That said, if the run-off is Le Pen v Melenchon, I wonder what the impact on the National Assembly elections would be. I'm sure neither could win a majority, but there would be some strange results.
I expect Les Republicains to win most seats in the legislative elections whoever becomes president
If Macron wins then the 'Sarkozy party' will splinter just as much as the socialists.
Macron's party is based almost entirely on him and has no Assembly members at the moment, even if Macron wins the presidency En Marche will likely be battling the FN and PS and Melenchon's leftists for second behind a Les Republicains now freed of Fillon
Les Republicains are barely more coherent as a party than En Marche. It was Sarkozy's big project to rebrand them as a more solid party but it hasn't worked.
LRs have 199 Assembly members, En Marche 0 and many of the PS voters voting for Macron will return to the PS in the legislative elections
That said, if the run-off is Le Pen v Melenchon, I wonder what the impact on the National Assembly elections would be. I'm sure neither could win a majority, but there would be some strange results.
If Le Pen or Fillon does become President I would not be surprised to see the National Assembly go left.
Usually, the National Assembly elections give the President's party a majority, unless they're held in mid-term. I think that would be the case with Fillon, but most unlikely with Le Pen.
The reduction of the Presidential term from 7 to 5 years was intended to make it effectively coincide with the elections for the Assembly with the result that both Sarkozy and Hollande enjoyed coat-tail victories a few weeks after their own election.
That is unlikely to happen this time unless Fillon is victorious in which case France could revert to a Parliamentary system (which is actually what the text of the 1958 constitution stipulates - the President does not even have a veto on legislation) under the leadership of the Prime Minister.
However, the President can dissolve Parliament on his own initiative after 12 months, which is the sword of Damocles always hanging over the government.
That said, if the run-off is Le Pen v Melenchon, I wonder what the impact on the National Assembly elections would be. I'm sure neither could win a majority, but there would be some strange results.
I expect Les Republicains to win most seats in the legislative elections whoever becomes president
If Macron wins then the 'Sarkozy party' will splinter just as much as the socialists.
Macron's party is based almost entirely on him and has no Assembly members at the moment, even if Macron wins the presidency En Marche will likely be battling the FN and PS and Melenchon's leftists for second behind a Les Republicains now freed of Fillon
Les Republicains are barely more coherent as a party than En Marche. It was Sarkozy's big project to rebrand them as a more solid party but it hasn't worked.
LRs have 199 Assembly members, En Marche 0 and many of the PS voters voting for Macron will return to the PS in the legislative elections
If that is correct it could be literally any two out of the four. Fillon would need a lucky break on the 2nd decimal point.
If Macron scores low (or LePen) then one or more of the others could be higher. Alternatively Macron could be comfortably ahead and going to have a second round landslide.
On those MOE bars the value bet is Macron to come top in the first round.
Pollsters aren't worth listening to when they talk of margins of error. Even those guys for the Economist are assuming an average polling error - they helpfully explain they're choosing a root mean square and using data since the early 1960s, so well before Facebook. I'd take them more seriously if they said these are the percentage probabilities if we assume a big error - say at the first decile, using only figures for the last four elections - and these are the probabilities if we assume the error is average, etc.
“Piddle Valley” - I know the place very well, along with all the other piddles and puddles around the Dorchester area. Dorset has some real cracking place names and some quite charming little towns.
Indeed. I've even heard that it is one of the few counties where bookshops are opening, rather than closing...
Contrary to many perceptions, physical book sales are up, well up - in the USA as well as the UK. It's a bullish market.
I also note, with some personal glee, the fact that those annoying readers are "still demanding" gripping psychological thrillers despite the fact that agents and publishers are "really bored of them".
Yup. For both of our sakes, long may it continue. I have to keep reminding my lovely but blinkered consulting friends this. They see books as inefficient. I suggest that books not running out of battery makes them more efficient.
Interestingly, just like streaming increased music sales because people then know they want the object, I frequently sell antiquarian books to people because they've seen a section of it online and now know they want it...
I think we can also thank a generation of great British children's writers - from J K Rowling to Philip Pullman - plus some brilliant American authors of YA fiction like Twilight and the Hunger Games - who taught kids and teens that they could really enjoy owning and reading books. Actual, physical *books*.
Those kids and teens are now becoming adults, and they still want to own and read books.
Than God, praise be, and Phew!
I don't think that has anything to do with physical rather than ebooks. Unlike digital music and films via fantastic streaming apps, ebooks and ebook readers are poor, harder to read than the physical equivalent etc etc etc. Basically nobody has really solved replicating the experience of a book via digital, let alone improved it.
I made the move a few years ago, I mainly buy digital comics now too. But. I now feel the need to move back, at least a bit, to physical books (comics are still staying digital) as reading just isn't the same without that weight in your hands.
Looking very worrying. Something could kick off at any moment.
The truly worrying thing is that Trump is not being entirely crazy. N Korea is on the verge of mastering ICBMs which could wipe out Los Angeles.
Could any POTUS tolerate that, in the context of such a crazy, unbalanced regime? Arguably not. Arguably this is Obama's doing, and Trump has to clean up.
Why do you say the vile and crazy regime in North Korea is unbalanced? I can't recall them doing anything so crazy that it damaged them. (Admittedly they may do precisely that tomorrow, Easter Saturday, the Day of the Sun.)
I quite like e-books. Take up none of my limited shelf space, are delivered immediately (unlike this damned book I've been waiting for and is a week late) and cost less.
They also enable serials to make a return, as will happen with the fantastic Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger (think Outlaws of the Marsh meets Robin Hood) in a few weeks.
That said, I do get physical copies of history, because they're better for quick references and photos/maps etc.
That said, if the run-off is Le Pen v Melenchon, I wonder what the impact on the National Assembly elections would be. I'm sure neither could win a majority, but there would be some strange results.
I expect Les Republicains to win most seats in the legislative elections whoever becomes president
If Macron wins then the 'Sarkozy party' will splinter just as much as the socialists.
Macron's party is based almost entirely on him and has no Assembly members at the moment, even if Macron wins the presidency En Marche will likely be battling the FN and PS and Melenchon's leftists for second behind a Les Republicains now freed of Fillon
Les Republicains are barely more coherent as a party than En Marche. It was Sarkozy's big project to rebrand them as a more solid party but it hasn't worked.
