Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
You think they've deliberately picked someone to troll the working class?!
Not all mainstream people like to see those not born into wealth downtrodden... It might backfire
Not *someone*. But I could see them being cute with their campaign message.
'Don't be a Loony, fruit cake or closet racist - vote REMAIN'
They are surely certainties to highlight the 'in' part of 'remain'?
Re Rose, he's a very effective media head - he cuts right through the bullshit, unless it's his bullshit - my heart sank a notch when I discovered he was leading Remain.
I think he can come across as rather too harsh/dismissive which may put some off, but I think he's going to hold Lawson's feet to the fire. We need someone better running Leave IMO.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
What is so devastating for Labour under Corbyn is the Tories won't need to resort to anything other than a straight vanilla retelling of Corbyn's past - and of his current juvenile antics on the Privy Council for example.
He is the most noxious form of voter repellent ever put on the market. Imagine John Redwood simmering on a low heat for a month. We are talking THAT level of concentrated voter repellent....
Bit unfair to John Redwood. He's a respected academic with his head screwed on.
Redwood is a brilliantly forensic politician - but one who should be kept in a locked trunk in the basement. He just comes across so very badly when in contact with the public.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
Generally I'd agree, but there is a flaw in your comparison with IDS. I don't recall huge waves of enthusiasm for him in the Tory membership as has been the case with Jezwecan. They were given two candidates to choose from - Clarke and IDS. They definitely didn't want Ken because of EU issues.
Actually in the Eurosceptic right of the party there was a lot of enthusiasm for the fact they finally had a Maastricht rebel at the top of the party.
Whoever takes over at Labour has got to be a new kid..no old failures..like the ones who surround Corbyn now..it is surely the Shadow Cabinet of the useless...If the moment is not seized soon then it will have spun off into history and Labour as a political force will die. Listening to the likes of Mandy and the old school labourites is a total waste of time..They are complete losers...mainly because they allowed the travesty that is Corbyn to take over.. A completely new party is needed and quickly.
That is by no means imposssible.. an alliancewith the LD'ss into a new centrist SDP. I strongly feel that a Corbyn type Govt will never be elected in the UK.
An alternative may be to simply resign the whip and form a new parliamentary grouping, a sort of Labour in Exile. They could make the point they will rejoin when Labour comes to its senses. If enough MPs did it, they woud become the new Official Opposition.
"Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband."
By-elections in the last parliament
Rochester and Strood Resignation of Mark Reckless 30.09.14 20 November 2014 Mark Reckless (UK Independence Party Win)
Heywood and Middleton Death of Jim Dobbin 07.09.14 9 October 2014 Liz McInnes (Labour Hold)
Clacton Resignation of Douglas Carswell 29.08.14 9 October 2014 Douglas Carswell (UK Independence Party Win)
Newark Resignation of Patrick Mercer 30.04.14 5 June 2014 Robert Jenrick (Conservative Win)
Wythenshawe and Sale East Death of Paul Goggins 07.01.14 13 February 2014 Michael Kane (Labour Hold)
South Shields Resignation of David Miliband15.04.13 2 May 2013 Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour Hold)
Eastleigh Resignation of Chris Huhne 05.02.13 28 February 2013 Mike Thornton (Lib Dem Hold)
Mid-Ulster Resignation of Martin McGuiness 02.01.13 7 March 2013 Francie Molloy (Sinn Fein Hold)
Rotherham Resignation of Rt Hon Denis MacShane 05.11.12 29 November 2012 Sarah Champion (Labour Hold)
Manchester Central Resignation of Tony Lloyd 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Lucy Powell (Labour Hold)
Cardiff South and Penarth Resignation of Rt Hon Alun Michael 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-op Hold)
Middlesbrough Death of Sir Stuart Bell 13.10.12 29 November 2012 Andy McDonald (Labour Hold)
Croydon North Death of Malcolm Wicks 29.09.12 29 November 2012 Steve Reed (Labour Hold)
Corby Resignation of Louise Mensch 29.08.12 15 November 2012 Andy Sawford (Labour/Co-op Win)
Bradford West Resignation of Marsha Singh 02.03.12 29 March 2012 George Galloway (Respect Win)
Feltham and Heston Death of Alan Keen 14.11.11 15 December 2011 Seema Malhotra (Labour Hold)
Inverclyde Death of David Cairns 09.05.11 30 June 2011 Iain McKenzie (Labour Hold)
Leicester South Resignation of Sir Peter Soulsby 01.04.11 5 May 2011 Jon Ashworth (Labour hold)
Barnsley Central Resignation of Eric Illsley 08.02.11 3 March 2011 Dan Jarvis (Labour hold)
Belfast West Resignation of Mr Gerry Adams26.01.11 9 June 2011Paul Maskey (Sinn Fein Hold)
Oldham East and Saddleworth Previous election declared void 05.11.10 13 January 2011 Debbie Abrahams (Labour hold)
They're all a bit no-change, aren't they? Anyway, Bradford was a disaster, Newark probably a warning of what was to come, Eastleigh possible the same - you'd have expected a stronger challenge from Labour - but the rest are ... pretty unspectacular.
After 2012, Labour were regularly losing vote share, which the Opposition shouldn't be.
Tories under Hague did terribly in by-elections in the 1997-2001 parliament too
It was compensated for by the air battle during the election, backed with vast amounts of money, but the party in the country is slowly dying, and Labour now have three times the ground troops. Possible more.
Crumbs not more talk of the ground war and how many divisions each side has to fight it. I thought we had done with that after the last GE.
People who talk about the number of activists they can call on for the ground war really remind me of the Franco-English armies in 1940 - we have a bigger army, we have more and better tanks, we have more aeroplanes. They were quite correct. However, as the Germans demonstrated its not what you have got that counts but where it is and how you use it.
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
They have won seats in predominantly Tory heartlands, this prefectly reflects what I've said.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
They took a seat of the SNP. They ain't dead yet!
