Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Although the Tories probably would not have gone to the country with Cameron as leader as he would have been beaten by Brown in 2007.
I seriously doubt it, I think an election in 2007 would have ended exactly like 2010, the public not wanting Labour but also not convinced by the Tories. Remember Brown got spooked by the polls and bottled it for a reason. Also given how this referendum just went, the Tories were the only party promising a referendum on Lisbon which would have won them a lot of votes.
Yeah, I remember the polls, but I suspect that Labour would have done better in 2007 than they did in 2010, and may have ended up the largest party in a hung Parliament. Brown would not have gone into coalition with the LibDems, but would have done confidence and supply with them.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
That's all true except it's actually worse than that for Labour - because they simultaneously still have a large chunk of the identity politics left wing vote, that would be lost if they started playing up their patriotism/ignoring transgenderism etc. There is competition for those votes on the left now, from Greens particularly. If Labour went for someone like John Mann for example, who would appeal to the traditional voters you describe, they would lose a huge chunk of youthful/progressive votes. That in itself may not cost them many seats as the numbers of voters are small, but it would wipe out their activist base. Labour's ground game may not have been enough at the last election but it still makes a big difference for them.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
Strange to think Balls actually only became a MP in 2005, so wasn't around for the Iraq War.
I expect he would be too tied up the Blairite/Brownite past though . But he would be a very good LoO. They should have gone for him in 2010.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Yes, in reality I think Labour would have dropped 50-60 seats in a snap 2007 election.
He'd probably have tried to do the dirty with the LDs (a reverse 2010 coalition, if you like) but I think that would have ended in tears.
Yes, I also think that the Lib Dems would have asked for Brown's head before entering a coalition with Labour, at which point Brown would have refused and then we'd have headed back to the polls, ending up with a Con/Lib coalition like 2010.
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the Citype of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Radio 4 interviewed some working class Leave voters yesterday who said they were prepared to see some loss of prosperity to regain sovereignty, remember many of them had little to lose anyway unlike wealthier Remainers
Indeed. I think most people made a judgement that whilst the threats from REMAIN were clearly OTT, Brexit wasn't a pain-free option but, on balance and taking a long term view, LEAVE would be better than REMAIN, especially for people who have very little to lose in the short term anyway.
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the Citype of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Radio 4 interviewed some working class Leave voters yesterday who said they were prepared to see some loss of prosperity to regain sovereignty, remember many of them had little to lose anyway unlike wealthier Remainers
Let's hope they remember that when they lose their job, or benefits are cut, or the NHS is worse. They won't of course.
Though May and Hammond so far have threatened nothing like the post Brexit cuts and doom and gloom of Osborne
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Labour's lead dropped from around 10 points after their conference to around 4 points after the Tory conference. The eight point Tory lead came a few weeks later - probably assisted by Brown's dithering.
I think from memory there was also some private polling done in the marginals that strongly hinted at a hung parliament.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
That's all true except it's actually worse than that for Labour - because they simultaneously still have a large chunk of the identity politics left wing vote, that would be lost if they started playing up their patriotism/ignoring transgenderism etc. There is competition for those votes on the left now, from Greens particularly. If Labour went for someone like John Mann for example, who would appeal to the traditional voters you describe, they would lose a huge chunk of youthful/progressive votes. That in itself may not cost them many seats as the numbers of voters are small, but it would wipe out their activist base. Labour's ground game may not have been enough at the last election but it still makes a big difference for them.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
...and my support for your views is in no way connected to my own 60/1 bet on Balls!
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Although the Tories probably would not have gone to the country with Cameron as leader as he would have been beaten by Brown in 2007.
I seriously doubt it, I think an election in 2007 would have ended exactly like 2010, the public not wanting Labour but also not convinced by the Tories. Remember Brown got spooked by the polls and bottled it for a reason. Also given how this referendum just went, the Tories were the only party promising a referendum on Lisbon which would have won them a lot of votes.
Yeah, I remember the polls, but I suspect that Labour would have done better in 2007 than they did in 2010, and may have ended up the largest party in a hung Parliament. Brown would not have gone into coalition with the LibDems, but would have done confidence and supply with them.
Which would not have lasted very long. Could you imagine going through the 2008-9 recession with a minority government? No I think we would have ended up with the 2010 result a few years earlier even if it took a second election to get there.
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
I agree. But Labour is in a dire situation. The first choice that members need to make is whether the party's priority should be to continue to seek power through parliament. If they vote for Corbyn then they are saying that it should not be. If they vote for Smith then they are saying that it should be. Once that is resolved everything else will follow.
For map nerds, it also highlights what I reckon is a little known fact. There is a German enclave in Northern Switzerland (Büsingen am Hochrhein). At its narrowest margin it's around 700m from Germany proper.
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the Citype of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Radio 4 interviewed some working class Leave voters yesterday who said they were prepared to see some loss of prosperity to regain sovereignty, remember many of them had little to lose anyway unlike wealthier Remainers
Good for them. That's not the campaign Leave ran though. They explicitly said things would get better. Even Boris when he was trying to throw the result used the Nike Tick analogy.
Maybe but such voters will be more concerned by the extent free movement is maintained to get some access to the single market than by whether the economy contracts by a percentage or two
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
That's all true except it's actually worse than that for Labour - because they simultaneously still have a large chunk of the identity politics left wing vote, that would be lost if they started playing up their patriotism/ignoring transgenderism etc. There is competition for those votes on the left now, from Greens particularly. If Labour went for someone like John Mann for example, who would appeal to the traditional voters you describe, they would lose a huge chunk of youthful/progressive votes. That in itself may not cost them many seats as the numbers of voters are small, but it would wipe out their activist base. Labour's ground game may not have been enough at the last election but it still makes a big difference for them.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
...and my support for your views is in no way connected to my own 60/1 bet on Balls!
