It's a Private Member's Bill (i.e. won't happen) by Phillip Hollobone. He's not published the text yet but it seems to be part of the right-wing package that some MPs suggested a while back:
At present, he doesn't seem to have given the Bill any text or referred to it on a website, so I am not sure his heart is in it. But perhaps it's all yet to come. The 2nd Reading is down for September 6, though I don't know if it will be reached.
If we stick with the current electoral cycle and have elections in May, there's an awful lot of sixteen year olds who will be be pestered for their vote, around the same time they are taking their GCSEs.
At the time, the GCSEs were the most stressful time of my life, and the last thing I would have wanted that time would be politicians asking me for my vote
LABOUR is to go into the next election with a pledge to give the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.
The reform, drawn up by one of Ed Miliband’s key lieutenants, Sadiq Khan, would be introduced in time for the 2020 election if Labour is returned to power in 2015.
I read recently that more young people than ever are tending to favour the Tories?
MORI has the 2010 vote among 18-24 as Con 30 Lab 31 LD 30, so that's substantially worse for Con and better for LD than overall (Con 37 Lab 30 LD 24). But turnout is only 44%, compared to 65% overall. I'd imagine turnout would be particularly low in the 16-18 range, so a modest Lab advantage like that won't really make a dent in the overall vote shares.
IMHO low turnout is an argument _for_ lowering the minimum age: People don't vote until they're old enough to pay attention, so as long as they're old enough to make decisions independently from their parents (no problem there with 16-year-olds) you don't need an artificial restriction to prevent people who aren't ready to vote from voting.
I've always thought 16 is a fair age to vote to be honest.
If your old enough to be sent to war and be killed your old enough to vote for the people who send you to war....
Hmm, rather than "another", the word "a" would be more accurate.
Populus most recently showed the Conservatives closing the gap to 3%, and both MORI and ICM have had Ed Miliband with appalling leader ratings.
But nevertheless, it is a useful corrective to received wisdom.
They'll probably converge closer to the election. Right now it seems like there are a lot of voters who are on the fence between UKIP and Con. Whether they say "UKIP" or "Con" varies wildly depending on how you ask the question. As the election gets closer their opinions should firm up - probably mainly to the benefit of Con - making the scores less sensitive whether you prompt for UKIP or whatever.
@fitalass This coming election is going to be a big test for the pollsters. The dynamics are very different from other elections because the Lib Dems are in government, and it's not at all clear which pollsters have accounted adequately for these changed dynamics.
My recollection is that Mr Smithson put together an accuracy ranking table for the pollsters performance at the last election and the phone pollsters roundly defeated those online.
Sadly, cost trumps accuracy, and so the number of phone polls has continued to decline.
Speaking to OGH on twitter one night, IIRC, he noted that the pre 2010 GE Clegg/Libdem bounce was more pronounced in online polling and yet it barely moved the ICM Wisdom Index. I do think that tribal political warriors are more fired up to sign up and participate in online polling when in Opposition, I know I haven't bothered with YouGov or Angus Reid polling since the last GE. Its interesting that the Libdems poll lower and UKIP higher in online polling, and to the advantage of Labour and the detriment of the Conservatives.
Hmm, rather than "another", the word "a" would be more accurate.
Populus most recently showed the Conservatives closing the gap to 3%, and both MORI and ICM have had Ed Miliband with appalling leader ratings.
But nevertheless, it is a useful corrective to received wisdom.
They'll probably converge closer to the election. Right now it seems like there are a lot of voters who are on the fence between UKIP and Con. Whether they say "UKIP" or "Con" varies wildly depending on how you ask the question. As the election gets closer their opinions should firm up - probably mainly to the benefit of Con - making the scores less sensitive whether you prompt for UKIP or whatever.
My recollection is that Mr Smithson put together an accuracy ranking table for the pollsters performance at the last election and the phone pollsters roundly defeated those online.
Sadly, cost trumps accuracy, and so the number of phone polls has continued to decline.
Hmm, rather than "another", the word "a" would be more accurate.
Populus most recently showed the Conservatives closing the gap to 3%, and both MORI and ICM have had Ed Miliband with appalling leader ratings.
But nevertheless, it is a useful corrective to received wisdom.
It's probably not safe to assume that will always be true, especially as the pool of voters with unscreened landline numbers drops and becomes increasingly denominated by very lonely people.
What I think we can (reasonably) safely say is the UKIP will poll lower than the high teens they've been getting with some online firms. But I'm not sure if that means those pollsters are wrong. Maybe we should say they're right at the moment, but the voters will change their minds.
antifrank, totally agree with you on this point. What if we are seeing 'shy' Tory/Libdems in phone polling vs a loud Labour/UKIP protest vote in online polling? It will all come down to the accuracy of the pollsters picking up on the voters who will actually turn out and vote.
@fitalass This coming election is going to be a big test for the pollsters. The dynamics are very different from other elections because the Lib Dems are in government, and it's not at all clear which pollsters have accounted adequately for these changed dynamics.
I have been a huge fan of Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks since I was a teenager, and I just came across this great track by Lissie - Further Away which really reminds me of them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0FAPa7lNss
I wouldn't call a report by a right-wing pressure group an "independent verdict".
It might be a right-of-centre think tank but HS2 doesn't divide neatly along party or left-right lines so I can't see any reason to accuse them of being partisan here.
I wouldn't call a report by a right-wing pressure group an "independent verdict".
It might be a right-of-centre think tank but HS2 doesn't divide neatly along party or left-right lines so I can't see any reason to accuse them of being partisan here.
I didn't say they were partisan, I said they're not independent. Are there any public transport projects they support?
I didn't say they were partisan, I said they're not independent. Are there any public transport projects they support?
Not "independent" of what? To be non-partisan is to be objective - which is what you'd want a report to be, n'est-ce pas?
No, being non-partisan doesn't mean you're objective. If you have an agenda, eg if you were against large public transport projects, then you wouldn't be objective in evaluating a large public transport project.
Evans revolutionized jazz piano with his exquisitely ambiguous rootless voicings and heart-rending "crushed" chords.
