politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tim Farron’s big gamble in the Oldham W & R by-election
The most interesting Oldham by election development this weekend has been the decision by new Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, to take a high profile role there.
Re: Remembrance Sunday and the discussion of the Merchant Marine....
"Don't speak to me of heroes until you've heard the tale, Of Britain's merchant seamen who sailed through storm and gale, To keep those lifelines open in freedom's hour of need, When a tyrant cast a shadow across our Island breed.
Captains, greasers, cabin boys, mates and engineers, Heard the call of duty and cast aside their fears, They stoked those hungry boilers or stood behind the wheel, While cooks and stewards manned the guns on coffins made of steel.
They moved in icy convoys from Scapa to Murmansk, They crossed the Western ocean, never seeking thanks, They sailed the South Atlantic where raiders lay in wait, And kept the food lines open to Malta and the Cape.
Tracked by silent U boats that hunted from below, Shelled by mighty cannon and bombers flying low, They clung to burning lifeboats when the sea had turned to flame, And watched their shipmates sink to everlasting fame.
I speak not of a handful but thirty thousand plus, Some whose names we'll never know, in whom we placed our trust.
They never knew the honour of medals on their chests, Of marching bands and Victory, or 'glory' and the rest. The Ocean is their resting place; their tombstone is the wind, The seabirds cry their last goodbye to family and to friends.
Freighters, troopships, liners, tankers by the score, Fishing boats and coasters four thousand ships and more, They flew their county's ensign as they sank beneath the waves, And took those countless heroes to lonely ocean graves.
Their legacy is freedom, to those who hold it dear, To walk with clear horizons and never hide in fear. So when you speak of heroes, remember those at sea, From Britain's Merchant Navy, who died to keep you free."
(the original version of this post was deleted for reasons unknown. I repost it below with the first and second paragraphs redacted, in case it's that causing the problem)
SPECTRE is breaking box office records in the UK and opened in the domesric market (USA/Canada) Thursday night. It grossed $28million domestic Friday night, which is $2million less than Skyfall did on the same day when it was released. It's expected to do very well but not nearly as well as its predecessor. Caution must be taken when estimating global box-office because of the increasing importance of the China market and it may pull some back because of that, but I'd be surprised if it grossed $1billion. It's seen as the "Age of Ultron" to Skyfall's "Avengers". A blockbuster movie that works well enough but makes same poor choices and does not live up to its predecessor.
I was FPT'ing. It's your blog so feel free to impose rules as you see fit, but rarely have you deleted posts for offtopicness, particularly when it was relevant to an ongoing discussion of the previous thread.
Incidentally, are you OK with the word "cume" in a box-office context? "Variety" and "Hollywood Reporter" use it as shorthand for "cumulative gross ticket sale"
I've been disappointed by Farron so far, despite having tipped him for the top years ago on here. His conference speech barely stirred me as well.
I can only hope that he's been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to help the Lib Dems start the long process of rebuilding. To be fair, it seems they're not doing as badly in local elections as they were (although that's just an impression, and I don't have any hard-and-fast figures for it).
But he needs to be making more noise. As mentioned on a recent thread, the Lib Dems aren't on the media as much. Farron needs to try to reverse that.
I've been disappointed by Farron so far, despite having tipped him for the top years ago on here. His conference speech barely stirred me as well.
I can only hope that he's been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to help the Lib Dems start the long process of rebuilding. To be fair, it seems they're not doing as badly in local elections as they were (although that's just an impression, and I don't have any hard-and-fast figures for it).
But he needs to be making more noise. As mentioned on a recent thread, the Lib Dems aren't on the media as much. Farron needs to try to reverse that.
The LDs have become an irrelevance as far as the media is concerned. Something to shift that needs to happen which is why the by-election is important. Winning clearly is not really on the cards though I've £2 at 800/1 on Betfair. But a result on Dec 3rd that creates a sense momentum is vital and that is something that both LAB and CON have an interest in ensuring doesn't happen.
I've been disappointed by Farron so far, despite having tipped him for the top years ago on here. His conference speech barely stirred me as well.
I can only hope that he's been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to help the Lib Dems start the long process of rebuilding. To be fair, it seems they're not doing as badly in local elections as they were (although that's just an impression, and I don't have any hard-and-fast figures for it).
But he needs to be making more noise. As mentioned on a recent thread, the Lib Dems aren't on the media as much. Farron needs to try to reverse that.
The LDs have become an irrelevance as far as the media is concerned. Something to shift that needs to happen which is why the by-election is important. Winning clearly is not really on the cards though I've £2 at 800/1 on Betfair. But a result on Dec 3rd that creates a sense momentum is vital and that is something that both LAB and CON have an interest in ensuring doesn't happen.
They have another problem in regaining ground. In 2003 they opposed the Iraq War, and it appears this caused a large number of Labour voters to shift towards the Lib Dems. Most of these were fair-weather, and when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Conservatives, they shifted elsewhere - either back to Labour, or to UKIP, or the SNP in Scotland.
A potential way forward (if cynical) would be to oppose any military action that may be upcoming, e.g. in Syria. In 2003 that garnered them a massive amount of media time. Unfortunately it is distinctly possible that the SNP will also oppose such action, and as they have so many more MPs, the media will concentrate on their opposition rather than the Lib Dems. The effect will still be there, but it will be massively blunted.
I've been disappointed by Farron so far, despite having tipped him for the top years ago on here. His conference speech barely stirred me as well.
I can only hope that he's been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to help the Lib Dems start the long process of rebuilding. To be fair, it seems they're not doing as badly in local elections as they were (although that's just an impression, and I don't have any hard-and-fast figures for it).
But he needs to be making more noise. As mentioned on a recent thread, the Lib Dems aren't on the media as much. Farron needs to try to reverse that.
The LDs have become an irrelevance as far as the media is concerned. Something to shift that needs to happen which is why the by-election is important. Winning clearly is not really on the cards though I've £2 at 800/1 on Betfair. But a result on Dec 3rd that creates a sense momentum is vital and that is something that both LAB and CON have an interest in ensuring doesn't happen.
