Only 52% of junior doctors are in UK training posts 2 years out. There is some interesting detail in that 5.5 % are anatomy demonstrators (often done while working for surgical postgraduate exams) and 9.2 % are in non training posts (mostly locuming). So about 1/3 are not practicing in the UK. Only 10% are working overseas, and a few will be doing research. So around 20% are no longer working in medicine anywhere in the world.
That is pretty damning retention. Note that the figures are from before the current dispute.
That's surely not unusual in other courses? I'd say only about half the people on the civ eng course I was on (and who I kept in touch with) went into 'proper' civil engineering. A friend with a biology doctorate (genetics) became a computer programmer. An aero eng friend became a programmer (and racing car driver), and another biologist a handyman! I understand training to be a junior doctor is different, but there will be some who decide the occupation is not for them, but the qualification is still worth getting.
Some famous examples off the top of my head from decades ago: Dr Graeme Garden, and (I think) Graham Chapman.
Your data above is only really useful if it is a comparison with these figures over past years, to see if the proportion not going into training posts has altered.
The retention figure has dropped every year, and is down from 71% to 52% since 2011. That is a pretty strong trend. Next year it is pretty likely to be sub 50%. Mr Hunt is going to have a real staffing crisis on his hands very soon.
What about the rise in % of doctors that are female and then the rate of pregnancies in young female doctors?
The percentage female hasn't changed over that time period, and both maternity and a career break of 3 years would count as in a training programme, as would part time training.
I need to get off to work shortly but this link shows how the issue of retention is tackled in one place in California:
Oh come all ye voters, to the polling station, Oh come ye, oh come ye to voo-ote. Oh come and behold it, the king of voting systems. Oh come let us adore it, Oh come let us adore it, Oh come let us adore it, Alternative vote
Rows of boxes, tellers sitting by, Lo, it abhors not multiple marks; Lib Dem begotten, not created: Oh come let us adore it, Oh come let us adore it, Oh come let us adore it, Alternative vote
Good morning everyone, Many thanks to PfP for the Corbyn exit date tip. Also, many thanks to whoever it was that tipped the yellow peril to lose their deposit on Thursday.
While looking at that tip on WH I saw that they have 66/1 on McMahon as Labour Leader ever.
He is 35, in a safe seat, was ambitious enough to be council leader in his thirties and the council rep on the NEC. He has a down to earth manner, speaks well and knows how to run a ground game.
Seems value to me for when the party regains its senses.
On topic, I was always of the school that Jeremy Corbyn was safe for quite some time. The question is whether this will stop his internal critics sounding noises off constantly. My expectation is no.
Good morning everyone, Many thanks to PfP for the Corbyn exit date tip. Also, many thanks to whoever it was that tipped the yellow peril to lose their deposit on Thursday.
While looking at that tip on WH I saw that they have 66/1 on McMahon as Labour Leader ever.
He is 35, in a safe seat, was ambitious enough to be council leader in his thirties and the council rep on the NEC. He has a down to earth manner, speaks well and knows how to run a ground game.
Seems value to me for when the party regains its senses.
Jeremy Corbyn said that the murder of Alan Henning at the hands of Jihadi John is "the price we pay for war and jingoism" just a day after aid worker's death, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The Labour leader said that Mr Henning’s execution by Isil terrorists was “the price of intervention” and “the price of war”.
Labour has scored a success in Oldham that few predicted. UKIP was roundly thrashed by a well run Labour campaign leavened by a large and in-the-pocket Asian population.
However, if UKIP pursues the majority of postal votes are fraudulent in any way, and it turns out to be even slightly true, things may change.
UKIP's charge is barely concealed racism. A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas was another barely disguised punt at racism.
I would not be surprised if the turnout amongst the Asian population actually increased as a result.
Christmas songs at Christmas. How racist.
Why that particular song was chosen we will probably never know, but why have a loudspeaker van driving around playing songs anyway? Not time or money well spent.
Loudspeakers on polling day ceased to be of any use 30 years ago.
Vote, lines of plebs, vote in exultation, Vote, all ye citizens of Hull and above! Glory to AV, glory in the fairness: O come, let us adore it, O come, let us adore it, O come, let us adore it, Alternative vote.
Yea, Clegg, we greet thee, born this happy morning; AV, to thee be glory given! Word of the Lib'als, now in marks appearing! O come, let us adore it, O come, let us adore it, O come, let us adore it, Alternative vote.
Jeremy Corbyn said that the murder of Alan Henning at the hands of Jihadi John is "the price we pay for war and jingoism" just a day after aid worker's death, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The Labour leader said that Mr Henning’s execution by Isil terrorists was “the price of intervention” and “the price of war”.
There is no arguing with people who think that people are killed/attacked because Britain attacks IS rather than because the killers subscribe to the ideology which animates IS.
It is an irony - it would be amusing, were the subject not so serious - that the Left, normally so keen on ideology (all those groups viciously arguing about the finer points of Marxist theology) absolutely refuses to accept the existence of - let alone confront - the ideology which the terrorists themselves proudly proclaim.
Hilary Benn describing IS as fascists (rather than as misunderstood grumblers understandably overreacting, the normal position of too many on the Left) was one of the first times a Labour politician had done so. No wonder it was so refreshing. MPs were applauding the penny finally dropping.
So seven months after Meacher polled a 14,000 majority his successor polls a 10,000 majority..and that is considered a victory...more like a plummet to me..
I've always thought Corbyn would last a couple of years or so - he's a massive mandate, he's waited his whole life for this moment, and isn't going to give it up lightly. He also appears to be enjoying much of his new found fame.
Meanwhile, The Sensible Left have no policy ideas/no strategy to depose him. What do they stand for? What are their big ticket items? Why vote for their agenda? Most haven't moved on from Blairism, or are a wishy-washy collection of nothing much - as painfully exposed during the Leadership Election
It's all very well bitching and holding pity parties with friendly journalists, but until they stop playing defense and have a credible plan - nothing is changing.
It's been a long while since I read Mandy's memoir - but IIRC The Project was years in the making, it was planned to the nth degree and allies quietly lined up in the background. Until Sensible Labour get as serious about saving Labour from STW and assorted Corbynistas - it's going nowhere very slowly. SDP2 is very unlikely and I wouldn't advocate it. Stay and fight to win.
Final point, the sensible long-haired blond Momentum lady is a complete contrast to most of their representatives. I'd use her all the time for TV appearances. She's the only one I've seen so far that doesn't look like a Greenham Common reject or angry.
Corbyn's comments on Henning's murder are disgusting. But there we are. Is it a shock, at this stage? Not really.
Miss Plato, indeed. They're bleating and praying for divine intervention. They should get off their knees and start planning, although it may already be too late. Labour isn't prone to regicide and Corbyn's got the membership, NEC, and the unwavering belief of a zealot.
The Mail has an ISIS video nasty fest today from Yemen - and a host of other terrorism stories. @tyson on the previous thread mentioned everyone he knows talking about ISIS.
Although, that may still be better than Red Bull's 2016 Renault. We shall see.
I think the only outstanding piece of news (that we know of) is whether Aston Martin will take over Force India. There's also the Manor team principal position to be decided, but that's not quite as interesting.
They seem to think 10,722 is an increase on 14,738......really, Scottish education!
Does 'majority' always mean numerical votes or could it be percentage?
Percentage would be 'share of vote'
So 'Labour won Oldham with an increased Share of the Vote' is true - and is probably the 'fairest' description of what happened
'Labour won in Oldham but its Majority fell' is also true - but misleading, as the overall vote fell by more than the Labour vote.
Labour increases Majority in Oldham' is simply innumerate (unless you are the SNP, when it is quite possible 10,772 can appear a bigger number than 14,738....)
Corbyn will last because there are plenty like him.
People who think everything in the middle east started with Blair, and that the place was all cupcakes and apple pie before 'The West' intervened.
When you encounter many of these people and interact with them, every fourth or fifth word is oil, America, new-liberalism.
There is no problem, in the world that isn't the fault of the USA, except everything they don't like about the UK. That's all thatcher's fault.
They often believe in the most bizarre conspiracy theories, yet seem blind to any common sense. To them there can be no limit on immigration, no limit on public spending, no limit on welfare. I even found a new paranoia. Contrails.... I had never heard of that one.
