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.
The only reason Ed surrounded himself with morons is because...
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.
To roughly model it... Imagine a scenario where it is three times easier for the Conservatives to fight a Lib Dem seat than a Labour one. Then it makes sense to pummel the Lib Dems, even when Labour could be doing well. If it was the difference between C+LD+DUP and C+DUP, clearly the latter wins.
Alternatively parties aren't always rational (as commenters around here know about every other party!).
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
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'.
Part of being a good leader is surrounding yourself with able people. Ed Miliband did not do this. This was obvious well in advance.
I find the bit in the piece about the prepared response to the spending question on the night of the gasp quite interesting, in that the prepared response supposedly ended up with the same denial, but by leading with it rather than contextualising it first with standard political tactics and excessive verbiage* on difficult questions, it changed its perception entirely.
Now, going with the prepared response might not have gone down super well, and it wouldn't have fixed what was clearly the key issue that Labour believed (and may still believe) they did not spend too much (even if I would argue that is a battle they need to abandon and let historians and economists fight over, and some in the party seem to be doing that) and the public did and do think that, but it probably would have prevented that sharp, visceral and easily replayable moment of sheer shock.
I think it shows the reason political behaviours develop, and the value of dissembling or obfuscation for all pundits and interviewers lament their use sometimes - get the same statement out in the wrong order in the wrong way, and it can make a difference. The message might still be wrong - something that hasn't been universally accepted yet - but the messaging is important as we the public show when the messaging is done wrong, so of course they focus on it.
*not that I'm one to talk about excessive verbiage.
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.
If only he'd been a terrorist as well that would have been the ISIS on the cake.... (sorry, couldn't help it).
Maybe in the next life he'll become Caitlyn Jenner.
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
Even the funded promises (£12bn) are unworked out yet.
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.
I'm hearing increasingly that indeed there is probably no deal, just a lot of face saving maneuvering by all sides and a second election will be called to get the green light by the electorate to do grexit, default or whatever.
The interesting part is that although Greece has probably just enough cash flow to fund it's IMF liabilities, the sticking point which is the ECB bonds can be defaulted on or at least restructured by a simple law from the greek parliament, since that debt was issued under greek law and was not part of the PSI agreement of 2012.
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.
A better speech than Ed ever made with a real focus and message: governments can't fix everything. It was also not just the State that borrowed too much from 2002-2007. The private sector did too and it was the combination of both that put us in one of the worst positions in the world when the crash came.
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.
Guest posts on the american primaries too, and pre primaries and pre-pre primaries, I should hope. Thank goodness they start early and go on so long.
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
Even the funded promises (£12bn) are unworked out yet.
We'll get them next month. Osborne very rarely makes the same mistake twice and he was badly hampered in the last Parliament by end weighting the cuts into the second half of the Parliament (because the economy was so weak). I think this time the cuts will be right up front so the pressure is off in the lead up to the next election.
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
I suspect that the truth for many is somewhere in between. I think that many thought the Conservatives should be winning but simply lost faith in their instinctive judgement so relentless appeared to be the (public) polling evidence. It's a shame because there was a shedload of money to be made.
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.
Guest posts on the american primaries too, and pre primaries and pre-pre primaries, I should hope. Thank goodness they start early and go on so long.
Be careful what you wish for - the first Republican debate is August 6th. Only the top ten candidates will be there however.
"Chuck Blazer takes fans with him on his many travels in the service of soccer at chuckblazer.blogspot.com. Blazer is the general secretary of Concacaf, the sport’s regional governing body, and the only American to ever serve on FIFA’s powerful executive committee."
Clive Lewis is the gift that will just keep on giving.
This former BBC news presenter is hated by his former BBC newsgathering colleagues: As a presenter, he was paid extra. But when he announced his candidature, he was shunted into the back-office.... but maintained his high salary.
Lording it over his much poorer-paid new colleagues did little to endear him to those who produce the news. They have long memories.
