OT This did make me laugh - watching The Running Man. There are bits that made me instantly think of reality TV! The opening titles say
By 2017, the world economy has collapsed. Food, natural resources and oil are in short supply. A police state, divided into paramilitary zones, rules with an iron hand.
Television is controlled by the State and a sadistic game show called The Running Man has become the most popular program in history. All art, music and comunications are censored. No dissent is tolerated and yet a small resistance movement has managed to survive underground
I imagine that people like Rebecca Roache thinks that's a far description of Britain under the Tories.
A warning for Labour is coming again from the other side of the Atlantic. Just like the rise of the BQ in Canada lead to 10 years of Tory rule so far.
The centre-left Liberals there choose Prince Charming "hair spray for brains" Justin Trudeau as leader after they were crushed in 2011, they enjoyed a huge bounce in the polls but as the election comes closer the sheer stupidity of their sexy leader has gradually chipped away their lead and now they have collapsed again after their Tax plans were published .
Meanwhile the left NDP which chose a leader less sexy (he even has a beard) but with more gravitas and seriousness, is surging ahead aided by their win in super-conservative Alberta after ruthless policy and organizational targeting.
A warning for Labour is coming again from the other side of the Atlantic. Just like the rise of the BQ in Canada lead to 10 years of Tory rule so far.
The centre-left Liberals there choose Prince Charming "hair spray for brains" Justin Trudeau as leader after they were crushed in 2011, they enjoyed a huge bounce in the polls but as the election comes closer the sheer stupidity of their sexy leader has gradually chipped away their lead and now they have collapsed again after their Tax plans were published .
Meanwhile the left NDP which chose a leader less sexy (he even has a beard) but with more gravitas and seriousness, is surging ahead aided by their win in super-conservative Alberta after ruthless policy and organizational targeting.
A warning for Labour is coming again from the other side of the Atlantic. Just like the rise of the BQ in Canada lead to 10 years of Tory rule so far.
The centre-left Liberals there choose Prince Charming "hair spray for brains" Justin Trudeau as leader after they were crushed in 2011, they enjoyed a huge bounce in the polls but as the election comes closer the sheer stupidity of their sexy leader has gradually chipped away their lead and now they have collapsed again after their Tax plans were published .
Meanwhile the left NDP which chose a leader less sexy (he even has a beard) but with more gravitas and seriousness, is surging ahead aided by their win in super-conservative Alberta after ruthless policy and organizational targeting.
I seem to remember a few years ago one of the labour leaders saying that his objective was to make labour the "the natural party of government". Is that still the idea of the current leadership candidates or is that hope gone for ever?
A warning for Labour is coming again from the other side of the Atlantic. Just like the rise of the BQ in Canada lead to 10 years of Tory rule so far.
The centre-left Liberals there choose Prince Charming "hair spray for brains" Justin Trudeau as leader after they were crushed in 2011, they enjoyed a huge bounce in the polls but as the election comes closer the sheer stupidity of their sexy leader has gradually chipped away their lead and now they have collapsed again after their Tax plans were published .
Meanwhile the left NDP which chose a leader less sexy (he even has a beard) but with more gravitas and seriousness, is surging ahead aided by their win in super-conservative Alberta after ruthless policy and organizational targeting.
A warning for Labour is coming again from the other side of the Atlantic. Just like the rise of the BQ in Canada lead to 10 years of Tory rule so far.
The centre-left Liberals there choose Prince Charming "hair spray for brains" Justin Trudeau as leader after they were crushed in 2011, they enjoyed a huge bounce in the polls but as the election comes closer the sheer stupidity of their sexy leader has gradually chipped away their lead and now they have collapsed again after their Tax plans were published .
Meanwhile the left NDP which chose a leader less sexy (he even has a beard) but with more gravitas and seriousness, is surging ahead aided by their win in super-conservative Alberta after ruthless policy and organizational targeting.
Yeah, this wasn't meant to be a "I'm better at predicting than you are" fest, but my point is that virtually *no-one* confidently predicted a Tory majority.
Yes, a few predicted a Lib Dem pasting, and a strong-ish Tory minority. And, yes, a few others didn't absolutely rule out a Tory majority.
