politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2020 challenge for LAB: Unless its Scottish losses ca
Comments
-
Plato...You say it much more elegantly.0
-
I mean count 'in electorate terms'.Charles said:
They do count.Slackbladder said:
People which don't vote, don't count, There's a block which will just never vote not becuase they are disillusioned, but because they are, and always will be disengaged.SouthamObserver said:
Slightly less than 25% of voters wanted a Tory government; around 38% of those who voted.Scott_P said:
SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.SouthamObserver said:One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.
We were right.
Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?
How the 75%/62% coalesce next time is one of the key issues.
They just don't participate in the selection of the government
But it's really, really not difficult for once every 5 years to get to a polling station which is likely to be within walking distance for most people. Which is one reason why I'm against online voting, It's not an onerous task to vote.0 -
O/T
How do you govern a disrupted world?
Seismic economic shifts are placing new demands on governments globally. In this excerpt from the new book No Ordinary Disruption: The Four Global Forces Breaking All the Trends, its authors explain how policy makers can respond.
May 2015 | byRichard Dobbs, James Manyika, and Jonathan Woetzel
The collision of four fundamental economic forces—urbanization, technology, demographics, and globalization—is producing monumental change. Global competition and technological change have sped up creative destruction and outpaced the ability of labor markets to adapt. Job creation is a critical challenge for most policy makers even as businesses complain about critical skill gaps. Graying populations are starting to fray social safety nets, and for debt-ridden societies in advanced economies, the challenge can only get more pressing as the cost of capital starts to rise. Much-needed productivity growth continues to elude the public sector. Income inequality is rising and causing a backlash, in some cases targeted at the very interconnections of trade, finance, and people that have fueled the growth of the past three decades.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/how_do_you_govern_a_disrupted_world?cid=other-eml-alt-mgi-mck-oth-15050 -
The 'Northern Powerhouse' - and you should always beware of big ideas with idiotic names - is a non-starter when it comes to improving Conservative support in northern England.MarqueeMark said:
But as the good Professor points out, those peaks are on different continents.DecrepitJohnL said:
So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.
I have to say, I am somewhat surprised by the size of the task Labour faces. Whilst it was a great result for us Blues last week, at the time it felt a close run thing for a majority. It didn't look like one that was going to shut out Labour for a decade or more. But with a bit of analysis, it does look like Labour got hit by a perfect storm.
It is hard to see Scotland returning in a way that Scottish Labour MP's could vote on English matters. Wales appears to be the next big problem for Labour, with a raft more current Labour seats heading into the marginals column. London is probably entrenching into the seats it currently holds. The rest of the south looks out of reach unless a new Blair emerges. No such person is offering themselves for election as Labour leader.
The Midlands has to be where the Labour fightback begins. They had a lousy result here outside Brum. They have to get their message right to appeal here. Whilst hoping that the Northern Powerhouse doesn't get traction in a way that voters there don't start to look at the Tories with less jaundiced eyes....
Because the 'Northern Powerhouse' is based upon big cities (where the Conservatives are near dead) and the underlying philosophy that northern England needs to become more like London (which has been electorally trending towards Labour for a generation).
Conservative prospects in northern England depend, like they do in the midlands, on medium sized towns and breaking Labour's grip on the industrial areas.
0 -
I'm a HUGE believer in doing it in person - there's just something about the group experience that you can't beat.
I made a point of telling everyone I spoke to at my polling station how many people had turned out roughly so far , made it seem like it was significant, and thanked them for voting.
Hopefully, it will encourage them to come back and suggest others do so.Slackbladder said:
I mean count 'in electorate terms'.
But it's really, really not difficult for once every 5 years to get to a polling station which is likely to be within walking distance for most people. Which is one reason why I'm against online voting, It's not an onerous task to vote.0 -
The Boundary Review was always liable to help both Labour and the Conservatives, since a reduction in the total number of seats makes the electoral system less proportionate to the number of votes cast for each party, to the benefit of larger parties. There is nothing to suggest it is the unequal boundaries, as opposed to differential swings and turnouts, which disadvantaged Labour this time. The Conservative vote simply got a lot more efficient.surbiton said:The Boundary Commission will be interesting. If the terms of reference stays the same, it should actually help Labour.
What the Tories used to call electoral bias is now the other way round.0 -
Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.0 -
What you say is true, but I think the impact is overstated by the SNP effect. If you look at the second half of your list, they have all reverted to their original holder, except for the Scottish seats.another_richard said:I don't know if anyone has analysed the LibDems constituencies yet but O&S is the only constituency which was LibDem both in 1992 and 2015.
The other 2015 LibDem constituencies in 1992 were:
Ceredigon - PC
Westmoreland - Con
Southport - Con
Leeds NW - Con
Sheffield Hallam - Con
Norfolk N - Con
Carshalton - Con
Now if we consider the other 1992 LibDem constituencies and look at which party held them before they were Lib/LibDem and which party holds them now:
Caithness – Lab, SNP
Ross – Con, SNP
Inverness – Con, SNP
Gordon – Con, SNP
Fife NE – Con, SNP
Argyll – Con, SNP
Tweeddale – Con, SNP
Berwickshire – Con, SNP (now effectively merged with Tweedale)
Montgomery – Con, Con
Berwick – Con, Con
Rochdale – Lab, Lab
Liverpool Mossley Hill – Lab, Lab **
Cheltenham – Con, Con
Bath – Con, Con
Yeovil – Con, Con
Devon N – Con, Con
Cornwall N – Con, Con
Truro – Con, Con
Southwark – Lab, Lab
It shows that the Conservatives, despite their impressive results this year, are still suffering from the rise of the LibDems.
** Liverpool Mossley Hill was notionally Conservative but David Alton was first elected in Liverpool Edge Hill, a gain from Labour.
Fundamentally, I see the LibDems as burrowing in when they win a seat and then holding it tenaciously until there is a tsunami/scandal/retirement. Then they may hold it, they may not. But it's fair to say that the Lib Dems holding legacy Tory seats, often thanks to tactical voting, has been a large component of why the Tories struggled to win a majority between 1992 and today0 -
I would like to see polling day celebrated as a bank holiday. We get days off to celebrate all sorts of things, but our democracy is something we really should celebrate. Make a party of it. Take the whole family down to the polling booth. Vote before you head off for a long weekend.Slackbladder said:
But it's really, really not difficult for once every 5 years to get to a polling station which is likely to be within walking distance for most people. Which is one reason why I'm against online voting, It's not an onerous task to vote.
