politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lib Dem voters sticking with Nick Clegg according to new Yo

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article by Ruth Davidson on how the Scots Tories held their vote:

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/05/ruth-davidson-msp-how-we-held-our-euro-seat-and-grew-our-vote-in-scotland.html

Davidson is excellent, no doubt about that.

Oh!

Those mysogynist homophobic Tories.

First Lady PM, and now first openly gay leader - and a woman to boot!

If only they'd stick to the script.......

Just need a non white leader for the treble - should imagine the LDs or Ukip will beat them to it mind you..

Sajid Javid?

state_go_away said:

While both Labour and the Greens may be defined as left ,with the Greens more left wing its a very different kind of leftness. Labour left is unions and industry and Green left is fluffy farmer's markets and hippie communes.
Not sure there is huge incentive or desire to support each other really certainly amongst their voters. Greens get a lot of support from otherwise lib dems or trendy conservatives

This sums up Labour's dilemma. We have to expand our appeal to the affluent left to capture those voting Green or persisting with the Lib Dems, while at the same time proomoting the Blue Labour agenda to get the working class voters back on-side who have drifted off to the Kippers. The danger is falling between two stools and coming out with policies that attract no-one but put off different sectors of the target market. A difficult balancing act.

CarlottaVance said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article by Ruth Davidson on how the Scots Tories held their vote:

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/05/ruth-davidson-msp-how-we-held-our-euro-seat-and-grew-our-vote-in-scotland.html

Davidson is excellent, no doubt about that.

Oh!

Those mysogynist homophobic Tories.

First Lady PM, and now first openly gay leader - and a woman to boot!

If only they'd stick to the script.......

Just need a non white leader for the treble - should imagine the LDs or Ukip will beat them to it mind you..

Sajid Javid?

Well someone* thinks it will be Adam Afriyie

*Someone = Adam Afriyie

Monksfield said:

Charles said:

kieran said:

And actually the profile of Green voters is probably the most favourable in the whole electorate - generally middle class, liberal, soft left, ethical. That is the group Ed probably does best with.

In what way is demanding higher fuel prices, causing massive issues among those with insufficient wealth to be able to afford your ideals, in any way, shape or form, "ethical"?

Green supporters just want to impose their worldview on everyone else and hang the consequences

Green supporters are possibly the only ones who understand sustainable development. And will probably have the last hollow laugh as market capitalism falls apart in wars over scarce resources.

Anyway before I go to work, the irony yesterday of TSE making some derogatory comment about public sector workers being skivers and shirkers whilst posting on PB all the working day was hilarious. As a Public sector worker you won't find me posting during the working day.....

Absolutely bullsh1t. And arrogant bullsh1t to make it worse.

Sustainable development is at the very heart of conservatism. Carefully husbanding resources, investing selectively, maximising their long term productivity as part of a vibrant ecosystem is the key: whether you are talking about environment or business.

To give an example, a few years before they sold their farm my parents replanted a wood. They knew that they, and we, would never live to see it grow up (they hoped their grandchildren might). *That* is sustainable development: not making pensioners who are struggling to live choose between heat and food.

SandyRentool said:

state_go_away said:

While both Labour and the Greens may be defined as left ,with the Greens more left wing its a very different kind of leftness. Labour left is unions and industry and Green left is fluffy farmer's markets and hippie communes.
Not sure there is huge incentive or desire to support each other really certainly amongst their voters. Greens get a lot of support from otherwise lib dems or trendy conservatives

This sums up Labour's dilemma. We have to expand our appeal to the affluent left to capture those voting Green or persisting with the Lib Dems, while at the same time proomoting the Blue Labour agenda to get the working class voters back on-side who have drifted off to the Kippers. The danger is falling between two stools and coming out with policies that attract no-one but put off different sectors of the target market. A difficult balancing act.

The one 'ace in the hole' Labour have is the remaining anti-Tory sentiment across both groups.

And if the Conservatives chase UKIP support this is only more likely to push green liberal lefties towards Labour.

The real strategic problem is in the medium term - especially if Labour do win the next election as government will lay bare divisions which can be fudged somewhat in opposition.

Mr. Fett, outside the big cities = most of the country.