Morning. I always wondered who are these people that put up the long odds on the exchanges? There must be be much better ways of making the tiny returns than risking the capital. Betfair had I think £2,500 laid at 100/1 or better on Corbyn for example, of which a tenner on the other side was mine so thanks to the mugs who do it, but I don't see what's in it for them.
the LDs face oblivion under the milquetoast, gurning, God-botherer...
I have no idea what "milquetoast" means, but I'm glad that the Lib Dems have onbly got 8 MPs. It means that the smug twit Farron is on TV much less often compared with normal Lib Dem leaders. I agree with the "gurning" bit.
the LDs face oblivion under the milquetoast, gurning, God-botherer...
Unnecessary Rod.. , why attack Farron for his religious beliefs, We are all entitled to believe in God or not as we choose...., I don't seem to recall him being a nuisance about it, or at least his beliefs have never impinged on my life so leave off eh.. after all he is never going to be Prime Minister so who cares.///
Didn’t Jo Grimond lose the first by-election he fought (and that was in a Liberal-held seat) but go on to do great things?
Straw-clutching time, perhaps, though!
The last time the Liberals had a seat gained from them was indeed Carmarthen in 1957, although the Labour candidate was Megan Lloyd George, who was not only a former Liberal MP herself but former deputy leader of the party (besides her family history), and it wasn't Grimond's first as leader, though it was amongst them.
Whether Grimond went on to great things is a different question.
It's a sign of where the Libs are that people are betting on whether or not they retain their deposit. What a state we're in if Farron can celebrate such a paltry achievement.
I've been disappointed by Farron so far, despite having tipped him for the top years ago on here. His conference speech barely stirred me as well.
I can only hope that he's been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to help the Lib Dems start the long process of rebuilding. To be fair, it seems they're not doing as badly in local elections as they were (although that's just an impression, and I don't have any hard-and-fast figures for it).
But he needs to be making more noise. As mentioned on a recent thread, the Lib Dems aren't on the media as much. Farron needs to try to reverse that.
The LDs have become an irrelevance as far as the media is concerned. Something to shift that needs to happen which is why the by-election is important. Winning clearly is not really on the cards though I've £2 at 800/1 on Betfair. But a result on Dec 3rd that creates a sense momentum is vital and that is something that both LAB and CON have an interest in ensuring doesn't happen.
They have another problem in regaining ground. In 2003 they opposed the Iraq War, and it appears this caused a large number of Labour voters to shift towards the Lib Dems. Most of these were fair-weather, and when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Conservatives, they shifted elsewhere - either back to Labour, or to UKIP, or the SNP in Scotland.
A potential way forward (if cynical) would be to oppose any military action that may be upcoming, e.g. in Syria. In 2003 that garnered them a massive amount of media time. Unfortunately it is distinctly possible that the SNP will also oppose such action, and as they have so many more MPs, the media will concentrate on their opposition rather than the Lib Dems. The effect will still be there, but it will be massively blunted.
So, probably, would Corbyn. Opposing the Iraq war did wonders for the Lib Dems because they were the only major party to do so. Now, not only would they not be the biggest but they're barely a major party at all. In any case, the debate on ISIS is more complex than Iraq.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
The Lib Dems got bloody slaughtered at the election. The opportunistic little shit needs to take every chance he can get [and, given he's happy to create a constitutional crisis in a bid to try and get a few inches of media coverage, it'd be bloody odd if he didn't go all out in a by-election].
Mr. StClare, well, quite. But then, Crassus led his army from the front at Carrhae.
The Lib Dems got bloody slaughtered at the election. The opportunistic little shit needs to take every chance he can get [and, given he's happy to create a constitutional crisis in a bid to try and get a few inches of media coverage, it'd be bloody odd if he didn't go all out in a by-election].
Mr. StClare, well, quite. But then, Crassus led his army from the front at Carrhae.
I doubt Mr Farron has Crassus' overconfidence. He's probably more envisaging Thermopylae. Though 300 would be a disappointing number.
the LDs face oblivion under the milquetoast, gurning, God-botherer...
I have no idea what "milquetoast" means, but I'm glad that the Lib Dems have onbly got 8 MPs. It means that the smug twit Farron is on TV much less often compared with normal Lib Dem leaders. I agree with the "gurning" bit.
Milquetoast is from an American cartoon character:
Though I think this is a poor term for Farron, who has come out fighting in this seat. It would be an extraordinary win if they manage it. A good performance will hearten the troops though. There are some who will see toxicity for the LDs, but plenty of toxicity for Labour, Tories and UKIP.
If UKIP went backwards from May it would be pretty damning for them.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
Surely it is only a big gamble when you have something to lose. I don't see the Lib Dems having anything to lose here as it is infertile ground. What they desperately need is to remain a part of our national conversation and deploying the leader is one way to get some attention. They don't have many others these days and their very much diminished role in Parliament means he has time on his hands anyway.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
It looks, if OGH's threader heading is anything to go by, as though it will be to revamp themselves as the party of local community politics, much as was done under Grimond, in fact. It's probably also their wisest course of action, with Labour turning itself into a party of pointless left-wing protest and stealing all the late Charles Kennedy's clothes (although probably not with his success)!
Success criteria for the Liberal Democrats would surely be -
1) Lose their deposit - failure
2) Triple their share of the vote at the expense of Labour - a sign that they can prosper under the new regime by being the soft-left party - good result without being quite a success.
3) Come second - success.
However, it is very difficult to see the third happening in this particular seat.
UKIP, of course, would be something like:
1) Finish outside the top two - failure
2) Finish second - average
3) Win the seat - success.
But again, it's difficult to see the third happening.
For the Tories, anything higher than fifth has got to be a result!
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
To assess the Lib Dems potential we need an election in a southern Tory seat they previously held. The best that can be said for this one is that it tests the machine.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
I mentioned them yesterday in my preview. No government has gained a seat from the opposition at a by election since 1982. This is a seat where Labour is defending a majority of nearly 15,000. Those facts should answer your question.