Given a choice between the drummer from Blurr and Lewis, local Labourites have been scrathing their heads trying to work out how they ended up with LoudMouthLewis and his left-of Ken Livingstone 6thForm politics.
He's one to watch alright - even if the only cuts he ends up fighting are those in the BBC newsreel that make him look foolish.
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
I suspect that the truth for many is somewhere in between. I think that many thought the Conservatives should be winning but simply lost faith in their instinctive judgement so relentless appeared to be the (public) polling evidence. It's a shame because there was a shedload of money to be made.
It was all still there to be made on election night itself. Annoyingly for those of us that had predicted a hung Parliament for years, bragging rights had to be forgone. But given the choice between making money and being right, I'd prefer to make money.
1. If you could hoist any flag other than the Union flag or Royal Standard over Buckingham Palace, what flag would you choose?
2. If you could hoist the Union flag over any building in the world, where would you go?
1. Nepal's. Simply because they don't stick to everyone else's insistence on a boring rectangular flag. Makes the whole place more interesting.
2. The White House - we're taking you back, America!
Regarding #2, if you get America back, you get Major League Soccer with it - are you sure you want it?
Of course, you get me too.....
Hmm. I'm afraid attendance would have to be mandatory as part of the re-assimilation into a civilized society by outlawing all non-British sports. We could ban MLS if everyone agreed to play and watch Cricket instead I suppose.
I am heartened to hear you would remain with the new United States of New Britain.
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.
Guest posts on the american primaries too, and pre primaries and pre-pre primaries, I should hope. Thank goodness they start early and go on so long.
Be careful what you wish for - the first Republican debate is August 6th. Only the top ten candidates will be there however.
Oh, I'll dip in and out - the only way to last the distance.
Given a choice between the drummer from Blurr and Lewis, local Labourites have been scrathing their heads trying to work out how they ended up with LoudMouthLewis and his left-of Ken Livingstone 6thForm politics.
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
Even the funded promises (£12bn) are unworked out yet.
We'll get them next month. Osborne very rarely makes the same mistake twice and he was badly hampered in the last Parliament by end weighting the cuts into the second half of the Parliament (because the economy was so weak). I think this time the cuts will be right up front so the pressure is off in the lead up to the next election.
I think they're still living on a bit of a wing and a prayer. There is a fundamental logic behind cutting budgets and, presumably, expenditure. That is that it will squeeze and squeeze and squeeze the fat out of the system. The problem is that at some point there is no more to give. But the Government simply do not know at what point that will be. And it is a great disadvantage that a fundamentally sound basic theory has been undermined by the ringfencing of significant areas of expenditure. Leaving aside International Development, where there is obviously wasteage going on, but overall is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the worst is probably Education. There is almost certainly huge amounts of money being wasted there. NHS is a more complicated case because even in a highly efficient service this is an area where expenditure simply has to grow to meet demand. Meanwhile there are areas of Local Government which really are rapidly approaching breaking point. But nobody knows exactly where the shit will hit the fan first. Because the cuts are being applied equally to equivalent areas, but equivalent areas are not coming from the same starting position. What is worse is that Tory heartlands have been largely incubated by their low initial levels of govt grant, so the warning indicators are probably not flashing as brightly with central govt as they should be.
Axl Rose would have been better than Axelrod - at least he'd have punched EdM's team into some sense.
I'd love to read what Axelrod thought of it all from a distance. That he was handed a load of dosh for either bugger all/being ignored for sound advice speaks volumes.
That Guardian summary sounds like EdM recreated the dinner table debate he had at home growing up.
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...????
Re: Corbyn. Have the thresholds for nomination changed since 2010? Because otherwise don't forget that Diane Abbot was nominated then. Or were nominations not required under the old rules?
Given a choice between the drummer from Blurr and Lewis, local Labourites have been scrathing their heads trying to work out how they ended up with LoudMouthLewis and his left-of Ken Livingstone 6thForm politics.