Last year I accurately called Peak Kipper after the Euroelections. I think that we may well already have seen peak SNPper.
By what measure do you say the euro elections were 'peak kipper'?
At the time we had 3% of the vote and no MPs... Both are higher now
The polling at that time was not the highest it ever got to either
Nothing personal, please let's not have a petty argument, but just wondered how you came to that conclusion
And have you got a paddy power account?
The Kippers came top in that election, and their voteshare has declined since. They failed to get any seats at the GE (except the semi-detached Carswell on a much diminished majority). The Tories have now shot their fox with tbe euro-ref.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
BTW: I do have a PP account. Why do you ask?
LOL, considering they have almost 100% of the seats , a one year old could forecast that.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
IDS won 60% vs Ken Clark, a Europhile. Had one MP switched from IDS to Portillo then Portillo would have won with 60% of the vote. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the Tory leadership election and the Labour one. IDS wasn't as bad a Corbyn either.
Complete rubbish. Even Portillo's camp admitted their polling of party members had Portillo trailing IDS by a significant margin, indeed it is perfectly possible IDS could have beaten Portillo by a wider margin than he beat Clarke. The Tories under IDS polled 29% in his first poll as leader, Labour under Corbyn polled 30%, so the comparison stands http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
After 2012, Labour were regularly losing vote share, which the Opposition shouldn't be.
I agree, but they had no disastrous or awful results that would have precipitated action. Newark should have been alarm bells, and I'd be interested to go back and see how Labour types spun that, given what we know now.
They could all be spun on the basis that UKIP were getting protest votes.
But by-elections were really saying the same thing as opinion polls, as the second half of the Parliament wore on. Unhappy voters were switching to UKIP, not Labour. But Labour thought they only needed to win 34% of the vote, to be back in government.
... but nothing *awful*. They comfortably held a bunch of seats in the north, on low turn out. No-one is going to kick anyone out for that.
Nothing on the level of, say, losing Crewe (held since its inception) or shedding over half your vote in Norwich North.
And even that saw no/little movement at the top of the party.
"Tories under Hague did terribly in by-elections in the 1997-2001 parliament too"
So, in that parliament, there was a by-election where Conservatives lost a seat they'd held in 1997 with 46%. Other than Bradford, was there anything comparable to that?
No.
The results they got were solid enough to be a comfort blanket and what danger signs there were, were firmly ignored.
FTR, I am not complaining. You've got to applaud complacency on that scale.
The dead sheep finally got him. Strange to lose both the originator of that quote and its object in quick succession. RIP.
Yes, sad to see two titans of UK politics die on two subsequent weekends. Though perhaps Howe was waiting to outlive Healey so he could have the last laugh re that quote (though as he was 88, Healey who was 98 outlived him by ten years)
It was compensated for by the air battle during the election, backed with vast amounts of money, but the party in the country is slowly dying, and Labour now have three times the ground troops. Possible more.
Crumbs not more talk of the ground war and how many divisions each side has to fight it. I thought we had done with that after the last GE.
People who talk about the number of activists they can call on for the ground war really remind me of the Franco-English armies in 1940 - we have a bigger army, we have more and better tanks, we have more aeroplanes. They were quite correct. However, as the Germans demonstrated its not what you have got that counts but where it is and how you use it.
HYFUD So Benns purpose would be to lose..hmm.. just what Labour needs..What Benn needs to do is get out of the effin way..let a potential winner in there..I can just see that slogan. Vote for Benn..he wants to lose..
Yes, as I believe I said right at the start of this nonsense, there is not a credible outcome to it all that does not involve a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
There is no credible alternative to Labour as an opposition. Corbyn is clearly concentrating on control of the mechanisms by which the Labour Party is run (ironically mechanisms intentionally designed to stop the Hard Left having influence on the party but apparently completely failing to consider that the Hard Left could end up in control of those mechanisms).
The mandate he achieved makes it impossible for him to be ousted. The only way for the moderate wing of Labour to deal with this is to form a New SDP and they would be much better doing so while they still have a reasonable Parliamentary representation.
It is surely possible that a New SDP could become the official opposition from the start given the likely numbers. But unless they move soon they will be faced with elections in 2020 which will remove a great many of the anti-Corbynites from holding seats and the Hard Left begin to dominate the PLP.
There is a credible alternative, it just isn't very likely currently. But then if someone had gone to Ladbrokes 24 months ago and said that in two year's time the Tories would have an absolute majority in Parliament, the Lib Dems would have 8 MPs, the SNP 56 (elected) and Jeremy Corbyn would be leader of the Opposition - what fair odds would have been given for that? The unlikely can come to pass.
The credible alternative is that the Labour Party loses political support which coalesces around an alternative, probably the Lib Dems. Over a couple of years the Lib Dems gradually rise until like a phoenix from the flames they're suddenly polling in the high teens, then the twenties. Meanwhile Labour have drifted down out of the thirties and down the twenties then there's talk of a crossover between the Lib Dems and Labour. At that point even if they only have 8 MPs the polls putting them in touching distance of Labour makes them a credible alternative - defections at this stage may occur both by Labour MPs and Labour voters.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
I really do think that is 'pie in the sky'. People looking for an anti-Tory alternative are not going to switch to a party that so recently was happy to prop them up for five years. The LibDems will not cease to be seen as Torylite by left of centre voters this side of 2050.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
You think they've deliberately picked someone to troll the working class?!
Not all mainstream people like to see those not born into wealth downtrodden... It might backfire
No. But if LEAVE's message is at heart "vote OUT to throw the w**s out" then it makes a nonsense of all OUT's "open, internationalist" claims
It was compensated for by the air battle during the election, backed with vast amounts of money, but the party in the country is slowly dying, and Labour now have three times the ground troops. Possible more.
Crumbs not more talk of the ground war and how many divisions each side has to fight it. I thought we had done with that after the last GE.