By the way, what about the Greens? If they do well, and not forgetting that they scored a paltry 839 in the election, wouldn't that have fairly severe implications for Corbyn given that some of Labour's saner senior members *cough*NPXMP*cough* voted for him specifically to stop the leakage to the Greens?
The candidate, as I understand it, is not exactly a Meacher fellow-traveller and Meacher's personal views, which were practically indistinguishable from those of the Greens in many cases, must surely have depressed their vote earlier this year.
What is Norman Lamb doing nowadays? Whether Farron is leader or not, Lamb is a much better contrast with Corbyn.
I'd be using him as much as possible - and not just waiting for the phone to ring. IIRC, bar a single appearance at PMQs, I've seen Farron ONCE on the TV babbling about refugees.
Surely it is only a big gamble when you have something to lose. I don't see the Lib Dems having anything to lose here as it is infertile ground. What they desperately need is to remain a part of our national conversation and deploying the leader is one way to get some attention. They don't have many others these days and their very much diminished role in Parliament means he has time on his hands anyway.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
I mentioned them yesterday in my preview. No government has gained a seat from the opposition at a by election since 1982. This is a seat where Labour is defending a majority of nearly 15,000. Those facts should answer your question.
Also, the election did not take place against the backdrop of the tax credits farrago, and the government of the country was at stake. If the Conservatives do not leak votes to UKIP and possibly even the Liberal Democrats in this election I shall be very surprised.
Moreover, the Conservatives are useless at by-elections. They couldn't even hold Corby or Rochester. They won a single by-election in the last parliament, and in other places including Eastleigh where they should have been in the mix they gave the impression of going through the motions.
If Cameron and Osborne are wise, though, they will throw everything at persuading their supporters not to vote UKIP, for two good reasons: (1) a good result here will renew UKIP's confidence after their disappointing performance at the election and the farce over Farage and (2) if Corbyn loses this seat, or is even run close, whatever the Labour party rules he is finished. He may even resign in a huff on realising how much everyone outside his gaggle of vocal supporters hates him. That would be bad news for the Conservatives.
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
Yes, it's my view that the tuition fees pledge did them a lot more damage than joining the coalition. Or rather becoming part of the government in itself was not a problem, it was the perceived abandonment of their core principles that destroyed them.
How Labour activists/£3ers behave will be fascinating - they're not in the same political space as the Labour candidate by all accounts.
Will they swallow their views and get out, or not bother given the enormous maj Meacher had. The chances of Labour losing with no canvassing at all must be almost Nil anyway.
By the way, what about the Greens? If they do well, and not forgetting that they scored a paltry 839 in the election, wouldn't that have fairly severe implications for Corbyn given that some of Labour's saner senior members *cough*NPXMP*cough* voted for him specifically to stop the leakage to the Greens?
The candidate, as I understand it, is not exactly a Meacher fellow-traveller and Meacher's personal views, which were practically indistinguishable from those of the Greens in many cases, must surely have depressed their vote earlier this year.
How Labour activists/£3ers behave will be fascinating - they're not in the same political space as the Labour candidate by all accounts.
Will they swallow their views and get out, or not bother given the enormous maj Meacher had. The chances of Labour losing with no canvassing at all must be almost Nil anyway.
By the way, what about the Greens? If they do well, and not forgetting that they scored a paltry 839 in the election, wouldn't that have fairly severe implications for Corbyn given that some of Labour's saner senior members *cough*NPXMP*cough* voted for him specifically to stop the leakage to the Greens?
The candidate, as I understand it, is not exactly a Meacher fellow-traveller and Meacher's personal views, which were practically indistinguishable from those of the Greens in many cases, must surely have depressed their vote earlier this year.
It's December. Most sane people will be interested in other things.
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
Yes, it's my view that the tuition fees pledge did them a lot more damage than joining the coalition. Or rather becoming part of the government in itself was not a problem, it was the perceived abandonment of their core principles that destroyed them.
It ceertainly upset this (?former) LibDem much more than joining the coaliition itself did.
How Labour activists/£3ers behave will be fascinating - they're not in the same political space as the Labour candidate by all accounts.
Will they swallow their views and get out, or not bother given the enormous maj Meacher had. The chances of Labour losing with no canvassing at all must be almost Nil anyway.
By the way, what about the Greens? If they do well, and not forgetting that they scored a paltry 839 in the election, wouldn't that have fairly severe implications for Corbyn given that some of Labour's saner senior members *cough*NPXMP*cough* voted for him specifically to stop the leakage to the Greens?
The candidate, as I understand it, is not exactly a Meacher fellow-traveller and Meacher's personal views, which were practically indistinguishable from those of the Greens in many cases, must surely have depressed their vote earlier this year.
It's December. Most sane people will be interested in other things.
Possible Tory slogan - 'Give us an early Christmas present. Vote Labour and save Jeremy Corbyn!'
The last time the LDs got an increase at a by-election big enough to save their deposit in OW&R was Sedgefield in July 2007 where their vote increased by 8 percentage points.
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
If Ukip have any chance in OW&R then they need the Lib Dems to take some votes from Labour. I suspect, however, that Labour will win by getting the postal vote out.
I mentioned them yesterday in my preview. No government has gained a seat from the opposition at a by election since 1982. This is a seat where Labour is defending a majority of nearly 15,000. Those facts should answer your question.
Also, the election did not take place against the backdrop of the tax credits farrago, and the government of the country was at stake. If the Conservatives do not leak votes to UKIP and possibly even the Liberal Democrats in this election I shall be very surprised.
Moreover, the Conservatives are useless at by-elections. They couldn't even hold Corby or Rochester. They won a single by-election in the last parliament, and in other places including Eastleigh where they should have been in the mix they gave the impression of going through the motions.
If Cameron and Osborne are wise, though, they will throw everything at persuading their supporters not to vote UKIP, for two good reasons: (1) a good result here will renew UKIP's confidence after their disappointing performance at the election and the farce over Farage and (2) if Corbyn loses this seat, or is even run close, whatever the Labour party rules he is finished. He may even resign in a huff on realising how much everyone outside his gaggle of vocal supporters hates him. That would be bad news for the Conservatives.