Has Ed Balls had a "never say never" moment? AIUI he is out of politics for life. Looking at the current state of the Labour party, who can blame him.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
Yes, Labour made a catastrophic mistake choosing Ed Miliband rather than Balls in 2010.
If you are a marmite politician who wants to lead a national political party it is best to keep the marmite hidden until you make it to the top. Or be Jeremy Corbyn, I suppose. Balls never had a chance given how many enemies he went out of his way to make, in politics and beyond.
..... Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, ....
I meant to write 'over the NEXT few months', of course!
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Labour's lead dropped from around 10 points after their conference to around 4 points after the Tory conference. The eight point Tory lead came a few weeks later - probably assisted by Brown's dithering.
I think from memory there was also some private polling done in the marginals that strongly hinted at a hung parliament.
I wonder what level of performance would have been tolerated by the Tory Party to allow Cameron and Osborne to continue?
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down) here.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
...and my support for your views is in no way connected to my own 60/1 bet on Balls!
Has Ed Balls had a "never say never" moment? AIUI he is out of politics for life. Looking at the current state of the Labour party, who can blame him.
Probably the same for nearly all the old guard. The Cooper-Balls, the Chukka's, etc etc.
You'll probably earn more as a private individual and be a lot more comfortable not being a public figure and section to hate.
Why would anyone be a politican in this day and age?
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
I agree. But Labour is in a dire situation. The first choice that members need to make is whether the party's priority should be to continue to seek power through parliament. If they vote for Corbyn then they are saying that it should not be. If they vote for Smith then they are saying that it should be. Once that is resolved everything else will follow.
If Labour's members believed in Parliamentary Socialism they wouldn't have chosen JC in the first place.
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
This whole 'voted for Iraq' thing increasingly doesn't make sense from these activists. They are all absolutely convinced that Blair lied to Parliament and should be at the Hague, and yet if an MP was misled by him and voted for the war they become unelectable.
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
This whole 'voted for Iraq' thing increasingly doesn't make sense from these activists. They are all absolutely convinced that Blair lied to Parliament and should be at the Hague, and yet if an MP was misled by him and voted for the war they become unelectable.
That's because its evidence that they were all part of the imperialist running dog Blairite cabal. By their deeds shall ye know them. It doesn't have to be consistent, rational or even correct.
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
My issue with all the hoop-la is simply this. We have an excellent environmental record. Our energy consumption has dropped by 13% in the last decade. Our domestic energy consumption has dropped by 27% since 2000.
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
We can do our part of course, but there is no reason to put the UK economy on the cross to satisfy our need to be loved by Twitter.
Amen.
The reduction's mainly due to legislation 'unfairly imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels' (as Farage et al would put it). Actually, this entirely stems from legislation and procedures that the Council of Ministers voluntarily signed up to, but I digress.
A lot of environmental legislation has taken the form of EU directives. One must hope the UK stays in the Single Market and has to meet EU legislation on traded consumer goods.
The decline in electricity consumption since 2006 took even DECC by surprise, showing Sir Humphrey was pretty out of touch with what was being done at EU level. It doesn't inspire confidence. In this respect, we've been better governed by Brussels than we would have been by Whitehall.
There was also a lot of technological innovation that was happening anyway: LCD and AMOLED screens rather than CRT; more power efficient computers and air conditioning. LED lighting. Etc.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
Sentiment is a big factor when investment and purchase decisions are made.
It's looking increasingly like we'll be opening an office inside the EU so that we can stay within the single market. That's good news for a few locals in the place we choose to locate in, not so good for folk based in the UK. Alone, of course, we are of absolutely no significance, but if a lot of other services companies are making similar decisions then it will add up. I suspect that if we do move to a WTO-style arrangement there will be a lot of partial relocations.
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
I agree. But Labour is in a dire situation. The first choice that members need to make is whether the party's priority should be to continue to seek power through parliament. If they vote for Corbyn then they are saying that it should not be. If they vote for Smith then they are saying that it should be. Once that is resolved everything else will follow.
It is possible that in Corbyn's head he is playing the long game. He basically doesn't care about next election as long as there is a mass social movement being built across the country.
I suppose he might be thinking that when this movement reaches a critical mass, then they can win an election. He is constantly reinforced in this idea by his looney acolytes, by social media's warm filtered feedback feeling, and the fact he can go to anyoldtown on a cold, damp February evening and get a crowd of 300 or 400.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
I agree. But Labour is in a dire situation. The first choice that members need to make is whether the party's priority should be to continue to seek power through parliament. If they vote for Corbyn then they are saying that it should not be. If they vote for Smith then they are saying that it should be. Once that is resolved everything else will follow.
If Labour's members believed in Parliamentary Socialism they wouldn't have chosen JC in the first place.
I don't think people thought that far. It's perfectly possible to look at Corbyn as the None of the Above option....
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
The SNP were left of New Labour but Corbyn Labour is left of the SNP
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
This whole 'voted for Iraq' thing increasingly doesn't make sense from these activists. They are all absolutely convinced that Blair lied to Parliament and should be at the Hague, and yet if an MP was misled by him and voted for the war they become unelectable.
That's because its evidence that they were all part of the imperialist running dog Blairite cabal. By their deeds shall ye know them. It doesn't have to be consistent, rational or even correct.
I suppose they could argue that Eagle should have know he was lying.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
SNP are widely perceived as being to the left of Labour and perception is what really matters. Anti Trident, anti Iraq, very anti-austerity. Certainly there is also a layer of genuine nationalists in rural areas but I would submit that in terms of the massive switch of votes in the Labour heartlands it was appearing to be further left that caused it.
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
My issue with all the hoop-la is simply this. We have an excellent environmental record. Our energy consumption has dropped by 13% in the last decade. Our domestic energy consumption has dropped by 27% since 2000.
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
We can do our part of course, but there is no reason to put the UK economy on the cross to satisfy our need to be loved by Twitter.
Amen.
