politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage’s biggest mistake was to duck the Eastleigh by elect

Ishmael_X said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

MarqueeMark said:

I remember how bullish you were 5 weeks ago. How dismissive of those saying you would get smashed. Why should we listen to a thing you say?

Because we have a corrupt system where 72 milion pounds can buy you Tories your way back into office. It will be very interesting to see what the final figures for expenditure turn out to be.

I bet the Tories spent less than £72m

How about a bet: 1pt = a full £1m below £72m for Tory spent in the GE (official figures). I'll be any amount you want up to £5 per point

Does include the value of volunteers time? I understand that the Charity Commission wants that allowed for in Charitides accounts

No. I'm not expecting @PClipp to take the bet.

The £72m figure he is referencing was the Tories *total* fundrasing over the last 5 years. They had debts from the previous election, operating expenses, a warchest for a second election and the general election spending to come out of thar

It bodes well for the future, for the tories, that there are lefties who really think they lost the election because £72m, and for no other reason at all.

Correct. PClipp's comments is absurdly stupid.
Also the other excuse I am reading is that the Tories ran a 'superb' targeted campaign. I clearly remember people moaning or rejoicing on here at the time that the tories campaign was rubbish. What were Labour targeting whilst all this was going on?

The local BBC were in Swindon following Umuna. They were asking people what a new labour leader needed to do. One cloth capped pensioner said there was too much welfare.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, it's highly unlikely, even in that scenario. A quicker referendum, though, with Cameron reluctantly going to Out, *could* happen [I think it'd take a hell of a lot for him to shift that way, though].

I'm not so sure. Grexit is going to see a rise in nationalism Europe wide we haven't seen since '45

Looks like it's that time when mass immigration lovers stop denying the immigrants will come and start praising their work ethic instead

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598410882398433281

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598408767865298944

The removal of the blue advert surround is good. But the up front nesting of comments is a pain. Please Plato put your comments after the quotes link not before them...
Better still revert to the previous system. Or even abolish the quotes altogether.

Mr. Woolie, idealists don't let trivialities like facts and reality obscure the light of their ideology. (cf global warming enthusiasts on the IPCC getting their predictions [95% chance of being right] wrong, and then increasing their confidence in their next set of prophecies to 99%).

Their answer to the monetary union's troubles has been to emphasise the need for greater banking, and ultimately fiscal, union.

I don't Cameron's an EU-phile ideologue, but the continent seems to have its fair share of true believers. The closest UK equivalent, the Lib Dems, have not fared well in Parliament lately, though that's unrelated to their love of the EU.

Mr. Nabavi, I agree. Carswell is a silly sausage.

rottenborough said:

As ever, an interesting article by Mary Riddell in Telegraph on Labour defeat. She raises a very good question: what was the point of Crudas doing all the policy work if most of it was totally ignored?

A point which the PB Tories made several times well before the election.

Pro_Rata said:

Simply from my own curiosity, I find it a shame that Farage came back, because it means more of the same from UKIP, and I was genuinely interested to see where the party would go next. There is a strong element of flirting with libertarianism amongst UKIP activists, without necessarily understanding what that entails. Seeing whether they could head in that direction and how they would cope with the massive cognitive dissonances that would drop out of that - libertarian immigration policy, anyone? - was going to be great fun.

Also, whether they would be able to moderate their rhetoric whilst maintaining their populist outsider appeal. The first is needed to hold down a substantial anyone-but-UKIP vote, the second to keep up the core UKIP vote, and without striking this very fine balance I feel their 2020 strategy is already rather holed in the water. I really don't think Nigel Farage does 'fine balancing act'.

Poor Nigel - its so tough being a party leader he has to take the summer off. From which vantage point he will no doubt be endlessly criticising the Prime Minister. His joke non resignation is a bit like not being able to stand the heat but demanding a second kitchen.

The biggest joke is that kippers cannot see that they are being taken for a ride.

Plato said:

Mouthwash the night before sounds about right...

richardDodd said:

What exactly are the drinking limits in Scotland..

