Talking of principles, Sadiq does look to be ambitious. He's moderate and all things to all men. Hence Goldsmith's gormless campaign was so unproductive.
And who else will be still standing when the civil war is finished?
tlg86 Posts: 4,360 10:32AM Greater Manchester is quite a good example of why Labour did so badly in 2015. In 2010 they won 22 seats with 468,000 votes (40.3%) and in 2015 they won 21 seats with 530,000 votes (46.2%). Admittedly Greater Manchester lost one seat overall, but still a good example of Labour putting on votes where it did them no good.
Labour needs PR LibDems need PR UKIP needs PR Greens need PR SNP want PR, although they don't need it
Labour is receiving a taste of its own medicine, though. It had decades in which its percent of the seats exceeded its percent of the votes.
Could the LibDems do well in the Manchester mayoral election?
It was a very strong 'Remain' city, with a 60:40 result.
Can't stress this enough; Greater Manchester is much bigger than the City of Manchester, which is only a small part of the conurbation. It's like assuming how the rest of Greater London will vote based on just the Cities of London and Westminster.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems will come either third or second, but there are vast swathes of GM where their message does not resonate. Hell, in some boroughs they don't even bother standing any candidates at all.
Agreed. There are whole council areas which are black holes for the LDs and I'd guess they'll campaign in stronger areas only with key parliamentary / council seats. Candidate is Jane Brophy who stood in Oldham W by-election. My personal view was that she looked a bit out of her depth there, so might be outgunned in the mayoral vote.
Khan is a reasonably effective Mayor of London and has far more power and influence than he would being leader of the Labour Party. I doubt he would give up the Mayoralty and even run for leader unless he thought there was a good chance of becoming PM. While he appeals in London that is a different scenario to appealing to the country, Ed Miliband won London but lost the UK.
Of course while Khan presently looks headed fo re election if he chooses that could change if say Alan Sugar ran as an independent in 2020. Sugar was a fierce opponent of Khan in the 2016 Mayoral race
tlg86 Posts: 4,360 10:32AM Greater Manchester is quite a good example of why Labour did so badly in 2015. In 2010 they won 22 seats with 468,000 votes (40.3%) and in 2015 they won 21 seats with 530,000 votes (46.2%). Admittedly Greater Manchester lost one seat overall, but still a good example of Labour putting on votes where it did them no good.
Labour needs PR LibDems need PR UKIP needs PR Greens need PR SNP want PR, although they don't need it
Labour is receiving a taste of its own medicine, though. It had decades in which its percent of the seats exceeded its percent of the votes.
It doesn't matter now anyway, but from time to time I do shake my head in disbelief at the fact that a party can get 12.6% of the votes in a national election and only 0.15% of the seats in Parliament
Is he? Has he been in post long enough to do anything? I'm not in London, so there may be things of which I'm unaware. I may be doing him an injustice, but I suspected he'd be a 'don't rock the boat' Mayor.
Clive Lewis backed Trident and is too right-wing for the membership at present but too leftwing for the country. Either Labour pick someone electable after a Corbyn defeat eg Umunna, Jarvis or maybe Starner or they pick another Corbynista eg Thornberry or McDonnell
The City of Manchester is one borough. Greater Manchester is Ten. I can't see Burnham losing in any circumstances but especially not if it is FPTP not SV as other Mayoral elections. As an aside it's an outrage if it's not SV as other Mayors. These posts have no directly scrutiny bodies as other Mayors do. They need the check of SV more than most.
Is he? Has he been in post long enough to do anything? I'm not in London, so there may be things of which I'm unaware. I may be doing him an injustice, but I suspected he'd be a 'don't rock the boat' Mayor.
As far as I can tell - and I live in London - he has done abolutely nothing other than appoint some hideous looking fat lass to opine on London nightclubs.
I think backing someone who is not even in the Commons is pretty daft. In Khan's case particularly so as he will face the choice of choosing between being in charge of our largest city and backbench opposition before another frustrating period of front bench opposition. There is also the risk that Corbyn loses so badly that even 2025 goes beyond reach.
The temptations of Mayoral office are obvious to those with any sort of ambition in the Labour Party. So obvious that even the dimmest have worked it out such as the candidate for greater Manchester.
I'd agree with that. He's chosen within this parliament to get out of Westminster for the mayoralty. It would be a mighty u-turn to come back within the same parliament and give up the mayoralty after a single term. He seems quite comfortable in the role so far. I wonder if David Herdson is too dismissive of 2025? Seems like everything might work better then, and the Labour Party might have outgrown its current teenage tantrums.
He wouldn't have to come back within the same parliament. He could return at the 2020 general election (if that's when it is), which is also when his current London term expires.
Yes, it's a bit of a U-turn but could be done without obviously looking disloyal / preparing for leadership election: "it has been an honour and privilege to serve the people of London as mayor for four years. However, I believe I can best serve my country now by making a more direct contribution to the Labour campaign to replace this Tory government at the forthcoming election. I have every confidence that Jeremy Corbyn will lead a government that places housing, social cohesiveness and tackling inequality at its heart. These issues are my priorities too and I want to do all I can to maximise the chances of bringing about a new Labour government. I therefore intend to see my term out but I will not seek a second term."
As for 2025, there's an awful lot that could happen between now and then (including to Khan - how many high-profile careers hit a crisis in a timeframe that long?). If Labour gets its act together quickly, the best Khan could hope for would be a cabinet job, which might be an acceptable career move. On the other hand, another five years of crisis from 2020-5 might see it forfeit its place as a major party. Alternatively, some young gun might have blazed a trail and left those older in the tooth behind. But as we're thinking about thinking, he might still go for the safer option.
