After Cameron's second mention of Khan's terrorist links at PMQ's on Wednsday I posted this:
"OT. I'm struggling to understand Cameron's tactics linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative. It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising-that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election."
The most important innovation in advertising in the last thirty years is the sophistication and usage of research. The High St is littered with failed businesses who thought they had a good idea and run with it.
The interesting question is why did the Tories splash out so much money on professional help and then ignore it? Or more worrying still that the professional help didn't know what they could have learnt from a first year advertising student.
(Lets hope they get their act together for the Referendum!)
In itself that's probably so, but does he really want the gig for another four years ..... that's really the key question? Watching him take it in spades from Dave at PMQs last Wednesday, the answer to that is probably almost certainly no. Plus you'd have to wonder whether and at his age he's physically and mentally tough enough to stand up to the job. If I were a betting man, *cough*, my money would definitely be on him being gone well before May 2020 which must seem an eternity away for him if he's not enjoying being LotO which I suspect is probably the case. I've backed him with SkyBET to go in either 2018 at 10/1 (staking 54.2%) or in 2019 at 12/1 (staking 45.8%) to return combined odds of 4.95/1 should he leave office over this two year stretch, which is when the real pressure from within his party as well as from the unions is likely to be applied should he not be cutting it.
I think you're mistaken, from personal knowledge of the man and the party dyanmics.
First, the man. Like me, he's bought fully into the "social duty" concept - the movement isn't about you, it's much more important than you, and any personal difficulty you experience in the course of working for it is not important. He'd regard the question of whether he's enjoying it as entirely frivolous, like asking a fireman if he's having fun as he tries to take people out of a burning building. He will only stand down if he becomes convinced that someone else would carry the socialist torch better, although if he did he'd stand down in an
I think he'll serve through 2020, and if we lose he'll then stand down. If Khan has been a success, I can see him coming under a lot of pressure to return to Parliament at that point. But not before.
A fair summary. Labour members will not demand that their leader leads or that he shows a path to victory in 2020. Gaining power and looking to replace this dreadful government is not a priority. They like where Corbyn sits politically and that's what matters. All fair enough. But let's not pretend that Labour members care passionately about improving the lives of the dispossessed, the vulnerable and the left behind. Clearly, they don't. If they did, they would be demanding much, much more from their leadership.
Khan reached out beyond Labour's comfort zone. He made an effort to engage with those whose support Labour cannot take for granted. He was pro-active, relentlessly focused on victory and came from behind to win the biggest personal mandate in British political history. What price Corbyn doing any of that - or that Labour members even ask him to try?
After Cameron's second mention of Khan's terrorist links at PMQ's on Wednsday I posted this:
"OT. I'm struggling to understand Cameron's tactics linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative. It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising-that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election."
The most important innovation in advertising in the last thirty years is the sophistication and usage of research. The High St is littered with failed businesses who thought they had a good idea and run with it.
The interesting question is why did the Tories splash out so much money on professional help and then ignore it? Or more worrying still that the professional help didn't know what they could have learnt from a first year advertising student.
(Lets hope they get their act together for the Referendum!)
Yes, it's perplexing. If for one moment I had thought Khan to be at all equivocal about Islamic terrorism I wouldn't have voted for him, but there is absolutely no evidence of the slightest equivocation from him. I think the only explanation of this implausible attack line is that the Tories are not on their game, because (probably rightly) they don't believe they have to be so long as Corbyn remains as LOTO.
I think you have it right. The d'Hondt AMS second vote system throws up plenty of curved balls but should not be mistaken for real support. The big blunder by the SNP was to allow the belief (aided and abetted by an unlikely and unholly alliance between the mainstream media, leftist commentators and St John Curtice) that they were home and dry on the constituencies leading to tactical voting for the Greens which then cost them dear on the lists. For all that the Nats comfortably topped every second vote regional poll across the country, even if they received virtually nothing for it.
That was careless by the SNP given there previous success under Salmond of defining the second vote as one for First Minister in 2007 and 2011. The Tories copied this tactic by presenting the list vote as one to choose the leader of the opposition. The failure to define the second vote other than to parrot "both votes SNP" should lead to substantial soul searching in SNP HQ. It is a sign that they need to strengthen their backroom team whose previous excellence under Kevin Pringle and Geoff Aberdein was at the heart of the Salmond led breakthrough. .
However the votes that reflect real political strength are in the constituency and here the SNP are at 47%, Labour at 22% and the Tories at 21%. In just about every other political system in the world that would produce a full majority government and is a remarkable declaration of support given that the NATS have been in power for nine years.
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
The tax cutting, public services squeezing SNP is unquestionably a centre right party. With them in power and the Tories in second, Scotland is now the most right-wing of the home nations. Brian Souter will be delighted.
Re local PCC election, can't say that the parties made much of an effort to inform voters about what candidates would do, how they would change priorities. Might have played darts to pick a colour of the winning donkey.
Re- Scotland – Labour performed badly but at the same time slightly exceeded expectations. Their constituency vote share was at the high end of forecasts and the general assumption was that they would end up with no constituency seats at all. In the event, they managed to win three – compared with just one at the 2015 General Election. Of course, the Tory outperformance was much more striking, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that had this week seen a Westminster Election – rather than for Holyrood – Labour would have reached 25% with the SNP on circa 45%. That would still have been a big SNP win – but also a step backwards from 2015 when they polled 49% to Labours 24%
Scotland turned right and Labour got hammered. It's opportunity is that it is Scotland's largest centre left party. If the Scots grow to believe cutting the taxes of the well off, subsidising the middle class and squeezing the public services used by the poor are not the way to grow the country's economy, then Labour might have a chance at some stage in the future.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
I think you're mistaken, from personal knowledge of the man and the party dyanmics.
First, the man. Like me, he's bought fully into the "social duty" concept - the movement isn't about you, it's much more important than you, and any personal difficulty you experience in the course of working for it is not important. He'd regard the question of whether he's enjoying it as entirely frivolous, like asking a fireman if he's having fun as he tries to take people out of a burning building. He will only stand down if he becomes convinced that someone else would carry the socialist torch better, although if he did he'd stand down in an
I think he'll serve through 2020, and if we lose he'll then stand down. If Khan has been a success, I can see him coming under a lot of pressure to return to Parliament at that point. But not before.
A fair summary. Labour members will not demand that their leader leads or that he shows a path to victory in 2020. Gaining power and looking to replace this dreadful government is not a priority. They like where Corbyn sits politically and that's what matters. All fair enough. But let's not pretend that Labour members care passionately about improving the lives of the dispossessed, the vulnerable and the left behind. Clearly, they don't. If they did, they would be demanding much, much more from their leadership.