0 -
I quite agree. You're quoting @Slackbladder though!Jonathan said:
I would like to see polling day celebrated as a bank holiday. We get days off to celebrate all sorts of things, but our democracy is something we really should celebrate. Make a party of it. Take the whole family down to the polling booth. Vote before you head off for a long weekend.Plato said:
But it's really, really not difficult for once every 5 years to get to a polling station which is likely to be within walking distance for most people. Which is one reason why I'm against online voting, It's not an onerous task to vote.0 -
There is another element to Labour's mountaineering effort. One almost entirely outside its control.
Standing back from the polling - which I said at the time was broken - there was always one giant reason Labour weren't going to win this election.
They made no case for change.
A worse potential Prime Minister and a package of policies written in haste in pencil never stood a chance against a party that had, in the voters' minds, turned round the economy. That Liam Byrne gave us such a fabulously easy-to-understand benchmark - "there is no money" - was very, very helpful. It will still be useful in 2020.
The Tories know what they have to do. It could be blown off course by events. But if they are half-competent, Labour still comes up against the same issue I articulated here maybe 20 times:
"Labour - why would you take the risk?"0 -
Labour did "target such people", it aimed to loot them.surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.0 -
There was nothing wrong with "Equalisation". What was wrong was reducing it to 600. I said that then, and I say it now.CD13 said:Surby,
"The Boundary Commission will be interesting. If the terms of reference stays the same, it should actually help Labour."
If that's true, will Labour still call it gerrymandering?0 -
Does anyone know if Vince's love-in with the concept of a Mansion Tax caused him even more trouble than the average LD MP?
It seemed like a suicide note when he pushed it as a policy idea given where his seat.0 -
That list shows there are still a few more seats for the Tories to mop up off the LibDems with "one more heave" in 2020. Which makes Labour's task that much harder....another_richard said:I don't know if anyone has analysed the LibDems constituencies yet but O&S is the only constituency which was LibDem both in 1992 and 2015.
The other 2015 LibDem constituencies in 1992 were:
Ceredigon - PC
Westmoreland - Con
Southport - Con
Leeds NW - Con
Sheffield Hallam - Con
Norfolk N - Con
Carshalton - Con
Now if we consider the other 1992 LibDem constituencies and look at which party held them before they were Lib/LibDem and which party holds them now:
Caithness – Lab, SNP
Ross – Con, SNP
Inverness – Con, SNP
Gordon – Con, SNP
Fife NE – Con, SNP
Argyll – Con, SNP
Tweeddale – Con, SNP
Berwickshire – Con, SNP (now effectively merged with Tweedale)
Montgomery – Con, Con
Berwick – Con, Con
Rochdale – Lab, Lab
Liverpool Mossley Hill – Lab, Lab **
Cheltenham – Con, Con
Bath – Con, Con
Yeovil – Con, Con
Devon N – Con, Con
Cornwall N – Con, Con
Truro – Con, Con
Southwark – Lab, Lab
It shows that the Conservatives, despite their impressive results this year, are still suffering from the rise of the LibDems.
** Liverpool Mossley Hill was notionally Conservative but David Alton was first elected in Liverpool Edge Hill, a gain from Labour.0 -
The answer will be, because I and my family will be better off.MarqueeMark said:
"Labour - why would you take the risk?"
0 -
A "Labour can't win here" thread, how refreshing.
Surely there ground game will overcome all.... oh
On a more serious note, WTF are UKIP playing at?0 -
O/T
It's the exam season, with students facing the angst of revision and pre-exam nerves. But in a growing tradition, universities and student unions are making increasingly elaborate efforts to tackle stress. Here are some of the de-stressing tactics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32690644
We need employees that can stand up to stress - not those that need forms of palliatives0 -
Liam Byrne easily gave the Tories 10 extra seats. Nicola Sturgeon's repeated hectoring of "lock the Tories out" probably cost even more. Crosby, Messina et al gets the credit but the Tories should send some flowers to Nicola.MarqueeMark said:There is another element to Labour's mountaineering effort. One almost entirely outside its control.
Standing back from the polling - which I said at the time was broken - there was always one giant reason Labour weren't going to win this election.
They made no case for change.
A worse potential Prime Minister and a package of policies written in haste in pencil never stood a chance against a party that had, in the voters' minds, turned round the economy. That Liam Byrne gave us such a fabulously easy-to-understand benchmark - "there is no money" - was very, very helpful. It will still be useful in 2020.
The Tories know what they have to do. It could be blown off course by events. But if they are half-competent, Labour still comes up against the same issue I articulated here maybe 20 times:
"Labour - why would you take the risk?"
Having said that, she's got what she wanted. Locked everyone out of Scotland. Got the hated "Tories" in Westminster. Heaven !0 -
Why did Labour not target such people? Because with practically no exceptions, no Labour frontbenchers have any real experience of working in the private sector. They simply don't understand their problems.surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.0 -
Pretty sure they tried that last time. The problem is no one beleived them on the macroeconomics, even if they pandered for the microeconomics.Jonathan said:
The answer will be, because I and my family will be better off.MarqueeMark said:
"Labour - why would you take the risk?"0 -
On the last point, it's vaguely reminiscent of the Martin McDonagh play, The Lieutenant Of Inishmore. Probably his finest. I think UKIP are re-enacting that.Floater said:A "Labour can't win here" thread, how refreshing.
Surely there ground game will overcome all.... oh
On a more serious note, WTF are UKIP playing at?0 -
Saying nothing about the economy might have been good for party management but allowed Conservative misrepresentation to take hold in voters' minds. John Prescott remarked on this the other day, as some have been doing on pb over the years.MarqueeMark said:There is another element to Labour's mountaineering effort. One almost entirely outside its control.
Standing back from the polling - which I said at the time was broken - there was always one giant reason Labour weren't going to win this election.
They made no case for change.
A worse potential Prime Minister and a package of policies written in haste in pencil never stood a chance against a party that had, in the voters' minds, turned round the economy. That Liam Byrne gave us such a fabulously easy-to-understand benchmark - "there is no money" - was very, very helpful. It will still be useful in 2020.
