I'm still working through how an overall majority was achieved - it seemed massively against the odds beforehand and barely seems more likely in retrospect. The two most durable parts of the election are likely to be the SNP hegemony north of the border and the obliteration of the Lib Dems.
I'm now going through my previous posts in detail to see where my expectations were met and where they weren't, and why. I'm not going to put up new posts on my conclusions because ultimately that's of interest only to me. As a general comment, I was right about very little of the detail about Scotland and had a fairly good handle on UKIP, but made a stack of money on my Scottish bets and did badly overall on my UKIP bets. Go figure.
There are so many interesting points made in the Guardian article. The one that most intrigued me was:
“We tried really hard to change the subject, but the SNP just led the news day in and day out,” said a shadow treasury adviser. “If it was not David Cameron or George Osborne saying it, there was Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond or Nick Clegg – all using the same lines. There was no doubt in our mind that the party of the union and the party of separation were deliberately echoing each other’s lines.”
For all the talk of a "progressive coalition", the SNP clearly wanted a Tory government all along because it suited their purposes better.
Looking back, I'm not sure Ed could have done anything to change the election result.
Sure, "Middle England" used the Lab/SNP scare to justify (maybe even to themselves) voting Tory, but my guess is that they were always going to so anyway...
Labour probably lost the 2015 election in 2010... Or maybe 2008? They presided over the worst recession for decades and a Party doesn't just walk straight back into power after presiding over that sort of disaster.
Labour also pinned everything on the "double/triple dip" and 3m unemployed... When it turned out their analysis was wrong and the ecoomy started recovering, that was a grievous blow too...
When you add these things together with Ed's disastrous personal ratings, which were always going to have to meet with Labour's poll rating in the end, the writing was probably on the wall from the very start.
There were more final polls showing the Tories ahead than Labour, even if most had it tied. So the clues were there that Miliband would not be PM, even if the pollsters underestimated the Tory share and missed the Tory majority
Labour probably lost the 2015 election in 2010... Or maybe 2008? They presided over the worst recession for decades and a Party doesn't just walk straight back into power after presiding over that sort of disaster.
They ended up with Ed Miliband. They were doomed from that day on.
Make Ed Balls shadow chancellor compounded the error.
Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 10m10 minutes ago Scots new car registrations in May, down from 17,800 to 16,300 (8%). UK + 2.4%. Fleet cars growing fastest, usually registered in England
@paulwaugh: Is her making a comeback after all? @DMiliband is to make speech at the IoD this autumn. cue #labourspeculationfrenzy
D. Miliband getting himself ready to have a run at the Labour leadership after Lab's 2020 defeat?
I think he'll find he's missed the boat. After a third defeat in 2020 Labour will be ready to move on to another generation (particularly as it will seem evident in 2020 that 2025 is very winnable for Lab)
2020 will see Labour finally ready for someone like Kendall or Dan Jarvis to lead them back to power.
It seems to me that the people who believed the polls are not the most gullible.
A number of times, posters suggested that the polls may fail this time because of the difficult electoral landscape (UKIP/SNP), which had not been modelled before.
This is not a party political point -- but an engineering point. Polling methodology really was entering completely untested parameter regimes.
A number of times, posters (myself included) speculated that a 1992 debacle might occur.
We were always told roundly that such was impossible. Polling methodology had improved by leaps and bounds since 1992, and the modelling was beyond question. A 1992 could never ever occur again.
It is these people who are the most gullible.
Normally when anyone tells you the modelling or methodology is infallible ... then it is time to panic. Serious & skeptical questioning of the assumptions underlying the modelling is no longer taking place.
Your critique of Nick's suggestion seems to be that it wouldn't work after the election, but of course it needed to work before the election.
If Ed had made support for Trident a red line for any post election negotiations, then a vote for the SNP in Scotland would have been explicitly for a Tory government, which is of course what happened.
No, the SNP would have said that there were not going to be any post-election negotiations (as indeed Labour had themselves said). Ed Miliband couldn't have prevented the SNP supporting him in a confidence vote, even if he wanted to. The SNP position was perfectly coherent: they'd put Ed into No 10 whether he liked it or not, and then spend five years undermining him and causing as much mayhem as possible (I paraphrase slightly, but that was the gist of it).
There are clearly parts of this article which are self serving on the part of its labour interviewees. They mostly forget that the Tories were running with the labour in SNP pockets right from the start, not as some late desperate tactic. And it was both true and obvious. I do not see how they can criticise. They also forget the 'debates'. Cameron refused to be kebabbed by a 4 way with Farage and their tactics went down hill from there. As a result the debates were a non event, except that Ed got himself lumbered with the debate between the small fry. It did for both him and Farage. Just how will any debates work next time hmm? Let's hope not at all. But above all they miss out this miserable tactic of howling at the Tories about how evil they are and eating babies and destroying the NHS. Add in every possible knee jerk reaction to every possible govt policy, usually involving how its all just to benefit their rich friends. Fatuous garbage the lot of it. Conveniently all this is now dumped on poor old Ed. In reality they were all ignorant and delusional. None more so than Mr Cooper, I am keeping my fingers crossed for Yvette. Can the Tories be so lucky?
I wouldn't be surprized if this ends up in court as list MSPs fight to stay on top.
How could it end up in court? Surely its upto Labour's own internal processes to determine who it nominates on the list, not a matter of law.
Its an absurd system if there is a matter of law involved.
The convention to date has been non-retirees retaining their list position. As it stands I don't think SLAB have established an internal process around selecting regional list candidates and their relative position in the list. At the end of the day livelihoods are at stake and I would envisage all measures would be taken to defend themselves. Some may try becoming independent. Suffice to say it's going to be messy and no doubt played out in public !!
D. Miliband getting himself ready to have a run at the Labour leadership after Lab's 2020 defeat?
I think he'll find he's missed the boat. After a third defeat in 2020 Labour will be ready to move on to another generation (particularly as it will seem evident in 2020 that 2025 is very winnable for Lab)
2020 will see Labour finally ready for someone like Kendall or Dan Jarvis to lead them back to power.
Or to put it another way, DMWNBPMOLOTO
I don't think he intends waiting that long. I get the impression he is positioning himself for a coup in 2018
@paulwaugh: Is her making a comeback after all? @DMiliband is to make speech at the IoD this autumn. cue #labourspeculationfrenzy
D. Miliband getting himself ready to have a run at the Labour leadership after Lab's 2020 defeat?
I think he'll find he's missed the boat. After a third defeat in 2020 Labour will be ready to move on to another generation (particularly as it will seem evident in 2020 that 2025 is very winnable for Lab)
2020 will see Labour finally ready for someone like Kendall or Dan Jarvis to lead them back to power.
Or to put it another way, DMWNBPMOLOTO
The prince from over the water would be quite appropriate really.
