politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on where LAB stands post confernence and his
Hi Mike, there’s a few questions to address before we get to whether Andy Burnham will replace Ed Miliband before the election. First of all when would Ed go? It would have to be in the next month or not at all. The new leader really needs 6 months at least to get known, take control and help voters get to know them. I doubt the Labour Party would have a coronation.
Comments
-
First!0
-
Superb analysis Henry0
-
I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.0 -
Oh please Labour elect Andy Burnham.
Really do it, best move ever.0 -
It's lucky for the Conservatives that Labour are so united behind a pants leader like Ed. It will make the election much closer than it should be. As Mervyn King said, the government that implements these cuts should be out of power for a generation, thanks to Ed the Tories may yet win in 2015 and be able to unwind some of the damage with tax cuts for their core voters.0
-
No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.0
-
They'd better be deep cuts since UKIP will always offer deeper ones, and they're fishing in the same pond. The trick is to find the balance of tax cuts and spending cuts that voters find most credible. And the problem is that the further we go into austerity the more absurd it becomes to ring-fence current pensioners from cuts in service provision (which the Coalition effectively has).MaxPB said:It's lucky for the Conservatives that Labour are so united behind a pants leader like Ed. It will make the election much closer than it should be. As Mervyn King said, the government that implements these cuts should be out of power for a generation, thanks to Ed the Tories may yet win in 2015 and be able to unwind some of the damage with tax cuts for their core voters.
A long-standing principle of British government is that it deals even-handedly with its citizens, no matter what their political persuasion. Perhaps this is the principle that is no longer affordable...
0 -
What's most interesting about this situation is how wide open the leadership will be if Ed fails next May. He's argued that he'll carry on, like Kinnock, for a 2nd attempt, and that might well be feasible if Tory is a minority government with perhaps another GE only a year away, like '74.
If he does go, its not obvious who's next. We could see half a dozen candidates or more at this point: Burnham, Cooper, Chukka, Reeves, maybe even Darling or Johnson back from the wilderness.0 -
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t
0 -
Blast from the past.
"Ex-Chancellor Denis Healey, 97, tells @henrydeedes of Miliband: "I knew his dad well and I've met Ed a few times. He's not very good is he?"
0 -
Oh, I agree. But that's often how politics is. If they lose then there'll be a Tory conference next year where they'll be debating AV and boundary changes and so on. But the horse has bolted...MikeSmithson said:
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t0 -
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
0 -
Personally I believe Edward was the wrong choice for Labour and the opportunistic approach to opposition, even on the Syria issue has been depressing, however Labour would be taking another step backwards if Burnham was ever to become leader.
His ego is light years ahead of his ability, a guy who has brown nosed his way to the top of the party, Miliband is not a leader but Burnham would be a gift to the Tories.0 -
The problem is that the Lib Dems' proposals for electoral reform in this parliament have been absolute pants. The public saw AV for the stupid compromise it was. And the 15 year terms alone were enough reasons for the HoL reforms to be thrown out.MikeSmithson said:
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t0 -
I agree with Nick, there's zero chance of Ed being replaced, Labour are stuck with him.
They're in a bit of non-mans land. The polls are 'ok' enough to currently give him victory, but those are only polls, and Henry has made the important point that polls can move quickly when politics are on peoples minds. Polls are like mood-music, they reflect roughly how people are feeling, but not how they will vote, and especially not after a GE campaign.0 -
Elections Etc @ElectionsEtc 17m
It’s so close in our new #GE2015 forecast. 51% chance of Tories as largest party, 49% Labour0 -
It's your own MPs and Lords which will be more fun I think. All those big properties in London will they cough up or call in their tax advisors ? What would Tony do ?NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
The tabloids will have a field day.0 -
Andy Burnham stole the show at the Labour Conference and has Blair-like qualities. Labour must now decide whether it wants to win or lose the General Election next year.0
-
Useless Effing Conservatives couldn't even take a seat off the LDs in Essex.0
-
Looks as Bradford Council are in for a bad press today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-293677770 -
Ed would have to choose to walk. Not sure how that would happen despite a disappointing performance in a critical week.
0 -
Only a big by-election defeat would be possible.. UKIP winning for example, but probably not even then.Jonathan said:Ed would have to choose to walk. Not sure how that would happen despite a disappointing performance in a critical week.
This is probably also the last by-election before the GE.0 -
Wasn't AV Hague's offer which was a compromise, the libDems have always wanted STV.JosiasJessop said:
The problem is that the Lib Dems' proposals for electoral reform in this parliament have been absolute pants. The public saw AV for the stupid compromise it was. And the 15 year terms alone were enough reasons for the HoL reforms to be thrown out.MikeSmithson said:
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t0 -
ROFLMonikerDiCanio said:Andy Burnham stole the show at the Labour Conference and has Blair-like qualities. Labour must now decide whether it wants to win or lose the General Election next year.
Andy Burnham looks like a baby seal that's about to be clubbed. He'll crack under pressure.0 -
As an ex-Labour man who would come back under the right leadership I hope the probability of Burnham becoming leader is zero at any time. I can't think of a politician I would least vote for.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
Cooper is surely a far more sensible option, she looks good, speaks intelligently and would have the strength of character to make her own stamp on the party. The only black mark is her husband, who actually would himself make a far better leader than either Miliband or Burnham.0 -
maybe his brother could knife him.Jonathan said:Ed would have to choose to walk. Not sure how that would happen despite a disappointing performance in a critical week.
