I wonder if David Miliband fancies being the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton.
Does David Miliband really want to leave a $400 000 salary and life in Manhattan to be a backbench Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, assuming of course he gets past Momentum for the selection which is a big if?
There hasn't been a Corbynite candidate selected yet. The local party in Copeland had a chance to pick one but didn't.
I wonder if David Miliband fancies being the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton.
Does David Miliband really want to leave a $400 000 salary and life in Manhattan to be a backbench Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, assuming of course he gets past Momentum for the selection which is a big if?
There hasn't been a Corbynite candidate selected yet, despite the membership boom.
There have only been a handful of selections and the candidates who won the nominations for the by elections were both local
@PeterMannionMP: No Emily, it hasn't 'always been a marginal'! It wd have CHANGED HANDS IN LAST 70 YRS IF IT WAS. #copeland #emilythornberry
Not necessarily. If argue that a seat which has consistently had a 1000 majority for one party would be defined as marginal
Surely we should be judging percentages rather than raw numbers? After all, Orkney looks a perennial marginal on figures - never a majority of more than 9,000 - but because hardly anyone lives there that represents a very safe seat. Similarly Copeland has a very small electorate - although only in 1997 was the majority over 10,000, that represented usually an 8-10% lead.
It's my guess that Thornberry who (a) sits for a large seat in London and (b) is thick as two short planks (bearing in mind that she confused being made an honorary member of the officer's mess with being commissioned as a colonel) is making this very elementary error.
True, Copeland wasn't as safe as say, Walton. But it was only just in the top 30 list of Labour marginals in a year when they polled very poorly nationwide, and on a uniform swing of this scale Labour would lose over 60 seats. This is not the loss of a marginal seat. It's just a mind blowingly pisspoor performance.
Miliband is too kind, Labour is in the same mess it found itself under leadership of George Lansbury.
3 years later it was in government, and 10 years later single party government.
Given by-elections at the time (which is the best indicator we have), the likelihood is that the National government would have been returned for a third election in autumn 1939 / spring 1940, had not war intervened. Without the unique circumstances of WWII, Labour would have been out of power for at least a decade after Lansbury. (What would have happened in a 1943/4/5 election is fairly unknowable given that that timeline would have diverged so far from our own. We couldn't even know who the PM would have been after Chamberlain's illness in 1940.
Sure, but my point is that things change. War happened, and who can say it (or some similar cataclysmic event) will not do so again. I have noticed the odd troublespot in the world.
Incidentally I see PP has a number of Trump specials, including invading a country at 10/1 for betting ghouls.
I'm off to bed, but first I'd like to thank everyone who's provided thread headers over the past few days. They've been very interesting and have generated some interesting & thought-provoking comment threads.
Britains most successful politician just been on Piers Morgans life stories for an hour... nobody tune in?!
Yes, actually. He looks as old as his mum! Morgan wasn't exactly Paxman but it was interesting enough: the bit where Farage got very worked up about PM recounting ex-UKIP "scandals" involving members/councillors was the most informative part.
which suprising council could PBer's see the Tories gaining in May locals and in 2018. I think lib dems will not do as well as local by elctions suggest when you can't bombard whole council areas in the same way.
This might seem farfetched now but I can see tories being biggest party on Ealing council in 2018. At the mo Labour control it with huge 53 out of 69 seats to only 12 seats for Tories.
As if it wasn't bad enough referring to Copeland as a marginal, what person is supposed to believe not winning both seats is a blow to May and the government? Who was proposing both would be won by the Tories?
Do they really expect anyone to believe these lines?
It's reveals like that, moments like this, that reveal just how little respect party tribalists of any stripe have for the intellect of others. I don't doubt some people will believe it, and I know its the job of party hacks to spin all day long for the greater good (on the basis what is good for the party is self evidently good for the country), but there are moments where even spinners and party robots have to tone it down a bit.
I'm really kicking myself. Of course! The answer was in plain view, staring me in the face.