Their favourite saying seems to be, when challenged 'it's all documented', and by that they mean some other crazy has managed to put a website up, or at least get some Facebook click bait sufficiently circulated.
Perhaps but what would worry me if I were a Tory is that this is so unecessary. Their opponents are politically dysfunctional, fighting like ferrets and likely to remain so. Therefore why didn't Cameron see the benefit in at least acting like a statesman.
Kicking someone when they are down is OK but if everyone sees you doing it then sometimes they can unite to kick you back!
I said at the time I thought it was unnecessary and unbecoming of a PM, but as I stated down below I think the Tories saw it as an opportunity to get that message out there when for once the public were engaged with what our politicians were up to.
The vast majority of people day to day don't follow all the cock-ups, half truths, etc. Once in a while their eyes and ears on open. I think the Tories thought this was a good opportunity to tell the public maybe Corbyn and friends aren't as cuddly as they might seem.
The video of Lynton Crosby giving a seminar on how to do politics is fascinating viewing and the terrorist sympathiser line is right up the alley of long term strategy.
Unless you are a cretin it just reinforces how nasty the Tories are. They are real lowlifes and deserve their NASTY party tag.
I was at a meeting yesterday where the speakers were a chap from Labour Leave, Frederick Forsyth and Dan Hannan, an interesting contrast and all first class. The Labour man suggested 5 or 6 of the Shadow Cabinet support OUT. The front page of the Telegraph has Cameron suggesting he might lead OUT, can't see it myself but it shows how well his negotiations are going.
I'm becoming increasingly optimistic about leaving when 6 months ago it seemed forlorn.
They seem to think 10,722 is an increase on 14,738......really, Scottish education!
Does 'majority' always mean numerical votes or could it be percentage?
Percentage would be 'share of vote'
So 'Labour won Oldham with an increased Share of the Vote' is true - and is probably the 'fairest' description of what happened
'Labour won in Oldham but its Majority fell' is also true - but misleading, as the overall vote fell by more than the Labour vote.
Labour increases Majority in Oldham' is simply innumerate (unless you are the SNP, when it is quite possible 10,772 can appear a bigger number than 14,738....)
Thought-provoking thread as usual Mr Herdson, many thanks.
“Corbyn is now safe for months” – Indeed, the Oldham result will certainly have cemented Corbyn’s position, although to be honest, I don’t think in the short term at least that was ever in doubt.
Corbyn will last because there are plenty like him.
People who think everything in the middle east started with Blair, and that the place was all cupcakes and apple pie before 'The West' intervened.
When you encounter many of these people and interact with them, every fourth or fifth word is oil, America, new-liberalism.
There is no problem, in the world that isn't the fault of the USA, except everything they don't like about the UK. That's all thatcher's fault.
They often believe in the most bizarre conspiracy theories, yet seem blind to any common sense. To them there can be no limit on immigration, no limit on public spending, no limit on welfare. I even found a new paranoia. Contrails.... I had never heard of that one.
Their favourite saying seems to be, when challenged 'it's all documented', and by that they mean some other crazy has managed to put a website up, or at least get some Facebook click bait sufficiently circulated.
You omitted "we're one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we should be doing more'.
On topic, I was always of the school that Jeremy Corbyn was safe for quite some time. The question is whether this will stop his internal critics sounding noises off constantly. My expectation is no.
If that's the case Labours internal war will intensify, eventually deselection will become an issue. If Labour starts losing councillors something will have to give.
Mr. 63, I'll believe Cameron leading out Leave when I see it.
Of course you're right, it's part of his long game, "on reflection......."
But the fact the Telegraph has it on the front page suggests what some of us have been saying for a while, the negotiations are a farce and he has to at least wave a threatening flannel at Brussels.
Perhaps but what would worry me if I were a Tory is that this is so unecessary. Their opponents are politically dysfunctional, fighting like ferrets and likely to remain so. Therefore why didn't Cameron see the benefit in at least acting like a statesman.
Kicking someone when they are down is OK but if everyone sees you doing it then sometimes they can unite to kick you back!
I said at the time I thought it was unnecessary and unbecoming of a PM, but as I stated down below I think the Tories saw it as an opportunity to get that message out there when for once the public were engaged with what our politicians were up to.
The vast majority of people day to day don't follow all the cock-ups, half truths, etc. Once in a while their eyes and ears on open. I think the Tories thought this was a good opportunity to tell the public maybe Corbyn and friends aren't as cuddly as they might seem.
The video of Lynton Crosby giving a seminar on how to do politics is fascinating viewing and the terrorist sympathiser line is right up the alley of long term strategy.
Unless you are a cretin it just reinforces how nasty the Tories are. They are real lowlifes and deserve their NASTY party tag.
You are dreaming. The Labour Party sat there on prime time TV, well trailered to the public, and insisted 12 times that they were not terrorist sympathisers. Almost no voters will have heard the PM lay the accusation, it became an entirely self inflicted wound, people would assume there was no smoke without fire.... and there thing is, there is evidence of plenty of fire, McIRA being the most prominent example. The Tory party made one, little not very well noticed comment, and the Labour Party proceeded to douse itself in petrol and start playing with matches.
You might not like the Tories much, while they are lead by Cameron I am not their biggest fan either, but they are streets ahead on competence and (leaving aside Dave's encryption idiocy) don't look like a massive risk to national security.
I wanted UKIP to win in Oldham as I thought that would hasten JC's departure. But having seen the leadership's reaction to defeat and heard about the White Christmas stunt it's clear I was wrong and it's good they finished a distant second.
If UKIP do want to become a serious alternative to Labour - and under a Corbyn leadership it is undoubtedly the case an opportunity exists - they need to develop their offering. Social conservatism is fine, but bone dry economic policy espoused by self-confessed Thatcherites is never going to appeal to left-leaning voters. Playing White Christmas from a van (was Phil Woolas's agent involved in that?) and expecting disillusioned white working class voters to flock to the polls will not cut the mustard. Instead, UKIP needs to do some deep thinking and get itself deeply entrenched in Labour heartland constituencies. To capitalise on Corbyn there is no alternative.
As for Labour, the winning candidate in Oldham looks to be the ideal: grounded, pragmatic, focused squarely on outcomes and non-ideological. Work with anyone to get what you want - greater equality of opportunity, a relentless focus on alleviating poverty and so on - but hold all stakeholders to the highest standards and never accept a race to the bottom. Sadly, this is not Corbyn Labour in any way, shape or form.
Until members and unions come to see that perennial Tory government is not a price worth paying for ideological purity, Corbyn is going nowhere. Labour needs constant defeat before that realisation sets in. So David is right, the win in Oldham helps him. The losses will come soon enough, but until they do the only winners are the Tories. And even they should be slightly concerned - see Charles Moore in today's Telegraph. This country needs a competent opposition because good government needs the fear of defeat to drive it on. Tory complacency does no-one any favours.
They seem to think 10,722 is an increase on 14,738......really, Scottish education!
Typical economical with the truth , lie using statistics Tory viewpoint. As you well know it was as a % of the vote. Just as the lying Tories claimed success in GE for Scottish vote which was in fact the worst ever election for them as they were trashed. As they say lies lies and damn statistics.
Thought-provoking thread as usual Mr Herdson, many thanks.
“Corbyn is now safe for months” – Indeed, the Oldham result will certainly have cemented Corbyn’s position, although to be honest, I don’t think in the short term at least that was ever in doubt.
So seven months after Meacher polled a 14,000 majority his successor polls a 10,000 majority..and that is considered a victory...more like a plummet to me..
You know that Labour's percentage share went up from 54.8% in May to 62.2%, with a small swing from UKIP to Labour. I'm sure you're not really innumerate, but when you make statements like that you lose any credibility you may have had.
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
I wanted UKIP to win in Oldham as I thought that would hasten JC's departure. But having seen the leadership's reaction to defeat and heard about the White Christmas stunt it's clear I was wrong and it's good they finished a distant second.
If UKIP do want to become a serious alternative to Labour - and under a Corbyn leadership it is undoubtedly the case an opportunity exists - they need to develop their offering. Social conservatism is fine, but bone dry economic policy espoused by self-confessed Thatcherites is never going to appeal to left-leaning voters. Playing White Christmas from a van (was Phil Woolas's agent involved in that?) and expecting disillusioned white working class voters to flock to the polls will not cut the mustard. Instead, UKIP needs to do some deep thinking and get itself deeply entrenched in Labour heartland constituencies. To capitalise on Corbyn there is no alternative.