There are clearly parts of this article which are self serving on the part of its labour interviewees. They mostly forget that the Tories were running with the labour in SNP pockets right from the start, not as some late desperate tactic. And it was both true and obvious. I do not see how they can criticise. They also forget the 'debates'. Cameron refused to be kebabbed by a 4 way with Farage and their tactics went down hill from there. As a result the debates were a non event, except that Ed got himself lumbered with the debate between the small fry. It did for both him and Farage. Just how will any debates work next time hmm? Let's hope not at all. But above all they miss out this miserable tactic of howling at the Tories about how evil they are and eating babies and destroying the NHS. Add in every possible knee jerk reaction to every possible govt policy, usually involving how its all just to benefit their rich friends. Fatuous garbage the lot of it. Conveniently all this is now dumped on poor old Ed. In reality they were all ignorant and delusional. None more so than Mr Cooper, I am keeping my fingers crossed for Yvette. Can the Tories be so lucky?
We can be fairly certain, should the debates happen next time, that the Lib-Dems will only get "minority party" billing, LOL!
Loving the Grauniad article. The funniest bit, to me, is Lucy Powell's email to the head of BBC news where she basically complains that he's not attacking the Tories or shilling for Labour hard enough.
“The BBC’s relentless focus on Scotland is potentially of huge political benefit not only to the SNP but also to the Conservative party. Indeed, it is becoming apparent that this has become the main Tory message in this election and you have regularly shown images from their posters and advertising designed to reinforce this attack. But the BBC has a responsibility not only to reflect what the Conservatives are saying but also to reflect on it.
“For instance, if the BBC has ever asked David Cameron and his colleagues why they are spending most of the energy talking up the SNP, I have missed it … The BBC includes growing amounts of commentary in its news bulletins. But you have barely ever reflected our view – and that of many commentators from across the political spectrum – that the Conservatives want the SNP to win seats from Labour in Scotland because that represents their best chance of remaining in Downing Street.”
The sense of being entitled to instruct the BBC to broadcast Labour attack stories is nauseating, but revealing of how used Labour has got to the BBC being its own creature.
It remains so, as anyone listening to 'What's Left' last night on Radio 4 would have noticed. They'd never dream of doing the same for the Tory party.
How long the BBC remains in mourning is anyone's guess.
I'm still working through how an overall majority was achieved - it seemed massively against the odds beforehand and barely seems more likely in retrospect. The two most durable parts of the election are likely to be the SNP hegemony north of the border and the obliteration of the Lib Dems.
I'm now going through my previous posts in detail to see where my expectations were met and where they weren't, and why. I'm not going to put up new posts on my conclusions because ultimately that's of interest only to me. As a general comment, I was right about very little of the detail about Scotland and had a fairly good handle on UKIP, but made a stack of money on my Scottish bets and did badly overall on my UKIP bets. Go figure.
That's a pretty ungracious comment from John Harvey.
No, the SNP would have said that there were not going to be any post-election negotiations (as indeed Labour had themselves said). Ed Miliband couldn't have prevented the SNP supporting him in a confidence vote, even if he wanted to. The SNP position was perfectly coherent: they'd put Ed into No 10 whether he liked it or not, and then spend five years undermining him and causing as much mayhem as possible (I paraphrase slightly, but that was the gist of it).
The SNP were pitching a progressive alliance to lock out the Tories. Labour could have countered that with a "pro-trident" alliance
@politicshome: David Miliband's speech will focus on "global trends affecting business", including the UK's relationship with EU. http://t.co/BxdZxvgsnP
@politicshome: David Miliband's speech will focus on "global trends affecting business", including the UK's relationship with EU. http://t.co/BxdZxvgsnP
Is he hoping lead (one of) the IN campaign(s) ?
Hmm, assuming victory, even an expected victory, that would given him a handy platform to present himself as a savior should the Lab leader be struggling at the time.
Labour probably lost the 2015 election in 2010... Or maybe 2008? They presided over the worst recession for decades and a Party doesn't just walk straight back into power after presiding over that sort of disaster.
They ended up with Ed Miliband. They were doomed from that day on.
Make Ed Balls shadow chancellor compounded the error.
They would have been better off bringing back Gordon 'Sledgehammer' Brown, "Trust me, I know what I am doing."
It seems to me that the people who believed the polls are not the most gullible.
A number of times, posters suggested that the polls may fail this time because of the difficult electoral landscape (UKIP/SNP), which had not been modelled before.
This is not a party political point -- but an engineering point. Polling methodology really was entering completely untested parameter regimes.
A number of times, posters (myself included) speculated that a 1992 debacle might occur.
We were always told roundly that such was impossible. Polling methodology had improved by leaps and bounds since 1992, and the modelling was beyond question. A 1992 could never ever occur again.
It is these people who are the most gullible.
Normally when anyone tells you the modelling or methodology is infallible ... then it is time to panic. Serious & skeptical questioning of the assumptions underlying the modelling is no longer taking place.
Except that the pollsters got the "complicate" questions over the SNP and UKIP broadly correct - as did the exit poll when its creator was warning over this. The issue the pollsters failed on was the traditional battle between Labour and the Tories. It was a repeat of the "unrepeatable" failures of 1992 and SNP/UKIP were rather redundant to this.
I must admit that my first thought was: "How long before there is crossover ...
... between Labour and the Lib Dems."
;-)
Lib Dems will crossover ahead of UKIP within 12 months. UKIP have lost their mantle as the sole party of protest and will melt away like snow in the summer.
UKIP will score less votes in 2020 than 2015 and probably zero seats.
Good news for Labour then...
No good news for Labour would be protest votes going to the opposition party rather than swirling between protest parties.
Labour are the only serious alternative to the Tories. If people really want rid of the Tories, they'll vote Labour.
Yes but people switching between UKIP and Lib Dem as protest voters (which is what I said) isn't good for Labour.
People switching from protest (UKIP/LD) to opposition (Labour) would be.
I would not be assuming any LD revival anytime soon under Farron or Lamb. They could even do worse. they have no USP which chimes with large numbers of voters. I think UKIP could replace them and remain a force damaging them and Labour.
D. Miliband getting himself ready to have a run at the Labour leadership after Lab's 2020 defeat?
I think he'll find he's missed the boat. After a third defeat in 2020 Labour will be ready to move on to another generation (particularly as it will seem evident in 2020 that 2025 is very winnable for Lab)
2020 will see Labour finally ready for someone like Kendall or Dan Jarvis to lead them back to power.
Or to put it another way, DMWNBPMOLOTO
I don't think he intends waiting that long. I get the impression he is positioning himself for a coup in 2018
First he's got to find a seat (we can assume there will be a by election in a safe Lab seat before 2018 I suppose... But it's not a given that the local association will want him to be their MP) and second... Well, we all know what a failure he is at "coup's" after all the one's against El Gord went down the Tubes.
David Miliband reminds me a bit of Portillo... Minus the phone lines...
Listening to the radio, on the drive in, that HMG are no longer going to subsidise on-shore Wind energy. Apparently Scotland may get a bit upset as they plan to be all -Green energy in the foreseeable future. Makes sense as our industry cannot afford more expensive energy than its competition.
Our industry has got bigger problems than whether offshore wind or nuclear is subsidised in preference to cheaper onshore wind, but if you are happy to increase business costs then by all means...