The Tories know what they have to do. It could be blown off course by events. But if they are half-competent, Labour still comes up against the same issue I articulated here maybe 20 times:
"Labour - why would you take the risk?"0 -
IIRC @AndreaParma_82 posted a list of the occupations of the new Labour intake - to summarise it was basically
- Trade Unionist
- Public Sector Employee
- Voluntary Sector Employee
- Academic
- 2 or 3 lawyers
That doesn't make for a Party that knows anything about small, medium or large businesses.antifrank said:
Why did Labour not target such people? Because with practically no exceptions, no Labour frontbenchers have any real experience of working in the private sector. They simply don't understand their problems.0 -
So very true!antifrank said:
Why did Labour not target such people? Because with practically no exceptions, no Labour frontbenchers have any real experience of working in the private sector. They simply don't understand their problems.surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.0 -
0
-
In France, many small business people vote "Socialist". The Industrial workforce used to vote Communist. Their decline simply mirrored the decline of the industrial workforce.antifrank said:
Why did Labour not target such people? Because with practically no exceptions, no Labour frontbenchers have any real experience of working in the private sector. They simply don't understand their problems.surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.0 -
It is a missed opportunity for Labour. I fear the last Parliament set back their chances with such voters about 15 years.surbiton said:
In France, many small business people vote "Socialist". The Industrial workforce used to vote Communist. Their decline simply mirrored the decline of the industrial workforce.antifrank said:
Why did Labour not target such people? Because with practically no exceptions, no Labour frontbenchers have any real experience of working in the private sector. They simply don't understand their problems.surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.0 -
Equally reminiscent of the Robert Kilroy-Silk play, Ukip Leadership Meltdown.antifrank said:
On the last point, it's vaguely reminiscent of the Martin McDonagh play, The Lieutenant Of Inishmore. Probably his finest. I think UKIP are re-enacting that.Floater said:A "Labour can't win here" thread, how refreshing.
Surely there ground game will overcome all.... oh
On a more serious note, WTF are UKIP playing at?0 -
Indeed, and if there is a reason you physically cannot get to a polling station we already have provision for that. If the only reason you don't vote is you cannot do it from your own living room and even going to a post box is too far? Incredibly lazy.Slackbladder said:
I mean count 'in electorate terms'.Charles said:
They do count.Slackbladder said:
People which don't vote, don't count, There's a block which will just never vote not becuase they are disillusioned, but because they are, and always will be disengaged.SouthamObserver said:
Slightly less than 25% of voters wanted a Tory government; around 38% of those who voted.Scott_P said:
SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.SouthamObserver said:One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.
We were right.
Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?
How the 75%/62% coalesce next time is one of the key issues.
They just don't participate in the selection of the government
But it's really, really not difficult for once every 5 years to get to a polling station which is likely to be within walking distance for most people. Which is one reason why I'm against online voting, It's not an onerous task to vote.
I'm all for engaging people more, somehow, but pandering to laziness that much seems taking it too far.0 -
Very true.surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
And worse than H&S is the ever increasing and increasingly pointless QA regulations and their armies of 'consultants' and 'inspectors'.
0 -
It's all just too delicious to be true. The two most malign forces in British politics utterly spayed by the election result. My God, to think it's only week ago that we all woke up to this and that things have actually got better since then.
Edit: although never underestimate the persistence and resilience of envy as a political offer.0 -
It's an interesting study by the Prof, but as the last election showed, shifts in electoral landscape together with very precise targeting can render UNS redundant.
I personally think achieving the swing in vote is one of the least of Labour's problems.
Firstly the seats in Scotland, on the scale the Labour have been used to, are never coming back - the union will break before that happens. Ironically, I reckon in the short term, the Tories have more potential upside in Scotland in terms of seats (albeit a very small number) than Labour do currently.
Secondly, the leadership issue. I'm not inspired by any of the candidates to date. Burnham, who I think is most likely to win, is great with a friendly crowd (as a few of his appearances by a very accommodating BBC proved in the election campaign). However, I don't think it would take a lot of adversity for him to completely unravel and that will turn an electorate off. Also ideologically, he (and most of the other candidates that I know have), will struggle to impress.
Not being Ed is a positive, but if you are saying the same things as Ed, then isn't only a think positive.
Thirdly, the Lib Dems are going to want to put clear water between the new incarnation and the coalition version. This means a shift leftwards, crowding that part of the political landscape further.
Fourthly, UKIP have lots of 2nd places in the North, an area where I believe the disenchantment with Labour is not far off what it was in Scotland. If UKIP can get its act together and establish local parties in these areas, win representation at local level, then they pose a big threat in these areas, particularly on the back of a substantial minority voting for OUT in an EU referendum. I think UKIP has wised up this and now does see these areas as there most fertile ground.
Finally, I don't think all is lost for Labour. It would have been far worse if they had they won 50 more seats at the expense of the Tories and were now trying to head a dog of a government with all of the above problems still being in play. As it happens, events might result in the electorate directing it's ire at the governing Tory party, which leaves the door open slightly for them.0 -
We might finally end up with the Lib/Lab coalition Blair wanted in 1997. Other scenarios are perhaps more likely.DavidL said:But nothing lasts forever and these are going to be bumpy years in government. if we get hit by a bad recession Osborne will be under pressure.
Labour's first priority is to get themselves in the game as a credible alternative. If they do and the Tories screw up or fall apart the British people will find a way.0 -
Huzzah
The Guardian has decided to take a pause on reporting polls as political news, but will not rush to discontinue the monthly series of surveys which it has commissioned over the last 30 years. Instead, this series will be maintained in a low-key way: while lessons are learned, methodologies are refined and – we hope – trust is restored.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/guardian-view-flawed-election-forecasts-polls-apart?CMP=share_btn_tw0 -
Of the current Lib Dem seats prior to 92 both Southport and Ceredigon were held in 87 I think by the Liberals.MarqueeMark said:
That list shows there are still a few more seats for the Tories to mop up off the LibDems with "one more heave" in 2020. Which makes Labour's task that much harder....another_richard said:I don't know if anyone has analysed the LibDems constituencies yet but O&S is the only constituency which was LibDem both in 1992 and 2015.
