Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
Moonraker - 'Carry On Bond'. The best. It's all been downhill ever since.
Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
If you are happy with a bit of extreme movie violence (not gritty type violence) at the same time as the latter, then I would suggest Kingsman as a spiritual successor. Most fun I've had at a movie in years, and quite the surprise.
Whtaever has happened to MrsB? She used to be sensible.
Well going from having 57 MPs and being in government to 8 MPs and relegated behind the DUP and The People's Front for Judea isn't going to leave you angry and upset.
Still Labour don't care. Their MPs think white people play divide and rule, should be discriminated against with ethnic quotes, and that discussion of men's issues should be sniggered at.
The biggest disappointed of SPECTRE was the little screen time Monica B had
Good morning all. We (me and my 22 year old) saw Spectre yesterday. It was a little like a Pixar film; plenty for the youngsters to enjoy, and we oldies could smile knowingly at all the winks and nods to the Bond movies of the sixties.
That said, Sicario is still my favourite film of the year, more due to its noirish feel than minor details like plot etc .
Crimson Peak was the prettiest terrible film I've seen in years, though Jessica Chastain is watchable in almost anything.
Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
Moonraker - 'Carry On Bond'. The best. It's all been downhill ever since.
For some of us, that's precisely what's wrong with it!
Although ironically, Moonraker is one of the best books (with a completely different story).
The LDs decided to halt the process of boundary reform when they had power, for purely partisan reasons. They can't really complain now that the same reforms are being brought forward by the elected majority government.
Still Labour don't care. Their MPs think white people play divide and rule, should be discriminated against with ethnic quotes, and that discussion of men's issues should be sniggered at.
Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
If you are happy with a bit of extreme movie violence (not gritty type violence) at the same time as the latter, then I would suggest Kingsman as a spiritual successor. Most fun I've had at a movie in years, and quite the surprise.
Theoretically yes - but I can't stand the bloke from Bridget Jones that stars in Kingsman..
On topic: For once I think Don has written an interesting article. He's right to be puzzled as to why Frank Field and others are making a stand on dekulakization now, when the real action won't start until the boundary review is done.
Well, Frank Field is no fool, and he is extremely experienced in internal Labour politics and jostling for position amongst the various factions. He clearly thinks that pointing to his nuclear weapon is going to have a deterrent effect - but why does he want a deterrent now?
I think the answer is likely to lie in the Stephen Bush quote:
In some parts of the country, there are undoubtedly organised leftwing factions attempting to infiltrate Labour. But, says Bush, “they are hugely outnumbered by new members with a much broader range of opinions."
That's true of course, but it misses the point. This isn't about raw numbers, it's about organisation. Frank Field is warning Momentum and the other entryist factions not to organise themselves into an effective purge machine. If sane Labour MPs wait until the post-boundary reform selections take place, it will be too late. It doesn't even require re-selections: there will inevitably be a lot of selection contests because of the review. Frank Field knows that. The Trots know that. The effort to ensure that the sane wing is not sidelined in that process has to start now.
Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
Moonraker - 'Carry On Bond'. The best. It's all been downhill ever since.
For some of us, that's precisely what's wrong with it!
Although ironically, Moonraker is one of the best books (with a completely different story).
Roger Moore, Tommy Nutter suits, and Dr Goodhead? Can't be beaten.
Inevitable - they've really suffered by making their content unavailable to the masses who simply aren't willing to pay per publication.
Maybe it could work if there was a single paywall for the whole industry, and access could be bought like train tickets - micropayments for single articles or for one publication for one day, with season tickets available for the whole industry for a week or a month.
Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
If you are happy with a bit of extreme movie violence (not gritty type violence) at the same time as the latter, then I would suggest Kingsman as a spiritual successor. Most fun I've had at a movie in years, and quite the surprise.
Theoretically yes - but I can't stand the bloke from Bridget Jones that stars in Kingsman..
Oh, it's Colin Firth like we've never seen him - kicking massive amounts of arse. Not for everyone, I admit, but perhaps you might see him in a new light. Eah to their own though.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010
Their tactics once in coalition sucked melon balls - they put the country first for a month then spent 4 1/2 years slagging off the government they were part of.
They brought it on themselves.
I disagree with this: most of the Lib Dems behaved well in government, with one or two exceptions. If anything, there was far less infighting than there was in the previous Labour government or, I think, within the Conservatives if they had managed to govern alone.
The same can be said of the majority of Conservative MPs as well. It's fun to remember how many people on here in 2010 (when I was only a lurker) were claiming the coalition would last just a few months ...
@RobD Labour can possibly afford some - but they are not in a good state financially, so not likely to be able to afford them on the same scale as the Tories. SNP possibly. Otherwise, almost certainly not UKIP, Lib Dems, Greens, or anybody else. Not on the industrial scale that will guarantee nationwide oversight. The Tories see this like EVEL - a way of giving themselves the best chance of keeping power more or less permanently. That's the only reason they want to do it.
That's silly. All three parties will be hiring top barristers to present their case at boundary reviews, and all three parties have top barristers in their ranks who can work pro bono.
In the 1992-97 Parliament, Labour's proposals were adopted by the Boundary Commission far more frequently than the Conservatives'.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
The bigger that constituencies, divisions and wards are, the harder it is for smaller parties to fight and win the seat. The Electoral Commission seems to control constituency boundaries but the incumbant council has a lot of control over local boundaries, establishing large multi-councillor wards in areas where smaller parties have built up strength in a single councillor ward.
The Electoral Commission can not be expected to know much about local conditions in council wards and so is very much reliant on the local council. But for constituencies they should be able to understand the boundary issues better.
Inevitable - they've really suffered by making their content unavailable to the masses who simply aren't willing to pay per publication.
Maybe it could work if there was a single paywall for the whole industry, and access could be bought like train tickets - micropayments for single articles or for one publication for one day, with season tickets available for the whole industry for a week or a month.
