Both Swinson and Lamb are decent media performers - essential in the modern age. Getting on the media is another matter.
The LibDems require a big hitter, a big beast who will get noticed and that means Uncle Vince. He has the name recognition, experience and gravitas for the post.
Cable for leader, Swinson as deputy and leader in waiting and a big campaigning role for Lamb.
Sorted ... next ...
Sorted, except for the minor details that Vince is older than the existing party leaders, had repeatedly said he doesn't want the job, and LibDem private forums are full of 'anyone but Vince' posts right now.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
Boris could only be a candidate for GE2022, after all the negotiations were finished and we'd left.
He'd need a very, very strong team around him, and would need to get much better at interviews and debates.
27% of voters support the DUP deal, 48% oppose it.
While Johnson, Davis and Rudd do better with Tories than voters as a whole, Davidson and Hammond do equally well with Tories and all voters which is interesting
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
One of the largest cheers of the night was when Dimbleby on QT challenged La Thornberry over it.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I were a Labour member now is the time I would be starting to worry about it. McDonnell is advocating a position that the vast majority of members, CLPs, MPs and unions are opposed to. With that and his calls for a million people out on the streets to bring the Tories down, he is beginning to get a bit too explicit in what he is all about. Voters may start to notice - though it would need the Tories to get their act together first.
In 2010 Labour already had by far the most seats in Scotland and beyond Fife North East there are not many more seats in Scotland the LDs are in second place to the SNP and can target
Some of the Tory-held seats may be targets though
Not many e.g. the LDs used to hold Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk which now has a comfortable Tory majority
Mr Johnson was more divisive among voters in general as 45 per cent said he was not up to the job, the highest of the four top contenders. The figure was 38 per cent for Ms Rudd, 30 per cent for Mr Davis and 25 per cent for Ms Davidson. Mr Johnson was thought to be incompetent by 43 per cent, with 27 per cent thinking he was competent; 38 per cent thought he would not be able to handle Brexit compared with 32 per cent who thought he would.
The foreign secretary was thought likeable by 54 per cent, better than Ms Davidson (27 per cent), Ms Rudd (14 per cent) and Mr Davis (19 per cent).
27% of voters support the DUP deal, 48% oppose it.
While Johnson, Davis and Rudd do better with Tories than voters as a whole, Davidson and Hammond do equally well with Tories and all voters which is interesting
Boris and Ruth are the only two that stand a chance of tapping the DNV and anti establishment vote, Boris carrying a very marmite risk with him.
Interesting but bonkers. If the economist thinks Isleworth went from a Labour majority of 400 to one of 14,000 because they campaigned on nationa rather than local issues then I think they shoud re-read their copy of 'Voters Parties and Leaders' and try again.
It takes a very big issue to get 14,000 voters to change their minds in two years and whether or not the bins were emptied isn't that.
It was BREXIT. If they had wanted to get more votes in London Mrs May should not have behaved as though it was her idea or she would inevitably get people riled.
I canvassed and got out the vote for Labour in this constituency. I spoke to some Con activists and I didn't see much difference logistically between the operations of both parties. We both had imperfect voter lists and neither of us were really campaigning on local issues, because there aren't any huge local issues. The Labour candidate didn't tow the party line and kept Corbyn off her leaflets, which suggests a greater degree of autonomy than suggested in this article. But I think the local Con activists are wrong to think they could have done better with a differently run local campaign: it was the manifesto and TV performances that scuppered May, and TV performances and social media that won votes for Labour. In an era of instant mass communications, "ground game" is only relevant in marginals which, as it turned out, B&I never was.
Vince is the heavyweight the LDs need with Brexit coming up, there may not be another general election for 5 years
No.
The Tories and SNP will both want to stop an early election and once Brexit talks get underway they will dominate all, the LDs should pick a heavyweight for the Brexit period and they can always pick another leader for the election later on
I would have thought all the smaller parties (SNP, PC, Greens and even the LibDems) don’t want an election immediately for financial reasons.
Two swift elections in a row strongly biases the die to the two big parties with the financial clout.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
The challenge for the Tories is to hold onto almost all the 42% they got last Thursday to keep Corbyn out as John Major did in 1992 when he held almost all the 42% Thatcher got in 1987 to keep out Kinnock. Hammond would probably be best placed to do that but Boris is not badly placed, he still leads most polls of preferred next Tory leader, the only potential candidate who really is toxic is Gove who has a huge net negative rating
The last poll I saw had Boris as a net drag on the Tory vote.
Not as much as Gove was and Boris also had the highest positive rating, just he also had the second highest negative after Gove
27% of voters support the DUP deal, 48% oppose it.
The leadership question is not good for Boris. Since he is the only candidate we can be sure everyone knows anything about, that is probably his ceiling. He needs to stand in order to remain a big hitter, and should do well in the early rounds but based on that poll, Foreign Secretary is as good as it gets.
Tories only elect strong personalities as a last resort. Only when there is no alternative will they put up with someone with an independent mind and talent capable of taking the party in a given direction.
Churchill, Thatcher and Cameron were products of the dire state of the story party at the time. Otherwise they go for grey men and women with no discernible will of their own that will not rock the boat.
To determine the outcome of the next Tory leadership campaign you have to figure out whether the Tories will be ready to roll the dice (Boris) or go with someone safe and dull that they can control (Hammond).
Vince is the heavyweight the LDs need with Brexit coming up, there may not be another general election for 5 years
No.
The Tories and SNP will both want to stop an early election and once Brexit talks get underway they will dominate all, the LDs should pick a heavyweight for the Brexit period and they can always pick another leader for the election later on
I would have thought all the smaller parties (SNP, PC, Greens and even the LibDems) don’t want an election immediately for financial reasons.
Two swift elections in a row strongly biases the die to the two big parties with the financial clout.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
The challenge for the Tories is to hold onto almost all the 42% they got last Thursday to keep Corbyn out as John Major did in 1992 when he held almost all the 42% Thatcher got in 1987 to keep out Kinnock. Hammond would probably be best placed to do that but Boris is not badly placed, he still leads most polls of preferred next Tory leader, the only potential candidate who really is toxic is Gove who has a huge net negative rating
Boris would be a disaster for you. There is a lot of dissatisfaction around and people face serious problems in their lives. Boris's instinct is to look first for the humour in every situation, and to show off how clever he is, and as the economy turns downwards that would turn people away in droves.
