Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time for Labour to make a clean break from its economic pas

1356

Comments

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,224
    edited May 2015
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union

    WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday

    The Unionist gain from Nationalists was in one of the most agricultural constituencies in the whole of the UK, where the victorious UUP is strongly associated with the Protestant farming vote (like Jim Nicholson). They won't vote Out to quit the CAP.
    The DUP want a referendum, SF are anti EU. Only the SDLP and APNI are pro.
    But as they often say here about the SNP, not all its voters agree with the party on Europe. The same is true for the DUP, UUP, Sinn Féin. Catholics, in particular, will not sunder the link with the rest of Ireland embodied by the EU, in the name of a cause associated with pro-Unionist Tories and Ukippers.
    Yeah I don't think that's how it works. The South can't afford the North it would be a bigger shock to its economy than German unity and nobody in the North wants to take a 30% cut in their standard of living. So it's suck it up and ask theUK taxpayer for more cash.
    It's not a referendum on Irish unity, it's a referendum on staying in Europe or ditching one of the two political connections to Ireland, the other being the Good Friday Agreement.

    And the NI parties are one thing, but it's also important to remember the large voter bloc alienated by all NI parties: prosperous middle-class people who feel like they can't win against SF/DUP. They'd vote in a referendum, and would probably vote to stay In.
    You appear to be getting confused that I said Out would win. I said In will win because BOO haven't done the groundwork. Nonetheless if our PM needs a good negotiating hand swinging for out is the right thing to do as the EU works on brinkmanship. And if you are asking me do I think the EU would come back and offer us a better deal post an out vote, yes I do.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,808
    edited May 2015
    How about a matriarchy for the party leaders ...

    Liz Kendall, Suzanne Evans and Priti Patel? LDs are no problem as they're all old women anyway. OK, that's unfair, but having no women is a problem for them.

    Edit: Problem solved ... Cleggy's wife will do. If Hillary can do it, why not her?

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,690
    edited May 2015
    kle4 said:

    Oh its ok, the academic clarifies in the comments:

    I don’t claim that Conservatives are racist, sexist, and homophobic – I claim that supporting their policies is as objectionable as holding racist, sexist, or homophobic views.

    I didn't vote Conservative, but that is clearly nonsense. She is saying that no reasonable person could therefore vote Conservative, just as we would say no reasonable person would be racist, sexist or homophobic. Therefore, millions of people who are decent, reasonable, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic people, are deemed just as bad as racists, sexists and homophobes because they hold a divergent political opinion, which belittles and insults those millions of voters, casting them as either idiots or malicious.

    To be honest, I don't think her former Conservative "friends" are missing much... I can imagine her FB posts and Tweets would be incredibly dreary...

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....

    Lots of people in finance and banking do vote Labour.

    You really should get out more.
    Do they openly admit to it (I really wouldn't know?)?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,738

    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....

    Lots of people in finance and banking do vote Labour.

    You really should get out more.
    No need to take that tone - it's quite easy to have the impression that most in that sector vote Conservative, especially after being told that Labour aren't considered credible by many in finance.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,787
    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Same at art school and working in Whitehall - if you're not a Guardian reader you simply keep your trap shut.

    I'm a master of Hmm, how interesting [inwardly rolls eyes]
    kingbongo said:

    welshowl said:

    What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that
    (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative.
    (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.

    Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
    same when, like me you did a doctorate in the Education Department at Oxford - the idea of you not being a hardcore lefty just doesn't enter anyone's head - actually gets pretty wearing after a while
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 27,213
    kle4 said:

    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....

    Lots of people in finance and banking do vote Labour.

    You really should get out more.
    Do they openly admit to it (I really wouldn't know?)?
    Yes, of course. Quite apart from anything else, there are quite a lot of City donors to Labour (or at least there were, pre-Miliband).
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    What?!? :open_mouth:

    A thread on the remarkable and WTF facts from this GE would be hilarious and a keeper for future reference.

    Something I only spotted in the early hours of this morning, Plaid were beaten by UKIP in Wales....

  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    Hello- Just a few minutes to post again.
    4. Con/ Lib Dem marginal - will the labour vote stay with the Lib Dem. If you've read the Times you will how much the Labour vote increased in these seats. I think it's a fair conclusion to draw that there was some tactical unwind of core labour people who couldn't forgive the Lib Dems for being in the coalition with the Tories. However some of the swings here were staggering and I think the SNP/ Labour warnings really shifted votes here in a way that few could imagine.

    What happened in the South West ? Looks like in Cornish LibDem seats and Torbay the Tory vote barely increased but the Lib Dem vote fractured

    Whereas in the likes of Yeovil and Somerton the Tory vote went up considerably (5,000 votes)

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited May 2015

    Something I only spotted in the early hours of this morning, Plaid were beaten by UKIP in Wales....

    The Kippers got 15-18% in quite a few Valleys seats I believe. They came within a gnat's of beating Labour in the Euros here last year. The Assembly list system will get them seats if they repeat this in 2016, and the Valleys are pretty fertile territory in that it's poor WWC land par excellence.

    For all of Ms Wood's high profile and her attraction to some on here (beats me) Plaid got nowhere (thank God) and have finished behind UKIP two elections in a row.

    Wales isn't Scotland folks.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265
    Labour needs implicitly to recognise that to return to power may take two terms, so awful was the defeat on Thursday. They need to choose a leader who can make the electorate look at them afresh and who will confound the current image of Labour as the party of urban public sector professionals and benefit claimants.

    I would advise them to choose the person who looks and sounds least like this who can clearly articulate an inclusive and positive message, and then give her (or him) plenty of time and space to develop this. If they choose someone who makes them feel comfortable again, they will continue to go backwards.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 27,213

    No need to take that tone - it's quite easy to have the impression that most in that sector vote Conservative, especially after being told that Labour aren't considered credible by many in finance.

    Most do vote Conservative. But there is zero, and I really do mean zero, vilification or even surprise at those who vote Labour.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,224
    edited May 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union

    WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday

    Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.

    Lol right you're pushing polls ? Good luck.
    Ye I agree, I think "Yes/Out" will waltz it. If there is one thing in Scotland it is an anti-Conservative majority. I can see "In/No" just not showing up this time.
    No still don't. The SNP economic numbers in September were pure fiction, they have got sizeably worse with oil where it is. This is haggisy sentimentality with a touch of buyer's regret creeping in to the polls, when the hard pocket book numbers come back in to focus the polling numbers will swing back,

    Swingback ! There I said it. :-)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,787
    MaxPB said:

    I agree that one needs to take account of the voting system and minutiae of the Labour leadership contest. I think Liz* Kendall has been working the room for some time. She did a lot of travelling this election, including campaigning in Scotland. She has been Shadow health and also Shadow community care- both areas with lots of union contacts. She was SPAD to HH herself so has the sisterhood contacts too. State educated too.