The question is one we've considered at length. Naturally, we suspected that Labour, faced with the unprecedented risk of an extinction-level event under Corbyn, would somehow contrive to sniff out an alternative leader who, incredible as it might seem, would actually be more damaging to their prospects than Jezza. But who could it be?
Owen Smith? Been there, laughed at the tee-shirt. Can't be him.
John McDonnell? The thinking man's sympathiser with various lost Irish republican causes? Well, yes, it's plain as a pikestaff that he's even more voter-repellent than Jezza, especially in the kinds of Midlands marginals which have particular reason to take an interest in his back-story, so he would fit the bill of making things worse for Labour. But how could he ever get the nominations?
Rebecca Long-Bailey? That one amused us for a few days. It was a good joke, a bravura feat of imagination - kudos to whoever came up with it.
Tony Blair? He's on manoeuvres, clearly. Still, it's hard to see the current membership going for that option.
I confess I was stumped. Of course, Gareth Snell would be ideal, but that suggestion seems a few weeks premature. He hasn't even resigned from the Shadow Cabinet yet.
And then finally the penny dropped. Of course! How could I have been so dumb? There he is, the King Over the Water. The only credible candidate for the vacant position of He Who Can Make It Worse. Go for it!
Britains most successful politician just been on Piers Morgans life stories for an hour... nobody tune in?!
Yes, actually. He looks as old as his mum! Morgan wasn't exactly Paxman but it was interesting enough: the bit where Farage got very worked up about PM recounting ex-UKIP "scandals" involving members/councillors was the most informative part.
His dad looks like a cross between Enoch Powell and Grandad from Only Fools and Horses!
His mum looked so young didn't she?
How bored must he be of having to stick up for those morons though?
Not necessarily. If argue that a seat which has consistently had a 1000 majority for one party would be defined as marginal
How many other "marginal" seats have never changed hands?
Probably none. But "marginal" describes "margin" not volatility
Granted, but while technically its possible to make such a claim, colloquially its a bit of a stretch. An ordinary view would surely be a seat that hasn't changed hands in 80 years must be pretty goddamn safe, even if it was never a huge margin, as you'd think sheer chance would see it switch at some point in all that time. Labour certainly cannot use the fact they have somehow managed to retain it in not massive majorities as a defence somehow, since it still means they failed for the first time ever, when they avoided that even during the greatest days of 20th century conservatism.
As if it wasn't bad enough referring to Copeland as a marginal, what person is supposed to believe not winning both seats is a blow to May and the government? Who was proposing both would be won by the Tories?
Do they really expect anyone to believe these lines?
It's reveals like that, moments like this, that reveal just how little respect party tribalists of any stripe have for the intellect of others. I don't doubt some people will believe it, and I know its the job of party hacks to spin all day long for the greater good (on the basis what is good for the party is self evidently good for the country), but there are moments where even spinners and party robots have to tone it down a bit.
I'd have far more respect for a spinner that said something like "it's a disappointing result but there were local circumstances and we will move on" rather than trying to spin it into being "a terrrribble night for the Tories" as the late Anthony King may have once said.
Britains most successful politician just been on Piers Morgans life stories for an hour... nobody tune in?!
Yes, actually. He looks as old as his mum! Morgan wasn't exactly Paxman but it was interesting enough: the bit where Farage got very worked up about PM recounting ex-UKIP "scandals" involving members/councillors was the most informative part.
His dad looks like a cross between Enoch Powell and Grandad from Only Fools and Horses!
His mum looked so young didn't she?
How bored must he be of having to stick up for those morons though?
As if it wasn't bad enough referring to Copeland as a marginal, what person is supposed to believe not winning both seats is a blow to May and the government? Who was proposing both would be won by the Tories?
Do they really expect anyone to believe these lines?
It's reveals like that, moments like this, that reveal just how little respect party tribalists of any stripe have for the intellect of others. I don't doubt some people will believe it, and I know its the job of party hacks to spin all day long for the greater good (on the basis what is good for the party is self evidently good for the country), but there are moments where even spinners and party robots have to tone it down a bit.