Plus there isn't any distance between him and Brexit at all, since without him the mistake probably wouldn't have been made.
If Jo runs, she wins I think. I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.
Lamb will be the establishment candidate, the establishmentcandidate always loses from Ashdown v beith right through to farron. Even hughne was the "establishment" candidate over cleggbut that time it was more an age issue and that Clegg would get his turn.
What nonsense.
Ashdown beating Beith was anti-establishment beating establishment.
There was no serious establishment candidate in 1999 when Kennedy won but let's say another anti-establishment win for the sake of argument.
But Menzies Cambell beating Chris Huhne, and Nick Clegg beating Chris Huhne were both establishment wins. There is no sensible way to spin it otherwise.
Additionally, it is not clear what "establishment" means at this point. Swinson is likely to be the outgoing leader's strong preference, as Lamb was in 2015. But does that make her "establishment" or him?
You're positing a rule that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
I forgot Cambell v Huhne, yes a win for those whobelieve in the "less risk" more established candidate I am just saying the electorate will vote for who they see as the more exciting candidate and best campaigner over safety first.
I think it reasonable to assume that one consequence of this tragic event is that the £7bn refurbishment of Westminster is unlikely to go ahead until every council flat in London has been upgraded
Jo Swinson appears to me to be a lightweight from what I have seen of her on the TV - personally I am supporting Ed Davey and giving Jo Swinson in the Deputy Leader's job.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
That's right.
Actually, the target voter information was very good, in my experience. The people we were contacting *were* the swing voters (and Con-identifiers to shore up). The problem was that in the last fortnight of the campaign, those swing voters were swinging to Labour.
Vince is the heavyweight the LDs need with Brexit coming up, there may not be another general election for 5 years
No.
The Tories and SNP will both want to stop an early election and once Brexit talks get underway they will dominate all, the LDs should pick a heavyweight for the Brexit period and they can always pick another leader for the election later on
Firstly, there's every chance of an early election. Your confidence that the SNP are safely onside is incredibly misplaced. There is no rule to say they will fall in the polls, having an election is no longer all downside risk for them, and it's hard for them not to support a motion of no confidence as it looks awful.
Secondly, there may in any event be an election promptly after any Brexit deal. Under your approach, there would be a brand new LD leader then, who has had no chance to plot a strategy, make changes to the party, or impress themselves on the public consciousness.
Finally, Brexit is going to be led by a Conservative/DUP Government, with the LDs as fourth party in Parliament. They are not irrelevant due to the maths, but nor are they in a lead role. It's absolutely the sort of thing a new leader ought to cut their teeth on. What is the point of being a leader if not to do exactly that? And it is not even as if Cable is such a political colossus that he's eminently more able to do it (and I like him - just he's not Gladstone or Disraeli for goodness sake).
What exactly is soft Brexit? I've heard various suggestions - all different, and all based on the premise that the EU will happily concede it.
Wasn't that the criticism of Leave?
Depending upon your stance, soft Brexit is either just enough Brexit to keep the headbangers onside without crashing the economy, the Brexit you really wanted all along but didn't say so, or Brexit in name only which will lead to rioting and Farage being appointed ruler by public proclamation.
In 2010 Labour already had by far the most seats in Scotland and beyond Fife North East there are not many more seats in Scotland the LDs are in second place to the SNP and can target
Some of the Tory-held seats may be targets though
Not many e.g. the LDs used to hold Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk which now has a comfortable Tory majority
The last 2 elections have shown there is no such thing as a safe seat in Scotland
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
Boris could only be a candidate for GE2022, after all the negotiations were finished and we'd left.
He'd need a very, very strong team around him, and would need to get much better at interviews and debates.
You need a reluctant Leaver. Someone who respects the vote but who is not religiously fixated on Brexit as a principle and instead sees it as just a transactional process that will involve compromises and upsetting the right wing press. Such a person widens the electorate to all but the most convinced Remainers. Hammond or Rudd fit the bill.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I were a Labour member now is the time I would be starting to worry about it. McDonnell is advocating a position that the vast majority of members, CLPs, MPs and unions are opposed to. With that and his calls for a million people out on the streets to bring the Tories down, he is beginning to get a bit too explicit in what he is all about. Voters may start to notice - though it would need the Tories to get their act together first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
One of the largest cheers of the night was when Dimbleby on QT challenged La Thornberry over it.
Very true, and she had to read Dimbleby's notes to see exactly what she had said in the past.
Labour's position on Europe is every bit as confused as the Tories.
Are the LD MPs preparing to prop up May's coalition of chaos?
I think the Lib Dems and the SNP will not want the government to fail at this stage and the DUP will not want Corbyn as PM. I expect the conservatives to stay in Government and that TM will stand aside in tne Autumn for her successor
I think it reasonable to assume that one consequence of this tragic event is that the £7bn refurbishment of Westminster is unlikely to go ahead until every council flat in London has been upgraded
If Jo runs, she wins I think. I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.
Lamb will be the establishment candidate, the establishmentcandidate always loses from Ashdown v beith right through to farron. Even hughne was the "establishment" candidate over cleggbut that time it was more an age issue and that Clegg would get his turn.
What nonsense.
Ashdown beating Beith was anti-establishment beating establishment.
There was no serious establishment candidate in 1999 when Kennedy won but let's say another anti-establishment win for the sake of argument.
But Menzies Cambell beating Chris Huhne, and Nick Clegg beating Chris Huhne were both establishment wins. There is no sensible way to spin it otherwise.
Additionally, it is not clear what "establishment" means at this point. Swinson is likely to be the outgoing leader's strong preference, as Lamb was in 2015. But does that make her "establishment" or him?
You're positing a rule that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Except, like most political parties, there is a powerful clique based around various members of the House of Lords that likes to think that it runs the party. It passed most people by, but Farron's last act prior to receiving the deputation from along the corridor was to announce a deputy leadership election amongst the MPs (in the last parliament he didn't bother), and his email to all members contained a fairly obvious steer that he wanted a woman in the role. Which has to be Swinson, given that all the others are new.
So Farron intended to make Swinson his heir apparent, pre-empting the contest that was likely to arise when Tim stood down not wanting to face another GE, and some members of the Lords didn't like it - is the assumption doing the rounds in LD circles.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
Boris could only be a candidate for GE2022, after all the negotiations were finished and we'd left.
