Off topic, has anyone noticed that Greg Callus, once of this parish, has been caught in the middle of that most deadly of activities, the academic spat?
Off topic, has anyone noticed that Greg Callus, once of this parish, has been caught in the middle of that most deadly of activities, the academic spat?
The tweets between the two men at the centre of all this are as wearying as any pb tussle.
I think we all knew that he was exceptionally bright, as well as being a very nice guy - it's good to see that he's really made progress in his career.
The boy dun good. The pb diaspora has done well all round, but Morus is a star performer.
A month on and Neil Kinnock's diatribe waving his fist at the selfish uk electorate for not voting labour remains one of the highlights of election night.... spendid background to my filing...
It's even more fun to re-watch it, whilst re-reading the PB threads the day before election day.
I really can't believe that I believed those polls. I kept on thinking that everything favoured the Conservatives, but the polls showed the electorate were not buying it. The Conservative +7/8 polls must be outliers. Somehow Labour were pulling it out of the bag.
This is all extremely silly. The SNP need to decide who the enemy is: if they are going to prevent government legislation they disagree with there will have to be a certain amount of liaison and cooperation between the parties. The longer this goes on, the less likely that will happen.
It's like two drunks fighting over the last can of seventy shilling. It's petty and ridiculous. They all need to grow up.
It does not reflect well on the SNP.
I'm not sure I would trust the DT on anything to do with the SNP, especially when there are rather different perspectives available:
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
Orkney and Shetland?
Essentially on the UK mainland, almost independently of its strength or weakness at either time, it is a completely different party to 1992.
TCPB Kendall may win back a few Tories, she would also maybe lose some to the Greens and turn off SNP voters completely. Corbyn and maybe Cooper have the opposite problem, they would hold the core vote and perhaps appeal to SNP voters but turn off Tories who voted for Blair. Burnham is the only candidate who leads with Tories, UKIP, Labour voters and in Scotland so maybe Labour's best bet to hold its core, win back a few votes in Scotland and win over a few ex New Labour voters who have switched to Cameron as well as a few Kippers
Burnham is not Scottish so forget about winning back the north brits who have embraced nationalism. Who says Burnham does well with UKIP and the Tories? Is that a poll? And they are reliable this year?
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
"Any plan for 2020 that does not have at its heart a primary focus on winning over Tory voters is a blueprint for a third successive defeat. While simply trying to build an ‘anti-Tory coalition’ may have been convincing in a landscape that suggested the Conservatives were no longer able to win majorities, we know now that that is not the case.
Some things remain as true as they always were. Non-voters tend not to vote. Protest voters do not vote for parties who want to govern. And, perhaps most importantly, Tory votes count double – every vote you take off your main rival brings you closer to their tally than one won from a smaller party.
In a democracy, you cannot choose your opponents, your press, or your electorate. If your guide to election victory is based on changing any of these three components, or a misunderstanding of what they are, then you will lose."
Labour don't need Conservative voters to win. But they do need to focus relentlessly on defeating the Conservatives rather than other parties.
One very quick thought - how much more of a long shot is Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 than Iain Duncan Smith was in 2001? We all know how that turned out - in every sense of that phrase.
The are two reasons why he might not be a serious contender - 1) he will probably not get 35 nominations with most remaining socialists gone and 2) the Labour system still militates against rank outsiders in a way the Tory system doesn't (preference votes and so on - it's hard to see Corbyn as anyone's second preference) but I wonder if he is quite the outsider he is being written off as. If he gets to the ballot paper I am pretty sure he would beat Creagh, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he beat Kendall.
The difference is it failed safe on the occasion. Yesterday it did not.
On the radio earlier they said that it is common for people to be stuck for a few minutes on roller coasters a couple of times a day - often caused by birds landing on sensors. The problem has to be cleared, often manually, before operation can continue.
I always thought they did it to frighten the bejesus out of me.
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
No roots.
Yes roots - but a punishing system for unpopular parties whose main rival is a popular party.
One very quick thought - how much more of a long shot is Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 than Iain Duncan Smith was in 2001? We all know how that turned out - in every sense of that phrase.
The are two reasons why he might not be a serious contender - 1) he will probably not get 35 nominations with most remaining socialists gone and 2) the Labour system still militates against rank outsiders in a way the Tory system doesn't (preference votes and so on - it's hard to see Corbyn as anyone's second preference) but I wonder if he is quite the outsider he is being written off as. If he gets to the ballot paper I am pretty sure he would beat Creagh, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he beat Kendall.
IDS won just over 50 MPs to get into a two-horse race. There is no such advantage for Corbyn whose first threshold is to win several hundred thousand against several stronger competitors with more media experience.