Surely it's good news for the Conservatives if UKIP cause trouble for Labour in safe Labour seats.
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
Yes, it's my view that the tuition fees pledge did them a lot more damage than joining the coalition. Or rather becoming part of the government in itself was not a problem, it was the perceived abandonment of their core principles that destroyed them.
Actually, the polls say the "crash" took place from the moment they joined the coalition. It preceded the unnecessary [ and politically inept ] Tuition fees betrayal.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
Surely it's good news for the Conservatives if UKIP cause trouble for Labour in safe Labour seats.
If it happens in the General Election and makes Labour's life more difficult, yes. If it happens in a by-election and forces out the most incompetent leader Labour have had since at least George Lansbury - one who furthermore does not have Lansbury's essential decency as an asset to fall back on - then no. The Conservatives could do with a Darlington 83* - a fairly safe Labour hold to gull those on the left who want to be gulled into thinking that everything will be alright on the night.
*Even then, the closeness of the result was one factor in Thatcher bringing the election forward in case the Labour right moved against Foot and Healey was installed just before the election when Labour would have had no time to split.
Surely it's good news for the Conservatives if UKIP cause trouble for Labour in safe Labour seats.
If it happens in the General Election and makes Labour's life more difficult, yes. If it happens in a by-election and forces out the most incompetent leader Labour have had since at least George Lansbury - one who furthermore does not have Lansbury's essential decency as an asset to fall back on - then no. The Conservatives could do with a Darlington 83* - a fairly safe Labour hold to gull those on the left who want to be gulled into thinking that everything will be alright on the night.
*Even then, the closeness of the result was one factor in Thatcher bringing the election forward in case the Labour right moved against Foot and Healey was installed just before the election when Labour would have had no time to split.
Was that the Tory strategy in Darlington, to deliberately go easy on Labour and Foot? I'd always assumed they were going full out for victory.
The last time the LDs got an increase at a by-election big enough to save their deposit in OW&R was Sedgefield in July 2007 where their vote increased by 8 percentage points.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
Yes, it's my view that the tuition fees pledge did them a lot more damage than joining the coalition. Or rather becoming part of the government in itself was not a problem, it was the perceived abandonment of their core principles that destroyed them.
Actually, the polls say the "crash" took place from the moment they joined the coalition. It preceded the unnecessary [ and politically inept ] Tuition fees betrayal.
There was a gradual but steady decline from about June - not so much on entering the coalition. However, their polling did not dip into single figures until November when the government accepted the Browne review. After that their polling, which had not been below 12-14 points before, never rose above it.
What is Norman Lamb doing nowadays? Whether Farron is leader or not, Lamb is a much better contrast with Corbyn.
I'd be using him as much as possible - and not just waiting for the phone to ring. IIRC, bar a single appearance at PMQs, I've seen Farron ONCE on the TV babbling about refugees.
Surely it is only a big gamble when you have something to lose. I don't see the Lib Dems having anything to lose here as it is infertile ground. What they desperately need is to remain a part of our national conversation and deploying the leader is one way to get some attention. They don't have many others these days and their very much diminished role in Parliament means he has time on his hands anyway.
There surely has to be a considerable amount of room for a vaguely coherent, vaguely credible opposition party given the madness of Labour under Corbyn. But getting themselves heard is a real challenge now. No more standard spots on R5 or QT as of right. The BBC seem to have made the major/minor change already.
When the Lib Dems do get a say it tends to be the likes of Ming who can play the elder statesman role. Lamb may be getting in the local media but I have not seen him on national media since the election.
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
Yes, it's my view that the tuition fees pledge did them a lot more damage than joining the coalition. Or rather becoming part of the government in itself was not a problem, it was the perceived abandonment of their core principles that destroyed them.
Actually, the polls say the "crash" took place from the moment they joined the coalition. It preceded the unnecessary [ and politically inept ] Tuition fees betrayal.
All parties suffer polling falls, blips and collapses at one time or other, but they can recover. On this occasion the LDs didn't because the brand had been 'ratnered'.
Surely it's good news for the Conservatives if UKIP cause trouble for Labour in safe Labour seats.
If it happens in the General Election and makes Labour's life more difficult, yes. If it happens in a by-election and forces out the most incompetent leader Labour have had since at least George Lansbury - one who furthermore does not have Lansbury's essential decency as an asset to fall back on - then no. The Conservatives could do with a Darlington 83* - a fairly safe Labour hold to gull those on the left who want to be gulled into thinking that everything will be alright on the night.
*Even then, the closeness of the result was one factor in Thatcher bringing the election forward in case the Labour right moved against Foot and Healey was installed just before the election when Labour would have had no time to split.
Was that the Tory strategy in Darlington, to deliberately go easy on Labour and Foot? I'd always assumed they were going full out for victory.
Their candidate was one Michael Fallon I believe. Not the sort of man to hold back?
The last time the LDs got an increase at a by-election big enough to save their deposit in OW&R was Sedgefield in July 2007 where their vote increased by 8 percentage points.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
What was so bad LD-wise re the Browne Review or was that just a coincidence?
I expected the LDs to revive a bit more than they did, the impact of Tory campaigning locally clearly had an impact, but it doesn't explain the whole collapse.
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
Yes, it's my view that the tuition fees pledge did them a lot more damage than joining the coalition. Or rather becoming part of the government in itself was not a problem, it was the perceived abandonment of their core principles that destroyed them.
Actually, the polls say the "crash" took place from the moment they joined the coalition. It preceded the unnecessary [ and politically inept ] Tuition fees betrayal.
There was a gradual but steady decline from about June - not so much on entering the coalition. However, their polling did not dip into single figures until November when the government accepted the Browne review. After that their polling, which had not been below 12-14 points before, never rose above it.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
They can't seriously be suggesting that the relevance of a Commonwealth Supreme Court ruling to British law depends on the proportion of white people in that particular country, can they? Can they?