-snip-
It could be a long, and interesting, road. But Nostradamus we are not.
I had 281 Con to 262 Lab and 32 Lib Dem. All very wide of the Mark.
And you're traditionally extremely good at it, and know your stuff. Inside out.
Mine was 289 Con to 259 Lab to 24 Lib Dem. But I'm sticking to my February prediction of course, where I forecast 302 Con seats, and came only 32nd in the pb.com league tables ;-)
I assumed that - broadly speaking - the pollsters knew their business; that the Tories would finish slightly ahead on votes; that first-time incumbency would boost the Tories, but that incumbency would save a lot of Lib Dems.
I think those were reasonable assumptions, but they were all wrong (first time Tory incumbents did way better than I expected).
Annoyingly, I wrote an article the weekend before suggesting that the Lib Dems might do far worse than expected and the Tories far better, and failed to come to the logical conclusion from those two points re an overall majority.
Many of us thought that the LibDems were facing something close to an extinction event.
Many of us thought that SLAB were facing something close to an extinction event.
None of us thought that Labour would fail so badly in its target seats. Like missing number 1. And 2. And 3?
None of us thought that Labour would have a string of losses to counter those gains they make from the Tories.
It was these latter two points that caused our little heads to explode as the results came in. It was outside what seemed possible, let alone probable. I remember a comment or two maybe a fortnight before polling, where somebody asked what Labour seats might be at risk. I think we came up with 1 Halifax (due to late selection issues - ironically, held by Labour in the end). 2 Er...that's it.
A warning for Labour is coming again from the other side of the Atlantic. Just like the rise of the BQ in Canada lead to 10 years of Tory rule so far.
The centre-left Liberals there choose Prince Charming "hair spray for brains" Justin Trudeau as leader after they were crushed in 2011, they enjoyed a huge bounce in the polls but as the election comes closer the sheer stupidity of their sexy leader has gradually chipped away their lead and now they have collapsed again after their Tax plans were published .
Meanwhile the left NDP which chose a leader less sexy (he even has a beard) but with more gravitas and seriousness, is surging ahead aided by their win in super-conservative Alberta after ruthless policy and organizational targeting.
OT This did make me laugh - watching The Running Man. There are bits that made me instantly think of reality TV! The opening titles say
By 2017, the world economy has collapsed. Food, natural resources and oil are in short supply. A police state, divided into paramilitary zones, rules with an iron hand.
Television is controlled by the State and a sadistic game show called The Running Man has become the most popular program in history. All art, music and comunications are censored. No dissent is tolerated and yet a small resistance movement has managed to survive underground
I imagine that people like Rebecca Roache thinks that's a far description of Britain under the Tories.
Cameron must be relishing the McClusky v Labour dispute, and not only because it damages the latter. The idea of unions as malevolent, bullying institutions unrepresentative of their members plays well in the context of strike reform.
OT This did make me laugh - watching The Running Man. There are bits that made me instantly think of reality TV! The opening titles say
snip Television is controlled by the State and a sadistic game show called The Running Man has become the most popular program in history. snip
snip
There is an iron rule for evil geniuses (and game show hosts) and their henchmen. It says, Never Annoy Arnie. Life expectancy becomes a direct inverse ratio to the closeness of the relative friend or mentor that you kidnap, maim or kill.
On topic, Dave (his presentation, his public persona) is an asset to the electoral success of the Conservative party, but the Conservative party has equally helped Dave. People voted for security, for economic competence, for mild euroscepticism, for the defence of English interests in the face of the SNP - in short, they voted for the Conservatives, for conservative reasons. They did so in error in my opinion, but there we go.
OT This did make me laugh - watching The Running Man. There are bits that made me instantly think of reality TV! The opening titles say
By 2017, the world economy has collapsed. Food, natural resources and oil are in short supply. A police state, divided into paramilitary zones, rules with an iron hand.
Television is controlled by the State and a sadistic game show called The Running Man has become the most popular program in history. All art, music and comunications are censored. No dissent is tolerated and yet a small resistance movement has managed to survive underground
I imagine that people like Rebecca Roache thinks that's a far description of Britain under the Tories.
Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff under President Barack Obama, says the Rolling Stones lead singer was 'one of the savviest political observers I’ve come across'
Ha. What a sage.