Miles Davis said: "Bill had this quiet fire that I loved on piano. The way he approached it, the sound he got was like crystal notes or sparkling water cascading down from some clear waterfall."
non·par·ti·san [non-pahr-tuh-zuhn] adjective 1. not partisan; objective. 2. not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like.
non·par·ti·san [non-pahr-tuh-zuhn] adjective 1. not partisan; objective. 2. not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like.
If that defininition is right, the group in question isn't non-partisan.
If that defininition is right, the group in question isn't non-partisan.
...which takes us in an elegant circle back to your statement that they weren't independent. I asked - independent of what or who?
Independent of one side or the other in the debate. For example, it would be misleading to say a report by Greenpeace on the costs of a nuclear power station was independent. If it was by the Public Accounts Committee, "independent" would probably fit, assuming they were looking at it dispassionately without being nobbled by the party whips.
It's true the Greenpeace is independent of some things, like control by North or South Korea, but the relevant factor here would nuclear power, not Korean Peninsula relations, so that kind of independence wouldn't be relevant.
If that defininition is right, the group in question isn't non-partisan.
Independent of one side or the other in the debate. For example, it would be misleading to say a report by Greenpeace on the costs of a nuclear power station was independent. If it was by the Public Accounts Committee, "independent" would probably fit, assuming they were looking at it dispassionately without being nobbled by the party whips.
It's true the Greenpeace is independent of some things, like control by North or South Korea, but the relevant factor here would nuclear power, not Korean Peninsula relations, so that kind of independence wouldn't be relevant.
I can't read the article, but there's also the question of what expertise the group has in analysing such costs.
On another note, the recent increase in cost (from £32.7 billion to £42.6 billion) was largely down to the treasury changing the cost risk from P50 to P95. In other words, the increase in costs is accounting rather than actual.
IANAE, but the way I understand it is this: the risk of every item in a project is calculated. If each of these risky items came in at double the projected cost, that's P100. If they came in at cost, that's P0. Usually the treasury costs projects at P50 (i.e. half the risky items will double in cost). The HS2 was shifted to P95 - in other words, they have calculated it so that every risky cost is almost doubled.
So there is a massive amount of contingency budgeted in. I would like to know why the treasury chose to shift to P95 when they apparently rarely do so for other projects.
To see the effect this has on the costs, here's an excerpt from Hansard:
David Prout: The global figure for phase 1 and phase 2 together is £42.6 billion. In addition, there is £7.5 billion for rolling stock, which includes £1.7 billion of contingency. For phase 1, the total at P95 level of contingency is £21.4 billion, which includes £5.7 billion of contingency. For phase 2, the total is £21.2 billion, with £8.7 billion at P95 level of contingency.
(OT) I didn't notice last night that the BBC was repeating the 1993 documentary about "Thatcher: The Downing Street Years". I was too busy reading "Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography" by Charles Moore.
November 1979. Edward Heath has dinner with the editor of The Times. He comes out of the building to a crowd of journalists and photographers. #ego #self-important
Simultaneously, Anthony Blunt, having just been outed as the Fourth Man of the Cambridge spy ring, has dinner with the deputy editor of The Times, in order to give his version of events. #the-real-reason-for-the-photographers
Can Name Shadow (net) Chancellor: -24 Home Sec: -68 Foreign Sec: -84 Health Sec : -68
Then checks our alternatives to Ed - (Balls, Cooper, Burnham, Harman & Umanna) none of whom would be better, mainly because "I don't know, or know enough about this person" which is highest for "Britain's Obama" on 61.
All worth bearing in mind when the reshuffle comes....
So there is a massive amount of contingency budgeted in. I would like to know why the treasury chose to shift to P95 when they apparently rarely do so for other projects.
It makes you wonder how any of these things come in over-budget. How was HS1 treated? I recall reading that it came in 10 times over budget.
Speaking of trains, I am lamenting the imminent retirement of the old 125s on the west coast mainline. Call me a luddite, but I see no room for improvement!
(OT) I didn't notice last night that the BBC was repeating the 1993 documentary about "Thatcher: The Downing Street Years". I was too busy reading "Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography" by Charles Moore.
Is it worth a read. I was tempted to buy it for the old Kindle.
So there is a massive amount of contingency budgeted in. I would like to know why the treasury chose to shift to P95 when they apparently rarely do so for other projects.
It makes you wonder how any of these things come in over-budget. How was HS1 treated? I recall reading that it came in 10 times over budget.
Speaking of trains, I am lamenting the imminent retirement of the old 125s on the west coast mainline. Call me a luddite, but I see no room for improvement!
1) I'd really like to see the quote of ten times budget for HS1, especially as Wiki says: "The HS1 line was finished on time and under budget. "
2) 125s (I assume you mean HST 125's) never routinely travelled on the WCML, which was the domain of electric trains since the 1960s. HST 125s were (and still are in some cases) on the ECML, MML, and GWML)
2) 125s (I assume you mean HST 125's) never routinely travelled on the WCML, which was the domain of electric trains since the 1960s. HST 125s were (and still are in some cases) on the ECML, MML, and GWML)
"HS1, the high-speed rail line that connects the Channel Tunnel with London, was initially expected to cost £1billion. The final bill was around £11billion."
And yes, I meant to say the great western main line! I have travelled the Bristol <-> London route often, and much prefer the 125s over the newer Pendolino/Voyager trains which you find going between Penzance and Birmingham.
2) 125s (I assume you mean HST 125's) never routinely travelled on the WCML, which was the domain of electric trains since the 1960s. HST 125s were (and still are in some cases) on the ECML, MML, and GWML)
"HS1, the high-speed rail line that connects the Channel Tunnel with London, was initially expected to cost £1billion. The final bill was around £11billion."
And yes, I meant to say the great western main line! I have travelled the Bristol <-> London route often, and much prefer the 125s over the newer Pendolino/Voyager trains which you find going between Penzance and Birmingham.
I can't get the Telegraph article, but I really, seriously doubt that HS1 was ever costed at just one billion once the route was decided. I'd appreciate other links I can actually read.
I love HSTs, and it's going to be a shame when they're replaced with IEP, which looks like it's going to be an awful project.
However, HSTs were not so good when they caught fire, as one did near Leicester for a friend of mine. She was not impressed with having to decamp onto the lineside ...