You're right - in part. There were four on the shortlist but Dave Rowntree, the Blur Drummer was considered a front-runner owing to him having been brought-up in the nearby village of Spixworth thus demonstrating his local credentials. It was a surprise to most when he fell short on the selection.
Re: Corbyn. Have the thresholds for nomination changed since 2010? Because otherwise don't forget that Diane Abbot was nominated then. Or were nominations not required under the old rules?
Abbot was nominated as a token woman who was coincidentally also a lefty. The same won't apply for Corbyn, and I think that the threshold has been increased, because the MPs have lost their third of the electoral college.
Re: Corbyn. Have the thresholds for nomination changed since 2010? Because otherwise don't forget that Diane Abbot was nominated then. Or were nominations not required under the old rules?
Abbott got into the contest when another person with more nominations pulled out and explicitly told their supporters to nominate her so there would be at least 1 female candidate. Thankfully we avoided that sort of pathetic spectacle this time.
"AndreaParma_82">wasn't Victoria MacDonald his main opponent in that shortlist ?
Given a choice between the drummer from Blurr and Lewis, local Labourites have been scrathing their heads trying to work out how they ended up with LoudMouthLewis and his left-of Ken Livingstone 6thForm politics.
You're right - in part. There were four on the shortlist but Dave Rowntree, the Blur Drummer was considered a front-runner owing to him having been brought-up in the nearby village of Spixworth thus demonstrating his local credentials. It was a surprise to most when he fell short on the selection.
Victoria was a strong contender but her business interests [she set out in partnership with her ?brother-in-law to run some highly successful pubs after managing a north Norfolk hotel] had previously caused her to step-down from her City Council Cabinet position [where she shone]. The wrong backdrop to take the target seat.
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
Even the funded promises (£12bn) are unworked out yet.
We'll get them next month. Osborne very rarely makes the same mistake twice and he was badly hampered in the last Parliament by end weighting the cuts into the second half of the Parliament (because the economy was so weak). I think this time the cuts will be right up front so the pressure is off in the lead up to the next election.
I think David Smiths economic pieces for the Sunday Times pointed out that the cuts were front loaded if anything. They continued even when the deficit stayed stubbornly high through the euro crisis. Rather than cut more to meet a target he extended the target but the cuts themselves continued. Growth and the rise in jobs still returned The cuts will continue to er... continue. They never went away.
Re: Corbyn. Have the thresholds for nomination changed since 2010? Because otherwise don't forget that Diane Abbot was nominated then. Or were nominations not required under the old rules?
Abbot was nominated as a token woman who was coincidentally also a lefty. The same won't apply for Corbyn, and I think that the threshold has been increased, because the MPs have lost their third of the electoral college.
Just checked - nomination threshold has gone from 12.5% to 15% i think
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?"
Tom Mludzinski @tom_ComRes 2h2 hours ago Our first post election VI poll with @DailyMailUK will be released tomorrow am when we will be unveiling our new ComRes Voter Turnout Model
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.
I think that is spot on. Which is why I am a little dubious about some of the victors tales we are being told. Cashing in on Osborne's economic credibility with unfunded promises really should have let Labour back in the game but they failed to take their chance.
Even the funded promises (£12bn) are unworked out yet.
We'll get them next month. Osborne very rarely makes the same mistake twice and he was badly hampered in the last Parliament by end weighting the cuts into the second half of the Parliament (because the economy was so weak). I think this time the cuts will be right up front so the pressure is off in the lead up to the next election.