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
No roots.
Worse - no ideas - people on here go on about liberalism but the party has not stood for that for years. They're all about statist control and quotas these days. More like Labour than anything else and so no usp. Farron would make things worse - Lamb completely lacking in personality. At this point I can only see them losing more seats next time. The orange boookers should move to the Tory party pronto and the rest should toddle off to the greens/ukip/Labour - who cares?
TSE/Kle4 Well the Tories elected IDS and almost put Liam Fox in the final round in 2005 so they are not exactly immune to ideological candidates, Jeremy Corbyn is basically playing the John Redwood role in the leadership contest ie all the ideologues and backbench obsessives will back him, he will get most of the voters who backed Abbott in 2010 plus a few who backed Ed Miliband, he might also get McCluskey, though he won't win
What we do not know is how many of the Unite backed new Labour MPs are of the Corbyn/McDonnel persuasion? Anyone know what number of Labour MPs are now Unite backed?
TC PoliticalBetting The figures are from this week's Sun yougov, Burnham leads with Labour voters on 29% followed by Cooper on 15%, Burnham leads with Tories on 13% followed by Kendall on 9%, Burnham leads with UKIP voters on 15% to Kendall on 8% and Burnham leads in Scotland on 19% to Cooper's 10% http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf (page 6)
This is all extremely silly. The SNP need to decide who the enemy is: if they are going to prevent government legislation they disagree with there will have to be a certain amount of liaison and cooperation between the parties. The longer this goes on, the less likely that will happen.
It's like two drunks fighting over the last can of seventy shilling. It's petty and ridiculous. They all need to grow up.
It does not reflect well on the SNP.
I'm not sure I would trust the DT on anything to do with the SNP, especially when there are rather different perspectives available:
Interesting piece by Isabel Hardman, I think the MSM are starting to get a better idea of the SNP's tactics. Here she focuses on an adjournment debate on Naval base safety, the picture of the empty government and opposition benches says it all:
TC PoliticalBetting The figures are from this week's Sun yougov, Burnham leads with Labour voters on 29% followed by Cooper on 15%, Burnham leads with Tories on 13% followed by Kendall on 9%, Burnham leads with UKIP voters on 15% to Kendall on 8% and Burnham leads in Scotland on 19% to Cooper's 10% http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf (page 6)
That is completely rubbish polling and means absolutely nothing. It is all based on name recognition and in any case the people who will be deciding are far far narrower than those who tell YouGov that they support Labour.
Let's wait, and I hope that this won't be too long, till we see polling of those who are eligible to vote in the election.
Off topic, has anyone noticed that Greg Callus, once of this parish, has been caught in the middle of that most deadly of activities, the academic spat?
The tweets between the two men at the centre of all this are as wearying as any pb tussle.
Two comments. Firstly, there is an unfortunate typo of 2015 for 2014 in paragraph 31. Secondly, I am not sure why Ferguson bothers to make such a ridiculously misleading and pointless statement as to compare nominal wage growth over several years with inflation over one year.
For an interesting and controversial person to have resorted to making such an empty point is really sad to see.
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
No roots.
Worse - no ideas - people on here go on about liberalism but the party has not stood for that for years. They're all about statist control and quotas these days. More like Labour than anything else and so no usp. Farron would make things worse - Lamb completely lacking in personality. At this point I can only see them losing more seats next time. The orange boookers should move to the Tory party pronto and the rest should toddle off to the greens/ukip/Labour - who cares?
We have Clegg saying they were a party of the Centre. Kennedy and Campbell saying they were a party of the left. if they cannot agree on just that point, no wonder they lack a strong brand. They need to first establish where they stand.
A month on and Neil Kinnock's diatribe waving his fist at the selfish uk electorate for not voting labour remains one of the highlights of election night.... spendid background to my filing...
It's even more fun to re-watch it, whilst re-reading the PB threads the day before election day.
TC PoliticalBetting The figures are from this week's Sun yougov, Burnham leads with Labour voters on 29% followed by Cooper on 15%, Burnham leads with Tories on 13% followed by Kendall on 9%, Burnham leads with UKIP voters on 15% to Kendall on 8% and Burnham leads in Scotland on 19% to Cooper's 10% http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf (page 6)
TC PoliticalBetting The figures are from this week's Sun yougov, Burnham leads with Labour voters on 29% followed by Cooper on 15%, Burnham leads with Tories on 13% followed by Kendall on 9%, Burnham leads with UKIP voters on 15% to Kendall on 8% and Burnham leads in Scotland on 19% to Cooper's 10% http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf (page 6)
That is completely rubbish polling and means absolutely nothing. It is all based on name recognition and in any case the people who will be deciding are far far narrower than those who tell YouGov that they support Labour.