The reduction's mainly due to legislation 'unfairly imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels' (as Farage et al would put it). Actually, this entirely stems from legislation and procedures that the Council of Ministers voluntarily signed up to, but I digress.
A lot of environmental legislation has taken the form of EU directives. One must hope the UK stays in the Single Market and has to meet EU legislation on traded consumer goods.
The decline in electricity consumption since 2006 took even DECC by surprise, showing Sir Humphrey was pretty out of touch with what was being done at EU level. It doesn't inspire confidence. In this respect, we've been better governed by Brussels than we would have been by Whitehall.
There was also a lot of technological innovation that was happening anyway: LCD and AMOLED screens rather than CRT; more power efficient computers and air conditioning. LED lighting. Etc.
Domestically that's the important trend. Electricity consumption by wet and dry appliances has remained broadly flat since 1970(!). We use almost twice as much energy on consumer electronics as we do cooking. However, that consumer electronics consumption has been falling since 2008.
It's worth pointing out that the decrease in power consumption in PCs has bugger all to do with regulation from anyone. It's as much about feature sizes and the thermal properties of silicon as anything else. The laws of physics dictate that you have to become more efficient.
Mr. Divvie, if we assume Scotland stays in the UK for the foreseeable future, what happens there regarding non-SNP parties?
If Labour eats its own head, the SNP can't advance much more (certainly in MP terms), so do the Conservatives become the clear major rival? Do the Lib Dems bounce back?
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
The LDs are not going to pick up Tory seats in the Leave voting south west, the latest polls still have UKIP comfortably ahead of the yellows even post Brexit
For map nerds, it also highlights what I reckon is a little known fact. There is a German enclave in Northern Switzerland (Büsingen am Hochrhein). At its narrowest margin it's around 700m from Germany proper.
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
This whole 'voted for Iraq' thing increasingly doesn't make sense from these activists. They are all absolutely convinced that Blair lied to Parliament and should be at the Hague, and yet if an MP was misled by him and voted for the war they become unelectable.
That's because its evidence that they were all part of the imperialist running dog Blairite cabal. By their deeds shall ye know them. It doesn't have to be consistent, rational or even correct.
I suppose they could argue that Eagle should have know he was lying.
The same people who worship St Jeremy were likely the same people who were demonstrating against our participation in the first place. If they knew this was an illegal war, why didn't she? Q.E.D. - assuming you're a fruitloop.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Although the Tories probably would not have gone to the country with Cameron as leader as he would have been beaten by Brown in 2007.
I seriously doubt it, I think an election in 2007 would have ended exactly like 2010, the public not wanting Labour but also not convinced by the Tories. Remember Brown got spooked by the polls and bottled it for a reason. Also given how this referendum just went, the Tories were the only party promising a referendum on Lisbon which would have won them a lot of votes.
Was the debate over a snap election right before the financial crisis went live, or right after? Didn't Brown retake the lead in 2008 during the peak of the crisis, perhaps he should have called an election then (put together some sort of 'emergency budget' and say he needs a public mandate for it).
Back in 2008 Brown was the experienced chancellor-turned PM, Cameron was the fresh faced novice - and a 2008 election would have been no time for a novice.
The LDs are not going to pick up Tory seats in the Leave voting south west, the latest polls still have UKIP comfortably ahead of the yellows even post Brexit
That's might be the case but we can't be sure - have Comres run a Southwest battleground seats poll recently ?
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
I agree. But Labour is in a dire situation. The first choice that members need to make is whether the party's priority should be to continue to seek power through parliament. If they vote for Corbyn then they are saying that it should not be. If they vote for Smith then they are saying that it should be. Once that is resolved everything else will follow.
It is possible that in Corbyn's head he is playing the long game. He basically doesn't care about next election as long as there is a mass social movement being built across the country.
I suppose he might be thinking that when this movement reaches a critical mass, then they can win an election. He is constantly reinforced in this idea by his looney acolytes, by social media's warm filtered feedback feeling, and the fact he can go to anyoldtown on a cold, damp February evening and get a crowd of 300 or 400.
"You can't change the world through the parliamentary system," said John McDonnell, as he settled down to talk with his friend, and fellow Labour MP, Jeremy Corbyn ...
"Getting political representation is important, but change comes by using direct action, campaigning, and trade unions," McDonnell continued
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
My issue with all the hoop-la is simply this. We have an excellent environmental record. Our energy consumption has dropped by 13% in the last decade. Our domestic energy consumption has dropped by 27% since 2000.
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
We can do our part of course, but there is no reason to put the UK economy on the cross to satisfy our need to be loved by Twitter.
Amen.
The reduction's mainly due to legislation 'unfairly imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels' (as Farage et al would put it). Actually, this entirely stems from legislation and procedures that the Council of Ministers voluntarily signed up to, but I digress.
A lot of environmental legislation has taken the form of EU directives. One must hope the UK stays in the Single Market and has to meet EU legislation on traded consumer goods.
The decline in electricity consumption since 2006 took even DECC by surprise, showing Sir Humphrey was pretty out of touch with what was being done at EU level. It doesn't inspire confidence. In this respect, we've been better governed by Brussels than we would have been by Whitehall.
There was also a lot of technological innovation that was happening anyway: LCD and AMOLED screens rather than CRT; more power efficient computers and air conditioning. LED lighting. Etc.
LED lighting is a big one, I've just put it in through my whole flat, moved from 50W halogen bulbs to 5W LEDs. They have a longer lifespan and use a tenth of the power for the same light output. I'm literally saving 90% from my lighting bill.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
Fifty Lib Dem gains! Never.
Not without some from Labour.
Be interesting though. Small Tory Majority, 50 LD’s, 50 SNP, 20 Others (inc N.Irish) means 175 or so Labour. Assuming the boundary changes go through.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down) here.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
...and my support for your views is in no way connected to my own 60/1 bet on Balls!