    I think Chuka will lose, but may be tempted by London Mayor. That would be a better role for him too.

    Yes, I think Liz Kendall is a distinct possibility, unless she's seen as too 'Blairite'.

    If Labour have any sense they'll make Chuka Shadow Chancellor. I'm not sure they do have any sense.
    I think London Mayor would be a good fit for Chuka as well. It is a role he would do well in, he understands the importance of capital and he knows that London needs a vibrant financial services sector. The only downside is that it would require him to leave Parliament and would have to sit out 2016-2024 if he served two terms like Boris and Labour may be ramping up for power in 2025 which he will only be an MP for rather than possible leader. He may fall into the Boris trap.

    I wonder if Boris has changed the nature of the London mayorality, much as Mary Robinson changed the nature of the Irish presidency, so that it is not one that any old politician can now aspire to - there has to be some kind of spark there, some kind of celebrity that goes beyond party identification.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,639

    Dadge said:

    If I was the Labour Party I'd leave Harriet in charge for six months to give time to road-test the others. They need to avoid any possibility of another EdM fiasco. I'm already unimpressed wth Hunt and Burnham and they're supposed to be among the favourites. Yvette Cooper is pretty good but too, I don't know, anonymous. Reeves is good but is she too much of a Cockney for the voters of Spenborough? Umunna has the potential to be great or be sh** - my image of him is "a guy in a suit" which isn't exactly inspiring but who knows?

    I suppose him and Burnham are the sensible bets but Hunt seems far too long at 14-1 so I've had a small punt.

    Miliband was incredibly selfish to have resigned in the way he did. He wasn't an ex-PM going like Brown or Major, he was a Leader of the Opposition. Howard lost in 2005 and triggered a leadership election but stayed on for six months until after the Conference season allowing the leadership rivals to have a dignified election with a gap away from the election. It allowed the election results and lessons to sink in before the leadership vote was held and allowed the leadership contenders to stand and shine or not fully with Conference giving each an opportunity to stand up. The result is we then selected a double election winner.

    Miliband has done his party no favours whatsoever by vanishing the next day. Its pathetic and selfish and yet another reason to give him no respect whatsoever.

    Maybe vanish quickly if a second election this year was expected and he thought he was in the way, but we know its five years until the next election. Going to quickly is totally unnecessary.
    He has given the job to Harman. She is currently Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party. There will be no vacancy, no interregnum. She has taken over completely under Labour Party rules. (Side-note: Many say Labour needs its first female leader. But they already, technically, had Margaret Beckett.)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1

    Maybe it really was just me !

    I think Shadsy took a battering in Scotland!
    I lost £50 on Labour Most Seats. It was the best £50 I ever spent.
    I lost on that too, when I had wobbly Tuesday last week. I also lost on turnout, and a fair number of constituencies, but won big on Eastleigh, Eastbourne, Colchester, Twickenham, Rochester and Ilford North. I had some Con majority on Betfair too. My biggest success was the Lab sub 250 band though, courtesy of Jacks ARSE. Overall I am modestly up £500 or so.

    I think OGH made the same mistake as isam. Betting on what he wanted to happen.
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911

    That is why there is a helpful arrow pointing out when the global financial crisis hit (which was before 2010). It is also why the graph would continue to 2015 to show George Osborne's not unimpressive debt mountain.

    So you'd print a graph showing that there was a deficit for seven years prior to the crisis hitting and think that will show people that you didn't overspend.

    And that Osborne is simultaneously cutting spending too fast and not fast enough.

    Yet you wonder why you lost?
    The deficit was small by both international and historical comparison (hence the pretty graph showing the deficit inherited from the Conservatives and continued by the Conservatives).
    But they inherited the deficit!

    Reducing it meant cuts. The current level of cuts which has led to the deficit you are criticising, is apparently simultaneously not enough cuts ("they borrowed more than Labour") and also too much ("too far too fast").

    The nonsensical paradox of your position is why Labour has no credibility on this issue.

    And please don't try and pretend that leaving income tax for high earners at 50% or a bankers bonus tax would fill the hole....
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,738

    No need to take that tone - it's quite easy to have the impression that most in that sector vote Conservative, especially after being told that Labour aren't considered credible by many in finance.

    Most do vote Conservative. But there is zero, and I really do mean zero, vilification or even surprise at those who vote Labour.
    Ok, that is good to know.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I was thinking the same thing, and also when Hague was named it previously. It's a position of no powers of its own, merely implying seniority over the other ministers, without having to bother with appointing someone as a formal deputy PM, so I guess it's just a way of Cameron acknowledging that Osborne rates above all the others, though I don't know why he would need to state that with a title, as it was already known, and the public tends to regard the Chancellor as the formal No.2 in any case.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    MaxPB said:

    I agree that one needs to take account of the voting system and minutiae of the Labour leadership contest. I think Liz* Kendall has been working the room for some time. She did a lot of travelling this election, including campaigning in Scotland. She has been Shadow health and also Shadow community care- both areas with lots of union contacts. She was SPAD to HH herself so has the sisterhood contacts too. State educated too.

    I think Chuka will lose, but may be tempted by London Mayor. That would be a better role for him too.

    Yes, I think Liz Kendall is a distinct possibility, unless she's seen as too 'Blairite'.

    If Labour have any sense they'll make Chuka Shadow Chancellor. I'm not sure they do have any sense.
    I think London Mayor would be a good fit for Chuka as well. It is a role he would do well in, he understands the importance of capital and he knows that London needs a vibrant financial services sector. The only downside is that it would require him to leave Parliament and would have to sit out 2016-2024 if he served two terms like Boris and Labour may be ramping up for power in 2025 which he will only be an MP for rather than possible leader. He may fall into the Boris trap.

    I wonder if Boris has changed the nature of the London mayorality, much as Mary Robinson changed the nature of the Irish presidency, so that it is not one that any old politician can now aspire to - there has to be some kind of spark there, some kind of celebrity that goes beyond party identification.
    Maybe, but it goes back further to Ken who was also a bit of a maverick.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,620
    Plato said:

    What?!? :open_mouth:

    A thread on the remarkable and WTF facts from this GE would be hilarious and a keeper for future reference.

    Something I only spotted in the early hours of this morning, Plaid were beaten by UKIP in Wales....

    UKIP - 13.6%
    PC - 12.1%

    Why aren't there calls for Leanne to step down?

    She had the highest profile of any Plaid leader in history - and was still beaten by UKIP
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    They wouldn't call you scum or act like you had typhoid.