I'm more bothered about the insane dash for onshore wind destroying precious wilderness. Still, I guess our high moors are the wrong sort of "environment".
I don't think that wind turbines destroy the environment, and I think there are some activities - such as those of grouse gamekeepers, for example, which do more damage to the high moors and the wildlife that lives there.
Then you know f'all about moorland windfarms. Seriously, you are clueless. Absolutely, hopelessly clueless. Utterly beyond help.
Firstly, there are the tracks needed to service them, which cut permanent scars through the landscape, and the related power distribution system. But worse are the tracks that have to be made to get the massive turbines up there in the first place: zig-zag scars up hillsides.
Over the last decade it has been realised that a massive mistake has been made in the amount of land given over to vast acres of forestry in our wild areas. Over the next few decades, we will start realising the same for the windfarms.
You remind me of the Scottish Labour local politician who went to a proposed windfarm site, looked at the wilderness and said: "But there's nothing here!"
And before you say, I'm not necessarily anti-windfarm. There's a large one very near me (I can see it out of my window) on an old airfield site that I've got zero problems with. It's the foul mistreatment of our wilderness that gets my goat.
Just feck off. Really. It's nothing like covering the moorland up with trees, as most of the original land is untouched, and it's certainly nothing like digging up an entire hill as happens with open-cast coalmines.
If we want energy we need to generate it somehow. I'd far rather have wind turbines than coal mining, and all that results from burning the coal.
I'm still working through how an overall majority was achieved - it seemed massively against the odds beforehand and barely seems more likely in retrospect. The two most durable parts of the election are likely to be the SNP hegemony north of the border and the obliteration of the Lib Dems.
I'm now going through my previous posts in detail to see where my expectations were met and where they weren't, and why. I'm not going to put up new posts on my conclusions because ultimately that's of interest only to me. As a general comment, I was right about very little of the detail about Scotland and had a fairly good handle on UKIP, but made a stack of money on my Scottish bets and did badly overall on my UKIP bets. Go figure.
That's a pretty ungracious comment from John Harvey.
He's entitled to his view, but he misses why I put the posts up in the first place. I do so for my own benefit, not other people's. I don't hold myself out as a seer - goodness knows my predictions are wrong often enough. But having a record of what I thought at a given moment will make it a bit less likely that I will make the same mistakes twice.
For good or ill, my posts stand as a record of what I thought at a given moment and why, and the process of publication makes me be disciplined enough to form those views on the basis of data rather than idle speculation or general impressions. And I can get the views of others. Where I am wrong, I can learn from my mistakes.
There is much for me to learn from the last general election.
I'm very worried by the Guardian report that the Edstone might already have been destroyed. It is (or was) an irreplaceable piece of our cultural history. We need a full judge-led enquiry into its fate.
Alton Towers suffered a hideous incident on Tuesday, but to me it seems they're playing the PR right, even if it is costing them. They're keeping the park shut until they can work out what went wrong, even if the chances are that other rides are not affected. It will also allow the investigation to continue without having to have a great deal of security to keep prying members of the public away.
They'll be hoping that the inquiry'll be over before the summer holidays and their busiest period. And any betting that the Smiler will not reopen until next year, even if it the issues that caused the incident were simple and easily fixed? And a rebrand might be in order ...
I wonder if there's a good book anywhere about how companies react to bad events? We had Thomas Cook last week showing us not how to do it ...
I wouldn't be surprized if this ends up in court as list MSPs fight to stay on top.
How could it end up in court? Surely its upto Labour's own internal processes to determine who it nominates on the list, not a matter of law.
Its an absurd system if there is a matter of law involved.
The convention to date has been non-retirees retaining their list position. As it stands I don't think SLAB have established an internal process around selecting regional list candidates and their relative position in the list. At the end of the day livelihoods are at stake and I would envisage all measures would be taken to defend themselves. Some may try becoming independent. Suffice to say it's going to be messy and no doubt played out in public !!
Yes it could be public and we all know how public divisions affect parties.
I just don't see it going to court as it has nothing to do with justice. Labour need to find a way to answer this question but its ultimately up to them who they nominate. Courts as a matter of principle must not get involved in approving who becomes a parties nominated candidates - that way leads to abuses like in Burma. It will have to be resolved in the "court of public opinion".
I love this Guardianista comment on CiF, liked by a fellow 86 nincompoops:
"Ikonoclast
The 'great British public' weren't given a chance to judge him, or Labours superb and fully costed manifesto. The Tories never won, Lynton Crosby never won, the tiniest of majorities was secured by the BBC, Sky, ITV and Murdoch and Dacre."
When are they going to get over it?
I do love, on a purely entertainment basis, when something goes against the Left and you get criticisms of BBC bias from that direction - makes for a pleasant change from the repetitive refrains from the Right.
Indeed. All sides blame the BBC all the time. And all sides ceaselessly seek to influence the coverage it provides.
The SNP is threatening a major escalation in its battle over a Commons front bench after branding Labour's refusal to hand over the seats "absolutely pathetic".
It is understood the leadership is willing to order MPs to get into Parliament at 7am and block Labour appointments on Commons committees if the row is not resolved.
"If they want to play silly games, we'll play silly games", a senior figure told this newspaper after admitting to being "f***ing furious" with Labour's attitude.
Nice to see so many PB.com sages acknowledging how clueless they were about the GE.
My bullish April confidence about a Tory majority continued until about May 5th, when I spoke to Dad, whom I bounce financial/business ideas off, about preparing for a Lab-SNP government. I suppose I had also been subconsciously putting off large expensive business investment decisions until after polling day
The polls were getting, if anything, worse for the Tories. I thought the three crucial failures of the Labour campaign were being caught on the fence between Scotland/England and losing both, the Edstone and refuting the argument that the last Labour govt spent too much. But it didn't seem to be having an effect....
It was only at 3.30-4pm on polling day that I felt we were going stay in office (best reception ever when knocking-up those who hadn't yet voted in a Southern LD marginal), and only when Nuneaton came in that I thought we'd sneak a majority.
Waking up after two hours kip 7-9am on the Friday to 6 txts from friends who knew how much I'd been wishing for EdB to go was the icing on top of an absolutely massive, Tory cake!
Yup, we will be fighting the 2020 election without our strongest asset
George Osborne will still be in post, surely?
Whilst Osborne is unparalleled as a strategist, we still need a very good front man, like Dave.
If the bus drivers son from Rochdale can show himself to be competent then he has a chance. For all of that I think Cameron will do the right thing if he retires. It will be a tough 3 or 4 years and even if he stays sane that long, moving beyond that is dangerous territory. Never mind him, it would be the best long term for the party too.
Ok, I'm kind of siding with the SNP now. I disagree with the implication that Labour were the ones who started the silly games, which is self righteous of them given it appears to me to have been silly game playing from boths sides from the off, but if that report is right Labour are extending the game playing beyond what is reasonable.