The Mail Online and Guardian provide a fair and balanced political view between themselves, so no need to pay for more.
It always struck me as an odd decision to put the Sun behind a paywall. The Times and the Washington Post are very different: informed news and comment that people will pay for. But the Sun?
That's silly. All three parties will be hiring top barristers to present their case at boundary reviews, and all three parties have top barristers in their ranks who can work pro bono.
Top silks working for love, not money - heard it all now
That's silly. All three parties will be hiring top barristers to present their case at boundary reviews, and all three parties have top barristers in their ranks who can work pro bono.
Top silks working for love, not money - heard it all now
Advancement within the party would be a strong incentive for some.
On topic: For once I think Don has written an interesting article. He's right to be puzzled as to why Frank Field and others are making a stand on dekulakization now, when the real action won't start until the boundary review is done.
Well, Frank Field is no fool, and he is extremely experienced in internal Labour politics and jostling for position amongst the various factions. He clearly thinks that pointing to his nuclear weapon is going to have a deterrent effect - but why does he want a deterrent now?
I think the answer is likely to lie in the Stephen Bush quote:
In some parts of the country, there are undoubtedly organised leftwing factions attempting to infiltrate Labour. But, says Bush, “they are hugely outnumbered by new members with a much broader range of opinions."
That's true of course, but it misses the point. This isn't about raw numbers, it's about organisation. Frank Field is warning Momentum and the other entryist factions not to organise themselves into an effective purge machine. If sane Labour MPs wait until the post-boundary reform selections take place, it will be too late. It doesn't even require re-selections: there will inevitably be a lot of selection contests because of the review. Frank Field knows that. The Trots know that. The effort to ensure that the sane wing is not sidelined in that process has to start now.
Mr. kle4, aye, I've just started replaying the reboot.
I played the first two Uncharted games, and, to be honest, prefer Tomb Raider [over the course of the series I've been an off-and-on player].
Timed exclusives can be irksome, but it avoids a clash (for PS4 players) with Fallout 4, and it is coming to the console at some point. I just hope XCOM 2 does as well. Baffled as to why that'll be PC-only, at launch at least.
Miss Plato, perhaps surprisingly, I have. As you say, it's a really rather charming book.
That's silly. All three parties will be hiring top barristers to present their case at boundary reviews, and all three parties have top barristers in their ranks who can work pro bono.
Top silks working for love, not money - heard it all now
Advancement within the party would be a strong incentive for some.
Play your cards right, and you get to drive the minibus?
He is someone that moved his young family to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in 2001 so they could experience a more Islamic atmosphere. I'm not sure we want him here.
Mr. kle4, aye, I've just started replaying the reboot.
I played the first two Uncharted games, and, to be honest, prefer Tomb Raider [over the course of the series I've been an off-and-on player].
Timed exclusives can be irksome, but it avoids a clash (for PS4 players) with Fallout 4, and it is coming to the console at some point. I just hope XCOM 2 does as well. Baffled as to why that'll be PC-only, at launch at least.
Miss Plato, perhaps surprisingly, I have. As you say, it's a really rather charming book.
Are you going to be playing Fallout 4? I am tempted, but also don't want my work productivity to fall through the floor. Might also wait til it is on sale to save a few bob.
He is someone that moved his young family to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in 2001 so they could experience a more Islamic atmosphere. I'm not sure we want him here.
I think he'd be far more at home in Saudia Arabia.
I used to buy The Sun, Times and Tele on the commute to work. And the NOTW on Sunday for fun.
Then the NOTW was gone, a sad day - and I don't bother with a Sunday paper bar the terrible STimes website that is appalling to navigate.
I paid for Sun subs for a few months and cancelled it - I just don't care enough, when not deliberately space filling a 30mins journey and ending up reading the greyhound results.
I paid for a subs to the DT to see if it made the online experience better - it didn't. I won't renew it. The Times has great columnists and comments - it's worth every penny. It has 400k subs.
It always struck me as an odd decision to put the Sun behind a paywall. The Times and the Washington Post are very different: informed news and comment that people will pay for. But the Sun?
It always struck me as an odd decision to put the Sun behind a paywall. The Times and the Washington Post are very different: informed news and comment that people will pay for. But the Sun?
The newspaper industry still hasn't come to terms with the fact that the public don't value their product as much as they themselves do.
Personally, I think that serious newspapers have gone about this problem in entirely the wrong way. They have pushed their big name op-ed journalists at the expense of factual journalism. What is valuable now is not so much opinion (high quality opinion on a wealth of subjects is freely available, often for free from people who have a very different business model) but well-researched fact, which is rarely so easily available. It's noteworthy that the FT, which is primarily a data-driven newspaper, seems to have no problem in finding subscribers.
I appreciate that journalists are expensive - but what added value do newspapers think that they are providing?
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
The bigger that constituencies, divisions and wards are, the harder it is for smaller parties to fight and win the seat. The Electoral Commission seems to control constituency boundaries but the incumbant council has a lot of control over local boundaries, establishing large multi-councillor wards in areas where smaller parties have built up strength in a single councillor ward.
The Electoral Commission can not be expected to know much about local conditions in council wards and so is very much reliant on the local council. But for constituencies they should be able to understand the boundary issues better.
The Lib Dems threw their toys out of the pram. Boundary changes were long overdue already and in the Coalition Agreement were linked to the AV referendum (not the Lords proposals). The Tories honoured their pledges on the referendum, but Clegg lost fair and square so was unhappy and retaliated when he could on a figleaf of an excuse. It was a temper tantrum because Clegg hadn't got his way in either the referendum (which was honoured) or the Lords (which weren't linked) so he blocked a long overdue boundary reform that should have been happening anyway.
If you decide to wait, you may prefer to make it a prolonged one so you can buy the probable Game of the Year edition.
I'll be writing a blog or two on my views of Fallout 4 (probably a quick early impressions one a few days or a week after getting it, then a proper review, maybe, after I've sunk a lot of time into it).