I'd have far more respect for a spinner that said something like "it's a disappointing result but there were local circumstances and we will move on" rather than trying to spin it into being "a terrrribble night for the Tories" as the late Anthony King may have once said.
I'd have thought the art to a great spinning is knowing when to modulate a fraction. Insisting everything is actually awesome, when you think about it, will eventually exceed peoples' bullsh*t tolerance, but you can, with skill, acknowledge a terrible night as not the best and swiftly move on to some optimistic point that might not be terribly realistic, but at least is within the bounds of a credible response. The more sensible ones have done just that.
Britains most successful politician just been on Piers Morgans life stories for an hour... nobody tune in?!
Yes, actually. He looks as old as his mum! Morgan wasn't exactly Paxman but it was interesting enough: the bit where Farage got very worked up about PM recounting ex-UKIP "scandals" involving members/councillors was the most informative part.
His dad looks like a cross between Enoch Powell and Grandad from Only Fools and Horses!
His mum looked so young didn't she?
How bored must he be of having to stick up for those morons though?
Not necessarily. If argue that a seat which has consistently had a 1000 majority for one party would be defined as marginal
How many other "marginal" seats have never changed hands?
Probably none. But "marginal" describes "margin" not volatility
Granted, but while technically its possible to make such a claim, colloquially its a bit of a stretch. An ordinary view would surely be a seat that hasn't changed hands in 80 years must be pretty goddamn safe, even if it was never a huge margin, as you'd think sheer chance would see it switch at some point in all that time. Labour certainly cannot use the fact they have somehow managed to retain it in not massive majorities as a defence somehow, since it still means they failed for the first time ever, when they avoided that even during the greatest days of 20th century conservatism.
It is worth noting that this is the first time ever that Labour's share of the vote has dropped below 42% (even in 1931 it was 46%)* and it has often been over 50%. That sounds a pretty safe seat to me.
One reason the margins have been small on paper is that only the Conservatives bothered to oppose them down to the 1970s so there is no NOTA tradition for other parties to draw on. Even in 2010 their combined share added up to 78% of the vote.
*Let's reflect on that. Corbyn is doing worse than Arthur Henderson, who lost his own seat as a literally split Labour Party was reduced to just 52/65/73 MPs (depending on whom you consider to be Labour in 1931). That ain't suggestive of a great Corgasam. Rather the opposite, indeed.
I'm really kicking myself. Of course! The answer was in plain view, staring me in the face.
The question is one we've considered at length. Naturally, we suspected that Labour, faced with the unprecedented risk of an extinction-level event under Corbyn, would somehow contrive to sniff out an alternative leader who, incredible as it might seem, would actually be more damaging to their prospects than Jezza. But who could it be?
Owen Smith? Been there, laughed at the tee-shirt. Can't be him.
John McDonnell? The thinking man's sympathiser with various lost Irish republican causes? Well, yes, it's plain as a pikestaff that he's even more voter-repellent than Jezza, especially in the kinds of Midlands marginals which have particular reason to take an interest in his back-story, so he would fit the bill of making things worse for Labour. But how could he ever get the nominations?
Rebecca Long-Bailey? That one amused us for a few days. It was a good joke, a bravura feat of imagination - kudos to whoever came up with it.
Tony Blair? He's on manoeuvres, clearly. Still, it's hard to see the current membership going for that option.
I confess I was stumped. Of course, Gareth Snell would be ideal, but that suggestion seems a few weeks premature. He hasn't even resigned from the Shadow Cabinet yet.
And then finally the penny dropped. Of course! How could I have been so dumb? There he is, the King Over the Water. The only credible candidate for the vacant position of He Who Can Make It Worse. Go for it!
The next leader is Tom Watson.
There is a huge, messy job to do.
They need someone to shovel sh1t, a bruiser and a thug. Not the elegantly manicured David Miliband.
I didn't say he was likeable. Or even an election-winner. He's neither.
He's a bully and a basher, and Labour need bullying and bashing into shape.
In all seriousness, they need to work out where Max Mosley is, and run as fast as their little feet can carry them in the opposite direction. I simply cannot begin to imagine what on earth Tom Watson was thinking of.