I can't get the Telegraph article, but I really, seriously doubt that HS1 was ever costed at just one billion once the route was decided. I'd appreciate other links I can actually read.
I love HSTs, and it's going to be a shame when they're replaced with IEP, which looks like it's going to be an awful project.
However, HSTs were not so good when they caught fire, as one did near Leicester for a friend of mine. She was not impressed with having to decamp onto the lineside ...
Well that is all the telegraph article had, just that one sentence on HS1. There may be a distinction due to the usage of the phrase "expected to cost".
Saying that, the wikipedia article has no citation for the claim it was under budget. So any other links on this would be useful.
Ugh, the new trains are just smelly and hot. And there are no windows in the vestibules which you can open. Advancements my arse.
@JossiasJessop Here's the detail from the article you can't see. If that HS1 number wasn't completely made up it may be from before the route was decided, as in this case they're saying the route will change once the plans come into contact with the planning process:
* Successful campaigns by local residents will prompt route changes and extra tunnelling. Diversions to the route in Mr Osborne’s Cheshire constituency have already been estimated to have added already £600 million to HS2’s bill but the IEA says many more could follow; * Out-of-town locations of stations on the proposed line will necessitate spending on new rail lines, trams and buses to take passengers to HS2. Twelve such supporting projects are identified in the study, but many more could arise; * Councils along the route will push for regeneration grants to provide new shops and other amenities around the new stations. *Local authorities in towns cities bypassed by the new line will “campaign vigorously” for similar funding to compensate them for losing out.
I can't get the Telegraph article, but I really, seriously doubt that HS1 was ever costed at just one billion once the route was decided. I'd appreciate other links I can actually read.
I love HSTs, and it's going to be a shame when they're replaced with IEP, which looks like it's going to be an awful project.
However, HSTs were not so good when they caught fire, as one did near Leicester for a friend of mine. She was not impressed with having to decamp onto the lineside ...
Well that is all the telegraph article had, just that one sentence on HS1. There may be a distinction due to the usage of the phrase "expected to cost".
Saying that, the wikipedia article has no citation for the claim it was under budget. So any other links on this would be useful.
Ugh, the new trains are just smelly and hot. And there are no windows in the vestibules which you can open. Advancements my arse.
Anyway... was her experience like this? -- (snip) ;-)
I'm wondering if the confusion is because of the phased delivery of HS1 (indeed, at one stage the section from Fawkham Junction to the Chunnel was known as HS1, and the stretch from St Pancras to Fawkham Junction was known as HS2!)
In addition, it depends on when the final budget that was met was decided - although I very much doubt the original cost was £1 billion. I also question the £11 billion costs, as most sources say it cost £5.8 billion, including £800 million to rebuild St Pancras.
@JossiasJessop Here's the detail from the article you can't see. If that HS1 number wasn't completely made up it may be from before the route was decided, as in this case they're saying the route will change once the plans come into contact with the planning process:
* Successful campaigns by local residents will prompt route changes and extra tunnelling. Diversions to the route in Mr Osborne’s Cheshire constituency have already been estimated to have added already £600 million to HS2’s bill but the IEA says many more could follow; * Out-of-town locations of stations on the proposed line will necessitate spending on new rail lines, trams and buses to take passengers to HS2. Twelve such supporting projects are identified in the study, but many more could arise; * Councils along the route will push for regeneration grants to provide new shops and other amenities around the new stations. *Local authorities in towns cities bypassed by the new line will “campaign vigorously” for similar funding to compensate them for losing out.
Thanks for that.
Most of those are ludicrous inclusions.
I'd feel much better if other projects were treated in the same manner - for instance Heathrow expansion, Crossrail or motorway schemes. But they are not.
The more the HS2 doubters witter on, the more they seem ridiculous. They use exactly the same techniques as the anti-fracking crowd.
A guy from Stop HS2 is currently on Radio 5, claiming incremental improvements to the WCML will increase capacity.
Which means he never heard of the WCML upgrade. Initially costed at £2 billion, it was finally delivered years late, for about £10 billion, with a max line speed of 125 MPH instead of 140MPH, and no new signalling system (hundreds of millions was spent on this alone before it was scrapped).
Of course, today's further criticism of both Labour's Front Bench and EdM, and backed by the polls, show that there is an excellent opportunity for a very good backbencher at the Autumn Conference to make an outstanding speech and reveal themselves as an alternate leader.
YouGov shows that only Aunt Harman is seen positively by Labour's VI - so are Labour's VI (after remembering the strict governance and leadership of Mrs T) seeking a feminine regime (except if your name is Dromey) that will wield rolling pins and have comforting apron strings?
Premitrom @premitrom Ed Miliband announces reshuffle. #skypapers pic.twitter.com/aYG5tWnXCl
lol. I wonder if it's quite fair to use a Comres poll to suggest the media narrative is currently out of line with polls - Populus, ICM and YG all suggest huge unpopularity for Ed M and a much narrower lead tha a year ago.
Tonight the Com Res poll for the Indy shows Labour at 37%. The fact that their lead over the Tories is actually up one doesn't really matter. The main thing is Labour is yet again in the bracket of 36% to 40%. The Conservative percentage goes up and down depending on whether, as Cameron calls them, "the swivel eyed voters" decide if that week they don't like his party or not. One after the other the polling gurus have arrived at Tory HQ and week after week they haven't managed to move Labour out of the bracket.
his month has been the worse for Miliband since becoming leader and the Labour percentage just doesn't budge from that bracket. Some might say the figures change between pollsters. They do not. In every single poll by every single pollster since 25th August 2010 Labour has only moved south of the bracket nine times, which can easily be countered by the fact it was north of the bracket forty eight times( and most have been within margin of error) but in general it stays within the bracket.
The Conservatives have been going on and on cheered on by arch-Thatcherite Dan Hodge in the Mail/Telegraph on the Ed is crap line. I hate to point it out, but, it may effect the leadership ratings, but leadership rating don't win elections(Thatcher was behind Callaghan before the 1979 election and was still behind him four months after it), it's people who vote that win elections and Labours vote is steady.