But does it matter? The tip was at 33/1. You expect these to fail most of the time. The question is how often they succeed. I personally wouldn't like to be laying any longer than 12s.
The wave of strikes across railways and airports is looking increasingly co-ordinated to maximise the impact. But what impact, intended or otherwise, and to whose benefit? Will the PM emerge stronger or weaker, should the government get drawn in, as surely it will if a single Fleet Street editor has their family holiday ruined.
There are three attack routes to Burnham in Greater Manchester. Red Brexit, Tory Suburbans, Liberal Metropolitans. To beat him you'd need to unite all three into a populist coalition running against #1 the fact Burnham is shameless careerist #2 that GM is dominated by **** Labour councils.
To pull it off you'd need the equivalent of the original pre Leave Boris possibly runner by as a Tory backed Independent. But even then Boris was elected to an established post people new about in a city with it's own very strong media. The GM Mayorality is brand new and no where outside London has the same strength of local media market ( actually Scotland now does )
Personally I think it's too early in the life of the post for Labour to lose it. Give it 4 or 8 years when voters have noticed the post and it's enters their psychogeography.
Burnham hi self knows that. He clearly still wants to be Labour leader but has already run twice. He knows he needs to reset hs narrative.
Hence the attempt to set himself up as Mr Wintergreen leaving King's Landing voluntarily to preach Red Brexit before marching south again. The new politics in the telegenic body of a Blairite. As political reinventions go it's not a bad one and may work at least to get him on the ballot a third time.
Is he? Has he been in post long enough to do anything? I'm not in London, so there may be things of which I'm unaware. I may be doing him an injustice, but I suspected he'd be a 'don't rock the boat' Mayor.
As far as I can tell - and I live in London - he has done abolutely nothing other than appoint some hideous looking fat lass to opine on London nightclubs.
The bus hopper ticket is quite good according to my mum, but that was a leftover from the Boris bag of tricks same as the night tube.
@cyclefree, that's not language I would normally expect from you!
It is entirely descriptive. In an older world she would be known as Beryl from Filing and would be found at a party in the corner of the kitchen determinedly eating her way through the crisps.
There! I think that's what's known as doubling down.
The difficulty with predicting what will happen next in the Labour Party is the shifting nature of the membership - although it's probably becoming dafter and more intransigent as the decent leave with each fresh outrage or idiocy. The failed assumption of Owen Smith's challenge was that the Labour membership was roughly the same as the 2015 one. He was looking to flip Labour members who'd perhaps voted for Corbyn due to the paucity of strong options (with some of the best people either not running or not being able to) and out of romance for a time gone by (if it ever existed) but still valued coherence and the party as longstanding members. He largely achieved that if you look at the numbers, but the party membership had been transformed by people who want Labour to be a shouty outrage factory rather than a plausible opposition. The key question is whether moderates can organise within Labour or if people decide the party is beyond saving. If the former, then Khan is the obvious choice. If the latter, then the next leader will be a Burgonesque fool. Therefore as a covering bet for Khan I'd suggest (at decent odds) putting money on the Lib Dems becoming the second party in terms of vote share if not seats. The situation is that dire. Either members snap out of it or we're witnessing Labour's death, something we won't be fully aware of until there's another tipping point. May setting out Brexit terms or a showdown with Putin being obvious examples. When Corbyn inevitably flubs his response it will either trigger a successful challenge or cause a lot of people to finally say they're through with the party and decamp to elsewhere.
There are three attack routes to Burnham in Greater Manchester. Red Brexit, Tory Suburbans, Liberal Metropolitans. To beat him you'd need to unite all three into a populist coalition running against #1 the fact Burnham is shameless careerist #2 that GM is dominated by **** Labour councils.
To pull it off you'd need the equivalent of the original pre Leave Boris possibly runner by as a Tory backed Independent. But even then Boris was elected to an established post people new about in a city with it's own very strong media. The GM Mayorality is brand new and no where outside London has the same strength of local media market ( actually Scotland now does )
Personally I think it's too early in the life of the post for Labour to lose it. Give it 4 or 8 years when voters have noticed the post and it's enters their psychogeography.
Burnham hi self knows that. He clearly still wants to be Labour leader but has already run twice. He knows he needs to reset hs narrative.
Hence the attempt to set himself up as Mr Wintergreen leaving King's Landing voluntarily to preach Red Brexit before marching south again. The new politics in the telegenic body of a Blairite. As political reinventions go it's not a bad one and may work at least to get him on the ballot a third time.
This time, if he gets there, will he have something to say? He comes across as someone whose face has the footprints of the last person to walk all over him.
Is he? Has he been in post long enough to do anything? I'm not in London, so there may be things of which I'm unaware. I may be doing him an injustice, but I suspected he'd be a 'don't rock the boat' Mayor.
As far as I can tell - and I live in London - he has done abolutely nothing other than appoint some hideous looking fat lass to opine on London nightclubs.
The bus hopper ticket is quite good according to my mum, but that was a leftover from the Boris bag of tricks same as the night tube.
Why do we need a Mayor to do this? Couldn't an effective Head of Transport do just the same?
FFS... This fake news bollocks again...this time in the telegraph.