What is Norman Lamb doing nowadays? Whether Farron is leader or not, Lamb is a much better contrast with Corbyn.
I'd be using him as much as possible - and not just waiting for the phone to ring. IIRC, bar a single appearance at PMQs, I've seen Farron ONCE on the TV babbling about refugees.
Surely it is only a big gamble when you have something to lose. I don't see the Lib Dems having anything to lose here as it is infertile ground. What they desperately need is to remain a part of our national conversation and deploying the leader is one way to get some attention. They don't have many others these days and their very much diminished role in Parliament means he has time on his hands anyway.
There surely has to be a considerable amount of room for a vaguely coherent, vaguely credible opposition party given the madness of Labour under Corbyn. But getting themselves heard is a real challenge now. No more standard spots on R5 or QT as of right. The BBC seem to have made the major/minor change already.
When the Lib Dems do get a say it tends to be the likes of Ming who can play the elder statesman role. Lamb may be getting in the local media but I have not seen him on national media since the election.
An interesting by-election fact is that only one Tory MP has died in office in the twenty-first century so far (defined as starting on 1st Jan 2001) which was Eric Forth in 2006. The LDs almost won the by-election in Bromley & Chislehurst. Since 1997 the others have been Michael Colvin (Romsey, 2000), Alan Clark (Kensington&Chelsea, 1999), Michael Shersby (Uxbridge, 1997).
Surely it's good news for the Conservatives if UKIP cause trouble for Labour in safe Labour seats.
If it happens in the General Election and makes Labour's life more difficult, yes. If it happens in a by-election and forces out the most incompetent leader Labour have had since at least George Lansbury - one who furthermore does not have Lansbury's essential decency as an asset to fall back on - then no. The Conservatives could do with a Darlington 83* - a fairly safe Labour hold to gull those on the left who want to be gulled into thinking that everything will be alright on the night.
*Even then, the closeness of the result was one factor in Thatcher bringing the election forward in case the Labour right moved against Foot and Healey was installed just before the election when Labour would have had no time to split.
Was that the Tory strategy in Darlington, to deliberately go easy on Labour and Foot? I'd always assumed they were going full out for victory.
I can't find any reference to the strategy in such books as I have - indeed Howe's memoirs would tend to slightly contradict it by saying the Conservatives had been shocked to lose Northfield due to the loss of votes to the SDP. However, the result whether deliberate or not was undoubtedly beneficial - had Foot lost, he would have been out, and he might have been out anyway had the election been delayed. Both parties also lost votes to the SDP, which kept them credible in the public mind and led to them polling 25% at the election - despite Howe's fears, mostly at the expense of Labour, who polled an absolutely pathetic 27.6%. It is very difficult to imagine Healey doing that badly in a honeymoon period.
And, of course, the Conservatives won the seat at the election anyway!
And given that the LDs Last Big Promise was on tuition fees and they lead with a campaign of No More Broken Promises - what hope do they have until all those pissed off voters forgive/forget?
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
On topic, the question Farron has to answer is what the Lib Dems are for, nationally and - in this case - in Oldham West. What is their USP? It's all very well attacking Labour or UKIP or the Tories but you can't attack everyone at the same time; you need a positive message too. And if you only attack, say, Labour, the likeliest result is that a better-placed opponent will benefit.
Yes, it's my view that the tuition fees pledge did them a lot more damage than joining the coalition. Or rather becoming part of the government in itself was not a problem, it was the perceived abandonment of their core principles that destroyed them.
Actually, the polls say the "crash" took place from the moment they joined the coalition. It preceded the unnecessary [ and politically inept ] Tuition fees betrayal.
There was a gradual but steady decline from about June - not so much on entering the coalition. However, their polling did not dip into single figures until November when the government accepted the Browne review. After that their polling, which had not been below 12-14 points before, never rose above it.
So the collapse did not occur immediately on forming the coalition. I think Farron is right to make an effort in a town where there is a strong recent memory of voting LD. He needs some bounceback. Being in a position to be the challenger in 2020 to a Corbynite Labour party is a reasonable aim.
In 2020 Labour may face obliteration in more heartlands, but to whom the spoils? UKIP need to stay second to make that case, but it may be a tall order as it seems Conservatives do not do tactical voting. They are going to need to take Labour votes.
Perhaps the Lib Dems might out poll UKIP after all
Ukip is facing financial ruin following a slump in membership and the loss of key donors in the wake of the party’s disappointing General Election performance, The Mail on Sunday has learned.
Insiders say the situation has become so desperate that many staff wages went unpaid last month, and leader Nigel Farage has been forced to ring round backers begging for a financial lifeline.
The problems have been compounded by the fact that the party’s biggest donor, Arron Banks, is now channelling his money instead into his own campaign for the UK to vote to leave the EU.
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Sactimony and opportunism sit ill at ease together.
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
The last time the LDs got an increase at a by-election big enough to save their deposit in OW&R was Sedgefield in July 2007 where their vote increased by 8 percentage points.
It's interesting how the big drop for UKIP in local by-elections hasn't been reflected in national opinion polls where their share has remained about the same as at the general election. More evidence that local by-elections aren't that helpful, something which Rallings & Thrasher pointed out a few years ago. Before that they were thought to be a good indicator of national fortunes.
What was so bad LD-wise re the Browne Review or was that just a coincidence?
I expected the LDs to revive a bit more than they did, the impact of Tory campaigning locally clearly had an impact, but it doesn't explain the whole collapse.
Their MPs had been photographed holding signs saying something along the lines of 'we promise never, ever to increase tuition fees.' Then not only did they vote for them, but Vince Cable brought forward the legislation to do it. It is alleged, how truthfully I do not know, that Cameron had offered for Osborne himself to do that and allow the Liberal Democrats to abstain so they would not break that pledge, but Cable refused. It meant, immediately, that there was clear, unambiguous evidence of their hypocrisy to splash across every newspaper.
It is no coincidence that they forfeited every one of the several university seats they held apart from Sheffield Hallam and Ceredigion.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
The devil is in the detail but it is not immediately obvious that losing human rights protection is a good thing.