ScottP Given their 2015 defeat I doubt Labour will elect anyone with the surname Miliband to a position of leadership ever again. Anyway, by 2018 midterm the government may be unpopular and there will be little enthusiasm for a coup unless the Labour leader really trails badly, in any case the focus will be the EU ref and its aftermath
ScottP Given their 2015 defeat I doubt Labour will elect anyone with the surname Miliband to a position of leadership ever again. Anyway, by 2018 midterm the government may be unpopular and there will be little enthusiasm for a coup unless the Labour leader really trails badly, in any case the focus will be the EU ref and its aftermath
D Miliband is currently shorter odds on Betfair than Ms Creagh
It seems to me that the people who believed the polls are not the most gullible.
A number of times, posters suggested that the polls may fail this time because of the difficult electoral landscape (UKIP/SNP), which had not been modelled before.
This is not a party political point -- but an engineering point. Polling methodology really was entering completely untested parameter regimes.
A number of times, posters (myself included) speculated that a 1992 debacle might occur.
We were always told roundly that such was impossible. Polling methodology had improved by leaps and bounds since 1992, and the modelling was beyond question. A 1992 could never ever occur again.
It is these people who are the most gullible.
Normally when anyone tells you the modelling or methodology is infallible ... then it is time to panic. Serious & skeptical questioning of the assumptions underlying the modelling is no longer taking place.
Except that the pollsters got the "complicate" questions over the SNP and UKIP broadly correct - as did the exit poll when its creator was warning over this. The issue the pollsters failed on was the traditional battle between Labour and the Tories. It was a repeat of the "unrepeatable" failures of 1992 and SNP/UKIP were rather redundant to this.
The SNP affected the voting everywhere, not just in Scotland.
A tsunami does not just affect the region around the epicentre of the underlying earthquake.
Ok, I'm kind of siding with the SNP now. I disagree with the implication that Labour were the ones who started the silly games, which is self righteous of them given it appears to me to have been silly game playing from boths sides from the off, but if that report is right Labour are extending the game playing beyond what is reasonable.
The significance of this story is how easily Labour are distracted from what should be their main mission. Labour's battle for the next five years is with the Conservatives: they will form the next government only if they take substantial numbers of seats off them. Tussling with the SNP does nothing to further that battle.
Perhaps it's just a lack of leadership (Harriet Harman should be quietly damping down this fire). If I were a voter in Labour's leadership campaign I would be looking for the candidate who understands that all energies need to be poured into undermining the Conservatives. None of them so far as I have seen have yet said anything about that.
The significance of this story is how easily Labour are distracted from what should be their main mission. Labour's battle for the next five years is with the Conservatives: they will form the next government only if they take substantial numbers of seats off them. Tussling with the SNP does nothing to further that battle.
I don't think that is quite right. Labour's most immediate problem is arguably Scotland, given that the Holyrood election is less than a year away. If they can't salvage something from the wreckage of May 2015 then they've got a big long-term problem.
I agree that tussling over seating dispositions is not the most promising route to making progress on the Scottish front.
Just feck off. Really. It's nothing like covering the moorland up with trees, as most of the original land is untouched, and it's certainly nothing like digging up an entire hill as happens with open-cast coalmines.
If we want energy we need to generate it somehow. I'd far rather have wind turbines than coal mining, and all that results from burning the coal.
"Most of the land is untouched."
Again, you show your lack of knowledge on this topic. Have you actually ever been up into the wildernesses that are being altered forever? Look at that link, for pete's sake, and zoom out to see the vast area covered.
I'm fed up with people who pretend they're concerned with the environment who ignore the 'wrong' sort of environment. The "For the greater good" view you so eloquently espouse above.
@faisalislam: Grayling jokes Labour and SNP MPs arriving as early as 7am to secure places on green benches, and might require breakfast trolley service
It seems to me that the people who believed the polls are not the most gullible.
A number of times, posters suggested that the polls may fail this time because of the difficult electoral landscape (UKIP/SNP), which had not been modelled before.
This is not a party political point -- but an engineering point. Polling methodology really was entering completely untested parameter regimes.
A number of times, posters (myself included) speculated that a 1992 debacle might occur.
We were always told roundly that such was impossible. Polling methodology had improved by leaps and bounds since 1992, and the modelling was beyond question. A 1992 could never ever occur again.
It is these people who are the most gullible.
Normally when anyone tells you the modelling or methodology is infallible ... then it is time to panic. Serious & skeptical questioning of the assumptions underlying the modelling is no longer taking place.
Except that the pollsters got the "complicate" questions over the SNP and UKIP broadly correct - as did the exit poll when its creator was warning over this. The issue the pollsters failed on was the traditional battle between Labour and the Tories. It was a repeat of the "unrepeatable" failures of 1992 and SNP/UKIP were rather redundant to this.
The SNP affected the voting everywhere, not just in Scotland.
A tsunami does not just affect the region around the epicentre of the underlying earthquake.
Waves travel.
Yes the SNP surge (that the pollsters correctly picked up) arguably* affected English voting intentions. But the pollsters should have picked that up in their polling in England, that they failed is a failure and not to be excused by looking at Scotland.
* Arguably the SNP was an entertaining side-show to the whole "the economy/long term economic plan is working and there's no reason to change" argument too.
Re the forthcoming rise MPs pay unless 'compelling' reasons to the contrary are found, I see it's being reported that Downing Street will implore them not to implement it - doesn't that count as a compelling reason? Granted, it's not exactly evidence based, but still.
Alton Towers suffered a hideous incident on Tuesday, but to me it seems they're playing the PR right, even if it is costing them. They're keeping the park shut until they can work out what went wrong, even if the chances are that other rides are not affected. It will also allow the investigation to continue without having to have a great deal of security to keep prying members of the public away.
They'll be hoping that the inquiry'll be over before the summer holidays and their busiest period. And any betting that the Smiler will not reopen until next year, even if it the issues that caused the incident were simple and easily fixed? And a rebrand might be in order ...
I wonder if there's a good book anywhere about how companies react to bad events? We had Thomas Cook last week showing us not how to do it ...
It seems inevitable that these rides will go wrong at some point. However when they do fail the point is that they should failsafe. Fans of these rides will know about this better than me, but no matter how complex and thrilling, the whole design ethos will have been surely built around failing safe?
I'm very worried by the Guardian report that the Edstone might already have been destroyed. It is (or was) an irreplaceable piece of our cultural history. We need a full judge-led enquiry into its fate.
It will have been ground to dust in a great maw. Think about the symbolism for a moment. I am reminded of the gold drifting away on the dust storm at the end of Treasure of the Serra Madre. Poor Humphrey Bogart doing a passible impression of Gordo BTW.
I'm absolutely shocked and stunned that David Davis is taking the government to court
It might be difficult to persuade Davis to support the repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. He would, after all, be voting to abolish his own cause of action in this case. That said, today's political litigation is another excellent example of why the 1998 Act ought to be repealed. Davis and Watson could not convince the House of Commons of their views. In the words of the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill, '[t]he democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of [an] Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament' (R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General [2008] 1 AC 719, 758).
Has the SNP robbed SLAB of its raison d'être for good?