Examples of the new Russian offensive are thought to include state-run news outlets, such as RT and Sputnik; spreading propaganda to influence British audiences,
That's not "fake news", those are state channels, dare I say based on what the UK does with the BBC world service. Is the BBC more honest, yes. But also the UK audience for RT is basically non-existant.
On Topic: Another excellent thread from David but I think it should be about 2025 not 2020. Also the missing dynamic is Labour is perhaps subconsciously setting it's self up for a contest between the directly elected Mayors of Greater London and Greater Manchester for the next leadership election but one. The regional dialectic will be fascinating. Or more accurately national dialectic. As England and London are now separate nations in the UK. They won't be the only candidates and the dynamic will be effected by whether the next Labour leader is a woman or not. They'll be forced to elect one eventually.
Which all begs the intriguing question. Should Yvette have done Strictly instead of Ed ?
Is he? Has he been in post long enough to do anything? I'm not in London, so there may be things of which I'm unaware. I may be doing him an injustice, but I suspected he'd be a 'don't rock the boat' Mayor.
As far as I can tell - and I live in London - he has done abolutely nothing other than appoint some hideous looking fat lass to opine on London nightclubs.
The bus hopper ticket is quite good according to my mum, but that was a leftover from the Boris bag of tricks same as the night tube.
Why do we need a Mayor to do this? Couldn't an effective Head of Transport do just the same?
Well it was coming anyway if Zac had won since Boris had already approved it before he left.
CD13 To me he is a more organised and effective Mayor than Ken and Boris but as I said he could be vulnerable for reelection if Sugar decides to run for Mayor in 2020. After all if Trump used the Apprentice to become US President why should Sugar not use the Apprentice to become Mayor of London?
On Topic: Another excellent thread from David but I think it should be about 2025 not 2020. Also the missing dynamic is Labour is perhaps subconsciously setting it's self up for a contest between the directly elected Mayors of Greater London and Greater Manchester for the next leadership election but one. The regional dialectic will be fascinating. Or more accurately national dialectic. As England and London are now separate nations in the UK. They won't be the only candidates and the dynamic will be effected by whether the next Labour leader is a woman or not. They'll be forced to elect one eventually.
Which all begs the intriguing question. Should Yvette have done Strictly instead of Ed ?
Interesting article, David - many thanks; and good morning, everyone.
It would surely depend a great deal on the reasons why Mr Khan decided to leave Parliament to become Mayor of London. Was it just a political post with greater scope than a member of the Opposition? Had he already given up on Labour under Mr Corbyn? Was he hopeful of establishing himself via an alternate 'power structure'?
There's usually more than one reason for doing anything, but his mix of reasons for going for MoL is surely an indicator of whether he would even contemplate undertaking leading the battle for Labour's soul.
Haven't yet read the thread comment so I'm sure many other people have already discussed these things.
Re: What has Khan done in London ( in 7 months ! ) the answer is sucessful multidimensional triangulation. All his policy pronouncements have been noticing further left than Boris but noticibly further right than his manifesto. But how Left ? On livability which is unique to London in that you can get very rich people to care about quality of life issues because even very rich people can't buy themselves out of them entirely in London.
Remember it's the Tube that is the UK's premier social democratic institution not the NHS.
And on Brexit he's anti triangulating. Simultantously completely and quickly accepting the result and moving on. But moving on by wanting an under remainian local deal for London. Which also taps into nascent London nationalism. Now that London's belief it's normative of the UK has been shattered by Brexit it will need to slowly assume it's identity as the UK's fifth home nation with politics to match.
On a serious note, it is pathetic. Nobody gave a shit about the topless male version of the advert.
Your post FPT about the very attractive/yet socially isolated single teenage girl with two male shirtless suitors did make me LOL - that sums up most of my romantic drama TV viewing in a sentence.
I've been watching Teen Wolf S1-2 again and it's very funny and predictable too.
On Topic: Another excellent thread from David but I think it should be about 2025 not 2020. Also the missing dynamic is Labour is perhaps subconsciously setting it's self up for a contest between the directly elected Mayors of Greater London and Greater Manchester for the next leadership election but one. The regional dialectic will be fascinating. Or more accurately national dialectic. As England and London are now separate nations in the UK. They won't be the only candidates and the dynamic will be effected by whether the next Labour leader is a woman or not. They'll be forced to elect one eventually.
Which all begs the intriguing question. Should Yvette have done Strictly instead of Ed ?
No. She's still an MP. Being taken seriously is still a live issue.
Mr Balls used Strictly to turn his professional disaster into an opportunity: to soften his public image for one thing; and well done him. Totally different circumstances.
Agreed. There are whole council areas which are black holes for the LDs and I'd guess they'll campaign in stronger areas only with key parliamentary / council seats. Candidate is Jane Brophy who stood in Oldham W by-election. My personal view was that she looked a bit out of her depth there, so might be outgunned in the mayoral vote.
And outside of their heartlands on the properous Cheshire border their vote has been very soft i.e. "not Labour/Tory", much went to UKIP as they rose.
If the media wants to pick a challenger then i'd expect it to be Anstee. Not a rockstar politician either but at least he's perhaps the most qualified as a council leader and so already sits on the GMCA council that the mayor will sit on.
tlg86 Posts: 4,360 10:32AM Greater Manchester is quite a good example of why Labour did so badly in 2015. In 2010 they won 22 seats with 468,000 votes (40.3%) and in 2015 they won 21 seats with 530,000 votes (46.2%). Admittedly Greater Manchester lost one seat overall, but still a good example of Labour putting on votes where it did them no good.