It always struck me as an odd decision to put the Sun behind a paywall. The Times and the Washington Post are very different: informed news and comment that people will pay for. But the Sun?
Presumably they were hoping that the allure of Page 3 would persuade punters to part with their hard-earned? I don't believe that there's any other source of such material on the internet.
If you decide to wait, you may prefer to make it a prolonged one so you can buy the probable Game of the Year edition.
I'll be writing a blog or two on my views of Fallout 4 (probably a quick early impressions one a few days or a week after getting it, then a proper review, maybe, after I've sunk a lot of time into it).
GOTY would be one with all the expansions and (ugh) DLC? That might be a long wait indeed, and I may see it on steam and give in to temptation before that happens
It always struck me as an odd decision to put the Sun behind a paywall. The Times and the Washington Post are very different: informed news and comment that people will pay for. But the Sun?
The newspaper industry still hasn't come to terms with the fact that the public don't value their product as much as they themselves do.
Personally, I think that serious newspapers have gone about this problem in entirely the wrong way. They have pushed their big name op-ed journalists at the expense of factual journalism. What is valuable now is not so much opinion (high quality opinion on a wealth of subjects is freely available, often for free from people who have a very different business model) but well-researched fact, which is rarely so easily available. It's noteworthy that the FT, which is primarily a data-driven newspaper, seems to have no problem in finding subscribers.
I appreciate that journalists are expensive - but what added value do newspapers think that they are providing?
He is someone that moved his young family to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in 2001 so they could experience a more Islamic atmosphere. I'm not sure we want him here.
On topic: For once I think Don has written an interesting article. He's right to be puzzled as to why Frank Field and others are making a stand on dekulakization now, when the real action won't start until the boundary review is done.
Well, Frank Field is no fool, and he is extremely experienced in internal Labour politics and jostling for position amongst the various factions. He clearly thinks that pointing to his nuclear weapon is going to have a deterrent effect - but why does he want a deterrent now?
I think the answer is likely to lie in the Stephen Bush quote:
In some parts of the country, there are undoubtedly organised leftwing factions attempting to infiltrate Labour. But, says Bush, “they are hugely outnumbered by new members with a much broader range of opinions."
That's true of course, but it misses the point. This isn't about raw numbers, it's about organisation. Frank Field is warning Momentum and the other entryist factions not to organise themselves into an effective purge machine. If sane Labour MPs wait until the post-boundary reform selections take place, it will be too late. It doesn't even require re-selections: there will inevitably be a lot of selection contests because of the review. Frank Field knows that. The Trots know that. The effort to ensure that the sane wing is not sidelined in that process has to start now.
The key problem though is if we have all these diverse organisations within the Labour party lining up to slag each other off, the party will just look hopelessly divided - particularly without somebody at the top able to give a strong lead. (I cringed on reading that Danczuk article. A proper leader would have kickedass over such behaviour and probably either permanently deafened or temporarily suspended the MP in question, the way Thatcher did with Pym and Biffen, or even Major with Redwood. Corbyn took a selfie. Nuff said.)
And if there is one key rule in British elections since 1832, it is that split parties do not win elections, and usually go further backwards as a whole. The Conservatives in 1846, the Liberals in 1886, the Unionists in 1906, the Liberals in 1918, Labour in 1931, Labour in 1959, the Conservatives in 1964, Labour in 1983 and the Conservatives in 1997 can all be cited as examples.
I remain of the view that on current boundaries, if Corbyn is leader and this infighting continues, Labour will be below 200 seats at the next election. The only thing that will save Labour now is a swift putsch and leadership from someone who can silence the Left. Unfortunately, even if a putsch were possible (it isn't under Labour's rules as Corbyn could stand again) no such candidate exists.
Small wonder Osborne thought Corbyn's election was proof that God is a Conservative.
The LDs decided to halt the process of boundary reform when they had power, for purely partisan reasons. They can't really complain now that the same reforms are being brought forward by the elected majority government.
With regard to the discussion on the electoral roll I have some experience which may shed some light as to why people are not registering.
A couple of years ago I did a little job for Mid-Sussex Council which involved knocking on the doors of people who had failed to respond to the registration letters and reminders. This was under the old "head of household" regime and in Hurstpierpoint and district - not an area with a high transient population.
If memory serves, something like 15% of households had not responded, which meant I had somewhere near two hundred households to call on. The types of premises ranged from big houses in the country protected by huge gates and entry phones to one-bedroomed flats on two council estates.
In chatting to the people who did answer the door, and some just refused despite repeated visits, the main reasons given for not filling in the forms (and it's worth reminding ourselves that it was, and may still be for all I know, a legal obligation to do so and a criminal offence not to) were, in order:
1. Oh sorry, I just forgot all about it (i.e. not important to me to be on the register)
2. Don't care, not interested, politics has nothing to do with me
3. I didn't fill in the form because I don't want people to know where I live
4. Piss off or I'll set the dogs on you
5. What is an election and do I have to vote
Surprisingly, at least to me, there was no correlation between the type of response and the type of household. Each category of answer was just as likely from the million pound detached dwelling as the shitty little flat above the petrol station.
Might I suggest, therefore, that delaying the introduction of the new register will not actually make any significant difference when it comes to votes. If people are interested they will register if they are not then they will not and any legacy names still on the register won't vote anyway.
Furthermore, if as has been suggested up-thread that Labour party activists go banging on doors to get people to register, I doubt they will meet any different response than I did.
The full electoral roll is available to credit reference agencies and so it is probably harder to get credit if one does not register. Perhaps they way to get more people to do so is to link registration to tax and benefits - i.e. no entry on the roll then no tax credits or any other benefit.