LRs have 199 Assembly members, En Marche 0 and many of the PS voters voting for Macron will return to the PS in the legislative elections
If there's a point to be missed...
How many LR members were there in 2012?
The LR are the successor party to the UMP, En Marche are not the successor party to the PS
What you say sounds reasonable, but if Labour found a leader attractive to voters in time for the next election, it wouldn't surprise me if many voters decided to give them the benefit of the doubt.
It could be that we'd see "swingback" working in Labour's favour in that case.
Good evening, everyone.
Yes, but up to 35% from 30.2% while languishing in the polls on 25%?
Or to put it another way, the suggestion is that a party which performed worse in terms of the popular vote than John Major in 1997 and is languishing at William Hague like levels of support in the inter-election polls would merely by changing its leader achieve a vote share comparable to that of Blair in 2005. Can you see why that doesn't strike me as terribly plausible (especially when it's actually also a far better performance than any leader of the party other than Blair has managed since the 1970s)?
While an improvement is more than possible on a change of leader, an improvement of that magnitude would be truly remarkable.
Pb brain trust...Does anybody have any suggestions for a graphic tablet which you plug into your pc, which I will only use for annotating documents, writing maths and creating organisation charts ie I won't be using it to create any art so don't need the pro level ones.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
If Labour gets to 35% at the GE it would mean that all current certainties have been turned totally on their heads. It would surely indicate that a very strong desire to get rid of the Tories had gripped the nation, so the LDs may well be getting tactical votes where they had a chance to unseat a Tory MP.
Historically, when the Labour vote goes up so does the LD's. The two run in tandem.
Not in 2010 or 1983
In 2010 both Labour and LDs lost seats as I recall. 1983 was unusual as there were 20 something SDP defectors.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
Depends how bad Brexit goes.
Even after the ERM debacle in 1992 and a new leader in John Smith many did not see a big majority for Labour. It was Blair that put the rocket boosters on Conservatives feeling safe to vote Labour.Even with a terrible Brexit outcome Labour need a leader who can reassure someone like John Smith would give them hope of been the largest party.
I didn't say they'd win, just that they might regain electoral credibility faster than is thought, in the right circumstances. Regaining credibility to the point of winning is, given the hurdles they face, unlikely, but there is still an opportunity for them - the accepted wisdom is if things do not change the Tories might lose some seats to the LDs, but gain a larger number from Labour. If Labour regained credibility faster than thought, with a new Leader and a poor Brexit deal hitting the Tories, even with all their other problems it is possible, though perhaps not likely, that they could deprive the Tories of a majority.
I I think blaming the EU for any problems with the deal will still have credence with enough people for a conservative majority, even if Labour have regained some credibility with a new leader.
That said, if the run-off is Le Pen v Melenchon, I wonder what the impact on the National Assembly elections would be. I'm sure neither could win a majority, but there would be some strange results.
I expect Les Republicains to win most seats in the legislative elections whoever becomes president
If Macron wins then the 'Sarkozy party' will splinter just as much as the socialists.
Macron's party is based almost entirely on him and has no Assembly members at the moment, even if Macron wins the presidency En Marche will likely be battling the FN and PS and Melenchon's leftists for second behind a Les Republicains now freed of Fillon
Les Republicains are barely more coherent as a party than En Marche. It was Sarkozy's big project to rebrand them as a more solid party but it hasn't worked.
LRs have 199 Assembly members, En Marche 0 and many of the PS voters voting for Macron will return to the PS in the legislative elections
If there's a point to be missed...
How many LR members were there in 2012?
The LR are the successor party to the UMP, En Marche are not the successor party to the PS
And the UMP has a long and illustrious history all the way back to 2002...
I quite like e-books. Take up none of my limited shelf space, are delivered immediately (unlike this damned book I've been waiting for and is a week late) and cost less.
They also enable serials to make a return, as will happen with the fantastic Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger (think Outlaws of the Marsh meets Robin Hood) in a few weeks.
That said, I do get physical copies of history, because they're better for quick references and photos/maps etc.
I'd like to see a system of buy physical, get yuge discount on ebook, or vv. I think I am going to have to buy a guidebook to the Pyrenees in both very expensive formats, to guard against battery failure.
Pb brain trust...Does anybody have any suggestions for a graphic tablet which you plug into your pc, which I will only use for annotating documents, writing maths and creating organisation charts ie I won't be using it to create any art so don't need the pro level ones.
I can't help, but I'd love to have a good answer to your question. Paper and pencil mk1, and a scanner, is what I use.
Mr. Llama, really? Not sure what Melenchon's views are, but Le Pen just wants to leave the eurozone, and only if that doesn't happen would she countenance a referendum on leaving the EU.
Melenchon wants to renegotiate the EU Treaties he is actually more anti EU than Fillon
Neither would be able to do much without Assembly support, and neither would be likely to command a majority.
The constitution says a referendum can be requested by a fifth of the MPs and a tenth of registered voters. Theoretically the assembly could block it, but there'd be big trouble if they did.
De Gaulle's referendum of 1962, which established that presidents would be directly elected, is widely held to have been unconstitutional, even if the Constitutional Council said it didn't have jurisdiction (sic). France was like a tinderbox at the time, and the alternative could have been civil war.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
If Labour gets to 35% at the GE it would mean that all current certainties have been turned totally on their heads. It would surely indicate that a very strong desire to get rid of the Tories had gripped the nation, so the LDs may well be getting tactical votes where they had a chance to unseat a Tory MP.
Historically, when the Labour vote goes up so does the LD's. The two run in tandem.
Not in 2010 or 1983
In 2010 both Labour and LDs lost seats as I recall. 1983 was unusual as there were 20 something SDP defectors.
Otherwise the coupling goes back a long time.
The Liberal voteshare went up in both 2010 and 1983 when Labour's fell and indeed the Liberals gained seats in 1983 and 2005 when Labour lost them
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
If Labour gets to 35% at the GE it would mean that all current certainties have been turned totally on their heads. It would surely indicate that a very strong desire to get rid of the Tories had gripped the nation, so the LDs may well be getting tactical votes where they had a chance to unseat a Tory MP.
Historically, when the Labour vote goes up so does the LD's. The two run in tandem.
Not in 2010 or 1983
In 2010 both Labour and LDs lost seats as I recall. 1983 was unusual as there were 20 something SDP defectors.