    Shy Tories exist and have done for decades - there's a reason for it. Pretending that they don't flies in the face of all the evidence from way before 1992.

    welshowl said:

    What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that
    (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative.
    (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.

    Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,639
    antifrank said:

    Labour needs implicitly to recognise that to return to power may take two terms, so awful was the defeat on Thursday. They need to choose a leader who can make the electorate look at them afresh and who will confound the current image of Labour as the party of urban public sector professionals and benefit claimants.

    I would advise them to choose the person who looks and sounds least like this who can clearly articulate an inclusive and positive message, and then give her (or him) plenty of time and space to develop this. If they choose someone who makes them feel comfortable again, they will continue to go backwards.

    If it's two terms, do they need someone who will happily step down after the next election?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,905
    The economy is why Burnham, Cooper, and any others with their fingerprints all over the 'old era' should be non-starters for the leadership, if Labour has any sense (which is of course a discussion by itself).

    Jarvis is an obvious choice to demonstrate that Labour is breaking with the past, and someone who may be able to reach out to the voters Labour is losing. I thought Kendall came across well on TV this morning also, although according to the Guardian her career has been in thinktanks, pressure groups and as a special advisor, far removed from what most people would consider to be having experience of the normal world of work.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1

    Maybe it really was just me !

    I think Shadsy took a battering in Scotland!
    I lost £50 on Labour Most Seats. It was the best £50 I ever spent.
    I lost on that too
    And me. Fortunately made up with a bet on number of UKIP seats.

  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I read he will stand in for Cameron if necessary at PMQs, seems to be one consequence.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,620

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I suspect it is a signal that he is effectively Deputy PM. Plus a thank-you for his contribution so far. Whether or not you think that is warranted is another matter - but such is life!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    Plato said:

    What?!? :open_mouth:

    A thread on the remarkable and WTF facts from this GE would be hilarious and a keeper for future reference.

    Something I only spotted in the early hours of this morning, Plaid were beaten by UKIP in Wales....

    UKIP - 13.6%
    PC - 12.1%

    Why aren't there calls for Leanne to step down?

    She had the highest profile of any Plaid leader in history - and was still beaten by UKIP
    Smaller ambitions = less punishment for not meeting those ambitions.

    Her entire pitch in the leaders' debates was 'One day, when I grow up, I could be like Nicola and Wales like Scotland'.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,787
    IanB2 said:

    The economy is why Burnham, Cooper, and any others with their fingerprints all over the 'old era' should be non-starters for the leadership, if Labour has any sense (which is of course a discussion by itself).

    Jarvis is an obvious choice to demonstrate that Labour is breaking with the past, and someone who may be able to reach out to the voters Labour is losing. I thought Kendall came across well on TV this morning also, although according to the Guardian her career has been in thinktanks, pressure groups and as a special advisor, far removed from what most people would consider to be having experience of the normal world of work.

    No experience of the real world is not an impediment - look at the PM and CoE. What voters look for is credibility. You can have that whatever background you have. EdM did not have it, of course.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    felix said:

    felix said:

    taffys said:

    I read Sadiq khan is soon to announce he is running for London mayor,

    Looks like things for labour will have to get worse before they get better.

    I believe there was another swing against him in Tooting. no guarantee that a by-election there would be won by Labour.
    Sadly, a tiny swing TO Sadiq, but you're right... we'd love the chance of a by-election.
    Golly yes - I should have checked that b4 the post. However, I used to live in the area for many years and slowly but surely Tooting is trending blue - and a new Labour candidate without incumbency could hasten it along.
    I go to Tooting once a week. Tooting is not trending blue. I will go further. Every single LD seat in SW London, between Tory and Con only, the swing was towards Labour.

    Take Mitcham & Morden - it has now become a totally safe Labour seat. Very good organisation.

    Barring a few [ Hendon ], most of London went to Labour. In fact, Labour holds more seats in London in 2015 compared to 2005.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that
    (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative.
    (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.

    Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....
    That's the point in my view. There wouldn't be any latent hostility or presumption there's something morally wrong with you. ( I don't work in finance mind)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,905
    Re. UKIP what happened to that female candidate they had in Eastleigh, whose name escapes me - she was a lot more confident and persuasive than Evans?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,787

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I read he will stand in for Cameron if necessary at PMQs, seems to be one consequence.

    It looks like Dave has decided who he wants his successor to be.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    IIRC He will stand in for Cameron at PMQs.

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    IanB2 said:

    The economy is why Burnham, Cooper, and any others with their fingerprints all over the 'old era' should be non-starters for the leadership, if Labour has any sense (which is of course a discussion by itself).

    Jarvis is an obvious choice to demonstrate that Labour is breaking with the past, and someone who may be able to reach out to the voters Labour is losing. I thought Kendall came across well on TV this morning also, although according to the Guardian her career has been in thinktanks, pressure groups and as a special advisor, far removed from what most people would consider to be having experience of the normal world of work.

    No experience of the real world is not an impediment - look at the PM and CoE. What voters look for is credibility.
    Incredibly, this does appear to be the case. Posh Eton Spads of the world, rejoice, you still have a shot in modern politics.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 2,521
    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265
    My big losing bets were Labour Most Seats, Labour minority government and EICIPM. But overall I did ok.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    First thing they need to do is rename the department of energy and climate change to the department of energy and stick climate change into the environment brief.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,781
    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnM No, what the Scots want is devomax and it is moving more towards that, they still voted No by 10% and are the only home nation ever to have endorsed the union

    WG Unionist Parties made gains in NI on Thursday

    Hmm. Latest Yougov is 52:43 Yes:No for Scots - and English opposition to indy is reducing (though still No on balance). See scotgoespop.

    Wrong. You're quoting a Scottish subsample (and probably a particularly unreliable one, given the timing). Tut tut.

    The latest YouGov indypoll shows NO 53, YES 47


    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/
    Tut indeed, and thanks for the link. Still think it's early days though given what could happen. But well done for being one of the few PBers to spot the dilemma facing SLAB so early.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,995
    edited May 2015


    If Sturgeon wants us to only leave the EU if the whole UK and every one of the four constituent parts vote that way, she should be told to piss off. It's one country. We know that, because the Scots said so last year.

    Since you now seem to accept England is just a region of a country, I suppose we Jocks should also do the decent thing and accept regional status.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    IanB2 said:

    The economy is why Burnham, Cooper, and any others with their fingerprints all over the 'old era' should be non-starters for the leadership, if Labour has any sense (which is of course a discussion by itself).

    Jarvis is an obvious choice to demonstrate that Labour is breaking with the past, and someone who may be able to reach out to the voters Labour is losing. I thought Kendall came across well on TV this morning also, although according to the Guardian her career has been in thinktanks, pressure groups and as a special advisor, far removed from what most people would consider to be having experience of the normal world of work.