Labour needs PR LibDems need PR UKIP needs PR Greens need PR SNP want PR, although they don't need it
Labour is receiving a taste of its own medicine, though. It had decades in which its percent of the seats exceeded its percent of the votes.
It doesn't matter now anyway, but from time to time I do shake my head in disbelief at the fact that a party can get 12.6% of the votes in a national election and only 0.15% of the seats in Parliament
It's great isn't it and it is absolutely fantastic that with the vote to leave the EU we will be leaving behind in England the travesty of of a voting system that is PR. The solution to your "problem" is not to change our voting system to a continental farce, it is for the party you mentioned to look at why 87.4% of the public isn't voting for them.
Labour doesn't need PR either @rural_voter what it needs is to find a way to become the countries most popular party once more like it was only a decade ago. There was a lazy assumption after a few defeats for the Tories that the Tories needed a change in the voting system until the public was ready for a change and the party was ready to be that change. There will come a day again sooner or later that the public wants a change and someone will represent that change - at that point they'll win under our voting system.
Not sure this is thought through David. He can't simultaneously be London mayor and Labour leader. Boris was an MP for one year and that was not unremarked upon. However I can see having the symbolism of a muslim leader being very important to the SJWs in the Labour base. And symbolism might be their number one concern.
Not sure this is thought through David. He can't simultaneously be London mayor and Labour leader. Boris was an MP for one year and that was not unremarked upon. However I can see having the symbolism of a muslim leader being very important to the SJWs in the Labour base. And symbolism might be their number one concern.
He doesn't need to be. He could see out his term and return to the Commons at the same time.
Miss Plato, does make me wonder if in a future Sir Edric story I should have such a tyranny and heroine in one chapter.
Anyway, something to keep in mind for the future. Predictability and stereotypes are great fodder for comedy.
Have you read the Truss comic novel about gardening thriller writers? It's deliberately packed with cliches and tropes - and very funny. It even ends with a massive one. Well worth a few pence getting a secondhand copy on Amazon. I've read mine several times and never fails to make me smile at it's absurdity.
tlg86 Posts: 4,360 10:32AM Greater Manchester is quite a good example of why Labour did so badly in 2015. In 2010 they won 22 seats with 468,000 votes (40.3%) and in 2015 they won 21 seats with 530,000 votes (46.2%). Admittedly Greater Manchester lost one seat overall, but still a good example of Labour putting on votes where it did them no good.
Labour needs PR LibDems need PR UKIP needs PR Greens need PR SNP want PR, although they don't need it
Labour is receiving a taste of its own medicine, though. It had decades in which its percent of the seats exceeded its percent of the votes.
It doesn't matter now anyway, but from time to time I do shake my head in disbelief at the fact that a party can get 12.6% of the votes in a national election and only 0.15% of the seats in Parliament
It's great isn't it and it is absolutely fantastic that with the vote to leave the EU we will be leaving behind in England the travesty of of a voting system that is PR. The solution to your "problem" is not to change our voting system to a continental farce, it is for the party you mentioned to look at why 87.4% of the public isn't voting for them.
Labour doesn't need PR either @rural_voter what it needs is to find a way to become the countries most popular party once more like it was only a decade ago. There was a lazy assumption after a few defeats for the Tories that the Tories needed a change in the voting system until the public was ready for a change and the party was ready to be that change. There will come a day again sooner or later that the public wants a change and someone will represent that change - at that point they'll win under our voting system.
I think a party should get a seat for each 2% of the vote they get as well as the seats they win under FPTP... get rid of 50 constituencies but keep 650 MP's
Cant believe UKIP haven't pointed the absurdly large gap between vote% and seat% more really. Can you imagine if it were Respect?
isam said: » show previous quotes It doesn't matter now anyway, but from time to time I do shake my head in disbelief at the fact that a party can get 12.6% of the votes in a national election and only 0.15% of the seats in Parliament
It's great isn't it and it is absolutely fantastic that with the vote to leave the EU we will be leaving behind in England the travesty of of a voting system that is PR. The solution to your "problem" is not to change our voting system to a continental farce, it is for the party you mentioned to look at why 87.4% of the public isn't voting for them.
Labour doesn't need PR either @rural_voter what it needs is to find a way to become the countries most popular party once more like it was only a decade ago. There was a lazy assumption after a few defeats for the Tories that the Tories needed a change in the voting system until the public was ready for a change and the party was ready to be that change. There will come a day again sooner or later that the public wants a change and someone will represent that change - at that point they'll win under our voting system.
** It wasn't behaving as a social democratic or socialist party. Its economic programme was of a type associated with Thatcher/Lawson/Joseph - 'the market will provide'. One consequence of 'the market will provide' is perhaps the worst housing crisis since the Second World War, because ...er, it doesn't provide housing for poor people very well.
A benefit of PR would be that the socialist party (Corbyn) and SDP (Kendall) could go their own ways. Other large parties could also split where the views are so disparate that one wing (Ken Clarke et al) call the other wing 'headbangers'.
If the Labour leadership election takes place in 2020 it will be because Corbyn has managed to hold on to lead Labour to its worst ever performance in a general election. At that point, it really won't be worth saving. Khan would be much better off staying where he is in those circumstances.
However, I believe Corbyn will go before 2020. If McCluskey loses the Unite leadership race (very unlikely indeed) it will be next year. If not, it will be 2018. He'll go not because he is challenged, but because it will become clear he and McDonnell cannot ever win internally, let alone in the country.