The other 2015 LibDem constituencies in 1992 were:
Ceredigon - PC
Westmoreland - Con
Southport - Con
Leeds NW - Con
Sheffield Hallam - Con
Norfolk N - Con
Carshalton - Con
Now if we consider the other 1992 LibDem constituencies and look at which party held them before they were Lib/LibDem and which party holds them now:
Caithness – Lab, SNP
Ross – Con, SNP
Inverness – Con, SNP
Gordon – Con, SNP
Fife NE – Con, SNP
Argyll – Con, SNP
Tweeddale – Con, SNP
Berwickshire – Con, SNP (now effectively merged with Tweedale)
Montgomery – Con, Con
Berwick – Con, Con
Rochdale – Lab, Lab
Liverpool Mossley Hill – Lab, Lab **
Cheltenham – Con, Con
Bath – Con, Con
Yeovil – Con, Con
Devon N – Con, Con
Cornwall N – Con, Con
Truro – Con, Con
Southwark – Lab, Lab
It shows that the Conservatives, despite their impressive results this year, are still suffering from the rise of the LibDems.
** Liverpool Mossley Hill was notionally Conservative but David Alton was first elected in Liverpool Edge Hill, a gain from Labour.0 -
The day the polls turnedTheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah
The Guardian has decided to take a pause on reporting polls as political news, but will not rush to discontinue the monthly series of surveys which it has commissioned over the last 30 years. Instead, this series will be maintained in a low-key way: while lessons are learned, methodologies are refined and – we hope – trust is restored.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/guardian-view-flawed-election-forecasts-polls-apart?CMP=share_btn_tw0 -
The SNP's manifesto talks about those things in much the same spirit as Labour talks about fairness.DecrepitJohnL said:The SNP seems to be a very broad church. Its website talks about supporting small businesses and creating apprenticeships, and so does the Conservatives' manifesto.
0 -
hahahahahaha...TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah
The Guardian has decided to take a pause on reporting polls as political news,0 -
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.0 -
Re Labour needing a 12% lead......
Two key factors need watching - what happens to UKIP and the Lib Dems. If UKIP vote falls, it is in best condition at the moment in the Tory South, and if the Lib Dem vote recovers it will be Moreso in Tory seats, meaning low UKIP and High Lib Dem will reverse the unexpected efficiency of the Con vote and revert to Labour bias. UNS will once again be useless if UKIP and the Libs are vastly different at the next GE, and the gap red to blue will be secondary to this position in determining likely outcome.
Worth remembering when taking positions in a few years time.0 -
Or in short as long as red and blue are relatively close. High Lib Dem - Labour bias. High UKIP - Tory bias0
-
Worth looking at seats in which the UKIP vote stopped labour winning the seat.dyedwoolie said:Re Labour needing a 12% lead......
Two key factors need watching - what happens to UKIP and the Lib Dems. If UKIP vote falls, it is in best condition at the moment in the Tory South, and if the Lib Dem vote recovers it will be Moreso in Tory seats, meaning low UKIP and High Lib Dem will reverse the unexpected efficiency of the Con vote and revert to Labour bias. UNS will once again be useless if UKIP and the Libs are vastly different at the next GE, and the gap red to blue will be secondary to this position in determining likely outcome.
Worth remembering when taking positions in a few years time.0 -
Labour did not hugely overspend by any historical or international comparison.Alanbrooke said:
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.0 -
Why do we need 650 MPs?surbiton said:
There was nothing wrong with "Equalisation". What was wrong was reducing it to 600. I said that then, and I say it now.CD13 said:Surby,
"The Boundary Commission will be interesting. If the terms of reference stays the same, it should actually help Labour."
If that's true, will Labour still call it gerrymandering?
That's more than the US - a slightly larger country - has in the HoR and Senate combined. As it is, we can't even fit all our MPs into the House of Commons0 -
Perhaps Labour should leave Harriet in power for 2 years then have an election.0
-
The only way the Tories can screw up is if they lose their feint whiff of competency, particularly over the economy but also when they inevitably change leader in 2018/20190
-
Time for Labour to leave the union patriarchal approach and elect a female leader. That way lies votes and comeback,0
-
I'd imagine, all other things being equal, that Clegg (or more likely his successor) will lose the seat. No personal vote, no incumbency, no ToriesForNickMarqueeMark said:
That list shows there are still a few more seats for the Tories to mop up off the LibDems with "one more heave" in 2020. Which makes Labour's task that much harder....another_richard said:I don't know if anyone has analysed the LibDems constituencies yet but O&S is the only constituency which was LibDem both in 1992 and 2015.
The other 2015 LibDem constituencies in 1992 were:
Ceredigon - PC
Westmoreland - Con
Southport - Con
Leeds NW - Con
Sheffield Hallam - Con
Norfolk N - Con
Carshalton - Con
Now if we consider the other 1992 LibDem constituencies and look at which party held them before they were Lib/LibDem and which party holds them now:
Caithness – Lab, SNP
Ross – Con, SNP
Inverness – Con, SNP
Gordon – Con, SNP
Fife NE – Con, SNP
Argyll – Con, SNP
Tweeddale – Con, SNP
Berwickshire – Con, SNP (now effectively merged with Tweedale)
Montgomery – Con, Con
Berwick – Con, Con
Rochdale – Lab, Lab
Liverpool Mossley Hill – Lab, Lab **
Cheltenham – Con, Con
Bath – Con, Con
Yeovil – Con, Con
Devon N – Con, Con
Cornwall N – Con, Con
Truro – Con, Con
Southwark – Lab, Lab
It shows that the Conservatives, despite their impressive results this year, are still suffering from the rise of the LibDems.
** Liverpool Mossley Hill was notionally Conservative but David Alton was first elected in Liverpool Edge Hill, a gain from Labour.0 -
Many delicious things need tasting after this crazy GE!Slackbladder said:
Worth looking at seats in which the UKIP vote stopped labour winning the seat.dyedwoolie said:Re Labour needing a 12% lead......
Two key factors need watching - what happens to UKIP and the Lib Dems. If UKIP vote falls, it is in best condition at the moment in the Tory South, and if the Lib Dem vote recovers it will be Moreso in Tory seats, meaning low UKIP and High Lib Dem will reverse the unexpected efficiency of the Con vote and revert to Labour bias. UNS will once again be useless if UKIP and the Libs are vastly different at the next GE, and the gap red to blue will be secondary to this position in determining likely outcome.
Worth remembering when taking positions in a few years time.0 -
That is one of my favourite plays! I even forgave my wife dragging from a transcontinental flight to go an see Chris Pine in it.antifrank said:
On the last point, it's vaguely reminiscent of the Martin McDonagh play, The Lieutenant Of Inishmore. Probably his finest. I think UKIP are re-enacting that.Floater said:A "Labour can't win here" thread, how refreshing.