    David Cameron has somehow managed to overcome his previous career as SpAd and PR to reach the top of the greasy pole.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,626
    antifrank said:

    My big losing bets were Labour Most Seats, Labour minority government and EICIPM. But overall I did ok.

    I hedged out the "overall" positions to more or less nil, and was wondering if my constituency book was looking a bit too blue...

    I'm still not believing it all till its safely in the bank though.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820
    On betting, I did well out of the Scottish constituency betting, very well. Even my last minute top up on Glasgow NE came through.

    Did badly on NOM.

    Did well out of Ed Balls being kicked out.

    Lost peanuts on Lab Maj.

    Overall - up a decent but not large amount. Nice weekend away for my gf and I.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    Plato said:

    What?!? :open_mouth:

    A thread on the remarkable and WTF facts from this GE would be hilarious and a keeper for future reference.

    Something I only spotted in the early hours of this morning, Plaid were beaten by UKIP in Wales....

    UKIP - 13.6%
    PC - 12.1%

    Why aren't there calls for Leanne to step down?

    She had the highest profile of any Plaid leader in history - and was still beaten by UKIP
    I have constantly said on here I think she's doing a rubbish job for Plaid. Utterly dire. I mean economic policy consists of finding the biggest begging bowl at Poundland and saying to the Enhlish "please we want more like what Scotland have see ". It's pathetic, demeaning, and an utter joke, failing to see that Wales must produce its way to a better standard of living not existing on some sort of national JSA.

    Please though do not start a campaign to have her stand down - you might give them ideas....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,626
    Just seen how close the CONs got in Chester ><
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,620
    MaxPB said:

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    First thing they need to do is rename the department of energy and climate change to the department of energy and stick climate change into the environment brief.
    I suspect we might be seeing some merging of departments

    I can't honestly see there being a Secretary of State for Wales and another for Scotland. Mundell might want it - but I am not certain that is the best way forward.

    Far better to have a new role - Secretary of State for Devolution and the Union (or some such) that brings together the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office - but with a high profile brief to negotiate and bring about devolution. Could throw in Northern Ireland as well.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,787
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that
    (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative.
    (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.

    Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....
    That's the point in my view. There wouldn't be any latent hostility or presumption there's something morally wrong with you. ( I don't work in finance mind)

    Certainly not voiced - you'd be mad to say something like that to someone you might need to work with at some stage. But think it? I reckon so. You only have to read the views about Labour voters expressed on here by people who say they work in finance and business to see that.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    Can we bet on it? If we can, then I'd want to revise my knowledge of George Osborne's allies and back them for promotion (where's Tim when we need him?). But I've not seen any markets and the potential for insiders taking Shadsy's trousers down is obvious.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 2,521
    welshowl said:

    Plato said:

    What?!? :open_mouth:

    A thread on the remarkable and WTF facts from this GE would be hilarious and a keeper for future reference.

    Something I only spotted in the early hours of this morning, Plaid were beaten by UKIP in Wales....

    UKIP - 13.6%
    PC - 12.1%

    Why aren't there calls for Leanne to step down?

    She had the highest profile of any Plaid leader in history - and was still beaten by UKIP
    I have constantly said on here I think she's doing a rubbish job for Plaid. Utterly dire. I mean economic policy consists of finding the biggest begging bowl at Poundland and saying to the Enhlish "please we want more like what Scotland have see ". It's pathetic, demeaning, and an utter joke, failing to see that Wales must produce its way to a better standard of living not existing on some sort of national JSA.

    Please though do not start a campaign to have her stand down - you might give them ideas....
    I found it very telling that whilst Sturgeon was keen to talk about Scotland's place in the UK and UK-wide issues, Wood just seemed to bang on about very parochial things all campaign. Whilst I understand she leads a Welsh party, it was a UK election and I just felt she misjudged the mood somewhat.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286
    Apparently Theresa May is already the longest serving Home Secretary in 50 Years. Pretty remarkable as it has only been for five years. More senior reshuffles will surely happen in the coming years than the last five - more flexibility with LDs out, the need to bed in the rising stars in senior posts and retire old hands, in case the new intake get restless at lack of advancement - but Cameron letting people get on with things for an entire parliament felt like a good approach. Not that a reshuffle cannot be a good thing, but that 5 years as Home Secretary is the longest amount in at least 50 years, says to me there have been too frequent changes in the past (notwithstanding most governments held elections in shorter than 5 year increments),
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that
    (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative.
    (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.

    Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....
    That's the point in my view. There wouldn't be any latent hostility or presumption there's something morally wrong with you. ( I don't work in finance mind)

    Certainly not voiced - you'd be mad to say something like that to someone you might need to work with at some stage. But think it? I reckon so. You only have to read the views about Labour voters expressed on here by people who say they work in finance and business to see that.

    Either way round it's wrong. The very basis of democracy is we are all entitled to freedom of expression.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    IanB2 said:

    Re. UKIP what happened to that female candidate they had in Eastleigh, whose name escapes me - she was a lot more confident and persuasive than Evans?

    Diane James. I think she is caring for a relative so not taking a major role anymore.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,582

    MaxPB said:

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    First thing they need to do is rename the department of energy and climate change to the department of energy and stick climate change into the environment brief.
    I suspect we might be seeing some merging of departments

    I can't honestly see there being a Secretary of State for Wales and another for Scotland. Mundell might want it - but I am not certain that is the best way forward.

    Far better to have a new role - Secretary of State for Devolution and the Union (or some such) that brings together the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office - but with a high profile brief to negotiate and bring about devolution. Could throw in Northern Ireland as well.
    I think they should make SoS for Scotland an unsalaried position and give it to Nicola. Not sure why we need one any more.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    MaxPB said:

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    First thing they need to do is rename the department of energy and climate change to the department of energy and stick climate change into the environment brief.
    I suspect we might be seeing some merging of departments

    I can't honestly see there being a Secretary of State for Wales and another for Scotland. Mundell might want it - but I am not certain that is the best way forward.

    Far better to have a new role - Secretary of State for Devolution and the Union (or some such) that brings together the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office - but with a high profile brief to negotiate and bring about devolution. Could throw in Northern Ireland as well.
    That actually sounds like a really good idea. A proper big beast of the party to hold the role as well I would hope.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 2,521
    kle4 said:

    Apparently Theresa May is already the longest serving Home Secretary in 50 Years. Pretty remarkable as it has only been for five years. More senior reshuffles will surely happen in the coming years than the last five - more flexibility with LDs out, the need to bed in the rising stars in senior posts and retire old hands, in case the new intake get restless at lack of advancement - but Cameron letting people get on with things for an entire parliament felt like a good approach. Not that a reshuffle cannot be a good thing, but that 5 years as Home Secretary is the longest amount in at least 50 years, says to me there have been too frequent changes in the past (notwithstanding most governments held elections in shorter than 5 year increments),

    It's been the cursed department for years. Whatever one thinks of May, you've got to give her credit for her staying power thus far.