Has Ed Balls had a "never say never" moment? AIUI he is out of politics for life. Looking at the current state of the Labour party, who can blame him.
Probably the same for nearly all the old guard. The Cooper-Balls, the Chukka's, etc etc.
You'll probably earn more as a private individual and be a lot more comfortable not being a public figure and section to hate.
Why would anyone be a politican in this day and age?
Being an MP at least makes you a minor celebrity and if you become PM the rewards can be lucrative after leaving office. Blair would certainly not have made the millions he now has had he stayed a fairly average barrister
For map nerds, it also highlights what I reckon is a little known fact. There is a German enclave in Northern Switzerland (Büsingen am Hochrhein). At its narrowest margin it's around 700m from Germany proper.
"Enter Donald Trump. He is the man for these times. His speech didn't bother with niceties - he never suggested that his opponent is an honourable woman. That's a reasonable omission: Hillary's own list of lies rival Nixon's. But Trump only found time to be nice about two people. Himself and you. "Let me be your voice."
...Why not? He has a plane. A hot wife. He builds things. He's not a politician. What's not to like? And much of what he said was right. America has sacrificed its industrial base to import cheap crap from China. There has been a vile campaign against the police. Islamist terrorism is a real problem and must be decapitated. How can Hillary disagree? What will she say?
This is why Trump wins: history has weakened his opponents. The Republican mainstream was undone by Bush, the Democrats by Obama and the politics of identity. All Hillary has to run on is that she's a woman. Seriously, that's it. It's embarrassing to watch her suck up to a gender that doesn't even like particularly her."
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
The LDs are not going to pick up Tory seats in the Leave voting south west, the latest polls still have UKIP comfortably ahead of the yellows even post Brexit
That's might be the case but we can't be sure - have Comres run a Southwest battleground seats poll recently ?
The LDs are not going to pick up Tory seats in the Leave voting south west, the latest polls still have UKIP comfortably ahead of the yellows even post Brexit
That's probably the case but we can't be sure - have Comres run a Southwest battleground seats poll recently ?
in political terms the leave/remain distinctions weren't as stark as that - almost everywhere was within 60/40 one way or the other, and a lot of areas within 55/45. Plus a chunk of the leavers don't normally vote. In the SW there will be a good chunk of leavers who are anti-Tory, and the LibDems should clean up on the remain vote, particularly if the economy turns downward. The SW has always had its anti-EU sentiment and it didn't hold the LibDems back previously. If the farmers and fisherfolk don't see things improving post-Brexit, they are if anything better placed.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
Talking about IMF economic forecasts vs PMI survey which is apples to aardvarks. Basically, there's no point in talking about the economy at the moment. There are all kinds of contrary signals. Time to just sit tight and wait (I appreciate that you finance types probably don't have that luxury).
Mr. Tonda, I think it was right before the financial crisis kicked off, though a recession was entirely expected in the near term.
When I started lurking here (briefly, before joining to share the important work I'm doing with fish) my concern was Brown calling and winning a snap election and imposing ID cards on us. I can't recall concern about the economy, at that stage.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
Fifty Lib Dem gains! Never.
Traditionally Lib Dems do well when Tories are in power, particularly when Labour has veered off to the left. If there was a GE today they wouldn't but I think there is a very good chance in 4 years time - their vote in local by-elections is already shooting up in those areas they have typically been strong in.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
The LibDems will win Cambridge back from Labour.
And probably well placed in the likes of Oxford, York, Durham etc.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
The SNP were left of New Labour but Corbyn Labour is left of the SNP
Mr. Tonda, I think it was right before the financial crisis kicked off, though a recession was entirely expected in the near term.
When I started lurking here (briefly, before joining to share the important work I'm doing with fish) my concern was Brown calling and winning a snap election and imposing ID cards on us. I can't recall concern about the economy, at that stage.
That was before "boom and bust" unabolished itself
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
So that? I thought the party needed 150,000 votes at the last election which, by definition, they wouldn't have
Short Money is made available to all opposition parties in the House of Commons that secured either two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous General Election.
A strict reading still rules out SDP2 as their seats weren't "secured ... at the previous General Election". But there's probably room for interpretation.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Yes, in reality I think Labour would have dropped 50-60 seats in a snap 2007 election.
He'd probably have tried to do the dirty with the LDs (a reverse 2010 coalition, if you like) but I think that would have ended in tears.
Yes, I also think that the Lib Dems would have asked for Brown's head before entering a coalition with Labour, at which point Brown would have refused and then we'd have headed back to the polls, ending up with a Con/Lib coalition like 2010.
If your granny had wheels she would have been a wheelbarrow is just as pertinent as that imaginary fantasy
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
The LDs are not going to pick up Tory seats in the Leave voting south west, the latest polls still have UKIP comfortably ahead of the yellows even post Brexit
I think you are assuming that Brexit will still be very popular by 2020, I doubt that very much indeed. As someone commented here a few days ago prior to June 23rd everything was the fault of the EU, after June 23rd everything will be the fault of Brexit. There is a lot of truth in that and the electorate is very fickle.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
The SNP were left of New Labour but Corbyn Labour is left of the SNP
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
The LibDems will win Cambridge back from Labour.
True but that was never a Labour heartland seat so a bit of an exception.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
So that? I thought the party needed 150,000 votes at the last election which, by definition, they wouldn't have
Short Money is made available to all opposition parties in the House of Commons that secured either two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous General Election.
A strict reading still rules out SDP2 as their seats weren't "secured ... at the previous General Election". But there's probably room for interpretation.
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
SNP are widely perceived as being to the left of Labour and perception is what really matters. Anti Trident, anti Iraq, very anti-austerity. Certainly there is also a layer of genuine nationalists in rural areas but I would submit that in terms of the massive switch of votes in the Labour heartlands it was appearing to be further left that caused it.