He'd need a very, very strong team around him, and would need to get much better at interviews and debates.
You need a reluctant Leaver. Someone who respects the vote but who is not religiously fixated on Brexit as a principle and instead sees it as just a transactional process that will involve compromises and upsetting the right wing press. Such a person widens the electorate to all but the most convinced Remainers. Hammond or Rudd fit the bill.
May was supposed to be a reluctent leaver.
But we need a pragmatist, someone to accurate access the options and make the best one, regardless of what has happened in the past.
Were any of those expenses wrongly claimed? Did any have to be repaid?
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
Boris could only be a candidate for GE2022, after all the negotiations were finished and we'd left.
He'd need a very, very strong team around him, and would need to get much better at interviews and debates.
You need a reluctant Leaver. Someone who respects the vote but who is not religiously fixated on Brexit as a principle and instead sees it as just a transactional process that will involve compromises and upsetting the right wing press. Such a person widens the electorate to all but the most convinced Remainers. Hammond or Rudd fit the bill.
Were any of those expenses wrongly claimed? Did any have to be repaid?
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
Exactly. If all MPs claimed fairly and honestly, we would expect those with the most remote constituencies to claim the most.
Were any of those expenses wrongly claimed? Did any have to be repaid?
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
'There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.'
Hurray for the huge decrease in accommodation and travel costs over the last 2 years.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
Boris could only be a candidate for GE2022, after all the negotiations were finished and we'd left.
He'd need a very, very strong team around him, and would need to get much better at interviews and debates.
You need a reluctant Leaver. Someone who respects the vote but who is not religiously fixated on Brexit as a principle and instead sees it as just a transactional process that will involve compromises and upsetting the right wing press. Such a person widens the electorate to all but the most convinced Remainers. Hammond or Rudd fit the bill.
May was supposed to be a reluctent leaver.
But we need a pragmatist, someone to accurate access the options and make the best one, regardless of what has happened in the past.
May prioritised positive headlines in the Daily Mail above everything else. Like many politicians before her - including a number in New Labour - she confused the Mail with middle England. The two are not the same.
If Jo runs, she wins I think. I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.
There is an election by the 12 LibDem MPs for Deputy Leader with the result to be announced by 27 June at the latest i.e. very soon.
So this leaves the four potential contenders for Leader in a quandry. Do they let their names go forward for Deputy Leader or not? I suspect that Jo Swinson will run for Deputy Leader and will be elected unanimously. This will allow her to be tested and gain the experience needed to become the leader in say two years time. We'll know in the next few days.
In the meantime we need an experienced heavyweight who can "cut through" in the media and is willing to stand down in say two years time (after Mar 2019) to allow Swinson to become leader. That person is Cable.
I don't like Cable and I'd hate to work for him. He is full of conceit and a loose cannon because of it. Nevertheless, if he promises not to go into coalition with the Tories under any circumstances, I will hold my nose and vote for him as Leader.
I think the Scottish dimension is very tactical, quite suspect and basically irrelevant.
The Jacobite News Network understands that the Prime Minister will again visit the North Kensington area this evening. It is her intention, this time, to meet residents of the locality.
Local celebrity and Conservative donor Sir Jasper Gore-Dithering speaking from his £10m flat said he was thrilled that the Prime Minister would be attending his annual cocktail party in aid of distressed former bankers. He and his neighbours were especially keen to discuss with Mrs May the eyesores that have sprung up in the area in the past few days - derelict flats unfit for human habitation and Jerermy Corbyn.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
That's right.
Actually, the target voter information was very good, in my experience. The people we were contacting *were* the swing voters (and Con-identifiers to shore up). The problem was that in the last fortnight of the campaign, those swing voters were swinging to Labour.
They were swing voters in the sense of being non-Tories who *might* swing Tory, but in the event didn't.
The swing voters you needed to be contacting were those who were Tories, but might swing away.
If Jo runs, she wins I think. I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.
There is an election by the 12 LibDem MPs for Deputy Leader with the result to be announced by 27 June at the latest i.e. very soon.
So this leaves the four potential contenders for Leader in a quandry. Do they let their names go forward for Deputy Leader or not? I suspect that Jo Swinson will run for Deputy Leader and will be elected unanimously. This will allow her to be tested and gain the experience needed to become the leader in say two years time. We'll know in the next few days.
In the meantime we need an experienced heavyweight who can "cut through" in the media and is willing to stand down in say two years time (after Mar 2019) to allow Swinson to become leader. That person is Cable.
I don't like Cable and I'd hate to work for him. He is full of conceit and a loose cannon because of it. Nevertheless, if he promises not to go into coalition with the Tories under any circumstances, I will hold my nose and vote for him as Leader.
I think the Scottish dimension is very tactical, quite suspect and basically irrelevant.
Surely they will do the sensible thing and defer the deputy election until after?
If Jo runs, she wins I think. I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.
Lamb will be the establishment candidate, the establishmentcandidate always loses from Ashdown v beith right through to farron. Even hughne was the "establishment" candidate over cleggbut that time it was more an age issue and that Clegg would get his turn.
What nonsense.
Ashdown beating Beith was anti-establishment beating establishment.
There was no serious establishment candidate in 1999 when Kennedy won but let's say another anti-establishment win for the sake of argument.
But Menzies Cambell beating Chris Huhne, and Nick Clegg beating Chris Huhne were both establishment wins. There is no sensible way to spin it otherwise.
Additionally, it is not clear what "establishment" means at this point. Swinson is likely to be the outgoing leader's strong preference, as Lamb was in 2015. But does that make her "establishment" or him?
You're positing a rule that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Except, like most political parties, there is a powerful clique based around various members of the House of Lords that likes to think that it runs the party. It passed most people by, but Farron's last act prior to receiving the deputation from along the corridor was to announce a deputy leadership election amongst the MPs (in the last parliament he didn't bother), and his email to all members contained a fairly obvious steer that he wanted a woman in the role. Which has to be Swinson, given that all the others are new.
So Farron intended to make Swinson his heir apparent, pre-empting the contest that was likely to arise when Tim stood down not wanting to face another GE, and some members of the Lords didn't like it - is the assumption doing the rounds in LD circles.
But there was going to be a contest in any event. Had Farron manoeuvred Swinson into a leading role before standing down (which he might have intended) that may have given her a small, perhaps crucial, boost. It wouldn't have avoided an election.