" England and Wales: 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, 35 μg per 100ml of breath or 107 mg per 100ml of urine.[56]
Scotland: 50 mg alcohol/100ml blood or 22mcg alcohol/100ml breath (legislation became effective from 5 December 2014)[57]
Northern Ireland: 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. As of November 2014 results of a public consultation regarding reduction of this limit were being considered,[58] with a reduction to 50 being thought likely[59]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country (see maps)

E&W are the most liberal limits in W Europe. Scotland is now in line with most of W Europe.
When I lived in Sweden, everyone used a taxi for a night out.

dyedwoolie said:

Plato said:

I saw an article suggesting that Mr Cameron would go for a EURef in 2016 - I can't see that happening myself.

A War Of Attrition with the EUcrats seems the best strategy - and scaring them with a Con Maj and 3.5m Kippers.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, it's highly unlikely, even in that scenario. A quicker referendum, though, with Cameron reluctantly going to Out, *could* happen [I think it'd take a hell of a lot for him to shift that way, though].

Yes but the point is Grexit will change everything - it will collapse the euroconomy and change the proposition at hand. Freedom of movement will become an even more urgent issue and nationalism will rise in the North as money flows South to prop up Italy and Spain.

Maybe five years ago. The EU has spent the last five years knowing full well that Greece is failing and has been preparing fire doors to prevent its collapse causing too much damage. Its more of a controlled collapse of Greece alone now than it would have been.

If Ed stands down in Doncaster North I wouldn't bet against Farage being the UKIP candidate. And he might have a good chance of winning.

Mr. JS, not so sure about that. Miliband got over 50% of the vote, and they don't call it the People's Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing. The only sizeable vote to squeeze [for UKIP] would be the Conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

As ever, an interesting article by Mary Riddell in Telegraph on Labour defeat. She raises a very good question: what was the point of Crudas doing all the policy work if most of it was totally ignored?

A point which the PB Tories made several times well before the election.

I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.

Flightpathl said:

I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.

Yes, and Blair's and Cameron's too. In the lead-up to 1997 and to 2010, the opposition put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that they were ready for government, and that the electorate could see they were ready for government. I pointed out many times before the last election, as others did, that the shadow front bench simply didn't look as though they were remotely ready for government, they were acting like a bunch expecting to lose and to lose badly. If so they were right, of course!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not so sure about that. Miliband got over 50% of the vote, and they don't call it the People's Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing. The only sizeable vote to squeeze [for UKIP] would be the Conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Miliband will have a decent leader/personal vote.

Labour voters are very very lazy when it comes to by-elections.

It could come down to - do the Tories in the seat hate UKIP or Labour more. I honestly don't know.

It'd be interesting for sure.

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Looks like it's that time when mass immigration lovers stop denying the immigrants will come and start praising their work ethic instead

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598410882398433281

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598408767865298944

Many of us have always said immigration is a good thing precisely because of this.

Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.

Why do you think the immigrants have this work ethic that our youngsters don't?

Benefits mentality. Most of our youngsters do work - lets not fall into the trap of saying they don't; but there is a hardcore of people who come from families were work is considered optional - or even worse, strange. If your parents never work and your grandparents never work and your friends don't work, why would you.

On the other hand many migrants come from a culture where if you don't work, you don't eat.

AndyJS said:

If Ed stands down in Doncaster North I wouldn't bet against Farage being the UKIP candidate. And he might have a good chance of winning.

I think, even on the low turnout, you could take the South Yorkshire PCC by-election last year as a good starting point from which to judge UKIP's chances.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Looks like it's that time when mass immigration lovers stop denying the immigrants will come and start praising their work ethic instead

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598410882398433281

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598408767865298944

Many of us have always said immigration is a good thing precisely because of this.

Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.

Why do you think the immigrants have this work ethic that our youngsters don't?

Benefits mentality. Most of our youngsters do work - lets not fall into the trap of saying they don't; but there is a hardcore of people who come from families were work is considered optional - or even worse, strange. If your parents never work and your grandparents never work and your friends don't work, why would you.