Is he? Has he been in post long enough to do anything? I'm not in London, so there may be things of which I'm unaware. I may be doing him an injustice, but I suspected he'd be a 'don't rock the boat' Mayor.
As far as I can tell - and I live in London - he has done abolutely nothing other than appoint some hideous looking fat lass to opine on London nightclubs.
But I'm doing nothing he has broken promises on trees and affordable housing
I wonder how many world leaders give two hoots what Obama says these days.
Whatever happened to talking quietly while carrying a big stick?
Which is the approach he took (very successfully) against previous Chinese state hacking. At this stage of his presidency he doesn't have any time left, so I guess it's either do nothing or go public. Obama is about as far from swivel-eyed loondom as you can get. He clearly think this important enough to risk the ridicule of those such as Moses. And it's a message to Trump, without attacking him directly - which would be entirely counterproductive.
Miss Plato, not heard of it, but may give it a look the next time I order something.
On voting systems: it wasn't a secret. UKIP played the game, and played it poorly. Instead of bleating about the system they should've played better.
You don't win football matches on possession stats or corners taken.
As society fractures, and segregations become permanent, our current voting system, which encourages targeting certain areas, may well exploit and contribute to increasing social problems
"Mr. Observer, how do you see Corbyn going in 2018?"
He will be made an offer he cannot refuse. Basically, if the unions want him gone, they can engineer it. Internal politics in Unite are preventing that even being contemplated at the moment. By 2018, that will all be resolved. And Corbyn Labour will still be losing elections and be massively behind in the polls.
Mr. Isam, but the system would also limit such things to geographical confines.
Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.
There's a good chance he could be Labour leader - and there's also a good chance any other Labour MP could be as well. Anyway, outside of London, and Labour's Muslim heartlands, who would vote for Khan? Middle England? I don't think so.
Miss Plato, not heard of it, but may give it a look the next time I order something.
On voting systems: it wasn't a secret. UKIP played the game, and played it poorly. Instead of bleating about the system they should've played better.
You don't win football matches on possession stats or corners taken.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that that 12-18% UKIP polled through 2012-5 put enough pressure on the Tories to secure them the Brexit referendum and hence, now, their core objective.
It wasn't behaving as a social democratic or socialist party. Its economic programme was of a type associated with Thatcher/Lawson/Joseph - 'the market will provide'. One consequence of 'the market will provide' is perhaps the worst housing crisis since the Second World War, because ...er, it doesn't provide housing for poor people very well.
A benefit of PR would be that the socialist party (Corbyn) and SDP (Kendall) could go their own ways. Other large parties could also split where the views are so disparate that one wing (Ken Clarke et al) call the other wing 'headbangers'.
Spending more than doubled resulting in the worst deficit this nation has ever seen. If that isn't social democratic I don't know what is. What the country needs is a Labour Party which isn't as extreme left wing spend, spend, spend some more as 97-10. Especially 01-10.
Parties going their own ways may make the extremists feel happy but isn't productive for rational government. We need a government that can control a majority of the Commons and how does a fragmented party system each going their own way achieve that? Only by one or more parties betraying their own way and forming a coalition.
We need people to come together and agree a platform that then gets instituted and held to account. Your solution may make partisans feel great but doesn't provide responsible government or honest politics.
tlg86 Posts: 4,360 10:32AM Greater Manchester is quite a good example of why Labour did so badly in 2015. In 2010 they won 22 seats with 468,000 votes (40.3%) and in 2015 they won 21 seats with 530,000 votes (46.2%). Admittedly Greater Manchester lost one seat overall, but still a good example of Labour putting on votes where it did them no good.
Labour needs PR LibDems need PR UKIP needs PR Greens need PR SNP want PR, although they don't need it
Labour is receiving a taste of its own medicine, though. It had decades in which its percent of the seats exceeded its percent of the votes.
It doesn't matter now anyway, but from time to time I do shake my head in disbelief at the fact that a party can get 12.6% of the votes in a national election and only 0.15% of the seats in Parliament
It's great isn't it and it is absolutely fantastic that with the vote to leave the EU we will be leaving behind in England the travesty of of a voting system that is PR. The solution to your "problem" is not to change our voting system to a continental farce, it is for the party you mentioned to look at why 87.4% of the public isn't voting for them.
Labour doesn't need PR either @rural_voter what it needs is to find a way to become the countries most popular party once more like it was only a decade ago. There was a lazy assumption after a few defeats for the Tories that the Tories needed a change in the voting system until the public was ready for a change and the party was ready to be that change. There will come a day again sooner or later that the public wants a change and someone will represent that change - at that point they'll win under our voting system.
I think a party should get a seat for each 2% of the vote they get as well as the seats they win under FPTP... get rid of 50 constituencies but keep 650 MP's
Cant believe UKIP haven't pointed the absurdly large gap between vote% and seat% more really. Can you imagine if it were Respect?
If it were Respect I'd be quite happy they'd been shut out
Miss Plato, not heard of it, but may give it a look the next time I order something.
On voting systems: it wasn't a secret. UKIP played the game, and played it poorly. Instead of bleating about the system they should've played better.
You don't win football matches on possession stats or corners taken.
As society fractures, and segregations become permanent, our current voting system, which encourages targeting certain areas, may well exploit and contribute to increasing social problems
If you love the continental Europe voting systems so much can you point to the successes there that are so much better in practice at finding solutions than we are?
Mr. Isam, but the system would also limit such things to geographical confines.
Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.
Miss Plato, not heard of it, but may give it a look the next time I order something.