Indeed, the fact there is a contest for deputy leader allows male contenders for leader to say, "Of course women in leadership roles is important, and that's why I am so delighted at the prospect of Jo being deputy leader and so vocal in my support of her bid for that role".
What's has prince Andrew done to upset the remain in the EU side ;-)
With his usual immaculate timing he's decided to jump on the 'wonderful opportunities of Brexit' bus. I suspect those opportunities would mostly consist of loads of trade jollies for Prince Andrew.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's not for party political purposes. It's for factional purposes. However, I think McDonnell is a lot more extreme than Corbyn - he is much more doctrinaire and Marxist, and does not share Corbyn's interests in things like environmentalism and the arts. I suspect Labour can come to a coherent position if Corbyn does rein McDonnell in, but whether he wants to or not is another matter entirely. That said, I do not see how either of them can whip Labour MPs into supporting a hard Brexit when the MPs are much more representative of CLP, member and union views than the leadership is.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
That's right.
Actually, the target voter information was very good, in my experience. The people we were contacting *were* the swing voters (and Con-identifiers to shore up). The problem was that in the last fortnight of the campaign, those swing voters were swinging to Labour.
They were swing voters in the sense of being non-Tories who *might* swing Tory, but in the event didn't.
The swing voters you needed to be contacting were those who were Tories, but might swing away.
We needed to contact both. We lost by 2100 votes, despite adding some 6000 votes on to our 2015 total, when we lost by 2600.
But the people I was contacting on that election eve were people who *had* previously been identified as Tory. Ironically, on election day itself, when I was contacting the model-generated swing voters (plus pledges), it felt a little better - hence my revision in prediction to 'a small majority' (though that was only about as far out as my original Wednesday post of 'Con 300').
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
It is quite the most appalling tragedy and anger is understandable and must be allowed to be vented. However it has to be hoped that it does not descend into something more serious.
Will we see some capital flight once/if it becomes clear Corbyn will win next time?
If interest rates do go up that is going to hurt an awful lot of homeowners who are currently just about managing. Throw in a Brexit downturn on top and it will start to get very difficult indeed for the Tories.
Were any of those expenses wrongly claimed? Did any have to be repaid?
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
'There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.'
Hurray for the huge decrease in accommodation and travel costs over the last 2 years.
So you and the SNP don't want to pay maternity leave. Cruel bastards.
Swinson said that her staffing costs had been increased because three members of staff had been on maternity leave.
She said: “Last year my staffing costs were significantly higher than usual due to the need to provide cover for three members of staff who were on maternity leave. All other budgets were underspent as usual. I’m proud of the service my excellent team of staff helped me provide to my constituents.”
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This be false.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
That's right.
Actually, the target voter information was very good, in my experience. The people we were contacting *were* the swing voters (and Con-identifiers to shore up). The problem was that in the last fortnight of the campaign, those swing voters were swinging to Labour.
They were swing voters in the sense of being non-Tories who *might* swing Tory, but in the event didn't.
The swing voters you needed to be contacting were those who were Tories, but might swing away.
We needed to contact both. We lost by 2100 votes, despite adding some 6000 votes on to our 2015 total, when we lost by 2600.
But the people I was contacting on that election eve were people who *had* previously been identified as Tory. Ironically, on election day itself, when I was contacting the model-generated swing voters (plus pledges), it felt a little better - hence my revision in prediction to 'a small majority' (though that was only about as far out as my original Wednesday post of 'Con 300').
I still think the fundamental problem with canvassing, as a means of sensing the election, is that it struggles to contact younger voters, who are more likely to be at work, out on the town, or not the person who answers the door.
There is a huge disconnect between what Labour canvassers report from the doorstep and the YouGov model indicating a hung parliament was nailed on from around 24 May. Sure, some voters probably gave the canvasser a hard time then voted Labour anyway. But it remains my view (based partly on my own experience in two local elections) that canvassing simply doesn't reach as many voters in their 20s and early 30s.
'There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.'
Hurray for the huge decrease in accommodation and travel costs over the last 2 years.
Oh dear, Divot falls for the spin, again... What is clear is that in four of the five expenses categories, the SNPs MPs have been more expensive than their predecessors despite their claims covering at least a month less.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
While the Tories obsess about Europe, people burn to death.
Nero-esque levels of incompetence by May to not visit any of the residents yesterday.
If Jo runs, she wins I think. I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.
There is an election by the 12 LibDem MPs for Deputy Leader with the result to be announced by 27 June at the latest i.e. very soon.
So this leaves the four potential contenders for Leader in a quandry. Do they let their names go forward for Deputy Leader or not? I suspect that Jo Swinson will run for Deputy Leader and will be elected unanimously. This will allow her to be tested and gain the experience needed to become the leader in say two years time. We'll know in the next few days.
In the meantime we need an experienced heavyweight who can "cut through" in the media and is willing to stand down in say two years time (after Mar 2019) to allow Swinson to become leader. That person is Cable.
I don't like Cable and I'd hate to work for him. He is full of conceit and a loose cannon because of it. Nevertheless, if he promises not to go into coalition with the Tories under any circumstances, I will hold my nose and vote for him as Leader.
I think the Scottish dimension is very tactical, quite suspect and basically irrelevant.
Surely they will do the sensible thing and defer the deputy election until after?
They haven't yet. I agree it is the sensible thing.
At 17:08 on Wednesday I got an email from Farron saying nominations had opened for the position of Deputy :Leader. At 18:38 I got another announcing his resignation.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
It is quite the most appalling tragedy and anger is understandable and must be allowed to be vented. However it has to be hoped that it does not descend into something more serious.
Unfotunately there will be those who seek to cause trouble, anarchists, various marxist groups and others. The organisers should say up front they are not welcome because if it goes wrong the current mood of "how can peoplebe expected to live like that in such potential death traps" will disappear being replced by a much nastier attitude.
Will we see some capital flight once/if it becomes clear Corbyn will win next time?
If interest rates do go up that is going to hurt an awful lot of homeowners who are currently just about managing. Throw in a Brexit downturn on top and it will start to get very difficult indeed for the Tories.
Depends if it'll be even worse under labour. I expect we will only find out if they're given an opportunity.
Were any of those expenses wrongly claimed? Did any have to be repaid?
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
'There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.'