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yay for STV, we're missing out on the fun of STV whilst we run with FPTP

Yesterday LibDemVoice published the results of the members survey carried out over the last two days, as we reported then we would be making the full results of the final question available. Below is the breakdown for each of the 42 stages, and if you are really interest you can download the ballot file to run through your favourite STV counter (mine is OpenSTV, but it’s chargable) eliminating candidates if you so wish.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/stv-stages-for-a-potential-replacement-leader-40415.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Oh good grief, could you imagine Tower Hamlets operating that system. They'd still be going 3 years hence.

Under my plans for a Directly Elected Dictator, it would be one poll, nationwide winner under FPTP.

None of this fannying around.

One man, one vote, once?

One man, one vote, once every ten years.

I may permit regular elections to a Senate.

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

kieran said:

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

Not really ,lots of marginals with areas of solid labour in them . If some go to UKIP then tories could take them

kieran said:

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

I wonder if the chunks of UKIP voters in safe Labour areas are from people who did not vote in 2010 and maybe for a few elections prior to that.

I have suggested to Lord Ashcroft he does some polling on these Kippers and see when and how they voted in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010.

SandyRentool said:

state_go_away said:

While both Labour and the Greens may be defined as left ,with the Greens more left wing its a very different kind of leftness. Labour left is unions and industry and Green left is fluffy farmer's markets and hippie communes.
Not sure there is huge incentive or desire to support each other really certainly amongst their voters. Greens get a lot of support from otherwise lib dems or trendy conservatives

This sums up Labour's dilemma. We have to expand our appeal to the affluent left to capture those voting Green or persisting with the Lib Dems, while at the same time proomoting the Blue Labour agenda to get the working class voters back on-side who have drifted off to the Kippers. The danger is falling between two stools and coming out with policies that attract no-one but put off different sectors of the target market. A difficult balancing act.

The alternative would be to craft a convincing Economic Policy that could rally all of those voters, with one consistent message, and persuade them to put less importance on cultural issues.

That is what Labour have failed to do, and if they lose the next general election that will be why.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kieran said:

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

I wonder if the chunks of UKIP voters in safe Labour areas are from people who did not vote in 2010 and maybe for a few elections prior to that.

There was an article recently that highlighted the number of former-Labour voters is greater than, or close to, the number of current-Labour voters in many of their 'safe' seats.

anotherDave said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kieran said:

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

I wonder if the chunks of UKIP voters in safe Labour areas are from people who did not vote in 2010 and maybe for a few elections prior to that.

There was an article recently that highlighted the number of former-Labour voters is greater than, or close to, the number of current-Labour voters in many of their 'safe' seats.

Do you have a link? I might do a thread on that.

Judging by the post euro rhetoric on the radio and TV across Europe it is worrying that the conclusion seems to be that immigration is the problem and not the EU itself.
I do not like the EU and in the distant past have voted UKIP to basically get us out of a interfering ,costly, corrupt EU not because I don't like free movement of people.
I would not entertain voting UKIP these days as they seem to have made immigration their reason to hate the EU and not its ability to waste and interfere and feather certain vested interests like farmers and professional politicians.
Its typical of the arrogant EU that they think the problem is not themselves per se but immigration (perhaps one of the best things in many ways imo about it).

Betting Post

Have just put a tenner on UKIP to win Newark at 3.65, seems like good odds to me.

Neil said:

MarqueeMark said:

kieran said:

Given that at the last GE the greens got just 1% of the vote - and did slightly worse in the euros than in 09 in terms of votes - this is clearly a vote which could be squeezed by Labour.

Alternatively, the Green vote won't be squeezed

Of course the Green vote will be heavily squeezed in a GE under FPTP. Why would 2015 be any different to every other GE in this respect?

1) You have an MP

2) You may well be part of the debates - We could have a Cleggasm for the Greens.

3) Anti-fracking is a popular policy

4) Remember I have a bet on there being zero Green MPs at the next election, that's usually a cue for a Green Landslide.

Charles said:

...making pensioners who are struggling to live choose between heat and food.

Charles, I could probably find a lot of common ground with you, but rubbish like that is extremely irritating.

Green policy is not to force pensioners to choose between eating and heating, it's to use energy efficiency and renewables to protect those pensioners from the increase in price of fossil fuels, as the easily exploited reserves are used up.

The vast majority of the increase in energy prices over the last decade has been due to increases in the cost of fossil fuels, not because of "green crap".

