politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadership polling 8 weeks before the ballots go out can be

SystemSystem Posts: 12,267
edited June 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadership polling 8 weeks before the ballots go out can be misleading

The above chart is from a YouGov poll of Conservative party members which was carried out by YouGov in early September 2005 and published on September 10th. The timing is almost an exact parallel with the current LAB fight – about 8 weeks before the issuing of postal ballot forms.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    First!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,172
    Second!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,999
    Twelvtieth!
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    AndyJS said:

    It probably caused Grant Shapps to have a poor election result in Welwyn Hatfield. His seat was the only one in the area where the Tory vote was down significantly.

    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic:

    Remember the Grant Shapps / Wikipedia sockpuppet controversy before the election?

    Well,it appears it was a load of unproved rubbish, and the Wikipedia editor who made the claim to the Guardian has been slapped down:
    http://order-order.com/2015/06/08/wikipedia-slaps-down-grant-schapps-libdem-wikipedia-tormentor/

    Yet another example of the Guardian publishing unproven lies.

    I suppose he had all the Michael Green stuff as well.

    Shame that the evidence isn't being shown publically, be interested how much hinged on the fact that no evidence "definitively" showed it was Shapps (i.e. was there evidence that wiggled its eyebrows suggestively but not definitively at him).
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2015
    Third: like Clarke!

    Edit : Fifth like Rifkind!
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Following on from the 90s analogies let's hope Zac Goldsmith can follow in his father's footsteps.

    Stumbled onto Sir James's book The Trap a few years ago, prophetic.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Name recognition may account for something, but what can be said about Labour’s leadership candidates, other than the calibre of those standing would embarrass any third rate party, let alone the official opposition party. – Ultimately the decision who leads their party is with the party members, but suspect many of those are left scratching their heads and thinking, ‘is this really the best we have?’
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Wrong for several reasons. First, Labour is not holding the same speech contest at their conference the Tories did. Second, Cameron's 17% is more than double Kendall's 7%. Third, at this stage in 2010 it was Miliband D then Miliband E in the Labour members ballot and that is how it turned out. Finally, Cameron did actually lead in polls once leadership ballots had gone out, Kendall will need to lead with Labour voters and all voters by September
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    Not sure the Labour leadership contest is worth much debate, Burnham is a shoo-in Lenny will make certain of it, sadly he has the resources and influence to do that, plus the desire.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited June 2015
    On the topic, a new Labourlist poll on the leadership is currently being carried out, with results due in a few days I think.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    SimonStClare I don't see any of them as being dramatically worse than the likes of IDS, Fox and Davis who have stood in recent Tory leadership elections, or any less experienced than Cameron was in 2005 when his main record was being head of PR for Carlton and a SPAD an MP for just 5 years and adviser to IDS and Howard
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    Wrong for several reasons. First, Labour is not holding the same speech contest at their conference the Tories did. Second, Cameron's 17% is more than double Kendall's 7%. Third, at this stage in 2010 it was Miliband D then Miliband E in the Labour members ballot and that is how it turned out. Finally, Cameron did actually lead in polls once leadership ballots had gone out, Kendall will need to lead with Labour voters and all voters by September

    You are not comparing the same numbers. There has been NO poll like this in the LAB leadership fight so to take the Kendal 7%, that you seem desperately keen to highlight, is irrelevant. All we have had is a standard YouGov poll with a subset of LAB voters (not members) where name recognition is an even greater factor.

    Your approach on this has been highly misleading. Why are you scared of Kendall? You seem to want to do her down on every occasion.

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    O/T

    How do PBers rate Sol Campbell's chances of becoming the Tory candidate for London Mayor for which he's on offer at 20/1. Presumably he's been given some encouragement by the party in declaring his intention today to stand.
    With the possible exception of Karren Brady, Ladbrokes' other listed candidates appear a pretty unconvincing lot to me.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Mac McCluskey may be edging towards Corbyn, anyway Burnham presently leads with both Labour voters and voters as a whole, unless and until that changes by the time ballots go out he should win.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,153
    SimonStClare said:

    Name recognition may account for something, but what can be said about Labour’s leadership candidates, other than the calibre of those standing would embarrass any third rate party, let alone the official opposition party. – Ultimately the decision who leads their party is with the party members, but suspect many of those are left scratching their heads and thinking, ‘is this really the best we have?’

    Maybe that in itself is a question the Labour party needs to be pondering. I doubt if there's a single answer, but I do wonder whether the all-women shortlists have had a perverse impact. I appreciate the value of positive action, but if it waters down the talent is it really worth it?