People who talk about the number of activists they can call on for the ground war really remind me of the Franco-English armies in 1940 - we have a bigger army, we have more and better tanks, we have more aeroplanes. They were quite correct. However, as the Germans demonstrated its not what you have got that counts but where it is and how you use it.
ONE GAZILLION CONVERSATIONS
And still all ending in the same sentence - "I won't be voting for you this time".
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
I don't think LEAVE need to be encouraged to focus on immigration: they're pefectly capable of doing it for themselves unasked
"...You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to..."
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
Generally I'd agree, but there is a flaw in your comparison with IDS. I don't recall huge waves of enthusiasm for him in the Tory membership as has been the case with Jezwecan. They were given two candidates to choose from - Clarke and IDS. They definitely didn't want Ken because of EU issues.
A loopy lefty candidate could not get the necessary noninations. How could the PLP arrange a coronation to by pass their selectorat? Corbyn will stay and if their is a palace coup then the membership will revolt. Civil War.
Yes, as I believe I said right at the start of this nonsense, there is not a credible outcome to it all that does not involve a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
There is no credible alternative to Labour as an opposition. Corbyn is clearly concentrating on control of the mechanisms by which the Labour Party is run (ironically mechanisms intentionally designed to stop the Hard Left having influence on the party but apparently completely failing to consider that the Hard Left could end up in control of those mechanisms).
The mandate he achieved makes it impossible for him to be ousted. The only way for the moderate wing of Labour to deal with this is to form a New SDP and they would be much better doing so while they still have a reasonable Parliamentary representation.
It is surely possible that a New SDP could become the official opposition from the start given the likely numbers. But unless they move soon they will be faced with elections in 2020 which will remove a great many of the anti-Corbynites from holding seats and the Hard Left begin to dominate the PLP.
There is a credible alternative, it just isn't very likely currently. But then if someone had gone to Ladbrokes 24 months ago and said that in two year's time the Tories would have an absolute majority in Parliament, the Lib Dems would have 8 MPs, the SNP 56 (elected) and Jeremy Corbyn would be leader of the Opposition - what fair odds would have been given for that? The unlikely can come to pass.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
I really do think that is 'pie in the sky'. People looking for an anti-Tory alternative are not going to switch to a party that so recently was happy to prop them up for five years. The LibDems will not cease to be seen as Torylite by left of centre voters this side of 2050.
They may not be looking for an anti-Tory alternative so much as an anti-Corbyn one.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
I don't think LEAVE need to be encouraged to focus on immigration: they're pefectly capable of doing it for themselves unasked
"...You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to..."
Genuine question - Are there any limits to what the EU can 'spend' during the campaign? And how about largesse distributed for cultural/economic projects (bridges/tunnels/festivals)?
Yes, as I believe I said right at the start of this nonsense, there is not a credible outcome to it all that does not involve a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
The mandate he achieved makes it impossible for him to be ousted. The only way for the moderate wing of Labour to deal with this is to form a New SDP and they would be much better doing so while they still have a reasonable Parliamentary representation.
It is surely possible that a New SDP could become the official opposition from the start given the likely numbers. But unless they move soon they will be faced with elections in 2020 which will remove a great many of the anti-Corbynites from holding seats and the Hard Left begin to dominate the PLP.
The credible alternative is that the Labour Party loses political support which coalesces around an alternative, probably the Lib Dems. Over a couple of years the Lib Dems gradually rise until like a phoenix from the flames they're suddenly polling in the high teens, then the twenties. Meanwhile Labour have drifted down out of the thirties and down the twenties then there's talk of a crossover between the Lib Dems and Labour. At that point even if they only have 8 MPs the polls putting them in touching distance of Labour makes them a credible alternative - defections at this stage may occur both by Labour MPs and Labour voters.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
I really do think that is 'pie in the sky'. People looking for an anti-Tory alternative are not going to switch to a party that so recently was happy to prop them up for five years. The LibDems will not cease to be seen as Torylite by left of centre voters this side of 2050.
In Canada in recent decades the main party of the centre left, the Liberals, have been replaced by another party of the left, the NDP, and the main party of the right, the Progressive Conservatives, by another party of the right, Reform, Which could suggest not only could the LDs replace Labour but UKIP the Tories (depending on EU ref). Both are highly unlikely though in my view and in Canada the Tories are now back in power having merged with Reform and the Liberals have revived again under Justin Trudeau and the polls suggest they are not only likely to re-replace the NDP as the main centre left party in the election on October 18th but probably win the election
There is a credible alternative, it just isn't very likely currently. But then if someone had gone to Ladbrokes 24 months ago and said that in two year's time the Tories would have an absolute majority in Parliament, the Lib Dems would have 8 MPs, the SNP 56 (elected) and Jeremy Corbyn would be leader of the Opposition - what fair odds would have been given for that? The unlikely can come to pass.
The credible alternative is that the Labour Party loses political support which coalesces around an alternative, probably the Lib Dems. Over a couple of years the Lib Dems gradually rise until like a phoenix from the flames they're suddenly polling in the high teens, then the twenties. Meanwhile Labour have drifted down out of the thirties and down the twenties then there's talk of a crossover between the Lib Dems and Labour. At that point even if they only have 8 MPs the polls putting them in touching distance of Labour makes them a credible alternative - defections at this stage may occur both by Labour MPs and Labour voters.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
I really do think that is 'pie in the sky'. People looking for an anti-Tory alternative are not going to switch to a party that so recently was happy to prop them up for five years. The LibDems will not cease to be seen as Torylite by left of centre voters this side of 2050.
More plausible to my mind would be a gradual bleed out into a plethora of smaller parties: UKIP, LD, Green, et al would all rise a little bit. I'd be very surprised if the two largest parties after 2020 weren't Lab & Con.
Public spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP since the 1960s.