Serious question as I don't know the answer , are the Greens still against GM crops? Not heard them say much in the last few years on it

TheScreamingEagles said:

kieran said:

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

I wonder if the chunks of UKIP voters in safe Labour areas are from people who did not vote in 2010 and maybe for a few elections prior to that.

I have suggested to Lord Ashcroft he does some polling on these Kippers and see when and how they voted in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010.

The problem with that is false recall. Many voters cannot remember how they voted in 2010, never mind previous elections!

BobaFett said:

Labour won't give a toss how its traditional support votes in Ruralshire West, where it cannot win. It will be keeping a close eye on Suburb Central and Little City North.

So Ed Miliband's comments in Thurrock about "One Nation" being the word that defined his outlook is a lie then?

TGOHF said:

Neil said:

Charles said:

Monksfield said:

Charles said:

kieran said:

And actually the profile of Green voters is probably the most favourable in the whole electorate - generally middle class, liberal, soft left, ethical. That is the group Ed probably does best with.

In what way is demanding higher fuel prices, causing massive issues among those with insufficient wealth to be able to afford your ideals, in any way, shape or form, "ethical"?

Green supporters just want to impose their worldview on everyone else and hang the consequences

Green supporters are possibly the only ones who understand sustainable development. And will probably have the last hollow laugh as market capitalism falls apart in wars over scarce resources.

Anyway before I go to work, the irony yesterday of TSE making some derogatory comment about public sector workers being skivers and shirkers whilst posting on PB all the working day was hilarious. As a Public sector worker you won't find me posting during the working day.....

To give an example, a few years before they sold their farm my parents replanted a wood. They knew that they, and we, would never live to see it grow up (they hoped their grandchildren might). *That* is sustainable development: not making pensioners who are struggling to live choose between heat and food.

Clearly the Greens should just give up and allow the natural rulers of the world do their thing without question from the plebs.

And we dont want pensioners to choose between heat and food - we dont want them to have either.

Surely a true Green would like to see pensioners recycled for soya fertiliser ?

Obviously. But those damn human rights laws, grrr!

BobaFett said:

JonathanD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonathanD said:

Socrates said:

BobaFett said:

@Morris


One nation Kippers who got spanked in London and the big city areas where people outnumber sheep.

You don't get out of London much do you?

Bobafett's casual bigotry against his fellow countrymen and women is quite something isn't it?

With that attitude it's hard to believe that Labour polled less than 30% across the country at the last General Election

I


It certainly explains how 'make the whites angry' became an accepted part of their Immigration Ministers campaign strategy.

That you liken a flippant comment about sheep with crude racism says more about you than it does about me. Thanks.

I wish you wouldn't talk so much about sheep. Makes a valley boy like myself, who has, allegedly a close, attachment to them slightly uneasy! Lol

Ps fWIW I believe the polls will settle over the coming weeks and show labour back to the 37/38 mark, and will give them a decent win in the GE. Apologies Rod Crosby.

state_go_away said:

Serious question as I don't know the answer , are the Greens still against GM crops? Not heard them say much in the last few years on it

This is the current policy.

Personally, I think it's a bit out-of-date and needs to be updated to reflect the benefits that GM crops can have in some circumstances - I'm thinking of the vitamin D enriched rice, as one example, but there are others.

Charles said:

SandyRentool said:

The oil and coal industries want to impose their worldview on everyone else and hang the consequences.

Am I green-red or red-green? Hard to tell, really.

No, they don't as a rule*. They operate within the constraints of a highly regulated industry, looking to maximise economic production in a sustainable manner. If they just went "hand the consequences" it would have a major impact on their ability to develop new sites in future because there are so many powerful stakeholders in the natural resources sector

* Of course there are exceptions, such as Toxic Bob. It will be a cool epitaph, but he is despised in the industry. The majors deal with him because they have to, but they do it with a very long spoon. My wife is friends with someone who led a negotiation against TB, and the stories are something special!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Friedland

Highly regulated? Mountain top removal coal mining and the wild-west style shale gas industry in the US? Oil production in Nigeria? And how much do these industries spend on promoting climate change denial through PR, lobbying and funding of dodgy 'academics'?

If we fully account for the externalities, the oil and coal industries are the biggest destroyers of 'wealth' that there is.

OblitusSumMe said:

Charles said:

...making pensioners who are struggling to live choose between heat and food.