The Lib Dems threw their toys out of the pram. Boundary changes were long overdue already and in the Coalition Agreement were linked to the AV referendum (not the Lords proposals). The Tories honoured their pledges on the referendum, but Clegg lost fair and square so was unhappy and retaliated when he could on a figleaf of an excuse. It was a temper tantrum because Clegg hadn't got his way in either the referendum (which was honoured) or the Lords (which weren't linked) so he blocked a long overdue boundary reform that should have been happening anyway.
I think you'll find Philip that 2010 was fought on new boundaries. They are normally revised roughly every 10 years. So actually, the boundary reform was not 'long overdue'. It is arguable that the rules they were based on were very outdated, but that's a different matter.
If you will remember, Ed Balls had to find a new seat as his was merged with his wife's (that would have been an interesting head to head)!
The LDs decided to halt the process of boundary reform when they had power, for purely partisan reasons. They can't really complain now that the same reforms are being brought forward by the elected majority government.
Mr. D, I share your revulsion at DLC (although did like The Witcher 3 throwing 16 free pieces out).
I think there's about a year from Dragon Age Inquisition's original release to the GOTY version, and about a year and a half (after checking) of the equivalent for Skyrim.
Suppose it depends if the price drops quickly or not. It'd be annoying to wait a year, get a cut-price version, then have the GOTY be announced the following week.
Still Labour don't care. Their MPs think white people play divide and rule, should be discriminated against with ethnic quotes, and that discussion of men's issues should be sniggered at.
It always struck me as an odd decision to put the Sun behind a paywall. The Times and the Washington Post are very different: informed news and comment that people will pay for. But the Sun?
The newspaper industry still hasn't come to terms with the fact that the public don't value their product as much as they themselves do.
Personally, I think that serious newspapers have gone about this problem in entirely the wrong way. They have pushed their big name op-ed journalists at the expense of factual journalism. What is valuable now is not so much opinion (high quality opinion on a wealth of subjects is freely available, often for free from people who have a very different business model) but well-researched fact, which is rarely so easily available. It's noteworthy that the FT, which is primarily a data-driven newspaper, seems to have no problem in finding subscribers.
I appreciate that journalists are expensive - but what added value do newspapers think that they are providing?
If I want to know what's really going on, I almost never read the newspapers.
The Spectator is very good for finding out what's happening at the heart of the Tory party.
If I use myself as a yardstick - I want to read intelligent news and analysis that isn't so partisan.
So whilst I can see something a day or two later elsewhere - I want to read it now and trust how it's reported. Given my PR background, it matters to me even though retired.
There's a core of us who feel that way, most don't and will wait for it like movies to be on TV. It's a fine balance. Given The Times lost money for decades - sticking it behind a paywall doesn't strike me as a big decision for hardcore readers.
On topic: For once I think Don has written an interesting article. He's right to be puzzled as to why Frank Field and others are making a stand on dekulakization now, when the real action won't start until the boundary review is done.
Well, Frank Field is no fool, and he is extremely experienced in internal Labour politics and jostling for position amongst the various factions. He clearly thinks that pointing to his nuclear weapon is going to have a deterrent effect - but why does he want a deterrent now?
I think the answer is likely to lie in the Stephen Bush quote:
In some parts of the country, there are undoubtedly organised leftwing factions attempting to infiltrate Labour. But, says Bush, “they are hugely outnumbered by new members with a much broader range of opinions."
That's true of course, but it misses the point. This isn't about raw numbers, it's about organisation. Frank Field is warning Momentum and the other entryist factions not to organise themselves into an effective purge machine. If sane Labour MPs wait until the post-boundary reform selections take place, it will be too late. It doesn't even require re-selections: there will inevitably be a lot of selection contests because of the review. Frank Field knows that. The Trots know that. The effort to ensure that the sane wing is not sidelined in that process has to start now.
The key problem though is if we have all these diverse organisations within the Labour party lining up to slag each other off, the party will just look hopelessly divided - particularly without somebody at the top able to give a strong lead. (I cringed on reading that Danczuk article. A proper leader would have kickedass over such behaviour and probably either permanently deafened or temporarily suspended the MP in question, the way Thatcher did with Pym and Biffen, or even Major with Redwood. Corbyn took a selfie. Nuff said.)
And if there is one key rule in British elections since 1832, it is that split parties do not win elections, and usually go further backwards as a whole. The Conservatives in 1846, the Liberals in 1886, the Unionists in 1906, the Liberals in 1918, Labour in 1931, Labour in 1959, the Conservatives in 1964, Labour in 1983 and the Conservatives in 1997 can all be cited as examples.
I remain of the view that on current boundaries, if Corbyn is leader and this infighting continues, Labour will be below 200 seats at the next election. The only thing that will save Labour now is a swift putsch and leadership from someone who can silence the Left. Unfortunately, even if a putsch were possible (it isn't under Labour's rules as Corbyn could stand again) no such candidate exists.
Small wonder Osborne thought Corbyn's election was proof that God is a Conservative.
1 – The territory is more problematic for Labour than it appears
2 – Candidate selection
3 – Corbyn’s weakness among Ukip-inclined voters
4 – Ukip’s recent performance – more to it than meets the eye
5 – The vote is likely to be in December
From it this was the thing that I took as the most interesting from the piece
30 per cent of Oldham West and Royton’s population is BME – this is higher than the national average and it’s something which traditionally has traditionally helped Labour and for obvious reasons never been favourable to Ukip. But there are some things to bear in mind.
Ian Warren, a locally-based political consultant who had a significant hand in Ukip’s Heywood and Middleton near-miss, notes that a significant proportion (estimated to be 37 per cent, based on his data) of the seat’s BME population is under 18 and therefore can’t vote – somewhat mitigating Labour’s demographic advantage.
Hurst's comments are pretty much spot on on why people don't register. But I'd add a sixth one: "I have been meaning to but I've recently moved and I've not got round to it". It's that group that does in fact sometimes vote. Because mobility is so much higher in cities, the effect is much more marked there than in, say, rural Yorkshire.
