Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now a fifth contender, Jeremy Corbyn, declares that he’s ru

2

Comments

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Panorama at its best this evening....when will the BBC realise that 30 min Panorama is rubbish, but when they put the time in and put together these hour programmes, they are top notch stuff.

    Lots and lots of questions to answer for some very well known people in athletics.

    agreed.
    Is this the Alberto Salazar business?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    MikeK The Labour membership voted for David Miliband in 2010, they will not vote for Corbyn in sufficient numbers for him to win
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    *claps for Axelrod*
    EPG said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

    Top read from the Guardian featuring David Axelrod's version of free owls:
    - Axelrod was appalled by the low quality of the ideas being discussed, which he derisively characterised as “Vote Labour and win a microwave”.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Even Cameron is not this lucky.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    EPG said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

    Top read from the Guardian featuring David Axelrod's version of free owls:
    - Axelrod was appalled by the low quality of the ideas being discussed, which he derisively characterised as “Vote Labour and win a microwave”.

    I wonder whatever happened to Bobajob:

    "But long before the internal debate over Labour’s new ideological orientation had been resolved, the Tories had successfully established the deficit as the most important issue of the day – and one for which Miliband’s team never managed to craft a decisive message."
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    Just back from the Islington North selection (scooped by Andrea as usual, of course). 199 voting members there. Jowell won the women's selection (taken first to ensure we had one woman nominee) fairly narrowly, and the second selection was a three-horse race between Khan, Abbott and Wolmar - Wolmar was I think unlucky not to have got a handful more to make it to the final round.

    Corbyn's candidacy was announced, obviously to tumultuous applause, and he gave what struck me as an extremely fluent and reasonable speech. He'll represent his wing of the party ably.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    Speedy I have no problem City workers having the option not to work more than 48 hours a week, but if some want to work 100 hours a week and spend the remaining time spending £3,000 at Heston Blumenthal's restaurant on food and booze, speeding along in Ferraris, banging lots of hookers and taking copious amounts of cocaine in their Kensington Mansions I have no problem with that either, even if many do die by 50 it is their choice
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,388
    edited June 2015
    Is Jezza Corbyn as loopy as Piers? :smiley:
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "The guilty pleas of former top Fifa official Chuck Blazer have been detailed with the release of papers from a 2013 hearing in New York.

    He says that he and others on Fifa's executive committee agreed to accept bribes in conjunction with the choice of South Africa as 2010 World Cup host.

    The American says he also accepted bribes over the 1998 event."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32998735
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    More BBC election night coverage notes:

    Dimbleby repeatedly talks over his team, especially Laura K and Kellner, to offer the bleedin' obvious and trivial - we're watching Cameron's car, this is ed miliband arriving in Doncaster, over and over telling us what we can see perfectly well ourselves but he seems to think is more urgent and important than the point being made by his inferiors.

    Labor supporters make a deafening 'fury' of noise when winning a seat off the Lib Dems and more than Tories do.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2015
    Guardian - "He [Ed] was not quite sure in his head where he was, so when he got to the bit where the deficit should have been, he just started a different section. I remember immediately thinking ‘shit’, but I thought perhaps he had shuffled it around because I had seen him do that before.”

    In fact, Miliband had simply forgotten the brief passage about the deficit – the one addressing the issue that had hung over parliament like an ominous cloud for the previous four years."

    Ever since 2007 when Cameron made that speech conference, without notes, it set a precedent which many attempted to copy, and which Ed singularly failed at.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    UKIP heaven headlines.


    Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick ·
    Thursday's Daily Mirror front page:
    We're paying benefits to deported criminals


    Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick ·
    Thursday's Daily Express front page:
    Fruit and veg prices to soar


    BBC Politics retweeted


    BBC News (UK) ‏@BBCNews ·
    Thursday's Times: "Migrant surge as job curb ends" (via @suttonnick



  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,388
    edited June 2015
    Plato said:

    *claps for Axelrod*

    EPG said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

    Top read from the Guardian featuring David Axelrod's version of free owls:
    - Axelrod was appalled by the low quality of the ideas being discussed, which he derisively characterised as “Vote Labour and win a microwave”.

    It doesn't sound like Axl Rose is going to be giving his money back to Labour anytime soon does it...???? :smiley:

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Yep, those Europeans are all for Cammo:

    City A.M. ‏@CityAM 5m5 minutes ago
    German and French ministers call for European integration http://dlvr.it/B5CGsZ
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy I have no problem City workers having the option not to work more than 48 hours a week, but if some want to work 100 hours a week and spend the remaining time spending £3,000 at Heston Blumenthal's restaurant on food and booze, speeding along in Ferraris, banging lots of hookers and taking copious amounts of cocaine in their Kensington Mansions I have no problem with that either, even if many do die by 50 it is their choice

    They won't have the time to spend their money in nothing else but funeral services.
    If you work 100 hours a week where do you find the time to do all that, and as for banging hookers:
    "The industry extracts a harsh toll, both mentally and physically. “51% of men working in the City and aged over 40 suffer from erectile dysfunction (ED),” "

    http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/131760/how-banking-can-ruin-your-body-and-mind/
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Corbyn's candidacy was announced, obviously to tumultuous applause

    Let's put it this way - entertaining though a Jeremy Corbyn candidacy might be, I shan't be adjusting my betting position to take account of the dramatic new development...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    The Times tomorrow 'Blair lands new role fighting European extremism' well that is Marine Le Pen nailed on for next French President then
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy I have no problem City workers having the option not to work more than 48 hours a week, but if some want to work 100 hours a week and spend the remaining time spending £3,000 at Heston Blumenthal's restaurant on food and booze, speeding along in Ferraris, banging lots of hookers and taking copious amounts of cocaine in their Kensington Mansions I have no problem with that either, even if many do die by 50 it is their choice

    They won't have the time to spend their money in nothing else but funeral services.
    If you work 100 hours a week where do you find the time to do all that, and as for banging hookers:
    "The industry extracts a harsh toll, both mentally and physically. “51% of men working in the City and aged over 40 suffer from erectile dysfunction (ED),” "

    http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/131760/how-banking-can-ruin-your-body-and-mind/
    But that is their decision, NOT the governments.