0 -
Andy Burnham looks strangely like Dale Winton in Supermarket Sweep days in that youtube pic up top.
0 -
Wrong. It was Osborne who insisted that the electoral reform referendum in 2011 should be on AV which is not what the LDs wanted.JosiasJessop said:
The problem is that the Lib Dems' proposals for electoral reform in this parliament have been absolute pants. The public saw AV for the stupid compromise it was. And the 15 year terms alone were enough reasons for the HoL reforms to be thrown out.MikeSmithson said:
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t
The Lords reform plan was backed by the cabinet 18 of whose 23 members are Tories. If they'd had doubts then why didn't they put alternative proposals?
0 -
Sexual abuse of children is widespread. I was adopted in infancy and remember being told "it's not nice for children to live in children's homes because grown-ups do things to them that they shouldn't". That was in the 1950s so I doubt the grown-ups in question were of any other ethnicity than White English.dr_spyn said:Looks as Bradford Council are in for a bad press today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-29367777
There isn't a matron of such a home in England to-day who can put her hand on her heart and say "it could never happen in my home". And there never will be. Might as well blame the Government for not abolishing murder.
And - for the avoidance of doubt - I am not condoning abuse (or murder).
0 -
After his stunning performance in the indyref, Labour should consider replacing Ed with Gordon Brown.
*Innocent Face*0 -
Despite being to their electoral disadvantage, the Tories, right or wrong, believe in both the Union and FPTP - it's fun watching their "principled" critics condemn them for sticking to what they believe is right.....oh and they won on both.....0
-
Burnham has managed to survive Stafford to emerge as the tear-jerking champion of the NHS. He has considerable resilience and political skill.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLMonikerDiCanio said:Andy Burnham stole the show at the Labour Conference and has Blair-like qualities. Labour must now decide whether it wants to win or lose the General Election next year.
Andy Burnham looks like a baby seal that's about to be clubbed. He'll crack under pressure.
0 -
Or, the best chance in a generation for the LDs to secure electoral reform and constitutional change and the Cabinet Minister in charge, one Nick Clegg, comes away with nothing... Who is the cretin?MikeSmithson said:
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t0 -
He saved the pound; he saved the world; he saved the union. Not flash, just Gordon!TheScreamingEagles said:After his stunning performance in the indyref, Labour should consider replacing Ed with Gordon Brown.
*Innocent Face*0 -
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)0 -
The prospect is enough to make you sleep uneasy in your bed Nick ;-)NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
0 -
He was awful on R4 last week, hasn't really been interrogated on Stafford and has a few expenses issues. Toxic so let them elect him, hours of fun.MonikerDiCanio said:
Burnham has managed to survive Stafford to emerge as the tear-jerking champion of the NHS. He has considerable resilience and political skill.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLMonikerDiCanio said:Andy Burnham stole the show at the Labour Conference and has Blair-like qualities. Labour must now decide whether it wants to win or lose the General Election next year.
Andy Burnham looks like a baby seal that's about to be clubbed. He'll crack under pressure.
" would you like a shroud with your hospital bed madam ?"
0 -
Yvette Cooper for me.
She's good, clever and she's female.
Plus her husband, arguably the cleverest MP in the party, would be fully on side.
But Labour won't change now. If they get credit for anything then loyalty to a leader is something they have in spades (unless Gordon is around, brooding and pulling legs off spiders).
The Tories must be delighted with Ed. They should be miles behind in the polls by now. The lacklustre, unconvincing nature of Ed's leadership (he does nothing for me) has given them a glimmer.
I even think - despite his unpopularity with many - that Ed Balls would've done better. At least he's a signpost. Can't argue that he wouldn't have been strong and strident.0 -
The LibDems should have refused the compromise and kept their powder dry.JosiasJessop said:
The problem is that the Lib Dems' proposals for electoral reform in this parliament have been absolute pants. The public saw AV for the stupid compromise it was. And the 15 year terms alone were enough reasons for the HoL reforms to be thrown out.MikeSmithson said:
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t
0 -
The bizarre lovechild of Dale Winton and a seal.Slackbladder said:Andy Burnham looks strangely like Dale Winton in Supermarket Sweep days in that youtube pic up top.
Only on PB!0 -
On topic- it's far too late and it would take much more than a by-election loss to shift someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence. And not sure how much Burnham would enjoy a GE campaign being chased around offered a drink from a flower vase.....0
-
FPTP is not to the Tories' electoral disadvantage; currently it is just slightly less advantageous to them than it is to Labour. But they can still secure an overall majority on 37% or so of the vote, while other parties can get I5% or 20% and secure few if any seats.CarlottaVance said:Despite being to their electoral disadvantage, the Tories, right or wrong, believe in both the Union and FPTP - it's fun watching their "principled" critics condemn them for sticking to what they believe is right.....oh and they won on both.....