Otherwise the coupling goes back a long time.
I thought the Liberal Democrat vote actually went down in 1997, although that might well be explained by the amount of tactical voting.
It also rose in 2001 and 2005 as the Labour vote dipped substantially.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
That said, if the run-off is Le Pen v Melenchon, I wonder what the impact on the National Assembly elections would be. I'm sure neither could win a majority, but there would be some strange results.
I expect Les Republicains to win most seats in the legislative elections whoever becomes president
If Macron wins then the 'Sarkozy party' will splinter just as much as the socialists.
Macron's party is based almost entirely on him and has no Assembly members at the moment, even if Macron wins the presidency En Marche will likely be battling the FN and PS and Melenchon's leftists for second behind a Les Republicains now freed of Fillon
Les Republicains are barely more coherent as a party than En Marche. It was Sarkozy's big project to rebrand them as a more solid party but it hasn't worked.
LRs have 199 Assembly members, En Marche 0 and many of the PS voters voting for Macron will return to the PS in the legislative elections
If there's a point to be missed...
How many LR members were there in 2012?
The LR are the successor party to the UMP, En Marche are not the successor party to the PS
And the UMP has a long and illustrious history all the way back to 2002...
It was still the main centre right party as the LR is, the PS is still the main centre left party not En Marche and will be a rival in the legislative elections, the UMP was not a rival to the LR but its predecessor
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
I doubt that the Tories will reach 40% in 2020 despite what current polls are saying - unless Corbyn is still in post.
"Every pupil from P6 up in Glasgow to get a FREE tablet device". It had to happen. Microwave irradiation and a 24/7 tracker for free. You know it makes sense. Because you're worth it. I wonder if an alarm will go off if they try to take the battery out.
All right, let's look at this another way. Who is this titan of leadership, this figure of vision, energy and charisma, who can take over the Labour Party and in just three years do what only one other leader has done in the last four decades (or, to account for your statistics, what took Neil Kinnock - a far better leader than most people realised - the small matter of nine years to do)? Give that person a name.
Just saying 'a new leader might help' doesn't help if the new leader is Cat Smith (the only woman in the known universe more dishonest than a Trump mouthpiece) or Clive Lewis (who makes jokes about having sex with goats) or Emily Thornberry (who has persistently passed herself off as an ex-army officer).
What you say sounds reasonable, but if Labour found a leader attractive to voters in time for the next election, it wouldn't surprise me if many voters decided to give them the benefit of the doubt.
It could be that we'd see "swingback" working in Labour's favour in that case.
Good evening, everyone.
Yes, but up to 35% from 30.2% while languishing in the polls on 25%?
Or to put it another way, the suggestion is that a party which performed worse in terms of the popular vote than John Major in 1997 and is languishing at William Hague like levels of support in the inter-election polls would merely by changing its leader achieve a vote share comparable to that of Blair in 2005. Can you see why that doesn't strike me as terribly plausible (especially when it's actually also a far better performance than any leader of the party other than Blair has managed since the 1970s)?
While an improvement is more than possible on a change of leader, an improvement of that magnitude would be truly remarkable.
Just look at how much the polls have shifted in the last 12 months! A year ago three consecutive Yougov polls put Labour in the lead - and Labour narrowly led the Tories in NEV in the May 2016 Local Elections. Three years is a very long time - more than the entire length of a Parliamentary term in both Australia and New Zealand.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Have checked and the Tories never reached 40% in the polls in the 2001-5 Parliament. Howard took them to 36% and a 4% lead over Labour in a single poll in May 2004.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
If Labour gets to 35% at the GE it would mean that all current certainties have been turned totally on their heads. It would surely indicate that a very strong desire to get rid of the Tories had gripped the nation, so the LDs may well be getting tactical votes where they had a chance to unseat a Tory MP.
Historically, when the Labour vote goes up so does the LD's. The two run in tandem.
If you're referring to votes that's completely wrong:
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
If Labour gets to 35% at the GE it would mean that all current certainties have been turned totally on their heads. It would surely indicate that a very strong desire to get rid of the Tories had gripped the nation, so the LDs may well be getting tactical votes where they had a chance to unseat a Tory MP.
Historically, when the Labour vote goes up so does the LD's. The two run in tandem.
If you're referring to votes that's completely wrong:
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Have checked and the Tories never reached 40% in the polls in the 2001-5 Parliament. Howard took them to 36% and a 4% lead over Labour in a single poll in May 2004.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
Then your source is incomplete. But on checking I find my memory had played me false and it was 22nd January 2004, a YouGov poll for the Telegraph. I remember it particularly because naturally the Torygraph went mad over it and I was thinking, 'yeah, right.'
Just saying 'a new leader might help' doesn't help if the new leader is Cat Smith (the only woman in the known universe more dishonest than a Trump mouthpiece) or Clive Lewis (who makes jokes about having sex with goats) or Emily Thornberry (who has persistently passed herself off as an ex-army officer)..
If that's the worst there is on Lewis, then if the Corbynistas can forgive him he would do just fine.
All right, let's look at this another way. Who is this titan of leadership, this figure of vision, energy and charisma, who can take over the Labour Party and in just three years do what only one other leader has done in the last four decades (or, to account for your statistics, what took Neil Kinnock - a far better leader than most people realised - the small matter of nine years to do)? Give that person a name.
Just saying 'a new leader might help' doesn't help if the new leader is Cat Smith (the only woman in the known universe more dishonest than a Trump mouthpiece) or Clive Lewis (who makes jokes about having sex with goats) or Emily Thornberry (who has persistently passed herself off as an ex-army officer).
I doubt that the Tories will reach 40% in 2020 despite what current polls are saying - unless Corbyn is still in post.
Edited because the quote had vanished.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
If so, might it be that some of her supporters think she can't win the Final so are switching to their 2nd choice (presumably largely Melenchon) who will have a better chance in the Final.
I was initially surprised that Melenchon rates so well in the run-off match-ups - presumably this is because he gets a lot of support from Le Pen voters?
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
ok - but the pollsters always give us GB figures.
A fair point. But the election results are UK wide. I appreciate it does make for difficulties.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
ok - but the pollsters always give us GB figures.
I appreciate it does make for difficulties.
Kind of sums up NI all around.