Surely there ground game will overcome all.... oh
On a more serious note, WTF are UKIP playing at?0 -
Labour ate all the pies.DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour did not hugely overspend by any historical or international comparison.Alanbrooke said:
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.
There was no money left.
Keep telling yourself you didn't vastly overspend, but this a lost argument for you and until you get your collective heads around it you won't be connecting wilth too many voters.
0 -
As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
0 -
Hi #Charles, I hope you got my letter and contents.Charles said:
That is one of my favourite plays! I even forgave my wife dragging from a transcontinental flight to go an see Chris Pine in it.antifrank said:
On the last point, it's vaguely reminiscent of the Martin McDonagh play, The Lieutenant Of Inishmore. Probably his finest. I think UKIP are re-enacting that.Floater said:A "Labour can't win here" thread, how refreshing.
Surely there ground game will overcome all.... oh
On a more serious note, WTF are UKIP playing at?0 -
Fishing
Let us recap. Sturgeon and Salmond take over the SNP in 2004. The Party were down to 20 per cent of the vote , had been drubbed in the General Election of 2001 (5 seats), the Scottish Elections of 2003 and the Euro poll of 2004. Their membership was less than 8,000 in total and their activist base in complete disaray and decline. Their unionist opponents wanted no more powers for Scotland (McConnel Labour), or had drawn a line in the sand (Tories).
Just over a decade later they have 110,000 members, total control of the Scots Parliament, 56 out of 59 MPs, are negotiating a further power transfer from London and achieved last September a 45 per cent vote for independence - a total that few if any thought possible. They stand now at 55 per cent in the latest poll for Scottish Parliament voting intentions.
Salmond, who had a positive popular satisfaction rating throughout his term as First Minister, already is confirmed as the most successful electoral politician (apart from Blair) while Sturgeon could even surpass her former boss. They are by any comparison a formidable double act of top flight polticians.0 -
One reason is because most of the executive is drawn from members of the legislature. Therefore when you reduce the size of the legislature you will increase the proportion of the legislature that are members of the executive.Charles said:Why do we need 650 MPs?
That's more than the US - a slightly larger country - has in the HoR and Senate combined. As it is, we can't even fit all our MPs into the House of Commons0 -
If your neighbour buys a Maclaren do you take out a loan and overstretch yourself to buy a Bugatti?DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour did not hugely overspend by any historical or international comparison.Alanbrooke said:
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.0 -
That short statement by the Daily Mail is such rubbish. It's obvious an exit poll is going to be more reliable than earlier polls. No extra skill is needed. And the exit poll didn't 'correctly forecast' anything. First, polls don't make predictions. (There are still many who don't understand that.) Second, the 'prediction' made was wrong, unless we just mean that the Tories would get more seats than other pollsters had predicted - no great revelation when you're asking people how they voted when they're coming out of polling stations. Curtice should hang his head. His comments on 12% are of as little value as those made by a randomly chosen person at a bus stop - indeed less, because he's sure of an expertise that doesn't exist. What if there's a big anti-sleaze campaign in the media - against, say, the LibDems - in winter and spring 2020? Will the academics reassess the 12% to 10.5%? What does he think of that? Who cares? If anybody wants to 'draw lessons' from the 2015 polls, here it is: don't follow talking-head experts.0
-
What's the general thoughts on Mary Creagh then?
I can honestly say I've never heard of her before! Which is rare for a leadership candidate.0 -
Do we need so many members of the Executive though?OblitusSumMe said:
One reason is because most of the executive is drawn from members of the legislature. Therefore when you reduce the size of the legislature you will increase the proportion of the legislature that are members of the executive.Charles said:Why do we need 650 MPs?
That's more than the US - a slightly larger country - has in the HoR and Senate combined. As it is, we can't even fit all our MPs into the House of Commons0 -
They lost the Indyref and helped a Tory government get back in power despite the odds.scotslass said:Fishing
Let us recap. Sturgeon and Salmond take over the SNP in 2004. The Party were down to 20 per cent of the vote , had been drubbed in the General Election of 2001 (5 seats), the Scottish Elections of 2003 and the Euro poll of 2004. Their membership was less than 8,000 in total and their activist base in complete disaray and decline. Their unionist opponents wanted no more powers for Scotland (McConnel Labour), or had drawn a line in the sand (Tories).
Just over a decade later they have 110,000 members, total control of the Scots Parliament, 56 out of 59 MPs, are negotiating a further power transfer from London and achieved last September a 45 per cent vote for independence - a total that few if any thought possible. They stand now at 55 per cent in the latest poll for Scottish Parliament voting intentions.
Salmond, who had a positive popular satisfaction rating throughout his term as First Minister, already is confirmed as the most successful electoral politician (apart from Blair) while Sturgeon could even surpass her former boss. They are by any comparison a formidable double act of top flight polticians.
I hope Cameron remembers to thank Sturgeon personally today
#Toriesweehelpers0 -
I recently agreed to give a couple of quid a week to play cancer research UK lottery, I then got a followed up call saying would i give to this or that charity and said 'possibly later I'm not going to commit now'
Since then I have been getting about half a dozen nuisance calls a day from charities... Very annoying. Maybe this story will make them think about easing off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081294/Britain-s-oldest-poppy-seller-dead-Avon-Gorge-aged-92.html0 -
I looked at this "unexpected efficiency" of the Tory vote a few days back.dyedwoolie said:Re Labour needing a 12% lead......
Two key factors need watching - what happens to UKIP and the Lib Dems. If UKIP vote falls, it is in best condition at the moment in the Tory South, and if the Lib Dem vote recovers it will be Moreso in Tory seats, meaning low UKIP and High Lib Dem will reverse the unexpected efficiency of the Con vote and revert to Labour bias. UNS will once again be useless if UKIP and the Libs are vastly different at the next GE, and the gap red to blue will be secondary to this position in determining likely outcome.
Worth remembering when taking positions in a few years time.
In England, Con won 318 seats and in those seats they received 50.55% [ 8143428 ] of the votes against 21.2% [ 3415804 ] to Labour. So, the Tories average lead over Labour in Tory seats is 4727624 /318 = 14866.