Things are grim down south too - only in the North are Labour ahead of Con - but not by much: 41 vs 38......
Edit:
Has the Nicola Sturgeon's SNP robbed SLAB of its raison d'être for good?
Things are going to get worse for SLAB and SLID before getting better, the Scottish Tories if they can detoxify the Tory brand under Ruth Davidson's leadership could yet make head way in Scotland.
And I think they'll get worse because Sturgeon leads the SNP now - I doubt a Salmond led SNP would have done as much damage to SLAB as Sturgeon did - she drove the SNP's tanks down from the North East and parked them on Labour's Central belt - and I can't see them shifting them any time soon.
Look at all the 'left wing' things the SNP do - free prescriptions, free University tuition - what ever the merits of these policies they are classic 'Labour' ones - and Labour won't propose them because of the damage they'd do to their economic credibility in the other 92% of the UK......Salmond is a very effective politician - but Sturgeon has killed Labour.....
RichardN At Holyrood elections Labour may benefit from tactical voting, as will the Tories in the Borders at the seat level where the focus is on stopping another SNP majority. At Westminster Labour needs to win both Tory held seats and a few back from the SNP, Burnham is the only leadership candidate who leads with Tories and in Scotland, just saying
The significance of this story is how easily Labour are distracted from what should be their main mission. Labour's battle for the next five years is with the Conservatives: they will form the next government only if they take substantial numbers of seats off them. Tussling with the SNP does nothing to further that battle.
I don't think that is quite right. Labour's most immediate problem is arguably Scotland, given that the Holyrood election is less than a year away. If they can't salvage something from the wreckage of May 2015 then they've got a big long-term problem.
I agree that tussling over seating dispositions is not the most promising route to making progress on the Scottish front.
Labour’s immediate problem is both Scotland & Wales.
In addition to the problem you point out, these are the first elections that the new leader will preside over. He or she will want to get off to a winning start.
The first election Ed presided over -- Holyrood 2011 -- turned out to set the pattern for his entire leadership.
(And in Wales, I think Labour’s problem with UKIP in the S. Wales Valleys / Deeside will be more serious than generally acknowledged. It is quite possible that Labour will lose control in Wales, due to the multiple fronts on which they are fighting).
Alton Towers suffered a hideous incident on Tuesday, but to me it seems they're playing the PR right, even if it is costing them. They're keeping the park shut until they can work out what went wrong, even if the chances are that other rides are not affected. It will also allow the investigation to continue without having to have a great deal of security to keep prying members of the public away.
They'll be hoping that the inquiry'll be over before the summer holidays and their busiest period. And any betting that the Smiler will not reopen until next year, even if it the issues that caused the incident were simple and easily fixed? And a rebrand might be in order ...
I wonder if there's a good book anywhere about how companies react to bad events? We had Thomas Cook last week showing us not how to do it ...
It seems inevitable that these rides will go wrong at some point. However when they do fail the point is that they should failsafe. Fans of these rides will know about this better than me, but no matter how complex and thrilling, the whole design ethos will have been surely built around failing safe?
Exactly. Unfortunately this time it did not fail safe. Either the automated system broke in an utterly unforeseen way (possible - for instance computer reboots have caused safety incidents before), or it was some form of user error (which in its own way is a system error, as it should not be possible for the user to cause such a crash).
I await the investigation with interest. The main causal factor might end up being very simple: the whole system is probably orders of magnitude simpler than, say, a railway.
According to an expert yesterday, the same sort of computer systems are used on many roller coasters throughout the world - it is just altered for each individual ride. The fact that other rides around the world have not been closed (at least, not as I've heard) might be a hint that it was not the main computer system at fault. Or not.
RichardN At Holyrood elections Labour may benefit from tactical voting, as will the Tories in the Borders at the seat level where the focus is on stopping another SNP majority. At Westminster Labour needs to win both Tory held seats and a few back from the SNP, Burnham is the only leadership candidate who leads with Tories and in Scotland, just saying
More likely for the SNP majority to go up than down this time. In another five years the SNP could come down, but Labour are only going backwards not forwards.
I don't think there was anything much that Labour could have done to protect itself from the attack line that they would have been in the SNP's pocket, for the very good reason that it was true.
I agree with Nick
Your critique of Nick's suggestion seems to be that it wouldn't work after the election, but of course it needed to work before the election.
If Ed had made support for Trident a red line for any post election negotiations, then a vote for the SNP in Scotland would have been explicitly for a Tory government, which is of course what happened.
But the situation in Scotland was in practice irrelevant to the final outcome. Dave would still lead a Tory majority government even if Labour had held every Scottish seat. So the SNP winning all but one of Labour's seats did not put Dave back into No 10.
What the SNP tsunami did permit though was the EdM in Sturgeon's pocket campaign which, against all my predictions and instincts, did indeed firm up the Tory vote.
Go take your own advice Mr Oblitus. Opencast mines are covered over again, certainly in this country. Deep mined coal creates spoil and that to, most famously for me North of Wigan, gets landscaped. China clay? I am guessing that will be landscaped. No, tell you wot, let's do without China clay. Wind farms are permanent scars and do not earn their keep. Timber is renewable.
PT Whoever leads Labour will be better than Miliband and as this morning's news shows further deep cuts will not endear the Tories to Scotland and Wales. The SNP won 45% at Holyrood in 2011, yet that total did not get it anywhere near its Westminster seat majority because of the PR element, if the SNP lose a handful of seats through tactical voting they lose their majority. The Smith plans will be implemented and legislated for by next May too so the SNP will have more powers at Holyrood and be judged on them
But the situation in Scotland was in practice irrelevant to the final outcome. Dave would still lead a Tory majority government even if Labour had held every Scottish seat. So the SNP winning all but one of Labour's seats did not put Dave back into No 10.
Labour refusing to "shut out the SNP" cost them seats in England. That is the stance Ed could have taken and it might have seen him over closer to the line
By the next election we could be faced with a new constitutional conundrum.
Assuming that EVEL goes through, and there are several years of it operating fairly well (yes, I know, a big "IF"), then it becomes an established fact of UK political life, like Scottish Devolution. You can't abandon it without hacking off the English voters.
Hypothetically, in 2020 there could be a minority Labour UK Government propped up by the SNP (and others?) on a ""confidence & supply"" basis, whilst at the same time there could be a Conservative majority in England.
Go take your own advice Mr Oblitus. Opencast mines are covered over again, certainly in this country. Deep mined coal creates spoil and that to, most famously for me North of Wigan, gets landscaped. China clay? I am guessing that will be landscaped. No, tell you wot, let's do without China clay. Wind farms are permanent scars and do not earn their keep. Timber is renewable.
Actually, the mining industry has a rather spotty history of land reinstatement, or at least for it to be paid for by the companies as agreed. For instance:
I see that Mr Kellner gets the Tory position on Labour's economic competence correct "they had inherited an economic mess. By the time Miliband was crowned leader, Labour’s responsibility for the weakness of government finances was fixed in the mind of the electorate."