Sounds like a by-election in Richmond Park is becoming more likely:
"The Sunday Telegraph reports that “David Cameron has decided it would be politically safe to back a third runway at Heathrow, despite previously promising to block the expansion of Britain’s busiest airport,” and that “the Government is preparing to announce the next phase for airport expansion within weeks”.
If true, that would at first glance seem to signal a by-election in Richmond Park, since Zac Goldsmith has promised to stand down if growth at Heathrow gets the green light. He apparently believes a decision to quit his seat after the Mayoral election result rather than before would be a breach of his pledge – although such timing would at least leave him clearer about his fate."
The last time the LDs got an increase at a by-election big enough to save their deposit in OW&R was Sedgefield in July 2007 where their vote increased by 8 percentage points.
Fallon has a political gold dust quality - he comes across as so incredibly sensible and calm - but doesn't flinch from taking one for the team when needed. He also has that greyness that ensures he doesn't stand out either. I'd be hard pressed to spot him next to me on the bus. It's only his voice I recognise and even then I have to think about This Man Is A Tory, He Looks/Sounds Familiar, What Job Does He Have? Is That Fallon?
Surely it's good news for the Conservatives if UKIP cause trouble for Labour in safe Labour seats.
If it happens in the General Election and makes Labour's life more difficult, yes. If it happens in a by-election and forces out the most incompetent leader Labour have had since at least George Lansbury - one who furthermore does not have Lansbury's essential decency as an asset to fall back on - then no. The Conservatives could do with a Darlington 83* - a fairly safe Labour hold to gull those on the left who want to be gulled into thinking that everything will be alright on the night.
*Even then, the closeness of the result was one factor in Thatcher bringing the election forward in case the Labour right moved against Foot and Healey was installed just before the election when Labour would have had no time to split.
Was that the Tory strategy in Darlington, to deliberately go easy on Labour and Foot? I'd always assumed they were going full out for victory.
Their candidate was one Michael Fallon I believe. Not the sort of man to hold back?
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
The devil is in the detail but it is not immediately obvious that losing human rights protection is a good thing.
There is much that could be improved, but it will a tough sell I think - it will be very easy to craft a simple, opposing message on it.
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Sactimony and opportunism sit ill at ease together.
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
I seem to remember David Dutton's book on Liberalism in the twentieth century ended with some musings on precisely that problem. He noted that roughly 58% of their vote in 1997 was centre-right, and ex-Tory, and Ashdown doubted if that could be retained because ultimately the Liberal Democrats were a centre left party. Indeed, to retain so many votes that were not aligned with the party's views for so many years was something of an achievement.
I wonder if the fact they went back into government with the Tories persuaded ex-Tory, new Liberal Democrat voters that it was once again safe to vote blue directly, as well as causing a haemorrhage of Labour tactical votes? Just a thought, I have no evidence to support it other than the huge number of seats the Tories took back from them that they had not held for 23 years.
I do not share the view that the Tories should be trying to keep Corbyn as leader. Labour have a core vote and it would not take many Tory losses for there to be a Corbyn premiership, particularly given the fact that the Tories' best asset, Cameron, will no longer be standing as PM. A Corbyn premiership would be disastrous, IMO - mainly because of what it says about the takeover of a morally repulsive, blind eye-turning to violence Left, quite out of keeping with traditional British values, including those of the decent Methodist-Orwell left.
Whether Labour supporters or not we owe it to the country to make sure that the insane nitwit group which has taken over Labour is crushed - and at the earliest possible opportunity. There needs to be a decent opposition around to keep the government on its toes, and one that can be voted for by decent people, even if it's not to one's particular taste.
An interesting by-election fact is that only one Tory MP has died in office in the twenty-first century so far (defined as starting on 1st Jan 2001) which was Eric Forth in 2006. The LDs almost won the by-election in Bromley & Chislehurst. Since 1997 the others have been Michael Colvin (Romsey, 2000), Alan Clark (Kensington&Chelsea, 1999), Michael Shersby (Uxbridge, 1997).
Sounds like a by-election in Richmond Park is becoming more likely:
"The Sunday Telegraph reports that “David Cameron has decided it would be politically safe to back a third runway at Heathrow, despite previously promising to block the expansion of Britain’s busiest airport,” and that “the Government is preparing to announce the next phase for airport expansion within weeks”.
If true, that would at first glance seem to signal a by-election in Richmond Park, since Zac Goldsmith has promised to stand down if growth at Heathrow gets the green light. He apparently believes a decision to quit his seat after the Mayoral election result rather than before would be a breach of his pledge – although such timing would at least leave him clearer about his fate."
I would be supporting Cameron on this U-turn. Heathrow needs a 3rd runway. I hope Labour does not change Harriet Harman's change of policy.
If Corbyn were to change that because of McDonnell that would be wrong. There are tens of thousands of jobs that will be created.
Anyone owning a house under the flight path knew where Heathrow was since 1946. In any case, planes are a lot quieter now than 20 years ago. The next generation of planes will be even quieter.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
Perhaps the Lib Dems might out poll UKIP after all
Ukip is facing financial ruin following a slump in membership and the loss of key donors in the wake of the party’s disappointing General Election performance, The Mail on Sunday has learned.
Insiders say the situation has become so desperate that many staff wages went unpaid last month, and leader Nigel Farage has been forced to ring round backers begging for a financial lifeline.
The problems have been compounded by the fact that the party’s biggest donor, Arron Banks, is now channelling his money instead into his own campaign for the UK to vote to leave the EU.
We have seen recently on PB the extinction of the Lib Dems, UKIP, and Labour predicted with certainty and delight. Presumably the result being welcomed is a Tory one-party state.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
The devil is in the detail but it is not immediately obvious that losing human rights protection is a good thing.
Perhaps the Lib Dems might out poll UKIP after all
Ukip is facing financial ruin following a slump in membership and the loss of key donors in the wake of the party’s disappointing General Election performance, The Mail on Sunday has learned.
Insiders say the situation has become so desperate that many staff wages went unpaid last month, and leader Nigel Farage has been forced to ring round backers begging for a financial lifeline.