    So Labour are anti-hookers now? :)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited June 2015
    MikeK said:

    Yep, those Europeans are all for Cammo:

    City A.M. ‏@CityAM 5m5 minutes ago
    German and French ministers call for European integration http://dlvr.it/B5CGsZ

    Err, you do realise - or perhaps you don't? - that that is exactly what Cammo is hoping for, since it's the best lever we're every likely to have for renegotiation?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    HYUFD said:

    The Times tomorrow 'Blair lands new role fighting European extremism' well that is Marine Le Pen nailed on for next French President then

    What a joke,in this country,that man was the cause of extremism.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Tim_B said:

    Panorama at its best this evening....when will the BBC realise that 30 min Panorama is rubbish, but when they put the time in and put together these hour programmes, they are top notch stuff.

    Lots and lots of questions to answer for some very well known people in athletics.

    agreed.
    Is this the Alberto Salazar business?
    Yes. Big can of worms opened by Panorama.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    The Times tomorrow 'Blair lands new role fighting European extremism' well that is Marine Le Pen nailed on for next French President then

    The third member of my dream team of the IN campaign with Clegg and Murphy.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Tim_B said:

    Panorama at its best this evening....when will the BBC realise that 30 min Panorama is rubbish, but when they put the time in and put together these hour programmes, they are top notch stuff.

    Lots and lots of questions to answer for some very well known people in athletics.

    agreed.
    Is this the Alberto Salazar business?
    Yes. Big can of worms opened by Panorama.
    Hardly - it's been all over the sports news here since yesterday afternoon.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2015
    Chuck Blazer's pet cats apparently lived in their own $6,000 a month apartment adjacent to his own:

    http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/11/1/7144451/chuck-blazer-fifa-investigation-corruption
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Tim_B said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy I have no problem City workers having the option not to work more than 48 hours a week, but if some want to work 100 hours a week and spend the remaining time spending £3,000 at Heston Blumenthal's restaurant on food and booze, speeding along in Ferraris, banging lots of hookers and taking copious amounts of cocaine in their Kensington Mansions I have no problem with that either, even if many do die by 50 it is their choice

    They won't have the time to spend their money in nothing else but funeral services.
    If you work 100 hours a week where do you find the time to do all that, and as for banging hookers:
    "The industry extracts a harsh toll, both mentally and physically. “51% of men working in the City and aged over 40 suffer from erectile dysfunction (ED),” "

    http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/131760/how-banking-can-ruin-your-body-and-mind/
    But that is their decision, NOT the governments.

    So Labour are anti-hookers now? :)
    How is erectile dysfunction caused by bad working habits have anything to do with Labour?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    The Times tomorrow 'Blair lands new role fighting European extremism' well that is Marine Le Pen nailed on for next French President then

    Well now that he has sorted the Middle East out he does need a challenge!

    Perhaps he could take charge at FIFA too, after all he is a pretty straight kinda guy.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,388
    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    It really is. Am reading it now...

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    From that Guardian piece, can Labour get a refund?

    There were other problems, of course: the highly touted but ultimately ineffective £15m ground campaign;
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2015
    MikeK said:

    Yep, those Europeans are all for Cammo:

    City A.M. ‏@CityAM 5m5 minutes ago
    German and French ministers call for European integration http://dlvr.it/B5CGsZ

    It's the sort of thing that finally convinced me to be voting Out (unless Cameron can secure some frankly pretty gosh darned amazing concessions) - fundamentally most of Europe still wants more integration, whereas we as a country are pretty grumbling if accepting of the level we already have, and want to reduce it if possible. The others can talk of concessions here and there, and maybe a two speed Europe or whatever with specific things - for now at least - not applying to those not 'ready', but it won't solve the key problem that they have an ultimate aim totally at odds with ours, and that's a recipe for further future chaos, not less.

    Our common goal shall be to render [it] unthinkable for any country rightfully in pursuit of its national interest to consider a future without Europe – or within a lesser Union

    ...So, at some point (a point we already seem to have reached, given the contempt of many EU leaders to the idea of serious reform or leaving the EU), anyone speaking against being a part of the EU, or even not being committed to ever deeper integration, will be seen as unthinkable, and anyone thinking it acting against their national interest?

    A refrain of fanatics everywhere - you not only hold a different view, it is fundamentally wrong for you to even think it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    Speedy Most of it happens in their twenties and early thirties, they get into the office about 6.30am from their central London apartments work until 10.30pm -11pm, even all night if a deal to be closed, maybe entertain clients at an expensive restaurant once or twice a week, on Friday or Saturday go out clubbing until the early hours taking cocaine sometimes to a strip bar etc and often work part of the weekends too. Annual vacations are also often rioutous affairs in the Med on a yacht or Caribbean villas
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    It is good story-telling. Not sure it is great journalism - but it is well-written and worth close reading.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    From that Guardian piece, can Labour get a refund?

    There were other problems, of course: the highly touted but ultimately ineffective £15m ground campaign;

    I don't think David Axelrod does refunds.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I wonder how many more years it might be before Blair becomes less a figure of hate and ridicule in equal measure for significant portions of the country, if it will ever happen - even today you can find people who get really passionately angry about Thatcher for instance.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    kle4 said:

    I wonder how many more years it might be before Blair becomes less a figure of hate and ridicule in equal measure for significant portions of the country, if it will ever happen - even today you can find people who get really passionately angry about Thatcher for instance.