On voting systems: it wasn't a secret. UKIP played the game, and played it poorly. Instead of bleating about the system they should've played better.
You don't win football matches on possession stats or corners taken.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that that 12-18% UKIP polled through 2012-5 put enough pressure on the Tories to secure them the Brexit referendum and hence, now, their core objective.
So mission accomplished without any need for voting reform. The system works as is.
"If you love the continental Europe voting systems so much can you point to the successes there that are so much better in practice at finding solutions than we are?"
Aren't we consistently told that the Europeans have better health systems than we do? Many of them also do better than us in education, have lower violent crime rates and fewer issues around affordable housing. Productivity is also much better in many European countries.
So, there are a few issues to think about.
Our voting system does not allow for long-term thinking and it encourages confrontation rather than consensus. For big policy issues, that is not a good combination.
Miss Plato, not heard of it, but may give it a look the next time I order something.
On voting systems: it wasn't a secret. UKIP played the game, and played it poorly. Instead of bleating about the system they should've played better.
You don't win football matches on possession stats or corners taken.
As society fractures, and segregations become permanent, our current voting system, which encourages targeting certain areas, may well exploit and contribute to increasing social problems
If you love the continental Europe voting systems so much can you point to the successes there that are so much better in practice at finding solutions than we are?
I wouldn't have any idea which system anyone else uses, I have never looked. I just don't think it is right for any party to get 1% of the representation its votes deserved, so a kind of smoothing factor is needed to balance the scales.
I would hate it if Respect got 12.6% of the national vote (although I predict that such a party will get much more than that in 50-60 years) but if they did, it would still be as outrageous
I like First Past the Post. I use to "know" all of the arguments for and against different systems for A Level politics which I did in 2004/5. There is, however, one argument against FPTP that I don't remember coming up at college. That is, it encourages and rewards geographic splintering - i.e. the SNP.
Mr. Isam, but the system would also limit such things to geographical confines.
Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.
Exactly. The biggest argument in favour of FPTP is that it produces a clear result. Any PR-type election would allow some parties to write the new government's manifesto *after* the election, as they decide between them who will govern - as opposed to the manifesto being a document by which the people can hold the government to account once they are in power. Ask Nick Clegg about tuition fees.
'Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.'
Agree manifestos would be pointless with PR as the chances of majority government would be minimal.
'Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.'
Agree manifestos would be pointless with PR as the chances of majority government would be minimal.
I never said go to PR, just to have 50 seats out of 650 use it. So 92% of sests would be under FPTP, we just wouldn't have the ludicrous situation where are party gets 1% of the seats compared to the votes it got.
It is insane that UKIP Greens or any other party get millions of votes and one seat in parliament or in other circumstances no representation.Regarding Labour Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer are impressive with the extra exposure others are missing out by sulking on the back benches.
In a parallel universe, UKIP got 12.6% of the vote, 81 seats, and REMAIN won the referendum as the behaviour of their inexperienced MPs put people off LEAVE
'Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.'
Agree manifestos would be pointless with PR as the chances of majority government would be minimal.
I never said go to PR, just to have 50 seats out of 650 use it. So 92% of sests would be under FPTP, we just wouldn't have the ludicrous situation where are party gets 1% of the seats compared to the votes it got.
It would be good to see a few UKIP Lords announced in the New Year's Honours. I'm not sure many can disagree that they deserve a dozen parliamentarians, rather than just Mr Carswell?
Russia is waging a “campaign” of propaganda and unconventional warfare against Britain, government officials have acknowledged for the first time.
Moscow is behind a concerted drive to undermine the UK through espionage, misinformation, cyberattacks and fake news, senior Whitehall figures believe.'
I wasn't suggesting that her girth and generally hideous appearance (do people not use mirrors anymore?) disqualified her. You have pointed out all the ways in which she is unsuitable. Rather it was a comment on the only thing I could remember about Khan's mayoralty so far: the creation of a pointless role in order to waste taxpayers' money on a friend/supporter. And this from a party endlessly wailing about "cuts".
It may be very superficial and/or Italian of me but I do think people should try and avoid looking like an eyesore when they're out in public.
I think isam's idea - of 50 of a 650 seat parliament- being awarded proportionally has a lot of merit. It would only marginally increase the likelihood of a hung parliament, and it avoids truly egregious situations, where a party might get 10% of the popular vote, and no representation at all.
Thanks to David Herdson for his interesting article, but I think he is wrong. As has been repeatedly proved with our previous successfully elected London Mayor's from both major parties, they are by their very nature political mavericks who have turned their previously rebellious behaviour into a personal manifesto to stand up for London despite their personal political allegiances. While these traits have gone onto to see Ken Livingston, Boris Johnson and Sadiq Khan successfully elected as London Mayor, by their very nature these traits make them all far less likely to become successful Leaders of their respective parties.
Personally, my money would be on a left of centre plain talking and media savvy female candidate when the Labour party finally gets rid of Corbyn and desperately seeks to re-engage with the electorate with a real hunger to win re-election to Government Office. If not, I still would not rule out a post Brexit Stephen Kinnock either.
Comments
And who else will be still standing when the civil war is finished?
Edit: Mr Star may be right ... Clive Lewis.
10:32AM
Greater Manchester is quite a good example of why Labour did so badly in 2015. In 2010 they won 22 seats with 468,000 votes (40.3%) and in 2015 they won 21 seats with 530,000 votes (46.2%). Admittedly Greater Manchester lost one seat overall, but still a good example of Labour putting on votes where it did them no good.