I'm sure I'm not the only pber who stands ready nobly to lay those bets on Betfair.
First* he has to get into Parliament. Anyone fancy Labour at a by-election in the near future?
*Actually first he has to want to return. Then he has to be selected as a candidate for a seat.
Based on the calculations inspired by Matt Singh of NCP, if there was a Labour by-election where Labour polled more than 42% of the vote at the general election, Labour should win it. According to UK-Elect there are 191 Labour seats that match that description (including Copeland)
Labour already has 42% in Hendon but they don't hold the seat.
Frankly if we needed any other sign labour are in serious trouble there's this - I'm starting to feel pessimistic about their chances,
Now that might not sound much, but bear in mind I was confident they'd hold Copeland. I was confident ed Miliband would win most seats and he'd be pm by now. I've even occasionally thought maybe corbyn would not be quite as bad as he seemed.
And through it all I have been confident labour are still too strong to be destroyed, or rather to destroy themselves. I still am confident about that. But I've been wrong every time I predict a decent outcome for them.
Not necessarily. If argue that a seat which has consistently had a 1000 majority for one party would be defined as marginal
How many other "marginal" seats have never changed hands?
Probably none. But "marginal" describes "margin" not volatility
Granted, but while technically its possible to make such a claim, colloquially its a bit of a stretch. An ordinary view would surely be a seat that hasn't changed hands in 80 years must be pretty goddamn safe, even if it was never a huge margin, as you'd think sheer chance would see it switch at some point in all that time. Labour certainly cannot use the fact they have somehow managed to retain it in not massive majorities as a defence somehow, since it still means they failed for the first time ever, when they avoided that even during the greatest days of 20th century conservatism.
It is worth noting that this is the first time ever that Labour's share of the vote has dropped below 42% (even in 1931 it was 46%)* and it has often been over 50%. That sounds a pretty safe seat to me.
One reason the margins have been small on paper is that only the Conservatives bothered to oppose them down to the 1970s so there is no NOTA tradition for other parties to draw on. Even in 2010 their combined share added up to 78% of the vote.
*Let's reflect on that. Corbyn is doing worse than Arthur Henderson, who lost his own seat as a literally split Labour Party was reduced to just 52/65/73 MPs (depending on whom you consider to be Labour in 1931). That ain't suggestive of a great Corgasam. Rather the opposite, indeed.
With that rather sobering thought, good night.
BUT that was a straight fight on more pro- Labour boundaries - so you are not comparing like with like!
Time perhaps to pile onto Emmanuel Macron, where those nice folk at Marathon have stand-out odds of 3.0, compared with the likes of PP who offer only 2.375 ..... these odds can't last.
one thing I noticed today but a couple of labour people giving interviews...they were getting very angry with the questioners. I hope this is not a strategy.
In an interview in The Times today, Mr Miliband, 51, who narrowly lost the 2010 Labour leadership election, to the enduring regret of a section of the party, declined to rule out a return to Westminster politics.
“I’m obviously deeply concerned that Labour is further from power than at any stage in my lifetime,” he said.
Asked about his future, he added: “I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do. It’s hard to see, but what’s the point of saying never?”
Yet the defining characteristic of Mr Corbyn’s leadership is not his doctrinaire politics and unsavoury alliances with extremists and antisemites, but his remorseless incompetence. His grasp of policy is minimal and his lack of articulacy is demonstrated repeatedly in parliamentary debate.
Widely regarded as an affable duffer, Mr Corbyn lacks even that reputed public amiability. When pressed in interviews he loses his temper. His public standing and refusal to recognise fault in himself are born of vanity.
Frankly if we needed any other sign labour are in serious trouble there's this - I'm starting to feel pessimistic about their chances,
Now that might not sound much, but bear in mind I was confident they'd hold Copeland. I was confident ed Miliband would win most seats and he'd be pm by now. I've even occasionally thought maybe corbyn would not be quite as bad as he seemed.