0 -
Because they didn't want HoL Reform, or at least any sort of HoL reform the Lib Dems might want? So best to go for something even more unworkable. Besides, if the Lib Dems wanted another system such as STV, they should have stuck to their guns.MikeSmithson said:
Wrong. It was Osborne who insisted that the electoral reform referendum in 2011 should be on AV which is not what the LDs wanted.JosiasJessop said:
The problem is that the Lib Dems' proposals for electoral reform in this parliament have been absolute pants. The public saw AV for the stupid compromise it was. And the 15 year terms alone were enough reasons for the HoL reforms to be thrown out.MikeSmithson said:
But if Ed wins LAB is unlikely to change the system.rottenborough said:No, it is far too late now. But the electoral system could yet deliver Ed to No. 10. Look for Tories arguing for big change to the system if that happens.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t
The Lords reform plan was backed by the cabinet 18 of whose 23 members are Tories. If they'd had doubts then why didn't they put alternative proposals?
It sounds like the Conservatives got what they wanted on both the issues.
As a side issue (and speaking as a coalitionista), both parties need congratulating for putting such ructions to one side and continuing to work together afterwards.0 -
An excellent analysis Henry that shows pb.com at its finest on analysis of current political situations.
Ed is a duffer. Might be a nice bloke 1 to 1 as people say. So am I. But I know my limitations - and would never be so vainglorious as to put myself forward to lead my country. His Conference speech is gradually being acknowledged for the shocker it was. Driving back from Scotland, I listened to it all. Time and again, ideas were masked by the woeful presentation. A job interview with the British public? Sheesh. Putting aside that he has spent the last four years having that interview, if he was going for a job interview with me, he wouldn't have made the shortlist.
But Labour are stuck with him. I can't see the Unions who put him in place having the humility to admit they foisted a dud on the Party. But those in Labour who worry about the poll leads are right to worry. Next May, the voters will have to answer this question: Labour - under Ed Miliband - is it really worth the risk? Based on the final offering in Manchester, the answer will be a resounding no. And deservedly so.
Labour can then have a discussion over future direction - to discuss whether it can find a business model for the economy that does not repeatedly break. And broken it most certainly is. For the party of the working man to ALWAYS leave office with unemployment higher than it inherited from those evil baby-eating Tory lick-spittles of the capitalist exploiters, shows an organisation that is fundamentally deluded in what it achieves.
And Andy Burnham? Again, it shows how far Labour has its head up its arse if it thinks he is the answer. He would be eviscerated by the media for what happened to the NHS on his watch. Ed might be useless, but at least he doesn't have multiple deaths on his conscience....0 -
FPP is massively to the Tories' advantage. It's just Labour's advantage is currently greater. For many years however it favoured the Tories.CarlottaVance said:Despite being to their electoral disadvantage, the Tories, right or wrong, believe in both the Union and FPTP - it's fun watching their "principled" critics condemn them for sticking to what they believe is right.....oh and they won on both.....
0 -
I'm never quite sure why Ed Balls gets so much negativity. He'd certainly be better than Ed - at least he wouldn't attempt to do set-piece speeches without notes. No doubt PBers will tell me shortly.Fenster said:Yvette Cooper for me.
She's good, clever and she's female.
Plus her husband, arguably the cleverest MP in the party, would be fully on side.
But Labour won't change now. If they get credit for anything then loyalty to a leader is something they have in spades (unless Gordon is around, brooding and pulling legs off spiders).
The Tories must be delighted with Ed. They should be miles behind in the polls by now. The lacklustre, unconvincing nature of Ed's leadership (he does nothing for me) has given them a glimmer.
I even think - despite his unpopularity with many - that Ed Balls would've done better. At least he's a signpost. Can't argue that he wouldn't have been strong and strident.0 -
instead of blokes in chicken suits pursuing him in a campaign it will be long black cloaks and scythes or angry relatives doorstepping him.CarlottaVance said:On topic- it's far too late and it would take much more than a by-election loss to shift someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence. And not sure how much Burnham would enjoy a GE campaign being chased around offered a drink from a flower vase.....
0 -
Fair point on FPTP - my comment was aimed at OGH relative to Labour and Ed.SouthamObserver said:
FPTP is not to the Tories' electoral disadvantage; currently it is just slightly less advantageous to them than it is to Labour. But they can still secure an overall majority on 37% or so of the vote, while other parties can get I5% or 20% and secure few if any seats.CarlottaVance said:Despite being to their electoral disadvantage, the Tories, right or wrong, believe in both the Union and FPTP - it's fun watching their "principled" critics condemn them for sticking to what they believe is right.....oh and they won on both.....
0 -
As Henry G Manson points out in the leading article, polls can change quickly. Because this is a fixed-term Parliament the pollsters have to ask either their traditional "if there was a General Election to-morrow..." question - to which the only intelligent answer is "there isn't going to be a general election to-morrow so why are you asking me silly questions?" or they have to ask "how are you going to vote next May?" to which most people would surely say "don't know yet". So polls to be taken with a whole heap of salt.Fenster said:Yvette Cooper for me.
She's good, clever and she's female.
Plus her husband, arguably the cleverest MP in the party, would be fully on side.
But Labour won't change now. If they get credit for anything then loyalty to a leader is something they have in spades (unless Gordon is around, brooding and pulling legs off spiders).
The Tories must be delighted with Ed. They should be miles behind in the polls by now. The lacklustre, unconvincing nature of Ed's leadership (he does nothing for me) has given them a glimmer.