The problems have been compounded by the fact that the party’s biggest donor, Arron Banks, is now channelling his money instead into his own campaign for the UK to vote to leave the EU.
The last time the LDs got an increase at a by-election big enough to save their deposit in OW&R was Sedgefield in July 2007 where their vote increased by 8 percentage points.
Mr. Eagles, one despairs of your historical illiteracy.
Honestly. During the last few months, the pup has learnt that interior defecating is forbidden, climbing the furniture is prohibited, and yesterday she began to learn how to give paw.
At this rate, her knowledge of classical history will exceed yours within a few months.
Sounds like a by-election in Richmond Park is becoming more likely:
"The Sunday Telegraph reports that “David Cameron has decided it would be politically safe to back a third runway at Heathrow, despite previously promising to block the expansion of Britain’s busiest airport,” and that “the Government is preparing to announce the next phase for airport expansion within weeks”.
If true, that would at first glance seem to signal a by-election in Richmond Park, since Zac Goldsmith has promised to stand down if growth at Heathrow gets the green light. He apparently believes a decision to quit his seat after the Mayoral election result rather than before would be a breach of his pledge – although such timing would at least leave him clearer about his fate."
I would be supporting Cameron on this U-turn. Heathrow needs a 3rd runway. I hope Labour does not change Harriet Harman's change of policy.
If Corbyn were to change that because of McDonnell that would be wrong. There are tens of thousands of jobs that will be created.
Anyone owning a house under the flight path knew where Heathrow was since 1946. In any case, planes are a lot quieter now than 20 years ago. The next generation of planes will be even quieter.
But there are a lot more of them.
The assurances in the Davies report about flight times and hours are not reassuring - just ask the people suffering around Gatwick.
Comments
"Don't speak to me of heroes until you've heard the tale,
Of Britain's merchant seamen who sailed through storm and gale,
To keep those lifelines open in freedom's hour of need,
When a tyrant cast a shadow across our Island breed.
Captains, greasers, cabin boys, mates and engineers,
Heard the call of duty and cast aside their fears,
They stoked those hungry boilers or stood behind the wheel,
While cooks and stewards manned the guns on coffins made of steel.
They moved in icy convoys from Scapa to Murmansk,
They crossed the Western ocean, never seeking thanks,
They sailed the South Atlantic where raiders lay in wait,
And kept the food lines open to Malta and the Cape.
Tracked by silent U boats that hunted from below,
Shelled by mighty cannon and bombers flying low,
They clung to burning lifeboats when the sea had turned to flame,
And watched their shipmates sink to everlasting fame.
I speak not of a handful but thirty thousand plus,
Some whose names we'll never know, in whom we placed our trust.
They never knew the honour of medals on their chests,
Of marching bands and Victory, or 'glory' and the rest.
The Ocean is their resting place; their tombstone is the wind,
The seabirds cry their last goodbye to family and to friends.
Freighters, troopships, liners, tankers by the score,
Fishing boats and coasters four thousand ships and more,
They flew their county's ensign as they sank beneath the waves,
And took those countless heroes to lonely ocean graves.
Their legacy is freedom, to those who hold it dear,
To walk with clear horizons and never hide in fear.
So when you speak of heroes, remember those at sea,
From Britain's Merchant Navy, who died to keep you free."
(the original version of this post was deleted for reasons unknown. I repost it below with the first and second paragraphs redacted, in case it's that causing the problem)
SPECTRE is breaking box office records in the UK and opened in the domesric market (USA/Canada) Thursday night. It grossed $28million domestic Friday night, which is $2million less than Skyfall did on the same day when it was released. It's expected to do very well but not nearly as well as its predecessor. Caution must be taken when estimating global box-office because of the increasing importance of the China market and it may pull some back because of that, but I'd be surprised if it grossed $1billion. It's seen as the "Age of Ultron" to Skyfall's "Avengers". A blockbuster movie that works well enough but makes same poor choices and does not live up to its predecessor.
I can only hope that he's been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to help the Lib Dems start the long process of rebuilding. To be fair, it seems they're not doing as badly in local elections as they were (although that's just an impression, and I don't have any hard-and-fast figures for it).
But he needs to be making more noise. As mentioned on a recent thread, the Lib Dems aren't on the media as much. Farron needs to try to reverse that.
the LDs face oblivion under the milquetoast, gurning, God-botherer...
A potential way forward (if cynical) would be to oppose any military action that may be upcoming, e.g. in Syria. In 2003 that garnered them a massive amount of media time. Unfortunately it is distinctly possible that the SNP will also oppose such action, and as they have so many more MPs, the media will concentrate on their opposition rather than the Lib Dems. The effect will still be there, but it will be massively blunted.
Brave move by Tim Farron, but at least he’s leading his party from the front.
Straw-clutching time, perhaps, though!
Whether Grimond went on to great things is a different question.
As David Herdson says, the Lib Dems need to answer what they're for. In a by-election that they won't win, why should voters turn out for them?
The Lib Dems got bloody slaughtered at the election. The opportunistic little shit needs to take every chance he can get [and, given he's happy to create a constitutional crisis in a bid to try and get a few inches of media coverage, it'd be bloody odd if he didn't go all out in a by-election].
Mr. StClare, well, quite. But then, Crassus led his army from the front at Carrhae.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Milquetoast
Though I think this is a poor term for Farron, who has come out fighting in this seat. It would be an extraordinary win if they manage it. A good performance will hearten the troops though. There are some who will see toxicity for the LDs, but plenty of toxicity for Labour, Tories and UKIP.
If UKIP went backwards from May it would be pretty damning for them.
They could increase their majority from 12 to 14, so should be motivated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_West_and_Royton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Success criteria for the Liberal Democrats would surely be -
1) Lose their deposit - failure
2) Triple their share of the vote at the expense of Labour - a sign that they can prosper under the new regime by being the soft-left party - good result without being quite a success.
3) Come second - success.
However, it is very difficult to see the third happening in this particular seat.