And through it all I have been confident labour are still too strong to be destroyed, or rather to destroy themselves. I still am confident about that. But I've been wrong every time I predict a decent outcome for them.
I think you are wrong. They're probably in for a shellacking in 2020 whatever. But they can & most likely will recover.
First, Scotland. I think the trajectory of the Bloc Quebecois offers hope that the SNP dominance (which will surely remain for 2020) will gradually fade. The Bloc Quebecois went from total dominance of the Francophone ridings of Quebec in 1993 to 3 MPs by 2014. By analogy, I reckon it will be about 15-20 years for Labour to recover their lost seats in Scotland.
Second, they need Brexit to happen. There is no way to reconcile the impossible geography of Leave-dominated constituencies of the North East or South Wales with Remain-dominated London, unless Brexit becomes an issue of the past. In my opinion, Labour have played this better than the LibDems, whom Farron has driven down a cul-de-sac. Labour have planned for the future, whilst Farron has only planned for the past.
Third, they need a left-wing leader with Tony Blair-like quantities. Despite the left being in disarray, there is every reason to believe globalisation will be a fertile recruiting ground for those who believe in a fairer, less unequal society. Corbyn, to be fair, can articulate some of this, but he is not a politician for this age of surfaces. Perhaps this politician is Nandy or Lewis?
Depressing though yesterday was for Labour, there is no likely prospect of UKIP replacing them. In FPTP, we are stuck with our parties. Like malaria, we can never really rid ourselves them.
We are stuck with Labou, and so they will recover.
Time perhaps to pile onto Emmanuel Macron, where those nice folk at Marathon have stand-out odds of 3.0, compared with the likes of PP who offer only 2.375 ..... these odds can't last.
one thing I noticed today but a couple of labour people giving interviews...they were getting very angry with the questioners. I hope this is not a strategy.
More likely it's frustration at the futility of it all at the moment. The more intelligent ones understand it and can't do anything about it; the less intelligent ones just don't understand it.
I'm really kicking myself. Of course! The answer was in plain view, staring me in the face.
The question is one we've considered at length. Naturally, we suspected that Labour, faced with the unprecedented risk of an extinction-level event under Corbyn, would somehow contrive to sniff out an alternative leader who, incredible as it might seem, would actually be more damaging to their prospects than Jezza. But who could it be?
Owen Smith? Been there, laughed at the tee-shirt. Can't be him.
John McDonnell? The thinking man's sympathiser with various lost Irish republican causes? Well, yes, it's plain as a pikestaff that he's even more voter-repellent than Jezza, especially in the kinds of Midlands marginals which have particular reason to take an interest in his back-story, so he would fit the bill of making things worse for Labour. But how could he ever get the nominations?
Rebecca Long-Bailey? That one amused us for a few days. It was a good joke, a bravura feat of imagination - kudos to whoever came up with it.
Tony Blair? He's on manoeuvres, clearly. Still, it's hard to see the current membership going for that option.
I confess I was stumped. Of course, Gareth Snell would be ideal, but that suggestion seems a few weeks premature. He hasn't even resigned from the Shadow Cabinet yet.
And then finally the penny dropped. Of course! How could I have been so dumb? There he is, the King Over the Water. The only credible candidate for the vacant position of He Who Can Make It Worse. Go for it!
The next leader is Tom Watson.
There is a huge, messy job to do.
They need someone to shovel sh1t, a bruiser and a thug. Not the elegantly manicured David Miliband.
Watson did quite well out of the Lib Dem collapse in 2015. However, his majority in 2010 was 6696. In a disastrous election, he wouldn't be guaranteed to survive.
which suprising council could PBer's see the Tories gaining in May locals and in 2018. I think lib dems will not do as well as local by elctions suggest when you can't bombard whole council areas in the same way.
This might seem farfetched now but I can see tories being biggest party on Ealing council in 2018. At the mo Labour control it with huge 53 out of 69 seats to only 12 seats for Tories.
Frankly if we needed any other sign labour are in serious trouble there's this - I'm starting to feel pessimistic about their chances,
Now that might not sound much, but bear in mind I was confident they'd hold Copeland. I was confident ed Miliband would win most seats and he'd be pm by now. I've even occasionally thought maybe corbyn would not be quite as bad as he seemed.