Labour needs PR
LibDems need PR
UKIP needs PR
Greens need PR
SNP want PR, although they don't need it
Labour is receiving a taste of its own medicine, though. It had decades in which its percent of the seats exceeded its percent of the votes.
Of course while Khan presently looks headed fo re election if he chooses that could change if say Alan Sugar ran as an independent in 2020. Sugar was a fierce opponent of Khan in the 2016 Mayoral race
"Khan is a reasonably effective Mayor of London."
Is he? Has he been in post long enough to do anything? I'm not in London, so there may be things of which I'm unaware. I may be doing him an injustice, but I suspected he'd be a 'don't rock the boat' Mayor.
And another party got a third the number of votes, yet managed 57 times the number of seats.
Yes, it's a bit of a U-turn but could be done without obviously looking disloyal / preparing for leadership election: "it has been an honour and privilege to serve the people of London as mayor for four years. However, I believe I can best serve my country now by making a more direct contribution to the Labour campaign to replace this Tory government at the forthcoming election. I have every confidence that Jeremy Corbyn will lead a government that places housing, social cohesiveness and tackling inequality at its heart. These issues are my priorities too and I want to do all I can to maximise the chances of bringing about a new Labour government. I therefore intend to see my term out but I will not seek a second term."
As for 2025, there's an awful lot that could happen between now and then (including to Khan - how many high-profile careers hit a crisis in a timeframe that long?). If Labour gets its act together quickly, the best Khan could hope for would be a cabinet job, which might be an acceptable career move. On the other hand, another five years of crisis from 2020-5 might see it forfeit its place as a major party. Alternatively, some young gun might have blazed a trail and left those older in the tooth behind. But as we're thinking about thinking, he might still go for the safer option.
But does it matter? The tip was at 33/1. You expect these to fail most of the time. The question is how often they succeed. I personally wouldn't like to be laying any longer than 12s.
He's also banned pictures of healthy women in bikinis on the Underground.
To pull it off you'd need the equivalent of the original pre Leave Boris possibly runner by as a Tory backed Independent. But even then Boris was elected to an established post people new about in a city with it's own very strong media. The GM Mayorality is brand new and no where outside London has the same strength of local media market ( actually Scotland now does )
Personally I think it's too early in the life of the post for Labour to lose it. Give it 4 or 8 years when voters have noticed the post and it's enters their psychogeography.
Burnham hi self knows that. He clearly still wants to be Labour leader but has already run twice. He knows he needs to reset hs narrative.
Hence the attempt to set himself up as Mr Wintergreen leaving King's Landing voluntarily to preach Red Brexit before marching south again. The new politics in the telegenic body of a Blairite. As political reinventions go it's not a bad one and may work at least to get him on the ballot a third time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38349989
Well that worked, didn't it?
I wonder how many world leaders give two hoots what Obama says these days.
Whatever happened to talking quietly while carrying a big stick?
There! I think that's what's known as doubling down.
Examples of the new Russian offensive are thought to include state-run news outlets, such as RT and Sputnik; spreading propaganda to influence British audiences,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/russia-accused-waging-secret-war-against-britain-using-cyber/
That's not "fake news", those are state channels, dare I say based on what the UK does with the BBC world service. Is the BBC more honest, yes. But also the UK audience for RT is basically non-existant.
"He's also banned pictures of healthy women in bikinis on the Underground."
The bastard. Not much point visiting the place anymore then.
The devolution England needs is a Parliament. Mayors are a sideshow at best.
Which all begs the intriguing question. Should Yvette have done Strictly instead of Ed ?
On a serious note, it is pathetic. Nobody gave a shit about the topless male version of the advert.
It would surely depend a great deal on the reasons why Mr Khan decided to leave Parliament to become Mayor of London. Was it just a political post with greater scope than a member of the Opposition? Had he already given up on Labour under Mr Corbyn? Was he hopeful of establishing himself via an alternate 'power structure'?
There's usually more than one reason for doing anything, but his mix of reasons for going for MoL is surely an indicator of whether he would even contemplate undertaking leading the battle for Labour's soul.
Haven't yet read the thread comment so I'm sure many other people have already discussed these things.
Remember it's the Tube that is the UK's premier social democratic institution not the NHS.
And on Brexit he's anti triangulating. Simultantously completely and quickly accepting the result and moving on. But moving on by wanting an under remainian local deal for London. Which also taps into nascent London nationalism. Now that London's belief it's normative of the UK has been shattered by Brexit it will need to slowly assume it's identity as the UK's fifth home nation with politics to match.
I've been watching Teen Wolf S1-2 again and it's very funny and predictable too.
Mr Balls used Strictly to turn his professional disaster into an opportunity: to soften his public image for one thing; and well done him. Totally different circumstances.
If the media wants to pick a challenger then i'd expect it to be Anstee. Not a rockstar politician either but at least he's perhaps the most qualified as a council leader and so already sits on the GMCA council that the mayor will sit on.
Labour doesn't need PR either @rural_voter what it needs is to find a way to become the countries most popular party once more like it was only a decade ago. There was a lazy assumption after a few defeats for the Tories that the Tories needed a change in the voting system until the public was ready for a change and the party was ready to be that change. There will come a day again sooner or later that the public wants a change and someone will represent that change - at that point they'll win under our voting system.