Hurray for the huge decrease in accommodation and travel costs over the last 2 years.
If you bothered to look at the detail of the expenses claims rather than banging your usual drum, you'd see Nicolson's travel expenses were much higher than Swinson's, but accommodation expenses much lower (one assumes he traveled back more and possibly had alternative accommodation in the capital).
The difference in expenses is that Nicolson wasn't spending on staff. Whether he used SNP Short money in some way instead (which is also the public purse) or just didn't bother having much of an operation for casework etc (which may help explain his crushing defeat last week) I do not know.
Will we see some capital flight once/if it becomes clear Corbyn will win next time?
If interest rates do go up that is going to hurt an awful lot of homeowners who are currently just about managing. Throw in a Brexit downturn on top and it will start to get very difficult indeed for the Tories.
Maybe but just how does a far left Corbyn government do anything but make the problems far, far, worse
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
While the Tories obsess about Europe, people burn to death.
It's not for party political purposes. It's for factional purposes. However, I think McDonnell is a lot more extreme than Corbyn - he is much more doctrinaire and Marxist, and does not share Corbyn's interests in things like environmentalism and the arts. I suspect Labour can come to a coherent position if Corbyn does rein McDonnell in, but whether he wants to or not is another matter entirely. That said, I do not see how either of them can whip Labour MPs into supporting a hard Brexit when the MPs are much more representative of CLP, member and union views than the leadership is.
That's true. I can easily see the PLP telling them to go do one, re a Hard Brexit. Someone only needs to ask why a Labour Chancellor is busy mimicking the Rees-Mogg, IDS', Redwood, Bone and co. position on Brexit.
One of the reasons why Corbyn/McDonnell were so strong and difficult to budge when the PLP wasn't happy with them is that they had CLP/membership/McCluskey backing. They would be advised to not pursue a Brexit that neither the PLP, CLPs, the membership, or the unions like.
The Independent says it's banned in the USA for buildings more than 40 feet high, and that the fire-resistant version would have cost £5000 more. And the BBC says the death toll could exceed 60 ...
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
While the Tories obsess about Europe, people burn to death.
Nero-esque levels of incompetence by May to not visit any of the residents yesterday.
It will, I think, provoke a reaction against the world we have allowed to grow up around us. One love will be replaced by one rage.
Were any of those expenses wrongly claimed? Did any have to be repaid?
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
'There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.'
Hurray for the huge decrease in accommodation and travel costs over the last 2 years.
So you and the SNP don't want to pay maternity leave. Cruel bastards.
Swinson said that her staffing costs had been increased because three members of staff had been on maternity leave.
She said: “Last year my staffing costs were significantly higher than usual due to the need to provide cover for three members of staff who were on maternity leave. All other budgets were underspent as usual. I’m proud of the service my excellent team of staff helped me provide to my constituents.”
Fertile buggers those LDs. Was there an outbreak of procreation in Malky Bruce's office also?
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
It is quite the most appalling tragedy and anger is understandable and must be allowed to be vented. However it has to be hoped that it does not descend into something more serious.
Unfotunately there will be those who seek to cause trouble, anarchists, various marxist groups and others. The organisers should say up front they are not welcome because if it goes wrong the current mood of "how can peoplebe expected to live like that in such potential death traps" will disappear being replced by a much nastier attitude.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's not for party political purposes. It's for factional purposes. However, I think McDonnell is a lot more extreme than Corbyn - he is much more doctrinaire and Marxist, and does not share Corbyn's interests in things like environmentalism and the arts. I suspect Labour can come to a coherent position if Corbyn does rein McDonnell in, but whether he wants to or not is another matter entirely. That said, I do not see how either of them can whip Labour MPs into supporting a hard Brexit when the MPs are much more representative of CLP, member and union views than the leadership is.
The narrative has changed against the government. There is little they can do. They can change leader, give freebies etc etc but Corbyn is looking more like a leader everyday as much as it pains me to say it.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
Will we see some capital flight once/if it becomes clear Corbyn will win next time?
If interest rates do go up that is going to hurt an awful lot of homeowners who are currently just about managing. Throw in a Brexit downturn on top and it will start to get very difficult indeed for the Tories.
I think the BoE will prioritise low interest rates over low inflation whilst the A50 negotiations are still underway.
The inflation we have has largely resulted from a devaluation of the pound. I'm struggling to see how raising interest rates in response to that helps, and it should recover once the shape of the new deal is clear and the uncertainty ends.
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson comigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egof the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?
Boris could only be a candidate for GE2022, after all the negotiations were finished and we'd left.
He'd need a very, very strong team around him, and would need to get much better at interviews and debates.
You need a reluctant Leaver. Someone who respects the vote but who is not religiously fixated on Brexit as a principle and instead sees it as just a transactional process that will involve compromises and upsetting the right wing press. Such a person widens the electorate to all but the most convinced Remainers. Hammond or Rudd fit the bill.
May was supposed to be a reluctent leaver.
But we need a pragmatist, someone to accurate access the options and make the best one, regardless of what has happened in the past.
...and whom you would be happy to go to the pub with.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's not for party political purposes. It's for factional purposes. However, I think McDonnell is a lot more extreme than Corbyn - he is much more doctrinaire and Marxist, and does not share Corbyn's interests in things like environmentalism and the arts. I suspect Labour can come to a coherent position if Corbyn does rein McDonnell in, but whether he wants to or not is another matter entirely. That said, I do not see how either of them can whip Labour MPs into supporting a hard Brexit when the MPs are much more representative of CLP, member and union views than the leadership is.
The MPs will do what they're told.
McDonnell is smarter, more aggressive and more dangerous.
Corbyn is simply a dogmatic ideological socialist, and not very bright.
I think it reasonable to assume that one consequence of this tragic event is that the £7bn refurbishment of Westminster is unlikely to go ahead until every council flat in London has been upgraded
One of the worrying aspects of this tragedy is that this block had been so recently refurbished at a considerable cost and was presumably in what was thought to be good condition. I suspect that there are many other blocs which have not been treated that way.
The Express headline below is typically misleading but it seems very likely to me that there was a requirement to retrofit these flats with additional insulation to meet EU standards on energy efficiency which now apply to all let property. The EU regulations did not of course require them to use an inflammable plastic, that was presumably being driven by cost. .