    We got far too many Home Secretaries in the Labour years as it was repeatedly scandal-hit but also I think Labour Prime Ministers didn't know what to do with it and loved swapping people in and out, at times annually.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,787
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    What I find odd about the argument regarding left-wing vilification of the Tories is that
    (a. the same people will say the left pretty much doesn't exist in England - left wingism is unpopular - since that's the case how can it be so influential as to make the 'Conservative majority' afraid to admit it's Conservative.
    (b. Much of media is right-wing, not left-wing.

    Try being sat on a wedding table surrounded by social workers and admit you don't vote Labour ( well apart from the odd one who later on when the red wine is running out makes Genghis Khan look like a Pinko and demands the bastards they deal with have their goolies cut off a la the Not The Nine OClock News sketch - always unfailingly amusing)
    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....
    That's the point in my view. There wouldn't be any latent hostility or presumption there's something morally wrong with you. ( I don't work in finance mind)

    Certainly not voiced - you'd be mad to say something like that to someone you might need to work with at some stage. But think it? I reckon so. You only have to read the views about Labour voters expressed on here by people who say they work in finance and business to see that.

    Either way round it's wrong. The very basis of democracy is we are all entitled to freedom of expression.

    I agree completely.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    I see the Speaker is going to have his work cut out remembering Who's Who in the SNP's ranks.

    We have a Black, a Blackford and a Blackman, two Monaghans, a Thompson and a Thomson, a Whitford and a Whiteford, and Stewart MacDonald... and Stuart MacDonald!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I suspect it is a signal that he is effectively Deputy PM. Plus a thank-you for his contribution so far. Whether or not you think that is warranted is another matter - but such is life!
    Now Nick Clegg is not around, it would be simple enough to appoint Osborne as Deputy PM. It might be that the First Secretary of State title was agreed during the last parliament when Osborne was due to take over from William Hague at the Foreign Office.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265
    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    My big losing bets were Labour Most Seats, Labour minority government and EICIPM. But overall I did ok.

    I hedged out the "overall" positions to more or less nil, and was wondering if my constituency book was looking a bit too blue...

    I'm still not believing it all till its safely in the bank though.
    I reversed my NOM positions on the night, turning a potential big loss into a profit by being early to realise that the Conservatives were outperforming the exit poll. That justified the earache I got from my other half.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    kle4 said:

    Apparently Theresa May is already the longest serving Home Secretary in 50 Years. Pretty remarkable as it has only been for five years. More senior reshuffles will surely happen in the coming years than the last five - more flexibility with LDs out, the need to bed in the rising stars in senior posts and retire old hands, in case the new intake get restless at lack of advancement - but Cameron letting people get on with things for an entire parliament felt like a good approach. Not that a reshuffle cannot be a good thing, but that 5 years as Home Secretary is the longest amount in at least 50 years, says to me there have been too frequent changes in the past (notwithstanding most governments held elections in shorter than 5 year increments),

    It's been the cursed department for years. Whatever one thinks of May, you've got to give her credit for her staying power thus far.

    We got far too many Home Secretaries in the Labour years as it was repeatedly scandal-hit but also I think Labour Prime Ministers didn't know what to do with it and loved swapping people in and out, at times annually.
    It doesn't really lend itself to doing a good job. Success is not doing a bad one.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 2,521

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I suspect it is a signal that he is effectively Deputy PM. Plus a thank-you for his contribution so far. Whether or not you think that is warranted is another matter - but such is life!
    Now Nick Clegg is not around, it would be simple enough to appoint Osborne as Deputy PM. It might be that the First Secretary of State title was agreed during the last parliament when Osborne was due to take over from William Hague at the Foreign Office.
    The title has been interchangeable with Deputy PM for ages. Wasn't Mandelson First Secretary in Gordon's government?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,620
    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    First thing they need to do is rename the department of energy and climate change to the department of energy and stick climate change into the environment brief.
    I suspect we might be seeing some merging of departments

    I can't honestly see there being a Secretary of State for Wales and another for Scotland. Mundell might want it - but I am not certain that is the best way forward.

    Far better to have a new role - Secretary of State for Devolution and the Union (or some such) that brings together the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office - but with a high profile brief to negotiate and bring about devolution. Could throw in Northern Ireland as well.
    That actually sounds like a really good idea. A proper big beast of the party to hold the role as well I would hope.
    Could even add in the Northern Powerhouse brief as well.

    It won't happen - but I am glad others think it is a decent idea!
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,620
    RodCrosby said:

    I see the Speaker is going to have his work cut out remembering Who's Who in the SNP's ranks.

    We have a Black, a Blackford and a Blackman, two Monaghans, a Thompson and a Thomson, a Whitford and a Whiteford, and Stewart MacDonald... and Stuart MacDonald!

    I am sure Bercow's replacement will do an admirable job!
  • isamisam Posts: 34,623
    edited May 2015

    isam said:

    I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1

    Maybe it really was just me !

    Don't take this the wrong way, Sam, but it did look as though you were betting on what you wanted to happen.
    Hmm well I was! I was betting on Ukip doing well

    But not necessarily because I wanted it to happen...

    The bets I had were worth a lot more on Thursday morning than when I put them on, and for me that is the key to betting. I could have cashed out but I let them run

    If you'd have known on Thursday morning Ukip would get 13% and Lib Dems 8% they would have been worth even more, but alas the cards didn't fall the right way

    In hindsight the Farage -6.5 bets were ridiculous but, much as it goes against the grain for a pro gambler to admit this, I made them out of bravado and because I was bored
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,738

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I read he will stand in for Cameron if necessary at PMQs, seems to be one consequence.

    It looks like Dave has decided who he wants his successor to be.

    Would the Conservative party really vote for Osborne as leader though?
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 2,767

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I read he will stand in for Cameron if necessary at PMQs, seems to be one consequence.

    It looks like Dave has decided who he wants his successor to be.

    Would the Conservative party really vote for Osborne as leader though?
    They would if they were polling well and Osbo looked like Cameron-continued.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,639
    RodCrosby said:

    I see the Speaker is going to have his work cut out remembering Who's Who in the SNP's ranks.

    We have a Black, a Blackford and a Blackman, two Monaghans, a Thompson and a Thomson, a Whitford and a Whiteford, and Stewart MacDonald... and Stuart MacDonald!

    "Now is not the time to take risks on an untested Speaker!"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I read he will stand in for Cameron if necessary at PMQs, seems to be one consequence.