One of the main benefactors for Labour is the fact that the Lib Dems who crossed over to Labour in 2010 after the coalition was formed are now limpet like with Labour. Whether these are ex-Labour voters who left after Iraq but have come back, whether it is people who bought into Nick Cleggs "new politics" but now would never admit they uttered the words "I agree with Nick" or are just Lib Dems who voters who are that pissed of with the coalition they would vote for a frog in a hat as long as it got rid of the coalition, who knows, but whatever the coalition parties say, and I mean both of them, they are sticking with Labour no matter what.
It may not be a resounding endorsement for Ed Miliband, but he doesn't need endorsements, he needs voters, and the most important set of voters at the moment(Lib Dem switchers) are saying the are going to vote Labour.......and they have now said that for three years.
If the Tories cannot break the Labour bracket, then they won't stop Ed Miliband getting to number ten, whether they think he is crap or not.
LABOUR is to go into the next election with a pledge to give the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.
The reform, drawn up by one of Ed Miliband’s key lieutenants, Sadiq Khan, would be introduced in time for the 2020 election if Labour is returned to power in 2015.
MG..Surprised you support that..most of them can barely write their own names...and do they really have to walk all the way to a polling station..really...
MG..Surprised you support that..most of them can barely write their own names...and do they really have to walk all the way to a polling station..really...
Morning Richard, will be interesting to see how many vote, imagine it will not be high percentage.
"Introduce voting at sixteen. We will also allow people to stand for elected office at this age, the stage in life at which they are able to begin full-time work and pay taxes. We will promote the action and habit of participation earlier in life through citizenship education and school councils."
Can Name (net): Shadow Chancellor: -14 Home Sec: -60 Foreign Sec: -80 Health Sec : -60
The three at a net -60 or -80 must have had barely 1 in 10 Labour supporters who knew who they are. Politics is a very niche minority sport in this country and the vast majority just don't care at all.
No doubt it was always thus to some extent but that is not the way I remember it from 30 years ago. Whether it was Maggie or a much clearer clash of ideas far more people seemed to have an actual opinion one way or the other.
I think the major reason for this is not the ineptitude of the incumbents of these very important offices but the fact that the differences between the parties are small and in the detail. I fear ever greater alienation and a reduction in voter participation. Our politics just bores the vast majority of the population. They simply don't care.
2002 Welsh cabinet support votes for 16 year olds -
"The Commission on Local Government Electoral Arrangements in Wales - an independent review set up by the Welsh Cabinet - this week supported the lowering of the voting age to 16." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2092660.stm
"Introduce voting at sixteen. We will also allow people to stand for elected office at this age, the stage in life at which they are able to begin full-time work and pay taxes. We will promote the action and habit of participation earlier in life through citizenship education and school councils."
This is the mysterious thing about British politics: Sooner or later all the LibDems' policies get enacted, as long as the LibDems aren't actually in government to enact them.
Tonight the Com Res poll for the Indy shows Labour at 37%. The fact that their lead over the Tories is actually up one doesn't really matter. The main thing is Labour is yet again in the bracket of 36% to 40%. The Conservative percentage goes up and down depending on whether, as Cameron calls them, "the swivel eyed voters" decide if that week they don't like his party or not. One after the other the polling gurus have arrived at Tory HQ and week after week they haven't managed to move Labour out of the bracket....
It may not be a resounding endorsement for Ed Miliband, but he doesn't need endorsements, he needs voters, and the most important set of voters at the moment(Lib Dem switchers) are saying the are going to vote Labour.......and they have now said that for three years.
If the Tories cannot break the Labour bracket, then they won't stop Ed Miliband getting to number ten, whether they think he is crap or not.
Agree with your general thrust (seen from behind the red flag). However, what the UK does not want and does not need in 2015 is an idea-less leader backed by a front bench that still clings on to yesterday's baggage, as that is all they know and can envisage.
In 2015 global conditions will be as tough and competition even tougher. What may have been thought to work in the 2000s and failed, will not be good enough for the 2010s and 2020s.
Without outstanding vision and even better leadership, the decline and fall of the UK globally will continue and will be very difficult to haul back. It is doubtful if another Coalition would achieve any of these objectives.
"Introduce voting at sixteen. We will also allow people to stand for elected office at this age, the stage in life at which they are able to begin full-time work and pay taxes. We will promote the action and habit of participation earlier in life through citizenship education and school councils."
This is the mysterious thing about British politics: Sooner or later all the LibDems' policies get enacted, as long as the LibDems aren't actually in government to enact them.
Weren't a lot of the Monster Raving Loony Party's policies enacted in some form or another?
2002 Welsh cabinet support votes for 16 year olds -
"The Commission on Local Government Electoral Arrangements in Wales - an independent review set up by the Welsh Cabinet - this week supported the lowering of the voting age to 16." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2092660.stm
Let's face it. The Welsh Labour government will do anything to divert attention away from all its on-going failures.
A rapidly failing economy, an ever worsening Health service and an absolute failure of an education system - which is now being designed so that by using different examinations, its continuing education failure will not be so obvious. Perhaps they should be fully independent and live off their own taxes.
MG They will probably vote, as long as they are told who to vote for...as we have wirtnessed..the ability to vote does not require one smidgeon of intelligence..
MG They will probably vote, as long as they are told who to vote for...as we have wirtnessed..the ability to vote does not require one smidgeon of intelligence..
We're talking about 16 and 17-year-olds. They won't vote for who they're told to vote for. Although it may be possible for parents to get them to vote for who they want by telling them _not_ to vote for them.
EiT Up to a point you are right, reverse pyschology must at all times be an option,,and then the double bluff comes into play..I have two daughters, now proper people. There is of course the crude and simple bribe..that aways seems to work
EiT Up to a point you are right, reverse pyschology must at all times be an option,,and then the double bluff comes into play..I have two daughters, now proper people. There is of course the crude and simple bribe..that aways seems to work
And of course there's the Me Dad voted Labour, so I do sort.
Plato Sadly I agree, the problem for them will be knowing what the word Labour means.."wot is it dad, do I have to do anything, can I have some more hair gel"
"...We forget at our peril that it was the Labour movement that built the burial societies so that the poor would not be abandoned to a pauper’s grave. People clubbed together and founded building societies and mutual societies so that misfortune did not turn into catastrophe.