    Also, I wonder whether the in-fighting between Mr Blair's people & Mr Brown's people drove out more talent than was realised - not just in the sense that possible rivals were eliminated but also that others looked & didn't like what they saw.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    edited June 2015
    OGH Polls of Labour voters will almost exactly replicate those of Labour members as indeed polls of Tory members tended to match those of Tory voters in 2005 too. All the mood music we hear from the hustings is Cooper and Burnham get a better response than Kendall from Labour members so I don't see why you think Kendall is storming ahead with the Labour membership. If Kendall takes the lead with Labour voters and UKIP voters and Tory voters and in Scotland by September as Burnham leads with all those groups now she deserves to win, until then Burnham is Labour's best bet. It should be pointed out in 2010 at this stage polls showed David Miliband leading with Labour voters and all voters as he led with both groups until the result, Ed Miliband only won with union votes and then Labour clearly made a mistake
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,826
    edited June 2015
    peter_from_putney said:

    O/T

    How do PBers rate Sol Campbell's chances of becoming the Tory candidate for London Mayor for which he's on offer at 20/1. Presumably he's been given some encouragement by the party in declaring his intention today to stand.
    With the possible exception of Karren Brady, Ladbrokes' other listed candidates appear a pretty unconvincing lot to me.

    I don't know much about Sol Campbell other than he was a footballer. I know Boris was sort of a celebrity mayor but underneath the fun and foolery people thought he was clever enough to run a capital city. It may be snobbery but a footballer to Mayor of London with its massive budget and responsibilities is a bit of a leap to me and presumably most people.

    Karen Brady is ok as a candidate but even she is best known as Lord Sugar's sidekick. She needed to be 'Lord Sugar' not his assistant to be a shoe in for such a job
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I agree it's too early too tell, but you can see there is large resistance for the candidacy of Kendall and Corbyn as they have cornered themselves on the extreme right or left of their party.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,756
    AnneJGP said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Name recognition may account for something, but what can be said about Labour’s leadership candidates, other than the calibre of those standing would embarrass any third rate party, let alone the official opposition party. – Ultimately the decision who leads their party is with the party members, but suspect many of those are left scratching their heads and thinking, ‘is this really the best we have?’

    Maybe that in itself is a question the Labour party needs to be pondering. I doubt if there's a single answer, but I do wonder whether the all-women shortlists have had a perverse impact. I appreciate the value of positive action, but if it waters down the talent is it really worth it?

    Also, I wonder whether the in-fighting between Mr Blair's people & Mr Brown's people drove out more talent than was realised - not just in the sense that possible rivals were eliminated but also that others looked & didn't like what they saw.

    I think you probably do get into difficulties when, over a generation, you select people for reasons other than competence.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,999
    corporeal said:

    AndyJS said:

    It probably caused Grant Shapps to have a poor election result in Welwyn Hatfield. His seat was the only one in the area where the Tory vote was down significantly.

    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic:

    Remember the Grant Shapps / Wikipedia sockpuppet controversy before the election?

    Well,it appears it was a load of unproved rubbish, and the Wikipedia editor who made the claim to the Guardian has been slapped down:
    http://order-order.com/2015/06/08/wikipedia-slaps-down-grant-schapps-libdem-wikipedia-tormentor/

    Yet another example of the Guardian publishing unproven lies.

    I suppose he had all the Michael Green stuff as well.

    Shame that the evidence isn't being shown publically, be interested how much hinged on the fact that no evidence "definitively" showed it was Shapps (i.e. was there evidence that wiggled its eyebrows suggestively but not definitively at him).
    Lordy, how pathetic.

    You can read more here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2015
    By the way HYUFD here's some 2016 news for you if you missed it, the current GOP frontrunner Scott Walker has said he doesn't rule out re-invading Iraq:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-rule-invasion-iraq/story?id=31590709

    "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he wouldn’t rule out a full-blown re-invasion of Iraq if he were to become the next commander-in-chief."

    So that's Bush , Rubio and Walker that are shooting their feet on Iraq.
    Hillary to win the presidency has still got good odds on the betting markets.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    P from P He has a shot, I also think Ivan Massow has a chance if Goldsmith declines to run
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    Danny565 said:

    On the topic, a new Labourlist poll on the leadership is currently being carried out, with results due in a few days I think.

    Thanks for the heads up - I've taken part and voted tactically for Mary to try and give her a boost and get her on the ballot.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Speedy Indeed, Corbyn will turn off floating voters, Kendall risks losing voters to the Greens and totally turning off SNP voters even if she wins over a few Tories.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    State Lord Sugar must be an outside bet to run as an independent with no big name candidate likely on the Tory or Labour sides
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    State Lord Sugar must be an outside bet to run as an independent with no big name candidate likely on the Tory or Labour sides

    Now that's an interesting take that I can subscribe.
    An independent does have a chance to win the London mayor elections next year since neither Labour or the Tories have particularly popular candidates.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Speedy Interesting, though if Paul wins the GOP nomination he will be more of a dove than Hillary, Hillary is more of an interventionist than Obama
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    HYUFD said:

    Mac McCluskey may be edging towards Corbyn, anyway Burnham presently leads with both Labour voters and voters as a whole, unless and until that changes by the time ballots go out he should win.