    It looks like Dave has decided who he wants his successor to be.

    Would the Conservative party really vote for Osborne as leader though?
    He seems like the perfect No.2 more than a leader, but if Cameron wins the 2017 ref and then decides to go out on a high, perhaps the party would want the continuity Cameroon candidate, and who better than Cameron's right hand man for the past 10-12 years? Although I'm not sure how well he'd do with the public, particular if, as inevitably occurs, less sterling financial times hit at some point again.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,639

    Any significance in Osborne being named First Secretary of State? It's not a title that has to be handed out, is it?

    I read he will stand in for Cameron if necessary at PMQs, seems to be one consequence.

    It looks like Dave has decided who he wants his successor to be.

    Would the Conservative party really vote for Osborne as leader though?
    Much depends on the European referendum. Osborne is the most pro-Europe of senior Secretaries of State.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,842
    If Umunna and Burnham and Hunt are the answer Labour are asking the wrong question.

    They need to go back to first principles:

    - They need to understand what liberal and progressive mean, really mean. Shacking up with segregationists is not progressive.
    - They need to abandon the statist, illiberal and authoritarian instincts they have adopted in recent years.
    - They need to rediscover the best of their Methodist, Christian socialist roots - the desire to help those at the bottom end better themselves.
    - They need to stop worshipping the state or any emanation of it (the NHS) as an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
    - They need to remember that the state, public servants are there to serve the people not the other way around.
    - They need to understand that economic competence is the sine qua non of every government.
    - They need to understand that being in business, whether large, small or for yourself, does not turn you into an evil top-hatted toff out to grind workers into penury.
    - They need to remember that they are spending taxpayers' money and that they need to spend it wisely and effectively. Spending more does not necessarily mean spending better. Size is not everything.
    - They need to believe in Britain and British values and British people - all of them - rather than view them, in an de haut en bas way, with disdain.
    - They need to abandon the patronising and racist identity/community politics shtick.
    - They need to remember that it is what you do and not how you describe yourself which tells voters what your values are.
    - They need to stop behaving as if anyone who disagrees with them is evil.
    - They need to remember that decency and fairness and honesty are the monopoly of no-one.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 2,767
    Possibly, he'll either pass them or get the boundary commission to do new ones.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 1,577
    EPG said:

    antifrank said:

    Labour needs implicitly to recognise that to return to power may take two terms, so awful was the defeat on Thursday. They need to choose a leader who can make the electorate look at them afresh and who will confound the current image of Labour as the party of urban public sector professionals and benefit claimants.

    I would advise them to choose the person who looks and sounds least like this who can clearly articulate an inclusive and positive message, and then give her (or him) plenty of time and space to develop this. If they choose someone who makes them feel comfortable again, they will continue to go backwards.

    If it's two terms, do they need someone who will happily step down after the next election?
    If Labour are following the Conservative-post-1997 playbook (and so far, they seem to be), then the next Labour PM has just become an MP for the first time- like Cam did in 2001. That implies that Labour's best bet is an elder statesman figure (a bit like Howard in 2005). Someone who isn't going to win, and more than half-knows this (anyone who was in government before 2010 will struggle with the "Did you spend too much money" question), but can identify and bring on some bright young things.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,375

    kle4 said:

    I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....

    Lots of people in finance and banking do vote Labour.

    You really should get out more.
    Do they openly admit to it (I really wouldn't know?)?
    Yes, of course. Quite apart from anything else, there are quite a lot of City donors to Labour (or at least there were, pre-Miliband).
    Hardly surprising given Labour's failure to regulate the sector properly. It's rather apt that they took over the funding that was previously dominated by the Unions.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,738
    @EPG @kle4 and @Chameleon

    Thanks for the replies.

    On Osborne being pro-Europe, for that reason alone I can see the party being perhaps reluctant to vote for him as leader. No matter the result of the 2017 referendum, I think the Conservatives will always be a eurosceptic party to a degree, and therefore will be more comfortable with someone of that POV. Although Cameron and Osborne share the same ideology - and in that sense Osborne is a continuity candidate, I think he lacks Cameron's communication skills, and air of confidence and authority. Osborne works far better as a behind the scenes man, than he does at the front and centre of things. My own thoughts is that I think Osborne is completely unelectable - I can see him pretty much being Brown MK2, if he succeeds Cameron.
  • felixfelix Posts: 11,178
    surbiton said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    taffys said:

    I read Sadiq khan is soon to announce he is running for London mayor,

    Looks like things for labour will have to get worse before they get better.

    I believe there was another swing against him in Tooting. no guarantee that a by-election there would be won by Labour.
    Sadly, a tiny swing TO Sadiq, but you're right... we'd love the chance of a by-election.
    Golly yes - I should have checked that b4 the post. However, I used to live in the area for many years and slowly but surely Tooting is trending blue - and a new Labour candidate without incumbency could hasten it along.
    I go to Tooting once a week. Tooting is not trending blue. I will go further. Every single LD seat in SW London, between Tory and Con only, the swing was towards Labour.

    Take Mitcham & Morden - it has now become a totally safe Labour seat. Very good organisation.

    Barring a few [ Hendon ], most of London went to Labour. In fact, Labour holds more seats in London in 2015 compared to 2005.
    You're completely wrong. You're trying to lump together areas. Mitcham/Morden has demographically trended red for years while Battersea and to a lesser extent Tooting have moved to blue. Despite all the talk of Battersea being 'interesting' and flooded with Labour canvassers in the last week there was a significant swing to the blues. Even in Tooting Khan managed only a 0.15 swing - much less than in Mitcham. They are 2 quite different places. In the whole of London there were only 4 Labour gains from Cons - in Ealing and Brentford by just a few hundred votes. Labour failed to take Hendon, Finchley and Harrow - all of which were expected gains. London was their best result area but it was way below expectations - suggesting the organisation was below par - which seemed much the case in most of the rest of the UK. It seems that Labour's problems with recognising reality at the top of the party is deeply rooted in the organisation.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    My big losing bets were Labour Most Seats, Labour minority government and EICIPM. But overall I did ok.

    I hedged out the "overall" positions to more or less nil, and was wondering if my constituency book was looking a bit too blue...

    I'm still not believing it all till its safely in the bank though.
    I reversed my NOM positions on the night, turning a potential big loss into a profit by being early to realise that the Conservatives were outperforming the exit poll. That justified the earache I got from my other half.
    I remember 14 still being avaliable on Con majority after Nuneaton, but had maxed out my (self imposed!) Betfair limits. Frustrating!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,626

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    My big losing bets were Labour Most Seats, Labour minority government and EICIPM. But overall I did ok.