I even think - despite his unpopularity with many - that Ed Balls would've done better. At least he's a signpost. Can't argue that he wouldn't have been strong and strident.
FWIW my expectation is Con 35%, Lab 25%, UKIP 23% and the rest to the others, with the Lib Dems getting fewer votes in Britain than the SNP do in Scotland. (And the SNP to win more seats than UKIP.)
"Electoral Calculus" says this gives a Tory majority of only 30, which feels all wrong to me - I think the "swing" model's broke for this election at least. Might work again the one after.
0 -
I’m not sure what to make of Andy Burnham. A Scouser who went to Cambridge but has spent all his life since puberty in politics and has a tendency to cry. Perhaps he lacks what Ed calls “intellectual confidence”, but is in Ed’s case and that of nearly all politicians “intellectual arrogance”.
To be a politician and to get on, you probably need to be convinced that you are special and see further than the ‘hoi poloi’. Unfortunately, that means you can never doubt that you are always right.
The Guardian is also an example; it knows that being politically correct is ... well ... correct. That is why it cannot understand Professor Jay’s view that political correctness was a factor in the Rotherham child rapes. It just cannot be, and no amount of evidence will change that fact. To believe that “Pakistani heritage” might take advantage of that fact does not compute. The messenger must be misguided, the victims somehow responsible.
Some on the left accept the facts, some do not. Those politicIans on the right OFTEN have the same faults.
Richard Dawkins and some atheists also fall into this trap, as did some previous Popes. The “I am infallible” feeling because “I instinctively know better” is universal.
OK, the Papal infallibility ruling was always supposedly dependent on the will of the Church (that is the members’ views) but some Popes forgot that. They would have made good politicians, or heads of Rotherham Childrens’ Services, or editors of poorly performing broadsheets with a superiority complex. Or let us be honest, some posters on political betting sites
0 -
There’s a rugby club-type song I recall from the 50’s, one verse of which ran
“My uncle’s a slum missionary
He’s saving young maidens from sin
He’ll save you a blonde for a shilling
My God how the money rolls in!”
Which suggests, as Mr I A reports, that there was indeed widespread knowledge of abuse. Other scout troops scoutmasters were often matters of concern. Never, or at least in only one case of which I’m aware, one’s own, though!0 -
Presumably Ed M will be being followed around by Wallace during the GE campaign.Alanbrooke said:
instead of blokes in chicken suits pursuing him in a campaign it will be long black cloaks and scythes or angry relatives doorstepping him.CarlottaVance said:On topic- it's far too late and it would take much more than a by-election loss to shift someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence. And not sure how much Burnham would enjoy a GE campaign being chased around offered a drink from a flower vase.....
0 -
I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.Morris_Dancer said:I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.0 -
I am sensing a bit of a dip for the Tories at the moment. Lost by-elections and some polls not showing any closing of the gap with Labour.
What the public showed during the 92-97 period is that they really do not like divided parties. If it is true that two more Tory MP's are defecting to UKIP, this could be fatal blow to the Tories election chances. There has also been talk of Cameron being replaced as leader with Boris coming back to Westtminster, if people in Uxbridge vote for him.0 -
bacon sandwiches.rottenborough said:
Presumably Ed M will be being followed around by Wallace during the GE campaign.Alanbrooke said:
instead of blokes in chicken suits pursuing him in a campaign it will be long black cloaks and scythes or angry relatives doorstepping him.CarlottaVance said:On topic- it's far too late and it would take much more than a by-election loss to shift someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence. And not sure how much Burnham would enjoy a GE campaign being chased around offered a drink from a flower vase.....
0 -
EdM's biggest achievements are that he's kept his party together and secured and retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.Plato said:I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.Morris_Dancer said:I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
0 -
There's an effing surprise.Plato said:I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.Morris_Dancer said:I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
0 -
His is a snake, if he had any decency he would keep away from health, which if truth be told Miliband wanted to happen.MonikerDiCanio said:
Burnham has managed to survive Stafford to emerge as the tear-jerking champion of the NHS. He has considerable resilience and political skill.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLMonikerDiCanio said:Andy Burnham stole the show at the Labour Conference and has Blair-like qualities. Labour must now decide whether it wants to win or lose the General Election next year.
Andy Burnham looks like a baby seal that's about to be clubbed. He'll crack under pressure.
He can perform to his own supporters but in real debate he is terrible, watch him against Hunt one on one and you will see that. He has a thick skin and massive self-regard, when the going gets hard though he hasn't enough intellect to handle the pressure.
0 -
teaching them where to begin,OldKingCole said:There’s a rugby club-type song I recall from the 50’s, one verse of which ran
“My uncle’s a slum missionary
He’s saving young maidens from sin
He’ll save you a blonde for a shilling
My God how the money rolls in!”
Which suggests, as Mr I A reports, that there was indeed widespread knowledge of abuse. Other scout troops scoutmasters were often matters of concern. Never, or at least in only one case of which I’m aware, one’s own, though!
she doesn't say how they will finish,
my God how the money rolls in.
Dons vicars, bishops and choirboys, girls.
There was a jolly old bishop from Birmingham,
who buggered three maids,
while confirming them....