    Lenny nailed his colours to the Burnham mast some time ago, he won't back in real terms a non-runner. Not sure on the yougov polls but he will win, no question.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2015
    AnneJGP said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Name recognition may account for something, but what can be said about Labour’s leadership candidates, other than the calibre of those standing would embarrass any third rate party, let alone the official opposition party. – Ultimately the decision who leads their party is with the party members, but suspect many of those are left scratching their heads and thinking, ‘is this really the best we have?’

    Maybe that in itself is a question the Labour party needs to be pondering. I doubt if there's a single answer, but I do wonder whether the all-women shortlists have had a perverse impact. I appreciate the value of positive action, but if it waters down the talent is it really worth it?

    Also, I wonder whether the in-fighting between Mr Blair's people & Mr Brown's people drove out more talent than was realised - not just in the sense that possible rivals were eliminated but also that others looked & didn't like what they saw.

    The lack of talent within Labour goes well beyond AWSL imho, although I agree that any selection process that favours gender over talent will have an adverse effect over time.

    I think the problems go back to Gordon's cull of New Labour personalities which, to a lesser degree, continued under Ed we you consider how many stood down, prior to GE2015. – There appears to be a ten year gap within Labour’s ranks of the old guard, which today would constitute the respected senior role.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mac McCluskey may be edging towards Corbyn, anyway Burnham presently leads with both Labour voters and voters as a whole, unless and until that changes by the time ballots go out he should win.

    Lenny nailed his colours to the Burnham mast some time ago, he won't back in real terms a non-runner. Not sure on the yougov polls but he will win, no question.
    I agree and Burnham's near evens odds to win look like value to me, if a little unexciting.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2015
    Before you blame AWS for everything, I remind you that for 2001 GE AWS were outlawed....and the open selections produced this new intake:

    Vera Baird Redcar
    Kevin Brennan Cardiff West
    Chris Bryant Rhondda
    Andy Burnham Leigh
    David Cairns Inverclyde
    Colin Challen Morley and Rothwell
    Jon Cruddas Dagenham
    Tony Cunningham Workington
    Wayne David Caerphilly
    Parmjit Dhanda Gloucester
    Paul Farrelly Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Hywel Francis Aberavon
    David Hamilton Midlothian
    Tom Harris Glasgow South
    Dai Havard Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney
    David Heyes Ashton-under-Lyne
    Kevan Jones North Durham
    Jim Knight South Dorset
    Mark Lazarowicz Edinburgh North and Leith
    Ian Lucas Wrexham
    John MacDougall Glenrothes
    Khalid Mahmood Birmingham, Perry Barr
    John Mann Bassetlaw
    Rob Marris Wolverhampton South West
    Ann McKechin Glasgow North
    David Miliband South Shields
    Chris Mole Ipswich
    Meg Munn Sheffield, Heeley
    Albert Owen Ynys Mon
    Anne Picking East Lothian
    James Purnell Stalybridge and Hyde
    James Sheridan Paisley and Renfrewshire North
    Siôn Simon Birmingham, Erdington
    Mark Tami Alyn and Deeside
    Tom Watson West Bromwich East
    David Wright Telford
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,943
    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Before you blame AWS for everything, I remind you that for 2001 GE AWS were outlawed....and the open selections produced this new intake:

    Against that list we only need mention one product of an AWS:

    Helen Clark - Peterborough
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Speedy Indeed and Bloomberg spent most of his term in NY as an independent, Sugar also has the money and name recognition to win without party backing
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2015
    Half of them are not in the Commons anymore. Some defeated...but some retired on their own without barely anyone noticing them.

    Burnham is obviously the most high profile now. I guess followed by Watson, Bryant and Cruddas.
    Miliband and Purnell have been high profile but they are now gone.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Mac Peter Agreed
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    williamglenn said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Before you blame AWS for everything, I remind you that for 2001 GE AWS were outlawed....and the open selections produced this new intake:

    Against that list we only need mention one product of an AWS:

    Helen Clark - Peterborough

    I raise with this product of an Open selection

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTkKJT_BuHA
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Liz Kendall was on the Chesterfield shortlist in 2000. She was the runner up.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @HYUFD

    ' anyway Burnham presently leads with both Labour voters and voters as a whole, unless and until that changes by the time ballots go out he should win.'

    Great news for Tories.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,172
    JosiasJessop said:

    corporeal said:

    AndyJS said:

    It probably caused Grant Shapps to have a poor election result in Welwyn Hatfield. His seat was the only one in the area where the Tory vote was down significantly.

    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic:

    Remember the Grant Shapps / Wikipedia sockpuppet controversy before the election?

    Well,it appears it was a load of unproved rubbish, and the Wikipedia editor who made the claim to the Guardian has been slapped down:
    http://order-order.com/2015/06/08/wikipedia-slaps-down-grant-schapps-libdem-wikipedia-tormentor/

    Yet another example of the Guardian publishing unproven lies.