Our values were respectability, loyalty, courage and, above all, work. Labour. We cared about it so much we named our party after it. These are the values we need now to rebuild trust and renew a sense of virtue and vocation in the economy and in politics. The Labour Party’s future lies in reclaiming its inheritance. Our tradition is our future.
At the very time when Labour should be showing the way ahead, it gives the impression of not knowing which way to turn. When the Labour battle bus should be revving up, it is parked in a lay-by of introspection. It is a time for Ed Miliband to show he is a grown-up politician big enough to lead this country. There is an open goal here for Labour. But if we are going to start scoring and winning, then Labour must learn to be a partner and friend to the good once more.
Labour has made a grave error by allowing the Tories to falsely claim the mantle of the party of family and responsibility. We must support people in honouring their family obligations to their parents, children, and to each other. There must be ‘incentives to virtue’ so that those who give are rewarded and recognised..."
There is of course the crude and simple bribe..that aways seems to work
Yeah, I guess postal voting security becomes more of an issue if you lower the voting age, as you have more people in a position to be bribed and/or coerced by somebody in their home.
If they're still in school when you register them it becomes practical to give them a secret bit of information (just a single, random letter is fine) that they can use to vote secretly, even online or by post and with you watching.
Miss Plato, anyone who votes for the same party continuously solely on the basis that they (and their parents) always have is a bloody fool. Alas, we have many of them around here. [Early prediction: Balls will hold this seat but, again, the UKIP vote will be larger than his majority].
Can Name (net): Shadow Chancellor: -14 Home Sec: -60 Foreign Sec: -80 Health Sec : -60
The three at a net -60 or -80 must have had barely 1 in 10 Labour supporters who knew who they are. Politics is a very niche minority sport in this country and the vast majority just don't care at all.
No doubt it was always thus to some extent but that is not the way I remember it from 30 years ago. Whether it was Maggie or a much clearer clash of ideas far more people seemed to have an actual opinion one way or the other.
I think the major reason for this is not the ineptitude of the incumbents of these very important offices but the fact that the differences between the parties are small and in the detail. I fear ever greater alienation and a reduction in voter participation. Our politics just bores the vast majority of the population. They simply don't care.
I think that's correct. In fact the figures should probably be worse, since these are the people who THINK they know who the people are. Much the same ignorance would would apply to most Ministers too, which is why it's a waste of time for Labour to bang on about the supposed wickedness or incompetence of Jeremy Hunt - I shouldn't think more than 20% of the voters could tell you who he is.
Most people have concluded that no party has a really good set of ideas or a really great set of leaders, and that the current problems are largely intractable. So they retreat to expressing general sympathy for one party or another, in the manner of football team supporters. That's why the voting intention figures are slow to move regardless of opinions of leaders or developments in the economy - people generally assign neither praise nor blame for economic changes, seeing them more like changes in the weather.
They are not entirely wrong, of course. I was chatting this week to a retired very senior Swiss politician, who commented that we now have a globalised economy but nothing remotely resembling globalised decision-making, so on economic matters we have substantially retreated from democratic or even human control.
I suspect the reason they won't shut up is they don't have that much confidence their polling lead is that solid.
I guess so. Last night's thatcher programme pointed out Mrs T was 'the most unpopular PM in history' in the polls before increasing her majority in 1983.
Very different days of course, but worth bearing in mind.
What is the evidence from Labour, and The SNP that 16 year olds in Britain are more politically mature than 16 year olds elsewhere in Europe or other mature democracies. Whole thing smacks of right on desperation.
I suspect the reason they won't shut up is they don't have that much confidence their polling lead is that solid.
I guess so. Last night's thatcher programme pointed out Mrs T was 'the most unpopular PM in history' in the polls before increasing her majority in 1983.
Very different days of course, but worth bearing in mind.
I wonder if there's also some proxy skirmishing going on over the union reforms. That's also probably part of what's holding his ratings down among non-Tories: He's staked out what looks like a union-bashing position, but hasn't yet actually delivered it, so right now both people who are for and against union-bashing are a bit meh.
That said, the moaning in the press seems to be mostly from fairly minor people. The media are inevitably going to be able to find unhappy people willing to say how unhappy they are if that's the story they want to write.
'They are not entirely wrong, of course. I was chatting this week to a retired very senior Swiss politician, who commented that we now have a globalised economy but nothing remotely resembling globalised decision-making, so on economic matters we have substantially retreated from democratic or even human control.'
I think that's a significant (and interesting) factor in the broader disengagement from politics. There was a related (on and off) article in the Telegraph recently, also touching on the way that people now communicate - which has clear implications for parties. Paul Mason has written a fair bit about this re issue politics, protest etc.
"Introduce voting at sixteen. We will also allow people to stand for elected office at this age, the stage in life at which they are able to begin full-time work and pay taxes. We will promote the action and habit of participation earlier in life through citizenship education and school councils."
This is the mysterious thing about British politics: Sooner or later all the LibDems' policies get enacted, as long as the LibDems aren't actually in government to enact them.
yes mysteriously when they get any power all principles and policies are ditched quickly as they fill their boots.
MG They will probably vote, as long as they are told who to vote for...as we have wirtnessed..the ability to vote does not require one smidgeon of intelligence..
We're talking about 16 and 17-year-olds. They won't vote for who they're told to vote for. Although it may be possible for parents to get them to vote for who they want by telling them _not_ to vote for them.
Indeed. Roger Scruton was on R4 this morning considering a very basic aspect of democracy, the necessity of tolerating democratically made decisions one doesn't agree with. Along the way he mentioned his strongly Labourite father who was of the 'Tory are vermin' school. I wonder how much of a hand he had in forming the foxhunting, fine-wine-bibbing, Tory philosopher.
"For the third weekend running, Labour's woes remain the story. In his Sunday Mirror column, John Prescott declares that the party has "massively failed" to get its message across and reminds everyone how it was a different story when he was manning the shop. He writes: "We always planned well ahead with our news grid and during summer I met every day with my team looking at the stories and messages we were going to deliver...I joked with Tony that our poll rating always went up by the time I finished summer watch."
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnexpress UKIP at 19 on ComRes and 13 on YouGov today. Don't think this was how Lynton's script was supposed to run.
The PB Tories prefer to ignore that, although surely by now they have realised the great job Lynton Crosby is doing for UKIP.