On the other hand many migrants come from a culture where if you don't work, you don't eat.

Yes, entirely agree

AndyJS said:

BBC bias: immigration being discussed on Victoria Derbyshire's BBC2 show, and both of the guests are in favour of Britain allowing more migrants crossing from northern Africa into the country. Having 2 out of 2 in favour doesn't reflect public opinion I'm afraid.

They would agree probably only as long as the immigrants do not live anywhere near them.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JS, not so sure about that. Miliband got over 50% of the vote, and they don't call it the People's Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing. The only sizeable vote to squeeze [for UKIP] would be the Conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Ed had a rather disappointing result on Thursday:

Increase in Lab vote:

Don Valley (Flint): +8.2% to 46.2%
Doncaster Central (Winterton): +9.4% to 49.1%
Doncaster North (Miliband): +5.1% to 52.4%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000669

Usually a leader fighting their seat for the first time since being elected gets a big bonus, more than 5%. For example Charles Kennedy's vote was up 15% in Ross, Skye & Inverness West in 2001.

When you allow mass immigration to the extent that communities are segregated and ghettoes are formed, you end up with this

'David Cameron will today order security services to ditch the approach that 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

Prime Minister David Cameron

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

Richard_Nabavi said:

Flightpathl said:

I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.

Yes, and Blair's and Cameron's too. In the lead-up to 1997 and to 2010, the opposition put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that they were ready for government, and that the electorate could see they were ready for government. I pointed out many times before the last election, as others did, that the shadow front bench simply didn't look as though they were remotely ready for government, they were acting like a bunch expecting to lose and to lose badly. If so they were right, of course!

I must admit I am rather getting fed up of offering Labour advice. However I do hope that the total and thankful failure of the nasty PPB by Coogan will mark the end of the 'Tories will scrap the NHS' attacks.
First, 'weaponising' the NHS harms the NHS. Second, its wrong. Third, its insulting.

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Looks like it's that time when mass immigration lovers stop denying the immigrants will come and start praising their work ethic instead

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598410882398433281

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598408767865298944

Many of us have always said immigration is a good thing precisely because of this.

Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.

Why do you think the immigrants have this work ethic that our youngsters don't?

The lazy and/or feckless Romanians are still in Romania.

Flightpathl said:

Pong said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I am rather puzzled (although not very surprised) by Douglas Carswell's position on the 'short money'. I have been berating UKIP and the Out side generally for doing absolutely zilch in terms of serious preparation for the referendum, and here is a great opportunity to set up and finance a serious research and policy-development operation for the Out campaign. That is exactly the kind of purpose the Short money is intended for. Even if you believe, as Carswell does, in a small state, in these particular circumstances it seems to be agood opportunity to counter a little of the enormous resource advantage that the In side will have.

Of course, if what UKIP want to do with the money is splurge it on trivia, then Carswell's position is more understandable.

Still, given that the half-life of senior UKIP figures other than Farage seems to be a year or two, I guess we should expect ructions.

I kinda agree with you there - in 2 years, ukip will have their big moment. This is their raison d'etre.
-snip-
Although I'm almost certainly going to vote to stay in, I think it's really important the *out* case is made properly - and this is their chance.

Dougie would do well to grab the mantle. Take the cash, set up a proper referendum office and let nigel do whatever nigel does, sans the short money.

The EU has long since ceased to be any kipper 'raison d'etre'.
If we left the EU the kippers would be still peddling their racist line. As long as there is a moon, UKIP will howl at it.

Still peddling your myths and lies you sad little man.

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Looks like it's that time when mass immigration lovers stop denying the immigrants will come and start praising their work ethic instead

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598410882398433281

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598408767865298944

Many of us have always said immigration is a good thing precisely because of this.

Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.

Why do you think the immigrants have this work ethic that our youngsters don't?