    I suppose he had all the Michael Green stuff as well.

    Shame that the evidence isn't being shown publically, be interested how much hinged on the fact that no evidence "definitively" showed it was Shapps (i.e. was there evidence that wiggled its eyebrows suggestively but not definitively at him).
    Lordy, how pathetic.

    You can read more here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision
    Also for your entertainment, the connected talk page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    johnzims Obviously not, as Burnham leads across the board with Labour voters, UKIP voters, in Scotland and even with Tory voters, exactly the coalition Labour has to get to win
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited June 2015
    Off Topic. I think Bernie Sanders 41% result in the Wisconsin straw poll (to Hillary's 49%) must now increase the chances of other big more centrist names within the Democratic Party entering the race for the nomination. While much of the party could either be enthusiastic about a Hillary candidacy, or a woman's candidacy, or hold their noses provided she was inevitable as candidate and President, I think that ceases to be the case when she is no longer deemed inevitable.

    If Bernie can get to 41% this early in his campaign, serious people must be wondering how low Hillary can sink. And if she sinks far enough for Bernie to beat her, what does that mean for the Dems in the general election? It must be horrifying enough for a Bloomberg or someone else substantial to enter the fray...

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/wisconsin-straw-poll-surprise-a-narrow-clinton-win-118727.html?hp=c1_3
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    London Mayoral Labour selection...more nominations

    Richmond Park CLP: Jowell and Wolmar
    Tooting CLP: Jowell and Khan
    Chingford and Woodford Green CLP: Jowell and Lammy

    Apparently Khan told his CLP he will remain MP until 2020 GE if elected Mayor
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Fans of Ed Milliband may want to take in the band "Hell Yeah" playing the Download festival this Friday in a rare UK date.

    I saw them a couple of years back, they are scarier than a rusty rockets video!

    http://hellyeahband.com/
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,768
    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Liz Kendall was on the Chesterfield shortlist in 2000. She was the runner up.

    OMG Lucky escape.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Tim T In 1 state poll , in all the rest Sanders still trails her badly. PPP tonight has Bloomberg trailing Hillary by 54% in Ohio. Hillary is the Democrats only chance in my view
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @HYUFD

    'johnzims Obviously not, as Burnham leads across the board with Labour voters, UKIP voters, in Scotland and even with Tory voters, exactly the coalition Labour has to get to win'

    And that's based on how many polls?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Seems that new Tory Lucy Frazer used her maiden speech to build bridges between England and Scotland

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwuJPn8--go
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    How many of us sat up waiting for the You Gov daily poll looking for any sort of movement....

    You Gov need to get out and meet real people and interview them face to face, or at least opn the phone.. too much propensity for people to piss about with internet polls.

    Does anyone know who the Tories were using as pollsters and was it F2F internet or on the phone???
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    bigjohnowls said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Liz Kendall was on the Chesterfield shortlist in 2000. She was the runner up.

    OMG Lucky escape.
    She will be an excellent leader.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Senior editors of Wikipedia have rather a reputation for dramatic falls from grace, for a reason I've never quite understood.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    Seems that new Tory Lucy Frazer used her maiden speech to build bridges between England and Scotland

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwuJPn8--go

    What kind of imbecile could get upset about something that happened over 350 years ago. She is making a light hearted speech about how things have changed.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    HYUFD said:

    johnzims Obviously not, as Burnham leads across the board with Labour voters, UKIP voters, in Scotland and even with Tory voters, exactly the coalition Labour has to get to win

    I am certain Burnham will win the Labour leadership but equally certain he would be a total fail in the role. A cross between the worst of Miliband's over inflated ego and Brown's poor temperament, simply put he isn't very good and no leader.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    edited June 2015
    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Half of them are not in the Commons anymore. Some defeated...but some retired on their own without barely anyone noticing them.

    Burnham is obviously the most high profile now. I guess followed by Watson, Bryant and Cruddas.
    Miliband and Purnell have been high profile but they are now gone.

    John Mann has done useful work on the child abuse issue, as has Watson of course.

    Edit: Mann always speaks his mind lol
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited June 2015
    Isn't William M Connelly the guy who got into a load of hotwater for changing the AGW pages on Wiki and is a red hot Greenie?
    Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia's entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to "Climate Change") is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
    RobD said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    corporeal said:

    AndyJS said:

    It probably caused Grant Shapps to have a poor election result in Welwyn Hatfield. His seat was the only one in the area where the Tory vote was down significantly.

    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic:

    Remember the Grant Shapps / Wikipedia sockpuppet controversy before the election?

    Well,it appears it was a load of unproved rubbish, and the Wikipedia editor who made the claim to the Guardian has been slapped down:
    http://order-order.com/2015/06/08/wikipedia-slaps-down-grant-schapps-libdem-wikipedia-tormentor/

    Yet another example of the Guardian publishing unproven lies.

    I suppose he had all the Michael Green stuff as well.