As for Labour, the winning candidate in Oldham looks to be the ideal: grounded, pragmatic, focused squarely on outcomes and non-ideological. Work with anyone to get what you want - greater equality of opportunity, a relentless focus on alleviating poverty and so on - but hold all stakeholders to the highest standards and never accept a race to the bottom. Sadly, this is not Corbyn Labour in any way, shape or form.
Until members and unions come to see that perennial Tory government is not a price worth paying for ideological purity, Corbyn is going nowhere. Labour needs constant defeat before that realisation sets in. So David is right, the win in Oldham helps him. The losses will come soon enough, but until they do the only winners are the Tories. And even they should be slightly concerned - see Charles Moore in today's Telegraph. This country needs a competent opposition because good government needs the fear of defeat to drive it on. Tory complacency does no-one any favours.
Mr Southam, your good points are undone by your puerile reference to White Christmas. The UKIP van played lots of carols, White Christmas was one of them, to insinuate or draw any racist implications from playing carols in a town in Greater Manchester is as desperate as it gets.
Welcome to the new politics, let's forget all about serious issues and wibble on about Christmas Carols
Mr. 63, I'll believe Cameron leading out Leave when I see it.
Of course you're right, it's part of his long game, "on reflection......."
But the fact the Telegraph has it on the front page suggests what some of us have been saying for a while, the negotiations are a farce and he has to at least wave a threatening flannel at Brussels.
See Dan Hannan on "The Renegotiation Farce" in this weeks vlog.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8cBzAbIlOI
"I intent to make myself a cup of tea, it's not going to be easy, there will be tough negotiations, but it's not mission impossible, and if the other members states don't like it, well, I rule nothing out..."
On topic, I was always of the school that Jeremy Corbyn was safe for quite some time. The question is whether this will stop his internal critics sounding noises off constantly. My expectation is no.
If that's the case Labours internal war will intensify, eventually deselection will become an issue. If Labour starts losing councillors something will have to give.
I don't see how Labour can avoid losing council seats, in May, given that they were 7% ahead in 2012. They look set to lose their majority in Wales, they won't come back in Scotland, so a good result in London is essential.
Whilst I enjoy reading David Herdson's very well-written columns, I really can't see how they are any less "biased" than Don Brind's. The only difference as far as I can see is that the editorial stance of Mr Herdson's happens to be more to the taste of much of the PB commentariat.
Yes, you would expect Tory fanboys to prefer Tory propaganda to anything remotely mentioning Labour. One thing for sure on here is that they are not interested in looking at the full gambit of opinion, it only needs to be rabid Tory Good , Labour or SNP BAD and they are in raptures.
Mr. 63, I'll believe Cameron leading out Leave when I see it.
Of course you're right, it's part of his long game, "on reflection......."
But the fact the Telegraph has it on the front page suggests what some of us have been saying for a while, the negotiations are a farce and he has to at least wave a threatening flannel at Brussels.
See Dan Hannan on "The Renegotiation Farce" in this weeks vlog.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8cBzAbIlOI
"I intent to make myself a cup of tea, it's not going to be easy, there will be tough negotiations, but it's not mission impossible, and if the other members states don't like it, well, I rule nothing out..."
Whilst I enjoy reading David Herdson's very well-written columns, I really can't see how they are any less "biased" than Don Brind's. The only difference as far as I can see is that the editorial stance of Mr Herdson's happens to be more to the taste of much of the PB commentariat.
Yes, you would expect Tory fanboys to prefer Tory propaganda to anything remotely mentioning Labour. One thing for sure on here is that they are not interested in looking at the full gambit of opinion, it only needs to be rabid Tory Good , Labour or SNP BAD and they are in raptures.
Christ on a bike, haven't the Scots voted to leave yet so we don't have to put up with this tedious bile every day ? Oh...
An observation- I am just back from a trip to the UK. I met up with some old friends, we discussed ISIS. I then met up with my family, who similarly were keen to only talk about ISIS. My wife said at her office people were only talking about ISIS. During a work lunch, ISIS. My wife's Italian mother is obsessed by ISIS. At the supermarket she bumps into fellow Italians who want to talk about ISIS.
BTW- good article as usual from David.
I am quite the opposite , I have minimum conversations on ISIS , and then only to state what a baw faced liar Cameron is. It is a common trait among sheeple , they will be back to the weather or the next celebrity scandal/show in a month or so.
That's so spot on. I came across a lot of Greenies a few years ago - and that view was very common. All very watermelon.
I do wonder what the Green Party are doing - they suggested some sort of alliance with Corbyn's lot IIRC and heard nothing more. I can't see why Corbynistas would bother - they're hoovering up their voters as it is. Willing lambs to the slaughter.
Corbyn will last because there are plenty like him.
People who think everything in the middle east started with Blair, and that the place was all cupcakes and apple pie before 'The West' intervened.
When you encounter many of these people and interact with them, every fourth or fifth word is oil, America, new-liberalism.
There is no problem, in the world that isn't the fault of the USA, except everything they don't like about the UK. That's all thatcher's fault.
They often believe in the most bizarre conspiracy theories, yet seem blind to any common sense. To them there can be no limit on immigration, no limit on public spending, no limit on welfare. I even found a new paranoia. Contrails.... I had never heard of that one.
Their favourite saying seems to be, when challenged 'it's all documented', and by that they mean some other crazy has managed to put a website up, or at least get some Facebook click bait sufficiently circulated.
I wanted UKIP to win in Oldham as I thought that would hasten JC's departure. But having seen the leadership's reaction to defeat and heard about the White Christmas stunt it's clear I was wrong and it's good they finished a distant second.
If UKIP do want to become a serious alternative to Labour - and under a Corbyn leadership it is undoubtedly the case an opportunity exists - they need to develop their offering. Social conservatism is fine, but bone dry economic policy espoused by self-confessed Thatcherites is never going to appeal to left-leaning voters. Playing White Christmas from a van (was Phil Woolas's agent involved in that?) and expecting disillusioned white working class voters to flock to the polls will not cut the mustard. Instead, UKIP needs to do some deep thinking and get itself deeply entrenched in Labour heartland constituencies. To capitalise on Corbyn there is no alternative.
As for Labour, the winning candidate in Oldham looks to be the ideal: grounded, pragmatic, focused squarely on outcomes and non-ideological. Work with anyone to get what you want - greater equality of opportunity, a relentless focus on alleviating poverty and so on - but hold all stakeholders to the highest standards and never accept a race to the bottom. Sadly, this is not Corbyn Labour in any way, shape or form.
Until members and unions come to see that perennial Tory government is not a price worth paying for ideological purity, Corbyn is going nowhere. Labour needs constant defeat before that realisation sets in. So David is right, the win in Oldham helps him. The losses will come soon enough, but until they do the only winners are the Tories. And even they should be slightly concerned - see Charles Moore in today's Telegraph. This country needs a competent opposition because good government needs the fear of defeat to drive it on. Tory complacency does no-one any favours.
Mr Southam, your good points are undone by your puerile reference to White Christmas. The UKIP van played lots of carols, White Christmas was one of them, to insinuate or draw any racist implications from playing carols in a town in Greater Manchester is as desperate as it gets.
Welcome to the new politics, let's forget all about serious issues and wibble on about Christmas Carols
Yep, I dismissed it. Then I saw and heard UKIP's reaction to the defeat and found out Woolas's agent was involved in the campaign.
An observation- I am just back from a trip to the UK. I met up with some old friends, we discussed ISIS. I then met up with my family, who similarly were keen to only talk about ISIS. My wife said at her office people were only talking about ISIS. During a work lunch, ISIS. My wife's Italian mother is obsessed by ISIS. At the supermarket she bumps into fellow Italians who want to talk about ISIS.
BTW- good article as usual from David.
I am quite the opposite , I have minimum conversations on ISIS , and then only to state what a baw faced liar Cameron is. It is a common trait among sheeple , they will be back to the weather or the next celebrity scandal/show in a month or so.
Your mind is full of poison Malcg.. There are remedies, seek help.