Anyway, something to keep in mind for the future. Predictability and stereotypes are great fodder for comedy.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0055P35Z2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Of all the accusations that can be thrown at Amy Lame - her dubious tax-dodging (now ceased), her colourful views about alternative political opinions than her (resulting in her writing apologies to the Tory council leaders in London her role is going to force her to work with), the fact her appointment seems more an "I, politico, am down with the kids" gesture, or simply payback for campaign donations and support, than it was to do with her having abundant relevant experience - you've probably found the least potent. I'm too much of a gentleman to comment on its accuracy, mind you, but I wouldn't say girth disqualifies Eric Pickles from much else than London tube diet ads.
I've tried everything and it's never loaded. Netflix works perfectly everytime.
Cant believe UKIP haven't pointed the absurdly large gap between vote% and seat% more really. Can you imagine if it were Respect?
» show previous quotes
It doesn't matter now anyway, but from time to time I do shake my head in disbelief at the fact that a party can get 12.6% of the votes in a national election and only 0.15% of the seats in Parliament
It's great isn't it and it is absolutely fantastic that with the vote to leave the EU we will be leaving behind in England the travesty of of a voting system that is PR. The solution to your "problem" is not to change our voting system to a continental farce, it is for the party you mentioned to look at why 87.4% of the public isn't voting for them.
Labour doesn't need PR either @rural_voter what it needs is to find a way to become the countries most popular party once more like it was only a decade ago. There was a lazy assumption after a few defeats for the Tories that the Tories needed a change in the voting system until the public was ready for a change and the party was ready to be that change. There will come a day again sooner or later that the public wants a change and someone will represent that change - at that point they'll win under our voting system.
**
It wasn't behaving as a social democratic or socialist party. Its economic programme was of a type associated with Thatcher/Lawson/Joseph - 'the market will provide'. One consequence of 'the market will provide' is perhaps the worst housing crisis since the Second World War, because ...er, it doesn't provide housing for poor people very well.
A benefit of PR would be that the socialist party (Corbyn) and SDP (Kendall) could go their own ways. Other large parties could also split where the views are so disparate that one wing (Ken Clarke et al) call the other wing 'headbangers'.
On voting systems: it wasn't a secret. UKIP played the game, and played it poorly. Instead of bleating about the system they should've played better.
You don't win football matches on possession stats or corners taken.
If the Labour leadership election takes place in 2020 it will be because Corbyn has managed to hold on to lead Labour to its worst ever performance in a general election. At that point, it really won't be worth saving. Khan would be much better off staying where he is in those circumstances.
However, I believe Corbyn will go before 2020. If McCluskey loses the Unite leadership race (very unlikely indeed) it will be next year. If not, it will be 2018. He'll go not because he is challenged, but because it will become clear he and McDonnell cannot ever win internally, let alone in the country.
Obama is about as far from swivel-eyed loondom as you can get. He clearly think this important enough to risk the ridicule of those such as Moses. And it's a message to Trump, without attacking him directly - which would be entirely counterproductive.
He will be made an offer he cannot refuse. Basically, if the unions want him gone, they can engineer it. Internal politics in Unite are preventing that even being contemplated at the moment. By 2018, that will all be resolved. And Corbyn Labour will still be losing elections and be massively behind in the polls.
Point. Counterpoint.
Goalposts moved !
Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.
I do like, in a sad way, your profile pic.
I'm such an atrocious follower of the 'sleb gossip, I had no idea David Gest had passed away this year.
Parties going their own ways may make the extremists feel happy but isn't productive for rational government. We need a government that can control a majority of the Commons and how does a fragmented party system each going their own way achieve that? Only by one or more parties betraying their own way and forming a coalition.
We need people to come together and agree a platform that then gets instituted and held to account. Your solution may make partisans feel great but doesn't provide responsible government or honest politics.
Aren't we consistently told that the Europeans have better health systems than we do? Many of them also do better than us in education, have lower violent crime rates and fewer issues around affordable housing. Productivity is also much better in many European countries.
So, there are a few issues to think about.
Our voting system does not allow for long-term thinking and it encourages confrontation rather than consensus. For big policy issues, that is not a good combination.
I would hate it if Respect got 12.6% of the national vote (although I predict that such a party will get much more than that in 50-60 years) but if they did, it would still be as outrageous
Re " Has anyone using an Android phone got Amazon streaming video to work?"
I think you will find that an 'android' is a robot with human features and the 'Amazon stream' is in fact a very long river in South America.
I hope this helps.
'Go to PR, and you encourage splintering of broad coalition parties into larger numbers of niche special interest parties. That also means there's more scope for manifestos being ignored in coalition government bartering. The government would be selected not by the people, but by the political class.'
Agree manifestos would be pointless with PR as the chances of majority government would be minimal.
that's inSeine
Thornberry and Keir Starmer are impressive with the extra exposure others are missing out by sulking on the back benches.
'Russia waging cyberwar against Britain
Russia is waging a “campaign” of propaganda and unconventional warfare against Britain, government officials have acknowledged for the first time.
Moscow is behind a concerted drive to undermine the UK through espionage, misinformation, cyberattacks and fake news, senior Whitehall figures believe.'
http://tinyurl.com/z4vkdc5
It may be very superficial and/or Italian of me but I do think people should try and avoid looking like an eyesore when they're out in public.
NEW THREAD
Too many chickens are being counted there!
Did not realise that Colin Welland had passed away in Nov 2015.
Personally, my money would be on a left of centre plain talking and media savvy female candidate when the Labour party finally gets rid of Corbyn and desperately seeks to re-engage with the electorate with a real hunger to win re-election to Government Office. If not, I still would not rule out a post Brexit Stephen Kinnock either.