    Shame that the evidence isn't being shown publically, be interested how much hinged on the fact that no evidence "definitively" showed it was Shapps (i.e. was there evidence that wiggled its eyebrows suggestively but not definitively at him).
    Lordy, how pathetic.

    You can read more here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision
    Also for your entertainment, the connected talk page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    New Yvette's endorsements:

    Bridget Philipson (Sunderland South and Houghton)
    Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
    Nick Brown (Newcastle East)
    Roberta Blackman Wood (Durham)
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    You would need a heart of stone not to laugh.. Prezza banned from driving


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11659876/John-Prescott-banned-from-driving-for-speeding-in-Jaguar.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,172
    SquareRoot said:

    You would need a heart of stone not to laugh.. Prezza banned from driving


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11659876/John-Prescott-banned-from-driving-for-speeding-in-Jaguar.html

    Great stock photo there.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You would need a heart of stone not to laugh.. Prezza banned from driving


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11659876/John-Prescott-banned-from-driving-for-speeding-in-Jaguar.html

    Great stock photo there.
    He looks like a crook from a 1970's Sweeney episode
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    SimonStClare said:

    AnneJGP said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Name recognition may account for something, but what can be said about Labour’s leadership candidates, other than the calibre of those standing would embarrass any third rate party, let alone the official opposition party. – Ultimately the decision who leads their party is with the party members, but suspect many of those are left scratching their heads and thinking, ‘is this really the best we have?’

    Maybe that in itself is a question the Labour party needs to be pondering. I doubt if there's a single answer, but I do wonder whether the all-women shortlists have had a perverse impact. I appreciate the value of positive action, but if it waters down the talent is it really worth it?

    Also, I wonder whether the in-fighting between Mr Blair's people & Mr Brown's people drove out more talent than was realised - not just in the sense that possible rivals were eliminated but also that others looked & didn't like what they saw.

    The lack of talent within Labour goes well beyond AWSL imho, although I agree that any selection process that favours gender over talent will have an adverse effect over time.

    I think the problems go back to Gordon's cull of New Labour personalities which, to a lesser degree, continued under Ed we you consider how many stood down, prior to GE2015. – There appears to be a ten year gap within Labour’s ranks of the old guard, which today would constitute the respected senior role.
    We had a shocker of a candidate selected on an AWS. She was the only local on the list. I feel sorry for her in many ways as she was clearly not up to it, a seat that labour would have won on the England swing, ended up with the Tory tripling his majority. Some of that is due to the sheer inadequacy of the candidate.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Gloria de Piero backs Kendall pushing her at the required 35 endorsements
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    JohnZims All the 3 yougovs on the leadership so far, unless and until that changes he is the man to beat
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Mac You are entitled to your opinion, I prefer to look at the polling evidence, Burnham is personable enough and can hold Labour's core and have some appeal to Scotland, something Kendall may not, while also having more appeal to floating voters and UKIP voters than Corbyn and Cooper
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    The key moment in 2005 was the Conference speeches before the leadership election which gave all the key players a moment to shine - and Cameron did shine and became leader and then twice elected PM.

    Similarly it was an earlier Conference speech by a relatively unknown then Obama that pushed him into the limelight and allowed him to then eventually take the leadership,

    Why Labour is in a mad rush to get a leader in before the Conference is beyond me. If a second election had been expected early then fair enough, but barring any major shocks we're five years from the next election - plenty of time to have a 2005-style full contest followed by 4.5 years of the new leader setting out his agenda.

    We're going to know who is fighting our 2020 election for Labour before we know who the 2016 candidates are for the Republicans or Democrats. Stupid waste of an opportunity.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    Philip Thompson - I saw it mentioned on TV that Labour people felt the contest dominated the conference too much in 2010. Seems a daft argument to me.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Philip_Thompson said:


    Why Labour is in a mad rush to get a leader in before the Conference is beyond me.

    Because they're desperate and stupid.

    It makes little difference - Blair and Brown between them wiped out any opposition to their own leaderships, and at the same time hobbled the party for years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    PT But Labour still will not choose a leader until September and we do not have a presidential system. Hillary would have won in 2008 too and Davis probably would have led the largest party though he would have formed a minority government not a coalition. The Tory leadership contests in 1990 and 1997 were swift affairs, that in 2001 the same length as this Labour one.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,390
    notme said:

    Dair said:

    Seems that new Tory Lucy Frazer used her maiden speech to build bridges between England and Scotland

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwuJPn8--go

    What kind of imbecile could get upset about something that happened over 350 years ago. She is making a light hearted speech about how things have changed.
    On that basis, somewhat imbecilic of her to apolgise then.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Fox Indeed, Burnham and Kendall probably get on better than with Cooper, Cameron will of course not be Tory leader in 2020
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    NeilVW said:

    Philip Thompson - I saw it mentioned on TV that Labour people felt the contest dominated the conference too much in 2010. Seems a daft argument to me.