    I hedged out the "overall" positions to more or less nil, and was wondering if my constituency book was looking a bit too blue...

    I'm still not believing it all till its safely in the bank though.
    I reversed my NOM positions on the night, turning a potential big loss into a profit by being early to realise that the Conservatives were outperforming the exit poll. That justified the earache I got from my other half.
    I remember 14 still being avaliable on Con majority after Nuneaton, but had maxed out my (self imposed!) Betfair limits. Frustrating!
    I put £5 on the Cons at 5-1 OM and then much later £200 at 1.5 or so. I was in a daze tbh at how the night was going and couldn't believe how many constituency bets I had on hacked up.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,324

    EPG said:

    MP_SE said:



    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.

    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.

    2) Referendums are often treated as a way to kick the party in power, whatever the issue

    3) Referendums usually have undecideds breaking for the status quo

    4) Polls on the EU exit have noticeably shifted in favour of In.
    Lol

    1, who gives a shit about Wales, the Jocks or the paddies, they have votes let them cast them

    2. The referendum has been declared it's now in play with all the inherent risks

    3. certainly, but this is an EU referendum we get to vote lots of times

    4. yes so that's why we should vote out to secure the best deal going.
    No UK prime minister will want to negotiate to stay in the EU after a No vote, nor would he or she be allowed to by the Commons. This is not a vote on a treaty, on a change to the rules of the union. It is a vote on whether or not the country should stay in the union.
    AS we have learned from the Indyref, none of these votes are actually the last word.
    An Out is the last word. Once you cross that bridge it can't and won't be reversed.

    The issue with Indyref is how close it is. If it was 2:1 to stay in, as I expect with the EU, then that'd be the end of the story
    I agree with that, I had 35% as the figure that Yes had to get at IndyRef to keep the issue live. They passed that with aplomb.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,995
    Andy Burnham 4Leader
    @AB4LabLeader
    Members supporting Andy Burnham MP to be the next leader of the party #Andy4Leader or #Burnham4Leader - Neither old or new Labour but Now Labour


    Now Labor. Oh dear.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    kle4 said:

    Apparently Theresa May is already the longest serving Home Secretary in 50 Years. Pretty remarkable as it has only been for five years. More senior reshuffles will surely happen in the coming years than the last five - more flexibility with LDs out, the need to bed in the rising stars in senior posts and retire old hands, in case the new intake get restless at lack of advancement - but Cameron letting people get on with things for an entire parliament felt like a good approach. Not that a reshuffle cannot be a good thing, but that 5 years as Home Secretary is the longest amount in at least 50 years, says to me there have been too frequent changes in the past (notwithstanding most governments held elections in shorter than 5 year increments),

    It's been the cursed department for years. Whatever one thinks of May, you've got to give her credit for her staying power thus far.

    We got far too many Home Secretaries in the Labour years as it was repeatedly scandal-hit but also I think Labour Prime Ministers didn't know what to do with it and loved swapping people in and out, at times annually.
    I don't think you can ignore the fact that the Home Office has been a rather different place since 2007.
  • felixfelix Posts: 11,178

    Andy Burnham 4Leader
    @AB4LabLeader
    Members supporting Andy Burnham MP to be the next leader of the party #Andy4Leader or #Burnham4Leader - Neither old or new Labour but Now Labour


    Now Labor. Oh dear.

    Soundbites v analysis and thought. Seems like a plan. Go with it Andy - the blues are with you all the way. :)
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Andy Burnham 4Leader
    @AB4LabLeader
    Members supporting Andy Burnham MP to be the next leader of the party #Andy4Leader or #Burnham4Leader - Neither old or new Labour but Now Labour


    Now Labor. Oh dear.


    Used Labour. One careless owner. Shock absorbers broken. Seats a bit low. Offers accepted.

  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,117
    Chameleon said:

    Possibly, he'll either pass them or get the boundary commission to do new ones.
    The 2013 boundary review was never completed as it was stopped. In legislation already is the 2018 review, so that if the new Government does nothing it will get a report by October 2018 with new boundaries based on 600 mps and 5% variance and the December 2015 electoral register. It will then need to pass a statutory instrument to have the new boundaries put in place.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,742
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1

    Maybe it really was just me !

    Don't take this the wrong way, Sam, but it did look as though you were betting on what you wanted to happen.
    Hmm well I was! I was betting on Ukip doing well

    But not necessarily because I wanted it to happen...

    The bets I had were worth a lot more on Thursday morning than when I put them on, and for me that is the key to betting. I could have cashed out but I let them run

    If you'd have known on Thursday morning Ukip would get 13% and Lib Dems 8% they would have been worth even more, but alas the cards didn't fall the right way

    In hindsight the Farage -6.5 bets were ridiculous but, much as it goes against the grain for a pro gambler to admit this, I made them out of bravado and because I was bored
    We have three bets to settle - one won by you, two by me and also tim has asked me to include the £50 he has lost to you - so could you e-mail me at [email protected] to sort everything out.

    While marginally more unassuming than the mighty ARSE, I shall purr contentedly that my consistent prediction for now over four years that Cameron would remain Prime Minister has been vindicated. We semi-senescent hacks of longstanding have our uses as part-time sages.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,201
    edited May 2015

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    I would have thought Sajid Javid will get Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he is Osborne's man, and from what I have seen can be very combative. Which given the Tories are going to push through a lot of cuts, many of which will have a lot of uproar, going to take somebody who has a bit of fight in them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    Andy Burnham 4Leader
    @AB4LabLeader
    Members supporting Andy Burnham MP to be the next leader of the party #Andy4Leader or #Burnham4Leader - Neither old or new Labour but Now Labour


    Now Labor. Oh dear.

    When the phrase they come up with is dumber than the joke ones people on here were coming up with last night, you know it's really dumb.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    My big losing bets were Labour Most Seats, Labour minority government and EICIPM. But overall I did ok.

    I hedged out the "overall" positions to more or less nil, and was wondering if my constituency book was looking a bit too blue...

    I'm still not believing it all till its safely in the bank though.
    I reversed my NOM positions on the night, turning a potential big loss into a profit by being early to realise that the Conservatives were outperforming the exit poll. That justified the earache I got from my other half.
    I remember 14 still being avaliable on Con majority after Nuneaton, but had maxed out my (self imposed!) Betfair limits. Frustrating!
    I put £5 on the Cons at 5-1 OM and then much later £200 at 1.5 or so. I was in a daze tbh at how the night was going and couldn't believe how many constituency bets I had on hacked up.
    My only constituency bet was Orkney & Shetland, I remember tipping it a few weeks ago to much hilarity of many of you from down south, Carmichael held on 41% to the SNPs 38%, I think Carmichaels bacon was saved by tactical voting. Always pays to DYOR when betting !!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    I would have thought Sajid Javid will get Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he is Osborne's man..
    Sure, but he's been a proper minister in his own right now (rather than the deputy like position of Chief Secretary), he'll want his own ministry surely?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,626
    calum said:

    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    My big losing bets were Labour Most Seats, Labour minority government and EICIPM. But overall I did ok.