I think they're still living on a bit of a wing and a prayer. There is a fundamental logic behind cutting budgets and, presumably, expenditure. That is that it will squeeze and squeeze and squeeze the fat out of the system. The problem is that at some point there is no more to give. But the Government simply do not know at what point that will be. And it is a great disadvantage that a fundamentally sound basic theory has been undermined by the ringfencing of significant areas of expenditure. Leaving aside International Development, where there is obviously wasteage going on, but overall is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the worst is probably Education. There is almost certainly huge amounts of money being wasted there. NHS is a more complicated case because even in a highly efficient service this is an area where expenditure simply has to grow to meet demand. Meanwhile there are areas of Local Government which really are rapidly approaching breaking point. But nobody knows exactly where the shit will hit the fan first. Because the cuts are being applied equally to equivalent areas, but equivalent areas are not coming from the same starting position. What is worse is that Tory heartlands have been largely incubated by their low initial levels of govt grant, so the warning indicators are probably not flashing as brightly with central govt as they should be.
A lot of the legendary fat of the 70s/80s was extracted by privatisation. But privatising the NHS would be trickier than phones.
There is remarkably little curiosity about what £12bn cuts will look like.
Having run the numbers, I can can confirm that Heidi's accommodation costs are much less than $6k a month, even though she has a king size bed.
I have been in an apartment in Trump Tower, and can confirm that it is possibly more luxurious than her current digs, but Heidi doesn't seem to resent me
What i find interesting about the whole Labour misplanning is that their strategies revolved around the relative number of Tory vs Labour seats in a hung Parliament. And it was fundamentally undermined by them having absolutely no idea what was going on in Con-LibDem marginals. It is one of the greatest demonstrations of why it is not in the interests of parties to acquiese in encouraging their own supporters to vote tactically for a third party. Once upon a time they would have had decent, if limited, party organisations who could have fed back the vital intelligence that they needed.
The first division of new Parliament took place this evening. Ayes 275, Noes 331
Interestingly, given it was a vote of confidence on an amendment to the Gracious Speech, the DUP and 1 of 2 Ulster Unionists appear to have voted with Her Majesty's Government. A sign of things to come?
Guardian: -“the exit poll had found the Tories would be the largest party. “Yep, I was expecting that. Anything else would be a surprise,” the aide recalled thinking at the time.
“Then the seats came up. Total silence. The shock was just awful. That exit poll will be seared in my brain for ever.” Bell and Livermore stared at each other in disbelief, as the whole room put their hands to their mouths in shock.”
The one thing that Guardian article demonstrates is how absolutely clueless Labour were throughout their campaign. £15 million spent and not a single private poll that reflected reality. - heart of stone etc..
A lot of the legendary fat of the 70s/80s was extracted by privatisation. But privatising the NHS would be trickier than phones.
There is remarkably little curiosity about what £12bn cuts will look like.
A significant amount of fat will have returned in the Brown years. It is inevitable when central govt doles out additional cash with little influence over what it is spent (or not spent) on. Even inflationary increases offer no guarantees since general inflation is an incredibly crude measure, and takes no account of general efficiencies.
A lot of the legendary fat of the 70s/80s was extracted by privatisation. But privatising the NHS would be trickier than phones.
There is remarkably little curiosity about what £12bn cuts will look like.
A significant amount of fat will have returned in the Brown years. It is inevitable when central govt doles out additional cash with little influence over what it is spent (or not spent) on. Even inflationary increases offer no guarantees since general inflation is an incredibly crude measure, and takes no account of general efficiencies.
There have been 20bn of efficiency savings in the NHS in the last 5 years. Brown also promised that in labour's 2010 manifesto. I think another 20 were initiated by Hunt the other day.
Guardian: -“the exit poll had found the Tories would be the largest party. “Yep, I was expecting that. Anything else would be a surprise,” the aide recalled thinking at the time.
“Then the seats came up. Total silence. The shock was just awful. That exit poll will be seared in my brain for ever.” Bell and Livermore stared at each other in disbelief, as the whole room put their hands to their mouths in shock.”
The one thing that Guardian article demonstrates is how absolutely clueless Labour were throughout their campaign. £15 million spent and not a single private poll that reflected reality. - heart of stone etc..