So seven months after Meacher polled a 14,000 majority his successor polls a 10,000 majority..and that is considered a victory...more like a plummet to me..
I wanted UKIP to win in Oldham as I thought that would hasten JC's departure. But having seen the leadership's reaction to defeat and heard about the White Christmas stunt it's clear I was wrong and it's good they finished a distant second.
If UKIP do want to become a serious alternative to Labour - and under a Corbyn leadership it is undoubtedly the case an opportunity exists - they need to develop their offering. Social conservatism is fine, but bone dry economic policy espoused by self-confessed Thatcherites is never going to appeal to left-leaning voters. Playing White Christmas from a van (was Phil Woolas's agent involved in that?) and expecting disillusioned white working class voters to flock to the polls will not cut the mustard. Instead, UKIP needs to do some deep thinking and get itself deeply entrenched in Labour heartland constituencies. To capitalise on Corbyn there is no alternative.
As for Labour, the winning candidate in Oldham looks to be the ideal: grounded, pragmatic, focused squarely on outcomes and non-ideological. Work with anyone to get what you want - greater equality of opportunity, a relentless focus on alleviating poverty and so on - but hold all stakeholders to the highest standards and never accept a race to the bottom. Sadly, this is not Corbyn Labour in any way, shape or form.
Until members and unions come to see that perennial Tory government is not a price worth paying for ideological purity, Corbyn is going nowhere. Labour needs constant defeat before that realisation sets in. So David is right, the win in Oldham helps him. The losses will come soon enough, but until they do the only winners are the Tories. And even they should be slightly concerned - see Charles Moore in today's Telegraph. This country needs a competent opposition because good government needs the fear of defeat to drive it on. Tory complacency does no-one any favours.
From what I have read over the years on here , you have never wanted Labour to win under Brown or Milliband. You voted Lib Dem and was happy with coalition hardly effective opposition. There is a competent party in Scotland the SNP to oppose the government. However you were against them to.
Whilst I enjoy reading David Herdson's very well-written columns, I really can't see how they are any less "biased" than Don Brind's. The only difference as far as I can see is that the editorial stance of Mr Herdson's happens to be more to the taste of much of the PB commentariat.
Yes, you would expect Tory fanboys to prefer Tory propaganda to anything remotely mentioning Labour. One thing for sure on here is that they are not interested in looking at the full gambit of opinion, it only needs to be rabid Tory Good , Labour or SNP BAD and they are in raptures.
Christ on a bike, haven't the Scots voted to leave yet so we don't have to put up with this tedious bile every day ? Oh...
Correct. Tedious bile from the SNP fanboy. And with Corbyns lefty labour even more leftily out of tune with the mainstream I don't see English voters voting to be wagged by the SNPs Scottish tail any time soon.
An observation- I am just back from a trip to the UK. I met up with some old friends, we discussed ISIS. I then met up with my family, who similarly were keen to only talk about ISIS. My wife said at her office people were only talking about ISIS. During a work lunch, ISIS. My wife's Italian mother is obsessed by ISIS. At the supermarket she bumps into fellow Italians who want to talk about ISIS.
BTW- good article as usual from David.
I am quite the opposite , I have minimum conversations on ISIS , and then only to state what a baw faced liar Cameron is. It is a common trait among sheeple , they will be back to the weather or the next celebrity scandal/show in a month or so.
I have had very few ISIS-related conversations. My general assumption is that the people I tend to talk to think about them in the same way as I do - they're evil, murdering scum who need to be wiped out. That's not really a very long chat. That said, I'm a Red Tory and am not on Facebook!
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
I do not want "White Christmas" banned. Poor Bing Crosby has already suffered enough having the second best voice in a century !
But UKIPs entire strategy was based on race including a rather naïve assumption that since 25% of the constituency were Asian , therefore, everyone will be against them.
The points made about PV was farcical. One was 99% from one ward / polling station was all Labour. How did they know ?
It will work with some indeed. But there are also WWC voters who have not voted since 1997 who are coming back home.
So much has been made of Diane James. Her comments on TW Special was laughable. She said that it was "not fair" that postal voters voted earlier. Huh ? But that is part of the idea. The entire State of Oregon either votes by post or online. That is what the world is going to. Amazon, Argos...........Elections !
Whilst I enjoy reading David Herdson's very well-written columns, I really can't see how they are any less "biased" than Don Brind's. The only difference as far as I can see is that the editorial stance of Mr Herdson's happens to be more to the taste of much of the PB commentariat.
Yes, you would expect Tory fanboys to prefer Tory propaganda to anything remotely mentioning Labour. One thing for sure on here is that they are not interested in looking at the full gambit of opinion, it only needs to be rabid Tory Good , Labour or SNP BAD and they are in raptures.
Christ on a bike, haven't the Scots voted to leave yet so we don't have to put up with this tedious bile every day ? Oh...
Away you big jessie, typical Tory that does not like democracy and wants to stifle free speech. You polished your boots yet this morning.
And as usual, the TV pundits won't make it terribly clear that those seats were won at Peak Miliband - so it'll look even worse.
I frequently despair at how poor journalists are on such simple matters. I know it makes the *story* more sensational to forget the circumstances - but it does annoy me.
On topic, I was always of the school that Jeremy Corbyn was safe for quite some time. The question is whether this will stop his internal critics sounding noises off constantly. My expectation is no.
If that's the case Labours internal war will intensify, eventually deselection will become an issue. If Labour starts losing councillors something will have to give.
I don't see how Labour can avoid losing council seats, in May, given that they were 7% ahead in 2012. They look set to lose their majority in Wales, they won't come back in Scotland, so a good result in London is essential.
Thought-provoking thread as usual Mr Herdson, many thanks.
“Corbyn is now safe for months” – Indeed, the Oldham result will certainly have cemented Corbyn’s position, although to be honest, I don’t think in the short term at least that was ever in doubt.
So much for the expert frothers on here predicting a Labour Loss, LOL. Hopefully they are just faux Tories and not CCH wonks.
To be fair I'm not sure anybody predicted a labour loss, certainly none of the kippers did.
There were lots of opinions on how close it would be , could labour hold on etc etc. Out of step with public opinion for sure , they are locked in a bubble.
I wanted UKIP to win in Oldham as I thought that would hasten JC's departure. But having seen the leadership's reaction to defeat and heard about the White Christmas stunt it's clear I was wrong and it's good they finished a distant second.
If UKIP do want to become a serious alternative to Labour - and under a Corbyn leadership it is undoubtedly the case an opportunity exists - they need to develop their offering. Social conservatism is fine, but bone dry economic policy espoused by self-confessed Thatcherites is never going to appeal to left-leaning voters. Playing White Christmas from a van (was Phil Woolas's agent involved in that?) and expecting disillusioned white working class voters to flock to the polls will not cut the mustard. Instead, UKIP needs to do some deep thinking and get itself deeply entrenched in Labour heartland constituencies. To capitalise on Corbyn there is no alternative.
As for Labour, the winning candidate in Oldham looks to be the ideal: grounded, pragmatic, focused squarely on outcomes and non-ideological. Work with anyone to get what you want - greater equality of opportunity, a relentless focus on alleviating poverty and so on - but hold all stakeholders to the highest standards and never accept a race to the bottom. Sadly, this is not Corbyn Labour in any way, shape or form.
Until members and unions come to see that perennial Tory government is not a price worth paying for ideological purity, Corbyn is going nowhere. Labour needs constant defeat before that realisation sets in. So David is right, the win in Oldham helps him. The losses will come soon enough, but until they do the only winners are the Tories. And even they should be slightly concerned - see Charles Moore in today's Telegraph. This country needs a competent opposition because good government needs the fear of defeat to drive it on. Tory complacency does no-one any favours.
From what I have read over the years on here , you have never wanted Labour to win under Brown or Milliband. You voted Lib Dem and was happy with coalition hardly effective opposition. There is a competent party in Scotland the SNP to oppose the government. However you were against them to.
I voted Labour in May. I don't support the break-up of the UK. You're right though, I don't want Jeremy Corbyn as PM. He is an economically illiterate apologist for murder and terrorism. I am pretty confident my wish will come true.
Perhaps but what would worry me if I were a Tory is that this is so unecessary. Their opponents are politically dysfunctional, fighting like ferrets and likely to remain so. Therefore why didn't Cameron see the benefit in at least acting like a statesman.