Labour won 206 seats in England. In those, Labour won 51.03% [ 4594409 ], Con 24.46% [ 2202306 ] . The average Labour lead in Labour seats is 2392103 /206 = 11612.
So, on balance, Tory majorities are still larger than Labour's.
The "unexpected efficiency" has come from Lib Dem seats where it made little difference to the Tory / Labour ratio but the Tories harvested more than 35 seats.0 -
Someone's sounding rather bitter...John_N said:That short statement by the Daily Mail is such rubbish. It's obvious an exit poll is going to be more reliable than earlier polls. No extra skill is needed. And the exit poll didn't 'correctly forecast' anything. First, polls don't make predictions. (There are still many who don't understand that.) Second, the 'prediction' made was wrong, unless we just mean that the Tories would get more seats than other pollsters had predicted - no great revelation when you're asking people how they voted when they're coming out of polling stations. Curtice should hang his head. His comments on 12% are of as little value as those made by a randomly chosen person at a bus stop - indeed less, because he's sure of an expertise that doesn't exist. What if there's a big anti-sleaze campaign in the media - against, say, the LibDems - in winter and spring 2020? Will the academics reassess the 12% to 10.5%? What does he think of that? Who cares? If anybody wants to 'draw lessons' from the 2015 polls, here it is: don't follow talking-head experts.
0 -
She would be more dangerous to the Cameron Tories than any of the other named candidates.AllyPally_Rob said:What's the general thoughts on Mary Creagh then?
I can honestly say I've never heard of her before! Which is rare for a leadership candidate.
She has almost no chance of getting the job.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/labour-history-leadership
Interesting article from John Harris, questioning more than what sort of personality should Labour elect as leader.0 -
Daily Mail?John_N said:
That short statement by the Daily Mail is such rubbish. It's obvious an exit poll is going to be more reliable than earlier polls. No extra skill is needed. And the exit poll didn't 'correctly forecast' anything. First, polls don't make predictions. (There are still many who don't understand that.) Second, the 'prediction' made was wrong, unless we just mean that the Tories would get more seats than other pollsters had predicted - no great revelation when you're asking people how they voted when they're coming out of polling stations. Curtice should hang his head. His comments on 12% are of as little value as those made by a randomly chosen person at a bus stop - indeed less, because he's sure of an expertise that doesn't exist. What if there's a big anti-sleaze campaign in the media - against, say, the LibDems - in winter and spring 2020? Will the academics reassess the 12% to 10.5%? What does he think of that? Who cares? If anybody wants to 'draw lessons' from the 2015 polls, here it is: don't follow talking-head experts.
0 -
I like the phrasing on the Tories 'harvesting' the LD seats. "Hmm, good LD harvest this year, but the fieldss are running out for next time. Best plant some more"surbiton said:dyedwoolie said:me.
The "unexpected efficiency" has come from Lib Dem seats where it made little difference to the Tory / Labour ratio but the Tories harvested more than 35 seats.0 -
Standing back from the detailed analysis of the difficulties by DavidL, assuming the SNP will retain North Korean-level representation next time seems still implausible. An obvious argument to my mind is that we're going to see years of bad-tempered negotiations between Tories and SNP, which the SNP can't actually win. The conclusion that if you want to deal with the Tories you need a Labour government shouldn't be impossible to sell.
As for the Labour leadership, there isn't an obvious left-right split between the candidates - nobody is saying anything that either Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn would describe as repellent. The more difficult decision is between familiar faces with known strengths and weaknesses and a plunge for someone that most members, never mind voters, have barely heard of. The former only works if the familiar face is saying something interestingly new, the latter is inherently a gamble. I suspect the voters may go for an experienced leader, probably Burnham, with a fresh deputy, probably Creasey, but the debates over the next few months may well change that assessment.0 -
If in your rather tenuous metaphor, success is measured by drag-racing supercars, perhaps.Financier said:
If your neighbour buys a Maclaren do you take out a loan and overstretch yourself to buy a Bugatti?DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour did not hugely overspend by any historical or international comparison.Alanbrooke said:
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.
But you beg the question when you say "overstretched" -- we were not overstretched. Until the global financial crisis hit, we had a smaller deficit and debt than were inherited from the Conservatives, and both were smaller than under the current Conservative government.
That people now believe the opposite shows why Labour's "say nothing" strategy was so incredibly stupid.0 -
I've found that. You give to one charity and you get loads of other charities pestering you.isam said:I recently agreed to give a couple of quid a week to play cancer research UK lottery, I then got a followed up call saying would i give to this or that charity and said 'possibly later I'm not going to commit now'
Since then I have been getting about half a dozen nuisance calls a day from charities... Very annoying. Maybe this story will make them think about easing off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081294/Britain-s-oldest-poppy-seller-dead-Avon-Gorge-aged-92.html
I've also found that the money you give is never enough, so when i started giving a few pounds to the NSPCC they were constantly writing and ringing asking me to increase my donations.
0 -
Obviously hard, but has been done before. Arguably easier electorally than Cameron in 2010, Heath in 1970 and Churchill in 1950/1.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to get be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?0 -
Professional charity workers. Many jobs depend on your generous donations you know!GIN1138 said:
I've found that. You give to one charity and you get loads of other charities pestering you.isam said:I recently agreed to give a couple of quid a week to play cancer research UK lottery, I then got a followed up call saying would i give to this or that charity and said 'possibly later I'm not going to commit now'
Since then I have been getting about half a dozen nuisance calls a day from charities... Very annoying. Maybe this story will make them think about easing off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081294/Britain-s-oldest-poppy-seller-dead-Avon-Gorge-aged-92.html
I've also found that the money you give is never enough, so when i started giving a few pounds to the NSPCC they were constantly writing and ringing asking me to increase my donations.0 -
But that's simply not true. Labour has a colossal task ahead if it is to get an overall majority and would need an unusually large swing even to get most seats. But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?0 -
Yes, they did.DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour did not hugely overspend by any historical or international comparison.Alanbrooke said:
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.
The issue was that they puffed up a huge but temporary boom in tax revenues but then used that as a baseline for structural spending.
When the mirage faded they refused to adjusted spending to the new baseline leaving an unsustainable structural deficit.