Labour did not spend too much. Miliband's error was in not providing evidence for the rest of the audience -- rather, he just said "no" as if he were an eminent academic whose lecture had been interrupted by a question from a particularly dim student.
Wasn't spending closer to 50% of GDP by 2010, not 40%?
Most moderate Tories I know are very comfortable in the 35-40% range; it's only the purist who want to get to 35% and below.
And you know most of those who want budget surpluses would be screaming for tax cuts if one ever loomed into view.
Absolutely! Tax cuts combined with a budget surplus will be the best insurance policy against any future crashes. Tax rises combined with a budget deficit is asking for trouble.
But no Tory Govt since World War 2 has bequeathed a Budget surplus to its successor.
HYFUD So Benns purpose would be to lose..hmm.. just what Labour needs..What Benn needs to do is get out of the effin way..let a potential winner in there..I can just see that slogan. Vote for Benn..he wants to lose..
After electing Corbyn Labour have no chance to win in 2020, just as the Tories had no chance to win in 2005 after electing IDS. What they need is an experienced former Cabinet Minister who is acceptable enough to the left while being acceptable to moderates too and also bringing in new blood to the Shadow Cabinet who could be potential leadership candidates after a 2020 defeat, very similar to the role Howard played for the Tories (and of course Cameron and Osborne were Howard's proteges)
Public spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP since the 1960s.
Labour did not spend too much. Miliband's error was in not providing evidence for the rest of the audience -- rather, he just said "no" as if he were an eminent academic whose lecture had been interrupted by a question from a particularly dim student.
Wasn't spending closer to 50% of GDP by 2010, not 40%?
Most moderate Tories I know are very comfortable in the 35-40% range; it's only the purist who want to get to 35% and below.
And you know most of those who want budget surpluses would be screaming for tax cuts if one ever loomed into view.
Absolutely! Tax cuts combined with a budget surplus will be the best insurance policy against any future crashes. Tax rises combined with a budget deficit is asking for trouble.
But no Tory Govt since World War 2 has bequeathed a Budget surplus to its successor.
John Major's pretty much did - Labour simply completed the Conservatives' budget plans to 2001, resulting in a tiny surplus.
Also, the last time the UK had a trade surplus was in 1995/6 as I recall.
Mr. J., Glad I caught you. You asked on here the other day about the failure rate of Western cruise missiles (Tomahawks). I have looked through my notes and see that the rate a few years ago was about 5% (which is why putting Nukes on them as the Lib Dems floated was such a bloody silly idea).
To find how that compares the failure of the Russian missiles we need to know how many were fired. I recall reading that the figure was 24, though I cannot know find that source. If we assume that my memory hasn't failed me and the source was accurate and that 4 crashed in Iran. Well, then the failure rate is about three times that of the Tomahawk.
Thanks for that, Mr L. Yet again the breadth of knowledge hiding on PB is superb.
That's about what I expected: they're complex systems, and the chances of getting every launch to go well given that complexity and the relatively low number of launches is remote. I'd expect the Russian number to be realistic as well.
As an aside, ISTR reading that expected ICBM launch failures in a conflict was at a reasonably alarming percentage as well (although in that case, just one failed launch could be a disaster). The Russians have been having trouble with their latest sub-launched ICBM as well, I think.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
I don't think LEAVE need to be encouraged to focus on immigration: they're pefectly capable of doing it for themselves unasked
"...You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to..."
Genuine question - Are there any limits to what the EU can 'spend' during the campaign? And how about largesse distributed for cultural/economic projects (bridges/tunnels/festivals)?
I have no idea: please don't ask me to look it up...:-) I assume the LEAVEs are working on making it illegal, so that the only legal debate possible will be between Daniel Hannan arguing that we should leave the EU and Bernard Jenkin saying we leave the EU and then bomb it.
It would be hysterically funny to create an organisation specifically to solicit funds from the EU, so that when the leader was arrested the free-speech violation could be pointed out. But I don't think LEAVE do irony.
This article will be seen by Corbyn supporters as just another article disputing his integrity.
With the main head line trying to infer some sort of terrorist thoughts "we only have to be lucky once "
Misquote has always been the tool of politics, and Corbyn will never be able to over come it on here or the MSM. Any so callled hard left or hard right leader , needs more than luck to hold power in the UK with FPTP.
I dispute Nick Palmer's claims that Corbyn has integrity and is honest. His much vaunted claim that he will talk to anyone no matter how much he disagrees with their views is not true, for instance. But as I have said this before on this forum, probably ad nauseam, I will leave it there.
i think we all need to repeat again and again what Corbyn and his inner circle are really like.
HYFUD You are missing the point..right now..today..is the time for a new leader to come forward...forget the old Cabinet members.. they are just too tainted to be acceptable. Labour must take the hit that was ordained for them when they picked EDM..Now they have to take the next hit...it will take time and some courage but hanging on to the remnants of a totally rejected cabinet is most definitely not the answer..every day delayed is a day wasted.
Mr. J., Glad I caught you. You asked on here the other day about the failure rate of Western cruise missiles (Tomahawks). I have looked through my notes and see that the rate a few years ago was about 5% (which is why putting Nukes on them as the Lib Dems floated was such a bloody silly idea).
To find how that compares the failure of the Russian missiles we need to know how many were fired. I recall reading that the figure was 24, though I cannot know find that source. If we assume that my memory hasn't failed me and the source was accurate and that 4 crashed in Iran. Well, then the failure rate is about three times that of the Tomahawk.
Thanks for that, Mr L. Yet again the breadth of knowledge hiding on PB is superb.
That's about what I expected: they're complex systems, and the chances of getting every launch to go well given that complexity and the relatively low number of launches is remote. I'd expect the Russian number to be realistic as well.
As an aside, ISTR reading that expected ICBM launch failures in a conflict was at a reasonably alarming percentage as well (although in that case, just one failed launch could be a disaster). The Russians have been having trouble with their latest sub-launched ICBM as well, I think.