Kicking someone when they are down is OK but if everyone sees you doing it then sometimes they can unite to kick you back!
I said at the time I thought it was unnecessary and unbecoming of a PM, but as I stated down below I think the Tories saw it as an opportunity to get that message out there when for once the public were engaged with what our politicians were up to.
The vast majority of people day to day don't follow all the cock-ups, half truths, etc. Once in a while their eyes and ears on open. I think the Tories thought this was a good opportunity to tell the public maybe Corbyn and friends aren't as cuddly as they might seem.
The video of Lynton Crosby giving a seminar on how to do politics is fascinating viewing and the terrorist sympathiser line is right up the alley of long term strategy.
Unless you are a cretin it just reinforces how nasty the Tories are. They are real lowlifes and deserve their NASTY party tag.
You are dreaming. The Labour Party sat there on prime time TV, well trailered to the public, and insisted 12 times that they were not terrorist sympathisers. Almost no voters will have heard the PM lay the accusation, it became an entirely self inflicted wound, people would assume there was no smoke without fire.... and there thing is, there is evidence of plenty of fire, McIRA being the most prominent example. The Tory party made one, little not very well noticed comment, and the Labour Party proceeded to douse itself in petrol and start playing with matches.
You might not like the Tories much, while they are lead by Cameron I am not their biggest fan either, but they are streets ahead on competence and (leaving aside Dave's encryption idiocy) don't look like a massive risk to national security.
Does any sensible person think Corbyn is either, I think not. He may not be a warmonger like Cameron but I have not seen any evidence that he would do anything bad for the security of the country. Cameron is more dangerous with his desperation to be involved in wars regardless of consequences and without any plans.
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
I do not want "White Christmas" banned. Poor Bing Crosby has already suffered enough having the second best voice in a century !
But UKIPs entire strategy was based on race including a rather naïve assumption that since 25% of the constituency were Asian , therefore, everyone will be against them.
The points made about PV was farcical. One was 99% from one ward / polling station was all Labour. How did they know ?
It will work with some indeed. But there are also WWC voters who have not voted since 1997 who are coming back home.
So much has been made of Diane James. Her comments on TW Special was laughable. She said that it was "not fair" that postal voters voted earlier. Huh ? But that is part of the idea. The entire State of Oregon either votes by post or online. That is what the world is going to. Amazon, Argos...........Elections !
UKIP's entire strategy was based on criticising Jeremy Corbyn, not race.
An observation- I am just back from a trip to the UK. I met up with some old friends, we discussed ISIS. I then met up with my family, who similarly were keen to only talk about ISIS. My wife said at her office people were only talking about ISIS. During a work lunch, ISIS. My wife's Italian mother is obsessed by ISIS. At the supermarket she bumps into fellow Italians who want to talk about ISIS.
BTW- good article as usual from David.
I am quite the opposite , I have minimum conversations on ISIS , and then only to state what a baw faced liar Cameron is. It is a common trait among sheeple , they will be back to the weather or the next celebrity scandal/show in a month or so.
I have had very few ISIS-related conversations. My general assumption is that the people I tend to talk to think about them in the same way as I do - they're evil, murdering scum who need to be wiped out. That's not really a very long chat. That said, I'm a Red Tory and am not on Facebook!
It is just mass hysteria whipped up by the Government and their state media propaganda units
Basic arihmetic tells me this..A 14000 majority falls to a 10000 majority and Labour call that a victory..If the same maths were applied to wages and a salary was cut from £14000 pa to £10000 pa then there would be screaming from the roof tops..in spite of assurances from the employer that it is really a rise..if you spin the numbers..
And as usual, the TV pundits won't make it terribly clear that those seats were won at Peak Miliband - so it'll look even worse.
I frequently despair at how poor journalists are on such simple matters. I know it makes the *story* more sensational to forget the circumstances - but it does annoy me.
On topic, I was always of the school that Jeremy Corbyn was safe for quite some time. The question is whether this will stop his internal critics sounding noises off constantly. My expectation is no.
If that's the case Labours internal war will intensify, eventually deselection will become an issue. If Labour starts losing councillors something will have to give.
I don't see how Labour can avoid losing council seats, in May, given that they were 7% ahead in 2012. They look set to lose their majority in Wales, they won't come back in Scotland, so a good result in London is essential.
Peak Miliband implies a level of positive support for him that was never there. Labour did OK - no more - in 2012 because the government wasn't that popular.
Perhaps but what would worry me if I were a Tory is that this is so unecessary. Their opponents are politically dysfunctional, fighting like ferrets and likely to remain so. Therefore why didn't Cameron see the benefit in at least acting like a statesman.
Kicking someone when they are down is OK but if everyone sees you doing it then sometimes they can unite to kick you back!
I said at the time I thought it was unnecessary and unbecoming of a PM, but as I stated down below I think the Tories saw it as an opportunity to get that message out there when for once the public were engaged with what our politicians were up to.
The vast majority of people day to day don't follow all the cock-ups, half truths, etc. Once in a while their eyes and ears on open. I think the Tories thought this was a good opportunity to tell the public maybe Corbyn and friends aren't as cuddly as they might seem.
The video of Lynton Crosby giving a seminar on how to do politics is fascinating viewing and the terrorist sympathiser line is right up the alley of long term strategy.
Unless you are a cretin it just reinforces how nasty the Tories are. They are real lowlifes and deserve their NASTY party tag.
Oh dear. You really are upset at the total failure of the SNP prospectus aren't you? Are you denying Corbyn's links with terrorists or MacDonnell's? Are you? If so then explain how you draw your conclusions. Boo hoo hoo. Just cry in your beer and spare us the tears.
Rules are overrated. I think there are only two leaders in the era of party democracy (Heath and IDS) to have unambiguously been forced out under the rules, though Thatcher was very close to a third. Nearly all the rest resigned under pressure of events, whether election defeat or otherwise.
Basic arihmetic tells me this..A 14000 majority falls to a 10000 majority and Labour call that a victory..If the same maths were applied to wages and a salary was cut from £14000 pa to £10000 pa then there would be screaming from the roof tops..in spite of assurances from the employer that it is really a rise..if you spin the numbers..
OK, It looks like you need the real arithmetic for dummies explanation. The 14,000 majority was on 58% of the vote at the GE, the 10,000 is on 62% of the vote. Total votes were down but % voting Labour was up.
As usual a good piece from David but it is surely hard to take the threat of UKIP to Labour in the north seriously after the Oldham result. It is hard to imagine a backdrop less propitious to Labour than has existed over the last week or so.
I also have reservations about the difficulties of an SDP II if it had sufficient members in the HoC. Would they not get short money for a start?
In politics we all see what we want to see (and that includes me).
This 99% one party vote should be investigated (if it's possible). It could well be a fevered imagination. if it's wrong, they should be called out on it. If it were true, it would suggest wholesale fraud - even if all the constituents were Labour voters, the error rate would be more than 1% anyway.
Personally, I'm sure there are racists in Ukip, but the issue is whether they are the driving force or merely hangers on. Labour do have odd balls too - look at the current leader.
"So seven months after Meacher polled a 14,000 majority his successor polls a 10,000 majority..and that is considered a victory...more like a plummet to me.."
Please let us know, on the back of a postage stamp, which other by-elections do you know where the winning party actually increased its number of votes.
In politics we all see what we want to see (and that includes me).
This 99% one party vote should be investigated (if it's possible). It could well be a fevered imagination. if it's wrong, they should be called out on it. If it were true, it would suggest wholesale fraud - even if all the constituents were Labour voters, the error rate would be more than 1% anyway.
Personally, I'm sure there are racists in Ukip, but the issue is whether they are the driving force or merely hangers on. Labour do have odd balls too - look at the current leader.
That last bit is me being biased, of course.
Frank Sinatra. According to Bing Crosby Frank had the best voice of his century but as he put it: "did it have to be my century?"
Perhaps we could agree that Labour increased its vote share on a much reduced turnout then? The part we don't know is the reasons for the reduced turnout....
1) don't like Labour anymore 2) dont like " terrorist sympathisers" 3) couldn't find me wellies and brolly.