    I think we will see peak Tony Blair hatred when the Chilcott report comes out, then it will go down from there.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Don't take 100-1 at Ladbrokes, take 230-1 on Betfair for Corbyn :D
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Found it. She got Sutton and Cheam tonight

    I missed her 5th

    Hackney North
    Lewisham Deptford
    Dagenham
    Leyton

    and ?

    Islington North CLP nominate Tessa and Sadiq. Big fail for Diane.

    Tess aJowell & Gareth Thomas at Harrow West - latter may still make the ballot (worse luck)

    Not a good time for Lammy.

    Pretty sure Abbott is now on 5 anyway.
    Me too - there was a tweet clearly saying she was up to five. I'll see if I can find it.

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    kle4 said:

    I wonder how many more years it might be before Blair becomes less a figure of hate and ridicule in equal measure for significant portions of the country, if it will ever happen - even today you can find people who get really passionately angry about Thatcher for instance.

    There is a quality difference, Thatcher was never hated by her own party while Blair is hated even by his own party.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    AndyJS said:

    Chuck Blazer's pet cats apparently lived in their own $6,000 a month apartment adjacent to his own:

    http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/11/1/7144451/chuck-blazer-fifa-investigation-corruption

    The article is a bit misleading - in fact he didn't report any income for 10+ years, while running up over $25 million on his American Express card.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    There is so much in that Guardian piece that needs discussing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Speedy said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how many more years it might be before Blair becomes less a figure of hate and ridicule in equal measure for significant portions of the country, if it will ever happen - even today you can find people who get really passionately angry about Thatcher for instance.

    There is a quality difference, Thatcher was never hated by her own party while Blair is hated even by his own party.
    So he's in for at least 20+ years of passionate hatred (rather than just hatred), given the strength of negative emotion people still occasionally come out with Thatcher is ongoing.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    There is so much in that Guardian piece that needs discussing.

    It's basically several pages of "The PBTories were right"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Tyke/speedy/Fox Yes since he left office Blair seems to have got the unMidas touch
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    HYUFD said:

    MikeK The Labour membership voted for David Miliband in 2010, they will not vote for Corbyn in sufficient numbers for him to win

    Agreed
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how many more years it might be before Blair becomes less a figure of hate and ridicule in equal measure for significant portions of the country, if it will ever happen - even today you can find people who get really passionately angry about Thatcher for instance.

    I think we will see peak Tony Blair hatred when the Chilcott report comes out, then it will go down from there.
    do you think that he or indeed any of us will live that long?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,714
    EPG said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

    Top read from the Guardian featuring David Axelrod's version of free owls:
    - Axelrod was appalled by the low quality of the ideas being discussed, which he derisively characterised as “Vote Labour and win a microwave”.

    That's interesting. I wonder if the ghost of Shaun Woodward hangs in the air.

    On 23 September 2014, Ed Miliband prepared to take the stage at the Labour party conference in Manchester to deliver the most important speech of his career. But instead of rehearsing the speech he had memorised, he was being forced to concentrate on a new opening section, endorsing the proposal David Cameron had made that morning to join the US bombing of Isis in Iraq.

    It was Hague's failure to mention in a speech some foreign-affairs matter or other that Woodward claimed cemented his decision to defect to New Labour in 1999.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited June 2015
    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    I was gobsmacked by this paragraph:

    Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger [of the SNP effect on English voters]. One close adviser admitted that he was initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”

    How dumb could these guys have been? It was flagged up well in advance here. If they'd skimmed through the posts of the PB Tories, they wouldn't have been surprised at all. Not that it was particularly difficult to figure out.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2015
    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how many more years it might be before Blair becomes less a figure of hate and ridicule in equal measure for significant portions of the country, if it will ever happen - even today you can find people who get really passionately angry about Thatcher for instance.

    There is a quality difference, Thatcher was never hated by her own party while Blair is hated even by his own party.
    So he's in for at least 20+ years of passionate hatred (rather than just hatred), given the strength of negative emotion people still occasionally come out with Thatcher is ongoing.
    Making a reasonable guess, he will be hated as long as the middle east is war-torn and in chaos and immigration is an issue.
    Which are his two signature achievements.

    Though the SNP might make a statue of him for scottish devolution.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2015

    There is so much in that Guardian piece that needs discussing.

    Indeed – I'm sure PB is quite happy to sacrifice the long anticipated AV thread to do so :lol:
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    There is so much in that Guardian piece that needs discussing.

    I don't think it mentions Russell Brand.
    It implies that the Milband in the SNP pocket posters came late in the campaign, but it was the leading image. The SNP polls showed them wiping out slab from the off.

  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Select Committee Chairs elections:
    noms open tomorrow until June 10th.
    Ballot on June 17th
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited June 2015

    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    I was gobsmacked by this paragraph:

    Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger [of the SNP effect on English voters]. One close adviser admitted that he was initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”

    How dumb could these guys have been? It was flagged up well in advance here. If they'd skimmed through the posts of the PB Tories, they wouldn't have been surprised at all. Not that it was particularly difficult to figure out.
    Indeed I had been to the bank and on my way back to the car park, I heard two women talking , both had already voted postally and both were alluding to their considerable fears of an SNP/ Labour stitch up. I think it was about a week before the GE or possibly earlier.