At the risk of reading too much into this, maybe the lesson is that ignorant immigration pandering helps UKIP and depresses the Tory score even if it's Labour that's doing it.
If this turns out to work, we're in for a deeply stupid election campaign.
What is the evidence from Labour, and The SNP that 16 year olds in Britain are more politically mature than 16 year olds elsewhere in Europe or other mature democracies. Whole thing smacks of right on desperation.
I can just imagine your post 90 years ago substituting the phrase 16 year olds with the word women .
"For the third weekend running, Labour's woes remain the story. In his Sunday Mirror column, John Prescott declares that the party has "massively failed" to get its message across and reminds everyone how it was a different story when he was manning the shop. He writes: "We always planned well ahead with our news grid and during summer I met every day with my team looking at the stories and messages we were going to deliver...I joked with Tony that our poll rating always went up by the time I finished summer watch."
John Precott is one of life's floaters.
However hard Ed pulls the chain he just won't go away.
What Crosby failed to understand was very simple, you can't out Farage Farage.
Somebody better tell Labour's Gloria, who claims that the party is now listening to local people who say they are not being given a fair deal when going up against immigrants for jobs (ignoring the rather awkward fact that labour let in 3 million immigrants).
It's a bit like the lawyer who punches you in the face, then offers to represent you in a compensation claim.
What is the evidence from Labour, and The SNP that 16 year olds in Britain are more politically mature than 16 year olds elsewhere in Europe or other mature democracies. Whole thing smacks of right on desperation.
I can just imagine your post 90 years ago substituting the phrase 16 year olds with the word women .
Instead of sticking to a party line, ask why so many states won't allow the under 18 year olds to vote. What has votes for women got to do with this issue?
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnexpress UKIP at 19 on ComRes and 13 on YouGov today. Don't think this was how Lynton's script was supposed to run.
The PB Tories prefer to ignore that, although surely by now they have realised the great job Lynton Crosby is doing for UKIP.
I could be wrong here, but I suspect Crosby's message is aimed at getting results in the May 2015 general election (when the choice his implications) rather than the August 2013 opinion polls (when they don't).
Comments
And so to bed.
At the time, the GCSEs were the most stressful time of my life, and the last thing I would have wanted that time would be politicians asking me for my vote
So they get lucky
Sadly, cost trumps accuracy, and so the number of phone polls has continued to decline.
What I think we can (reasonably) safely say is the UKIP will poll lower than the high teens they've been getting with some online firms. But I'm not sure if that means those pollsters are wrong. Maybe we should say they're right at the moment, but the voters will change their minds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFWKJ2FUiAQ
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-08-18/former-miliband-guru-tells-labour-leader-to-grow-up/
OK, I acknowledge you really are tone-deaf...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0FAPa7lNss
Try ignoring the video, and accept what your ears are telling you...
Any advance on two-chord songs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHokCyVTl2s
and for those who can read the dots...
http://www.jazztranscriptions.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/billevans-i-loves-you-porgy-montreux.pdf
Bill Evans was a 'smackhead', but seldom has a human being melded his soul with a musical instrument as he did...
Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats ducked the chance to appear on next month's head-to-head debate on STV about welfare and pensions.
Instead, in a group decision by the pro-Union parties, Scottish Labour's deputy leader Anas Sarwar, above, will speak for the No campaign.
Miles Davis said: "Bill had this quiet fire that I loved on piano. The way he approached it, the sound he got was like crystal notes or sparkling water cascading down from some clear waterfall."
Another great track "Isn't it Romantic?" - 50 years old. No way......!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlBn0pdGYn8
non·par·ti·san [non-pahr-tuh-zuhn]
adjective
1. not partisan; objective.
2. not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like.
It's true the Greenpeace is independent of some things, like control by North or South Korea, but the relevant factor here would nuclear power, not Korean Peninsula relations, so that kind of independence wouldn't be relevant.
On another note, the recent increase in cost (from £32.7 billion to £42.6 billion) was largely down to the treasury changing the cost risk from P50 to P95. In other words, the increase in costs is accounting rather than actual.
IANAE, but the way I understand it is this: the risk of every item in a project is calculated. If each of these risky items came in at double the projected cost, that's P100. If they came in at cost, that's P0. Usually the treasury costs projects at P50 (i.e. half the risky items will double in cost). The HS2 was shifted to P95 - in other words, they have calculated it so that every risky cost is almost doubled.
So there is a massive amount of contingency budgeted in. I would like to know why the treasury chose to shift to P95 when they apparently rarely do so for other projects.
To see the effect this has on the costs, here's an excerpt from Hansard: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc478-i/uc47801.htm
So of the £42.6 billion, a whopping £14.4 billion is contingency.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/sqxomr7kyn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-160813.pdf
Doing well as Labour leader (net): -42 (-6)
Provided effective opposition : -54 (-8)
Strong leader: -41,(-4)
Up to job of PM: -42 (-5)
Simultaneously, Anthony Blunt, having just been outed as the Fourth Man of the Cambridge spy ring, has dinner with the deputy editor of The Times, in order to give his version of events. #the-real-reason-for-the-photographers
Can Name Shadow (net)
Chancellor: -24
Home Sec: -68
Foreign Sec: -84
Health Sec : -68
Then checks our alternatives to Ed - (Balls, Cooper, Burnham, Harman & Umanna) none of whom would be better, mainly because "I don't know, or know enough about this person" which is highest for "Britain's Obama" on 61.
All worth bearing in mind when the reshuffle comes....
Speaking of trains, I am lamenting the imminent retirement of the old 125s on the west coast mainline. Call me a luddite, but I see no room for improvement!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom#High_Speed_1_.28HS1.29
2) 125s (I assume you mean HST 125's) never routinely travelled on the WCML, which was the domain of electric trains since the 1960s. HST 125s were (and still are in some cases) on the ECML, MML, and GWML)
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10249815/High-speed-rail-scheme-cost-to-double-to-80bn-economists-warn.html
And yes, I meant to say the great western main line! I have travelled the Bristol <-> London route often, and much prefer the 125s over the newer Pendolino/Voyager trains which you find going between Penzance and Birmingham.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-ed-miliband-labours-2181006
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23744316
I love HSTs, and it's going to be a shame when they're replaced with IEP, which looks like it's going to be an awful project.