It was down to Labour being crap and serial liars and SNP actually doing what they said they would under their constrained circumstances when they could that made them attractive
Mr. Divvie, if we assume Scotland stays in the UK for the foreseeable future, what happens there regarding non-SNP parties?
If Labour eats its own head, the SNP can't advance much more (certainly in MP terms), so do the Conservatives become the clear major rival? Do the Lib Dems bounce back?
Depends what you mean by major rival. The Cons are evidently the Unionist choice but I'm unsure how much more slack they can pick up from SLab. To paraphrase a comment below, of the Scottish electorate 10% Left Unionist and 10% tribal Labour are sticking with SLab for the moment. Also Ruth still has to square the circle of being previously a committed & enthusiastic (apparently) campaigner for Remain but now an equally committed & enthusiastic (apparently) proponent of Brexit.
Edit: as ever, forgot about the LDs. Can't see it really.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Labour's lead dropped from around 10 points after their conference to around 4 points after the Tory conference. The eight point Tory lead came a few weeks later - probably assisted by Brown's dithering.
I think from memory there was also some private polling done in the marginals that strongly hinted at a hung parliament.
I wonder what level of performance would have been tolerated by the Tory Party to allow Cameron and Osborne to continue?
At that time, I think Dave's number might have been up if he didn't manage to make the Tories the largest party. Again from memory, I don't think that the polling suggested that the Tories would come out on top in a hung parliament.
If Labour's members believed in Parliamentary Socialism they wouldn't have chosen JC in the first place.
The PLP have chosen the wrong tactic at every turn, if they want to get rid of Corbyn.
Attacking a leader who had just been elected with an overwhelming record majority, from day one was a mistake. Just about every newly elected leader is entitled to a honeymoon period where his colleagues rally around behind him and give him their support. There were those openly seeking to undermine him from day one. If they had given him their support, then if he is as unelectable and unappealing to the ordinary voters as they say he is, then the polls would have shown that and disenchantment would have set in amonst his followers. Instead, they openly attacked him, which only served to anger the membership who had just elected him and when the polls inevitably showed Labour support falling, his followers had a ready-made excuse - it was not JC's fault, it was the fault of the PLP and media who sought to depose him. In the eyes of his followers, he was being treated unfairly by those they would have expected to support him. The PLP were in danger of elevating JC to martyrdom status.
Next mistake was the contrived revolt by large numbers of his shadowm cabinet. JC had shown belief and trust in them in appointing them. The well orchestrated timing of resignations was designed to humiliate the "Messiah" and to force him to give in and forsake 60% of his followers who elected. But once again the rebels mis-read the situation and underestimated the man himself. He showed great courage in the eyes of his supporters or bloody-minded stubborness in the eyes of those opposed to him.
Given that they had previously underestimated his courage or sheer stubborn bloody-mindedness (depending on your point of view), one would have thought that he PLP would have licked their wounds, and withdrawn for a while to reconsider their tactics. But no.. they went for the nuclear option of forcing a leadership election. Seemingly pinning their hopes on excluding him from the ballot. When that ruse failed, there was still time to pull out with some dignity, under the guise of avoiding a complete split. But no, they stumbled on.
Having made the decision to continue and make it a fight to the death, one would have thought that they would have chosen someone with more charisma than a damp lettuce to champion their cause, but once again they have chosen the wrong option.
Considering that one of their main criticisms of Corbyn is that he cannot organise, the MP's who organised this ill-fated coup should take a long hard look at themselves.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
So that? I thought the party needed 150,000 votes at the last election which, by definition, they wouldn't have
Short Money is made available to all opposition parties in the House of Commons that secured either two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous General Election.
A strict reading still rules out SDP2 as their seats weren't "secured ... at the previous General Election". But there's probably room for interpretation.
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
No, the votes don't apply in this case because there would be many more than one defector. Short money is granted to:
(1) Parties with two seats (2) Parties with one seat + 150k votes.
Having written that, logically they wouldn't be able to grant Short money to SDP2 as if they did they'd also have to grant it to any pair of splitters. But maybe logic won't apply.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
Talking about IMF economic forecasts vs PMI survey which is apples to aardvarks. Basically, there's no point in talking about the economy at the moment. There are all kinds of contrary signals. Time to just sit tight and wait (I appreciate that you finance types probably don't have that luxury).
You need to tell that to the BBC. They've gone hysterical again.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
The LDs are not going to pick up Tory seats in the Leave voting south west, the latest polls still have UKIP comfortably ahead of the yellows even post Brexit
I think you are assuming that Brexit will still be very popular by 2020, I doubt that very much indeed. As someone commented here a few days ago prior to June 23rd everything was the fault of the EU, after June 23rd everything will be the fault of Brexit. There is a lot of truth in that and the electorate is very fickle.
Little sign of that so far, the economy is still doing OK. UKIP are more likely to see a poll rise than the LDs depending on how far May accepts some free movement to gain access to most of the single market
Mr. Divvie, if we assume Scotland stays in the UK for the foreseeable future, what happens there regarding non-SNP parties?
If Labour eats its own head, the SNP can't advance much more (certainly in MP terms), so do the Conservatives become the clear major rival? Do the Lib Dems bounce back?
Depends what you mean by major rival. The Cons are evidently the Unionist choice but I'm unsure how much more slack they can pick up from SLab. To paraphrase a comment below, of the Scottish electorate 10% Left Unionist and 10% tribal Labour are sticking with SLab for the moment. Also Ruth still has to square the circle of being previously a committed & enthusiastic (apparently) campaigner for Remain but now an equally committed & enthusiastic (apparently) proponent of Brexit.
There's no circle to square: the people have spoken.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I think the Lib Dems will go back to the sort of pre-2015 levels because I am not expecting the Tories to be that popular by 2020 and in the South west etc Laboir voters will vote tactically again in big numbers. What they won't pick back up are any of the seats they lost to Labour (Manchester Withington, Hornsey & Wood Green, Brent Central etc).