    AND I posted about it that very day.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    Tyke/speedy/Fox Yes since he left office Blair seems to have got the unMidas touch

    How unMidas can you be if you cash in the favours you've done and fame you have acquired while in office, remember a few days ago Blair needed 330k pounds to deliver a speech to combat world hunger (well with the money at least 2 people wouldn't be hungry, Tony & Cherie):

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/330000-for-a-20minute-speech-at-a-world-hunger-event-tony-blair-is-an-inspiration-to-us-all-10289764.html
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy Most of it happens in their twenties and early thirties, they get into the office about 6.30am from their central London apartments work until 10.30pm -11pm, even all night if a deal to be closed, maybe entertain clients at an expensive restaurant once or twice a week, on Friday or Saturday go out clubbing until the early hours taking cocaine sometimes to a strip bar etc and often work part of the weekends too. Annual vacations are also often rioutous affairs in the Med on a yacht or Caribbean villas

    I used to know a few in the eighties and the story doesn't change. They were rich but never seemed happy. I did not envy them, even though I was working 100 hour weeks as a junior doctor at the time.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    I was gobsmacked by this paragraph:

    Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger [of the SNP effect on English voters]. One close adviser admitted that he was initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”

    How dumb could these guys have been? It was flagged up well in advance here. If they'd skimmed through the posts of the PB Tories, they wouldn't have been surprised at all. Not that it was particularly difficult to figure out.
    They only needed to talk to members of the public. Or listen on trains. I can rarely recall a political message that cut through so completely.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    And, as feeble excuses go, this one is a humdinger:

    “The only reason [the Edstone] got through 10 planning meetings was because we were all distracted, looking for a way to punch through on the SNP,” one adviser said.

    Ten planning meetings? And no-one said "Hang on, are you out of your tiny little minds?"
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    I thought Labour KNEW they were fecked but hid it from their troops inc from ED Balls
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited June 2015
    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    Most of the polls were accurate, remember a week/ten days or so before election day, we had the likes of Ashcroft, ICM having 6 point Tory leads, ComRes had a 4% Tory lead, Ipsos Mori had a 5% Tory lead, Opinium had a 4% lead.

    They just went a silly in the last week
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    This probably my favourite bit, for obvious reasons...
    Labour was so desperate that on 22 April, Lucy Powell, the campaign chair, wrote to the BBC’s director of news, James Harding, to complain about the broadcaster’s coverage.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Tim_B said:

    antifrank said:

    Scott_P said:

    ROFL

    None of Labour’s election day scenario planning involved the possibility of an overall Tory majority, leaving the deputy leader, Harriet Harman, without a script as she toured the television studios on the night of the party’s election defeat.

    Miliband’s confidence that he would become prime minister had been bolstered by a final private poll delivered to him a week before the election showing Labour two points ahead among the electorate in the 86 battleground seats and his own favourability ratings nearly matching David Cameron.

    Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s spin doctor, played an increasing role in the final weeks of the campaign.

    Miliband was so unhappy that he had failed to mention the deficit in his party conference speech he shut himself in his hotel room with his wife and a few close aides.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/ed-miliband-plan-david-cameron-general-election-polls-wrong
    You missed the best bits:

    "Miliband’s own former advisers believe, but do not know for sure, the 8ft-high stone slab that set out his election pledges has been destroyed as planned, as one of its creators, Torsten Henricson-Bell, has ordered."

    "the election result meant that Miliband never had the chance to make the offer, or relocate the 8ft high “Edstone” with its carved pledges to Downing Street.

    It was intended to be destroyed, but a previous attempt to break it up had to be called off when the media discovered the location of in a south London warehouse.

    Another plan for the stone to be broken up like the Berlin Wall, with the pieces sold for charity, was also rejected."

    I guess my idea for a unique kitchen worktop is now a non-starter.
    Or use the bits to make a footpath in a Jewish cemetery.

    Because...?
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Tim_B said:

    O/T the NFL week 7 game in London between the Buffalo Bills and the Jacksonville Jaguars will be shown exclusively on Yahoo, for free. It will be shown on local TV in the Jacksonville and Buffalo markets.

    So now's your chance to watch a seriously below average game.

    - just found out that Yahoo paid the NFL $20 million for this. Not sure if that's a good investment or not.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited June 2015
    I take back my criticism at the time of Michael Fallon for this, he's a team player, who took one for the team

    This time, the dead cat was supplied by the defence secretary Michael Fallon. The day after Labour’s non-dom announcement, Fallon launched a deliberately excessive attack on Miliband, suggesting he would betray the country by surrendering the Trident nuclear deterrent in order to reach a deal with the Scottish National party:

    “Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.” Miliband’s team seethed at the tactic, though several confessed a lingering admiration for its effectiveness.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    I was gobsmacked by this paragraph:

    Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger [of the SNP effect on English voters]. One close adviser admitted that he was initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”

    How dumb could these guys have been? It was flagged up well in advance here. If they'd skimmed through the posts of the PB Tories, they wouldn't have been surprised at all. Not that it was particularly difficult to figure out.
    They only needed to talk to members of the public. Or listen on trains. I can rarely recall a political message that cut through so completely.
    One of the main things that gave it legs was Ed's feckless attempts to deal with it. As he gradually edged out from one set of weasel words to the next he did his credibility serious damage. A tory scriptwriter would have thought his responses fanciful.

    Still think that audience gasping in disbelief at him bluntly saying the last Labour government had not overspent was a key moment though. Any economic credibility he had died at that moment. And some serious long term planning by Osborne came to a glorious fruition.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DavidL said:

    Still think that audience gasping in disbelief at him bluntly saying the last Labour government had not overspent was a key moment though. Any economic credibility he had died at that moment. And some serious long term planning by Osborne came to a glorious fruition.

    It's even better when you find out he rehearsed for that moment
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Just can't believe they were that slow. Unbelievable.