It still tells us all we know that Russia would fire them over two other countries and along the border of a third.
HYFUD You are missing the point..right now..today..is the time for a new leader to come forward...forget the old Cabinet members.. they are just too tainted to be acceptable. Labour must take the hit that was ordained for them when they picked EDM..Now they have to take the next hit...it will take time and some courage but hanging on to the remnants of a totally rejected cabinet is most definitely not the answer..every day delayed is a day wasted.
Today is absolutely not the time for a new leader to come forward, Labour is in turmoil, order has to be restored first and it needs an experienced hand to do so. It would be like the Tories electing Cameron to lead them in October 2003 rather than December 2005, absurd. Cameron would then have lost the 2005 election to Blair
Elspeth who famously and ironically gave up running the Equal Opportunities Commission when her husband joined the government. Both were peers in their own right, as any fan of pub quizzes knows.
HYUFD Benn is useless..and always has been..think IHT on his dads 5 million estate..not a penny paid..he would be mullered...next...
So, what, Howard still lost the 2005 election, Benn's role would not be to win but to save the furniture as Howard did for the Tories
Under Howard the Tories did win over 30 seats in 2005. If Labour managed the same thing under Benn in 2020 - taking them to circa 265 - that would enable Labour to form a minority Government.
Mr. J., Glad I caught you. You asked on here the other day about the failure rate of Western cruise missiles (Tomahawks). I have looked through my notes and see that the rate a few years ago was about 5% (which is why putting Nukes on them as the Lib Dems floated was such a bloody silly idea).
To find how that compares the failure of the Russian missiles we need to know how many were fired. I recall reading that the figure was 24, though I cannot know find that source. If we assume that my memory hasn't failed me and the source was accurate and that 4 crashed in Iran. Well, then the failure rate is about three times that of the Tomahawk.
Thanks for that, Mr L. Yet again the breadth of knowledge hiding on PB is superb.
That's about what I expected: they're complex systems, and the chances of getting every launch to go well given that complexity and the relatively low number of launches is remote. I'd expect the Russian number to be realistic as well.
As an aside, ISTR reading that expected ICBM launch failures in a conflict was at a reasonably alarming percentage as well (although in that case, just one failed launch could be a disaster). The Russians have been having trouble with their latest sub-launched ICBM as well, I think.
You can make missiles reasonably simple. Solid fuel rockets, if cast in one piece (unlike the Shuttle's SRBs, which had to be assembled and - whoops - Challenger) can have very few moving parts and very good unmaintained storage times. You need guidance computers, retrorockets and the warhead itself: if you design a dedicated chip for the guidance it could be tested in the factory and then plugged in before launch.
HYFUD You are making the simple mistake of comparing what the Conservatives did and how Labour should copy them The entire scenario is totally different..Labour will not win in 2020..They would be struggling in 2025. They need a dramatic change if they wish to regain the power they seek which would appear to be at least 10 years away.They must reform..admit the old generals have all been wiped out and pick a new Marshall from the ranks..get rid of the executive that brought them down and completely rebuild.
LBC reported that Cameron and Osborne will resign if they lose the referendum. Lots of potential for tactical voting.
But... But... Dave hasn't ruled anything out!!! How do we know which side they are supporting???
Whichever side he supports if he loses its a no confidence vote by the nation. If he supports remain after a successful renegotiation as he has always said he woild and the nation votes leave then he'd have to go.
Similarly in the unlikely event that he calls the renegotiation a failure and were to support leave if the nation backed remain against his advice then he'd still have to go.
Though he's always said that he expects a successful renegotiation and would back remain then. I don't think anything has changed that.
HYUFD Benn is useless..and always has been..think IHT on his dads 5 million estate..not a penny paid..he would be mullered...next...
So, what, Howard still lost the 2005 election, Benn's role would not be to win but to save the furniture as Howard did for the Tories
Under Howard the Tories did win over 30 seats in 2005. If Labour managed the same thing under Benn in 2020 - taking them to circa 265 - that would enable Labour to form a minority Government.
No they would not, as even if they won 30 seats direct from the Tories the Tories would still be on 300 seats, comfortably the largest party and 35 seats ahead of Labour. Ed Miliband ruled out any deal with the SNP and Benn would do the same
Off topic, is Watson's roasting in the press significant?
He was touted by admiring scribes as 1. the man who REALLY controls labour. 2. the man to succeed when Corbyn stumbles.
He is damaged now, surely.
Electing him as deputy was always going to be dangerous; he's resigned from front-bench roles with Labour twice, and on both occasions for incompetently interfering with internal party politics.
In fact, the troubles Labour find themselves in can, to a large degree, be placed at his door. He led to the successful Blair being dethroned in favour of the incompetent Brown; and then he was firmly involved with the Falkirk scandal, which played a large part in Labour's Scottish demolition.
Yet Labour seem to think he will be a good deputy leader ...
Perhaps they thought he was the best of all the choices available?
You seem to be guided by large degree of personal respect for Corbyn. Is that correct?
Quite a bit. There are left-wingers who I wouldn't have dreamed of supporting for leader or anything else - Scargill, for instance. Corbyn's personal style of ascetic, polite idealism is one that I've always aspired to adopt myself, though I'm not as consistent at it as he has been. I really dislike the culture of pragmatic anything-goes mud-slinging which British politics and our media sometimes embody.
HYFUD You are making the simple mistake of comparing what the Conservatives did and how Labour should copy them The entire scenario is totally different..Labour will not win in 2020..They would be struggling in 2025. They need a dramatic change if they wish to regain the power they seek which would appear to be at least 10 years away.They must reform..admit the old generals have all been wiped out and pick a new Marshall from the ranks..get rid of the executive that brought them down and completely rebuild.