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
The LDs are not going to pick up Tory seats in the Leave voting south west, the latest polls still have UKIP comfortably ahead of the yellows even post Brexit
I think you are assuming that Brexit will still be very popular by 2020, I doubt that very much indeed. As someone commented here a few days ago prior to June 23rd everything was the fault of the EU, after June 23rd everything will be the fault of Brexit. There is a lot of truth in that and the electorate is very fickle.
Little sign of that so far, the economy is still doing OK. UKIP are more likely to see a poll rise than the LDs depending on how far May accepts some free movement to gain access to most of the single w
Early days, still don't even know what sort of Brexit we are getting yet!
Short Money is made available to all opposition parties in the House of Commons that secured either two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous General Election.
A strict reading still rules out SDP2 as their seats weren't "secured ... at the previous General Election". But there's probably room for interpretation.
If there is any question, it can be resolved by a majority vote in the HoC...
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
I don't think UKIP became eligible when Carswell & Reckless defected to them in 2014, so I think the votes are 'owned' for Short money purposes by the parties who won them at the time of the last GE.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
The SNP were left of New Labour but Corbyn Labour is left of the SNP
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
I don't think UKIP became eligible when Carswell & Reckless defected to them in 2014, so I think the votes are 'owned' for Short money purposes by the parties who won them at the time of the last GE.
Alternatively, UKIP may just not have been organised enough to collect it...
Mr. Divvie, if we assume Scotland stays in the UK for the foreseeable future, what happens there regarding non-SNP parties?
If Labour eats its own head, the SNP can't advance much more (certainly in MP terms), so do the Conservatives become the clear major rival? Do the Lib Dems bounce back?
Depends what you mean by major rival. The Cons are evidently the Unionist choice but I'm unsure how much more slack they can pick up from SLab. To paraphrase a comment below, of the Scottish electorate 10% Left Unionist and 10% tribal Labour are sticking with SLab for the moment. Also Ruth still has to square the circle of being previously a committed & enthusiastic (apparently) campaigner for Remain but now an equally committed & enthusiastic (apparently) proponent of Brexit.
There's no circle to square: the people have spoken.
If Labour's members believed in Parliamentary Socialism they wouldn't have chosen JC in the first place.
The PLP have chosen the wrong tactic at every turn, if they want to get rid of Corbyn.
Attacking a leader who had just been elected with an overwhelming record majority, from day one was a mistake. Just about every newly elected leader is entitled to a honeymoon period where his colleagues rally around behind him and give him their support. There were those openly seeking to undermine him from day one. If they had given him their support, then if he is as unelectable and unappealing to the ordinary voters as they say he is, then the polls would have shown that and disenchantment would have set in amonst his followers. Instead, they openly attacked him, which only served to anger the membership who had just elected him and when the polls inevitably showed Labour support falling, his followers had a ready-made excuse - it was not JC's fault, it was the fault of the PLP and media who sought to depose him. In the eyes of his followers, he was being treated unfairly by those they would have expected to support him. The PLP were in danger of elevating JC to martyrdom status.
Next mistake was the contrived revolt by large numbers of his shadowm cabinet. JC had shown belief and trust in them in appointing them. The well orchestrated timing of resignations was designed to humiliate the "Messiah" and to force him to give in and forsake 60% of his followers who elected. But once again the rebels mis-read the situation and underestimated the man himself. He showed great courage in the eyes of his supporters or bloody-minded stubborness in the eyes of those opposed to him.
Given that they had previously underestimated his courage or sheer stubborn bloody-mindedness (depending on your point of view), one would have thought that he PLP would have licked their wounds, and withdrawn for a while to reconsider their tactics. But no.. they went for the nuclear option of forcing a leadership election. Seemingly pinning their hopes on excluding him from the ballot. When that ruse failed, there was still time to pull out with some dignity, under the guise of avoiding a complete split. But no, they stumbled on.
Having made the decision to continue and make it a fight to the death, one would have thought that they would have chosen someone with more charisma than a damp lettuce to champion their cause, but once again they have chosen the wrong option.
Considering that one of their main criticisms of Corbyn is that he cannot organise, the MP's who organised this ill-fated coup should take a long hard look at themselves.
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
I don't think UKIP became eligible when Carswell & Reckless defected to them in 2014, so I think the votes are 'owned' for Short money purposes by the parties who won them at the time of the last GE.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
Jane Merrick joins Labour, pays an extra £25 and her preferred candidate Eagles drops out...
"It is said that Smith will lessen the electoral disaster that awaits Labour in 2020 if Corbyn remains as leader, but I am not so sure. I have grudgingly paid my £25, but I cannot vote with any enthusiasm for Smith. MPs have chosen the wrong opponent to challenge the wrong leader. I cannot be the only traditional Labour voter thinking right now: why should I save Labour if it cannot save itself?
I like Jane. I'm pleased she's found post Independent work.
From the article:
"At a rally on Wednesday night, Corbyn shared a platform with the former Labour MP Chris Williamson who declared that many Labour MPs are Lynton Crosby “sleepers” who've been activated to cause Labour “civil war”. By legitimising such offensive and bizarre conspiracy theories, Corbyn breathes life into a monster I thought Kinnock had slayed three decades ago."
As an E Midlander I have seen Williamson speak a couple of times and on local TV. He was Derby MP. He always came across as reasonably level-headed, so I left assuming that he has seen where the wind blows with next seat selection process and jumped off at the deep end.
All I know about Williamson is that he still has MP in his Twitter handle over a year after he lost his seat. I find that quite creepy.
PJ O'Rourke has cornered this market with his justification for voting for Hillary. " She's wrong about everything but she wrong within the normal parameters. "
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
Talking about IMF economic forecasts vs PMI survey which is apples to aardvarks. Basically, there's no point in talking about the economy at the moment. There are all kinds of contrary signals. Time to just sit tight and wait (I appreciate that you finance types probably don't have that luxury).