My expectation, as I said yesterday, is that it will prove completely uneconomic to remove similar cladding from very tall buildings and the solution will be to demolish these and start again. This is not going to reduce the pressure on housing in London in particular. It is essential that this government, which still seems to be in a state of shock after the election, let alone this tragedy, gets a grip on this. It will be impossible for local authorities to meet the funding implications from their own resources.
'There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.'
Hurray for the huge decrease in accommodation and travel costs over the last 2 years.
Oh dear, Divot falls for the spin, again... What is clear is that in four of the five expenses categories, the SNPs MPs have been more expensive than their predecessors despite their claims covering at least a month less.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I were a Labour
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
Brexit could be as dangerous for Labour as for the Conservatives. Events, dear boy. Events.
If the Conservatives can successfully navigate A50, pin the bad stuff on May and ditch her (she deserves to take the hit for the team, and I think has enough of a sense of duty to do it) and then get the economy moving by the 2020/2021 under a new leader, with a new post-Brexit plan for Britain for the 2020s, including trade, investment, and more for public services, then there is still a chance..
Vince is the heavyweight the LDs need with Brexit coming up, there may not be another general election for 5 years
No.
The Tories and SNP will both want to stop an early election and once Brexit talks get underway they will dominate all, the LDs should pick a heavyweight for the Brexit period and they can always pick another leader for the election later on
Firstly, there's every chance of an early election. Your confidence that the SNP are safely onside is incredibly misplaced. There is no rule to say they will fall in the polls, having an election is no longer all downside risk for them, and it's hard for them not to support a motion of no confidence as it looks awful.
Secondly, there may in any event be an election promptly after any Brexit deal. Under your approach, there would be a brand new LD leader then, who has had no chance to plot a strategy, make changes to the party, or impress themselves on the public consciousness.
Finally, Brexit is going to be led by a Conservative/DUP Government, with the LDs as fourth party in Parliament. They are not irrelevant due to the maths, but nor are they in a lead role. It's absolutely the sort of thing a new leader ought to cut their teeth on. What is the point of being a leader if not to do exactly that? And it is not even as if Cable is such a political colossus that he's eminently more able to do it (and I like him - just he's not Gladstone or Disraeli for goodness sake).
The SNP face a worse loss of seats than the Tories through tactical votes, even on your suggestion post Brexit that means 3 years away and 3 the LDs may well help determine Brexit due to the hung parliament
I think it reasonable to assume that one consequence of this tragic event is that the £7bn refurbishment of Westminster is unlikely to go ahead until every council flat in London has been upgraded
One of the worrying aspects of this tragedy is that this block had been so recently refurbished at a considerable cost and was presumably in what was thought to be good condition. I suspect that there are many other blocs which have not been treated that way.
The Express headline below is typically misleading but it seems very likely to me that there was a requirement to retrofit these flats with additional insulation to meet EU standards on energy efficiency which now apply to all let property. The EU regulations did not of course require them to use an inflammable plastic, that was presumably being driven by cost. .
My expectation, as I said yesterday, is that it will prove completely uneconomic to remove similar cladding from very tall buildings and the solution will be to demolish these and start again. This is not going to reduce the pressure on housing in London in particular. It is essential that this government, which still seems to be in a state of shock after the election, let alone this tragedy, gets a grip on this. It will be impossible for local authorities to meet the funding implications from their own resources.
The quotes being bandied about imply that the additional cost of using a more fire-retardant cladding was £5k. Landlords ought to be able to meet that. Obviously, the cost of doing the work again - where it's already been done to an unacceptably low standard - will be considerably higher. Even so, I doubt the cost will be so high as to make demolition more financially attractive.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
It is quite the most appalling tragedy and anger is understandable and must be allowed to be vented. However it has to be hoped that it does not descend into something more serious.
Unfotunately there will be those who seek to cause trouble, anarchists, various marxist groups and others. The organisers should say up front they are not welcome because if it goes wrong the current mood of "how can peoplebe expected to live like that in such potential death traps" will disappear being replced by a much nastier attitude.
I just hope MacD doesn't use this as his springboard for 1 million civil unrest plan
Will we see some capital flight once/if it becomes clear Corbyn will win next time?
If interest rates do go up that is going to hurt an awful lot of homeowners who are currently just about managing. Throw in a Brexit downturn on top and it will start to get very difficult indeed for the Tories.
I think the BoE will prioritise low interest rates over low inflation whilst the A50 negotiations are still underway.
The inflation we have has largely resulted from a devaluation of the pound. I'm struggling to see how raising interest rates in response to that helps, and it should recover once the shape of the new deal is clear and the uncertainty ends.
I was genuinely surprised to see the BBC the other day emphasising the rise in interest rates was due to increase in costs of foreign holidays and computer games. It hardly plays into the narrative of the country on its knees.
(rereading that I should clarify I was not surprised at the BBC reporting, rather at the basic fact of the inflation rise being due to what I would consider to be non essential items)
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
That's right.
Actually, the target voter information was very good, in my experience. The people we were contacting *were* the swing voters (and Con-identifiers to shore up). The problem was that in the last fortnight of the campaign, those swing voters were swinging to Labour.
Seconded. I detected frustration with May but, also, more broadly, the NHS.
Oh Sky announcing a programme about the disaster Sunday night tastelessly titled The Fire Of London. Ugh.
Sky's reporting is making matters much worse and some of their reporters talking as if they are experts would be laughable if it were not so serious
But they are filling a gap, a very large gap, that has been left by the government. Why is there no one on detailing progress on emergency housing or explaing how they intend to react in advance of the inquiry etc etc
I think it reasonable to assume that one consequence of this tragic event is that the £7bn refurbishment of Westminster is unlikely to go ahead until every council flat in London has been upgraded
One of the worrying aspects of this tragedy is that this block had been so recently refurbished at a considerable cost and was presumably in what was thought to be good condition. I suspect that there are many other blocs which have not been treated that way.
The Express headline below is typically misleading but it seems very likely to me that there was a requirement to retrofit these flats with additional insulation to meet EU standards on energy efficiency which now apply to all let property. The EU regulations did not of course require them to use an inflammable plastic, that was presumably being driven by cost. .
My expectation, as I said yesterday, is that it will prove completely uneconomic to remove similar cladding from very tall buildings and the solution will be to demolish these and start again. This is not going to reduce the pressure on housing in London in particular. It is essential that this government, which still seems to be in a state of shock after the election, let alone this tragedy, gets a grip on this. It will be impossible for local authorities to meet the funding implications from their own resources.