Let's wait, and I hope that this won't be too long, till we see polling of those who are eligible to vote in the election.
I don't think HYUFD was saying that that polling was indicative of what will happen in the leadership contest itself (as you rightly say, the electorate for a Labour contest is completely different to Labour voters as a whole). He was using the polling to dispute the claim that a Liz Kendall-led Labour would do well with the public.
And again, isn't the fact Kendall has such low name-recognition in itself an argument against her, since she's been in the shadow cabinet for 4 years, and in the last few weeks in particular has been given quite generous media coverage. If she has the potential to get the public to pay attention to her, surely it would be showing up in the polling atleast to some extent?
Does anyone have some of the polling for the 2005 Tory leadership contest by any chance? I'd be interested to see at what stage Cameron started "cutting through" to the public.
OGH That is polling of the voters Labour actually needs to win to win the general election and I doubt Labour members figures differ that much from Labour voters. It may be name recognition for now, though Kendall's higher score with Tories than in Labour and Scotland is telling, but Kendall will certainly need a poll lead by September with voters as a whole if her 'electability' argument is to hold water, Major, Blair and Cameron, our last 3 elected PMs, all had poll leads with all voters by the time they won their respective leadership elections
A month on and Neil Kinnock's diatribe waving his fist at the selfish uk electorate for not voting labour remains one of the highlights of election night.... spendid background to my filing...
It's even more fun to re-watch it, whilst re-reading the PB threads the day before election day.
Here is another Lib Dem fact. There is only one seat in common between their eight seats in 2015 and their twenty seats back in 1992, at which time they had seven in common with the Liberals' eleven in 1979.
Why not? People move around, and the demographic profile changes.
A month on and Neil Kinnock's diatribe waving his fist at the selfish uk electorate for not voting labour remains one of the highlights of election night.... spendid background to my filing...
It's even more fun to re-watch it, whilst re-reading the PB threads the day before election day.
The Islington North MP told the Islington Tribune:
“This decision to stand is in response to an overwhelming call by Labour members who want to see a broader range of candidates and a thorough debate about the future of the party. I am standing to give Labour party members a voice in this debate”.
As a member of CND and a regular contributor to The Morning Star, Corbyn is clearly the 'come back all you loony Scottish Lefties, all is forgiven' candidate.
We have Clegg saying they were a party of the Centre. Kennedy and Campbell saying they were a party of the left. if they cannot agree on just that point, no wonder they lack a strong brand. They need to first establish where they stand.
Lib Dem leaders usually come out with stuff like that in response to a question. In practice, it is a matter of liberal versus authoritarian, not left versus right, which is pretty meaningless since there is hardly any difference these days between Labour and Conservative.
Nevertheless, the PB Tories get very excited as they dance around on the heads on pins. Carry on enjoying yourselves, chaps. It makes sense to you, if to nobody else.
Yes. The key point. It needs to be able to be stated in plain English in a short sentence.
It's almost as if many in the party don't want to be a Social Democratic Party, even though it was an election winning formula, because Blair was associated with that kind of politics.
Labour must must must must must elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader. As the eulogies for Charles Kennedy have demonstrated, there's a great swathe of opinion that longs for a politician whose principles transcend electoral convenience and the race to the mushy centre. Corbyn would eat the likes or Farage and Salmond for breakfast as a man standing apart from the established order. He is a moral man. He offers Labour a new and distinctive direction.
"This is all extremely silly. The SNP need to decide who the enemy is: if they are going to prevent government legislation they disagree with there will have to be a certain amount of liaison and cooperation between the parties. The longer this goes on, the less likely that will happen.
It's like two drunks fighting over the last can of seventy shilling. It's petty and ridiculous. They all need to grow up.
It does not reflect well on the SNP."
Without a shadow of a doubt the Labour Party are to blame. They are refusing to allow the SNP to occupy the position occupied unchallenged by the LibDems (of similar number) during 2005-2010.
The Labour purpose is to use the unionist press to blame the SNP without putting the SNP case.
I tuned in to PM questions to find Angus Robertson so forced down what should have been the SNP front bench that the microphones were unable initially to pick up his words.
A warning for Labour-the press in England remains rabidly anti-SNP but this is no longer the case to quite the same vitriolic extent in Scotland, where unreasonable attacks on the SNP now go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
Josias Jessop needs to explain why the SNP should not occupy the same seats as the once-upon-a-time LibDems, or accept that the SNP are entitled to infiltrate benches behind the Labour front bench if the mantra is that no seats are allocated to anyone in the chamber.