Making difficulties without giving a toss since the time of King James the VI and I?
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Have checked and the Tories never reached 40% in the polls in the 2001-5 Parliament. Howard took them to 36% and a 4% lead over Labour in a single poll in May 2004.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
Then your source is incomplete. But on checking I find my memory had played me false and it was 22nd January 2004, a YouGov poll for the Telegraph. I remember it particularly because naturally the Torygraph went mad over it and I was thinking, 'yeah, right.'
Looking at the polling figures for early 2004 the 39/40% Tory shares were confined to Yougov over that period.For whatever reason, there was clear evidence of a house effect. Other pollster had them in the 34% - 36% range.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Have checked and the Tories never reached 40% in the polls in the 2001-5 Parliament. Howard took them to 36% and a 4% lead over Labour in a single poll in May 2004.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
Then your source is incomplete. But on checking I find my memory had played me false and it was 22nd January 2004, a YouGov poll for the Telegraph. I remember it particularly because naturally the Torygraph went mad over it and I was thinking, 'yeah, right.'
Looking at the polling figures for early 2004 the 39/40% Tory shares were confined to Yougov over that period.For whatever reason, there was clear evidence of a house effect. Other pollster had them in the 34% - 36% range.
Both figures were still a long way above the figure they got at the general election (whether or not you include NI).
Edit - I would think re. YouGov the problem was most likely it was heavily skewed towards Telegraph readers, who would be reading the results of it.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
If Labour gets to 35% at the GE it would mean that all current certainties have been turned totally on their heads. It would surely indicate that a very strong desire to get rid of the Tories had gripped the nation, so the LDs may well be getting tactical votes where they had a chance to unseat a Tory MP.
Historically, when the Labour vote goes up so does the LD's. The two run in tandem.
If you're referring to votes that's completely wrong:
If you're referring to MPs then its wrong 3/4 times:
1987 All down 1 MPs 1992 LD down 2 MPs 1997 LD up 28 MPs 2015 LD down 49 MPs
OK, I was wrong by being a bit too broadbrush. I meant seats rather than share, and the coupling is not complete, but to gain power LDs and Labour voters have to vote tactically. A tacit acceptance of that is needed.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
ok - but the pollsters always give us GB figures. A fair point. But the election results are UK wide. I appreciate it does make for difficulties.
What about Scotland? the Labour Party used to have the majority of seats there, now they have one, the same as the Tories and Lib/Dems. I doubt that the SNP vote would disappear just because Labour found itself a new leader and the Tories could bring back the vote Labour and get the SNP message which will frighten many voters in the rest of the UK into voting Tory. Much of the UKIP 2015 vote could also go to the Tories if the government bring in a Brexit which cuts immigration. Nope! I think Labour can write off the 2020 election and start planning for 2025.
If so, might it be that some of her supporters think she can't win the Final so are switching to their 2nd choice (presumably largely Melenchon) who will have a better chance in the Final.
I was initially surprised that Melenchon rates so well in the run-off match-ups - presumably this is because he gets a lot of support from Le Pen voters?
Le Pen still polls about 22 to 24% in virtually every poll which would be more than enough to reach the runoff
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Have checked and the Tories never reached 40% in the polls in the 2001-5 Parliament. Howard took them to 36% and a 4% lead over Labour in a single poll in May 2004.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
YouGov 22/01/04 Con 40, Lab 35, LD 19 YouGov 08/05/04 Con 40, Lab 36, LD 18
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
ok - but the pollsters always give us GB figures. A fair point. But the election results are UK wide. I appreciate it does make for difficulties.
What about Scotland? the Labour Party used to have the majority of seats there, now they have one, the same as the Tories and Lib/Dems. I doubt that the SNP vote would disappear just because Labour found itself a new leader and the Tories could bring back the vote Labour and get the SNP message which will frighten many voters in the rest of the UK into voting Tory. Much of the UKIP 2015 vote could also go to the Tories if the government bring in a Brexit which cuts immigration. Nope! I think Labour can write off the 2020 election and start planning for 2025.
I suspect that most of UKIP vote likely to switch back to the Tories has already gone. Its residual vote is likely to be much less Tory friendly.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Good point. A bit of charisma and rhetoric is more vital as LOTO. The least charismatic PM's like Brown or Major didn't have to be elected from opposition.
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Have checked and the Tories never reached 40% in the polls in the 2001-5 Parliament. Howard took them to 36% and a 4% lead over Labour in a single poll in May 2004.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
YouGov 22/01/04 Con 40, Lab 35, LD 19 YouGov 08/05/04 Con 40, Lab 36, LD 18
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
In 2003 the Tories hit 40% in the polls shortly after Michael Howard became leader.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Have checked and the Tories never reached 40% in the polls in the 2001-5 Parliament. Howard took them to 36% and a 4% lead over Labour in a single poll in May 2004.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
Then your source is incomplete. But on checking I find my memory had played me false and it was 22nd January 2004, a YouGov poll for the Telegraph. I remember it particularly because naturally the Torygraph went mad over it and I was thinking, 'yeah, right.'
Looking at the polling figures for early 2004 the 39/40% Tory shares were confined to Yougov over that period.For whatever reason, there was clear evidence of a house effect. Other pollster had them in the 34% - 36% range.
Both figures were still a long way above the figure they got at the general election (whether or not you include NI).
Edit - I would think re. YouGov the problem was most likely it was heavily skewed towards Telegraph readers, who would be reading the results of it.
Well the Tories polled 33% in the 2005 election - just 3% behind Labour. Three years earlier at the end of April 2002 , Mori gave Labour a 23% lead!
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
Yvette Cooper stands no chance of being elected, and even if she were unless she has learned to stop rudely interrupting everyone who speaks to her she stands less chance of winning votes. Keir Starmer would have to face awkward questions about his time as DPP and how he goes from a non-partisan role to a highly partisan party leader in less than five years. Moreover, he's just about holding his own against that mighty stand of gravitas and intellect, David Davis.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I disagree . Umunna does not strike me as particularly authentic at all - and is rumoured to have skeletons waiting to be pulled out.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I can see Starmer as someone I'd like to throw offish vegetables at.
It won't be a good stand in for the colossal, prize-winning, and life-terminating-when-thrown turnips that I'd like to hurl at Brown, but it'll do for the time being.