UKIP, of course, would be something like:
1) Finish outside the top two - failure
2) Finish second - average
3) Win the seat - success.
But again, it's difficult to see the third happening.
For the Tories, anything higher than fifth has got to be a result!
It's not just students who will remember that epically stupid bit of positioning.
The candidate, as I understand it, is not exactly a Meacher fellow-traveller and Meacher's personal views, which were practically indistinguishable from those of the Greens in many cases, must surely have depressed their vote earlier this year.
I'd be using him as much as possible - and not just waiting for the phone to ring. IIRC, bar a single appearance at PMQs, I've seen Farron ONCE on the TV babbling about refugees.
When Nigel had no MPs he got more coverage.
Moreover, the Conservatives are useless at by-elections. They couldn't even hold Corby or Rochester. They won a single by-election in the last parliament, and in other places including Eastleigh where they should have been in the mix they gave the impression of going through the motions.
If Cameron and Osborne are wise, though, they will throw everything at persuading their supporters not to vote UKIP, for two good reasons: (1) a good result here will renew UKIP's confidence after their disappointing performance at the election and the farce over Farage and (2) if Corbyn loses this seat, or is even run close, whatever the Labour party rules he is finished. He may even resign in a huff on realising how much everyone outside his gaggle of vocal supporters hates him. That would be bad news for the Conservatives.
Will they swallow their views and get out, or not bother given the enormous maj Meacher had. The chances of Labour losing with no canvassing at all must be almost Nil anyway.
The F1 calendar ends in November.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedgefield_by-election,_2007
Since then their vote increased on two occasions. In Henley (Jun 2008) by 1.8 points and Oldham East (Jan 2011) by 0.3 points.
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Some very interesting changes in it.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al.
- Explicit statement about freedom of the press
- Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas
- Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
*Even then, the closeness of the result was one factor in Thatcher bringing the election forward in case the Labour right moved against Foot and Healey was installed just before the election when Labour would have had no time to split.
1. Everything
Figures here.
When the Lib Dems do get a say it tends to be the likes of Ming who can play the elder statesman role. Lamb may be getting in the local media but I have not seen him on national media since the election.
http://www.conservativehome.com/ukip-watch/2015/07/in-local-by-elections-since-may-ukip-have-suffered-an-average-fall-of-10-9-per-cent-in-their-vote-share.html
I expected the LDs to revive a bit more than they did, the impact of Tory campaigning locally clearly had an impact, but it doesn't explain the whole collapse.
If they had something interesting to say, the media would publish/get them on air. Being CorbynForPussies isn't newsworthy.
And, of course, the Conservatives won the seat at the election anyway!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_East_and_Saddleworth_by-election,_2011
So the collapse did not occur immediately on forming the coalition. I think Farron is right to make an effort in a town where there is a strong recent memory of voting LD. He needs some bounceback. Being in a position to be the challenger in 2020 to a Corbynite Labour party is a reasonable aim.
In 2020 Labour may face obliteration in more heartlands, but to whom the spoils? UKIP need to stay second to make that case, but it may be a tall order as it seems Conservatives do not do tactical voting. They are going to need to take Labour votes.
Ukip is facing financial ruin following a slump in membership and the loss of key donors in the wake of the party’s disappointing General Election performance, The Mail on Sunday has learned.
Insiders say the situation has become so desperate that many staff wages went unpaid last month, and leader Nigel Farage has been forced to ring round backers begging for a financial lifeline.
The problems have been compounded by the fact that the party’s biggest donor, Arron Banks, is now channelling his money instead into his own campaign for the UK to vote to leave the EU.
http://dailym.ai/1RG6Zrd
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
It is no coincidence that they forfeited every one of the several university seats they held apart from Sheffield Hallam and Ceredigion.
"The Sunday Telegraph reports that “David Cameron has decided it would be politically safe to back a third runway at Heathrow, despite previously promising to block the expansion of Britain’s busiest airport,” and that “the Government is preparing to announce the next phase for airport expansion within weeks”.
If true, that would at first glance seem to signal a by-election in Richmond Park, since Zac Goldsmith has promised to stand down if growth at Heathrow gets the green light. He apparently believes a decision to quit his seat after the Mayoral election result rather than before would be a breach of his pledge – although such timing would at least leave him clearer about his fate."
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/11/if-cameron-really-wants-expansion-at-heathrow-can-he-fend-off-a-by-election-in-richmond-park.html
It'd be very hard to satirise him.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
I wonder if the fact they went back into government with the Tories persuaded ex-Tory, new Liberal Democrat voters that it was once again safe to vote blue directly, as well as causing a haemorrhage of Labour tactical votes? Just a thought, I have no evidence to support it other than the huge number of seats the Tories took back from them that they had not held for 23 years.
I do not share the view that the Tories should be trying to keep Corbyn as leader. Labour have a core vote and it would not take many Tory losses for there to be a Corbyn premiership, particularly given the fact that the Tories' best asset, Cameron, will no longer be standing as PM. A Corbyn premiership would be disastrous, IMO - mainly because of what it says about the takeover of a morally repulsive, blind eye-turning to violence Left, quite out of keeping with traditional British values, including those of the decent Methodist-Orwell left.
Whether Labour supporters or not we owe it to the country to make sure that the insane nitwit group which has taken over Labour is crushed - and at the earliest possible opportunity. There needs to be a decent opposition around to keep the government on its toes, and one that can be voted for by decent people, even if it's not to one's particular taste.
If Corbyn were to change that because of McDonnell that would be wrong. There are tens of thousands of jobs that will be created.
Anyone owning a house under the flight path knew where Heathrow was since 1946. In any case, planes are a lot quieter now than 20 years ago. The next generation of planes will be even quieter.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/25/this-mornings-must-read/
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, are you suggesting Farron = Miliband?
Honestly. During the last few months, the pup has learnt that interior defecating is forbidden, climbing the furniture is prohibited, and yesterday she began to learn how to give paw.
At this rate, her knowledge of classical history will exceed yours within a few months.
The assurances in the Davies report about flight times and hours are not reassuring - just ask the people suffering around Gatwick.