As for the White Christmas thingy it was part of a compilation of Crimbo carols I understand and therefore in no way racial. Had this been the only one played then I would then agree the line could have been construed as technically crossed. They didn't so it wasn't.
An observation- I am just back from a trip to the UK. I met up with some old friends, we discussed ISIS. I then met up with my family, who similarly were keen to only talk about ISIS. My wife said at her office people were only talking about ISIS. During a work lunch, ISIS. My wife's Italian mother is obsessed by ISIS. At the supermarket she bumps into fellow Italians who want to talk about ISIS.
BTW- good article as usual from David.
I am quite the opposite , I have minimum conversations on ISIS , and then only to state what a baw faced liar Cameron is. It is a common trait among sheeple , they will be back to the weather or the next celebrity scandal/show in a month or so.
I have had very few ISIS-related conversations. My general assumption is that the people I tend to talk to think about them in the same way as I do - they're evil, murdering scum who need to be wiped out. That's not really a very long chat. That said, I'm a Red Tory and am not on Facebook!
It is just mass hysteria whipped up by the Government and their state media propaganda units
As usual a good piece from David but it is surely hard to take the threat of UKIP to Labour in the north seriously after the Oldham result. It is hard to imagine a backdrop less propitious to Labour than has existed over the last week or so.
I also have reservations about the difficulties of an SDP II if it had sufficient members in the HoC. Would they not get short money for a start?
Thanks to FPTP there is more chance of Labour regaining its senses than of an SDP 2 making any serious headway.
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
I do not want "White Christmas" banned. Poor Bing Crosby has already suffered enough having the second best voice in a century !
But UKIPs entire strategy was based on race including a rather naïve assumption that since 25% of the constituency were Asian , therefore, everyone will be against them.
The points made about PV was farcical. One was 99% from one ward / polling station was all Labour. How did they know ?
It will work with some indeed. But there are also WWC voters who have not voted since 1997 who are coming back home.
So much has been made of Diane James. Her comments on TW Special was laughable. She said that it was "not fair" that postal voters voted earlier. Huh ? But that is part of the idea. The entire State of Oregon either votes by post or online. That is what the world is going to. Amazon, Argos...........Elections !
UKIP's entire strategy was based on criticising Jeremy Corbyn, not race.
Perhaps we could agree that Labour increased its vote share on a much reduced turnout then? The part we don't know is the reasons for the reduced turnout....
1) don't like Labour anymore 2) dont like " terrorist sympathisers" 3) couldn't find me wellies and brolly.
As for the White Christmas thingy it was part of a compilation of Crimbo carols I understand and therefore in no way racial. Had this been the only one played then I would then agree the line could have been construed as technically crossed. They didn't so it wasn't.
How many by-elections are you aware of where the turnout was higher than the preceding general election ?
Perhaps we could agree that Labour increased its vote share on a much reduced turnout then? The part we don't know is the reasons for the reduced turnout....
Number 1 (through to 6) Turnouts in by-elections are ALWAYS (someone will now provide the one out of hundreds that wasn't) lower than General Elections Number 7 It was a cold windy wet dark December day
Given those, and a previously very long serving MP, Labour did very well......
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
I do not want "White Christmas" banned. Poor Bing Crosby has already suffered enough having the second best voice in a century !
But UKIPs entire strategy was based on race including a rather naïve assumption that since 25% of the constituency were Asian , therefore, everyone will be against them.
The points made about PV was farcical. One was 99% from one ward / polling station was all Labour. How did they know ?
It will work with some indeed. But there are also WWC voters who have not voted since 1997 who are coming back home.
So much has been made of Diane James. Her comments on TW Special was laughable. She said that it was "not fair" that postal voters voted earlier. Huh ? But that is part of the idea. The entire State of Oregon either votes by post or online. That is what the world is going to. Amazon, Argos...........Elections !
UKIP's entire strategy was based on criticising Jeremy Corbyn, not race.
Thats true, but they offered very little else - and I'm a Kipper - in this by-election. Flat caps and Jezza bashing, do not a policy make.
Yesterday I bumped into our local UKIP parish councillor, who is on the sensible UKIP wing (if there is such a thing). He was wearing one of those flat caps, as per Oldham. He said he had bought it recently because he needed a new hat. Is this a) evidence that UKIP activists all come from a particular demographic b) evidence of UKIP group think c) evidence of a cult of UKIP leader worship c) some sort of sinister take over of UKIP by flat cap manufacturers
UKIP made a bunder by over-egging Oldham in such a big way. The next by-election where they have a notional chance of a shock win will carry the shadow with it.
And Kippers have a very poor *win* rate despite a lot of talking up and effort by activists. Whomever is running their campaigning strategy needs replacing or a lot more expertise.
As usual a good piece from David but it is surely hard to take the threat of UKIP to Labour in the north seriously after the Oldham result. It is hard to imagine a backdrop less propitious to Labour than has existed over the last week or so.
I also have reservations about the difficulties of an SDP II if it had sufficient members in the HoC. Would they not get short money for a start?
Perhaps we could agree that Labour increased its vote share on a much reduced turnout then? The part we don't know is the reasons for the reduced turnout....
1) don't like Labour anymore 2) dont like " terrorist sympathisers" 3) couldn't find me wellies and brolly.
As for the White Christmas thingy it was part of a compilation of Crimbo carols I understand and therefore in no way racial. Had this been the only one played then I would then agree the line could have been construed as technically crossed. They didn't so it wasn't.
How many by-elections are you aware of where the turnout was higher than the preceding general election ?
No idea, couldn't be arsed to look either but I guess more hens teeth are likely to be found. The point remains that this seems a compromise position for all and what actually happened on the day.
I wasn't thinking of the by-election but more generally ie the booing on QT, the willingness of other parties (Salmond was particularly strong on this in the debate) to defend Corbyn and attack Cameron, the inherent sense of fair play of the people and the resulting typecasting of the Tories as a pretty nasty bunch re-enforcing the bullying scandal makes the terrorist sympathiser briefing an huge own goal.
But if someone has a record of sympathising with terrorists, they can expect to be called out over it. And, with Corbyn's ratings going down the drain, it's clearly effective.
And Corbyn's record is clear for all to see. His own words and meetings and his own appointments of his own aids speak quite clearly. The main organised systemic bullying and threats are clearly coming from Corbyn's supporters. There are a lot of headless chickens running around this morning and they are all supporters of SNP Labour and UKIP.
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
I do not want "White Christmas" banned. Poor Bing Crosby has already suffered enough having the second best voice in a century !
But UKIPs entire strategy was based on race including a rather naïve assumption that since 25% of the constituency were Asian , therefore, everyone will be against them.
The points made about PV was farcical. One was 99% from one ward / polling station was all Labour. How did they know ?
It will work with some indeed. But there are also WWC voters who have not voted since 1997 who are coming back home.
So much has been made of Diane James. Her comments on TW Special was laughable. She said that it was "not fair" that postal voters voted earlier. Huh ? But that is part of the idea. The entire State of Oregon either votes by post or online. That is what the world is going to. Amazon, Argos...........Elections !
UKIP's entire strategy was based on criticising Jeremy Corbyn, not race.
That didn't work either ! Eggs, basket.........
UKIP seems to be quite a lazy party. Sustained success under FPTP is built on relentless legwork, knocking on doors, making a difference at local level and so on. UKIP's leadership don't seem to be very interested in doing that, but it's how the LDs grew, before they threw it all away. It's also what the SNP did. There is no substitute for doing the hard yards.
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
I do not want "White Christmas" banned. Poor Bing Crosby has already suffered enough having the second best voice in a century !
But UKIPs entire strategy was based on race including a rather naïve assumption that since 25% of the constituency were Asian , therefore, everyone will be against them.
The points made about PV was farcical. One was 99% from one ward / polling station was all Labour. How did they know ?
It will work with some indeed. But there are also WWC voters who have not voted since 1997 who are coming back home.
So much has been made of Diane James. Her comments on TW Special was laughable. She said that it was "not fair" that postal voters voted earlier. Huh ? But that is part of the idea. The entire State of Oregon either votes by post or online. That is what the world is going to. Amazon, Argos...........Elections !
UKIP's entire strategy was based on criticising Jeremy Corbyn, not race.
Thats true, but they offered very little else - and I'm a Kipper - in this by-election. Flat caps and Jezza bashing, do not a policy make.