Khan reached out beyond Labour's comfort zone. He made an effort to engage with those whose support Labour cannot take for granted. He was pro-active, relentlessly focused on victory and came from behind to win the biggest personal mandate in British political history. What price Corbyn doing any of that - or that Labour members even ask him to try?
Khan was not the underdog. He was always on course for victory. He got the Labour vote. He's not some sort of Messiah and it is a measure of the poverty of expectations within Labour that this sort of stuff is being said. Also we need to see what he makes of it. Livingstone started out well and look where he ended up.
@Roger is right that the Tories misfired by alleging that Khan was linked to terrorists but he is certainly linked with those who have justified them. And he has had to apologise for having given the impression that he believed the same things as the extremists and for using racist language. So there was some substance in the questions the Tories were raising. But they did so very inexpertly and with a poor candidate.
We will have to see if Khan meant it when he said that "On day one I am going to put us on a war footing with these terrorists,”.
I think you're mistaken, from personal knowledge of the man and the party dyanmics.
First, the man. Like me, he's bought fully into the "social duty" concept - the movement isn't about you, it's much more important than you, and any personal difficulty you experience in the course of working for it is not important. He'd regard the question of whether he's enjoying it as entirely frivolous, like asking a fireman if he's having fun as he tries to take people out of a burning building. He will only stand down if he becomes convinced that someone else would carry the socialist torch better, although if he did he'd stand down in an
I think he'll serve through 2020, and if we lose he'll then stand down. If Khan has been a success, I can see him coming under a lot of pressure to return to Parliament at that point. But not before.
A fair summary. Labour members will not demand that their leader leads or that he shows a path to victory in 2020. Gaining power and looking to replace this dreadful government is not a priority. They like where Corbyn sits politically and that's what matters. All fair enough. But let's not pretend that Labour members care passionately about improving the lives of the dispossessed, the vulnerable and the left behind. Clearly, they don't. If they did, they would be demanding much, much more from their leadership.
Khan reached out beyond Labour's comfort zone. He made an effort to engage with those whose support Labour cannot take for granted. He was pro-active, relentlessly focused on victory and came from behind to win the biggest personal mandate in British political history. What price Corbyn doing any of that - or that Labour members even ask him to try?
Khan was not the underdog. He was always on course for victory. He got the Labour vote. He's not some sort of Messiah and it is a measure of the poverty of expectations within Labour that this sort of stuff is being said. Also we need to see what he makes of it. Livingstone started out well and look where he ended up.
@Roger is right that the Tories misfired by alleging that Khan was linked to terrorists but he is certainly linked with those who have justified them. And he has had to apologise for having given the impression that he believed the same things as the extremists and for using racist language. So there was some substance in the questions the Tories were raising. But they did so very inexpertly and with a poor candidate.
We will have to see if Khan meant it when he said that "On day one I am going to put us on a war footing with these terrorists,”.
He started off behind in the polls. No-one said he was the messiah.
A good summary, but I would add a few more points regarding Wales.
It was a bad night for the Tories there.
Labour hung on (except in the Rhondda), because most of their seats are constituency ones where they previously had overwhelming majorities.
PC didn't make any significant progress - the result in the Rhondda was just a personal triumph for the local lass.
The LD result confirms their political irrelevance.
The only real winners were UKIP.
As for Scotland, NS should show some humility - it was a bad result for the SNP (below all expectations/predictions except the final YouGov poll), as it shows that their bubble has burst and they are now on the downhill slope. Given that support for independence is <50%, the Tories could be real challengers at the next Holyrood elections.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
As is clear from his posts, Nick is not particularly concerned about Labour winning in 2020.
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
Whodathunkit? Losing her majority is a "Victory for Nicola"!
I imagine four years of being complimented by Ruth on her Tory tax policy will go down a treat!
Re local PCC election, can't say that the parties made much of an effort to inform voters about what candidates would do, how they would change priorities. Might have played darts to pick a colour of the winning donkey.
It was a genuine surprise to me on Thursday to see polling stations open in Leamington on Thursday. I had no idea an election was taking place. Seriously. And I am relatively well engaged politically.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
As is clear from his posts, Nick is not particularly concerned about Labour winning in 2020.
A fair summary. Labour members will not demand that their leader leads or that he shows a path to victory in 2020. Gaining power and looking to replace this dreadful government is not a priority. They like where Corbyn sits politically and that's what matters. All fair enough. But let's not pretend that Labour members care passionately about improving the lives of the dispossessed, the vulnerable and the left behind. Clearly, they don't. If they did, they would be demanding much, much more from their leadership.
Khan reached out beyond Labour's comfort zone. He made an effort to engage with those whose support Labour cannot take for granted. He was pro-active, relentlessly focused on victory and came from behind to win the biggest personal mandate in British political history. What price Corbyn doing any of that - or that Labour members even ask him to try?
Khan was not the underdog. He was always on course for victory. He got the Labour vote. He's not some sort of Messiah and it is a measure of the poverty of expectations within Labour that this sort of stuff is being said. Also we need to see what he makes of it. Livingstone started out well and look where he ended up.
@Roger is right that the Tories misfired by alleging that Khan was linked to terrorists but he is certainly linked with those who have justified them. And he has had to apologise for having given the impression that he believed the same things as the extremists and for using racist language. So there was some substance in the questions the Tories were raising. But they did so very inexpertly and with a poor candidate.
We will have to see if Khan meant it when he said that "On day one I am going to put us on a war footing with these terrorists,”.
He started off behind in the polls. No-one said he was the messiah.
He has been ahead in the polls for months and months and if anything was a foregone conclusion it was this victory. London is reverting to type. Khan has a chance to show us if he is as good as some seem to claim. His past record suggests no more than an average MP, an average Minister (did he have any achievements to his name?) and some pretty dubious judgment, though with some good things to his credit - notably his reaching out to the Jewish community (a good start but only a start). But we are where we are. Let's see if he does what he has promised.
Yvette CooperVerified account @YvetteCooperMP Congratulations Sadiq! Fantastic, well-deserved result. Brilliant that Britain's capital city chose hope not hatred @SadiqKhan #LondonElects
Good to see voters weren't listening to Livingstone.
I think Goldsmith could have been a good candidate, but he was hopelessly mismatched with the campaign that he fought. The history of the London electorate also suggests that negative campaigning doesn't actually work very well. Goldsmith would have done a lot better if the early running by Labour on his privileged background had been allowed to become the main theme.
I think you have it right. The d'Hondt AMS second vote system throws up plenty of curved balls but should not be mistaken for real support. The big blunder by the SNP was to allow the belief (aided and abetted by an unlikely and unholly alliance between the mainstream media, leftist commentators and St John Curtice) that they were home and dry on the constituencies leading to tactical voting for the Greens which then cost them dear on the lists. For all that the Nats comfortably topped every second vote regional poll across the country, even if they received virtually nothing for it.