On a more serious note, what do we think of this?
"Mr Messina also believed the Conservatives did well by aggressively pushing the party's message on social media like Facebook in marginal constituencies.
The Telegraph can disclose that a team of ten staff at Conservative Campaign Headquarters designed ads that were promoted on the newsfeeds of potential voters, identified by their postcode, age and sex.
Nearly 50 per cent of marginal voters are on the site, including increasing numbers of older voters. By polling day, 80 per cent of social media users in marginal seats had been contacted by the Tories over the site.
In order to push the Conservative message, activists who posted the most Tory adverts on social media were rewarded with prizes, including posters signed by George Osborne and books by Boris Johnson.
The Conservatives knew their strategy was bearing fruit when Lord Ashcroft, the pollster, reported a man telling a focus group he did not trust Labour because "they left that note, ‘there’s no money in the pot’. I saw it on Facebook”.
They also received adverts over YouTube, the video hosting website, tailored to their demographic profile based on log in data.
Older users received adverts on the Tories’ pension plans, while young users were shown adverts promoting Help to Buy."
I must admit, I'm instinctively sceptical about the decisive impact of Facebook and Youtube on an election result. But, then again, the sniper-level targeting of Labour marginals by the Conservatives (leading to pick-ups like Vale of Clwyd and Gower) does suggest a very finely honed operation.
I'd been trying to draw attention to this in the run-up to polling day. One corollary of "it was Messina what won it" is there should be no such advantage next time; another is there was no great popular upsurge of support for specific Tory policies; another is that Labour leadership candidates are agonising over the wrong things and learning the wrong lessons.
We can't rule out some Con gains from Lab, though -- if the swing is, say, 2% Con-Lab, it's unlikely that Lab will hold every single marginal.
Halifax, Bolton W, Itchen, Northfield, Gower, and on a dream day for the Tories, Morley - neither especially likely, but 1/5 isn't impossible.
Ultimately 4/6 were Con gains, and the other 2 had positive swings to Con. Incredible targeting from Crosby and team.
Based on the GOTV requests that Tory HQ made public, they were actively targeting the following gains from Labour:
Gower Birmingham Northfield Soton Itchen Telford Walsall N Derby N Morley & Outwood Middlesbrough S (Corby)
So Plymouth Moor View, Bolton West & Vale of Clwyd may have been a little unexpected.
I did post here that my local intel (a SW MP) told me the Plymouth seats were doing far better than might be expected. Plus the candidate was ex-Forces and was determined to have knocked on every door by the end of the campaign.
Re Ramadi: I am not sure what is wrong with completely flattening Raqqah. If necessary, glass car park time. If they are our enemy, we need to show them we can strike with brutality and savagery.
Re Ramadi: I am not sure what is wrong with completely flattening Raqqah. If necessary, glass car park time. If they are our enemy, we need to show them we can strike with brutality and savagery.
The BBC's story doesn't seem to be corroborated elsewhere as yet.
Reading about Tsipras and his 'red lines', and then about Europhiles worried about the impact of a country leaving the EU, I have a hard time taking the latter seriously. All clubs with rules have to have a mechanism for ejecting members who refuse to live by the rules. Surely, ejecting Greece for refusing to live by the rules should make the markets take the EU more seriously, not undermine the Euro's entire future?
Or maybe they are just keeping that line of argument for after Grexit, should it happen.
You will find people from the Indian sub continent do very well too. Just as Jews used to and, probably, still do. Family values, mate !
Almost a half of new Chartered Accountants and Solicitors are Asians. A third of Doctors. 33 MPs are from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh extraction, I understand. 5%. More than their share of the population.
Sir Bradley Wiggins was unable to break the British 10-mile record on Saturday, but did take home a £50 winner's prize.
Wiggins was the 120th starter in a race aimed specifically at the slower end of the time trial spectrum. His attempt in the City Road Club open 10-mile time trial
Not read the comments so sorry if its been already said but winning the Tories winning so many Lib-Dem seats has significantly reduced the range of seats for a Hung Parliament and removed one long term advantage Labour had in possible coalition partners, since except for Clegg for the last 40 years or so the Lib Dems have been more likely to back Labour than the Conservatives.