And that's even before you tackle the question of whether it was productive spending they indulged in0 -
I did, thank you.MikeK said:
Hi #Charles, I hope you got my letter and contents.Charles said:
That is one of my favourite plays! I even forgave my wife dragging from a transcontinental flight to go an see Chris Pine in it.antifrank said:
On the last point, it's vaguely reminiscent of the Martin McDonagh play, The Lieutenant Of Inishmore. Probably his finest. I think UKIP are re-enacting that.Floater said:A "Labour can't win here" thread, how refreshing.
Surely there ground game will overcome all.... oh
On a more serious note, WTF are UKIP playing at?
I shall take your advice into due consideration0 -
Indeed, that is a reasonable point.OblitusSumMe said:
One reason is because most of the executive is drawn from members of the legislature. Therefore when you reduce the size of the legislature you will increase the proportion of the legislature that are members of the executive.Charles said:Why do we need 650 MPs?
That's more than the US - a slightly larger country - has in the HoR and Senate combined. As it is, we can't even fit all our MPs into the House of Commons
My preference would be to address it by separating the Executive and the Legislature.0 -
Fundraisers get paid on commission.isam said:I recently agreed to give a couple of quid a week to play cancer research UK lottery, I then got a followed up call saying would i give to this or that charity and said 'possibly later I'm not going to commit now'
Since then I have been getting about half a dozen nuisance calls a day from charities... Very annoying. Maybe this story will make them think about easing off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081294/Britain-s-oldest-poppy-seller-dead-Avon-Gorge-aged-92.html
As a general rule, we will not support charities that employ professional fundraisers.0 -
Following on from article I linked to from John Harris, the series of videos (Anywhere but Westminster) he did as well, its all there why it was coming the way it did. Well worth watching.0
-
By the way, do we know how much the exit poll cost? If must be hundreds of thousands as it involved face to face interviews with 20k+ voters and lots of number crunching0
-
Radio 5 were running a phone-in on it as I drove in this morning. The voices of sensible middle England - mostly with elderly parents who were being cynically targeted by charities and their agents - were being heard. Halle-f*ing-lujah.isam said:I recently agreed to give a couple of quid a week to play cancer research UK lottery, I then got a followed up call saying would i give to this or that charity and said 'possibly later I'm not going to commit now'
Since then I have been getting about half a dozen nuisance calls a day from charities... Very annoying. Maybe this story will make them think about easing off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081294/Britain-s-oldest-poppy-seller-dead-Avon-Gorge-aged-92.html
The charity sector is going to reap what it sowed when it turned itself into a business - and one reminiscent of the PPI pests at that - and started creaming off large chunks of generosity to pay managers.
I hope we can find a way to maintain the generosity of the public without being taken for a ride at the same time.
Political charities that are nothing more than lobbying groups should also be very worried. Good.0 -
But in that scenario your bringing back the prospect of a Lab/SNP coalition or arrangement which we know England and Wales won't wear...antifrank said:
But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
Labour's had it for a decade.
0 -
Do you seriously not understand the concept of cyclical spending?DecrepitJohnL said:
If in your rather tenuous metaphor, success is measured by drag-racing supercars, perhaps.Financier said:
If your neighbour buys a Maclaren do you take out a loan and overstretch yourself to buy a Bugatti?DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour did not hugely overspend by any historical or international comparison.Alanbrooke said:
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.
But you beg the question when you say "overstretched" -- we were not overstretched. Until the global financial crisis hit, we had a smaller deficit and debt than were inherited from the Conservatives, and both were smaller than under the current Conservative government.
That people now believe the opposite shows why Labour's "say nothing" strategy was so incredibly stupid.
We had a 16 year boom. For the last 7 years before the recession hit Labour was running a significant deficit. We should have been running either a small surplus or a balanced budget during a boom, not running a major deficit.
Here's the hint, if you run a major deficit during the boom - what do you think is going to happen when that boom turns into a bust? Its inevitable.0 -
John Harris does some great stuff. A writer from the left which actually gets out there, rather than writing from Ivory towers (or Tuscan Villas)FrancisUrquhart said:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/labour-history-leadership
Interesting article from John Harris, questioning more than what sort of personality should Labour elect as leader.
0 -
But Gordon abolished boom and bust? [innocent face]Philip_Thompson said:
Do you seriously not understand the concept of cyclical spending?DecrepitJohnL said:
If in your rather tenuous metaphor, success is measured by drag-racing supercars, perhaps.Financier said:
If your neighbour buys a Maclaren do you take out a loan and overstretch yourself to buy a Bugatti?DecrepitJohnL said:
Labour did not hugely overspend by any historical or international comparison.Alanbrooke said:
So Surby what are you going to offer ?surbiton said:Finally ! Mary Creagh talks about the small business people. Why did Labour not target such people ?
The biggest help to small business would not even cost much money. It is about overwhelming regulation and red tape.
And, before anyone raises the spectre of Europe, let me tell you that the "interpretations" in this country are far more rigorous than say it is in Germany. Not all but many. Even in civilian lives, some of the "understood" health and safety laws are different.
The last time was 13 years of wall to wall shit, higher taxes, corrupt banks and well-connected mates getting non-jobs on big salaries which SMEs had to pay for.
There's no point Labour targetting SMEs if all they're going to offer is more of the same.
Indeed Labour still can't accept they hugely over spent, until they do few business owners are going to be taking them seriously.
But you beg the question when you say "overstretched" -- we were not overstretched. Until the global financial crisis hit, we had a smaller deficit and debt than were inherited from the Conservatives, and both were smaller than under the current Conservative government.
That people now believe the opposite shows why Labour's "say nothing" strategy was so incredibly stupid.
We had a 16 year boom. For the last 7 years before the recession hit Labour was running a significant deficit. We should have been running either a small surplus or a balanced budget during a boom, not running a major deficit.
Here's the hint, if you run a major deficit during the boom - what do you think is going to happen when that boom turns into a bust? Its inevitable.0 -
But the fear of the SNP in the rear view mirror - it looks to me to be an even bigger factor now than the ABT vote.antifrank said:
But that's simply not true. Labour has a colossal task ahead if it is to get an overall majority and would need an unusually large swing even to get most seats. But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
Labour are going to have to be careful they don't go backwards, the Lib Dems could bounce back rapidly - in vote share but not seats, and next GE could be 1983 all over again for the left.0 -
I just want to break away from the Ukip row for a moment to look at the forthcoming Labour leadership election.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/15/cameron-and-sturgeon-in-showdown-talks-over-devolution-politics-live-blog
A group of first-time Labour MPs have written an open letter calling for the next party chief to ditch the “New Labour creed of the past”.