“Piddle Valley” - I know the place very well, along with all the other piddles and puddles around the Dorchester area. Dorset has some real cracking place names and some quite charming little towns.
Indeed. I've even heard that it is one of the few counties where bookshops are opening, rather than closing...
Contrary to many perceptions, physical book sales are up, well up - in the USA as well as the UK. It's a bullish market.
I also note, with some personal glee, the fact that those annoying readers are "still demanding" gripping psychological thrillers despite the fact that agents and publishers are "really bored of them".
Yup. For both of our sakes, long may it continue. I have to keep reminding my lovely but blinkered consulting friends this. They see books as inefficient. I suggest that books not running out of battery makes them more efficient.
Interestingly, just like streaming increased music sales because people then know they want the object, I frequently sell antiquarian books to people because they've seen a section of it online and now know they want it...
I think we can also thank a generation of great British children's writers - from J K Rowling to Philip Pullman - plus some brilliant American authors of YA fiction like Twilight and the Hunger Games - who taught kids and teens that they could really enjoy owning and reading books. Actual, physical *books*.
Those kids and teens are now becoming adults, and they still want to own and read books.
Than God, praise be, and Phew!
I don't think that has anything to do with physical rather than ebooks. Unlike digital music and films via fantastic streaming apps, ebooks and ebook readers are poor, harder to read than the physical equivalent etc etc etc. Basically nobody has really solved replicating the experience of a book via digital, let alone improved it.
Despite that, ebooks are excellent for travelling - a library on the move. And I read most of my disposable fiction (hi Sean) that way these days, so I don't have to fill a second loft with old paperbacks. But there is no easy equivalent for dogearing pages or making pencil notes in the margins.
Looking very worrying. Something could kick off at any moment.
The truly worrying thing is that Trump is not being entirely crazy. N Korea is on the verge of mastering ICBMs which could wipe out Los Angeles.
Could any POTUS tolerate that, in the context of such a crazy, unbalanced regime? Arguably not. Arguably this is Obama's doing, and Trump has to clean up.
Tehran is a model of sanity compared to Pyongyang.
I think the solution is to surrender mainly. I know that sounds weird, but if the world surrenders to North Korea then what are they actually going to do?
By surrendering we unleash the lawyers. North Korea, I'm guessing has few lawyers.
In any case, they won't be able to pay the lawyer's fees.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
Yvette Cooper stands no chance of being elected, and even if she were unless she has learned to stop rudely interrupting everyone who speaks to her she stands less chance of winning votes. Keir Starmer would have to face awkward questions about his time as DPP and how he goes from a non-partisan role to a highly partisan party leader in less than five years. Moreover, he's just about holding his own against that mighty stand of gravitas and intellect, David Davis.
David Davis is actually bright and straight forward.Probably more charismatic than Theresa May. I actually think there is not a great deal to be gained from trying to look so far ahead - it is just ridiculous to pretend that we can know the shape of the political jigsaw in 2020. As I said earlier, just look at how things have shifted in the last year.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I disagree . Umunna does not strike me as particularly authentic at all - and is rumoured to have skeletons waiting to be pulled out.
Umunna has charisma and is telegenic, Starmer is neither just more competent and a shade more centrist than Corbyn
If so, might it be that some of her supporters think she can't win the Final so are switching to their 2nd choice (presumably largely Melenchon) who will have a better chance in the Final.
I was initially surprised that Melenchon rates so well in the run-off match-ups - presumably this is because he gets a lot of support from Le Pen voters?
Le Pen still polls about 22 to 24% in virtually every poll which would be more than enough to reach the runoff
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Good point. A bit of charisma and rhetoric is more vital as LOTO. The least charismatic PM's like Brown or Major didn't have to be elected from opposition.
Liam T. Cosgrave would be a classic example. A party chairman rather than a Great orator, appointed because everyone else had either died, rebelled or gone mad. One of the great Taoiseachs (although technically the title didn't exist at the time). Brought an end to a civil war. Negotiated a treaty with the UK that got rid of all Ireland's share of U.K. debts. Founded a democratic state, the only new state in Europe from that time to have become and remained democratic from that day to this. Faced down attempts by both the Army and the IRA to seize power, complicated by the police looking to get in on the act. Weathered the Depression as well as any country in Europe. Considered a statesman of enormous integrity who was much admired throughout the Commonwealth. Handed power peacefully to his key rival after a democratic election.
Then led the opposition for twelve years and couldn't win an election no matter what mistakes de Valera made. For why? Because he couldn't grab attention when he didn't have the power to do things.
I think charisma or at least an ability to command attention is essential to win elections from opposition.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I disagree . Umunna does not strike me as particularly authentic at all - and is rumoured to have skeletons waiting to be pulled out.
Umunna has charisma, Starmer does not
Charisma? Really? He has several assets but charisma (or even personality) certainly isn't one of them.
Edit: I see you've now edited your comment to add "and telegenic". Yes, that's an asset. But charisma still isn't in the mix.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I disagree . Umunna does not strike me as particularly authentic at all - and is rumoured to have skeletons waiting to be pulled out.
Umunna has charisma, Starmer does not
Charisma? Really? He has several assets but charisma (or even personality) certainly isn't one of them.
It's hard to say. He's slick and presentable, but he backed out of the leadership before we got a chance to see if he was more than an empty suit, as I think a certain level of substance (good and bad) is needed to have charisma.
Labour's recovery is predicated on two distinct decisions:
1. Ousting Corbyn
2. SLAB becomes a distinct political party in Scotland [ like the SDLP in NI or electorally speaking as distinct from politically, like the CSU ] even with Scotland still in the UK.
SLAB could decide on its own Independence policy. If it wants to survive as an entity it has only one choice. Why should a left of centre pro-independence voter choose Labour today ?
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I disagree . Umunna does not strike me as particularly authentic at all - and is rumoured to have skeletons waiting to be pulled out.
Umunna has charisma, Starmer does not
Charisma? Really? He has several assets but charisma (or even personality) certainly isn't one of them.
It's hard to say. He's slick and presentable, but he backed out of the leadership before we got a chance to see if he was more than an empty suit, as I think a certain level of substance (good and bad) is needed to have charisma.