The government needs to suspend enviromental regulations on this particular cladding temporarily. & Landlords need to be compelled to remove it. Sensible ones will have started fire reviews yesterday anyhow.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's not for party political purposes. It's for factional purposes. However, I think McDonnell is a lot more extreme than Corbyn - he is much more doctrinaire and Marxist, and does not share Corbyn's interests in things like environmentalism and the arts. I suspect Labour can come to a coherent position if Corbyn does rein McDonnell in, but whether he wants to or not is another matter entirely. That said, I do not see how either of them can whip Labour MPs into supporting a hard Brexit when the MPs are much more representative of CLP, member and union views than the leadership is.
The MPs will do what they're told.
McDonnell is smarter, more aggressive and more dangerous.
Corbyn is simply a dogmatic ideological socialist, and not very bright.
Both are very experienced campaigners.
That's a very good summary. I don't think that McDonnell is much (if any) more extreme; he's just a good deal more clever, both politically and intellectually (which is one reason why Corbyn won't rein him in: he neither has the interest nor ability to do so). McDonnell also - dangerously - has enough of a sense of humour to understand and enjoy the Westminster game, which at times makes him look disarmingly like an insider.
Were any of those expenses wrongly claimed? Did any have to be repaid?
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
Exactly. If all MPs claimed fairly and honestly, we would expect those with the most remote constituencies to claim the most.
Speaking of expenses and profit before people- remember this chap ?
HARINGEY taxpayers have been forking out for Tottenham MP David Lammy to rent a second home in south London.
Mr Lammy admitted the expense in the first published account of MPs’ spending, and is among 32 outer London MPs claiming the second home allowance, worth up to £20,333 a year…
Mr Lammy said he stayed at the second home for three nights a week when he was working at Westminster, spending the rest of his week at his main home on the Harringay Ladder, 28 minutes from Westminster by tube.
He claimed £12,041 for the home between April 2003 and March 2004.
Oh Sky announcing a programme about the disaster Sunday night tastelessly titled The Fire Of London. Ugh.
Sky's reporting is making matters much worse and some of their reporters talking as if they are experts would be laughable if it were not so serious
They might as well call it the Towering Inferno and have it presented by a CGI Steve McQueen. Shameless gits.
The one thing that is becoming so very obvious is that the government must concede pay rises to the nurses, firefighters and police.
That should have been obvious long ago. You can't expect people you swallow pay restraint over, what is it now set to be , 15 years? A third of an entire lifetime of work.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
£14m was spent on this bloc in the last few years. How long do you think it would take for the handful actually paying rent themselves to pay that back? Profit before lives is untrue and dishonest. There is no profit in social housing. There are degrees of subsidy.
What is clearly true is that that money was not well spent and corners were cut.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's not for party political purposes. It's for factional purposes. However, I think McDonnell is a lot more extreme than Corbyn - he is much more doctrinaire and Marxist, and does not share Corbyn's interests in things like environmentalism and the arts. I suspect Labour can come to a coherent position if Corbyn does rein McDonnell in, but whether he wants to or not is another matter entirely. That said, I do not see how either of them can whip Labour MPs into supporting a hard Brexit when the MPs are much more representative of CLP, member and union views than the leadership is.
The narrative has changed against the government. There is little they can do. They can change leader, give freebies etc etc but Corbyn is looking more like a leader everyday as much as it pains me to say it.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Comments
He'd need a very, very strong team around him, and would need to get much better at interviews and debates.
Mr Johnson was more divisive among voters in general as 45 per cent said he was not up to the job, the highest of the four top contenders. The figure was 38 per cent for Ms Rudd, 30 per cent for Mr Davis and 25 per cent for Ms Davidson. Mr Johnson was thought to be incompetent by 43 per cent, with 27 per cent thinking he was competent; 38 per cent thought he would not be able to handle Brexit compared with 32 per cent who thought he would.
The foreign secretary was thought likeable by 54 per cent, better than Ms Davidson (27 per cent), Ms Rudd (14 per cent) and Mr Davis (19 per cent).
Two swift elections in a row strongly biases the die to the two big parties with the financial clout.
Hopefully.
Churchill, Thatcher and Cameron were products of the dire state of the story party at the time. Otherwise they go for grey men and women with no discernible will of their own that will not rock the boat.
To determine the outcome of the next Tory leadership campaign you have to figure out whether the Tories will be ready to roll the dice (Boris) or go with someone safe and dull that they can control (Hammond).
They normally default to safe.
Wasn't that the criticism of Leave?
Plus there isn't any distance between him and Brexit at all, since without him the mistake probably wouldn't have been made.
I am just saying the electorate will vote for who they see as the more exciting candidate and best campaigner over safety first.
'MP expenses: Former Scots Lib Dems Malcolm Bruce and Jo Swinson among top 10 highest claimants in last year'
http://tinyurl.com/ycny5bkn
Actually, the target voter information was very good, in my experience. The people we were contacting *were* the swing voters (and Con-identifiers to shore up). The problem was that in the last fortnight of the campaign, those swing voters were swinging to Labour.
Secondly, there may in any event be an election promptly after any Brexit deal. Under your approach, there would be a brand new LD leader then, who has had no chance to plot a strategy, make changes to the party, or impress themselves on the public consciousness.
Finally, Brexit is going to be led by a Conservative/DUP Government, with the LDs as fourth party in Parliament. They are not irrelevant due to the maths, but nor are they in a lead role. It's absolutely the sort of thing a new leader ought to cut their teeth on. What is the point of being a leader if not to do exactly that? And it is not even as if Cable is such a political colossus that he's eminently more able to do it (and I like him - just he's not Gladstone or Disraeli for goodness sake).
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
Labour's position on Europe is every bit as confused as the Tories.
So Farron intended to make Swinson his heir apparent, pre-empting the contest that was likely to arise when Tim stood down not wanting to face another GE, and some members of the Lords didn't like it - is the assumption doing the rounds in LD circles.
But we need a pragmatist, someone to accurate access the options and make the best one, regardless of what has happened in the past.
There is a lot of utter crap talked on MPs' expenses. There's an allowance for running an office, and most MPs are at or near the cap on that as they want to do a good job for constituents, and that's what it's there for. There's an allowance for travel and accommodation, and Dunbartonshire is neither commutable from Westminster, nor are transport fares cheap.