No, the comparison is very similar. Labour won 30% in 2015 and the Tories 31% in 2001 (and Ed Miliband actually made more gains in England than Hague did and more seats across the UK). The Tories were not going to get in after 2001 for a decade and the same is likely true of Labour. The Tories only restored order in 2005 and made a slight recovery under Michael Howard, a Cabinet Minister in Margaret Thatcher and John Major's government, Hilary Benn was a Cabinet Minister under Blair and Brown
HYFUD.. Unless Labour have a complete clean out then they will cease to exist as the opposition party and soon follow the Lib Dems. All you are suggesting is simply more circling of the waggons...it is not and will not work....
I've noticed a slight change in the Corbyn supporters I talk to; they seem to have retreated to "it might not be so bad" positions.
Initially, it was "He's a breath of fresh air who tells it like it is." Now it's more like ... "He's a new broom who will straighten things out and leave it to a new man to win the election."
HYFUD.. Unless Labour have a complete clean out then they will cease to exist as the opposition party and soon follow the Lib Dems. All you are suggesting is simply more circling of the waggons...it is not and will not work....
Rubbish. Who is going to replace them? The LDs have been virtually wiped out and UKIP are a right-wing not leftwing party. Even in their worst defeats Labour like the Tories get a third of the votes as their brand is too strong for complete wipeout
HYUFD Benn is useless..and always has been..think IHT on his dads 5 million estate..not a penny paid..he would be mullered...next...
So, what, Howard still lost the 2005 election, Benn's role would not be to win but to save the furniture as Howard did for the Tories
Under Howard the Tories did win over 30 seats in 2005. If Labour managed the same thing under Benn in 2020 - taking them to circa 265 - that would enable Labour to form a minority Government.
No they would not, as even if they won 30 seats direct from the Tories the Tories would still be on 300 seats, comfortably the largest party and 35 seats ahead of Labour. Ed Miliband ruled out any deal with the SNP and Benn would do the same
There would be no formal deal but there is no way that Labour + SNP +Plaid +Green +SDLP would allow the Tories to remain in office if collectively they had the numbers to vote them out. In a 650 House of Commons 300 seats would not be enough for the Tories to get a Queens Speech approved. Who beyond Ulster MPs and UKIP would support them? I doubt somehow that the LibDems would be interested!
HYUFD Benn is useless..and always has been..think IHT on his dads 5 million estate..not a penny paid..he would be mullered...next...
So, what, Howard still lost the 2005 election, Benn's role would not be to win but to save the furniture as Howard did for the Tories
Under Howard the Tories did win over 30 seats in 2005. If Labour managed the same thing under Benn in 2020 - taking them to circa 265 - that would enable Labour to form a minority Government.
No they would not, as even if they won 30 seats direct from the Tories the Tories would still be on 300 seats, comfortably the largest party and 35 seats ahead of Labour. Ed Miliband ruled out any deal with the SNP and Benn would do the same
There would be no formal deal but there is no way that Labour + SNP +Plaid +Green +SDLP would allow the Tories to remain in office if collectively they had the numbers to vote them out. In a 650 House of Commons 300 seats would not be enough for the Tories to get a Queens Speech approved. Who beyond Ulster MPs and UKIP would support them? I doubt somehow that the LibDems would be interested!
There is no way that Labour would do any deal or even contemplate a deal with the SNP and if they did England would produce another Tory majority. The LDs would again back the largest party in a vote of confidence so Tory plus LD plus DUP plus UKIP would likely be more than Labour plus the Greens and nationalists anyway
HYUFD Benn is useless..and always has been..think IHT on his dads 5 million estate..not a penny paid..he would be mullered...next...
So, what, Howard still lost the 2005 election, Benn's role would not be to win but to save the furniture as Howard did for the Tories
Under Howard the Tories did win over 30 seats in 2005. If Labour managed the same thing under Benn in 2020 - taking them to circa 265 - that would enable Labour to form a minority Government.
No they would not, as even if they won 30 seats direct from the Tories the Tories would still be on 300 seats, comfortably the largest party and 35 seats ahead of Labour. Ed Miliband ruled out any deal with the SNP and Benn would do the same
There would be no formal deal but there is no way that Labour + SNP +Plaid +Green +SDLP would allow the Tories to remain in office if collectively they had the numbers to vote them out. In a 650 House of Commons 300 seats would not be enough for the Tories to get a Queens Speech approved. Who beyond Ulster MPs and UKIP would support them? I doubt somehow that the LibDems would be interested!
There is no way that Labour would do any deal or even contemplate a deal with the SNP and if they did England would produce another Tory majority. The LDs would again back the largest party in a vote of confidence so Tory plus LD plus DUP plus UKIP would likely be more than Labour plus the Greens and nationalists anyway
I disagree with you here. I accept there would be no 'deal' with the SNP - but there would be no need for one. The SNP would still combine with Labour , Plaid , SDLP and any Green to vote against the Tories on a Queens Speech. On the basis of Labour having 265 and the SNP 50 such a combination would be at least 322. I am also not persuaded that the LibDems would continue anyway with the Clegg line of supporting the largest party - that was not really Ashdown's line at the 1992 election. Strongly suspect they would not wish to touch the Tories with a bargepole following their 2015 experience and would seize any opportunity to distance themselves.
HYUFD Benn is useless..and always has been..think IHT on his dads 5 million estate..not a penny paid..he would be mullered...next...
So, what, Howard still lost the 2005 election, Benn's role would not be to win but to save the furniture as Howard did for the Tories
Under Howard the Tories did win over 30 seats in 2005. If Labour managed the same thing under Benn in 2020 - taking them to circa 265 - that would enable Labour to form a minority Government.