Ed Balls would not of course countenance acceptance of that and Ed Miliband seemed to be arguing against a different case (that Labour's spending caused the crash).
PT Whoever leads Labour will be better than Miliband and as this morning's news shows further deep cuts will not endear the Tories to Scotland and Wales. The SNP won 45% at Holyrood in 2011, yet that total did not get it anywhere near its Westminster seat majority because of the PR element, if the SNP lose a handful of seats through tactical voting they lose their majority
Why would they be better than Miliband? Front-runner Burnham came fourth last time behind Miliband. There is no reason to assume he is by definition "better".
As for the Tories "cuts" are nothing new, these arguments have been made for six years (since Osborne adopted arguments for austerity) and for five years of office and despite that the Tory support has remained relatively strong compared to where it was. Continuing to bang on about cuts won't change the minds of those who've already accepted the need for those cuts for six years now.
There is no reason to assume tactical voting will be higher against the SNP than it was before. This ludicrous argument was getting made about why some Lab seats would be saved at the election, the simple truth is that Lab and Tory hate each other and nothing is changing that. Unless Lab and Tory start respecting each other anti-SNP tactical voting is simply not going to happen.
The government is planning to push the European Union Referendum Bill through Parliament in limited time. The programme motion published today allocates one day for second reading, two days in a committee of the whole House, and one day for report and third reading. The Bill could be introduced into the Lords by the end of the month.
@oliver_wright: Hearing that Osborne is about to announce five per cent cuts to all non-protected budgets this year. Statement coming at twelve.
Odd. Why isn't he doing this in the budget on 8th July?
Go in hard and fast now; makes the Budget look better.
5% over the next 4 or 5 years or instantly. Presumably (!) over 5 years. How much will that be worth? We can expect to see massive back office rationalaisaton of local government activities. South Oxfordshire will be selling their burnt out head office off for industry or housing. Unfortunately David Davis will be costing the law courts a pointless load of wasted money. Announcing now I suppose gets the Dept's acting sooner and of course the opposition are confused, it will no doubt force them more to the knee jerk left. Although the SNP are as left as you can get I suppose.
PT Whoever leads Labour will be better than Miliband and as this morning's news shows further deep cuts will not endear the Tories to Scotland and Wales. The SNP won 45% at Holyrood in 2011, yet that total did not get it anywhere near its Westminster seat majority because of the PR element, if the SNP lose a handful of seats through tactical voting they lose their majority. The Smith plans will be implemented and legislated for by next May too so the SNP will have more powers at Holyrood and be judged on them
In 2011 SLAB got 32% in the constituency vote and the SNP got 45%, last Survation poll SLAB 24% and SNP 54%, so things are likely to get worse for SLAB. Running the last Survation Holyrood 2016 voting intentions through the Scotland Votes calculator - the results:
As the Scotland Votes seat calculator currently doesn't take account of regional splits, the above figures area at best a guide of likely trends based on current polling. The UKIP and LibDems are probably overstated. Tactical voting might save a few constituency seats but if the SNP list vote comes through they will gain compensating list seats. So for now their majority looks safe.
PT Miliband polled behind his party, Cameron ahead of his in 2015, in 2020 both will be gone, Reagan ran for the GOP nomination twice before 1980, so what? Tactical voting actually happened in 2015, in Edinburgh South Labour only held on through Tory tactical votes, with no risk of voting Labour electing a Labour government at Holyrood and the main motivation to stop a second SNP majority it is likely to be higher
I see that Mr Kellner gets the Tory position on Labour's economic competence correct "they had inherited an economic mess. By the time Miliband was crowned leader, Labour’s responsibility for the weakness of government finances was fixed in the mind of the electorate."
Ed Balls would not of course countenance acceptance of that and Ed Miliband seemed to be arguing against a different case (that Labour's spending caused the crash).
At one point that was the Tory case; it shifted later. The problem is, as often lamented on here, that Labour needed to be making their economic case from day one because Keynesian stimulus spending is counter-intuitive.
By the next election we could be faced with a new constitutional conundrum.
Assuming that EVEL goes through, and there are several years of it operating fairly well (yes, I know, a big "IF"), then it becomes an established fact of UK political life, like Scottish Devolution. You can't abandon it without hacking off the English voters.
Hypothetically, in 2020 there could be a minority Labour UK Government propped up by the SNP (and others?) on a ""confidence & supply"" basis, whilst at the same time there could be a Conservative majority in England.
Even as a Trident opponent, my advice during the campaign fed through a couple of channels was to make an issue of it with the SNP, when the SNP briefly said it was one of their red lines. I suggested that Ed, given that his position was to keep it, should say, "We're going to keep Trident because we think it's vital for national security. You say that's a red line, Nicola. What are you going to do about it - put the Tories in?" If she said yes it would have undermined her Scottish position, if she said no or just evaded the question it would have shown the SNP threat was a paper tiger. The response was that it would have "extended the story" about the SNP - yeah, well, it was extending itself.
That's interesting, Nick, but I don't see how it would have worked. Labour's problem was that the SNP were in a 'Heads we win, Tails you lose' position. If the numbers had worked out to give Lab+SNP enough MPs, they would have voted for Labour in a confidence vote - thus keeping the evil Tories out - but against specific measures where they thought there was advantage to be had by opposing Labour proposals. On the specific issue of Trident, they would have voted against, thus forcing Ed M to rely on Tory support to get it through: "See? Labour are just Red Tories who trample all over the democratic rights of Scotland". On spending cuts they would voted for increased profligacy, either forcing Ed to go along with their view ("See? The SNP are forcing Labout to listen to Scotland"), or to rely on Tory votes or abstentions to get the cuts through: "See? We told you that Labour were just Red Tories who trample all over the democratic rights of Scotland"
I don't think there was anything much that Labour could have done to protect itself from the attack line that they would have been in the SNP's pocket, for the very good reason that it was true. Admittedly Labour were slow and clumsy in responding, but I'm not sure that even a well-crafted response on that particular issue would have made much difference.
The idea was not just to corner the SNP but to give a concrete example of not being willing to let the SNP push us around: the purpose would have been to reassure English voters. I think Miliband needed to pick a fight with the SNP over a policy issue. In practice, a Miliband minority government would have been dependent on SNP consent to get into Number 10 and Tory consent on Trident. No doubt other awkward decisions would have arisen too.
It's water under the bridge, of course - just chipping in the comments for interest.
PT I was also referring to the negative impacts of cuts in Scotland and Wales, not England, where the Tories did not win, although even in England voters will expect a surplus by 2018
Go take your own advice Mr Oblitus. Opencast mines are covered over again, certainly in this country. Deep mined coal creates spoil and that to, most famously for me North of Wigan, gets landscaped. China clay? I am guessing that will be landscaped. No, tell you wot, let's do without China clay. Wind farms are permanent scars and do not earn their keep. Timber is renewable.
Actually, the mining industry has a rather spotty history of land reinstatement, or at least for it to be paid for by the companies as agreed. For instance:
Key phrase 'for now' if tactical voting increases and the focus shifts to the SNP's records with the further powers they get things could change. Even on your figures the SNP has a smaller percentage of seats at Holyrood than Westminster
It seems to me that the people who believed the polls are not the most gullible.