I didn't see the point of targeting Lib Dem seats two weeks ago as under Clegg in a Hung Parliament the Lib Dems were more likely to back Cameron than Miliband plus SNP. But winning the seats altogether has changed the landscape entirely.
Realistically barring some incredible Lib Dem recovery PC/SDLP/Green/Lib Dem won't be more than about 20 or so now. DUP/UUP is around 9, so excluding the SNP that's a net difference of 11 in favour of Labour from the "others".
That means far more than last time, the choice next time is either Tory or Labour plus SNP. With the Lib Dems neutralised, that is the choice now.
Mr Eagles makes the very reasonable point that ex-Lib Dem seats are not nailed-on for the Tories next time, so should not be ruled out of potential hung parliament land.
There are six Conservative seats (like Lewes) where the winning margin was less than the increase in the Labour vote, and 14 where it's less than the increase in Labour plus Green. If the LDs get some of the tactical voting back in those seats, then those seats would seem to be the first to go yellow again.
But what about first time incumbency bonus? Lets not forget that many of these seat gains have unseated long-standing MPs who would have previously had an incumbency bonus. That is gone now.
Plus these new MPs will build up an incumbency bonus on their own.
I agree, I could also see someone like Cooper getting a big swing if voters want more investment in public services again after most of this term has been dominated by yet more austerity and especially if the Tories combine that with tax cuts for the rich. Much will also depend on how much EU ref divides the Tories
On Ramadi a massive bombing campaign is needed and yes as in Tikrit it may be up to Shia militias backed by Iran rather than simply the less than reliable Iraqi army to retake it
Not read the comments so sorry if its been already said but winning the Tories winning so many Lib-Dem seats has significantly reduced the range of seats for a Hung Parliament and removed one long term advantage Labour had in possible coalition partners, since except for Clegg for the last 40 years or so the Lib Dems have been more likely to back Labour than the Conservatives.
I didn't see the point of targeting Lib Dem seats two weeks ago as under Clegg in a Hung Parliament the Lib Dems were more likely to back Cameron than Miliband plus SNP. But winning the seats altogether has changed the landscape entirely.
Realistically barring some incredible Lib Dem recovery PC/SDLP/Green/Lib Dem won't be more than about 20 or so now. DUP/UUP is around 9, so excluding the SNP that's a net difference of 11 in favour of Labour from the "others".
That means far more than last time, the choice next time is either Tory or Labour plus SNP. With the Lib Dems neutralised, that is the choice now.
Mr Eagles makes the very reasonable point that ex-Lib Dem seats are not nailed-on for the Tories next time, so should not be ruled out of potential hung parliament land.
There are six Conservative seats (like Lewes) where the winning margin was less than the increase in the Labour vote, and 14 where it's less than the increase in Labour plus Green. If the LDs get some of the tactical voting back in those seats, then those seats would seem to be the first to go yellow again.
But what about first time incumbency bonus? Lets not forget that many of these seat gains have unseated long-standing MPs who would have previously had an incumbency bonus. That is gone now.
Plus these new MPs will build up an incumbency bonus on their own.
I keep reading about this incumbency bonus. Particularly, for the Tories. It helped them in Middle England. Not in London, though.
I think the regional swings are more important. Exit polls work on regional swings.
RobD Speedy The latest Canada poll has the Tories on 31%, down from 39% in 2011, the Liberals also on 31%, up from 18%, and the NDP on 30%, the same as 2011, so Harper is still likely to lose power, just to a Liberal-NDP coalition rather than to a Trudeau majority, that could also introduce PR which would alter the landscape in Canada dramatically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_federal_election
Are people surprised how short Liz Kendall's odds are?
Given the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers) why is she now as short as 4.1 on Betfair?
Is it that the consensus is that people will just vote on what they see, irrespective of Union influence?
eg We can be 99% certain there will be a BBC1 QT Labour candidates special - if she performs very well on that will it be enough for voters to ignore everything else?
Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff under President Barack Obama, says the Rolling Stones lead singer was 'one of the savviest political observers I’ve come across'
(snippety snip)
I must admit, I'm instinctively sceptical about the decisive impact of Facebook and Youtube on an election result. But, then again, the sniper-level targeting of Labour marginals by the Conservatives (leading to pick-ups like Vale of Clwyd and Gower) does suggest a very finely honed operation.