    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    I was gobsmacked by this paragraph:

    Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger [of the SNP effect on English voters]. One close adviser admitted that he was initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”

    How dumb could these guys have been? It was flagged up well in advance here. If they'd skimmed through the posts of the PB Tories, they wouldn't have been surprised at all. Not that it was particularly difficult to figure out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Fox Indeed, the pursuit of money becomes an end in itself, and many spend half an hour in the gym before starting work just to keep themselves going, but it is their choice
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Speedy I was talking in policy terms, but the biggest winner from the New Labour era was the Blairs bank balance, true
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    Most of the polls were accurate, remember a week/ten days or so before election day, we had the likes of Ashcroft, ICM having 6 point Tory leads, ComRes had a 4% Tory lead, Ipsos Mori had a 5% Tory lead, Opinium had a 4%.

    They just went a silly in the last week
    There was a 1.1% swing to Labour in England ;)

    Unfortunately for Labour...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    And, as feeble excuses go, this one is a humdinger:

    “The only reason [the Edstone] got through 10 planning meetings was because we were all distracted, looking for a way to punch through on the SNP,” one adviser said.

    Ten planning meetings? And no-one said "Hang on, are you out of your tiny little minds?"

    In fact, thinking about it, not only is the excuse feeble, it's also clearly disingenuous. The EdStone didn't get handed down by the Almighty in the course of a brief hike up Scafell. It must have been ordered well in advance, platitudes and all, long before the SNP effect came into play.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    Is there evidence that the Tories knew about Labour's weakness, or did they just know that the Lib Dems were on the ropes and easier to pummel? Genuine question.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    Most of the polls were accurate, remember a week/ten days or so before election day, we had the likes of Ashcroft, ICM having 6 point Tory leads, ComRes had a 4% Tory lead, Ipsos Mori had a 5% Tory lead, Opinium had a 4% lead.

    They just went a silly in the last week
    Nah, there was the odd outlier showing a tory lead, nearly always on a Monday as I recall but most of the polling by the Friday had things back to level again. Yougov, of course, had a major deadening effect on all the perceived polling by sheer weight of numbers. And they never got close. Not once.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    I was gobsmacked by this paragraph:

    Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger [of the SNP effect on English voters]. One close adviser admitted that he was initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”

    How dumb could these guys have been? It was flagged up well in advance here. If they'd skimmed through the posts of the PB Tories, they wouldn't have been surprised at all. Not that it was particularly difficult to figure out.
    They only needed to talk to members of the public. Or listen on trains. I can rarely recall a political message that cut through so completely.
    One of the main things that gave it legs was Ed's feckless attempts to deal with it. As he gradually edged out from one set of weasel words to the next he did his credibility serious damage.
    I'd agree, although I do feel he was in a bit of a bind - as the piece says, Focus Groups did not believe flat denials of working together with the SNP in some form, for the very good reason that of course Labour would work with them in some form if they had to, and no poll showed they could do it without the SNP.

    In the face of that, ignoring it, trying out progressively firmer denials, and ridiculously trying to paint people not liking SNP influence over the government in Westminster as the same thing as hating anyscottish MPs having influence over the government in Westminster (some people may not like that, but most people do not) and therefore it was somehow wrong for it to be used as a tactic, does seem to show they tried everything they could, but that perhaps a solution was not there. Maybe they could have cycled through the various options faster to retain more credibility, but I'm not sure what they could have done - in the end he did claim becoming PM was not worth the cost of working with the SNP, but no-one believed that - and the SNP were making great strides telling everyone how much people shouldn't and all the good they could ensure Ed did - so he might as well have not bothered.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Ghedebrav said:

    Tim_B said:

    antifrank said:

    Scott_P said:

    ROFL

    None of Labour’s election day scenario planning involved the possibility of an overall Tory majority, leaving the deputy leader, Harriet Harman, without a script as she toured the television studios on the night of the party’s election defeat.

    Miliband’s confidence that he would become prime minister had been bolstered by a final private poll delivered to him a week before the election showing Labour two points ahead among the electorate in the 86 battleground seats and his own favourability ratings nearly matching David Cameron.

    Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s spin doctor, played an increasing role in the final weeks of the campaign.

    Miliband was so unhappy that he had failed to mention the deficit in his party conference speech he shut himself in his hotel room with his wife and a few close aides.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/ed-miliband-plan-david-cameron-general-election-polls-wrong
    You missed the best bits:

    "Miliband’s own former advisers believe, but do not know for sure, the 8ft-high stone slab that set out his election pledges has been destroyed as planned, as one of its creators, Torsten Henricson-Bell, has ordered."

    "the election result meant that Miliband never had the chance to make the offer, or relocate the 8ft high “Edstone” with its carved pledges to Downing Street.

    It was intended to be destroyed, but a previous attempt to break it up had to be called off when the media discovered the location of in a south London warehouse.

    Another plan for the stone to be broken up like the Berlin Wall, with the pieces sold for charity, was also rejected."

    I guess my idea for a unique kitchen worktop is now a non-starter.
    Or use the bits to make a footpath in a Jewish cemetery.
    Because...?


    It wasn't a ' deep thought' response. He's Jewish, anti-semitism is on the rise, so here's a way to make good use of the bits of the edstone. That's it. I'm sure there are many other better ideas.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DavidL said:

    Still think that audience gasping in disbelief at him bluntly saying the last Labour government had not overspent was a key moment though. Any economic credibility he had died at that moment. And some serious long term planning by Osborne came to a glorious fruition.

    Totally agreed. That gasp cinched it for me. Much of the debates were fake with planted questions on either sides, or overegged applause/boos - but that was a clear and instinctive reaction of shock. Until that moment Miliband had neutered previous attempts to damage him/Labour by association of the last Labour government by playing a straight bat and admitting the previous government made mistakes he'd learned from (and trying in a politicians way to turn a negative into a positive).