That was careless by the SNP given there previous success under Salmond of defining the second vote as one for First Minister in 2007 and 2011. The Tories copied this tactic by presenting the list vote as one to choose the leader of the opposition. The failure to define the second vote other than to parrot "both votes SNP" should lead to substantial soul searching in SNP HQ. It is a sign that they need to strengthen their backroom team whose previous excellence under Kevin Pringle and Geoff Aberdein was at the heart of the Salmond led breakthrough. .
However the votes that reflect real political strength are in the constituency and here the SNP are at 47%, Labour at 22% and the Tories at 21%. In just about every other political system in the world that would produce a full majority government and is a remarkable declaration of support given that the NATS have been in power for nine years.
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
The tax cutting, public services squeezing SNP is unquestionably a centre right party. With them in power and the Tories in second, Scotland is now the most right-wing of the home nations. Brian Souter will be delighted.
Four years of being complimented by Ruth on her Tory tax policy is going to grate....
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
Whodathunkit? Losing her majority is a "Victory for Nicola"!
I imagine four years of being complimented by Ruth on her Tory tax policy will go down a treat!
Yep, the big challenge for the Tories is how to outflank a party whose economic policies are so like their own. Having been told constantly that Scotland is so much more left wing than the rest of the UK it is stunning to see just how firm the centre right's grip on the country is.
After one of the most lackluster election campaigns, and after a quiet election, we had to put up with long boring counts, which brought even more boring comments from the great unwashed.
Let us hope that Leave can now step up a gear and leave Remain in the dust, where they belong.
Even though it's frowned upon to say it, there are tensions between members/leaders of some Muslim communities in the UK and the traditional British way of life. Khan will be faced with dealing with these issues at some point and I'm hopeful he can turn more Muslims away from the idiocy of Sharia Law, FGM, forced marriages, repression of women and, of course, extremism, and lead them towards the light.
The very fact that one of the world's great cities has elected a Muslim mayor demonstrates how open-armed this country is. I hope Khan can bring communities together and help convince more people that our Western way of life is far more tolerant and progressive than the evil, primitive cultures the religious lunatics active in some Mosques (and across the Middle East, sub continent and North Africa) espouse.
Good luck to him. If he succeeds he'll make Britain an even better, safer place.
But if he dissemble or backs away over any intolerant practices/extremism, I'll be the first in the queue to slam him over it.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
Not exactly. My experience is that only a minority readily sign up to the left-right axis and refuse to be classified in the way that we political activists do.
But I'd certainly agree that it is a recipe for failure merely to seek to mobilise your core support. There is some benefit from doing that, and I think the election this week illustrates it - if there is some analysis on turnout, I think it will show that historically low-turnout groups (the young, ethnic minorities) voted much more than usual, and Corbyn is part of the reaon for that.
But you do need to reach out to the uncommitted. They are not necessarily centrist in terms of splitting the difference on every issue; rather, they tend to be less politically engaged and to go by impressions and broad messages. If they have the impression that you are unsound on defence they'll feel that's a serious snag; if in addition they think you're unserious or incompetent they probably won't vote for you at all. I think, that as we've just seen in London, a simple attack on the basis that you once sat with extremists or said something pleasant to them doesn't work in isolation, but you have to avoid feeding it (a lesson to which Ken L seems oblivious).
I think that Corbyn recognises that, and he's eliminated some of the trivial reasons not to vote for him - he no longer dresses sloppily, he's avoiding veering off at irrelevant tangents so often. And he does have strengths that many uncommitted voters like - he's transparently honest and scrupulously polite, both characteristics that many who are not in the political game often think are sorely needed needed in politics. But Labour as a team needs to develop a broad message going beyond traditional left-wing issues, not least a convincing story on the economy (on which McDonnell and his advisory panel has made a useful start).
Incidentally, I have a minor unpaid role in this - I've been commissioned with a colleague by Jeremy and Kerry McCarthy to develop a coherent animal welfare policy that is intended to be much better thought-out and researched than the knee-jerk stuff parties tend to come out with as they cobble a programme together. Similar efforts are being made by specialists in other fields. An interesting and well-thought-out programme is only part of the answer, but it addresses the charge of lack of seriousness.
Stephen Pollard However awful his campaign, Goldsmith was a worse candidate. When he came in to 'woo' @JewishChron he seemed bored and tired. As throughout
But I also think Khan attacks were his - he suddenly came alive when talking about need to stop Khan. It was all very odd...
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
Whodathunkit? Losing her majority is a "Victory for Nicola"!
I imagine four years of being complimented by Ruth on her Tory tax policy will go down a treat!
To be fair, there are many who believe that independence could only work in Scotland if it goes down a right wing path and breaks away from the state dependency that has underpinned it for so long. Of course some in the Yes camp during the referendum were in favour of Independence because they thought it would force the pursuit of a more right-wing entrepreneurial approach. So the whole thing might be uncomfortable for Sturgeon politically, but it won't necessarily be a bad thing if she is genuine in desiring Independence.
As for Scotland, NS should show some humility - it was a bad result for the SNP (below all expectations/predictions except the final YouGov poll), as it shows that their bubble has burst and they are now on the downhill slope. Given that support for independence is
My timeline is awash with distraught Zoomers raging against the dying of the light
They are wailing about Nicola's (less than half the vote, less than half the seats) mandate...
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
Incidentally, I have a minor unpaid role in this - I've been commissioned with a colleague by Jeremy and Kerry McCarthy to develop a coherent animal welfare policy that is intended to be much better thought-out and researched than the knee-jerk stuff parties tend to come out with as they cobble a programme together. Similar efforts are being made by specialists in other fields. An interesting and well-thought-out programme is only part of the answer, but it addresses the charge of lack of seriousness.
Jeremy Corbyn is so broad-minded that one of his key advisers is a man who has spent much of his adult life opposing Labour.
That Nick Palmer and the Labour membership are not up in arms over the role that their leader has given Seamus Milne tells you all you need to know about their passion for securing victory in 2020.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
The misconception is where the centre ground is. Our government wants to have political appointees run BBC News, thinks the Mayor of London is bezzies with ISIS, wanted to remove parental governance from schools and hand them over to academy chains, is gutting funding for local government the disabled adult social care front line NHS defence and the police, and in the midst of a generational housing crisis allows developers to overrule councils and even DCLG on appeal.
On UKIP and Wales, you're wrong about Hamilton, he was born in Wales and went to Aberystwyth University, he is Welsh and has at least some kind of claim to a list seat there. Reckless, otoh, should have been told by the leadership to do one and find a council seat in the South East or London and waited for a by-election for Westminster or waited until the GE 2020 to try again. Stuffing the Welsh assembly with English party hacks is pretty disgraceful, but I expect it from a party as unprofessional as UKIP and a leader desperate to give those who keep him in place favours.