And through it all I have been confident labour are still too strong to be destroyed, or rather to destroy themselves. I still am confident about that. But I've been wrong every time I predict a decent outcome for them.
I think you are wrong. They're probably in for a shellacking in 2020 whatever. But they can & most likely will recover.
First, Scotland. I think the trajectory of the Bloc Quebecois offers hope that the SNP dominance (which will surely remain for 2020) will gradually fade. The Bloc Quebecois went from total dominance of the Francophone ridings of Quebec in 1993 to 3 MPs by 2014. By analogy, I reckon it will be about 15-20 years for Labour to recover their lost seats in Scotland.
Second, they need Brexit to happen. There is no way to reconcile the impossible geography of Leave-dominated constituencies of the North East or South Wales with Remain-dominated London, unless Brexit becomes an issue of the past. In my opinion, Labour have played this better than the LibDems, whom Farron has driven down a cul-de-sac. Labour have planned for the future, whilst Farron has only planned for the past.
Third, they need a left-wing leader with Tony Blair-like quantities. Despite the left being in disarray, there is every reason to believe globalisation will be a fertile recruiting ground for those who believe in a fairer, less unequal society. Corbyn, to be fair, can articulate some of this, but he is not a politician for this age of surfaces. Perhaps this politician is Nandy or Lewis?
Depressing though yesterday was for Labour, there is no likely prospect of UKIP replacing them. In FPTP, we are stuck with our parties. Like malaria, we can never really rid ourselves them.
We are stuck with Labou, and so they will recover.
So I'm not wrong then - that is what I predict, I was just noting my previous positive predictions for them were wrong.
Comments
Have you been made leader yet, surely it must be your turn...
It's my guess that Thornberry who (a) sits for a large seat in London and (b) is thick as two short planks (bearing in mind that she confused being made an honorary member of the officer's mess with being commissioned as a colonel) is making this very elementary error.
True, Copeland wasn't as safe as say, Walton. But it was only just in the top 30 list of Labour marginals in a year when they polled very poorly nationwide, and on a uniform swing of this scale Labour would lose over 60 seats. This is not the loss of a marginal seat. It's just a mind blowingly pisspoor performance.
Incidentally I see PP has a number of Trump specials, including invading a country at 10/1 for betting ghouls.
Sunil means "blue", not "purple"!
Parish councils are for lib Dems
Westminster By Elections for the tories
Ukip just get what they want without having to do the boring day job!
Many thanks to you all.
Goodnight.
This might seem farfetched now but I can see tories being biggest party on Ealing council in 2018. At the mo Labour control it with huge 53 out of 69 seats to only 12 seats for Tories.
The question is one we've considered at length. Naturally, we suspected that Labour, faced with the unprecedented risk of an extinction-level event under Corbyn, would somehow contrive to sniff out an alternative leader who, incredible as it might seem, would actually be more damaging to their prospects than Jezza. But who could it be?
Owen Smith? Been there, laughed at the tee-shirt. Can't be him.
John McDonnell? The thinking man's sympathiser with various lost Irish republican causes? Well, yes, it's plain as a pikestaff that he's even more voter-repellent than Jezza, especially in the kinds of Midlands marginals which have particular reason to take an interest in his back-story, so he would fit the bill of making things worse for Labour. But how could he ever get the nominations?
Rebecca Long-Bailey? That one amused us for a few days. It was a good joke, a bravura feat of imagination - kudos to whoever came up with it.
Tony Blair? He's on manoeuvres, clearly. Still, it's hard to see the current membership going for that option.
I confess I was stumped. Of course, Gareth Snell would be ideal, but that suggestion seems a few weeks premature. He hasn't even resigned from the Shadow Cabinet yet.
And then finally the penny dropped. Of course! How could I have been so dumb? There he is, the King Over the Water. The only credible candidate for the vacant position of He Who Can Make It Worse. Go for it!
His mum looked so young didn't she?