    By simply outright refusing to accept any overspending it shocked the audience in the room and at home. It was an incredible mistake that revealed his total lack of credibility. "Long term economic plan" suddenly didn't seem like meaningless buzzwords when here was someone who outright denied overspending had occurred.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,388
    edited June 2015

    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    Most of the polls were accurate, remember a week/ten days or so before election day, we had the likes of Ashcroft, ICM having 6 point Tory leads, ComRes had a 4% Tory lead, Ipsos Mori had a 5% Tory lead, Opinium had a 4% lead.

    They just went a silly in the last week
    But those polls were so infrequent where-as YouGov was rock solid for a Labour led Hung Parliament...

    It's all Kellners fault!

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    I think it was the campaign that changed the electorate, I give you 2 yougov polls one from early in January and the last one before the election.
    In both the numbers are about the same for all parties with Labour level with the Tories however the composition of support changed.

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/9qu9ky90oi/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-060115.pdf

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/prq13gslk4/FINALCALL_GB_May2015_WedPM_W.pdf

    The Tories really had surged with the over 60's while Labour had surged with the youth vote, and that occurred because of where the campaign priorities fell for each party.
    In the end the Tories won because old people were much more motivated to vote and vote Tory to prevent the SNP from taking over, rather than young people with their Russell Brand "revolution" greenery.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Damian McBride ‏@DPMcBride 20 mins20 minutes ago
    I began @patrickwintour's top insight into Team Miliband but had to stop within 20 paras due to explosive cringe: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    GIN1138 said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    Most of the polls were accurate, remember a week/ten days or so before election day, we had the likes of Ashcroft, ICM having 6 point Tory leads, ComRes had a 4% Tory lead, Ipsos Mori had a 5% Tory lead, Opinium had a 4% lead.

    They just went a silly in the last week
    But those polls were so infrequent where-as YouGov was rock solid for a Labour led Hung Parliament...

    It's all Kellners fault!

    I suspect we will no longer get a daily tracker poll in this parliament.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tyke/speedy/Fox Yes since he left office Blair seems to have got the unMidas touch

    How unMidas can you be if you cash in the favours you've done and fame you have acquired while in office, remember a few days ago Blair needed 330k pounds to deliver a speech to combat world hunger (well with the money at least 2 people wouldn't be hungry, Tony & Cherie):

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/330000-for-a-20minute-speech-at-a-world-hunger-event-tony-blair-is-an-inspiration-to-us-all-10289764.html
    I think we need to learn to criticise people properly and there is indeed a lot of criticism due to Blair. (Nr1 being not sacking Brown)
    However the money goes to this foundation of his. By all means criticise this. The money I guess includes expenses. By all means criticise this. The foundation may not be effective (I don't know, may be it is). I imagine this visit/appearance entailed more than just a 20 minute speech (but maybe not) and where Blair appears may be he does all sorts of other good (and again maybe not, and if not show it and thus criticise).
    Either Blair's current activities do some good or are a total self serving sham. I would like to see some demonstration of which.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Ed Miliband had prepared a detailed action plan to start to oust David Cameron from Downing Street on the day after the general election, based on the private polling that showed the party ahead in key marginal seats.

    The party leader was ready, if necessary, to form a minority Labour government that might later make an offer of a deal with the Liberal Democrats to strengthen his legitimacy, so confident was he of being able to reach No 10.

    None of Labour’s election day scenario planning involved the possibility of an overall Tory majority, leaving the deputy leader, Harriet Harman, without a script as she toured the television studios on the night of the party’s election defeat.

    The most senior figures in the campaign say the moment the exit poll was released that showed the Tories would be by far the largest party would be seared in their brains for ever. “The shock was just awful,” said one campaign aide."


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/ed-miliband-plan-david-cameron-general-election-polls-wrong
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2015
    antifrank said:

    Damian McBride ‏@DPMcBride 20 mins20 minutes ago
    I began @patrickwintour's top insight into Team Miliband but had to stop within 20 paras due to explosive cringe: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

    I guess this is the moment he stopped reading it:
    "Ideas dropped from earlier drafts – such as a joke about being mistaken for Benedict Cumberbatch – suddenly reappeared."

    And with that insight into how bad can jokes be inside political parties, goodnight.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited June 2015
    On the downside, spare a thought for Mike, who has to edit PB, with very few polls, even in 2005, we had more than we're getting now post election.

    Makes writing 2/3 new threads a day a bit of a challenge.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    EPG said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely one of the things to be discussed is that it appears that Labour were as misled by the Polls as the rest of us. It is weird that the Tories got that so right when everyone else was wrong. Is this because Messina was a very clever boy (and Axelrod wasn't) or is there something else at play?

    If we accept that there is almost no evidence of a late swing from the pollsters themselves one has to conclude that Labour were at least 5-6% behind for most of the campaign. And they never picked up on it? Weird.

    Is there evidence that the Tories knew about Labour's weakness, or did they just know that the Lib Dems were on the ropes and easier to pummel? Genuine question.
    Victory has many fathers and there is undoubtedly many legends being spun but I think the evidence is that Crosby saw the Lib Dems as the way to a majority from a very early stage. I think the polling indicated that as well. What took real balls and courage was to focus so much resources on those seats and being confident that the Labour/Tory marginals would basically be a draw.

    That was by far the biggest call of the election. I remember wondering what the hell Cameron was doing rampaging around the west country when it looked like Labour were going to take 50-60 seats off them in the midlands and the north.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2015
    "Miliband’s own former advisers believe, but do not know for sure, the 8ft-high stone slab that set out his election pledges has been destroyed as planned, as one of its creators, Torsten Henricson-Bell, has ordered.