Agree entirely and my reply to HYUFD before and after he edited his comment bear out the fact that you and I concur on this.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
Yvette Cooper stands no chance of being elected, and even if she were unless she has learned to stop rudely interrupting everyone who speaks to her she stands less chance of winning votes. Keir Starmer would have to face awkward questions about his time as DPP and how he goes from a non-partisan role to a highly partisan party leader in less than five years. Moreover, he's just about holding his own against that mighty stand of gravitas and intellect, David Davis.
David Davis is actually bright and straight forward.Probably more charismatic than Theresa May. I actually think there is not a great deal to be gained from trying to look so far ahead - it is just ridiculous to pretend that we can know the shape of the political jigsaw in 2020. As I said earlier, just look at how things have shifted in the last year.
Well, in that light this seems appropriate for those who want a gentle laugh:
Any Labour leader [ after replacing Corbyn ] will add 5% to the Labour vote as a minimum.
Bollocks (if you'll forgive me) - they have rubbish in depth.
Abbott, McDonnell, Thornberry would all clearly be worse, and worse from day one. Others would only show their inadequacies a little later.
If Corbyn is replaced, those named will not be even in the picture. Corbyn will only be replaced if the "electorate" which voted for him wakes up. They will not replace Corbyn with the above.
I would not include Thornberry in that list anyway.
Personally, I am sticking with Labour only to be given a chance to vote Starmer v Cooper.
Both perfectly credible regardless what PB Tories have to say. [ After all, the PB Tories have the good of Labour in their hearts !!!!!!!!! ]
“Piddle Valley” - I know the place very well, along with all the other piddles and puddles around the Dorchester area. Dorset has some real cracking place names and some quite charming little towns.
Indeed. I've even heard that it is one of the few counties where bookshops are opening, rather than closing...
Contrary to many perceptions, physical book sales are up, well up - in the USA as well as the UK. It's a bullish market.
I also note, with some personal glee, the fact that those annoying readers are "still demanding" gripping psychological thrillers despite the fact that agents and publishers are "really bored of them".
Yup. For both of our sakes, long may it continue. I have to keep reminding my lovely but blinkered consulting friends this. They see books as inefficient. I suggest that books not running out of battery makes them more efficient.
Interestingly, just like streaming increased music sales because people then know they want the object, I frequently sell antiquarian books to people because they've seen a section of it online and now know they want it...
I think we can also thank a generation of great British children's writers - from J K Rowling to Philip Pullman - plus some brilliant American authors of YA fiction like Twilight and the Hunger Games - who taught kids and teens that they could really enjoy owning and reading books. Actual, physical *books*.
Those kids and teens are now becoming adults, and they still want to own and read books.
Than God, praise be, and Phew!
Apart from their other many strengths books are tactile. The same applies to LP records and their jackets.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I disagree . Umunna does not strike me as particularly authentic at all - and is rumoured to have skeletons waiting to be pulled out.
Umunna has charisma and is telegenic, Starmer is neither just more competent and a shade more centrist than Corbyn
Starmer is way to the right of Corbyn - probably close to Hilary Benn. Umunna reaks of insincerity and I suspect he would not cope well with the pressures of leadership.
Labour's recovery is predicated on two distinct decisions:
1. Ousting Corbyn
2. SLAB becomes a distinct political party in Scotland [ like the SDLP in NI or electorally speaking as distinct from politically, like the CSU ] even with Scotland still in the UK.
SLAB could decide on its own Independence policy. If it wants to survive as an entity it has only one choice. Why should a left of centre pro-independence voter choose Labour today ?
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
I doubt it - a repeat of the 2015 result seems more realistic. Throw in some LD gains, though, and all of a sudden you have a hung Parliament.
In late 2015 and the early months of 2016 Labour was polling 33/34% in quite a few polls even under Corbyn. I would expect a new leader to do better than that - provided he/she is not a Corbynite nutter.
Corbyn's Labour actually outpolled Cameron's Tories in March/April 2016. This is surely proof, were it ever needed, that the posh boys were not an electoral asset...
“Piddle Valley” - I know the place very well, along with all the other piddles and puddles around the Dorchester area. Dorset has some real cracking place names and some quite charming little towns.
Indeed. I've even heard that it is one of the few counties where bookshops are opening, rather than closing...
Contrary to many perceptions, physical book sales are up, well up - in the USA as well as the UK. It's a bullish market.
I also note, with some personal glee, the fact that those annoying readers are "still demanding" gripping psychological thrillers despite the fact that agents and publishers are "really bored of them".
Yup. For both of our sakes, long may it continue. I have to keep reminding my lovely but blinkered consulting friends this. They see books as inefficient. I suggest that books not running out of battery makes them more efficient.
Interestingly, just like streaming increased music sales because people then know they want the object, I frequently sell antiquarian books to people because they've seen a section of it online and now know they want it...
I think we can also thank a generation of great British children's writers - from J K Rowling to Philip Pullman - plus some brilliant American authors of YA fiction like Twilight and the Hunger Games - who taught kids and teens that they could really enjoy owning and reading books. Actual, physical *books*.
Those kids and teens are now becoming adults, and they still want to own and read books.
Than God, praise be, and Phew!
Apart from their other many strengths books are tactile. The same applies to LP records and their jackets.
Labour's recovery is predicated on two distinct decisions:
1. Ousting Corbyn
2. SLAB becomes a distinct political party in Scotland [ like the SDLP in NI or electorally speaking as distinct from politically, like the CSU ] even with Scotland still in the UK.
SLAB could decide on its own Independence policy. If it wants to survive as an entity it has only one choice. Why should a left of centre pro-independence voter choose Labour today ?
Of course, a party in "terminal decline" cannot accept that fate otherwise there would be no point in being. The hard-core Labour vote departed for the SNP because:
1. The SNP has left wing policies and delivers on them.
2. They are pro-independence.
Why should a Unionist vote Labour today ? Yes, 15% do and that is where it will stay.
I agree with you re- the likes of Cat Smith and would expect little change at all were such a person to take over. As far as charisma is concerned, I suspect for now that is not what the electorate is looking for. Theresa May is hardly charismatic and I suspect that fits the national mood quite well and explains why quite a few non - Tories such as myself have warmed to her.We have had too many shysters such as Blair and Cameron.