    They were daft and stupid in 2010 too though. They "revealed" the new leader at the Conference meaning the votes were cast beforehand and the only talk was about who the new leader was. You're guaranteed publicity both when you chose a leader and at Conference so merging the two just cost them.

    That doesn't mean they needed to bring the election forwards, they should have pushed it back. Conservative ballots went out after Conference, that was the difference.
    HYUFD said:

    PT But Labour still will not choose a leader until September and we do not have a presidential system. Hillary would have won in 2008 too and Davis probably would have led the largest party though he would have formed a minority government not a coalition. The Tory leadership contests in 1990 and 1997 were swift affairs, that in 2001 the same length as this Labour one.

    We may not have a Presidential system but the notion party leader doesn't make a massive difference is a silly one. There is no urgency here, we don't have another election for years so why the panic?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited June 2015
    Mike is right to caution about name recognition. However, in this case we have two candidates, Andy and Yvette, who are equally well-known, and who have both been quietly (or, in Andy's case, blatantly) campaigning for the last couple of years.

    Liz Kendall remains relatively unknown, but has had a lot of publicity over the last few weeks. We need to wait for the regional hustings (which I believe start quite soon), but my guess is that this comment will prove to be spot-on:

    One backer of Burnham said “good luck with that” to the idea of Kendall trying to get grassroots Labour support while being in favour of free schools.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/08/andy-burnham-warns-labour-should-not-shun-recent-campaign-values

    I think we can discount Mary Creagh and Jeremy Corbyn. On the three front-runners, the odds seem to me to be a bit wrong: I'd put Andy as the favourite (but not the 50% chance the betting markets are currently suggesting), with Yvette second, and Liz Kendall a poor third.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    edited June 2015
    PT Because the leader of the opposition has to oppose the PM in Parliament every week, in the US it would be the equivalent of the Congressional Leadership, the President is basically an elected version of the Queen. That makes it difficult to have later elections I suppose. In terms of party leaders in postwar years I think D Miliband in 2015 and Clarke in 2005 may have got a hung parliament and maybe Healey too in 1983, Butler may have narrowly won in 1964 and Thatcher may have lost in 1992, otherwise whoever was Tory or Labour leader would probably have got the same result
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    I suppose Hattie and co thought they needed to start being an effective Opposition sooner rather than later, especially as the Government intends to press ahead with a raft of the trickier stuff early on, it seems
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited June 2015
    NeilVW said:

    I suppose Hattie and co thought they needed to start being an effective Opposition sooner rather than later, especially as the Government intends to press ahead with a raft of the trickier stuff early on, it seems

    I seem to recall that your assumption is the direct opposite of what she has said in public.

    In the end we will know pretty quickly what's what. I pretty much knew in my own mind that Ed was a duffer before he was elected and certain within a month of him becoming leader. I Think it will l be the same again timewise, it depends on how the new leader stands up to Cameron in the HOC.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Mike is right to caution about name recognition. However, in this case we have two candidates, Andy and Yvette, who are equally well-known, and who have both been quietly (or, in Andy's case, blatantly) campaigning for the last couple of years.

    Liz Kendall remains relatively unknown, but has had a lot of publicity over the last few weeks. We need to wait for the regional hustings (which I believe start quite soon), but my guess is that this comment will prove to be spot-on:

    One backer of Burnham said “good luck with that” to the idea of Kendall trying to get grassroots Labour support while being in favour of free schools.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/08/andy-burnham-warns-labour-should-not-shun-recent-campaign-values

    I think we can discount Mary Creagh and Jeremy Corbyn. On the three front-runners, the odds seem to me to be a bit wrong: I'd put Andy as the favourite (but not the 50% chance the betting markets are currently suggesting), with Yvette second, and Liz Kendall a poor third.

    I think Kendall does not advocate Free Schools so much as accept that by 2020 there will be a lot of them with well established pupil bodies. Hers is a pragmatic approach to not close good schools that are accountable to parents. It fits well within her agenda of service users taking power over local services.

    The hustings events are listed here, by the end of July we should have an idea of how things are going:

    http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/your-local-leadership-husting

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    SR Not necessarily the Commons, Hague and Foot were brilliant in the Commons for all the good it did them, it is perception with floating voters in the marginals which is key
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    Kendall is playing the long game, whether by accident or design. She needs a bit more polish and experience and she'll get that in the Shadow Cabinet. She'll also get more widely known and build up links within the party.

    Even if Labour don't turn to someone that is considered too far to the right of the party in this leadership election, she'll be perfectly positioned for a new challenge if Labour fail to make headway in 2020. (of course the man with the great back-story,Dan Jarvis, may finally be available at that time)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TimesNewsdesk: Fiscal autonomy would ruin us, admits SNP MP
    http://t.co/uu4fqmOaBJ
    Tommy Sheppard said on Sunday night that removing Scotland’s block grant from Westminster “overnight”, which is what full fiscal autonomy would entail, would be “a silly thing to do”.

    Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Westminster Hour, Mr Sheppard was asked whether his party was not demanding full fiscal autonomy immediately from Westminster because of concerns about losing the Barnett formula and the fall in the price of oil.

    “But of course you wouldn’t take these things away overnight — that would be a disaster,” he said.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    foxinsoxuk said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
    In my semi-detached mode, I'm not convinced by all this zeal for local accountability that my colleagues are showing. Why would a local board of councillors be especially good at running the NHS in their area?

    One wants accountability where the council is in a position to change the scenario - for bus networks, for instance, councils can do a lot with planning rules and indeed subsidies to make them optimal for residents. But for deciding the relative priority of cancer wards vs Alzheimer wards? Hmm.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    The Government's position on collective responsibility seems to be veering erratically from hour to hour. It's now a firm "Maybe".
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/08/david-cameron-u-turn-britains-eu-membership-referendum
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    Disraeli Maybe, though I think Burnham could beat Osborne in 2020, Jarvis is now backing Burnham
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,943
    Disraeli said:

    (of course the man with the great back-story,Dan Jarvis, may finally be available at that time)

    Is there any evidence Jarvis has more to offer than a military background? He comes across as a mogadon man in this clip:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDUQXvdZABo
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2015
    NickPalmer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
    In my semi-detached mode, I'm not convinced by all this zeal for local accountability that my colleagues are showing. Why would a local board of councillors be especially good at running the NHS in their area?

    One wants accountability where the council is in a position to change the scenario - for bus networks, for instance, councils can do a lot with planning rules and indeed subsidies to make them optimal for residents. But for deciding the relative priority of cancer wards vs Alzheimer wards? Hmm.
    Councils should have an input, particularly if Health and Social Care integrate more.

    In other health news: the Tories have ditched the #safestaffing guidance recommended by the Francis report into Stafford. Pounds rather than patients methinks:

    https://twitter.com/WelshGasDoc/status/607493059618717696?s=02

    And astonishingly the deluded astrology believer David Tredinnick has been nominated for the Chair of the Health Select Committee!

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/spectator-surgery/2015/06/roll-of-shame-mps-who-back-homeopathy-fan-david-tredinnick-for-chair-of-commons-health-committee/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    foxinsoxuk said:

    NickPalmer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
    In my semi-detached mode, I'm not convinced by all this zeal for local accountability that my colleagues are showing. Why would a local board of councillors be especially good at running the NHS in their area?

    One wants accountability where the council is in a position to change the scenario - for bus networks, for instance, councils can do a lot with planning rules and indeed subsidies to make them optimal for residents. But for deciding the relative priority of cancer wards vs Alzheimer wards? Hmm.
    Councils should have an input, particularly if Health and Social Care integrate more.

    In other health news: the Tories have ditched the #safestaffing guidance recommended by the Francis report into Stafford. Pounds rather than patients methinks:

    https://twitter.com/WelshGasDoc/status/607493059618717696?s=02

    And astonishingly the deluded astrology believer David Tredinnick has been nominated for the Chair of the Health Select Committee!

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/spectator-surgery/2015/06/roll-of-shame-mps-who-back-homeopathy-fan-david-tredinnick-for-chair-of-commons-health-committee/
    Tredinnick !

    Are they taking the piss lol ?
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    williamglenn said:

    Disraeli said:

    (of course the man with the great back-story,Dan Jarvis, may finally be available at that time)

    Is there any evidence Jarvis has more to offer than a military background? He comes across as a mogadon man in this clip:
    He has obvious sincerity. sincerity is a great asset in the murky world of politics.

    Groucho Marx: ‘Sincerity is the key to success. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.’
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pulpstar said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    NickPalmer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
    In my semi-detached mode, I'm not convinced by all this zeal for local accountability that my colleagues are showing. Why would a local board of councillors be especially good at running the NHS in their area?

    One wants accountability where the council is in a position to change the scenario - for bus networks, for instance, councils can do a lot with planning rules and indeed subsidies to make them optimal for residents. But for deciding the relative priority of cancer wards vs Alzheimer wards? Hmm.
    Councils should have an input, particularly if Health and Social Care integrate more.

    In other health news: the Tories have ditched the #safestaffing guidance recommended by the Francis report into Stafford. Pounds rather than patients methinks:

    https://twitter.com/WelshGasDoc/status/607493059618717696?s=02

    And astonishingly the deluded astrology believer David Tredinnick has been nominated for the Chair of the Health Select Committee!

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/spectator-surgery/2015/06/roll-of-shame-mps-who-back-homeopathy-fan-david-tredinnick-for-chair-of-commons-health-committee/
    Tredinnick !

    Are they taking the piss lol ?
    Unfortunately it seems not. It looks more like a putsch to get Dr Wollaston out of the Chair. She is just a little too good at grilling ministers.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Pulpstar said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    NickPalmer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
    In my semi-detached mode, I'm not convinced by all this zeal for local accountability that my colleagues are showing. Why would a local board of councillors be especially good at running the NHS in their area?