There was a young man of St Johns,
who wanted to bugger the swans,
etc.
0 -
I think what you mean, Dr Spyn, is that the "Useless Effing Conservatives couldn't even defend one of their seats against the LDs in Essex.dr_spyn said:Useless Effing Conservatives couldn't even take a seat off the LDs in Essex.
Or in Guildford either.....
0 -
I agree with what you said about religion on the last thread, ie the ugly child.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
I was a militant atheist for a while and was definitely of the mindset that childish name calling of something dear to other peoples hearts ( "spaghetti monster" or "sky fairy" ) was oh so clever. Richard Dawkins was a bit of a hero, along with the likes of Dan Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.
Now their hectoring tone reminds me of the people who resort to smearing and false accusations on here. Some atheists act as if they deserve a medal for figuring out that the re is no way of proving Gods existence, as if believers didn't know that already.
The same kind of mindset employs the double standard of saying so much of life is not black and white but subtle shades of grey yet being absolutely rigidly black and white on things they have strong opinions about, especially when it allows them to mock those on the other side of the argument (gay marriage is another subject on which I find free thinking liberals are extremely illiberal, opposition to mass immigration is another where refusal to agree with them is license to be called whatever extreme names they choose)0 -
Fortunately, everyone will remember Gordon Brown's most memorable achievement. He ended boom and bust.DecrepitJohnL said:
He saved the pound; he saved the world; he saved the union. Not flash, just Gordon!TheScreamingEagles said:After his stunning performance in the indyref, Labour should consider replacing Ed with Gordon Brown.
*Innocent Face*0 -
That was odd. Have multiple tabs open, shifted from this one to a Youtube video, and suddenly music started playing. Turned out to be a pop-up ad on this tab.
I think the cursor might've just passed over something which triggered it. Anyone else had this sort of thing? It's bloody irritating.0 -
Bradford style? Didn't EdM have to cancel his victory lap at the last minute because Labour's vote collapsed in favour of George Galloway?
@Tykejohnno IIRC was our Man On The Spot there.Slackbladder said:
Only a big by-election defeat would be possible.. UKIP winning for example, but probably not even then.Jonathan said:Ed would have to choose to walk. Not sure how that would happen despite a disappointing performance in a critical week.
This is probably also the last by-election before the GE.0 -
The Tories opposed AV because they worried about the effect of Lib/Lab second preferences. They also thought they had UKIP in a box where they wanted it. AV might well have turned out to be advantageous to the Tories in the current scene. But shifting party advantage is the very worst way to approach constitutional matters. Overall it was right to say NO to AV.0
-
And like Blair Burnham has already presided over thousands of unnecessary deaths, so we have his measure.MonikerDiCanio said:Andy Burnham stole the show at the Labour Conference and has Blair-like qualities. Labour must now decide whether it wants to win or lose the General Election next year.
Bring him on.
0 -
Henry, thank you for a very well considered piece.
EdM will not go before the GE, he and his coterie are too well insulated from the real world to understand what is happening in the UK, and to appreciate the feelings and fears of the people who are suffering from the effects of excessive immigration, enforced multiculturalism, council fines for using bins incorrectly etc (instead of using a better solution to bin collection).
EdM and his friends are interested only in power (as was TB) and not in the interests of his electorate. If he had their interest at heart, he would have laid out more concrete and realistic proposals in his conference speech.
0 -
For wholly owned property that has been acquired with taxed money - the residue of income tax or under an inheritance tax regime.rottenborough said:
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
0 -
On topic - a switch to almost any other leader would give Labour a boost in the polls, but the fundamental problem the party has is its refusal/inability to engage properly with the realities of the 2Ist century world as it is, rather than how they would like it to be. To wit:
* We live in a country and a global economy driven by private business.
* Most voters are aspirational and want to get on.
* The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.
* The same applies to state spending generally.
* You are not going to get anywhere in government without fiscal credibility.
* Immigration is an issue of central importance to voters, as is cultural identity.
I don't see any coherence in Labour's approach to any of these things. This does not let the Tories off the hook at all - there is, in fact, a very credible, compelling social democratic case to be made for new ways to look at all of the above issues (see people such as Hopi Sen), the problem is that Labour is not doing it.
0 -
Your second paragraph is complete nonsense. EdM believes that he can make a meaningful and positive difference to people's lives. The problem is not his sincerity it is that he while he is good at identifying issues on which to campaign, he is not personally credible and neither are his policies.Financier said:Henry, thank you for a very well considered piece.
EdM will not go before the GE, he and his coterie are too well insulated from the real world to understand what is happening in the UK, and to appreciate the feelings and fears of the people who are suffering from the effects of excessive immigration, enforced multiculturalism, council fines for using bins incorrectly etc (instead of using a better solution to bin collection).
EdM and his friends are interested only in power (as was TB) and not in the interests of his electorate. If he had their interest at heart, he would have laid out more concrete and realistic proposals in his conference speech.
0 -
Or as we call them, "the idiots".MikeSmithson said:
EdM's biggest achievements ..he's...retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.Plato said:I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.Morris_Dancer said:I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
Voted LD because Lab were hopeless but couldn't bring themselves to vote Cons, so went for the notionally left wing party; angry at LDs for not being more left wing (IN A COALITION AS JUNIOR PARTY) than (old) Lab so go back to (old) Lab.