It’s an interesting development as there appears to be a clear divide between those Labour MPs that want to embrace the Blair years and those who want to proffer a new vision.0 -
It didn't wear it this time. Next time it may be sicker of the Conservatives than it is fearful of a Labour/SNP tie-up.GIN1138 said:
But in that scenario your bringing back the prospect of a Lab/SNP coalition or arrangement which we know England and Wales won't wear...antifrank said:
But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
Labour's had it for a decade.
In any case, my point stands. The maths potentially work for Labour at a much lower level than at present most Conservatives seem to have appreciated. Labour may have only remote hopes of gaining majority power by itself in 2020. It has perfectly sensible hopes of getting some power in 2020.0 -
If they elect a centrist, the left might well up and leave. I get the sense they've had enough of pandering to the middle ground in a losing cause. (Rightly or wrongly). The centrists have nowhere to go now that the Lib Dems are in freefall.Pulpstar said:
But the fear of the SNP in the rear view mirror - it looks to me to be an even bigger factor now than the ABT vote.antifrank said:
But that's simply not true. Labour has a colossal task ahead if it is to get an overall majority and would need an unusually large swing even to get most seats. But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
Labour are going to have to be careful they don't go backwards, the Lib Dems could bounce back rapidly - in vote share but not seats, and next GE could be 1983 all over again for the left.0 -
Agreed- labour doesn't need to look at a majority. It needs to go for circa 250 seats in England and hope the LD's pick up a few blue seats- not the most demanding electoral challenge ever. By 2020 the mantra of vote Ed get SNP will be irrelevant- Labour will have built a convincing narrative alongside the SNP.antifrank said:
But that's simply not true. Labour has a colossal task ahead if it is to get an overall majority and would need an unusually large swing even to get most seats. But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
The biggest threat to Labour doing this isn't the Tories, it's UKIP, and why I increasingly think Andy Burnham maybe the best candidate.
0 -
That would be Labour who actually offered less devolution than the Tories and worked their socks off to make the Smith Commission the inconsequential, historical curiosity it now is? Good luck selling that.NickPalmer said:The conclusion that if you want to deal with the Tories you need a Labour government shouldn't be impossible to sell.
Darling and McConnell have said that the Smith Commission is now dead in the water, but they're yesterday's men. If I had the faintest idea who SLab's today's men & women are I might be able to judge what sort of brand new, super-devo package they could offer, but I don't so I can't. Meanwhile Dave is up today to tell us that Smith is the only game in town.
It's all going swimmingly.0 -
Come on Carswell, do a Spink and reduce UKIP back to the zero seats they so richly deserve, wipe them out of the debates next time!0
-
Yes a few years ago one increased my donation without asking me I think... One if those deals where if you don't reply they take it as permission to increaseGIN1138 said:
I've found that. You give to one charity and you get loads of other charities pestering you.isam said:I recently agreed to give a couple of quid a week to play cancer research UK lottery, I then got a followed up call saying would i give to this or that charity and said 'possibly later I'm not going to commit now'
Since then I have been getting about half a dozen nuisance calls a day from charities... Very annoying. Maybe this story will make them think about easing off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081294/Britain-s-oldest-poppy-seller-dead-Avon-Gorge-aged-92.html
I've also found that the money you give is never enough, so when i started giving a few pounds to the NSPCC they were constantly writing and ringing asking me to increase my donations.
@tissueprice yes hopefully it will 'raise awareness ' of this harassment. That poor lady0 -
Is it Henry, the mild mannered janitor?
Paul Waugh@paulwaugh·45 mins45 minutes ago
Farage on Sky:"there's 1 person in Ukip agitating for change + he hasn't had the courage to come out in public" Dig at @DouglasCarswell?
0 -
There's been a lot of discussion about 1983 and 1992 in recent years. In some ways this most recent election has parallels with 1955. In 1951, Labour had lost not too badly and felt that all the intellectual energy was on its side, while the Conservative government was undynamic. But in 1955 the country preferred the safety first of the Conservatives over the wonky intellectual self-confidence of Labour.Pulpstar said:
But the fear of the SNP in the rear view mirror - it looks to me to be an even bigger factor now than the ABT vote.antifrank said:
But that's simply not true. Labour has a colossal task ahead if it is to get an overall majority and would need an unusually large swing even to get most seats. But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
Labour are going to have to be careful they don't go backwards, the Lib Dems could bounce back rapidly - in vote share but not seats, and next GE could be 1983 all over again for the left.
Labour replaced its leader and opted for a right-winger who went on to lose badly in 1959, in part because the left of the Labour party were not reconciled to its defeat.0 -
I think anything as dramatic as 1983 is unlikely, but I could see 2020 being similar to 1959 (2010 =1950/1951, 2015 =1955, 1959 = 2020?)Pulpstar said:
But the fear of the SNP in the rear view mirror - it looks to me to be an even bigger factor now than the ABT vote.antifrank said:
But that's simply not true. Labour has a colossal task ahead if it is to get an overall majority and would need an unusually large swing even to get most seats. But it doesn't need most seats to get back into power. It probably needs something like 270 seats to have a decent shot of power, and that's a much less demanding challenge.GIN1138 said:As most of us said in the day's after the election, Labour is very, very unlikely to be get back into power in one election.
2020 will be about trying to reverse enough of the damage to be able to make a proper push to power in 2025 but there's no quick way back to Number 10 now.
Probably explains the Jarvis decision... Why waste ten years as LOTO?
Labour are going to have to be careful they don't go backwards, the Lib Dems could bounce back rapidly - in vote share but not seats, and next GE could be 1983 all over again for the left.
On that scenario bring's Labour back into power in 2025 (2025 = 1964)0 -
Mark Reckless.Scrapheap_as_was said:Is it Henry, the mild mannered janitor?
Paul Waugh@paulwaugh·45 mins45 minutes ago
Farage on Sky:"there's 1 person in Ukip agitating for change + he hasn't had the courage to come out in public" Dig at @DouglasCarswell?0 -
If charities spent less money on providing ridiculous stuffed toys and gimmicks they might stand a better chance of making a difference. Of course, the trick is working out which ones want to change the world and which ones want to get rich in the name of a good cause.0
-
Looking for a book on a successful leader, political or non political, who had constant success without any rough times or criticism. Any recommendations?0