Well quite, heresy to say it in some parts but the message and messenger need changing. There is no reason why Asian people shouldn't vote ukip, the policy is to make immigration fairer by not discriminating between EU and non EU citizens. British Asians should be anti EU.
The message is getting lost in a lot of shouting from and towards ukip.
I wanted UKIP to win in Oldham as I thought that would hasten JC's departure. But having seen the leadership's reaction to defeat and heard about the White Christmas stunt it's clear I was wrong and it's good they finished a distant second.
.............. As for Labour, the winning candidate in Oldham looks to be the ideal: grounded, pragmatic, focused squarely on outcomes and non-ideological. Work with anyone to get what you want - greater equality of opportunity, a relentless focus on alleviating poverty and so on - but hold all stakeholders to the highest standards and never accept a race to the bottom. Sadly, this is not Corbyn Labour in any way, shape or form.
Until members and unions come to see that perennial Tory government is not a price worth paying for ideological purity, Corbyn is going nowhere. Labour needs constant defeat before that realisation sets in. So David is right, the win in Oldham helps him. The losses will come soon enough, but until they do the only winners are the Tories. And even they should be slightly concerned - see Charles Moore in today's Telegraph. This country needs a competent opposition because good government needs the fear of defeat to drive it on. Tory complacency does no-one any favours.
From what I have read over the years on here , you have never wanted Labour to win under Brown or Milliband. You voted Lib Dem and was happy with coalition hardly effective opposition. There is a competent party in Scotland the SNP to oppose the government. However you were against them to.
I voted Labour in May. I don't support the break-up of the UK. You're right though, I don't want Jeremy Corbyn as PM. He is an economically illiterate apologist for murder and terrorism. I am pretty confident my wish will come true.
What is with this word "terrorism" that the Brits are so hung up about ?
Mandela was a "terrorist" until he acquired the position of the greatest statesman of the 20th century.
We [ or, Aparthied South Africa ] negotiated with him and the ANC.
Kenyatta was a "terrorist". We recognised him as the leader of Kenya.
Mugabe was a "terrorist". We recognised him as the leader of Zimbabwe.
Gaddafi was a "terrorist". We then shook his hand in a Beduin tent for oil. Finally, we created circumstances to have him butchered.
Martin McGuinness was a "terrorist". He is now the stable force in the Northern Ireland government. The Unionists are the unstable lot.
In the end , we talk to all of them. Why not earlier ? Sometimes it could save lives.
Yesterday I bumped into our local UKIP parish councillor, who is on the sensible UKIP wing (if there is such a thing). He was wearing one of those flat caps, as per Oldham. He said he had bought it recently because he needed a new hat. Is this a) evidence that UKIP activists all come from a particular demographic b) evidence of UKIP group think c) evidence of a cult of UKIP leader worship c) some sort of sinister take over of UKIP by flat cap manufacturers
They're very handy. They keep off the rain and you can fold them up.
When "I'll eat my(or Lord Ashdown's) hat" predictions go wrong,it is simply inadequate to issue a mea culpa on PB and suggest eating humble pie is proper punishment as David has done. Apologies have to hurt in the wallet and a donation to the charity of choice is in order.
An observation- I am just back from a trip to the UK. I met up with some old friends, we discussed ISIS. I then met up with my family, who similarly were keen to only talk about ISIS. My wife said at her office people were only talking about ISIS. During a work lunch, ISIS. My wife's Italian mother is obsessed by ISIS. At the supermarket she bumps into fellow Italians who want to talk about ISIS.
BTW- good article as usual from David.
I am quite the opposite , I have minimum conversations on ISIS , and then only to state what a baw faced liar Cameron is. It is a common trait among sheeple , they will be back to the weather or the next celebrity scandal/show in a month or so.
I have had very few ISIS-related conversations. My general assumption is that the people I tend to talk to think about them in the same way as I do - they're evil, murdering scum who need to be wiped out. That's not really a very long chat. That said, I'm a Red Tory and am not on Facebook!
It is just mass hysteria whipped up by the Government and their state media propaganda units
Paris?
Its clear that mg is even further down the rabbit hole than even I previously though.
UKIP made a bunder by over-egging Oldham in such a big way. The next by-election where they have a notional chance of a shock win will carry the shadow with it.
And Kippers have a very poor *win* rate despite a lot of talking up and effort by activists. Whomever is running their campaigning strategy needs replacing or a lot more expertise.
As usual a good piece from David but it is surely hard to take the threat of UKIP to Labour in the north seriously after the Oldham result. It is hard to imagine a backdrop less propitious to Labour than has existed over the last week or so.
I also have reservations about the difficulties of an SDP II if it had sufficient members in the HoC. Would they not get short money for a start?
To win a by-election from a long way behind, you have to try and generate a bandwagon. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't as in this case.
Comments
I need to get off to work shortly but this link shows how the issue of retention is tackled in one place in California:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/08/20/the-innovative-stanford-program-thats-saving-emergency-room-doctors-from-burnout/?postshare=2001449038235963&tid=ss_tw
Mr Hunt needs carrots as well as the stick, and not every health policy out of the states is a bad one!
Oh come ye, oh come ye to voo-ote.
Oh come and behold it,
the king of voting systems.
Oh come let us adore it,
Oh come let us adore it,
Oh come let us adore it,
Alternative vote
Rows of boxes, tellers sitting by,
Lo, it abhors not multiple marks;
Lib Dem begotten, not created:
Oh come let us adore it,
Oh come let us adore it,
Oh come let us adore it,
Alternative vote
No crib for a bed
He is 35, in a safe seat, was ambitious enough to be council leader in his thirties and the council rep on the NEC. He has a down to earth manner, speaks well and knows how to run a ground game.
Seems value to me for when the party regains its senses.
Vote, all ye citizens of Hull and above!
Glory to AV, glory in the fairness:
O come, let us adore it,
O come, let us adore it,
O come, let us adore it,
Alternative vote.
Yea, Clegg, we greet thee, born this happy morning;
AV, to thee be glory given!
Word of the Lib'als, now in marks appearing!
O come, let us adore it,
O come, let us adore it,
O come, let us adore it,
Alternative vote.
The Lib Dems are dead.
Ukip have narrow appeal to Labour voters and unmatched incompetence.
The memory of SDP 1 stops SDP 2
It is an irony - it would be amusing, were the subject not so serious - that the Left, normally so keen on ideology (all those groups viciously arguing about the finer points of Marxist theology) absolutely refuses to accept the existence of - let alone confront - the ideology which the terrorists themselves proudly proclaim.
Hilary Benn describing IS as fascists (rather than as misunderstood grumblers understandably overreacting, the normal position of too many on the Left) was one of the first times a Labour politician had done so. No wonder it was so refreshing. MPs were applauding the penny finally dropping.
Meanwhile, The Sensible Left have no policy ideas/no strategy to depose him. What do they stand for? What are their big ticket items? Why vote for their agenda? Most haven't moved on from Blairism, or are a wishy-washy collection of nothing much - as painfully exposed during the Leadership Election
It's all very well bitching and holding pity parties with friendly journalists, but until they stop playing defense and have a credible plan - nothing is changing.
It's been a long while since I read Mandy's memoir - but IIRC The Project was years in the making, it was planned to the nth degree and allies quietly lined up in the background. Until Sensible Labour get as serious about saving Labour from STW and assorted Corbynistas - it's going nowhere very slowly. SDP2 is very unlikely and I wouldn't advocate it. Stay and fight to win.
Final point, the sensible long-haired blond Momentum lady is a complete contrast to most of their representatives. I'd use her all the time for TV appearances. She's the only one I've seen so far that doesn't look like a Greenham Common reject or angry.
People who think everything in the middle east started with Blair, and that the place was all cupcakes and apple pie before 'The West' intervened.
Corbyn's comments on Henning's murder are disgusting. But there we are. Is it a shock, at this stage? Not really.
Miss Plato, indeed. They're bleating and praying for divine intervention. They should get off their knees and start planning, although it may already be too late. Labour isn't prone to regicide and Corbyn's got the membership, NEC, and the unwavering belief of a zealot.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346424/Death-explosive-necklace-ISIS-ties-mortar-shells-rebels-necks-just-one-series-sickening-execution-videos-war-torn-Yemen.html
I don't care what acronym we call them, but I can't get over Al-Beeb refusing to call them terrorists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35011360
Although, that may still be better than Red Bull's 2016 Renault. We shall see.