Mrs B's point, though, is that the gerrymandering effect (which is provocative but in this case appropriate) works even if not a single one of the people affected ever votes in their lives. The reason is that boundaries are fixed according to electorates, rather than either population (as I would like) or participation (as others might prefer). So if 10,000 British residents drop off the electoral roll in constituency X, then X will be seen as having "too few" voters. If this pattern is repeated across cities, as it is, then the effect is that cities get fewer seats, since the Boundary Commissioners conclude that the cities are gradually becoming depopulated.
The system is then not working fairly according to its own objectives, just as MrsB says. It is possible to defend it on the grounds that constituency boundaries should really reflect participation, and if people can't be bothered, too bad or them, but that's not how the system is designed to work. The reason the system is supposed to reflect electorates is that each area is felt to be entitled to equal representation according to population, regardless of how engaged they are. Lack of engagement should be addressed by other means that redistricting them out of sight.
He is someone that moved his young family to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in 2001 so they could experience a more Islamic atmosphere. I'm not sure we want him here.
Because he has indefinite leave to remain?
I'm thinking there should be some sort of character/integration test, whereby going off to live under the Taliban because you love Islamist rule so much fails you.
Most people view the news nowadays like they view banking services. It can easily be got for free - so why pay ?
As @Tissue_Price alludes it's also doing for other industries too.
Yes and no. People could always get the news for free simply by switching on the television or radio.
The fall in newspaper circulations is not because people can get the news for free but because there are many other forms of entertainment during the day (when television used not to be on) or while commuting, where there are free newspapers and all sorts of diversions on smartphones. Some of us post on pb when we might previously have completed the crossword or nodded shrewdly at Bernard Levin.
Free alternatives to newspapers is the key, not free sources of news.
The "Asian/muslim" part of the demographic pie is reassuringly high. Hopefully UKIP won't pick up too much traction in the Pakistani community between now and polling day
Most people view the news nowadays like they view banking services. It can easily be got for free - so why pay ?
As @Tissue_Price alludes it's also doing for other industries too.
Yes and no. People could always get the news for free simply by switching on the television or radio.
The fall in newspaper circulations is not because people can get the news for free but because there are many other forms of entertainment during the day (when television used not to be on) or while commuting, where there are free newspapers and all sorts of diversions on smartphones. Some of us post on pb when we might previously have completed the crossword or nodded shrewdly at Bernard Levin.
Free alternatives to newspapers is the key, not free sources of news.
Most people view the news nowadays like they view banking services. It can easily be got for free - so why pay ?
As @Tissue_Price alludes it's also doing for other industries too.
Yes and no. People could always get the news for free simply by switching on the television or radio.
The fall in newspaper circulations is not because people can get the news for free but because there are many other forms of entertainment during the day (when television used not to be on) or while commuting, where there are free newspapers and all sorts of diversions on smartphones. Some of us post on pb when we might previously have completed the crossword or nodded shrewdly at Bernard Levin.
Free alternatives to newspapers is the key, not free sources of news.
It's both. There are more alternatives to reading the paper on the commute (though I prefer to read hard-copy books, which are easier to handle), but news - or entertainment gossip, if you prefer - is also more instantly and freely available as well.
I was aware of Ian Warren's argument, but I'm not sure I buy it. OK, 37% of the BME population might be under 18. That compares with around 22% in the population as a whole. Thus, whilst it's true that the the BME proportion of voters in the constituency might be a bit less than the raw demographic figure of around 28%, it's still very high compared with Heywood & Middleton.
The "Asian/muslim" part of the demographic pie is reassuringly high. Hopefully UKIP won't pick up too much traction in hte Pakistani community between now and polling day
I was aware of Ian Warren's argument, but I'm not sure I buy it. OK, 37% of the BME population might be under 18. That compares with around 22% in the population as a whole. Thus, whilst it's true that the the BME proportion of voters in the constituency might be a bit less than the raw demographic figure of around 28%, it's still very high compared with Heywood & Middleton.
Mrs B's point, though, is that the gerrymandering effect (which is provocative but in this case appropriate) works even if not a single one of the people affected ever votes in their lives. The reason is that boundaries are fixed according to electorates, rather than either population (as I would like) or participation (as others might prefer). So if 10,000 British residents drop off the electoral roll in constituency X, then X will be seen as having "too few" voters. If this pattern is repeated across cities, as it is, then the effect is that cities get fewer seats, since the Boundary Commissioners conclude that the cities are gradually becoming depopulated.
Nonsense. Why should the voters in Kensingon & Chelsea have a larger influence in parliament than voters in Broxtowe, simply because they've got a lot of French, American and Arab neighbours?
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010
Their tactics once in coalition sucked melon balls - they put the country first for a month then spent 4 1/2 years slagging off the government they were part of.
They brought it on themselves.
It was a very strange positioning. They openly argue they needed to sign up to a coalition to implement an austerity drive for the good of the country. And then they complain that they had to back an austerity drive they didn't really agree with by the evil Tories.
They never seemed 100% sure if they were in government or in opposition. It's no wonder they were obliterated.
The Lib Dem's best idea, raising the personal allowance has been taken and is now completely owned by the Cameron/Osborne faction of the Conservative party.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 2h2 hours ago Staff hires as clue to electoral strategy: Blair hired ex-SDPers. Miliband ex-Liberals. Corbyn hires ex-SWPers.
''I was aware of Ian Warren's argument, but I'm not sure I buy it.''
There's a giant sense of deja vu for me here. The pattern has been the same for the last five years. In the national polls labour appears to be doing OK. Not great, but OK.
And then a real election comes along. Suddenly picture turns out to be radically different.
The fact was, and I reckon still is, that pollsters over estimate the national poll scores for labour. They are still doing it.
And they could be about to be completely embarrassed yet again.