If an MP claims for a flatscreen TV for the downstairs bathroom, or a new duck house, I totally see the point. But the notion of MPs' expenses more broadly being some kind of addition to salary is dangerously ill-informed rubbish, and I think you know that.
Would John Woodcock stay in opposition or sit on the Govt benches?
Not a Davey fan myself. I'd go for Lamb, had I a vote.
Hurray for the huge decrease in accommodation and travel costs over the last 2 years.
https://twitter.com/LenziePar/status/872472916549664768
So this leaves the four potential contenders for Leader in a quandry. Do they let their names go forward for Deputy Leader or not? I suspect that Jo Swinson will run for Deputy Leader and will be elected unanimously. This will allow her to be tested and gain the experience needed to become the leader in say two years time. We'll know in the next few days.
In the meantime we need an experienced heavyweight who can "cut through" in the media and is willing to stand down in say two years time (after Mar 2019) to allow Swinson to become leader. That person is Cable.
I don't like Cable and I'd hate to work for him. He is full of conceit and a loose cannon because of it. Nevertheless, if he promises not to go into coalition with the Tories under any circumstances, I will hold my nose and vote for him as Leader.
I think the Scottish dimension is very tactical, quite suspect and basically irrelevant.
CCCC - Day 8 0900hrs
The Jacobite News Network understands that the Prime Minister will again visit the North Kensington area this evening. It is her intention, this time, to meet residents of the locality.
Local celebrity and Conservative donor Sir Jasper Gore-Dithering speaking from his £10m flat said he was thrilled that the Prime Minister would be attending his annual cocktail party in aid of distressed former bankers. He and his neighbours were especially keen to discuss with Mrs May the eyesores that have sprung up in the area in the past few days - derelict flats unfit for human habitation and Jerermy Corbyn.
The swing voters you needed to be contacting were those who were Tories, but might swing away.
Indeed, the fact there is a contest for deputy leader allows male contenders for leader to say, "Of course women in leadership roles is important, and that's why I am so delighted at the prospect of Jo being deputy leader and so vocal in my support of her bid for that role".
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/875623361019170817
Will we see some capital flight once/if it becomes clear Corbyn will win next time?
But the people I was contacting on that election eve were people who *had* previously been identified as Tory. Ironically, on election day itself, when I was contacting the model-generated swing voters (plus pledges), it felt a little better - hence my revision in prediction to 'a small majority' (though that was only about as far out as my original Wednesday post of 'Con 300').
Swinson said that her staffing costs had been increased because three members of staff had been on maternity leave.
She said: “Last year my staffing costs were significantly higher than usual due to the need to provide cover for three members of staff who were on maternity leave. All other budgets were underspent as usual. I’m proud of the service my excellent team of staff helped me provide to my constituents.”
There is a huge disconnect between what Labour canvassers report from the doorstep and the YouGov model indicating a hung parliament was nailed on from around 24 May. Sure, some voters probably gave the canvasser a hard time then voted Labour anyway. But it remains my view (based partly on my own experience in two local elections) that canvassing simply doesn't reach as many voters in their 20s and early 30s.
What is clear is that in four of the five expenses categories, the SNPs MPs have been more expensive than their predecessors despite their claims covering at least a month less.
https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/sleekit-for-scotland/
Nero-esque levels of incompetence by May to not visit any of the residents yesterday.
At 17:08 on Wednesday I got an email from Farron saying nominations had opened for the position of Deputy :Leader. At 18:38 I got another announcing his resignation.
The difference in expenses is that Nicolson wasn't spending on staff. Whether he used SNP Short money in some way instead (which is also the public purse) or just didn't bother having much of an operation for casework etc (which may help explain his crushing defeat last week) I do not know.
All QTWTAIN.
One of the reasons why Corbyn/McDonnell were so strong and difficult to budge when the PLP wasn't happy with them is that they had CLP/membership/McCluskey backing. They would be advised to not pursue a Brexit that neither the PLP, CLPs, the membership, or the unions like.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
The inflation we have has largely resulted from a devaluation of the pound. I'm struggling to see how raising interest rates in response to that helps, and it should recover once the shape of the new deal is clear and the uncertainty ends.
Much of the money and capital they hope to raise will simply disappear. No-one trust McDonnell - a proven liar, and bona fide Marxist.
I am already planning accordingly. My parents are starting to move investments to Jersey.
McDonnell is smarter, more aggressive and more dangerous.
Corbyn is simply a dogmatic ideological socialist, and not very bright.
Both are very experienced campaigners.
The Express headline below is typically misleading but it seems very likely to me that there was a requirement to retrofit these flats with additional insulation to meet EU standards on energy efficiency which now apply to all let property. The EU regulations did not of course require them to use an inflammable plastic, that was presumably being driven by cost. .
My expectation, as I said yesterday, is that it will prove completely uneconomic to remove similar cladding from very tall buildings and the solution will be to demolish these and start again. This is not going to reduce the pressure on housing in London in particular. It is essential that this government, which still seems to be in a state of shock after the election, let alone this tragedy, gets a grip on this. It will be impossible for local authorities to meet the funding implications from their own resources.
The Yoon alliance is thriving!
Shameless gits.
If the Conservatives can successfully navigate A50, pin the bad stuff on May and ditch her (she deserves to take the hit for the team, and I think has enough of a sense of duty to do it) and then get the economy moving by the 2020/2021 under a new leader, with a new post-Brexit plan for Britain for the 2020s, including trade, investment, and more for public services, then there is still a chance..
(rereading that I should clarify I was not surprised at the BBC reporting, rather at the basic fact of the inflation rise being due to what I would consider to be non essential items)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/david-lammy-mp-expenses-16306.html
From the Haringey Advertiser, 27 October 2004:
HARINGEY taxpayers have been forking out for Tottenham MP David Lammy to rent a second home in south London.
Mr Lammy admitted the expense in the first published account of MPs’ spending, and is among 32 outer London MPs claiming the second home allowance, worth up to £20,333 a year…
Mr Lammy said he stayed at the second home for three nights a week when he was working at Westminster, spending the rest of his week at his main home on the Harringay Ladder, 28 minutes from Westminster by tube.
He claimed £12,041 for the home between April 2003 and March 2004.
What is clearly true is that that money was not well spent and corners were cut.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.