    I hedged out the "overall" positions to more or less nil, and was wondering if my constituency book was looking a bit too blue...

    I'm still not believing it all till its safely in the bank though.
    I reversed my NOM positions on the night, turning a potential big loss into a profit by being early to realise that the Conservatives were outperforming the exit poll. That justified the earache I got from my other half.
    I remember 14 still being avaliable on Con majority after Nuneaton, but had maxed out my (self imposed!) Betfair limits. Frustrating!
    I put £5 on the Cons at 5-1 OM and then much later £200 at 1.5 or so. I was in a daze tbh at how the night was going and couldn't believe how many constituency bets I had on hacked up.
    My only constituency bet was Orkney & Shetland, I remember tipping it a few weeks ago to much hilarity of many of you from down south, Carmichael held on 41% to the SNPs 38%, I think Carmichaels bacon was saved by tactical voting. Always pays to DYOR when betting !!
    It was bloody close !
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,201
    edited May 2015
    kle4 said:

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    I would have thought Sajid Javid will get Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he is Osborne's man..
    Sure, but he's been a proper minister in his own right now (rather than the deputy like position of Chief Secretary), he'll want his own ministry surely?
    Perhaps, it depends what he is promised for the future. I mean personally I would get rid of bloody Osborne from chancellor but that obviously hasn't happened and won't happen.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Don't agree about Burnham and the NHS, the tories have never got any NHS related charge to stick to Labour - not Staffs, not Wales, not anything. And as he didn't have treasury connections prior to 2010 he is well placed to own up about the economy.

    Conversely Umunna - editing your own wikipedia isn't of itself a dealbreaker but his particular edit fits the overall picture of overweening vanity so closely that in his case, I think it rules him out of the leadership. And he knows it - look how he reacts to taunting on the subject.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    kle4 said:

    Andy Burnham 4Leader
    @AB4LabLeader
    Members supporting Andy Burnham MP to be the next leader of the party #Andy4Leader or #Burnham4Leader - Neither old or new Labour but Now Labour


    Now Labor. Oh dear.

    When the phrase they come up with is dumber than the joke ones people on here were coming up with last night, you know it's really dumb.
    Could have Noo Labour for Scotland.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,452
    Didn't Chuka call normal Londoners trash?
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,452
    Is Jim Garner standing again?

    "we need to move beyond the labels of the past... That's what Nuevo Labour is all about"
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,224
    edited May 2015
    Ishmael_X said:

    Don't agree about Burnham and the NHS, the tories have never got any NHS related charge to stick to Labour - not Staffs, not Wales, not anything. And as he didn't have treasury connections prior to 2010 he is well placed to own up about the economy.

    Conversely Umunna - editing your own wikipedia isn't of itself a dealbreaker but his particular edit fits the overall picture of overweening vanity so closely that in his case, I think it rules him out of the leadership. And he knows it - look how he reacts to taunting on the subject.

    yes Burnham's the man' lets hope Labour go for him

  • LadyBucketLadyBucket Posts: 590
    Given that John Bercow has marital problems and has a good number of supporters on the tory backbenches, does anyone think DCameron should make a 'big offer' to him, i.e. have a 'clear the air meeting' so that the new parliament starts off on the right foot?

    I can't believe Labour are even comtemplating ABurnham or YCooper for leader, given that they are 'Brownites' and too associated with the past. DJarvis has only been an MP for five minutes and the fact that he has a 'good back story' is not a reason to make him leader.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,976
    Back in Italy, and slightly over the hangover of Thursday night.

    It was great to put faces to some of the site's great and good. And all pretty much as I expected from the bohemian Roger; to TSE, Mike's mini me; and Tissue Price, as smart as a whippet, the good Dr Fox; Pulps, the pin up boy for pbCOM, and NickP who is a true gent.

    On betting I traded my Tory minority position on the night when the Nuneaton result came in- the writing was on the wall then for a Tory majority. So all in all about 400 up.

    Well done to all those that won, and commiserations to the ones out of pocket- particularly OGH. Ouch....

    As to the election.....according to my iPhone, I did 38 kilometres GOTV in Broxtowe on election day, hundreds and hundreds of doors, and bruised my knuckles on a virtual 13 and a half hour non stop shift. I did 2 shifts with Nick- I tell you one thing he has very long legs and can walk at a right fair pace. It was clear that Labour voters were splintering to UKIP in large numbers on election day. On the other side, I can only guess that the Tory GOTV operation was easy- and when push come to shove they could pull in waverers by reminding them about Miliband. I think a 3-5% swing on election day to the Tories was entirely plausible- and I don't think we can blame the polls. I really don't. They are only a snapshot as we all know.

    I now feel at liberty to go back to type, and slag off Miliband. What a disaster. His resignation speech said it all. I couldn't bear to hear one more time his "hard working families" nonsense, and he even spouted it after he had lost. Idiot.

    Miliband said he took responsibility for the loss. Well why didn't he take responsibility three years ago when he saw his ratings were terrible and do the right thing? He shouldn't have run against his brother. He shouldn't have stayed as leader once his reputation was forged as a loser- he put his ego and ambition before anything. And now we are stuck with a Tory Govt for 5 years. Well done Ed. Well done. Good job there mate.

    Since Scotland is now lost, Labour has to now pick a leader for England, for English marginals. Burnham and Cooper- won't cut it. Tristram Hunt- I mean get real. I would be gobsmacked if anyone nominated him. But then Ed won I guess. Chuka- probably. The press would adore him. Jarvis- I don't know.

    However, the candidate with the best back story by miles, with an unbelievable narrative who could reach out deep into the Tory marginals is David Miliband. The English love their soap operas, and a Miliband return is a great story, it really is.





  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    kle4 said:

    What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?

    I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?

    I would have thought Sajid Javid will get Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he is Osborne's man..
    Sure, but he's been a proper minister in his own right now (rather than the deputy like position of Chief Secretary), he'll want his own ministry surely?
    Perhaps, it depends what he is promised for the future. I mean personally I would get rid of bloody Osborne from chancellor but that obviously hasn't happened and won't happen.
    Why hasn't it happened? It was rumoured in the last parliament that Osborne had planned to move to the Foreign Office, which is why William Hague stepped down early. And surely a spell in one of the other great offices of state would bolster George Osborne's credentials, and reduce the potency of the charge that he is "heir to Brown". Perhaps something is afoot.
This discussion has been closed.