Mrs B's point, though, is that the gerrymandering effect (which is provocative but in this case appropriate) works even if not a single one of the people affected ever votes in their lives. The reason is that boundaries are fixed according to electorates, rather than either population (as I would like) or participation (as others might prefer). So if 10,000 British residents drop off the electoral roll in constituency X, then X will be seen as having "too few" voters. If this pattern is repeated across cities, as it is, then the effect is that cities get fewer seats, since the Boundary Commissioners conclude that the cities are gradually becoming depopulated.
Nonsense. Why should the voters in Kensingon & Chelsea have a larger influence in parliament than voters in Broxtowe, simply because they've got a lot of French, American and Arab neighbours?
You could say the same thing about Tower Hamlets, with all those Bangladeshi neighbours.
Britain Elects @britainelects · 17s18 seconds ago "Immigration strengthens our country because of the good work ethic & skills of immigrants" / Remain voters: Agree: 47% Disagree: 23% (BMG)
Britain Elects @britainelects · 15s16 seconds ago "Immigration strengthens our country because of the good work ethic & skills of immigrants" / Leave voters: Agree: 13% Disagree: 69% (BMG)
The Lib Dem's best idea, raising the personal allowance has been taken and is now completely owned by the Cameron/Osborne faction of the Conservative party.
If I use myself as a yardstick - I want to read intelligent news and analysis that isn't so partisan.
So whilst I can see something a day or two later elsewhere - I want to read it now and trust how it's reported. Given my PR background, it matters to me even though retired.
There's a core of us who feel that way, most don't and will wait for it like movies to be on TV. It's a fine balance. Given The Times lost money for decades - sticking it behind a paywall doesn't strike me as a big decision for hardcore readers.
Mrs B's point, though, is that the gerrymandering effect (which is provocative but in this case appropriate) works even if not a single one of the people affected ever votes in their lives. The reason is that boundaries are fixed according to electorates, rather than either population (as I would like) or participation (as others might prefer). So if 10,000 British residents drop off the electoral roll in constituency X, then X will be seen as having "too few" voters. If this pattern is repeated across cities, as it is, then the effect is that cities get fewer seats, since the Boundary Commissioners conclude that the cities are gradually becoming depopulated.
Nonsense. Why should the voters in Kensingon & Chelsea have a larger influence in parliament than voters in Broxtowe, simply because they've got a lot of French, American and Arab neighbours?
An MP is a representative for all their constituents - even the foreigners who can't vote.
UKIP are best-priced at only 7/1 with Betway (who they?), or 6/1 with Coral, so clearly there's a good degree of belief that Labour has at least a moderate chance of losing (for reference, Labour's best-priced at 1/7 on Betfair fixed-odds, or 1/10 with traditional bookies).
If Labour does lose to a mainstream party, it'd arguably be the worst ever loss for an opposition. There have been bigger swings - Bradford West for one - but to minor parties, independents or the like. To suffer a 17%+ swing to another national party when there are not peculiar local issues (whether policy or candidate-based), in play would be pretty much unprecedented.
Mrs B's point, though, is that the gerrymandering effect (which is provocative but in this case appropriate) works even if not a single one of the people affected ever votes in their lives. The reason is that boundaries are fixed according to electorates, rather than either population (as I would like) or participation (as others might prefer). So if 10,000 British residents drop off the electoral roll in constituency X, then X will be seen as having "too few" voters. If this pattern is repeated across cities, as it is, then the effect is that cities get fewer seats, since the Boundary Commissioners conclude that the cities are gradually becoming depopulated.
Nonsense. Why should the voters in Kensingon & Chelsea have a larger influence in parliament than voters in Broxtowe, simply because they've got a lot of French, American and Arab neighbours?
An MP is a representative for all their constituents - even the foreigners who can't vote.
Of course. But that doesn't answer the point. It's a complete irrelevance.
Mrs B's point, though, is that the gerrymandering effect (which is provocative but in this case appropriate) works even if not a single one of the people affected ever votes in their lives. The reason is that boundaries are fixed according to electorates, rather than either population (as I would like) or participation (as others might prefer). So if 10,000 British residents drop off the electoral roll in constituency X, then X will be seen as having "too few" voters. If this pattern is repeated across cities, as it is, then the effect is that cities get fewer seats, since the Boundary Commissioners conclude that the cities are gradually becoming depopulated.
Nonsense. Why should the voters in Kensingon & Chelsea have a larger influence in parliament than voters in Broxtowe, simply because they've got a lot of French, American and Arab neighbours?
I agree that it should be "population entitled to vote", but that can be estimated in aggregate with a fair degree of accuracy (using the census, registration, surveys and other evidence) without depending on the willingness of each individual immediately to fill out a form every time they move.
The essence of what I've said was borne out by the pleasure with which Conservative posters here noted that they'd got it through a year earlier than the Electoral Commission wanted - just in time to influence the next boundaries.
The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.
Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?
If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.
Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.
Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.
There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
looking at the urban dictionary definition of lawnmower, I wouldn't say that's the type of thing you should be boasting about on a public website
The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.
Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?
If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.
Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.
Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.
There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
looking at the urban dictionary definition of lawnmower, I wouldn't say that's the type of thing you should be boasting about on a public website
Don's columns are a must read for me. Who can blame anyone sane in Labour's ranks from grasping at straws these days. What strikes me more than anything else about today's piece is the revelation that a partisan Labour activist was covering Labour selections for the BBC!!!
Comments
Licence To Kill is most enjoyable.
It's a shame Niven, who's a splendid chap, had the role for such a train-wreck of a film.
If you're white, male and poor enough to qualify for a free meal at school then you face the toughest challenge when starting out in life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34667100/poor-white-boys-get-a-worse-start-in-life-says-equality-report
Still Labour don't care. Their MPs think white people play divide and rule, should be discriminated against with ethnic quotes, and that discussion of men's issues should be sniggered at.
That said, Sicario is still my favourite film of the year, more due to its noirish feel than minor details like plot etc
Crimson Peak was the prettiest terrible film I've seen in years, though Jessica Chastain is watchable in almost anything.
Although ironically, Moonraker is one of the best books (with a completely different story).