Seriously, what on earth did they expect?
Lab is welcome to them.
0 -
Hi Plato
Agree with you regarding GB - he is a fighter - but the best of a very bad bunch and not good for the employees of UKplc.Plato said:I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.Morris_Dancer said:I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.0 -
On topic, Burnham is as much of a dud as either Miliband to me. I can't think of any impressive Labour MP, let alone potential leader.
Ed Balls at least has a bit of spunk about him I suppose. Frank Field, Alan Johnson, and Danczuk too.
It doesn't bother me who wins the next election, part of me is still willing Ed to succeed out of a combo of sense of loyalty and feeling sorry for him... But last nights This Week was a long piss take out of him, Andrew Rawnsleys clip about his speech was pretty devastating, he made Ed look an absolute chump of the highest order. I can't imagine him being PM
Galloway destroyed Jacqui Smith on there by the way... I thought she was going to start crying at one point. He has convinced me that we shouldn't go ahead with air strikes on ISIS
0 -
And a party where 48% of its members come from London is going to take a while to get it.SouthamObserver said:On topic - a switch to almost any other leader would give Labour a boost in the polls, but the fundamental problem the party has is its refusal/inability to engage properly with the realities of the 2Ist century world as it is, rather than how they would like it to be. To wit:
* We live in a country and a global economy driven by private business.
* Most voters are aspirational and want to get on.
* The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.
* The same applies to state spending generally.
* You are not going to get anywhere in government without fiscal credibility.
* Immigration is an issue of central importance to voters, as is cultural identity.
I don't see any coherence in Labour's approach to any of these things. This does not let the Tories off the hook at all - there is, in fact, a very credible, compelling social democratic case to be made for new ways to look at all of the above issues (see people such as Hopi Sen), the problem is that Labour is not doing it.
That said, I suspect most of the parties wish the 21st Century would go away - in fairness to UKIP it's the one that comes nearest to articulating it.....
0 -
Why? Not sure that there a magic re-org tree? Healthcare is expensive for an ageing population however you organise it private or public. Labour's idea to combine social and health care seemed like a step forward.SouthamObserver said:
The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.0 -
Ah, it's the stupid ASUS thingummyjig. Cursor over it apparently yields a pop-up. If I had the money to buy such things I'd bloody well boycott it for being bloody irritating.
Ahem.
After Miliband, who? If he fails to become PM at the next election, Cooper would seem likely. If he becomes PM, I suspect Reeves and Umunna will try their hands, but will be hamstrung, particularly the latter, by being rubbish.0 -
In principle, what is the difference bewtween a Mansion Tax and adding a couple of higher bands to those used for Council Tax? I realise that the latter goes to local, rather than national, government, but the altter can reduce the grant paid to the former!MarqueeMark said:
For wholly owned property that has been acquired with taxed money - the residue of income tax or under an inheritance tax regime.rottenborough said:
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)0 -
Andy Burnham looks like a character out of Sesame Street0
-
I've seen that 48% number a few times now - is there anywhere that has further details (ie split by Region?), and/or are there similar breakdowns for the other parties?CarlottaVance said:
And a party where 48% of its members come from London is going to take a while to get it.SouthamObserver said:On topic - a switch to almost any other leader would give Labour a boost in the polls, but the fundamental problem the party has is its refusal/inability to engage properly with the realities of the 2Ist century world as it is, rather than how they would like it to be. To wit:
* We live in a country and a global economy driven by private business.
* Most voters are aspirational and want to get on.
* The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.
* The same applies to state spending generally.
* You are not going to get anywhere in government without fiscal credibility.
* Immigration is an issue of central importance to voters, as is cultural identity.
I don't see any coherence in Labour's approach to any of these things. This does not let the Tories off the hook at all - there is, in fact, a very credible, compelling social democratic case to be made for new ways to look at all of the above issues (see people such as Hopi Sen), the problem is that Labour is not doing it.
That said, I suspect most of the parties wish the 21st Century would go away - in fairness to UKIP it's the one that comes nearest to articulating it.....0 -
Reorganisation is not going to do it, I agree. Where we need to begin is with an acceptance of the realities - that we have a growing and ageing population, health costs are rising and so are expectations, but we do not have an unlimited amount of money. I don't know what the solutions are. We know what the right wing one is; we need a credible alternative. But that means coming out of a Labour comfort zone.Jonathan said:
Why? Not sure that there a magic re-org tree? Healthcare is expensive for an ageing population however you organise it private or public. Labour's idea to combine social and health care seemed like a step forward.SouthamObserver said:
The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.
0 -
It is a step towards a wealth taxOldKingCole said:
In principle, what is the difference bewtween a Mansion Tax and adding a couple of higher bands to those used for Council Tax? I realise that the latter goes to local, rather than national, government, but the altter can reduce the grant paid to the former!MarqueeMark said:
For wholly owned property that has been acquired with taxed money - the residue of income tax or under an inheritance tax regime.rottenborough said:
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)0 -
Ouch! But spot-on.Alanbrooke said:Andy Burnham looks like a baby seal that's about to be clubbed.