    It was intended to be destroyed, but a previous attempt to break it up had to be called off when the media discovered its location in a south London warehouse.

    Another plan for the stone to be broken up like the Berlin Wall, with the pieces sold for charity, was also rejected."
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The really interesting inside story would be the Conservative campaign diary. But I guess we'll have to wait a few years for that one.

    The Conservatives made some pretty desperate commitments during the election campaign, so I simply don't believe that they thought that they were going to get an overall majority.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533

    And, as feeble excuses go, this one is a humdinger:

    “The only reason [the Edstone] got through 10 planning meetings was because we were all distracted, looking for a way to punch through on the SNP,” one adviser said.

    Ten planning meetings? And no-one said "Hang on, are you out of your tiny little minds?"

    Imagine what it would have been like if they got into government.....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    I'd agree, although I do feel he was in a bit of a bind - as the piece says, Focus Groups did not believe flat denials of working together with the SNP in some form, for the very good reason that of course Labour would work with them in some form if they had to, and no poll showed they could do it without the SNP.

    In the face of that, ignoring it, trying out progressively firmer denials, and ridiculously trying to paint people not liking SNP influence over the government in Westminster as the same thing as hating anyscottish MPs having influence over the government in Westminster (some people may not like that, but most people do not) and therefore it was somehow wrong for it to be used as a tactic, does seem to show they tried everything they could, but that perhaps a solution was not there. Maybe they could have cycled through the various options faster to retain more credibility, but I'm not sure what they could have done - in the end he did claim becoming PM was not worth the cost of working with the SNP, but no-one believed that - and the SNP were making great strides telling everyone how much people shouldn't and all the good they could ensure Ed did - so he might as well have not bothered.

    He could only have neutered it by embracing it: Yes we'll work with the SNP, the Tories are worst because insert whatever arguments here so we will work with anyone who will help us achieve insert campaign goals here. Follow up with Meaningless drivel about Progressive Alliance

    The problem is that Labour has become a hollowed out mess that neither the public nor Labour themselves even know what they stand for nowadays. They stand for not being the Tories, so when someone else is not the Tories either they have no way of dealing with it.

    Tony Blair would never have allowed himself to lose because he wouldn't work with a third party, he embraced working with the Lib Dems until it was discovered it wasn't necessary, By refusing to give a straight answer on the SNP he played into it being a dirty unthinkable act to work with them, rather than staying with the Tories being unthinkable.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    antifrank said:

    The really interesting inside story would be the Conservative campaign diary. But I guess we'll have to wait a few years for that one.

    The Conservatives made some pretty desperate commitments during the election campaign, so I simply don't believe that they thought that they were going to get an overall majority.

    This is one reason why I don't think they knew. The other is the manifesto, which they clearly have no idea how to implement in detail.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2015
    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.

    I t.
    They only needed to talk to members of the public. Or listen on trains. I can rarely recall a political message that cut through so completely.
    Still think that audience gasping in disbelief at him bluntly saying the last Labour government had not overspent was a key moment though. Any economic credibility he had died at that moment.
    Who knows how much impact it had on the wider public and the campaign momentum, but it did feel like something a little more genuine than you usually get. Many of the people that night seemed to be auditioning to show the party they supported how well they could attack the other team, with Ed getting the worst of it but generally doing ok, but his denial caused, as you say, gasps of shock and disbelief, something that wouldn't come just from people trying to be amateur political attack dogs

    Funnily enough I know Cameron himself has said, I think in a conference speech even in 2010 that Labour did not cause the crash, though they made it worse, but nearly every analysis of the 'Tory lie' I've seen post election has been about how Labour did not counter the accusation they had 'caused' the crash and how appalling that was. I guess the Tory message was hard and unsubtle enough to give the impression they blamed Labour entirely, but it's amusing that is not what they actually said, at least not initially.

    Cameron:Let's start by being honest with ourselves. The mess this country is in – it's not all because of Labour.

    Of course, they must take some of the blame. Alright - they need to take a lot of the blame...

    ...But the point I want to make is this. The state of our nation is not just determined by the government and those who run it. It is determined by millions of individual actions – by what each of us do and what we choose not to do...

    ...Yes, Labour centralised too much and told people they could fix every problem. But it was the rest of us who swallowed it, hoping that if the government took care of things, perhaps we wouldn't have to.


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/06/david-cameron-speech-tory-conference
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited June 2015
    EPG said:

    Is there evidence that the Tories knew about Labour's weakness, or did they just know that the Lib Dems were on the ropes and easier to pummel? Genuine question.

    Yes, clearly they knew, because the effort they put into pummelling the LibDems would have made no sense otherwise. If there was any risk of Labour taking lots of Conservative seats, the effort would have been much better spent trying to defend those seats and hoping that the LibDems would do some deal - in such a scenario, every seat saved from Labour would have been worth two seats taken from the LibDems.

    In fact I hinted at this on May 5th, in response to SeanT asking why the Tories seemed quite confident:

    Clegg rattled, the Conservatives suddenly going all-out in LibDem-held seats rather than Con/Lab marginals, Labour apparently in a panic: use your brains, guys and gals. There's a pretty obvious explanation. Postal votes have gone out, but, more importantly, the follow-up phone calls in key marginals have happened.

    This is one part of the answer to SeanT's question.


    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/654865/#Comment_654865


  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,388
    edited June 2015

    On the downside, spare a thought for Mike, who has to edit PB, with very few polls, even in 2005, we had more than we're getting now post election.

    Makes writing new 2/3 threads a day a bit of a challenge.

    I'm enjoying the self imposed exile of the opinion pollsters...