Well, Frank Field is no fool, and he is extremely experienced in internal Labour politics and jostling for position amongst the various factions. He clearly thinks that pointing to his nuclear weapon is going to have a deterrent effect - but why does he want a deterrent now?
I think the answer is likely to lie in the Stephen Bush quote:
In some parts of the country, there are undoubtedly organised leftwing factions attempting to infiltrate Labour. But, says Bush, “they are hugely outnumbered by new members with a much broader range of opinions."
That's true of course, but it misses the point. This isn't about raw numbers, it's about organisation. Frank Field is warning Momentum and the other entryist factions not to organise themselves into an effective purge machine. If sane Labour MPs wait until the post-boundary reform selections take place, it will be too late. It doesn't even require re-selections: there will inevitably be a lot of selection contests because of the review. Frank Field knows that. The Trots know that. The effort to ensure that the sane wing is not sidelined in that process has to start now.
Maybe it could work if there was a single paywall for the whole industry, and access could be bought like train tickets - micropayments for single articles or for one publication for one day, with season tickets available for the whole industry for a week or a month.
The same can be said of the majority of Conservative MPs as well. It's fun to remember how many people on here in 2010 (when I was only a lurker) were claiming the coalition would last just a few months ...
In the 1992-97 Parliament, Labour's proposals were adopted by the Boundary Commission far more frequently than the Conservatives'.
The bigger that constituencies, divisions and wards are, the harder it is for smaller parties to fight and win the seat. The Electoral Commission seems to control constituency boundaries but the incumbant council has a lot of control over local boundaries, establishing large multi-councillor wards in areas where smaller parties have built up strength in a single councillor ward.
The Electoral Commission can not be expected to know much about local conditions in council wards and so is very much reliant on the local council. But for constituencies they should be able to understand the boundary issues better.
May 2015 happened.
For me, Farron is an idiot if he allows the libs to be too closely associated with Corbynite labour.
The early signs are not good.
I played the first two Uncharted games, and, to be honest, prefer Tomb Raider [over the course of the series I've been an off-and-on player].
Timed exclusives can be irksome, but it avoids a clash (for PS4 players) with Fallout 4, and it is coming to the console at some point. I just hope XCOM 2 does as well. Baffled as to why that'll be PC-only, at launch at least.
Miss Plato, perhaps surprisingly, I have. As you say, it's a really rather charming book.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34675324
He is someone that moved his young family to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in 2001 so they could experience a more Islamic atmosphere. I'm not sure we want him here.
Then the NOTW was gone, a sad day - and I don't bother with a Sunday paper bar the terrible STimes website that is appalling to navigate.
I paid for Sun subs for a few months and cancelled it - I just don't care enough, when not deliberately space filling a 30mins journey and ending up reading the greyhound results.
I paid for a subs to the DT to see if it made the online experience better - it didn't. I won't renew it. The Times has great columnists and comments - it's worth every penny. It has 400k subs.
Personally, I think that serious newspapers have gone about this problem in entirely the wrong way. They have pushed their big name op-ed journalists at the expense of factual journalism. What is valuable now is not so much opinion (high quality opinion on a wealth of subjects is freely available, often for free from people who have a very different business model) but well-researched fact, which is rarely so easily available. It's noteworthy that the FT, which is primarily a data-driven newspaper, seems to have no problem in finding subscribers.
I appreciate that journalists are expensive - but what added value do newspapers think that they are providing?
If you decide to wait, you may prefer to make it a prolonged one so you can buy the probable Game of the Year edition.
I'll be writing a blog or two on my views of Fallout 4 (probably a quick early impressions one a few days or a week after getting it, then a proper review, maybe, after I've sunk a lot of time into it).
Their investigative stuff just on Rotherham was worth the entire subs.
EDIT The Guardian can't even sell many paper copies, the Indy gives themselves away with the i - no wonder they don't charge for a paywall.
As @Tissue_Price alludes it's also doing for other industries too.
And if there is one key rule in British elections since 1832, it is that split parties do not win elections, and usually go further backwards as a whole. The Conservatives in 1846, the Liberals in 1886, the Unionists in 1906, the Liberals in 1918, Labour in 1931, Labour in 1959, the Conservatives in 1964, Labour in 1983 and the Conservatives in 1997 can all be cited as examples.
I remain of the view that on current boundaries, if Corbyn is leader and this infighting continues, Labour will be below 200 seats at the next election. The only thing that will save Labour now is a swift putsch and leadership from someone who can silence the Left. Unfortunately, even if a putsch were possible (it isn't under Labour's rules as Corbyn could stand again) no such candidate exists.
Small wonder Osborne thought Corbyn's election was proof that God is a Conservative.
A couple of years ago I did a little job for Mid-Sussex Council which involved knocking on the doors of people who had failed to respond to the registration letters and reminders. This was under the old "head of household" regime and in Hurstpierpoint and district - not an area with a high transient population.
If memory serves, something like 15% of households had not responded, which meant I had somewhere near two hundred households to call on. The types of premises ranged from big houses in the country protected by huge gates and entry phones to one-bedroomed flats on two council estates.
In chatting to the people who did answer the door, and some just refused despite repeated visits, the main reasons given for not filling in the forms (and it's worth reminding ourselves that it was, and may still be for all I know, a legal obligation to do so and a criminal offence not to) were, in order:
1. Oh sorry, I just forgot all about it (i.e. not important to me to be on the register)
2. Don't care, not interested, politics has nothing to do with me
3. I didn't fill in the form because I don't want people to know where I live
4. Piss off or I'll set the dogs on you
5. What is an election and do I have to vote
Surprisingly, at least to me, there was no correlation between the type of response and the type of household. Each category of answer was just as likely from the million pound detached dwelling as the shitty little flat above the petrol station.
Might I suggest, therefore, that delaying the introduction of the new register will not actually make any significant difference when it comes to votes. If people are interested they will register if they are not then they will not and any legacy names still on the register won't vote anyway.