    One wants accountability where the council is in a position to change the scenario - for bus networks, for instance, councils can do a lot with planning rules and indeed subsidies to make them optimal for residents. But for deciding the relative priority of cancer wards vs Alzheimer wards? Hmm.
    Councils should have an input, particularly if Health and Social Care integrate more.

    In other health news: the Tories have ditched the #safestaffing guidance recommended by the Francis report into Stafford. Pounds rather than patients methinks:

    https://twitter.com/WelshGasDoc/status/607493059618717696?s=02

    And astonishingly the deluded astrology believer David Tredinnick has been nominated for the Chair of the Health Select Committee!

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/spectator-surgery/2015/06/roll-of-shame-mps-who-back-homeopathy-fan-david-tredinnick-for-chair-of-commons-health-committee/
    Tredinnick !

    Are they taking the piss lol ?
    http://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nhs-england-asks-nice-to-suspend-safe-staffing-programme
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    NickPalmer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
    In my semi-detached mode, I'm not convinced by all this zeal for local accountability that my colleagues are showing. Why would a local board of councillors be especially good at running the NHS in their area?

    One wants accountability where the council is in a position to change the scenario - for bus networks, for instance, councils can do a lot with planning rules and indeed subsidies to make them optimal for residents. But for deciding the relative priority of cancer wards vs Alzheimer wards? Hmm.
    Councils should have an input, particularly if Health and Social Care integrate more.

    In other health news: the Tories have ditched the #safestaffing guidance recommended by the Francis report into Stafford. Pounds rather than patients methinks:

    https://twitter.com/WelshGasDoc/status/607493059618717696?s=02

    And astonishingly the deluded astrology believer David Tredinnick has been nominated for the Chair of the Health Select Committee!

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/spectator-surgery/2015/06/roll-of-shame-mps-who-back-homeopathy-fan-david-tredinnick-for-chair-of-commons-health-committee/
    Tredinnick !

    Are they taking the piss lol ?
    Unfortunately it seems not. It looks more like a putsch to get Dr Wollaston out of the Chair. She is just a little too good at grilling ministers.
    Surely there's no chance Tredinnick is going to win! It's a cross-party vote.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709
    NickPalmer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    John Mann didn't appreciate today's PLP hustings

    "The Labour leadership hustings were decisive in as much as several candidates showed they were out of their depth and comfort zone"

    "The biggest disappointments today were Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Neither had much to say at all. Cameron would have easily handled both."

    "Jeremy Corbyn politely took Kendall and Burnham apart on their desire to regionalise the NHS under councillor control"

    Burnham and Kendall have done a lot of work on democratising CCG's and local Health and Wellbeing boards in their roles as shadow Health and shadow Social Care. The plans are a much needed injection of local electoral accountability to these boards which otherwise risk being self appointed oligarchies.

    Incidentally Burnham and Kendall seem to get on well together personally in these roles and neither seems far from the other politically. If Burnham wins then I can see Liz in a major Shadow cabinet position.
    In my semi-detached mode, I'm not convinced by all this zeal for local accountability that my colleagues are showing. Why would a local board of councillors be especially good at running the NHS in their area?

    One wants accountability where the council is in a position to change the scenario - for bus networks, for instance, councils can do a lot with planning rules and indeed subsidies to make them optimal for residents. But for deciding the relative priority of cancer wards vs Alzheimer wards? Hmm.
    I think this is basically an accountability problem. If you put someone elected in charge of something the voters need to know which elected person is in charge of it. It's OK to give someone who doesn't know much of something ultimate control of it: they're free to delegate that to someone who does know and get better results.

    The problem is that it's not clear the voters are capable of keeping more than a single layer of government in their heads at any given time, in which case it might even be better to drop local elections altogether and just let the central government run everything.

    A good piece on localism in practice in the US, including how voters vote almost locally entirely on national party brands:
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/ferguson-worst-governments.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Holliston seems to be an excellent choice

    Replacing her with Treddinick would be an error
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    "The point I’m making is that at this stage even with party members it is the most well-known at the time who will be topping the polling.

    Once the campaign has started and the ballots go out then you can get a totally different picture.

    As we all know in 2005 Ken Clarke did not make it to the final two and the uptil then relatively unknown David Cameron had an easy victory over David Davis."

    All very sound points Mike, but the most recent Conservative Leadership contest you have flagged up also happened in the shadow of three consecutive GE defeats that saw the Conservative party fail to breach level of 200 MP's. This Labour Leadership contest is going to come down to two choices, a continued denial of why Labour lost again under Ed Miliband, or a clear acceptance of why the Conservatives won under Cameron.
  • secarsuworsecarsuwor Posts: 6
    Thanks for this info bro
    agen poker | game poker
This discussion has been closed.