That's easy to answer: the minimum wage in this country is an enormous sum of money compared to what they'd earn in their homeland. If you offered the equivalent mark-up to the British unemployed the unemployment rate would probably go down to zero.

logical_song said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Beverley_C said:

There is a simple solution for Carswell. Run for party leader and then build UKIP into the sort of party he wants it to be and less of a one-man party / cult.

That option does not exist for the next 4 years or so since Farage was re-elected leader last October.

Carswell isn't greedy, hence his MPs expenses record (praised by Martin Bell in his book) and his attitude to the Short money.
Farge is greedy, see his MEP's expenses and his attitude to the Short money.
It's our money and the electorate aren't particularly forgiving over such things.

Not often I agree with you but in this case you are right ... to some extent anyway. There is the question of what Farage is doing with the money. In the past he got into trouble not for spending it on himself like the MPs troughers but for using it to fund the campaign against the EU. In the end both are wrong because the money is public money which has been assigned for a particular purpose and to use it for something else, however great the cause, is simply not on. To say that that is personal greed though is I think incorrect.

Whether Carswell is right or not it is hardly greedy of Ukip to accept money they are offered. Are the greens giving theirs back? Do any other parties?

On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest

O/T:

"I am angry and hurt but right now there is nothing I can do about it. Strauss will be judged on his results. Yet I have heard from two very good sources that results do not matter this summer anyway. The job description for the director of cricket job is focused on longer-term goals.
But if Strauss has been told he does not have to win this summer then why should the players train and work hard? In essence, quite incredibly, they have all been given permission to lose the Ashes. I have never heard that before. It is not in my make-up and I know it is not in the make-up of the English public either. Especially for those who have paid a lot of money for tickets."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/kevinpietersen/11600580/Kevin-Pietersen-My-fury-at-England-deceit.html

DavidL said:

isam said:

Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

Prime Minister David Cameron

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

We must become intolerant of intolerance.

We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.

Then prepare for civil war

The people this nonsense is aimed at ARE British. Why should their idea of being British be worth less than anyone elses?

isam said:

Then prepare for civil war

Tad extreme. Most people's version of protest nowadays is pressing Like on a photoshopped image on Facebook with a made up quote. The really extreme will go as far as pressing Share for that image.

DavidL said:

isam said:

Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

Prime Minister David Cameron

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

We must become intolerant of intolerance.

We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.

Standing up for values is one thing. I am all for challenging these hate preachers. But to say that we should use the power of the State against people who have not broken the law simply because we do not like what they are saying is utterly wrong. I find much of what is said by the extreme left to be offensive but I would not for a second say we should prevent them from advertising their idiocy.

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Flightpathl said:

I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.

Yes, and Blair's and Cameron's too. In the lead-up to 1997 and to 2010, the opposition put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that they were ready for government, and that the electorate could see they were ready for government. I pointed out many times before the last election, as others did, that the shadow front bench simply didn't look as though they were remotely ready for government, they were acting like a bunch expecting to lose and to lose badly. If so they were right, of course!

Yes but what was the chicken and what was the egg in that scenario? I really hope that any new leader does not make the same mistakes. Labour have to go on a journey and find out what they are for in an age of austerity, how they prioritise and, most importantly, how they are going to allow the money to be made to pay for their dreams.

Blair and Brown did that and had a fairly coherent set of answers by 1997. Not as good economically as the tories' answers but plenty good enough to derisk electing a Labour government.

Ed never got close. It was by far the most important failure of his leadership, much more important than stupid predator/producer speeches, daft photos and bizarre slabs of rock. Getting ready for government is hard. It means you move away from the idealism to the practical and the doable. Our democracy will be stronger if next time we have a genuine choice.

I disagree that Blair and Brown had a coherent set of answers by 1997. They appeared to, certainly, but in reality their answers were (1) rely on money from the City - with all the bad effects that we have since seen; and (2) use PFI to pay for the rest - again with all the problems we are now seeing.