A number of times, posters suggested that the polls may fail this time because of the difficult electoral landscape (UKIP/SNP), which had not been modelled before.
This is not a party political point -- but an engineering point. Polling methodology really was entering completely untested parameter regimes.
A number of times, posters (myself included) speculated that a 1992 debacle might occur.
We were always told roundly that such was impossible. Polling methodology had improved by leaps and bounds since 1992, and the modelling was beyond question. A 1992 could never ever occur again.
It is these people who are the most gullible.
Normally when anyone tells you the modelling or methodology is infallible ... then it is time to panic. Serious & skeptical questioning of the assumptions underlying the modelling is no longer taking place.
Except that the pollsters got the "complicate" questions over the SNP and UKIP broadly correct - as did the exit poll when its creator was warning over this. The issue the pollsters failed on was the traditional battle between Labour and the Tories. It was a repeat of the "unrepeatable" failures of 1992 and SNP/UKIP were rather redundant to this.
The SNP affected the voting everywhere, not just in Scotland.
A tsunami does not just affect the region around the epicentre of the underlying earthquake.
Go take your own advice Mr Oblitus. Opencast mines are covered over again, certainly in this country. Deep mined coal creates spoil and that to, most famously for me North of Wigan, gets landscaped. China clay? I am guessing that will be landscaped. No, tell you wot, let's do without China clay. Wind farms are permanent scars and do not earn their keep. Timber is renewable.
Actually, the mining industry has a rather spotty history of land reinstatement, or at least for it to be paid for by the companies as agreed. For instance:
"Oh I dunno....Mark Menzies did a pretty good job of embarrassing the SNP:"
No he did not.
Calum has already responded by pointing out that the SNP member had refused to continue sitting on the committee due to the alleged, and never convincingly denied, actions of Ian Davidson, the Labour Chair-he of the "bayonetting the wounded" comment about the losers in the Referendum-long before Yes polled far higher than expected by him.
Ironically, but appropriately, he himself was dispatched from Westminster political life at the GE.
Noticeably, Eleanor Laing (deputy Speaker in the Chair) responded rather gently to the SNP point of order which obliquely made that point about Davidson. The response, I suspect, owed something to gender solidarity with Eilidh Whiteford, the SNP MP.
Comments
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/id-rather-be-happy-than-right-2015.html
I'm still working through how an overall majority was achieved - it seemed massively against the odds beforehand and barely seems more likely in retrospect. The two most durable parts of the election are likely to be the SNP hegemony north of the border and the obliteration of the Lib Dems.
I'm now going through my previous posts in detail to see where my expectations were met and where they weren't, and why. I'm not going to put up new posts on my conclusions because ultimately that's of interest only to me. As a general comment, I was right about very little of the detail about Scotland and had a fairly good handle on UKIP, but made a stack of money on my Scottish bets and did badly overall on my UKIP bets. Go figure.
“We tried really hard to change the subject, but the SNP just led the news day in and day out,” said a shadow treasury adviser. “If it was not David Cameron or George Osborne saying it, there was Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond or Nick Clegg – all using the same lines. There was no doubt in our mind that the party of the union and the party of separation were deliberately echoing each other’s lines.”
For all the talk of a "progressive coalition", the SNP clearly wanted a Tory government all along because it suited their purposes better.
"Weighted cleavage" ?
@paulwaugh: Now @YvetteCooperMP joins @andyburnhammp on Labour leadership ballot paper. Has passed the 35 MPs mark.
http://t.co/6YyPhbvT4s
Sure, "Middle England" used the Lab/SNP scare to justify (maybe even to themselves) voting Tory, but my guess is that they were always going to so anyway...
Labour probably lost the 2015 election in 2010... Or maybe 2008? They presided over the worst recession for decades and a Party doesn't just walk straight back into power after presiding over that sort of disaster.
Labour also pinned everything on the "double/triple dip" and 3m unemployed... When it turned out their analysis was wrong and the ecoomy started recovering, that was a grievous blow too...
When you add these things together with Ed's disastrous personal ratings, which were always going to have to meet with Labour's poll rating in the end, the writing was probably on the wall from the very start.
Make Ed Balls shadow chancellor compounded the error.
Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 10m10 minutes ago
Scots new car registrations in May, down from 17,800 to 16,300 (8%). UK + 2.4%. Fleet cars growing fastest, usually registered in England
I think he'll find he's missed the boat. After a third defeat in 2020 Labour will be ready to move on to another generation (particularly as it will seem evident in 2020 that 2025 is very winnable for Lab)
2020 will see Labour finally ready for someone like Kendall or Dan Jarvis to lead them back to power.
Or to put it another way, DMWNBPMOLOTO
A number of times, posters suggested that the polls may fail this time because of the difficult electoral landscape (UKIP/SNP), which had not been modelled before.
This is not a party political point -- but an engineering point. Polling methodology really was entering completely untested parameter regimes.
A number of times, posters (myself included) speculated that a 1992 debacle might occur.
We were always told roundly that such was impossible. Polling methodology had improved by leaps and bounds since 1992, and the modelling was beyond question. A 1992 could never ever occur again.
It is these people who are the most gullible.
Normally when anyone tells you the modelling or methodology is infallible ... then it is time to panic. Serious & skeptical questioning of the assumptions underlying the modelling is no longer taking place.
They also forget the 'debates'. Cameron refused to be kebabbed by a 4 way with Farage and their tactics went down hill from there. As a result the debates were a non event, except that Ed got himself lumbered with the debate between the small fry. It did for both him and Farage. Just how will any debates work next time hmm? Let's hope not at all.
But above all they miss out this miserable tactic of howling at the Tories about how evil they are and eating babies and destroying the NHS. Add in every possible knee jerk reaction to every possible govt policy, usually involving how its all just to benefit their rich friends. Fatuous garbage the lot of it. Conveniently all this is now dumped on poor old Ed. In reality they were all ignorant and delusional. None more so than Mr Cooper, I am keeping my fingers crossed for Yvette. Can the Tories be so lucky?
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/fifa/17132-england-green-around-the-gills-us-lose-out-world-cup-spots-unchanged
How long the BBC remains in mourning is anyone's guess.
Is he hoping lead (one of) the IN campaign(s) ?
David Miliband reminds me a bit of Portillo... Minus the phone lines...
If we want energy we need to generate it somehow. I'd far rather have wind turbines than coal mining, and all that results from burning the coal.
For good or ill, my posts stand as a record of what I thought at a given moment and why, and the process of publication makes me be disciplined enough to form those views on the basis of data rather than idle speculation or general impressions. And I can get the views of others. Where I am wrong, I can learn from my mistakes.
There is much for me to learn from the last general election.
Alton Towers suffered a hideous incident on Tuesday, but to me it seems they're playing the PR right, even if it is costing them. They're keeping the park shut until they can work out what went wrong, even if the chances are that other rides are not affected. It will also allow the investigation to continue without having to have a great deal of security to keep prying members of the public away.