However, HSTs were not so good when they caught fire, as one did near Leicester for a friend of mine. She was not impressed with having to decamp onto the lineside ...
Saying that, the wikipedia article has no citation for the claim it was under budget. So any other links on this would be useful.
Ugh, the new trains are just smelly and hot. And there are no windows in the vestibules which you can open. Advancements my arse.
Anyway... was her experience like this? -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv3M0dB3Dqg ;-)
Labour VI on ED Miliband
Doing well as Labour leader (net): +6
Provided effective opposition : -27
Strong leader: -8
Up to job of PM: +14
Labour VI on Labour Front Bench:
Can Name (net):
Shadow Chancellor: -14
Home Sec: -60
Foreign Sec: -80
Health Sec : -60
Do you think the Labour party would have been
better off or worse off it had chosen David
Miliband as leader, or would it have made no
difference?
Better: 44 (LAB VI: 49)
Worse: 5 (LAB VI: 7)
No difference: 28 (LAB VI:26)
Do you think each of the following would make a
better or worse leader of the Labour party than
Ed Miliband? (net)
Ed Balls: -15 (LAB VI: -3)
Burnham: -2 (LAB VI:-1)
Cooper: -8 (LAB VI:-3)
Harman: -9 (LAB VI: +1)
Chuka: -9 (LAB VI: -5)
http://www.halcrow.com/Our-projects/Project-details/High-Speed-1-UK/
http://www.bechtel.com/high_speed_1.html
I'm wondering if the confusion is because of the phased delivery of HS1 (indeed, at one stage the section from Fawkham Junction to the Chunnel was known as HS1, and the stretch from St Pancras to Fawkham Junction was known as HS2!)
In addition, it depends on when the final budget that was met was decided - although I very much doubt the original cost was £1 billion. I also question the £11 billion costs, as most sources say it cost £5.8 billion, including £800 million to rebuild St Pancras.
@TimGattITV
“@itvnews: Miliband slumps to new poll low as Lord Prescott slams failing Labour http://itv.co/16SXVaZ ”
@DPJHodges
"Ed Miliband sinks to new low with just one in five voters backing him". More blatant propaganda from the pro-Tory Sunday Mirror..
Most of those are ludicrous inclusions.
I'd feel much better if other projects were treated in the same manner - for instance Heathrow expansion, Crossrail or motorway schemes. But they are not.
The more the HS2 doubters witter on, the more they seem ridiculous. They use exactly the same techniques as the anti-fracking crowd.
Premitrom @premitrom
Ed Miliband announces reshuffle. #skypapers pic.twitter.com/aYG5tWnXCl
Which means he never heard of the WCML upgrade. Initially costed at £2 billion, it was finally delivered years late, for about £10 billion, with a max line speed of 125 MPH instead of 140MPH, and no new signalling system (hundreds of millions was spent on this alone before it was scrapped).
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-modernisation-of-the-west-coast-main-line/
And many intermediate local stations were closed.
Rebuilding existing lines when they are running at or near capacity is massively costly.
Very good!
Of course, today's further criticism of both Labour's Front Bench and EdM, and backed by the polls, show that there is an excellent opportunity for a very good backbencher at the Autumn Conference to make an outstanding speech and reveal themselves as an alternate leader.
YouGov shows that only Aunt Harman is seen positively by Labour's VI - so are Labour's VI (after remembering the strict governance and leadership of Mrs T) seeking a feminine regime (except if your name is Dromey) that will wield rolling pins and have comforting apron strings?
his month has been the worse for Miliband since becoming leader and the Labour percentage just doesn't budge from that bracket. Some might say the figures change between pollsters. They do not. In every single poll by every single pollster since 25th August 2010 Labour has only moved south of the bracket nine times, which can easily be countered by the fact it was north of the bracket forty eight times( and most have been within margin of error) but in general it stays within the bracket.
The Conservatives have been going on and on cheered on by arch-Thatcherite Dan Hodge in the Mail/Telegraph on the Ed is crap line. I hate to point it out, but, it may effect the leadership ratings, but leadership rating don't win elections(Thatcher was behind Callaghan before the 1979 election and was still behind him four months after it), it's people who vote that win elections and Labours vote is steady.
One of the main benefactors for Labour is the fact that the Lib Dems who crossed over to Labour in 2010 after the coalition was formed are now limpet like with Labour. Whether these are ex-Labour voters who left after Iraq but have come back, whether it is people who bought into Nick Cleggs "new politics" but now would never admit they uttered the words "I agree with Nick" or are just Lib Dems who voters who are that pissed of with the coalition they would vote for a frog in a hat as long as it got rid of the coalition, who knows, but whatever the coalition parties say, and I mean both of them, they are sticking with Labour no matter what.
It may not be a resounding endorsement for Ed Miliband, but he doesn't need endorsements, he needs voters, and the most important set of voters at the moment(Lib Dem switchers) are saying the are going to vote Labour.......and they have now said that for three years.
If the Tories cannot break the Labour bracket, then they won't stop Ed Miliband getting to number ten, whether they think he is crap or not.
"Introduce voting at sixteen. We will also allow people to stand for elected office at this age, the stage in life at which they are able to begin full-time work and pay taxes. We will promote the action and habit of participation earlier in life through citizenship education and school councils."
http://www.libdemmanifesto.com/2001/2001-liberal-manifesto.shtml#constitution
Labour VI on Labour Front Bench:
Can Name (net):
Shadow Chancellor: -14
Home Sec: -60
Foreign Sec: -80
Health Sec : -60
The three at a net -60 or -80 must have had barely 1 in 10 Labour supporters who knew who they are. Politics is a very niche minority sport in this country and the vast majority just don't care at all.
No doubt it was always thus to some extent but that is not the way I remember it from 30 years ago. Whether it was Maggie or a much clearer clash of ideas far more people seemed to have an actual opinion one way or the other.
I think the major reason for this is not the ineptitude of the incumbents of these very important offices but the fact that the differences between the parties are small and in the detail. I fear ever greater alienation and a reduction in voter participation. Our politics just bores the vast majority of the population. They simply don't care.