You need to tell that to the BBC. They've gone hysterical again.
One of the reasons for my phlegmatism is that someone of my age has pretty much seen it all. Looking at some of the extremes: 24.9% inflation in 1975, 15% base rate in 1990. > 3 million unemployed (twice). House prices falling all through the early 90s. Four recessions (or is it 5?). In the end you're almost forced to take the longer view otherwise it can be too depressing.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
That's all true except it's actually worse than that for Labour - because they simultaneously still have a large chunk of the identity politics left wing vote, that would be lost if they started playing up their patriotism/ignoring transgenderism etc. There is competition for those votes on the left now, from Greens particularly. If Labour went for someone like John Mann for example, who would appeal to the traditional voters you describe, they would lose a huge chunk of youthful/progressive votes. That in itself may not cost them many seats as the numbers of voters are small, but it would wipe out their activist base. Labour's ground game may not have been enough at the last election but it still makes a big difference for them.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
...and my support for your views is in no way connected to my own 60/1 bet on Balls!
To be honest, his odds and David Miliband's should be the other way round.
Those maps of Scotland are rubbish. Of the four, three are practically the same thing (seats the SNP won).
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Mr. Divvie, if we assume Scotland stays in the UK for the foreseeable future, what happens there regarding non-SNP parties?
If Labour eats its own head, the SNP can't advance much more (certainly in MP terms), so do the Conservatives become the clear major rival? Do the Lib Dems bounce back?
Depends what you mean by major rival. The Cons are evidently the Unionist choice but I'm unsure how much more slack they can pick up from SLab. To paraphrase a comment below, of the Scottish electorate 10% Left Unionist and 10% tribal Labour are sticking with SLab for the moment. Also Ruth still has to square the circle of being previously a committed & enthusiastic (apparently) campaigner for Remain but now an equally committed & enthusiastic (apparently) proponent of Brexit.
There's no circle to square: the people have spoken.
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
This is the Remain campaign redux. Based on a 9 day survey conducted at peak post-Brexit shock, the world is now, apparently, ending. French PMIs have been pretty much underwater all year, but they're in the EU, so apparently that's fine.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
Yes, it is rather anomalous if my interpretation is correct.
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
This is the Remain campaign redux. Based on a 9 day survey conducted at peak post-Brexit shock, the world is now, apparently, ending. French PMIs have been pretty much underwater all year, but they're in the EU, so apparently that's fine.
Live, but don't learn.
Anecdotally, my company's customers fall into two categories: those who thought a Leave vote was possible, who carried on pretty much as normal, and those who didn't, who panicked for a bit and are now slowly returning to normal.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
Talking about IMF economic forecasts vs PMI survey which is apples to aardvarks. Basically, there's no point in talking about the economy at the moment. There are all kinds of contrary signals. Time to just sit tight and wait (I appreciate that you finance types probably don't have that luxury).
You need to tell that to the BBC. They've gone hysterical again.
One of the reasons for my phlegmatism is that someone of my age has pretty much seen it all. Looking at some of the extremes: 24.9% inflation in 1975, 15% base rate in 1990. > 3 million unemployed (twice). House prices falling all through the early 90s. Four recessions (or is it 5?). In the end you're almost forced to take the longer view otherwise it can be too depressing.
I'm in my early 40's now and it does have that affect on you doesn't it. Everything becomes more cyclical and shades of grey in view. I used to hate older people taking the long view when I was younger but I'm beginning to see it now.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
Yes, it is rather anomalous if my interpretation is correct.
If there isn't any short money then SDP2 is going to be tough.
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
This is the Remain campaign redux. Based on a 9 day survey conducted at peak post-Brexit shock, the world is now, apparently, ending. French PMIs have been pretty much underwater all year, but they're in the EU, so apparently that's fine.
Live, but don't learn.
Anecdotally, my company's customers fall into two categories: those who thought a Leave vote was possible, who carried on pretty much as normal, and those who didn't, who panicked for a bit and are now slowly returning to normal.
@rcs1000, @MaxPB and me have all been adequately gloomy upthread. The numbers aren't good, but it's not clear what it actually means as yet. It's not being Panglossian.
I'm gonna guess that the economy contracted in June, because the recent retail figures were pretty crap (though that's probably due to the poor Summer as much as Brexit).
Time to attempt to walk the dogs without my crutches for the first time in four months. I may be gone some time .
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
Talking about IMF economic forecasts vs PMI survey which is apples to aardvarks. Basically, there's no point in talking about the economy at the moment. There are all kinds of contrary signals. Time to just sit tight and wait (I appreciate that you finance types probably don't have that luxury).
You need to tell that to the BBC. They've gone hysterical again.
One of the reasons for my phlegmatism is that someone of my age has pretty much seen it all. Looking at some of the extremes: 24.9% inflation in 1975, 15% base rate in 1990. > 3 million unemployed (twice). House prices falling all through the early 90s. Four recessions (or is it 5?). In the end you're almost forced to take the longer view otherwise it can be too depressing.
I'm in my early 40's now and it does have that affect on you doesn't it. Everything becomes more cyclical and shades of grey in view. I used to hate older people taking the long view when I was younger but I'm beginning to see it now.
Might explain why so many older people were relaxed about voting Leave.
Comments
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
I expect he would be too tied up the Blairite/Brownite past though . But he would be a very good LoO. They should have gone for him in 2010.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/a-few-in-westminster-begin-looking-at-border-controls-1.2730262
For map nerds, it also highlights what I reckon is a little known fact. There is a German enclave in Northern Switzerland (Büsingen am Hochrhein). At its narrowest margin it's around 700m from Germany proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Büsingen_am_Hochrhein
You'll probably earn more as a private individual and be a lot more comfortable not being a public figure and section to hate.
Why would anyone be a politican in this day and age?