I take Wellington's view on these things. How did Hamilton view his nationality before the Welsh opportunity arose?
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
The misconception is where the centre ground is. Our government wants to have political appointees run BBC News, thinks the Mayor of London is bezzies with ISIS, wanted to remove parental governance from schools and hand them over to academy chains, is gutting funding for local government the disabled adult social care front line NHS defence and the police, and in the midst of a generational housing crisis allows developers to overrule councils and even DCLG on appeal.
It is not the centre ground.
No, it's not. And it's also incompetent. Labour members, though, seem happy enough to give it an extended period in office.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
The misconception is where the centre ground is. Our government wants to have political appointees run BBC News, thinks the Mayor of London is bezzies with ISIS, wanted to remove parental governance from schools and hand them over to academy chains, is gutting funding for local government the disabled adult social care front line NHS defence and the police, and in the midst of a generational housing crisis allows developers to overrule councils and even DCLG on appeal.
It is not the centre ground.
That's the view from the left, but it isn't reality.
Even though it's frowned upon to say it, there are tensions between members/leaders of some Muslim communities in the UK and the traditional British way of life. Khan will be faced with dealing with these issues at some point and I'm hopeful he can turn more Muslims away from the idiocy of Sharia Law, FGM, forced marriages, repression of women and, of course, extremism, and lead them towards the light.
The very fact that one of the world's great cities has elected a Muslim mayor demonstrates how open-armed this country is. I hope Khan can bring communities together and help convince more people that our Western way of life is far more tolerant and progressive than the evil, primitive cultures the religious lunatics active in some Mosques (and across the Middle East, sub continent and North Africa) espouse.
Good luck to him. If he succeeds he'll make Britain an even better, safer place.
But if he dissemble or backs away over any intolerant practices/extremism, I'll be the first in the queue to slam him over it.
A very good post. In a way it describes the optimism Labour victories have often engendered. '97 being the most obvious. The whole country seemed to light up and have a spring in their step. It rarely happens with a Tory victory though Scotland looks like being an exception. I can't see Corbyn ever being other than divisive
Jeremy Corbyn is so broad-minded that one of his key advisers is a man who has spent much of his adult life opposing Labour.
That Nick Palmer and the Labour membership are not up in arms over the role that their leader has given Seamus Milne tells you all you need to know about their passion for securing victory in 2020.
Ah, SO, the penny's dropped with you.
Labour activists have discovered that if you're in government for long enough, you turn into a Tory. (I'd tell Ms Sturgeon but she thinks Sassenachs can't tell her anything.)
We now have only one Party whose activists actually want to govern. Is this good for democracy? The question answers itself. It is not only Labour which is an idea whose time has gone.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
The misconception is where the centre ground is. Our government wants to have political appointees run BBC News, thinks the Mayor of London is bezzies with ISIS, wanted to remove parental governance from schools and hand them over to academy chains, is gutting funding for local government the disabled adult social care front line NHS defence and the police, and in the midst of a generational housing crisis allows developers to overrule councils and even DCLG on appeal.
It is not the centre ground.
That's the view from the left, but it isn't reality.
David H 'The disaster was Scotland, where Labour finished behind the Conservatives for the first time since the 1950s '
I am not really wishing to quibble but I am pretty sure the Tories beat Labour in Scotland in the Local Elections of 1968 and 1969 . Labour lost Glasgow in those years!
To be honest, I couldn't find the pre-1973 local election results for Scotland so you may be right. I couldn't find the full 1979 Euro result either, which is another possibility.
However, I'd be inclined to ignore the locals from before the 1970s as there were too many independents to make meaningful comparisons. The '79 Euro ought to count so if I'm wrong due to that, apologies.
For London, he has to manage a seriously overheating economy and a bubble soon to burst For his party, he must prove Labour's strengths in office For the nation, he can remind us you don't have to be a white Etonian to succeed
Jezza is an International socialist and that's why he won't win. This has been tested to death, and it's why communist countries always revert to a form of National socialism. The state control is always essential to give the impression of it working.
Democratic socialism wins when it recognises that other's viewpoints deserve consideration.
Jezza may be polite, but would he ever change his mind? Facts don't matter, other's views don't matter, he knows he is right. The powerful are always wrong, the weak are always right. The world is black and white. The UK is strong therefore .... foreign affairs will always be a fatal electoral weakness.
Trotsky lost and Jeeza blames the ice-pick. Can I have my politics degree now, please?
Months ago when Trump looked to have the GOP nomination in the bag I placed a decent sized trading bet on him to be nest President - at 4.32. I then watched his price and prospects drift alarmingly and regretted my position. But I held my nerve and a few days ago he was 3.65 for POTUS. I traded out yesterday at 3.85. Just before Bush and Bush (and McCain?) announced they won't support Trump. Ryan is holding back his support for now.
Trump back out to 4.3. Phew! Timing is everything in betting.
Months ago when Trump looked to have the GOP nomination in the bag I placed a decent sized trading bet on him to be nest President - at 4.32. I then watched his price and prospects drift alarmingly and regretted my position. But I held my nerve and a few days ago he was 3.65 for POTUS. I traded out yesterday at 3.85. Just before Bush and Bush (and McCain?) announced they won't support Trump. Ryan is holding back his support for now.
Trump back out to 4.3. Phew! Timing is everything in betting.
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
The misconception is where the centre ground is. Our government wants to have political appointees run BBC News, thinks the Mayor of London is bezzies with ISIS, wanted to remove parental governance from schools and hand them over to academy chains, is gutting funding for local government the disabled adult social care front line NHS defence and the police, and in the midst of a generational housing crisis allows developers to overrule councils and even DCLG on appeal.
It is not the centre ground.
While I, too, am puzzled by what the Tories are doing with junior doctors and schools (though that now looks off the cards - a good day to bury bad news and all that). I wouldn't argue that it was necessarily right or left wing. Ultimately, what the 2020 election will come down to is what every election comes down - management of the economy and public finances. And so far, I don't think I've seen Corbyn and McDonnell's position on these things scrutinized - which is probably a good thing from their point of view.
Jezza is an International socialist and that's why he won't win. This has been tested to death, and it's why communist countries always revert to a form of National socialism. The state control is always essential to give the impression of it working.
Democratic socialism wins when it recognises that other's viewpoints deserve consideration.
Jezza may be polite, but would he ever change his mind? Facts don't matter, other's views don't matter, he knows he is right. The powerful are always wrong, the weak are always right. The world is black and white. The UK is strong therefore .... foreign affairs will always be a fatal electoral weakness.