This is one thing Labour got so wrong. They were more bothered about activist-type use of FB (which costs nothing), which was why my feed was polluted by friends and others promoting Labour in a rather farcical circle-jerk where they would positively comment on each others anti-Tory rants. (*)
What matters in FB is the underlying demographic data that allows precise targeting (and which will only get more precise as time goes on). And by 2020 FB will just be one way amongst many by which this will be done: in fact, the service that may be most influential in 2020 might not have been started yet, or may just be a small start-up in someone's bedroom.
The Conservatives now have some very good experience of doing this, and the money to do it. If Labour want to replicate it, they'll have to start getting their act together in the next couple of years, and even then they'll be behind. And the funding.
Tailored messages are particularly interesting and useful.
(*) Some of the most incisive political conversations on my FB feed were from the anarchists/hippy peeps. They were wonderfully deluded, but thoughtfully and knowledgeably so.
Re Ramadi: I am not sure what is wrong with completely flattening Raqqah. If necessary, glass car park time. If they are our enemy, we need to show them we can strike with brutality and savagery.
Cause there are lots of suffering civilians in Raqqa? Some are resisting, with incredible bravery. See this Twitter account:
@Raqqa_Sl · May 13 #IMPORTANT : THE account FOR Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently @Raqqa_Sl IS RECOVERED AND BACK TO WORK #Raqqa
That said, it may come to a nuke 'em or lose scenario. We had to flatten half of Germany to exterminate the Nazis, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process.
My view is that we need to destroy any view among IS civilian residents that they can protect them. If they are an existential threat, we should treat them as such. Delenda est res publica islamica.
This is one thing Labour got so wrong. They were more bothered about activist-type use of FB (which costs nothing), which was why my feed was polluted by friends and others promoting Labour in a rather farcical circle-jerk where they would positively comment on each others anti-Tory rants. (*)
What matters in FB is the underlying demographic data that allows precise targeting (and which will only get more precise as time goes on). And by 2020 FB will just be one way amongst many by which this will be done: in fact, the service that may be most influential in 2020 might not have been started yet, or may just be a small start-up in someone's bedroom.
The Conservatives now have some very good experience of doing this, and the money to do it. If Labour want to replicate it, they'll have to start getting their act together in the next couple of years, and even then they'll be behind. And the funding.
Tailored messages are particularly interesting and useful.
(*) Some of the most incisive political conversations on my FB feed were from the anarchists/hippy peeps. They were wonderfully deluded, but thoughtfully and knowledgeably so.
You may have noticed that AOL got purchased the other week. Most people will have thought, weren't they the crappy dial-up internet service, who the hell would want to buy such a company, when we are now all going into super-fast broad band and 4G mobile internet.
What a lot of people don't know. AOL has reinvented itself and now have some of the best tech for pushing targeted video adverts to mobile users and measuring customer response to them. This is where things are going in the next few years.
RobD Speedy As for the BQ helping the Tories win, in the 1993 Canadian election the Bloc Quebecois won 54 seats, the Liberals 177, up from 81 in 1988, the NDP 9, the UKIP-like Reform Party, 52 seats, up from 1, and the Tories 2, down from 156. Something for Tories to contemplate before they get too cocky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
@John_Ferrett: Barry Sheerman MP says 'Unite heavies are leaning on MPs' to block @leicesterliz - these are very worrying times for the Labour Party
Getting ready already for 2020....nice people.
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
Are people surprised how short Liz Kendall's odds are?
Given the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers) why is she now as short as 4.1 on Betfair?
Is it that the consensus is that people will just vote on what they see, irrespective of Union influence?
eg We can be 99% certain there will be a BBC1 QT Labour candidates special - if she performs very well on that will it be enough for voters to ignore everything else?
The Unions influence is overestimated. Now that the 33% is gone and voting is by postal ballot. Even a Union member can think for himself / herself.