TBF Conservatives had more cash and there's no evidence they had a 315+ poll either
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
I cannot believe that the people at the top didnt know. They had four million conversations FFS. If you cant pick out a trend from a sample of four million, and instead put all your faith in a thousand self selected people across the country, well, why the bother having the conversations at all?
It was clear from the conservative canvassing that there was *no* trend against the Conservatives. Things were are they were in 2010 (though churn meant that where we lost from one party, we gained from another), but mildly better.
Those Labour/Con Con/Labour marginals that Labour did a huge amount of work (with good successes) in 2010 cant be compared to the sclerotic constituency labour parties that existing in many areas of Scotland.
Vast amounts of intelligence existed. It isnt hard to spot a trend.
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?"
Let's be fair, the edstone was meant to be just symbolic, and in the end it was.
The claim that the Irish Republic has, by some supposed natural right, jurisdiction and sovereignty over Northern Ireland, regardless of Her Majesty's sovereign title to the six counties and the wishes of the population thereof. The most famous expression of Irish imperialism was contained in articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland (1937). The imperial ambition of those articles was substantially watered down following the Good Friday Agreement.
Guardian: -“the exit poll had found the Tories would be the largest party. “Yep, I was expecting that. Anything else would be a surprise,” the aide recalled thinking at the time.
“Then the seats came up. Total silence. The shock was just awful. That exit poll will be seared in my brain for ever.” Bell and Livermore stared at each other in disbelief, as the whole room put their hands to their mouths in shock.”
The one thing that Guardian article demonstrates is how absolutely clueless Labour were throughout their campaign. £15 million spent and not a single private poll that reflected reality. - heart of stone etc..
TBF Conservatives had more cash and there's no evidence they had a 315+ poll either
The first division of new Parliament took place this evening. Ayes 275, Noes 331
Surprisingly large Govt majority.
Checking the division list I see DUP voted with the Government. Is that a sign of things to come? Could be important - would give Cameron much more breathing space.
Also from a quick glance it appears that NO LDs were present.
Comments
Well you get the idea.
Alternatively parties aren't always rational (as commenters around here know about every other party!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF_CQBYnaQg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRJlItzalJY
1. If you could hoist any flag other than the Union flag or Royal Standard over Buckingham Palace, what flag would you choose?
2. If you could hoist the Union flag over any building in the world, where would you go?
Now, going with the prepared response might not have gone down super well, and it wouldn't have fixed what was clearly the key issue that Labour believed (and may still believe) they did not spend too much (even if I would argue that is a battle they need to abandon and let historians and economists fight over, and some in the party seem to be doing that) and the public did and do think that, but it probably would have prevented that sharp, visceral and easily replayable moment of sheer shock.
I think it shows the reason political behaviours develop, and the value of dissembling or obfuscation for all pundits and interviewers lament their use sometimes - get the same statement out in the wrong order in the wrong way, and it can make a difference. The message might still be wrong - something that hasn't been universally accepted yet - but the messaging is important as we the public show when the messaging is done wrong, so of course they focus on it.
*not that I'm one to talk about excessive verbiage.
Maybe in the next life he'll become Caitlyn Jenner.
Ayes 275, Noes 331
http://news.forexlive.com/!/greek-spokesman-says-govt-will-opt--for-elections-if-faced-with-ultimatum-by-lenders-20150603
I'm hearing increasingly that indeed there is probably no deal, just a lot of face saving maneuvering by all sides and a second election will be called to get the green light by the electorate to do grexit, default or whatever.
The interesting part is that although Greece has probably just enough cash flow to fund it's IMF liabilities, the sticking point which is the ECB bonds can be defaulted on or at least restructured by a simple law from the greek parliament, since that debt was issued under greek law and was not part of the PSI agreement of 2012.