Furthermore, if as has been suggested up-thread that Labour party activists go banging on doors to get people to register, I doubt they will meet any different response than I did.
The full electoral roll is available to credit reference agencies and so it is probably harder to get credit if one does not register. Perhaps they way to get more people to do so is to link registration to tax and benefits - i.e. no entry on the roll then no tax credits or any other benefit.
If you will remember, Ed Balls had to find a new seat as his was merged with his wife's (that would have been an interesting head to head)!
Remain - 52
Leave - 48
https://t.co/RUqn2wDJPY https://t.co/erhiu4ePy1
@timesredbox: Five reasons why Oldham is not necessarily in the bag for Labour
by @MattSingh_ https://t.co/58utAYTUqT https://t.co/Dr3yfuFx9s
I think there's about a year from Dragon Age Inquisition's original release to the GOTY version, and about a year and a half (after checking) of the equivalent for Skyrim.
Suppose it depends if the price drops quickly or not. It'd be annoying to wait a year, get a cut-price version, then have the GOTY be announced the following week.
If I were Supreme Leader comments like this would be a hanging offence.
The Spectator is very good for finding out what's happening at the heart of the Tory party.
So whilst I can see something a day or two later elsewhere - I want to read it now and trust how it's reported. Given my PR background, it matters to me even though retired.
There's a core of us who feel that way, most don't and will wait for it like movies to be on TV. It's a fine balance. Given The Times lost money for decades - sticking it behind a paywall doesn't strike me as a big decision for hardcore readers.
Some seem to get truncated - others not. It appears that I needed to create a new log in if I posted a tweet using the URL.
2 – Candidate selection
3 – Corbyn’s weakness among Ukip-inclined voters
4 – Ukip’s recent performance – more to it than meets the eye
5 – The vote is likely to be in December
From it this was the thing that I took as the most interesting from the piece
30 per cent of Oldham West and Royton’s population is BME – this is higher than the national average and it’s something which traditionally has traditionally helped Labour and for obvious reasons never been favourable to Ukip. But there are some things to bear in mind.
Ian Warren, a locally-based political consultant who had a significant hand in Ukip’s Heywood and Middleton near-miss, notes that a significant proportion (estimated to be 37 per cent, based on his data) of the seat’s BME population is under 18 and therefore can’t vote – somewhat mitigating Labour’s demographic advantage.
Mrs B's point, though, is that the gerrymandering effect (which is provocative but in this case appropriate) works even if not a single one of the people affected ever votes in their lives. The reason is that boundaries are fixed according to electorates, rather than either population (as I would like) or participation (as others might prefer). So if 10,000 British residents drop off the electoral roll in constituency X, then X will be seen as having "too few" voters. If this pattern is repeated across cities, as it is, then the effect is that cities get fewer seats, since the Boundary Commissioners conclude that the cities are gradually becoming depopulated.
The system is then not working fairly according to its own objectives, just as MrsB says. It is possible to defend it on the grounds that constituency boundaries should really reflect participation, and if people can't be bothered, too bad or them, but that's not how the system is designed to work. The reason the system is supposed to reflect electorates is that each area is felt to be entitled to equal representation according to population, regardless of how engaged they are. Lack of engagement should be addressed by other means that redistricting them out of sight.
The fall in newspaper circulations is not because people can get the news for free but because there are many other forms of entertainment during the day (when television used not to be on) or while commuting, where there are free newspapers and all sorts of diversions on smartphones. Some of us post on pb when we might previously have completed the crossword or nodded shrewdly at Bernard Levin.
Free alternatives to newspapers is the key, not free sources of news.
The "Asian/muslim" part of the demographic pie is reassuringly high. Hopefully UKIP won't pick up too much traction in the Pakistani community between now and polling day
It's gone as a popular push against the MSN/campaigning meme. Some remain, but only the big ones.
I was aware of Ian Warren's argument, but I'm not sure I buy it. OK, 37% of the BME population might be under 18. That compares with around 22% in the population as a whole. Thus, whilst it's true that the the BME proportion of voters in the constituency might be a bit less than the raw demographic figure of around 28%, it's still very high compared with Heywood & Middleton.
Staff hires as clue to electoral strategy: Blair hired ex-SDPers. Miliband ex-Liberals. Corbyn hires ex-SWPers.
There's a giant sense of deja vu for me here. The pattern has been the same for the last five years. In the national polls labour appears to be doing OK. Not great, but OK.
And then a real election comes along. Suddenly picture turns out to be radically different.
The fact was, and I reckon still is, that pollsters over estimate the national poll scores for labour. They are still doing it.
And they could be about to be completely embarrassed yet again.
Britain Elects @britainelects · 17s18 seconds ago
"Immigration strengthens our country because of the good work ethic & skills of immigrants" / Remain voters:
Agree: 47%
Disagree: 23%
(BMG)
Britain Elects @britainelects · 15s16 seconds ago
"Immigration strengthens our country because of the good work ethic & skills of immigrants" / Leave voters:
Agree: 13%
Disagree: 69%
(BMG)
I feel the need to watch my Connery/Moore 007 box set to cleanse myself - and loathe Lazenby too.
Only seen Casino Royale and a tiny bit of Quantum of Solace, but Craig's face is as expressive as Keanu Reeves.
Goldeneye was very good, but, as we discussed the other day, Die Another Day was ridiculously overdone with double entendres.
New Thread New Thread
If Labour does lose to a mainstream party, it'd arguably be the worst ever loss for an opposition. There have been bigger swings - Bradford West for one - but to minor parties, independents or the like. To suffer a 17%+ swing to another national party when there are not peculiar local issues (whether policy or candidate-based), in play would be pretty much unprecedented.
The essence of what I've said was borne out by the pleasure with which Conservative posters here noted that they'd got it through a year earlier than the Electoral Commission wanted - just in time to influence the next boundaries.