They'll be hoping that the inquiry'll be over before the summer holidays and their busiest period. And any betting that the Smiler will not reopen until next year, even if it the issues that caused the incident were simple and easily fixed? And a rebrand might be in order ...
I wonder if there's a good book anywhere about how companies react to bad events? We had Thomas Cook last week showing us not how to do it ...
I just don't see it going to court as it has nothing to do with justice. Labour need to find a way to answer this question but its ultimately up to them who they nominate. Courts as a matter of principle must not get involved in approving who becomes a parties nominated candidates - that way leads to abuses like in Burma. It will have to be resolved in the "court of public opinion".
The polls were getting, if anything, worse for the Tories. I thought the three crucial failures of the Labour campaign were being caught on the fence between Scotland/England and losing both, the Edstone and refuting the argument that the last Labour govt spent too much. But it didn't seem to be having an effect....
It was only at 3.30-4pm on polling day that I felt we were going stay in office (best reception ever when knocking-up those who hadn't yet voted in a Southern LD marginal), and only when Nuneaton came in that I thought we'd sneak a majority.
Waking up after two hours kip 7-9am on the Friday to 6 txts from friends who knew how much I'd been wishing for EdB to go was the icing on top of an absolutely massive, Tory cake!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33000160
A tsunami does not just affect the region around the epicentre of the underlying earthquake.
Waves travel.
Perhaps it's just a lack of leadership (Harriet Harman should be quietly damping down this fire). If I were a voter in Labour's leadership campaign I would be looking for the candidate who understands that all energies need to be poured into undermining the Conservatives. None of them so far as I have seen have yet said anything about that.
The fact the SNP selected a complete memory in Edinburgh South stopped it happening last month.
I agree that tussling over seating dispositions is not the most promising route to making progress on the Scottish front.
I blame auto correct.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge on this topic. Have you actually ever been up into the wildernesses that are being altered forever? Look at that link, for pete's sake, and zoom out to see the vast area covered.
I'm fed up with people who pretend they're concerned with the environment who ignore the 'wrong' sort of environment. The "For the greater good" view you so eloquently espouse above.
Perhaps you should read the following from the excellent John Muir Trust:
http://www.jmt.org/faq-wind-power.asp
* Arguably the SNP was an entertaining side-show to the whole "the economy/long term economic plan is working and there's no reason to change" argument too.
You're all horribly misjudging me.
I'm a paragon of virtue and innocence.
Look at all the 'left wing' things the SNP do - free prescriptions, free University tuition - what ever the merits of these policies they are classic 'Labour' ones - and Labour won't propose them because of the damage they'd do to their economic credibility in the other 92% of the UK......Salmond is a very effective politician - but Sturgeon has killed Labour.....
In addition to the problem you point out, these are the first elections that the new leader will preside over. He or she will want to get off to a winning start.
The first election Ed presided over -- Holyrood 2011 -- turned out to set the pattern for his entire leadership.
(And in Wales, I think Labour’s problem with UKIP in the S. Wales Valleys / Deeside will be more serious than generally acknowledged. It is quite possible that Labour will lose control in Wales, due to the multiple fronts on which they are fighting).
I await the investigation with interest. The main causal factor might end up being very simple: the whole system is probably orders of magnitude simpler than, say, a railway.
According to an expert yesterday, the same sort of computer systems are used on many roller coasters throughout the world - it is just altered for each individual ride. The fact that other rides around the world have not been closed (at least, not as I've heard) might be a hint that it was not the main computer system at fault. Or not.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/06/04/rock-bottom-2/
What the SNP tsunami did permit though was the EdM in Sturgeon's pocket campaign which, against all my predictions and instincts, did indeed firm up the Tory vote.
Opencast mines are covered over again, certainly in this country. Deep mined coal creates spoil and that to, most famously for me North of Wigan, gets landscaped. China clay? I am guessing that will be landscaped. No, tell you wot, let's do without China clay. Wind farms are permanent scars and do not earn their keep. Timber is renewable.
overcloser to the lineAssuming that EVEL goes through, and there are several years of it operating fairly well (yes, I know, a big "IF"), then it becomes an established fact of UK political life, like Scottish Devolution. You can't abandon it without hacking off the English voters.
Hypothetically, in 2020 there could be a minority Labour UK Government propped up by the SNP (and others?) on a ""confidence & supply"" basis, whilst at the same time there could be a Conservative majority in England.
How would that work?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30504447
Ed Balls would not of course countenance acceptance of that and Ed Miliband seemed to be arguing against a different case (that Labour's spending caused the crash).
http://labourlist.org/2015/06/whos-backing-who-and-who-did-endorsers-vote-to-be-leader-in-2010/
There's a very strong pattern of Liz Kendall doing best with former David Miliband backers.
As for the Tories "cuts" are nothing new, these arguments have been made for six years (since Osborne adopted arguments for austerity) and for five years of office and despite that the Tory support has remained relatively strong compared to where it was. Continuing to bang on about cuts won't change the minds of those who've already accepted the need for those cuts for six years now.
There is no reason to assume tactical voting will be higher against the SNP than it was before. This ludicrous argument was getting made about why some Lab seats would be saved at the election, the simple truth is that Lab and Tory hate each other and nothing is changing that. Unless Lab and Tory start respecting each other anti-SNP tactical voting is simply not going to happen.
Unfortunately David Davis will be costing the law courts a pointless load of wasted money.
Announcing now I suppose gets the Dept's acting sooner and of course the opposition are confused, it will no doubt force them more to the knee jerk left. Although the SNP are as left as you can get I suppose.
SNP 71 (+2)
SLAB 25 (-12)
Tories 11 (-4)
LibDem 6 (+1)
Greens 11 (+9)
UKIP 5 (+5)
Total Seats 129 (65 for a majority)
As the Scotland Votes seat calculator currently doesn't take account of regional splits, the above figures area at best a guide of likely trends based on current polling. The UKIP and LibDems are probably overstated. Tactical voting might save a few constituency seats but if the SNP list vote comes through they will gain compensating list seats. So for now their majority looks safe.
Links below:
http://www.scotlandvotes.com/
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Final-Record-April-Tables.pdf
New Thread
It's water under the bridge, of course - just chipping in the comments for interest.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/28/big-coal-keep-it-in-the-ground-energy-opencast-mines
"Oh I dunno....Mark Menzies did a pretty good job of embarrassing the SNP:"
No he did not.
Calum has already responded by pointing out that the SNP member had refused to continue sitting on the committee due to the alleged, and never convincingly denied, actions of Ian Davidson, the Labour Chair-he of the "bayonetting the wounded" comment about the losers in the Referendum-long before Yes polled far higher than expected by him.
Ironically, but appropriately, he himself was dispatched from Westminster political life at the GE.
Noticeably, Eleanor Laing (deputy Speaker in the Chair) responded rather gently to the SNP point of order which obliquely made that point about Davidson. The response, I suspect, owed something to gender solidarity with Eilidh Whiteford, the SNP MP.