What they didn't do - and Labour now have to do - is work out what their priorities are and how to pay for them and explain to the electorate that if they agree with those priorities they are going to have to pay for them. For too long Labour have peddled a fiction to their voters: that they can have all the wonderful things they want and that it can all be paid for by someone else. And the truth is it can't. Labour need to be honest with the electorate. It's that fundamental dishonesty or refusal to face reality which is at the heart of Labour's economic incompetence and failure to make a case for the sort of state/public sector it wants.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Then prepare for civil war

Tad extreme. Most people's version of protest nowadays is pressing Like on a photoshopped image on Facebook with a made up quote. The really extreme will go as far as pressing Share for that image.

Or bomb the tube/shoot cartoonists/behead a soldier

The Spectator have an interview with Jim Messina:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/jim-messina-interview-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/

The whole thing is worth reading, but these two consecutive paragraphs really caught my eye:

"For now, Messina’s sojourn in Westminster is over. He is back in DC and already advising the Democrats once again — in particular Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. ‘I am helping run her Super PAC and I’m very excited about that and we’re at work every day to make sure she wins this election.’

Could he seem himself returning to Conservative HQ in future? ‘I would love to, I really believe in Prime Minister Cameron and I adore his team, I think Andrew Feldman and Lynton, those guys are all some of the better people I have worked with so it would be an honour to work with them again.’ "

The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.

@NCPoliticsUK: New #Labour leader will be announced on 12th September according to the Press Association H/T @benrileysmith

isam said:

Whether Carswell is right or not it is hardly greedy of Ukip to accept money they are offered. Are the greens giving theirs back? Do any other parties?

On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest

The function of Short money is " to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions."
Carswell is correct, he doesn't need £650,000 each year to support one MP.

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

isam said:

Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

Prime Minister David Cameron

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

We must become intolerant of intolerance.

We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.

One of these values is freedom of speech. That includes giving free speech to those who don't deserve it - otherwise who decides who does or doesn't deserve free speech.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I agree that freedom of speech is important. I find the increasing criminalisation of speech on the grounds that it is "offensive" troubling.

But what I understand the government to be doing is taking the argument to those extremists who use that right to undermine our values and attack those who do not fit into their world viewpoint.

Do you support the freedom to say that a particular person caught in adultery should be stoned or killed? To say that those who have left the Muslim faith should be killed? That British women should not be able to dress as they like or go where they like or speak to who they like, or marry who they like?

This is tricky territory but I think there is a lot the government can do without going too far.

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

isam said:

Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

Prime Minister David Cameron

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

We must become intolerant of intolerance.

We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.

One of these values is freedom of speech. That includes giving free speech to those who don't deserve it - otherwise who decides who does or doesn't deserve free speech.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Free speech does not permit people to incite violence against others. We have seen people standing with banners outside Westminster Cathedral saying "Behead those who insult Islam". That's not free speech. That's incitement to violence. And nothing was done. And it's about time something is done about those who preach violence. Being some sort of cleric does not - and should not - give you a free pass to preach violence against others.

If it is incitement to violence then it is illegal and should be dealt with within the law. To claim that we should now persecute people who are acting within the law is completely unacceptable.

Will the Conservatives, now that they have an overall majority, seek to oust John Bercow from the Speaker's chair? Or did their manoeuvre just before Parliament went into recess ensure that sufficient numbers of Tory backbenchers will kybosh such an attempt?

antifrank said:

Will the Conservatives, now that they have an overall majority, seek to oust John Bercow from the Speaker's chair? Or did their manoeuvre just before Parliament went into recess ensure that sufficient numbers of Tory backbenchers will kybosh such an attempt?

ruled out this year I believe. Maybe hoping he will quit anyway

As DavidL has said, Ed Miliband has offered his service to the nation and it has been declined. While I did not vote for him, I have no doubt that he was sincerely trying to do his level best for the country and he deserves respect for his tireless efforts even if you completely disagree with what he advocated. Can we not give him a bit of time and space to lick his wounds?

@PippaCrerar: Roll up, roll up. Nominations open for Labour mayoral race. Diane Abbott formally announces bid http://t.co/9qJXuGI674 Who next? #labour2016