"The Commission on Local Government Electoral Arrangements in Wales - an independent review set up by the Welsh Cabinet - this week supported the lowering of the voting age to 16."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2092660.stm
Agree with your general thrust (seen from behind the red flag). However, what the UK does not want and does not need in 2015 is an idea-less leader backed by a front bench that still clings on to yesterday's baggage, as that is all they know and can envisage.
In 2015 global conditions will be as tough and competition even tougher. What may have been thought to work in the 2000s and failed, will not be good enough for the 2010s and 2020s.
Without outstanding vision and even better leadership, the decline and fall of the UK globally will continue and will be very difficult to haul back. It is doubtful if another Coalition would achieve any of these objectives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party#Policies_and_electoral_strategy
A rapidly failing economy, an ever worsening Health service and an absolute failure of an education system - which is now being designed so that by using different examinations, its continuing education failure will not be so obvious. Perhaps they should be fully independent and live off their own taxes.
Is this EdM?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BR8A-ygCAAAmuOc.jpg:large
Or
RT @PickardJE: Lord Glasman: Labour battle-bus is parked in a "lay-by of introspection" dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
There is of course the crude and simple bribe..that aways seems to work
The media narrative is being driven by disgruntled labour people. The tory papers are merely reporting their discontent.
Ed's doing OK in the polls why don't they just shut up?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2396382/Lord-Glasman-Ed-Miliband-REAL-Labour-leader.html
"...We forget at our peril that it was the Labour movement that built the burial societies so that the poor would not be abandoned to a pauper’s grave. People clubbed together and founded building societies and mutual societies so that misfortune did not turn into catastrophe.
Our values were respectability, loyalty, courage and, above all, work. Labour. We cared about it so much we named our party after it. These are the values we need now to rebuild trust and renew a sense of virtue and vocation in the economy and in politics. The Labour Party’s future lies in reclaiming its inheritance. Our tradition is our future.
At the very time when Labour should be showing the way ahead, it gives the impression of not knowing which way to turn. When the Labour battle bus should be revving up, it is parked in a lay-by of introspection. It is a time for Ed Miliband to show he is a grown-up politician big enough to lead this country. There is an open goal here for Labour. But if we are going to start scoring and winning, then Labour must learn to be a partner and friend to the good once more.
Labour has made a grave error by allowing the Tories to falsely claim the mantle of the party of family and responsibility. We must support people in honouring their family obligations to their parents, children, and to each other. There must be ‘incentives to virtue’ so that those who give are rewarded and recognised..."
If they're still in school when you register them it becomes practical to give them a secret bit of information (just a single, random letter is fine) that they can use to vote secretly, even online or by post and with you watching.
Miss Plato, anyone who votes for the same party continuously solely on the basis that they (and their parents) always have is a bloody fool. Alas, we have many of them around here. [Early prediction: Balls will hold this seat but, again, the UKIP vote will be larger than his majority].
Most people have concluded that no party has a really good set of ideas or a really great set of leaders, and that the current problems are largely intractable. So they retreat to expressing general sympathy for one party or another, in the manner of football team supporters. That's why the voting intention figures are slow to move regardless of opinions of leaders or developments in the economy - people generally assign neither praise nor blame for economic changes, seeing them more like changes in the weather.
They are not entirely wrong, of course. I was chatting this week to a retired very senior Swiss politician, who commented that we now have a globalised economy but nothing remotely resembling globalised decision-making, so on economic matters we have substantially retreated from democratic or even human control.
Indeed. I read the tories were having some trouble recruiting a candidate to run against him, is that still the case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0
On the Road to Nowhere.
I guess so. Last night's thatcher programme pointed out Mrs T was 'the most unpopular PM in history' in the polls before increasing her majority in 1983.
Very different days of course, but worth bearing in mind.
Correct Mr Morris. I just looked it up and they selected a lady by the name of Andrea Jenkyns.
That said, the moaning in the press seems to be mostly from fairly minor people. The media are inevitably going to be able to find unhappy people willing to say how unhappy they are if that's the story they want to write.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396378/50-year-old-fracking-site-makes-mockery-Balcombe-zealots-Its-nature-reserve--fracked-gas-oil-power-21-000-homes-day--complaints-locals.html
'They are not entirely wrong, of course. I was chatting this week to a retired very senior Swiss politician, who commented that we now have a globalised economy but nothing remotely resembling globalised decision-making, so on economic matters we have substantially retreated from democratic or even human control.'
I think that's a significant (and interesting) factor in the broader disengagement from politics. There was a related (on and off) article in the Telegraph recently, also touching on the way that people now communicate - which has clear implications for parties. Paul Mason has written a fair bit about this re issue politics, protest etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10214068/Globalisation-has-a-darker-side-and-its-a-challenge-to-us-all.html
John Mann MP @JohnMannMP
I'm opening a care home for former Labour deputy leaders. All egos catered for. Iron discipline guaranteed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23745001
Replaced by an uncapped SLA Lancs bowler.
Police have arrested 45 men believed to be involved in the biggest child sex ring ever seen in the UK, it emerged today.
The arrests come after a year-long investigation into sex abuse allegations across three towns in West Yorkshire.
Most of the suspects - said to be white and Asian - are in their 20s but some of are said to be middle aged, up to their 60s.
Members of the gang are alleged to have abused four girls - some as young as 13 - over several years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396486/UKs-biggest-child-sex-gang-uncovered-45-men-arrested-abuse-girls-young-13.html#ixzz2cJMxQjpG
"For the third weekend running, Labour's woes remain the story. In his Sunday Mirror column, John Prescott declares that the party has "massively failed" to get its message across and reminds everyone how it was a different story when he was manning the shop. He writes: "We always planned well ahead with our news grid and during summer I met every day with my team looking at the stories and messages we were going to deliver...I joked with Tony that our poll rating always went up by the time I finished summer watch."
If this turns out to work, we're in for a deeply stupid election campaign.
However hard Ed pulls the chain he just won't go away.
Somebody better tell Labour's Gloria, who claims that the party is now listening to local people who say they are not being given a fair deal when going up against immigrants for jobs (ignoring the rather awkward fact that labour let in 3 million immigrants).
It's a bit like the lawyer who punches you in the face, then offers to represent you in a compensation claim.