Tories to lose around 50 to Lib Dems but pick up about the same from Labour is how I broadly see it playing out assuming the Labour Party doesn't actually split.
It's looking increasingly like we'll be opening an office inside the EU so that we can stay within the single market. That's good news for a few locals in the place we choose to locate in, not so good for folk based in the UK. Alone, of course, we are of absolutely no significance, but if a lot of other services companies are making similar decisions then it will add up. I suspect that if we do move to a WTO-style arrangement there will be a lot of partial relocations.
I suppose he might be thinking that when this movement reaches a critical mass, then they can win an election. He is constantly reinforced in this idea by his looney acolytes, by social media's warm filtered feedback feeling, and the fact he can go to anyoldtown on a cold, damp February evening and get a crowd of 300 or 400.
SNP are widely perceived as being to the left of Labour and perception is what really matters. Anti Trident, anti Iraq, very anti-austerity. Certainly there is also a layer of genuine nationalists in rural areas but I would submit that in terms of the massive switch of votes in the Labour heartlands it was appearing to be further left that caused it.
It's worth pointing out that the decrease in power consumption in PCs has bugger all to do with regulation from anyone. It's as much about feature sizes and the thermal properties of silicon as anything else. The laws of physics dictate that you have to become more efficient.
If Labour eats its own head, the SNP can't advance much more (certainly in MP terms), so do the Conservatives become the clear major rival? Do the Lib Dems bounce back?
Back in 2008 Brown was the experienced chancellor-turned PM, Cameron was the fresh faced novice - and a 2008 election would have been no time for a novice.
"Getting political representation is important, but change comes by using direct action, campaigning, and trade unions," McDonnell continued
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/jeremy-corbyn-john-mcdonnell-interview-election-2015-labour-party-674
Be interesting though. Small Tory Majority, 50 LD’s, 50 SNP, 20 Others (inc N.Irish) means 175 or so Labour.
Assuming the boundary changes go through.
The same Mr Stanley who was still predicting that Romney was going to walk it on election day?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
When I started lurking here (briefly, before joining to share the important work I'm doing with fish) my concern was Brown calling and winning a snap election and imposing ID cards on us. I can't recall concern about the economy, at that stage.
Short Money is made available to all opposition parties in the House of Commons that secured either two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous General Election.
A strict reading still rules out SDP2 as their seats weren't "secured ... at the previous General Election". But there's probably room for interpretation.
I think you are assuming that Brexit will still be very popular by 2020, I doubt that very much indeed. As someone commented here a few days ago prior to June 23rd everything was the fault of the EU, after June 23rd everything will be the fault of Brexit. There is a lot of truth in that and the electorate is very fickle.
True but that was never a Labour heartland seat so a bit of an exception.
Edit: as ever, forgot about the LDs. Can't see it really.
The PLP have chosen the wrong tactic at every turn, if they want to get rid of Corbyn.
Attacking a leader who had just been elected with an overwhelming record majority, from day one was a mistake. Just about every newly elected leader is entitled to a honeymoon period where his colleagues rally around behind him and give him their support. There were those openly seeking to undermine him from day one. If they had given him their support, then if he is as unelectable and unappealing to the ordinary voters as they say he is, then the polls would have shown that and disenchantment would have set in amonst his followers. Instead, they openly attacked him, which only served to anger the membership who had just elected him and when the polls inevitably showed Labour support falling, his followers had a ready-made excuse - it was not JC's fault, it was the fault of the PLP and media who sought to depose him. In the eyes of his followers, he was being treated unfairly by those they would have expected to support him. The PLP were in danger of elevating JC to martyrdom status.
Next mistake was the contrived revolt by large numbers of his shadowm cabinet. JC had shown belief and trust in them in appointing them. The well orchestrated timing of resignations was designed to humiliate the "Messiah" and to force him to give in and forsake 60% of his followers who elected. But once again the rebels mis-read the situation and underestimated the man himself. He showed great courage in the eyes of his supporters or bloody-minded stubborness in the eyes of those opposed to him.
Given that they had previously underestimated his courage or sheer stubborn bloody-mindedness (depending on your point of view), one would have thought that he PLP would have licked their wounds, and withdrawn for a while to reconsider their tactics. But no.. they went for the nuclear option of forcing a leadership election. Seemingly pinning their hopes on excluding him from the ballot. When that ruse failed, there was still time to pull out with some dignity, under the guise of avoiding a complete split. But no, they stumbled on.
Having made the decision to continue and make it a fight to the death, one would have thought that they would have chosen someone with more charisma than a damp lettuce to champion their cause, but once again they have chosen the wrong option.
Considering that one of their main criticisms of Corbyn is that he cannot organise, the MP's who organised this ill-fated coup should take a long hard look at themselves.
(1) Parties with two seats
(2) Parties with one seat + 150k votes.
Having written that, logically they wouldn't be able to grant Short money to SDP2 as if they did they'd also have to grant it to any pair of splitters. But maybe logic won't apply.
https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/756438796082802688
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
@DPJHodges: I suspect over the course of the day we will see Corbyn scrabbling to change his line over this.
@DPJHodges: They will go from "it was never suggested" to "it wasn't seriously suggested" to "Jeremy wasn't aware" to "concentrate on the big issues".
@DPJHodges: There we go. Corbyn's dodging begins. Straight talking, honest politics...
@DPJHodges: Told it was Katy Clark who first suggested it. Corbyn was aware. And, crucially, it was proposed several times after initial meeting.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/22/post-brexit-economy-may-actually-be-worse-than-markits-survey-suggests?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Live, but don't learn.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2016/19-07-16-eu-referendum-statement.pdf
There's a silver lining though.
The rest of us get to have a good laugh over a longer period.
I'm gonna guess that the economy contracted in June, because the recent retail figures were pretty crap (though that's probably due to the poor Summer as much as Brexit).
Time to attempt to walk the dogs without my crutches for the first time in four months. I may be gone some time