Trotsky lost and Jeeza blames the ice-pick. Can I have my politics degree now, please?
Well if you think it is possible to be both powerful and ethical you certainly can't have a degree in philosophy
As a Scottish Tory used to disappointment after disappointment I am understandably focussed on the sensational result for Ruth Davidson up here. But I do think that there are broader lessons.
Ruth is another Boris in many ways. She is funny, engaging and has a reach well beyond that of the traditional Tory. In addition she is still quite young and openly gay. Every stereotype of a crusty old Tory sitting in their draughty old castle is completely blown apart. She is aware this is a strength. No photo opportunity was daft enough to be turned down. Unlike the deeply unpleasant Goldsmith campaign in London she was also relentlessly positive.
There are huge lessons here for the next Tory leader. Cameron has done massive amounts to detoxify the Tory brand but his privileges, his background and, dare one say it, his essential conservatism, has imposed limitations on what he can do. The Tories need someone who understands the importance of keeping public spending and taxes in balance, that the purpose of the tax system is to raise money for services not punish the rich and yet who has genuine compassion for the less able and needy. They also need someone who gets 21st century Britain and does not hark back to some mythical golden age.
Such people are rare, very rare. But once the referendum is out the way the Tories need to look for such a person from their next generation to take on Cameron's mantle and to continue offering a combination of competent government and social liberalism to the British people. It is not going to be easy but can anyone seriously question the sort of person now required?
As a Scottish Tory used to disappointment after disappointment I am understandably focussed on the sensational result for Ruth Davidson up here. But I do think that there are broader lessons.
Ruth is another Boris in many ways. She is funny, engaging and has a reach well beyond that of the traditional Tory. In addition she is still quite young and openly gay. Every stereotype of a crusty old Tory sitting in their draughty old castle is completely blown apart. She is aware this is a strength. No photo opportunity was daft enough to be turned down. Unlike the deeply unpleasant Goldsmith campaign in London she was also relentlessly positive.
There are huge lessons here for the next Tory leader. Cameron has done massive amounts to detoxify the Tory brand but his privileges, his background and, dare one say it, his essential conservatism, has imposed limitations on what he can do. The Tories need someone who understands the importance of keeping public spending and taxes in balance, that the purpose of the tax system is to raise money for services not punish the rich and yet who has genuine compassion for the less able and needy. They also need someone who gets 21st century Britain and does not hark back to some mythical golden age.
Such people are rare, very rare. But once the referendum is out the way the Tories need to look for such a person from their next generation to take on Cameron's mantle and to continue offering a combination of competent government and social liberalism to the British people. It is not going to be easy but can anyone seriously question the sort of person now required?
You miss a major factor though. The next Tory leader is likely (certain?) to be PM. The qualities for running the country can be somewhat different to being a great campaigner. Campaign in poetry and govern in prose and all that.
David H 'The disaster was Scotland, where Labour finished behind the Conservatives for the first time since the 1950s '
I am not really wishing to quibble but I am pretty sure the Tories beat Labour in Scotland in the Local Elections of 1968 and 1969 . Labour lost Glasgow in those years!
To be honest, I couldn't find the pre-1973 local election results for Scotland so you may be right. I couldn't find the full 1979 Euro result either, which is another possibility.
However, I'd be inclined to ignore the locals from before the 1970s as there were too many independents to make meaningful comparisons. The '79 Euro ought to count so if I'm wrong due to that, apologies.
Con beat Lab 33.7% to 33.0% in the 1979 Scottish Euros. [source: British Political Facts]
Months ago when Trump looked to have the GOP nomination in the bag I placed a decent sized trading bet on him to be nest President - at 4.32. I then watched his price and prospects drift alarmingly and regretted my position. But I held my nerve and a few days ago he was 3.65 for POTUS. I traded out yesterday at 3.85. Just before Bush and Bush (and McCain?) announced they won't support Trump. Ryan is holding back his support for now.
Trump back out to 4.3. Phew! Timing is everything in betting.
I'm finding the sore loser grumpiness by Washington insiders rather entertaining. They're virtue signalling by ostentatiously withholding endorsements. But surely Trump doesn't want their fingerprints anywhere near his campaign - and they still don't get it.
He's offering fish and chips, and doesn't want guacamole with it.
Pollsters nailed it for London. Well done, online or phone better?
I posted in previous thread the details of final polls for all pollsters on first votes. Yes they were correct on who was ahead but 4 out of 5 had Goldsmith too low and 3 out of 5 had Khan too high. It was the usual 1%+ too high on Labour and at least 1% too low on Conservatives......
Yvette CooperVerified account @YvetteCooperMP Congratulations Sadiq! Fantastic, well-deserved result. Brilliant that Britain's capital city chose hope not hatred @SadiqKhan #LondonElects
Good to see voters weren't listening to Livingstone.
The fact that Goldsmith asked exactly the same questions of Khan as she did of Corbyn during the Labour leadership election campaign and in almost the same words seems to have passed her by.
"Well if you think it is possible to be both powerful and ethical you certainly can't have a degree in philosophy "
It's difficult, and power does corrupt, but to assume it's impossible is to pre-judge like a child would. Jezza is still that child, no matter how well-meaning.
To believe it's impossible to be both weak and unethical is equally childish.
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
Whodathunkit? Losing her majority is a "Victory for Nicola"!
I imagine four years of being complimented by Ruth on her Tory tax policy will go down a treat!
Yep, the big challenge for the Tories is how to outflank a party whose economic policies are so like their own. Having been told constantly that Scotland is so much more left wing than the rest of the UK it is stunning to see just how firm the centre right's grip on the country is.
PB Red Tory discovers Tartan Tory meme 50 years after everyone else, repeats meme endlessly under the mistaken impression that this will lend it credibility.
Makes a change from whining endlessly about Corbyn I guess.
Mr. L, if we assume you're right, who does that mean would be best as next Conservative leader?
I don't have a name but it really should not be pretty much any of the current front runners. I thought Sajid Javid looked a real possibility but he has disappointed so far in office. Characters are rare in modern politics but if there is one central theme from yesterday's results it is that character and personality are of increasing importance and political dogmatism less so. Yet another way in which Corbyn looks ridiculously out of step.
Ironically the end result of this SNP carelessness may be beneficial. It gives them a salatory lesson in hubris without much political damage. The Parliament should be easy enough to manage but still keep the Government on its toes. The SNP politicians, of which some look like real quality, will presumably insist on a return to organisational effectiveness while the result increases rather than diminishes Sturgeon's freedom to manouvre on independence. Meanwhile centre left led by the SNP, against centre right led by the Tories, is a great position for continuing success.
Whodathunkit? Losing her majority is a "Victory for Nicola"!