No they would not, as even if they won 30 seats direct from the Tories the Tories would still be on 300 seats, comfortably the largest party and 35 seats ahead of Labour. Ed Miliband ruled out any deal with the SNP and Benn would do the same
There would be no formal deal but there is no way that Labour + SNP +Plaid +Green +SDLP would allow the Tories to remain in office if collectively they had the numbers to vote them out. In a 650 House of Commons 300 seats would not be enough for the Tories to get a Queens Speech approved. Who beyond Ulster MPs and UKIP would support them? I doubt somehow that the LibDems would be interested!
There is no way that Labour would do any deal or even contemplate a deal with the SNP and if they did England would produce another Tory majority. The LDs would again back the largest party in a vote of confidence so Tory plus LD plus DUP plus UKIP would likely be more than Labour plus the Greens and nationalists anyway
I disagree with you here. I accept there would be no 'deal' with the SNP - but there would be no need for one. The SNP would still combine with Labour , Plaid , SDLP and any Green to vote against the Tories on a Queens Speech. On the basis of Labour having 265 and the SNP 50 such a combination would be at least 322. I am also not persuaded that the LibDems would continue anyway with the Clegg line of supporting the largest party - that was not really Ashdown's line at the 1992 election. Strongly suspect they would not wish to touch the Tories with a bargepole following their 2015 experience and would seize any opportunity to distance themselves.
You are ignoring the boundary changes which would give the Tories a further net 20 seats so they would still likely be ahead of Labour and the nationalists if you add the DUP and UKIP. The LDs would not go into Coalition again with the Tories but would still likely back the largest party on a confidence vote. You also ignored the point England would likely again give the Tories a majority if it looked like a hung parliament and the SNP potentially propping up Labour
HYUFD Benn is useless..and always has been..think IHT on his dads 5 million estate..not a penny paid..he would be mullered...next...
No they would not, as even if they won 30 seats direct from the Tories the Tories would still be on 300 seats, comfortably the largest party and 35 seats ahead of Labour. Ed Miliband ruled out any deal with the SNP and Benn would do the same
There would be no formal deal but there is no way that Labour + SNP +Plaid +Green +SDLP would allow the Tories to remain in office if collectively they had the numbers to vote them out. In a 650 House of Commons 300 seats would not be enough for the Tories to get a Queens Speech approved. Who beyond Ulster MPs and UKIP would support them? I doubt somehow that the LibDems would be interested!
There is no way that Labour would do any deal or even contemplate a deal with the SNP and if they did England would produce another Tory majority. The LDs would again back the largest party in a vote of confidence so Tory plus LD plus DUP plus UKIP would likely be more than Labour plus the Greens and nationalists anyway
I disagree with you here. I accept there would be no 'deal' with the SNP - but there would be no need for one. The SNP would still combine with Labour , Plaid , SDLP and any Green to vote against the Tories on a Queens Speech. On the basis of Labour having 265 and the SNP 50 such a combination would be at least 322. I am also not persuaded that the LibDems would continue anyway with the Clegg line of supporting the largest party - that was not really Ashdown's line at the 1992 election. Strongly suspect they would not wish to touch the Tories with a bargepole following their 2015 experience and would seize any opportunity to distance themselves.
You are ignoring the boundary changes which would give the Tories a further net 20 seats so they would still likely be ahead of Labour and the nationalists if you add the DUP and UKIP. The LDs would not go into Coalition again with the Tories but would still likely back the largest party on a confidence vote. You also ignored the point England would likely again give the Tories a majority if it looked like a hung parliament and the SNP potentially propping up Labour
If Labour emerges with circa 265 seats it follows that England would have given the Tories a majority - but not sufficient in the context of GB as a whole. Despite the SNP scare campaign Labour did not do THAT badly In England in 2015 - better than in 2010 - 1992- 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959! Labour's collapse in Scotland has rather skewed perceptions.
If Labour emerges with circa 265 seats it follows that England would have given the Tories a majority - but not sufficient in the context of GB as a whole. Despite the SNP scare campaign Labour did not do THAT badly In England in 2015 - better than in 2010 - 1992- 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959! Labour's collapse in Scotland has rather skewed perceptions.
If Labour emerges with circa 265 seats it follows that England would have given the Tories a majority - but not sufficient in the context of GB as a whole. Despite the SNP scare campaign Labour did not do THAT badly In England in 2015 - better than in 2010 - 1992- 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959! Labour's collapse in Scotland has rather skewed perceptions.
Indeed, but Labour is still miles from a majority across the UK let alone England. When Labour return to power it will surely have to be having won a majority UK-wide, not trying to sneek in through the backdoor having come behind the Tories and reliant on the SNP. Chuka Umunna in 2025 is therefore more likely to be the next Labour PM, not Hilary Benn in 2020 (and certainly not Jeremy Corbyn)
If Labour emerges with circa 265 seats it follows that England would have given the Tories a majority - but not sufficient in the context of GB as a whole. Despite the SNP scare campaign Labour did not do THAT badly In England in 2015 - better than in 2010 - 1992- 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959! Labour's collapse in Scotland has rather skewed perceptions.
Indeed, but Labour is still miles from a majority across the UK let alone England. When Labour return to power it will surely have to be having won a majority UK-wide, not trying to sneek in through the backdoor having come behind the Tories and reliant on the SNP. Chuka Umunna in 2025 is therefore more likely to be the next Labour PM, not Hilary Benn in 2020 (and certainly not Jeremy Corbyn)
If the backdoor is the only route available it will be used! There is no requirement that Labour has to get a majority in order to return to office - nor that it has to at least become the largest party. To return to 1992 had Labour managed circa 285 with Tories on circa 310 , I believe Kinnock and Ashdown would have come to an arrangement.
If Labour emerges with circa 265 seats it follows that England would have given the Tories a majority - but not sufficient in the context of GB as a whole. Despite the SNP scare campaign Labour did not do THAT badly In England in 2015 - better than in 2010 - 1992- 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959! Labour's collapse in Scotland has rather skewed perceptions.