I think the only outstanding piece of news (that we know of) is whether Aston Martin will take over Force India. There's also the Manor team principal position to be decided, but that's not quite as interesting.
So 'Labour won Oldham with an increased Share of the Vote' is true - and is probably the 'fairest' description of what happened
'Labour won in Oldham but its Majority fell' is also true - but misleading, as the overall vote fell by more than the Labour vote.
Labour increases Majority in Oldham' is simply innumerate (unless you are the SNP, when it is quite possible 10,772 can appear a bigger number than 14,738....)
There is no problem, in the world that isn't the fault of the USA, except everything they don't like about the UK. That's all thatcher's fault.
They often believe in the most bizarre conspiracy theories, yet seem blind to any common sense. To them there can be no limit on immigration, no limit on public spending, no limit on welfare. I even found a new paranoia. Contrails.... I had never heard of that one.
Their favourite saying seems to be, when challenged 'it's all documented', and by that they mean some other crazy has managed to put a website up, or at least get some Facebook click bait sufficiently circulated.
Wow there is more balance in the Daily Mail than PB.
I'm becoming increasingly optimistic about leaving when 6 months ago it seemed forlorn.
But the fact the Telegraph has it on the front page suggests what some of us have been saying for a while, the negotiations are a farce and he has to at least wave a threatening flannel at Brussels.
You might not like the Tories much, while they are lead by Cameron I am not their biggest fan either, but they are streets ahead on competence and (leaving aside Dave's encryption idiocy) don't look like a massive risk to national security.
If UKIP do want to become a serious alternative to Labour - and under a Corbyn leadership it is undoubtedly the case an opportunity exists - they need to develop their offering. Social conservatism is fine, but bone dry economic policy espoused by self-confessed Thatcherites is never going to appeal to left-leaning voters. Playing White Christmas from a van (was Phil Woolas's agent involved in that?) and expecting disillusioned white working class voters to flock to the polls will not cut the mustard. Instead, UKIP needs to do some deep thinking and get itself deeply entrenched in Labour heartland constituencies. To capitalise on Corbyn there is no alternative.
As for Labour, the winning candidate in Oldham looks to be the ideal: grounded, pragmatic, focused squarely on outcomes and non-ideological. Work with anyone to get what you want - greater equality of opportunity, a relentless focus on alleviating poverty and so on - but hold all stakeholders to the highest standards and never accept a race to the bottom. Sadly, this is not Corbyn Labour in any way, shape or form.
Until members and unions come to see that perennial Tory government is not a price worth paying for ideological purity, Corbyn is going nowhere. Labour needs constant defeat before that realisation sets in. So David is right, the win in Oldham helps him. The losses will come soon enough, but until they do the only winners are the Tories. And even they should be slightly concerned - see Charles Moore in today's Telegraph. This country needs a competent opposition because good government needs the fear of defeat to drive it on. Tory complacency does no-one any favours.
As they say lies lies and damn statistics.
"A political party van going round and wishing for a "white" Christmas" was another barely disguised punt at racism."
If it was playing "White Christmas" continually, it was indeed a racist action. If White Christmas was one of many Christmas songs it played, it clearly wasn't, and you are being a paranoid loon.
Unless, of course, you believe that one of the most popular ever Christmas songs should be banned because it may offend. The Daily Mail would have a field day, and unusually would be right..
Welcome to the new politics, let's forget all about serious issues and wibble on about Christmas Carols
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8cBzAbIlOI
"I intent to make myself a cup of tea, it's not going to be easy, there will be tough negotiations, but it's not mission impossible, and if the other members states don't like it, well, I rule nothing out..."
I do wonder what the Green Party are doing - they suggested some sort of alliance with Corbyn's lot IIRC and heard nothing more. I can't see why Corbynistas would bother - they're hoovering up their voters as it is. Willing lambs to the slaughter.
You voted Lib Dem and was happy with coalition hardly effective opposition.
There is a competent party in Scotland the SNP to oppose the government.
However you were against them to.
And with Corbyns lefty labour even more leftily out of tune with the mainstream I don't see English voters voting to be wagged by the SNPs Scottish tail any time soon.
But UKIPs entire strategy was based on race including a rather naïve assumption that since 25% of the constituency were Asian , therefore, everyone will be against them.
The points made about PV was farcical. One was 99% from one ward / polling station was all Labour. How did they know ?
It will work with some indeed. But there are also WWC voters who have not voted since 1997 who are coming back home.
So much has been made of Diane James. Her comments on TW Special was laughable. She said that it was "not fair" that postal voters voted earlier. Huh ? But that is part of the idea.
The entire State of Oregon either votes by post or online. That is what the world is going to. Amazon, Argos...........Elections !
I frequently despair at how poor journalists are on such simple matters. I know it makes the *story* more sensational to forget the circumstances - but it does annoy me.
I feel much the same about Mr. Eagles' grasp of classical history.
[More seriously, political reporting is frequently dire].
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-asked-tony-benn-what-he-thought-of-his-sons-vote-on-iraq-and-learned-never-to-go-there-again-a6761006.html
Are you denying Corbyn's links with terrorists or MacDonnell's? Are you? If so then explain how you draw your conclusions.
Boo hoo hoo. Just cry in your beer and spare us the tears.
Or is your defence 'illiteracy' as in 'I don't understand the difference between 'majority' and 'share of vote'?
Which is it?
Total votes were down but % voting Labour was up.
I also have reservations about the difficulties of an SDP II if it had sufficient members in the HoC. Would they not get short money for a start?
Who had the best voice of the century?
In politics we all see what we want to see (and that includes me).
This 99% one party vote should be investigated (if it's possible). It could well be a fevered imagination. if it's wrong, they should be called out on it. If it were true, it would suggest wholesale fraud - even if all the constituents were Labour voters, the error rate would be more than 1% anyway.
Personally, I'm sure there are racists in Ukip, but the issue is whether they are the driving force or merely hangers on. Labour do have odd balls too - look at the current leader.
That last bit is me being biased, of course.
"So seven months after Meacher polled a 14,000 majority his successor polls a 10,000 majority..and that is considered a victory...more like a plummet to me.."
Please let us know, on the back of a postage stamp, which other by-elections do you know where the winning party actually increased its number of votes.
The part we don't know is the reasons for the reduced turnout....
1) don't like Labour anymore
2) dont like " terrorist sympathisers"
3) couldn't find me wellies and brolly.
As for the White Christmas thingy it was part of a compilation of Crimbo carols I understand and therefore in no way racial. Had this been the only one played then I would then agree the line could have been construed as technically crossed. They didn't so it wasn't.
Number 7 It was a cold windy wet dark December day
Given those, and a previously very long serving MP, Labour did very well......
.....
Flat caps and Jezza bashing, do not a policy make.
a) evidence that UKIP activists all come from a particular demographic
b) evidence of UKIP group think
c) evidence of a cult of UKIP leader worship
c) some sort of sinister take over of UKIP by flat cap manufacturers
And Kippers have a very poor *win* rate despite a lot of talking up and effort by activists. Whomever is running their campaigning strategy needs replacing or a lot more expertise.
There are a lot of headless chickens running around this morning and they are all supporters of SNP Labour and UKIP.
Or are the kippets going to drive around their loudspeaker van playing the Dads Army theme tune?
don't give them ideas
P.S. Apologies for my last prediction, which was totally wrong.
The message is getting lost in a lot of shouting from and towards ukip.
Mandela was a "terrorist" until he acquired the position of the greatest statesman of the 20th century.
We [ or, Aparthied South Africa ] negotiated with him and the ANC.
Kenyatta was a "terrorist". We recognised him as the leader of Kenya.
Mugabe was a "terrorist". We recognised him as the leader of Zimbabwe.
Gaddafi was a "terrorist". We then shook his hand in a Beduin tent for oil. Finally, we created circumstances to have him butchered.
Martin McGuinness was a "terrorist". He is now the stable force in the Northern Ireland government. The Unionists are the unstable lot.
In the end , we talk to all of them. Why not earlier ? Sometimes it could save lives.
Apologies have to hurt in the wallet and a donation to the charity of choice is in order.