendall, who has 21 endorsers who've gone public, will also have the numbers. That leaves Mary Creagh, currently on 5 endorsements."
But I'm going to let it ride.
Ed = Hannibal
Would the SNP have quietly disbanded? Plus Labour have totally mismanaged EV4EL?
I remember sitting with a work colleague in a pub when he was discussing the finer points of chemistry. There was a Sky programme on the telly and he must have noticed that I was more engrossed in the finer points of Kirsty Gallagher who was fronting (so to speak) the programme.
"Never been interested," he suddenly said.
I looked round. "Football?"
"No,sex," he said.
He must have been researching it as he reckoned between one and two percent of the population have the same problem (if it is a problem). But he was a very hard worker and lived for the job.
What does Miliband now rule?
[On a serious note, neither leader is worthy of comparison with either Scipio or Hannibal].
Mr. Carnyx, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase#Other_historical_examples
Didn't think we'd have to wait until polling day itself, though.
As to whether Clegg should have used this as a reason for ending the Coalition, I don't know, Many in the Party would have backed him if he had - I suspect reaction elsewhere would have been less favourable and as it turned out had the election been held at any time between 2012 and 2015 the net result for the LDs would probably have been the same.
1) Hove is the real outlier seat for Labour. It's not metropolitan, northern or a university seat.
2) Labour had much-publicised constituency problems in Falkirk, Bradford West and Halifax. But even so, of these they only lost Falkirk in what was a bad year for them, and that doesn't seem to have been particularly related to the infighting. It seems that internecine warfare is not necessarily fatal for Labour constituencies.
Poor Clegg and the Lib Dems were his Pompey.
May the 7th was Dave's Pharsalus.
"It seems that internecine warfare is not necessarily fatal for Labour constituencies."
Or for Ukip's poll rating.
Re. this thread, surely we are told that the main parties had accurate private polls and knew that the public polls were wrong, hence Miliband's panicked moves and Tory canvassing of unexpected marginals. Is this so?
We also had a series of constituency predictions on here from Jack W. They looked wrong at the time to most of us but they looked remarkably accurate in hindsight.
Some Liberal Democrats found themselves in government in the last parliament, and they were seriously contaminated by their association with authoritarian Tories. Such is the consequence of coalition.
The rest of us were worried about this contamination over the whole five-year period. Quite rightly as it turns out. But we still stand by our long-term beliefs. We know what we want, and what we do not want. So Mr Cole is quite correct.
They are properly bat shit mental.