Comments
Oops. ;-)
http://newsshaft.com/dennis-skinner-blasts-commons-seatgate-as-media-creation/
People were stuck on The Smiler at Alton Towers for 15 minutes on the first day of operation in May 2013:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2326500/TOWIEs-Jessica-Wright-left-disappointed-new-Alton-Towers-rollercoaster-BREAKS-DOWN-opening-run.html
Who says Burnham does well with UKIP and the Tories? Is that a poll? And they are reliable this year?
http://labourlist.org/2015/06/the-progressive-majority-myth-is-over-you-need-tory-votes-to-win/
"Any plan for 2020 that does not have at its heart a primary focus on winning over Tory voters is a blueprint for a third successive defeat. While simply trying to build an ‘anti-Tory coalition’ may have been convincing in a landscape that suggested the Conservatives were no longer able to win majorities, we know now that that is not the case.
Some things remain as true as they always were. Non-voters tend not to vote. Protest voters do not vote for parties who want to govern. And, perhaps most importantly, Tory votes count double – every vote you take off your main rival brings you closer to their tally than one won from a smaller party.
In a democracy, you cannot choose your opponents, your press, or your electorate. If your guide to election victory is based on changing any of these three components, or a misunderstanding of what they are, then you will lose."
Labour don't need Conservative voters to win. But they do need to focus relentlessly on defeating the Conservatives rather than other parties.
The are two reasons why he might not be a serious contender - 1) he will probably not get 35 nominations with most remaining socialists gone and 2) the Labour system still militates against rank outsiders in a way the Tory system doesn't (preference votes and so on - it's hard to see Corbyn as anyone's second preference) but I wonder if he is quite the outsider he is being written off as. If he gets to the ballot paper I am pretty sure he would beat Creagh, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he beat Kendall.
On the radio earlier they said that it is common for people to be stuck for a few minutes on roller coasters a couple of times a day - often caused by birds landing on sensors. The problem has to be cleared, often manually, before operation can continue.
I always thought they did it to frighten the bejesus out of me.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf (page 6)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/the-snp-packs-the-house-of-commons-chamber-to-send-a-powerful-message/
Let's wait, and I hope that this won't be too long, till we see polling of those who are eligible to vote in the election.
For an interesting and controversial person to have resorted to making such an empty point is really sad to see.
Kennedy and Campbell saying they were a party of the left.
if they cannot agree on just that point, no wonder they lack a strong brand. They need to first establish where they stand.
Let's have those 2 threads relaunched as new ones but as a 'revisited' or 'classics of pb' to all enjoy together.
And again, isn't the fact Kendall has such low name-recognition in itself an argument against her, since she's been in the shadow cabinet for 4 years, and in the last few weeks in particular has been given quite generous media coverage. If she has the potential to get the public to pay attention to her, surely it would be showing up in the polling atleast to some extent?
I'm writing the weekend threads now.
First on is on AV.
Second one compares David Cameron to a serial killer.
Not a very useful point, I think, Mr EPG
"Paddy Ashdown is the only party leader who is a trained killer. Although, to be fair, Mrs Thatcher was self taught."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32998735
Nevertheless, the PB Tories get very excited as they dance around on the heads on pins. Carry on enjoying yourselves, chaps. It makes sense to you, if to nobody else.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32998735
"This is all extremely silly. The SNP need to decide who the enemy is: if they are going to prevent government legislation they disagree with there will have to be a certain amount of liaison and cooperation between the parties. The longer this goes on, the less likely that will happen.
It's like two drunks fighting over the last can of seventy shilling. It's petty and ridiculous. They all need to grow up.
It does not reflect well on the SNP."
Without a shadow of a doubt the Labour Party are to blame. They are refusing to allow the SNP to occupy the position occupied unchallenged by the LibDems (of similar number) during 2005-2010.
The Labour purpose is to use the unionist press to blame the SNP without putting the SNP case.
I tuned in to PM questions to find Angus Robertson so forced down what should have been the SNP front bench that the microphones were unable initially to pick up his words.
A warning for Labour-the press in England remains rabidly anti-SNP but this is no longer the case to quite the same vitriolic extent in Scotland, where unreasonable attacks on the SNP now go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
Josias Jessop needs to explain why the SNP should not occupy the same seats as the once-upon-a-time LibDems, or accept that the SNP are entitled to infiltrate benches behind the Labour front bench if the mantra is that no seats are allocated to anyone in the chamber.