2. The White House - we're taking you back, America!
Of course, you get me too.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/sepp-blatter/11647665/Sepp-Blatter-FBI-investigation-live.html
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/is-the-tory-trident-row-an-example-of-a-dead-cat-strategy/
http://chuckblazer.blogspot.co.uk/
"Chuck Blazer takes fans with him on his many travels in the service of soccer at chuckblazer.blogspot.com. Blazer is the general secretary of Concacaf, the sport’s regional governing body, and the only American to ever serve on FIFA’s powerful executive committee."
This former BBC news presenter is hated by his former BBC newsgathering colleagues: As a presenter, he was paid extra. But when he announced his candidature, he was shunted into the back-office.... but maintained his high salary.
Lording it over his much poorer-paid new colleagues did little to endear him to those who produce the news. They have long memories.
Given a choice between the drummer from Blurr and Lewis, local Labourites have been scrathing their heads trying to work out how they ended up with LoudMouthLewis and his left-of Ken Livingstone 6thForm politics.
He's one to watch alright - even if the only cuts he ends up fighting are those in the BBC newsreel that make him look foolish.
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
I am heartened to hear you would remain with the new United States of New Britain.
Good night all.
I'd love to read what Axelrod thought of it all from a distance. That he was handed a load of dosh for either bugger all/being ignored for sound advice speaks volumes.
That Guardian summary sounds like EdM recreated the dinner table debate he had at home growing up.
90 declared, 56 to go.
Diane makes the magic 5, Wolmar and Thomas in the balance.
And now to be off for real. Good night.
Given a choice between the drummer from Blurr and Lewis, local Labourites have been scrathing their heads trying to work out how they ended up with LoudMouthLewis and his left-of Ken Livingstone 6thForm politics.
You're right - in part. There were four on the shortlist but Dave Rowntree, the Blur Drummer was considered a front-runner owing to him having been brought-up in the nearby village of Spixworth thus demonstrating his local credentials. It was a surprise to most when he fell short on the selection.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-15439639
Victoria was a strong contender but her business interests [she set out in partnership with her ?brother-in-law to run some highly successful pubs after managing a north Norfolk hotel] had previously caused her to step-down from her City Council Cabinet position [where she shone]. The wrong backdrop to take the target seat.
Tom Mludzinski @tom_ComRes 2h2 hours ago
Our first post election VI poll with @DailyMailUK will be released tomorrow am when we will be unveiling our new ComRes Voter Turnout Model
There is remarkably little curiosity about what £12bn cuts will look like.
I have been in an apartment in Trump Tower, and can confirm that it is possibly more luxurious than her current digs, but Heidi doesn't seem to resent me
“Then the seats came up. Total silence. The shock was just awful. That exit poll will be seared in my brain for ever.” Bell and Livermore stared at each other in disbelief, as the whole room put their hands to their mouths in shock.”
The one thing that Guardian article demonstrates is how absolutely clueless Labour were throughout their campaign. £15 million spent and not a single private poll that reflected reality. - heart of stone etc..
It was clear from the conservative canvassing that there was *no* trend against the Conservatives. Things were are they were in 2010 (though churn meant that where we lost from one party, we gained from another), but mildly better.
Those Labour/Con Con/Labour marginals that Labour did a huge amount of work (with good successes) in 2010 cant be compared to the sclerotic constituency labour parties that existing in many areas of Scotland.
Vast amounts of intelligence existed. It isnt hard to spot a trend.
Wanted for paying more than $100m in bribes - golly.
It appears that a journalist thought the rehearsals for HRH's death were real... yeah, I'd tweet that, not.
“Queen Elizabrth has died” @BBCWorld
Watched a great biopic on Heyday TV about John Dillinger last night - one day Sepp Blatter will have his own, like Enron Ken.
2. The White House
Checking the division list I see DUP voted with the Government. Is that a sign of things to come? Could be important - would give Cameron much more breathing space.
Also from a quick glance it appears that NO LDs were present.