Indeed, but Labour is still miles from a majority across the UK let alone England. When Labour return to power it will surely have to be having won a majority UK-wide, not trying to sneek in through the backdoor having come behind the Tories and reliant on the SNP. Chuka Umunna in 2025 is therefore more likely to be the next Labour PM, not Hilary Benn in 2020 (and certainly not Jeremy Corbyn)
If the backdoor is the only route available it will be used! There is no requirement that Labour has to get a majority in order to return to office - nor that it has to at least become the largest party. To return to 1992 had Labour managed circa 285 with Tories on circa 310 , I believe Kinnock and Ashdown would have come to an arrangement.
In 1992 the LDs won 20 seats, so that would have still left Labour and the LDs short. As I also pointed out if there is any prospect of a hung parliament and Labour-SNP deal the Tories will get a clear enough majority outside Scotland to stop it
If Labour emerges with circa 265 seats it follows that England would have given the Tories a majority - but not sufficient in the context of GB as a whole. Despite the SNP scare campaign Labour did not do THAT badly In England in 2015 - better than in 2010 - 1992- 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959! Labour's collapse in Scotland has rather skewed perceptions.
Indeed, but Labour is still miles from a majority across the UK let alone England. When Labour return to power it will surely have to be having won a majority UK-wide, not trying to sneek in through the backdoor having come behind the Tories and reliant on the SNP. Chuka Umunna in 2025 is therefore more likely to be the next Labour PM, not Hilary Benn in 2020 (and certainly not Jeremy Corbyn)
If the backdoor is the only route available it will be used! There is no requirement that Labour has to get a majority in order to return to office - nor that it has to at least become the largest party. To return to 1992 had Labour managed circa 285 with Tories on circa 310 , I believe Kinnock and Ashdown would have come to an arrangement.
In 1992 the LDs won 20 seats, so that would have still left Labour and the LDs short. As I also pointed out if there is any prospect of a hung parliament and Labour-SNP deal the Tories will get a clear enough majority outside Scotland to stop it
There won't be a deal - but that will not prevent the SNP voting against a Tory Government just as they are doing at present!
If Labour emerges with circa 265 seats it follows that England would have given the Tories a majority - but not sufficient in the context of GB as a whole. Despite the SNP scare campaign Labour did not do THAT badly In England in 2015 - better than in 2010 - 1992- 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959! Labour's collapse in Scotland has rather skewed perceptions.
Indeed, but Labour is still miles from a majority across the UK let alone England. When Labour return to power it will surely have to be having won a majority UK-wide, not trying to sneek in through the backdoor having come behind the Tories and reliant on the SNP. Chuka Umunna in 2025 is therefore more likely to be the next Labour PM, not Hilary Benn in 2020 (and certainly not Jeremy Corbyn)
If the backdoor is the only route available it will be used! There is no requirement that Labour has to get a majority in order to return to office - nor that it has to at least become the largest party. To return to 1992 had Labour managed circa 285 with Tories on circa 310 , I believe Kinnock and Ashdown would have come to an arrangement.
In 1992 the LDs won 20 seats, so that would have still left Labour and the LDs short. As I also pointed out if there is any prospect of a hung parliament and Labour-SNP deal the Tories will get a clear enough majority outside Scotland to stop it
There won't be a deal - but that will not prevent the SNP voting against a Tory Government just as they are doing at present!
Indeed but rather irrelevant if the Tories have a majority
Comments
They are surely certainties to highlight the 'in' part of 'remain'?
I think he can come across as rather too harsh/dismissive which may put some off, but I think he's going to hold Lawson's feet to the fire. We need someone better running Leave IMO.
People who talk about the number of activists they can call on for the ground war really remind me of the Franco-English armies in 1940 - we have a bigger army, we have more and better tanks, we have more aeroplanes. They were quite correct. However, as the Germans demonstrated its not what you have got that counts but where it is and how you use it.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
Nothing on the level of, say, losing Crewe (held since its inception) or shedding over half your vote in Norwich North.
And even that saw no/little movement at the top of the party.
"Tories under Hague did terribly in by-elections in the 1997-2001 parliament too"
So, in that parliament, there was a by-election where Conservatives lost a seat they'd held in 1997 with 46%. Other than Bradford, was there anything comparable to that?
No.
The results they got were solid enough to be a comfort blanket and what danger signs there were, were firmly ignored.
FTR, I am not complaining. You've got to applaud complacency on that scale.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34495827
"...You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to..."
Also, the last time the UK had a trade surplus was in 1995/6 as I recall.
That's about what I expected: they're complex systems, and the chances of getting every launch to go well given that complexity and the relatively low number of launches is remote. I'd expect the Russian number to be realistic as well.
As an aside, ISTR reading that expected ICBM launch failures in a conflict was at a reasonably alarming percentage as well (although in that case, just one failed launch could be a disaster). The Russians have been having trouble with their latest sub-launched ICBM as well, I think.
It would be hysterically funny to create an organisation specifically to solicit funds from the EU, so that when the leader was arrested the free-speech violation could be pointed out. But I don't think LEAVE do irony.
After all, it worked for new Labour :-)
Labour must take the hit that was ordained for them when they picked EDM..Now they have to take the next hit...it will take time and some courage but hanging on to the remnants of a totally rejected cabinet is most definitely not the answer..every day delayed is a day wasted.
Sorry, I'm banging on. Back to work now...
Similarly in the unlikely event that he calls the renegotiation a failure and were to support leave if the nation backed remain against his advice then he'd still have to go.
Though he's always said that he expects a successful renegotiation and would back remain then. I don't think anything has changed that.
Shudder
Initially, it was "He's a breath of fresh air who tells it like it is." Now it's more like ... "He's a new broom who will straighten things out and leave it to a new man to win the election."
Full marks for optimism but a fail for realism.
new thread
Farewell my Continental friends https://t.co/Igi25yOk0w
Cousin marriages (second-degree or closer) in the world
- http://t.co/TUWpflWqk7