0 -
Or a step towards Land Value Tax (which in my view is the more coherent approach)Financier said:
It is a step towards a wealth taxOldKingCole said:
In principle, what is the difference bewtween a Mansion Tax and adding a couple of higher bands to those used for Council Tax? I realise that the latter goes to local, rather than national, government, but the altter can reduce the grant paid to the former!MarqueeMark said:
For wholly owned property that has been acquired with taxed money - the residue of income tax or under an inheritance tax regime.rottenborough said:
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)0 -
Robert Kimbell @RedHotSquirrel 2m
#UKIP Chairman Steve Crowther starts proceedings. #BBCParliament
I bit of an echo though on the soundsystem. Oh getting better now.0 -
Alanbrooke said:
instead of blokes in chicken suits pursuing him in a campaign it will be long black cloaks and scythes or angry relatives doorstepping him.CarlottaVance said:On topic- it's far too late and it would take much more than a by-election loss to shift someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence. And not sure how much Burnham would enjoy a GE campaign being chased around offered a drink from a flower vase.....
Local issues. Proposals to build thousands of houses on Green Belt, and Secondary Schools in villages of 30 houses was never going to go down particularly well. Neither was suggesting that developing on local walking areas on Common Land could be justified by visiting a nature reserve built on a rubbish tip next to an industrial estate and sewage works instead.PClipp said:
I think what you mean, Dr Spyn, is that the "Useless Effing Conservatives couldn't even defend one of their seats against the LDs in Essex.dr_spyn said:Useless Effing Conservatives couldn't even take a seat off the LDs in Essex.
Or in Guildford either.....0 -
Excellent piece by Henry but the only way Ed is leaving is if he walks. I don't think he has the humility or the self-awareness to do that.
Which gives the tories a chance. In an election where they have spent 5 years clearing up other peoples' mess, one of the longest declines in real income recorded in economic history, the loss of the thick end of 1m public sector jobs and even more third sector jobs where funding has been cut, divisions over Europe and a surging UKIP, the collapse of Lib Dem support into Labour's hands, an out of date electoral role that is heavily biased against them and the inevitable compromises of Coalition and they have a chance.
Thank you Ed. Thank you very much.0 -
You've hit the nail on the head there. London has been so separated from the rest of the country over the last twenty years that an entirely different mentality has set in. I know well off professionals who have lived in London for two to three years and yet have never seen the rest of England. The other large cities like Manchester and Birmingham have far more connection to traditional English culture through personal and family links with the counties surrounding them. The result is a massive disconnect where many Londoners have never experienced a proper local community united with common cultural touchstones. They've lost that for so long they don't even know it's something they've lost. When they hear the rest of the country complaining about it, they just explain it to themselves as racism.CarlottaVance said:
And a party where 48% of its members come from London is going to take a while to get it.SouthamObserver said:On topic - a switch to almost any other leader would give Labour a boost in the polls, but the fundamental problem the party has is its refusal/inability to engage properly with the realities of the 2Ist century world as it is, rather than how they would like it to be. To wit:
* We live in a country and a global economy driven by private business.
* Most voters are aspirational and want to get on.
* The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.
* The same applies to state spending generally.
* You are not going to get anywhere in government without fiscal credibility.
* Immigration is an issue of central importance to voters, as is cultural identity.
I don't see any coherence in Labour's approach to any of these things. This does not let the Tories off the hook at all - there is, in fact, a very credible, compelling social democratic case to be made for new ways to look at all of the above issues (see people such as Hopi Sen), the problem is that Labour is not doing it.0 -
There’s an article in todays Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/cameron-effing-tories-hints-really-thinks) which includes a quote from a Scots Indyref voter "who observed that she’d lived under eight Westminster prime ministers and each was worse than the last.”
The writer of the article goes on to say that that wasn’t entirely fair to either Harold Wilson or John Major and doesn’t discuss potential PM’s, but it does seem to me, as someone who can just about recall Attlee being in charge, that there were giants about in those day. I’m well aware of the danger of rose-tinted reverse view glasses, but it does seem that today’s crop of party leaders, and thereabouts too, have no stand-out figures who have either charisma or ability.
Can one imagine even the later Macmilland or Douglas-Home “forgetting” some of his speech. Or beng so discorganised that he didn’t have cue cards somewhere? I know that Ed wants to give the impression that he’s speaking from the heart, but all he’s being is a poor imitation of that obvious PR chameleon, Cameron.0 -
Exactly, it implies all land is the property of the state rather than the citizenry who have title to it. A radical change in England's long history that undermines property rights that is the foundation of so much.rottenborough said:
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.NickPalmer said:The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)0 -
I would have taken the opposite conclusion: that people can only joke about these things in a "wahey" sort of way, if they haven't seen the reality of what abuse is actually like.OldKingCole said:There’s a rugby club-type song I recall from the 50’s, one verse of which ran
“My uncle’s a slum missionary
He’s saving young maidens from sin
He’ll save you a blonde for a shilling
My God how the money rolls in!”
Which suggests, as Mr I A reports, that there was indeed widespread knowledge of abuse. Other scout troops scoutmasters were often matters of concern. Never, or at least in only one case of which I’m aware, one’s own, though!0 -
The tragedy of the commons.0
-
@SouthernObserverSouthamObserver said:On topic - a switch to almost any other leader would give Labour a boost in the polls, but the fundamental problem the party has is its refusal/inability to engage properly with the realities of the 2Ist century world as it is, rather than how they would like it to be. To wit:
* We live in a country and a global economy driven by private business.