I imagine four years of being complimented by Ruth on her Tory tax policy will go down a treat!
Yep, the big challenge for the Tories is how to outflank a party whose economic policies are so like their own. Having been told constantly that Scotland is so much more left wing than the rest of the UK it is stunning to see just how firm the centre right's grip on the country is.
PB Red Tory discovers Tartan Tory meme 50 years after everyone else, repeats meme endlessly under the mistaken impression that this will lend it credibility.
Makes a change from whining endlessly about Corbyn I guess.
You sound surprisingly grumpy after Nicola's triumph.
Months ago when Trump looked to have the GOP nomination in the bag I placed a decent sized trading bet on him to be nest President - at 4.32. I then watched his price and prospects drift alarmingly and regretted my position. But I held my nerve and a few days ago he was 3.65 for POTUS. I traded out yesterday at 3.85. Just before Bush and Bush (and McCain?) announced they won't support Trump. Ryan is holding back his support for now.
Trump back out to 4.3. Phew! Timing is everything in betting.
I'm finding the sore loser grumpiness by Washington insiders rather entertaining. They're virtue signalling by ostentatiously withholding endorsements. But surely Trump doesn't want their fingerprints anywhere near his campaign - and they still don't get it.
He's offering fish and chips, and doesn't want guacamole with it.
Even though it's frowned upon to say it, there are tensions between members/leaders of some Muslim communities in the UK and the traditional British way of life. Khan will be faced with dealing with these issues at some point and I'm hopeful he can turn more Muslims away from the idiocy of Sharia Law, FGM, forced marriages, repression of women and, of course, extremism, and lead them towards the light.
The very fact that one of the world's great cities has elected a Muslim mayor demonstrates how open-armed this country is. I hope Khan can bring communities together and help convince more people that our Western way of life is far more tolerant and progressive than the evil, primitive cultures the religious lunatics active in some Mosques (and across the Middle East, sub continent and North Africa) espouse.
Good luck to him. If he succeeds he'll make Britain an even better, safer place.
But if he dissemble or backs away over any intolerant practices/extremism, I'll be the first in the queue to slam him over it.
Agreed. A pity then that he has spoken in the past in favour of an Islamic blasphemy law and against making forced marriages a crime.
As a Scottish Tory used to disappointment after disappointment I am understandably focussed on the sensational result for Ruth Davidson up here. But I do think that there are broader lessons.
Ruth is another Boris in many ways. She is funny, engaging and has a reach well beyond that of the traditional Tory. In addition she is still quite young and openly gay. Every stereotype of a crusty old Tory sitting in their draughty old castle is completely blown apart. She is aware this is a strength. No photo opportunity was daft enough to be turned down. Unlike the deeply unpleasant Goldsmith campaign in London she was also relentlessly positive.
There are huge lessons here for the next Tory leader. Cameron has done massive amounts to detoxify the Tory brand but his privileges, his background and, dare one say it, his essential conservatism, has imposed limitations on what he can do. The Tories need someone who understands the importance of keeping public spending and taxes in balance, that the purpose of the tax system is to raise money for services not punish the rich and yet who has genuine compassion for the less able and needy. They also need someone who gets 21st century Britain and does not hark back to some mythical golden age.
Such people are rare, very rare. But once the referendum is out the way the Tories need to look for such a person from their next generation to take on Cameron's mantle and to continue offering a combination of competent government and social liberalism to the British people. It is not going to be easy but can anyone seriously question the sort of person now required?
You miss a major factor though. The next Tory leader is likely (certain?) to be PM. The qualities for running the country can be somewhat different to being a great campaigner. Campaign in poetry and govern in prose and all that.
That is true and running things without having the fun and life knocked out of you is even harder. Boris just about managed it as Mayor but I can think of few other examples.
As a Scottish Tory used to disappointment after disappointment I am understandably focussed on the sensational result for Ruth Davidson up here. But I do think that there are broader lessons.
Ruth is another Boris in many ways. She is funny, engaging and has a reach well beyond that of the traditional Tory. In addition she is still quite young and openly gay. Every stereotype of a crusty old Tory sitting in their draughty old castle is completely blown apart. She is aware this is a strength. No photo opportunity was daft enough to be turned down. Unlike the deeply unpleasant Goldsmith campaign in London she was also relentlessly positive.
There are huge lessons here for the next Tory leader. Cameron has done massive amounts to detoxify the Tory brand but his privileges, his background and, dare one say it, his essential conservatism, has imposed limitations on what he can do. The Tories need someone who understands the importance of keeping public spending and taxes in balance, that the purpose of the tax system is to raise money for services not punish the rich and yet who has genuine compassion for the less able and needy. They also need someone who gets 21st century Britain and does not hark back to some mythical golden age.
Such people are rare, very rare. But once the referendum is out the way the Tories need to look for such a person from their next generation to take on Cameron's mantle and to continue offering a combination of competent government and social liberalism to the British people. It is not going to be easy but can anyone seriously question the sort of person now required?
A very good post. Similar in many ways to Fenster's. There is nothing quite as joyous in politics as when the good guys (as you see it) win and the bad guys lose. Scotland and London mayor are good examples. Nothing that's coming down the road looks at all promising particularly from Labour or the Tories so make the best of Sadiq and Ruth
Mr. Crosby, I'd be staggered if Labour got low 20s. Not impossible with Corbyn, but the votes have to go somewhere. The Conservatives won't be fresh as a daisy and the SNP's support is, obviously, geographically limited.
The only way Labour get low 20s is if UKIP and/or the Lib Dems have a fantastic result.
Mr. L, Javid's a lightweight with a nice backstory.
Miss Cyclefree, didn't know Khan had spoken up in favour of a blasphemy law. That's rancid.
As a Scottish Tory used to disappointment after disappointment I am understandably focussed on the sensational result for Ruth Davidson up here. But I do think that there are broader lessons.
Ruth is another Boris in many ways. She is funny, engaging and has a reach well beyond that of the traditional Tory. In addition she is still quite young and openly gay. Every stereotype of a crusty old Tory sitting in their draughty old castle is completely blown apart. She is aware this is a strength. No photo opportunity was daft enough to be turned down. Unlike the deeply unpleasant Goldsmith campaign in London she was also relentlessly positive.
There are huge lessons here for the next Tory leader. Cameron has done massive amounts to detoxify the Tory brand but his privileges, his background and, dare one say it, his essential conservatism, has imposed limitations on what he can do. The Tories need someone who understands the importance of keeping public spending and taxes in balance, that the purpose of the tax system is to raise money for services not punish the rich and yet who has genuine compassion for the less able and needy. They also need someone who gets 21st century Britain and does not hark back to some mythical golden age.