How bored must he be of having to stick up for those morons though?
My favourite is Twats life.
One reason the margins have been small on paper is that only the Conservatives bothered to oppose them down to the 1970s so there is no NOTA tradition for other parties to draw on. Even in 2010 their combined share added up to 78% of the vote.
*Let's reflect on that. Corbyn is doing worse than Arthur Henderson, who lost his own seat as a literally split Labour Party was reduced to just 52/65/73 MPs (depending on whom you consider to be Labour in 1931). That ain't suggestive of a great Corgasam. Rather the opposite, indeed.
With that rather sobering thought, good night.
There is a huge, messy job to do.
They need someone to shovel sh1t, a bruiser and a thug. Not the elegantly manicured David Miliband.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/22/tom-watson-given-500k-in-donations-by-max-mosley-in-past-year
I can't see any problems there.
He's a bully and a basher, and Labour need bullying and bashing into shape.
Now that might not sound much, but bear in mind I was confident they'd hold Copeland. I was confident ed Miliband would win most seats and he'd be pm by now. I've even occasionally thought maybe corbyn would not be quite as bad as he seemed.
And through it all I have been confident labour are still too strong to be destroyed, or rather to destroy themselves. I still am confident about that. But I've been wrong every time I predict a decent outcome for them.
"Marmalade in decline as Paddington struggles to lift sales
2014 film brought only a slight boost to the bear’s favourite spread, which is now mainly the preserve of older people"
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/24/marmalade-in-decline-as-paddington-struggles-to-lift-sales
You're right. Labour needs a total c**t. David Miliband inspires many emotions, but fear is not one of them
“I’m obviously deeply concerned that Labour is further from power than at any stage in my lifetime,” he said.
Asked about his future, he added: “I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do. It’s hard to see, but what’s the point of saying never?”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-at-weakest-for-50-years-says-miliband-blh67p3hh
Widely regarded as an affable duffer, Mr Corbyn lacks even that reputed public amiability. When pressed in interviews he loses his temper. His public standing and refusal to recognise fault in himself are born of vanity.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-s-plight-5tdl7fkx7
First, Scotland. I think the trajectory of the Bloc Quebecois offers hope that the SNP dominance (which will surely remain for 2020) will gradually fade. The Bloc Quebecois went from total dominance of the Francophone ridings of Quebec in 1993 to 3 MPs by 2014. By analogy, I reckon it will be about 15-20 years for Labour to recover their lost seats in Scotland.
Second, they need Brexit to happen. There is no way to reconcile the impossible geography of Leave-dominated constituencies of the North East or South Wales with Remain-dominated London, unless Brexit becomes an issue of the past. In my opinion, Labour have played this better than the LibDems, whom Farron has driven down a cul-de-sac. Labour have planned for the future, whilst Farron has only planned for the past.
Third, they need a left-wing leader with Tony Blair-like quantities. Despite the left being in disarray, there is every reason to believe globalisation will be a fertile recruiting ground for those who believe in a fairer, less unequal society. Corbyn, to be fair, can articulate some of this, but he is not a politician for this age of surfaces. Perhaps this politician is Nandy or Lewis?
Depressing though yesterday was for Labour, there is no likely prospect of UKIP replacing them. In FPTP, we are stuck with our parties. Like malaria, we can never really rid ourselves them.
We are stuck with Labou, and so they will recover.
https://www.marathonbet.co.uk/en/betting/Specials/?menu=3898
Amazed that the 2/1 is still there, it's a steal!
The whole point about marginals is that they change hands.
More fair 'n balanced reporting from the BBC. Calling Trump 'Disrupter-in-Chief'.
Are you there, Margaret? Have you got a message for us Margaret?
Copeland:
Conservatives 14,186 down to 13,748
Labour 16,750 down to 11,601
Lib Dems 1,368 up to 2,252
Stoke:
Labour 12,220 down to 7,853
Conservatives 7,008 down to 5,154
Lib Dems 1,296 up to 2,083
But not a bad night for the party that failed to persuade voters against Brexit?