* Most voters are aspirational and want to get on.
* The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.
* The same applies to state spending generally.
* You are not going to get anywhere in government without fiscal credibility.
* Immigration is an issue of central importance to voters, as is cultural identity.
I don't see any coherence in Labour's approach to any of these things. This does not let the Tories off the hook at all - there is, in fact, a very credible, compelling social democratic case to be made for new ways to look at all of the above issues (see people such as Hopi Sen), the problem is that Labour is not doing it.
Very much agree with your list of problems. Also to add ae:
The rate of increase and change in technology, which affects jobs availability
The decline of our education standards relative to those of other competing countries
The unemployability of many of our people
The cost and sources of energy
The UK's high cost structure.
Eventually NHS will move from curing to disease/illness prevention, but not in the next 5-10 years.
SO, I believe we re not too far away from agreement, even if we appear to come from differing viewpoints.
If you are agreeable, I would like to correspond with you away from PB, please ask Mike for my email address.
0 -
I think Julian Richings does the best humorous Death on screen. He really has the face for it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YiJ_FIOgd-wAlanbrooke said:
instead of blokes in chicken suits pursuing him in a campaign it will be long black cloaks and scythes or angry relatives doorstepping him.CarlottaVance said:On topic- it's far too late and it would take much more than a by-election loss to shift someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence. And not sure how much Burnham would enjoy a GE campaign being chased around offered a drink from a flower vase.....
0 -
"One fancied leadership candidate has already taken to donating sizeable cheques to parliamentary candidates in winnable seats rather than donate directly to the party, which could be seen as an unspoken attempt to purchase future political loyalty and support with MPs."
Who do we think this is?0 -
Like others, I really can't see that Andy Burnham is the answer to any question Labour should be asking itself. There is no doubting, though, that he is very popular in the party, and ultimately that is what will determine the outcome if there is any leadership contest in the near future.
The odd thing is that this comradely affection for Andy Burnham didn't seem to be very evident in the 2010 leadership contest, where he came an ignominious 4th out of 5 and only a touch ahead of Diane Abbott. I rather think the electoral college were right then.
On the question of whether there is any realistic chance of Ed being defenestrated before the GE, I think Henry G is greatly over-stating it with his estimate of 10%; Nick P is closer to the mark with 0%. One thing I'm quite sure about is that there is one person in the Labour Party who has absolutely confidence in the leader's ability - and he's not going voluntarily.
0 -
*claps*
First good laugh of the day too. Richard Dawkins who is clearly a very smart man reminds me of the pee-take of MaryAnne Sieghart in Private Eye - with her two daughters Intelligensia and Brainella.
A mickey take of him would be very hard to do.CD13 said:
I’m not sure what to make of Andy Burnham. A Scouser who went to Cambridge but has spent all his life since puberty in politics and has a tendency to cry. Perhaps he lacks what Ed calls “intellectual confidence”, but is in Ed’s case and that of nearly all politicians “intellectual arrogance”.
To be a politician and to get on, you probably need to be convinced that you are special and see further than the ‘hoi poloi’. Unfortunately, that means you can never doubt that you are always right.
The Guardian is also an example; it knows that being politically correct is ... well ... correct. That is why it cannot understand Professor Jay’s view that political correctness was a factor in the Rotherham child rapes. It just cannot be, and no amount of evidence will change that fact. To believe that “Pakistani heritage” might take advantage of that fact does not compute. The messenger must be misguided, the victims somehow responsible.
Some on the left accept the facts, some do not. Those politicIans on the right OFTEN have the same faults.
Richard Dawkins and some atheists also fall into this trap, as did some previous Popes. The “I am infallible” feeling because “I instinctively know better” is universal.
OK, the Papal infallibility ruling was always supposedly dependent on the will of the Church (that is the members’ views) but some Popes forgot that. They would have made good politicians, or heads of Rotherham Childrens’ Services, or editors of poorly performing broadsheets with a superiority complex. Or let us be honest, some posters on political betting sites0 -
No idea. But if I was to have a guess then my money would be on ChukaSocrates said:"One fancied leadership candidate has already taken to donating sizeable cheques to parliamentary candidates in winnable seats rather than donate directly to the party, which could be seen as an unspoken attempt to purchase future political loyalty and support with MPs."
Who do we think this is?0 -
Not hard to guess. Let's just say: probably not Lord Prescott's favoured candidate.Socrates said:"One fancied leadership candidate has already taken to donating sizeable cheques to parliamentary candidates in winnable seats rather than donate directly to the party, which could be seen as an unspoken attempt to purchase future political loyalty and support with MPs."
Who do we think this is?0 -
@Isam
Andy's mum is a seal. His father is Dale Winton. His grandad is Big Bird.
A couple more hours on PB and we'll have the whole family tree.0 -
Isn't PB nasty?? We should have an independent inquiry into it___Bobajob___ said:@Isam
Andy's mum is a seal. His father is Dale Winton. His grandad is Big Bird.
A couple more hours on PB and we'll have the whole family tree.
There is a particular Sesame St character he reminds me of, sorry for noticing
0