Well - perhaps. But I think it's much easier for a PM to get away with a lack of charisma because while in office they can show unflappable competence and that gets attention. (Well, maybe that's an exaggeration in May's case but as PM she's always news. She doesn't have to go to the news channels, they come to her. She also doesn't have to say what she would do, she can just get on and do it.) As LotO, you need to find a way to attract that attention and get people to listen to you, because you can't prove yourself by results. That's one reason I think why ultimately Ed Miliband, who was a poor speaker and communicator although he had a number of potentially good ideas, proved a failure while Blair and Cameron succeeded.
Ed Milliband was just too geeky and unable to connect.I suspect that people such as Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer would do quite well up against Theresa May.
I could see Starmer as a Kinnock/Howard figure ie an effective opposition leader but not a PM. Someone like Umunna is more likely to be a future PM after another Labour defeat, the question is whether that is a humiliating Corbyn led defeat or a respectable Starmer (or similar) led defeat
I disagree . Umunna does not strike me as particularly authentic at all - and is rumoured to have skeletons waiting to be pulled out.
Umunna has charisma and is telegenic, Starmer is neither just more competent and a shade more centrist than Corbyn
Starmer is way to the right of Corbyn - probably close to Hilary Benn. Umunna reaks of insincerity and I suspect he would not cope well with the pressures of leadership.
To be honest your frequent value judgements of individuals on apparently Victorian moral bases makes me take your character judgements with a dollop of salt...
I think you guys are forgetting one simple fact. Kim has seen what has happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Giving up nuclear and/or biological stuff didn't help. The moment they give up, the West will get them anyway.
And, they are prepared to use a small one if they have to and are still capable of doing so. After all, an all-out US attack will not eliminate every single mobile unit.
What they are holding out for is a "guarantee" that the regime will be safe until they die.
A "settlement" could be thus:
1. DPRK gives up nuclear weapons with a guarantee. The Party becomes like the Chinese Communist Party. In other words, totally capitalistic and an "Asian" dictatorship.
Trump flies in, signs the accord and declares that he has saved the world ! It would be partly true.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Even if Labour did win 35%, the Tories would probably be on 43% or so.
If Labour gets to 35% at the GE it would mean that all current certainties have been turned totally on their heads. It would surely indicate that a very strong desire to get rid of the Tories had gripped the nation, so the LDs may well be getting tactical votes where they had a chance to unseat a Tory MP.
Historically, when the Labour vote goes up so does the LD's. The two run in tandem.
If you're referring to votes that's completely wrong:
If you're referring to MPs then its wrong 3/4 times:
1987 All down 1 MPs 1992 LD down 2 MPs 1997 LD up 28 MPs 2015 LD down 49 MPs
OK, I was wrong by being a bit too broadbrush. I meant seats rather than share, and the coupling is not complete, but to gain power LDs and Labour voters have to vote tactically. A tacit acceptance of that is needed.
The growth or otherwise of tactical voting nevertheless has nothing to do with whether each party's vote is rising or falling.
I think you guys are forgetting one simple fact. Kim has seen what has happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Giving up nuclear and/or biological stuff didn't help. The moment they give up, the West will get them anyway.
And, they are prepared to use a small one if they have to and are still capable of doing so. After all, an all-out US attack will not eliminate every single mobile unit.
What they are holding out for is a "guarantee" that the regime will be safe until they die.
A "settlement" could be thus:
1. DPRK gives up nuclear weapons with a guarantee. The Party becomes like the Chinese Communist Party. In other words, totally capitalistic and an "Asian" dictatorship.
Trump flies in, signs the accord and declares that he has saved the world ! It would be partly true.
And a gradual take over by South Korea takes place over 30 years. Remember the Unification tax paid by west Germans ?
Comments
That is unlikely to happen this time unless Fillon is victorious in which case France could revert to a Parliamentary system (which is actually what the text of the 1958 constitution stipulates - the President does not even have a veto on legislation) under the leadership of the Prime Minister.
However, the President can dissolve Parliament on his own initiative after 12 months, which is the sword of Damocles always hanging over the government.
How many LR members were there in 2012?
They also enable serials to make a return, as will happen with the fantastic Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger (think Outlaws of the Marsh meets Robin Hood) in a few weeks.
That said, I do get physical copies of history, because they're better for quick references and photos/maps etc.
Or to put it another way, the suggestion is that a party which performed worse in terms of the popular vote than John Major in 1997 and is languishing at William Hague like levels of support in the inter-election polls would merely by changing its leader achieve a vote share comparable to that of Blair in 2005. Can you see why that doesn't strike me as terribly plausible (especially when it's actually also a far better performance than any leader of the party other than Blair has managed since the 1970s)?
While an improvement is more than possible on a change of leader, an improvement of that magnitude would be truly remarkable.
Otherwise the coupling goes back a long time.
De Gaulle's referendum of 1962, which established that presidents would be directly elected, is widely held to have been unconstitutional, even if the Constitutional Council said it didn't have jurisdiction (sic). France was like a tinderbox at the time, and the alternative could have been civil war.
It's pretty much like a tinderbox now too.
It also rose in 2001 and 2005 as the Labour vote dipped substantially.
It didn't correct the underlying problems and their vote share still barely improved in the general election 18 months later.
Just saying 'a new leader might help' doesn't help if the new leader is Cat Smith (the only woman in the known universe more dishonest than a Trump mouthpiece) or Clive Lewis (who makes jokes about having sex with goats) or Emily Thornberry (who has persistently passed herself off as an ex-army officer). Edited because the quote had vanished.
(My source is the wiki page on opinion polling for the 2005 election)
2015 Lab +1.5%, LD -15.9%
2010 Lab -6.2%, LD +1.0%
2005 Lab -5.5%, LD +3.7%
2001 Lab -2.5% ,LD +1.5%
1997 Lab +8.8% ,LD -1.0%
1992 Lab +3.6%, LD -4.8%
1987 Lab +3.2%, ALL -2.8%
1983 Lab -9.3%, ALL +11.6%
If you're referring to MPs then its wrong 3/4 times:
1987 All down 1 MPs
1992 LD down 2 MPs
1997 LD up 28 MPs
2015 LD down 49 MPs
https://twitter.com/glennbarclay/status/852940516635193344
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/852939570266222593
Edit - this is a bettter source for you:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
If so, might it be that some of her supporters think she can't win the Final so are switching to their 2nd choice (presumably largely Melenchon) who will have a better chance in the Final.