Charles, I could probably find a lot of common ground with you, but rubbish like that is extremely irritating.

Green policy is not to force pensioners to choose between eating and heating, it's to use energy efficiency and renewables to protect those pensioners from the increase in price of fossil fuels, as the easily exploited reserves are used up.

The vast majority of the increase in energy prices over the last decade has been due to increases in the cost of fossil fuels, not because of "green crap".

Do you have data on that - I've not researched it, but it's not the impression you get from the papers.

But fundamentally, I take the view that retail customers are the wrong people to hit on energy costs. There's a case for subsiding alternative sources of energy (although I think a balanced portfolio is better than emphasising renewables only) but in my view this should be paid out of taxation.

We have to extract all the oil and gas we can so our grandchildren will have the money to pay the debts.
Logically of course, they won't have any oil or gas, but they will be rich....
(for a given definition of rich)

SandyRentool said:

Charles said:

SandyRentool said:

The oil and coal industries want to impose their worldview on everyone else and hang the consequences.

Am I green-red or red-green? Hard to tell, really.

No, they don't as a rule*. They operate within the constraints of a highly regulated industry, looking to maximise economic production in a sustainable manner. If they just went "hand the consequences" it would have a major impact on their ability to develop new sites in future because there are so many powerful stakeholders in the natural resources sector

* Of course there are exceptions, such as Toxic Bob. It will be a cool epitaph, but he is despised in the industry. The majors deal with him because they have to, but they do it with a very long spoon. My wife is friends with someone who led a negotiation against TB, and the stories are something special!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Friedland

Highly regulated? Mountain top removal coal mining and the wild-west style shale gas industry in the US? Oil production in Nigeria? And how much do these industries spend on promoting climate change denial through PR, lobbying and funding of dodgy 'academics'?

If we fully account for the externalities, the oil and coal industries are the biggest destroyers of 'wealth' that there is.

I can see you are a true believer.

No point in discussing with you really.

I tend to be sceptical about all radical propositions

@Charles

"I tend to be sceptical about all radical propositions "

I tend to be sceptical that people who seek greater wealth really care that much about the long term good of the world.
Their track record is not good.

@TGOHF

And when we have hosed all the resources up against the wall of "growth" then what?

TheScreamingEagles said:

anotherDave said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kieran said:

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

I wonder if the chunks of UKIP voters in safe Labour areas are from people who did not vote in 2010 and maybe for a few elections prior to that.

There was an article recently that highlighted the number of former-Labour voters is greater than, or close to, the number of current-Labour voters in many of their 'safe' seats.

Do you have a link? I might do a thread on that.

Tim Wigmore's is on the same lines, but I don't think it's the one I was thinking of.

"Since 1992, voter turnout has dropped more in the North than South.

If Doncaster North is Miliband-land, it doesn’t feel much like it. The Labour vote here collapsed from 34,000 in 1992 to 19,000 in 2010. In Doncaster's three seats, Labour has lost 40,000 votes since 1992."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100254439/why-labour-should-be-terrified-of-ukip-2/

@TGOHF

Faith versus rationality and basic mathematics?......yes, that will work.

anotherDave said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

anotherDave said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kieran said:

The discussion of Labour's loss of working class support raises another issue. If UKIP do end up taking substantial chunks of Labour support in safe Labour seats does this not raise the possibility that Labour do even better in terms of seats versus votes?

Of course in the long term there is a huge danger for Labour that at some point the dam breaks and they lose significant chunks of previously safe seats ...

I wonder if the chunks of UKIP voters in safe Labour areas are from people who did not vote in 2010 and maybe for a few elections prior to that.

There was an article recently that highlighted the number of former-Labour voters is greater than, or close to, the number of current-Labour voters in many of their 'safe' seats.

Do you have a link? I might do a thread on that.

Tim Wigmore's is on the same lines, but I don't think it's the one I was thinking of.

"Since 1992, voter turnout has dropped more in the North than South.

If Doncaster North is Miliband-land, it doesn’t feel much like it. The Labour vote here collapsed from 34,000 in 1992 to 19,000 in 2010. In Doncaster's three seats, Labour has lost 40,000 votes since 1992."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100254439/why-labour-should-be-terrified-of-ukip-2/

Thanks

Not sure if this was reported on last night's thread (cos I didn't read it!):

Yarm referendum result:

Leave Stockton and join Hambleton / North Yorkshire: 1565
Stay in Stockton: 177

89% in favour of leaving on a 24% turnout.