    Frankly, at this point, we'd be better off asking Plato's Pussy when it come's to finding out what the future holds...

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,388
    edited June 2015
    (The stone’s demolition, in the event of a Labour loss, had been agreed at the time it was commissioned. After the election, the party drew up two plans for its disposal: one was simply to smash the stone up and throw the rubble onto a scrap heap. The second was to break it up and sell chunks, like the Berlin Wall, to party members as a fundraising effort. The first attempts to destroy the stone had to be postponed when the media tracked its location to a south London warehouse. There are claims it has been destroyed, but even Miliband’s close advisers cannot confirm its fate.)

    You'd have to have a heart of (ED) stone not to laugh... :smiley::smiley::smiley::smiley::smiley:
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    edited June 2015

    On the downside, spare a thought for Mike, who has to edit PB, with very few polls, even in 2005, we had more than we're getting now post election.

    Makes writing new 2/3 threads a day a bit of a challenge.

    I must say that the owner around here has created a great resource and with all due respect to comments, most of the value is from the good selection and discussion of topics.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    That Guardian article is quite exceptional journalism. They should be proud of themselves.


    How dumb could these guys have been? It was flagged up well in advance here. If they'd skimmed through the posts of the PB Tories, they wouldn't have been surprised at all. Not that it was particularly difficult to figure out.
    They only needed to talk to members of the public. Or listen on trains. I can rarely recall a political message that cut through so completely.
    One of the main things that gave it legs was Ed's feckless attempts to deal with it. As he gradually edged out from one set of weasel words to the next he did his credibility serious damage.
    I'd agree, although I do feel he was in a bit of a bind - as the piece says, Focus Groups did not believe flat denials of working together with the SNP in some form, for the very good reason that of course Labour would work with them in some form if they had to, and no poll showed they could do it without the SNP.

    In the face of that, ignoring it, trying out progressively firmer denials, and ridiculously trying to paint people not liking SNP influence over the government in Westminster as the same thing as hating anyscottish MPs having influence over the government in Westminster (some people may not like that, but most people do not) and therefore it was somehow wrong for it to be used as a tactic, does seem to show they tried everything they could, but that perhaps a solution was not there. Maybe they could have cycled through the various options faster to retain more credibility, but I'm not sure what they could have done - in the end he did claim becoming PM was not worth the cost of working with the SNP, but no-one believed that - and the SNP were making great strides telling everyone how much people shouldn't and all the good they could ensure Ed did - so he might as well have not bothered.
    He was in a bind because he lost Scotland comprehensively and completely. And the truly weird thing is that he barely even tried. He was hardly here for the referendum and hardly here afterwards. At the very, very least he had to show he cared and he just didn't.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2015

    On the downside, spare a thought for Mike, who has to edit PB, with very few polls, even in 2005, we had more than we're getting now post election.

    Makes writing new 2/3 threads a day a bit of a challenge.

    Actually quite a lot has happened since the election that don't need polls:
    LD demise.
    UKIP civil war.
    EU referendum.
    Human Rights Act cabinet row.
    FIFA
    Kennedy dead.

    And there is still the LD leadership and Labour leadership contest not to mention Greece and the ongoing EU and Middle East problems, or what will happen to Jeremy Clarkson.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,737
    It's fascinating just how scarcely believably awful Ed's advisers were. Almost makes it less a case of 'Ed is crap', more 'Ed is surrounded by morons'. As a politician I don't think Miliband was as awful as the caricature - mediocre yes, and struggled with the answer to a very difficult question (how can Labour appeal to both its slipping core vote who are anti-New Labour and win over Blair-Tories with no money), but capable on occasion as he showed in the campaign and for periods before rowing back and reverting back to mediocrity. What that Guardian piece makes clear is just how terribly he was advised. Remarkably every idea which could've rectified his problems (many suggested by A Campbell Esq.) seems to have been rejected by the buffoons around him. Culminating in a ruddy stone!

    They should have branded across their backs: "If you don't define yourselves, you'll be defined by your enemies." Which is exactly what happened - the manifesto not being a suicide note, but an invitation for the SNP and Tories to sign a death warrant by casting an ill defined Labour as whatever they wanted - Red Tories in the north, spendthrifts in the south/midlands.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Tim_B said:

    AndyJS said:

    Chuck Blazer's pet cats apparently lived in their own $6,000 a month apartment adjacent to his own:

    http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/11/1/7144451/chuck-blazer-fifa-investigation-corruption

    The article is a bit misleading - in fact he didn't report any income for 10+ years, while running up over $25 million on his American Express card.
    What NO income? He didn't even pretend to be making a bit of dosh? i.e Greek style tax evasion....but I am but a humble dentist to the stars that only makes 7000 euro a year, just ignore that big house, that is my sisters and that boat, that is my second cousins.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    In Walsall when the 2 Labour MPs (who were defending under 5% majorities) arrived at the count the BBC tried to interview them they said they were told not to speak until the result was known.

    I am not sure if it happened in other counts, but I wonder if it was an order by regional HQ after confusion/disbelief in tallying expectations with exit poll figures
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    Speedy said:

    On the downside, spare a thought for Mike, who has to edit PB, with very few polls, even in 2005, we had more than we're getting now post election.

    Makes writing new 2/3 threads a day a bit of a challenge.

    Actually quite a lot has happened since the election that don't need polls:
    LD demise.
    UKIP civil war.
    EU referendum.
    Human Rights Act cabinet row.
    FIFA
    Kennedy dead.

    And there is still the LD leadership and Labour leadership contest not to mention Greece and the ongoing EU and Middle East problems, or what will happen to Jeremy Clarkson.
    True, it also means more threads on AV.
Sign In or Register to comment.