Such people are rare, very rare. But once the referendum is out the way the Tories need to look for such a person from their next generation to take on Cameron's mantle and to continue offering a combination of competent government and social liberalism to the British people. It is not going to be easy but can anyone seriously question the sort of person now required?
All very coherent but re your final paragraph, one suspects that ConservativeHome might have a different view.
"Well if you think it is possible to be both powerful and ethical you certainly can't have a degree in philosophy "
It's difficult, and power does corrupt, but to assume it's impossible is to pre-judge like a child would. Jezza is still that child, no matter how well-meaning.
To believe it's impossible to be both weak and unethical is equally childish.
To the best of my knowledge all children breathe and sleep but that doesn't make either process childish. A better rebuttal of my original point might have been the Presidency of Nelson Mandela...
I believe we find out today if Corbyns man has won the mayoral election in Bristol. Will be quite interesting to see if the voters there will go for Corbyism or 4 more years of red corduroy (despite the bonker being pretty unpopular).
Khan has four years of walking on eggshells..his honcho appointments and his ethnic quota policies will be the most scrutinised in British politics..and if he cracks just one shell then Corbyn will get hammered again in the HOC..
What I find so sadly telling is that Sadiq is universally described as Muslim by himself and everyone else.
Not an Asian, a Muslim. That's where years of identity politics has taken us. And frankly, I don't like any politician who parades his religion - whatever that is.
Maybe I'm wrong, but ten or so years ago we'd never routinely talk like this. There are many obvious reasons that we do now - I'd like to see a conscious effort to reverse this divisive trend.
Re LIB DEMs. Down to 1 AM in Wales and 1 in London Assembly. Overtaken in both by UKIP.
Bleak times for the LDs. Time for rebrand back to Liberals?
Possible! But they are teetering on oblivion. Only the SLAB collapse and turmoil inside english parts of Labour and Conservatives has saved them in Scotland and English Councils.
Mr. L, if we assume you're right, who does that mean would be best as next Conservative leader?
I don't have a name but it really should not be pretty much any of the current front runners. I thought Sajid Javid looked a real possibility but he has disappointed so far in office. Characters are rare in modern politics but if there is one central theme from yesterday's results it is that character and personality are of increasing importance and political dogmatism less so. Yet another way in which Corbyn looks ridiculously out of step.
It depends on what you mean by character. If it means "being a character" I would disagree. If it means moral character, judgment, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and to say so, the sense to realise that they are in public service and are there to serve us, then I agree. We need more of such people. We don't need politicians who think it is all about them, who think that any questioning of them, what they have done and said is somehow an importance. There is too much of that around.
We don't need dogmatists. But we do need people who actually have some liberal principles and follow them through.
From what I can tell Ruth Davidson comes across as an engaging personality. But probably more important is that she seems to have a clear idea about what the Tories should be about in Scotland and how to communicate that to her party and the wider electorate.
Re LIB DEMs. Down to 1 AM in Wales and 1 in London Assembly. Overtaken in both by UKIP.
Bleak times for the LDs. Time for rebrand back to Liberals?
Possible! But they are teetering on oblivion. Only the SLAB collapse and turmoil inside english parts of Labour and Conservatives has saved them in Scotland and English Councils.
Comments
"OT. I'm struggling to understand Cameron's tactics linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising-that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election."
The most important innovation in advertising in the last thirty years is the sophistication and usage of research. The High St is littered with failed businesses who thought they had a good idea and run with it.
The interesting question is why did the Tories splash out so much money on professional help and then ignore it? Or more worrying still that the professional help didn't know what they could have learnt from a first year advertising student.
(Lets hope they get their act together for the Referendum!)
Khan reached out beyond Labour's comfort zone. He made an effort to engage with those whose support Labour cannot take for granted. He was pro-active, relentlessly focused on victory and came from behind to win the biggest personal mandate in British political history. What price Corbyn doing any of that - or that Labour members even ask him to try?
Nick Palmer. There is a widely held view amongst political analysts that Labour cannot win most seats at the General Election without occupying the centre ground - and history supports this. Firstly, do you agree with this view and secondly do you think Corbyn is open to this assessment?
@Roger is right that the Tories misfired by alleging that Khan was linked to terrorists but he is certainly linked with those who have justified them. And he has had to apologise for having given the impression that he believed the same things as the extremists and for using racist language. So there was some substance in the questions the Tories were raising. But they did so very inexpertly and with a poor candidate.
We will have to see if Khan meant it when he said that "On day one I am going to put us on a war footing with these terrorists,”.
It was a bad night for the Tories there.
Labour hung on (except in the Rhondda), because most of their seats are constituency ones where they previously had overwhelming majorities.
PC didn't make any significant progress - the result in the Rhondda was just a personal triumph for the local lass.
The LD result confirms their political irrelevance.
The only real winners were UKIP.
As for Scotland, NS should show some humility - it was a bad result for the SNP (below all expectations/predictions except the final YouGov poll), as it shows that their bubble has burst and they are now on the downhill slope. Given that support for independence is <50%, the Tories could be real challengers at the next Holyrood elections.
I imagine four years of being complimented by Ruth on her Tory tax policy will go down a treat!
@YvetteCooperMP
Congratulations Sadiq! Fantastic, well-deserved result. Brilliant that Britain's capital city chose hope not hatred @SadiqKhan #LondonElects
Good to see voters weren't listening to Livingstone.
After one of the most lackluster election campaigns, and after a quiet election, we had to put up with long boring counts, which brought even more boring comments from the great unwashed.
Let us hope that Leave can now step up a gear and leave Remain in the dust, where they belong.
Even though it's frowned upon to say it, there are tensions between members/leaders of some Muslim communities in the UK and the traditional British way of life. Khan will be faced with dealing with these issues at some point and I'm hopeful he can turn more Muslims away from the idiocy of Sharia Law, FGM, forced marriages, repression of women and, of course, extremism, and lead them towards the light.
The very fact that one of the world's great cities has elected a Muslim mayor demonstrates how open-armed this country is. I hope Khan can bring communities together and help convince more people that our Western way of life is far more tolerant and progressive than the evil, primitive cultures the religious lunatics active in some Mosques (and across the Middle East, sub continent and North Africa) espouse.
Good luck to him. If he succeeds he'll make Britain an even better, safer place.
But if he dissemble or backs away over any intolerant practices/extremism, I'll be the first in the queue to slam him over it.
But I'd certainly agree that it is a recipe for failure merely to seek to mobilise your core support. There is some benefit from doing that, and I think the election this week illustrates it - if there is some analysis on turnout, I think it will show that historically low-turnout groups (the young, ethnic minorities) voted much more than usual, and Corbyn is part of the reaon for that.