"Hambleton Council has given an official 'no comment' in response to Yarm residents voting to move to North Yorkshire in last night's poll."

Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided

Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS
Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS
Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS
Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS
Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC

Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee

The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will

On the energy discussion: one change that I am certain is going to happen over the next couple of years is that of "Fuel Poverty". Currently this is defned as:

"A fuel poor household is defined as one which needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use and to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth. In England, this is defined as 21°C in the living room and 18°C in other occupied rooms."

There are going to be so many people in that position that it will become politically impossible for any government of whatever colour to call how a very significant minority of people live poverty. As it will also be politically impossible for a government to reduce prices (just think of the polar bears), they will change the definition.

P.S. Does anyone heat their living room to 21 degrees and 18 in the rest of the house? Our thermostat has been set at 16% for years and our bills are still enormous.

AndreaParma_82 said:

Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided

Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS
Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS
Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS
Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS
Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC

Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee

The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will

I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.

Socrates - I either didn't make myself clear or you misunderstood my post.

I know cap and trade is the market solution. My argument is that it is not working and that it is very unlikely to work. It sounds great in theory but the problem is 'the price of the negative externality'.

I start from the position that climate change is real and will be exacerbated by a more CO2 emmissions. If you agree with this then to make cap and trade work you need to put a massive price on the negative externality to significantly reduce energy consumption / make alternative fuels more competative. But my argument is that this will never be adopted across the world because it is politically impractical. As the 'market' only works with government intervention, if that intervention is politically unfeasible it won't happen.

The other issue supporting this is that companies are generally risk averse. They are unlikely to spend money on very speculative research. They are much more likely to look at incremental solutions. What this would lead to is much higher energy prices and reliance on relatively expensive renewables.

Given this analysis then - that cap and trade is doomed to failure - the only alternative I can see is a Manhatten-style project. The public sector is good at basic research and is able to be speculative - spend £20bn funding 100 different projects in the hope that one works. The private sector will never do that. Once you have found a cheaper fuel source than fossil fuels the private sector will do the rest.

Of course the counter argument is that this is chasing fools gold. The alternative just doesn't exist and the only way to deal with climate change is to fundamentally change the way we live. My argument though is that given we are spending collectively across the world tens of billions on a doomed approach - why not try something which has at least some chance of success?

TGOHF - you clearly don't think CO2 emissions are a problem so there isn't really much of a debate to be had.

One point though on the politics of fracking. The US is very different because it is so much less densely populated.

Take North Dakota - it is only a little smaller than the UK (c. 70k square miles vs 90k square miles) but it has a population of c. 750k, we have a population of over 60m. That means we are about 50 times more densely populated, making NIMBY concerns much more politically challenging.

BobaFett said:

@Morris

One nation Kippers who got spanked in London and the big city areas where people outnumber sheep.

UKIP got 17% in London, and topped the poll in a lot of big urban areas.

Update on how the betting is going in Newark;
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/newark-by-election-latest-betting-news/

Smarmeron said:

@Charles

"I tend to be sceptical about all radical propositions "

I tend to be sceptical that people who seek greater wealth really care that much about the long term good of the world.
Their track record is not good.

Long term greedy works best.

We've been doing the same thing, quite successfully, for the last 300 years or so.

And our success is absolutely dependent on a functional society: with wealth comes obligation; with power, responsibility; with position, duty.

On topic.
These graphs present a dilemna for the Lib Dem MPs. Stick with Clegg and you will get a national vote of circa 10%. Now, do you feel lucky (punk) ......?
and do you feel that your own wonderfulness will enable you to retain your seat?

9 of the 57 of you are retiring/stepping down (including Hancock). So almost 1/5th are demob happy and do not have to worry about losing their job? Their replacements are the ones really under threat but they have no say in the parliamentary party.

Of the remaing 48 MPs standing again, are there 20 of you that are really worried?

Tissue_Price said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided

Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS
Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS
Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS
Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS
Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC

Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee

The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will

I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.

I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.

@Charles

And when greed fails and causes collapse?
We just pick ourselves up and carry on in the same way?
I thought someone warned us about this a couple of thousand years ago? (and well before that if you look into the Vedetic texts)