I was initially surprised that Melenchon rates so well in the run-off match-ups - presumably this is because he gets a lot of support from Le Pen voters?
Well, this is one of the more minor ones!
Edit - I would think re. YouGov the problem was most likely it was heavily skewed towards Telegraph readers, who would be reading the results of it.
https://youtu.be/zB4I68XVPzQ
I wonder how many times we will hear that on GE night in 2020 ?
Only if Corbyn is leader. Huge opportunity for Labour if they get a credible leader. The Brexit fallout could be an open goal for them.
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
ok - but the pollsters always give us GB figures.
A fair point. But the election results are UK wide. I appreciate it does make for difficulties.
What about Scotland? the Labour Party used to have the majority of seats there, now they have one, the same as the Tories and Lib/Dems.
I doubt that the SNP vote would disappear just because Labour found itself a new leader and the Tories could bring back the vote Labour and get the SNP message which will frighten many voters in the rest of the UK into voting Tory.
Much of the UKIP 2015 vote could also go to the Tories if the government bring in a Brexit which cuts immigration.
Nope! I think Labour can write off the 2020 election and start planning for 2025.
YouGov 08/05/04 Con 40, Lab 36, LD 18
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
I think replacing Corbyn would certainly improve Labours chances, but it would take a couple of years at least to establish electoral credibility.
If Corbyn departs, 35% for Labour in 2020 would be a realistic possibility.
Since 1980, only one Labour leader has managed to poll 35% or higher in a general election, in which time no fewer than five Labour leaders have fought elections. They will be starting from a low base as well and have their credibility shattered by years of infighting.
You keep saying that Labour has a chance of this, but practically everything tells against it. Labour have no coherent policy position (one of the reasons Corbyn won is because his opponents had no vision or imagination - while Corbyn's agenda is nonsensical it is at least distinctive). They have no significant intellectual or political figures left in their ranks, with the possible exception of Benn. They are faced with a Conservative leadership that is markedly more populist and also markedly less privileged than at any time in the last 25 years. They are also faced with a radical, long term and structural decline in their vote that leaves them vulnerable to pressure on the left as well.
I will say again - Corbyn is a serious problem. But he is not Labour's only problem. Electing him made matters worse, but the suggestion that a four point improvement on their 2015 position under current circumstances is likely with any leader is merely wishful thinking. If they can get back to 33% and hold most of the seats they currently have they will have done very well.
Neil Kinnock polled 35.2% in GB in the 1992 election .
34.4% actually, including Northern Ireland (which all my figures do).
ok - but the pollsters always give us GB figures.
A fair point. But the election results are UK wide. I appreciate it does make for difficulties.
What about Scotland? the Labour Party used to have the majority of seats there, now they have one, the same as the Tories and Lib/Dems.
I doubt that the SNP vote would disappear just because Labour found itself a new leader and the Tories could bring back the vote Labour and get the SNP message which will frighten many voters in the rest of the UK into voting Tory.
Much of the UKIP 2015 vote could also go to the Tories if the government bring in a Brexit which cuts immigration.
Nope! I think Labour can write off the 2020 election and start planning for 2025.
I suspect that most of UKIP vote likely to switch back to the Tories has already gone. Its residual vote is likely to be much less Tory friendly.
Edit: It isn't.
There's a story in the Daily Mail that's funny.
This is the general law on this matter.
Any Labour leader [ after replacing Corbyn ] will add 5% to the Labour vote as a minimum.
We know that North Korea has nukes, but we do not yet know whether they have turned them into deliverable warheads.
Tanks may well be needed to take the smoking rubble. I suspect that the North Korean troops will fold like Saddams in the Gulf wars.
One for us to sit out though.
It won't be a good stand in for the colossal, prize-winning, and life-terminating-when-thrown turnips that I'd like to hurl at Brown, but it'll do for the time being.
But there is no easy equivalent for dogearing pages or making pencil notes in the margins.
I actually think there is not a great deal to be gained from trying to look so far ahead - it is just ridiculous to pretend that we can know the shape of the political jigsaw in 2020. As I said earlier, just look at how things have shifted in the last year.
Then led the opposition for twelve years and couldn't win an election no matter what mistakes de Valera made. For why? Because he couldn't grab attention when he didn't have the power to do things.
I think charisma or at least an ability to command attention is essential to win elections from opposition.
Abbott, McDonnell, Thornberry would all clearly be worse, and worse from day one. Others would only show their inadequacies a little later.
He has several assets but charisma (or even personality) certainly isn't one of them.
Edit: I see you've now edited your comment to add "and telegenic".
Yes, that's an asset. But charisma still isn't in the mix.
1. Ousting Corbyn
2. SLAB becomes a distinct political party in Scotland [ like the SDLP in NI or electorally speaking as distinct from politically, like the CSU ] even with Scotland still in the UK.
SLAB could decide on its own Independence policy. If it wants to survive as an entity it has only one choice. Why should a left of centre pro-independence voter choose Labour today ?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7rJIMZYR7g
But I still think you are far too optimistic about Labour's prospects under a new leader.
I am off again. Have a good evening everyone.
I would not include Thornberry in that list anyway.
Personally, I am sticking with Labour only to be given a chance to vote Starmer v Cooper.
Both perfectly credible regardless what PB Tories have to say. [ After all, the PB Tories have the good of Labour in their hearts !!!!!!!!! ]
The same applies to LP records and their jackets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinyl_revival
Umunna reaks of insincerity and I suspect he would not cope well with the pressures of leadership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP35YKjHPkc
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/labour-should-stop-indulging-its-scottish-party-and-broker-progressive
1. The SNP has left wing policies and delivers on them.
2. They are pro-independence.
Why should a Unionist vote Labour today ? Yes, 15% do and that is where it will stay.
SLAB has to be become pro-independence.
And, they are prepared to use a small one if they have to and are still capable of doing so. After all, an all-out US attack will not eliminate every single mobile unit.
What they are holding out for is a "guarantee" that the regime will be safe until they die.
A "settlement" could be thus:
1. DPRK gives up nuclear weapons with a guarantee. The Party becomes like the Chinese Communist Party. In other words, totally capitalistic and an "Asian" dictatorship.
Trump flies in, signs the accord and declares that he has saved the world ! It would be partly true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChlNVNbWCHs
If they fight they will be slaughtered, I feel almost sorry for them.