But you do need to reach out to the uncommitted. They are not necessarily centrist in terms of splitting the difference on every issue; rather, they tend to be less politically engaged and to go by impressions and broad messages. If they have the impression that you are unsound on defence they'll feel that's a serious snag; if in addition they think you're unserious or incompetent they probably won't vote for you at all. I think, that as we've just seen in London, a simple attack on the basis that you once sat with extremists or said something pleasant to them doesn't work in isolation, but you have to avoid feeding it (a lesson to which Ken L seems oblivious).
I think that Corbyn recognises that, and he's eliminated some of the trivial reasons not to vote for him - he no longer dresses sloppily, he's avoiding veering off at irrelevant tangents so often. And he does have strengths that many uncommitted voters like - he's transparently honest and scrupulously polite, both characteristics that many who are not in the political game often think are sorely needed needed in politics. But Labour as a team needs to develop a broad message going beyond traditional left-wing issues, not least a convincing story on the economy (on which McDonnell and his advisory panel has made a useful start).
Incidentally, I have a minor unpaid role in this - I've been commissioned with a colleague by Jeremy and Kerry McCarthy to develop a coherent animal welfare policy that is intended to be much better thought-out and researched than the knee-jerk stuff parties tend to come out with as they cobble a programme together. Similar efforts are being made by specialists in other fields. An interesting and well-thought-out programme is only part of the answer, but it addresses the charge of lack of seriousness.
However awful his campaign, Goldsmith was a worse candidate. When he came in to 'woo' @JewishChron he seemed bored and tired. As throughout
But I also think Khan attacks were his - he suddenly came alive when talking about need to stop Khan. It was all very odd...
Cheers Mr Herdson, a succinct and fair summary of last Thursday’s events imho.
They are wailing about Nicola's (less than half the vote, less than half the seats) mandate...
It's tragic.
And hysterical.
The vitriol from SNP Cybernats directed towards the Orkney & Shetland Islands continues unabated. https://t.co/GTTSysJDed
That Nick Palmer and the Labour membership are not up in arms over the role that their leader has given Seamus Milne tells you all you need to know about their passion for securing victory in 2020.
It is not the centre ground.
Nice summary, Mr. Herdson.
Won't be long until the referendum campaign dominates coverage again.
By Monday?
Labour activists have discovered that if you're in government for long enough, you turn into a Tory. (I'd tell Ms Sturgeon but she thinks Sassenachs can't tell her anything.)
We now have only one Party whose activists actually want to govern. Is this good for democracy? The question answers itself. It is not only Labour which is an idea whose time has gone.
However, I'd be inclined to ignore the locals from before the 1970s as there were too many independents to make meaningful comparisons. The '79 Euro ought to count so if I'm wrong due to that, apologies.
For London, he has to manage a seriously overheating economy and a bubble soon to burst
For his party, he must prove Labour's strengths in office
For the nation, he can remind us you don't have to be a white Etonian to succeed
Democratic socialism wins when it recognises that other's viewpoints deserve consideration.
Jezza may be polite, but would he ever change his mind? Facts don't matter, other's views don't matter, he knows he is right. The powerful are always wrong, the weak are always right. The world is black and white. The UK is strong therefore .... foreign affairs will always be a fatal electoral weakness.
Trotsky lost and Jeeza blames the ice-pick. Can I have my politics degree now, please?
Trump back out to 4.3. Phew! Timing is everything in betting.
Sovereignty isn't the best way to get voters excited about Brexit, @LordAshcroft finds
https://t.co/mDbjCqPeRz https://t.co/lOJxifV438
You Gov polling within margin of error (bar UKIP) in Wales.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/728847053741264896
Con 7,352
Lab 7,021
LD 5,001
UKIP 3,441
Green 638
Ind 127
Others 205
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/these-elections-wont-dislodge-corbyn-this-year-but-may-seal-his-fate-before-2020-a7016206.html
Ruth is another Boris in many ways. She is funny, engaging and has a reach well beyond that of the traditional Tory. In addition she is still quite young and openly gay. Every stereotype of a crusty old Tory sitting in their draughty old castle is completely blown apart. She is aware this is a strength. No photo opportunity was daft enough to be turned down. Unlike the deeply unpleasant Goldsmith campaign in London she was also relentlessly positive.
There are huge lessons here for the next Tory leader. Cameron has done massive amounts to detoxify the Tory brand but his privileges, his background and, dare one say it, his essential conservatism, has imposed limitations on what he can do. The Tories need someone who understands the importance of keeping public spending and taxes in balance, that the purpose of the tax system is to raise money for services not punish the rich and yet who has genuine compassion for the less able and needy. They also need someone who gets 21st century Britain and does not hark back to some mythical golden age.
Such people are rare, very rare. But once the referendum is out the way the Tories need to look for such a person from their next generation to take on Cameron's mantle and to continue offering a combination of competent government and social liberalism to the British people. It is not going to be easy but can anyone seriously question the sort of person now required?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Death_and_legacy
They also won Liverpool!
He's offering fish and chips, and doesn't want guacamole with it.
"Well if you think it is possible to be both powerful and ethical you certainly can't have a degree in philosophy
It's difficult, and power does corrupt, but to assume it's impossible is to pre-judge like a child would. Jezza is still that child, no matter how well-meaning.
To believe it's impossible to be both weak and unethical is equally childish.
Makes a change from whining endlessly about Corbyn I guess.
A handy reminder for those who still want Nicola to try her hand again "if the polls say so"...
The only way Labour get low 20s is if UKIP and/or the Lib Dems have a fantastic result.
Mr. L, Javid's a lightweight with a nice backstory.
Miss Cyclefree, didn't know Khan had spoken up in favour of a blasphemy law. That's rancid.
The one upside of Nicola's "triumph" is that she can sack Swinney with impunity.
And there was much rejoicing...
When will Shadsy settle the London mayor market?
Not an Asian, a Muslim. That's where years of identity politics has taken us. And frankly, I don't like any politician who parades his religion - whatever that is.
Maybe I'm wrong, but ten or so years ago we'd never routinely talk like this. There are many obvious reasons that we do now - I'd like to see a conscious effort to reverse this divisive trend.
It depends on what you mean by character. If it means "being a character" I would disagree. If it means moral character, judgment, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and to say so, the sense to realise that they are in public service and are there to serve us, then I agree. We need more of such people. We don't need politicians who think it is all about them, who think that any questioning of them, what they have done and said is somehow an importance. There is too much of that around.
We don't need dogmatists. But we do need people who actually have some liberal principles and follow them through.
From what I can tell Ruth Davidson comes across as an engaging personality. But probably more important is that she seems to have a clear idea about what the Tories should be about in Scotland and how to communicate that to her party and the wider electorate.
If people can't afford to live or a run a business in the capital, bad things are just around the corner.