RobD Speedy As for the BQ helping the Tories win, in the 1993 Canadian election the Bloc Quebecois won 54 seats, the Liberals 177, up from 81 in 1988, the NDP 9, the UKIP-like Reform Party, 52 seats, up from 1, and the Tories 2, down from 156. Something for Tories to contemplate before they get too cocky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
@John_Ferrett: Barry Sheerman MP says 'Unite heavies are leaning on MPs' to block @leicesterliz - these are very worrying times for the Labour Party
Very worrying that the heavies are trying to stop her. I speculated earlier that we may only have two candidates, Mr Stafford and Mrs Balls. Labour are screwed for a generation if that happens.
Are people surprised how short Liz Kendall's odds are?
Given the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers) why is she now as short as 4.1 on Betfair?
Is it that the consensus is that people will just vote on what they see, irrespective of Union influence?
eg We can be 99% certain there will be a BBC1 QT Labour candidates special - if she performs very well on that will it be enough for voters to ignore everything else?
I think they have gone too short. Liz is a very accomplished and natural communicator and will do well on TV. She will get some union support too having done work with the health and public service unions in particular. She is also the best candidate by far, with a clear vision.
But she is up against the Burnham and Cooper machines both of which are formidable, and I have my doubts that Labour are yet willing to step outside their comfort zone.
FU NI contributions are used to determine eligibility for state pensions and contributory JSA, I would only support its replacement if that contributory principle remains within the welfare system
Are people surprised how short Liz Kendall's odds are?
Given the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers) why is she now as short as 4.1 on Betfair?
Is it that the consensus is that people will just vote on what they see, irrespective of Union influence?
eg We can be 99% certain there will be a BBC1 QT Labour candidates special - if she performs very well on that will it be enough for voters to ignore everything else?
I think they have gone too short. Liz is a very accomplished and natural communicator and will do well on TV. She will get some union support too having done work with the health and public service unions in particular. She is also the best candidate by far, with a clear vision.
But she is up against the Burnham and Cooper machines both of which are formidable, and I have my doubts that Labour are yet willing to step outside their comfort zone.
After hearing how much the unions are trying to stop Liz Kendall, Labour badly need to cut their ties with them. At this point their influence is fundamentally destructive, and if the unions are successful in pursuing their agenda, then I fear Labour will need another defeat in 2020 to truly get the message.
@John_Ferrett: Barry Sheerman MP says 'Unite heavies are leaning on MPs' to block @leicesterliz - these are very worrying times for the Labour Party
Getting ready already for 2020....nice people.
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
The 33% does not exist any more. Now it is one person - one vote.
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
Last time each Union sent out its own ballot papers so could put Ed on envelope etc.
This time all ballot papers will be sent out by the Labour Party centrally (and returned to it centrally).
Unions can sign up affiliated members who will get a vote but Unions must give the names and addresses to the Labour Party centrally which will then send out all ballot papers.
FU NI contributions are used to determine eligibility for state pensions and contributory JSA, I would only support its replacement if that contributory principle remains within the welfare system
Sure. I don't see any reason why that can't be incorporated into a combined IC / NI system.
I actually also support something Labour talked about for a while, and something that occurs in Sweden, which is the more you "put in" i.e the more tax you have paid over the years, the more you are entitled to should you need to draw benefits etc.
FU NI contributions are used to determine eligibility for state pensions and contributory JSA, I would only support its replacement if that contributory principle remains within the welfare system
You could replace it with a calculation of income tax paid
Len McCluskey really is an awful man. Those unions sound like they are almost having a massive hissy fit that the voting system no longer gives them the advantages they used to enjoy.
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
I've just been flicking though that Progress video of the Labour leadership candidates - I've never heard of Simon Fanshawe, the guy who chaired it, but by gods I felt a mini cheer when during the very first response to the first question he cut in to ask in irritation that they all stop prefacing everything with praising Ed then saying how the campaign was crap. I know none of them want to appear disloyal, but the twists they've had to go through to explain why they can see why it was so crap and yet did and said nothing has been painful at times.
On Len and the unions, I can see why Len did not name a particular candidate he wants to win, but if he is widely reported as saying Labour must choose the correct one, with the threat of the unions pulling their funding implicit or explicit if they choose incorrectly (we shall see), the potential power of the unions over the process is already made pretty clear, so not naming a particular candidate would hardly seem to matter.
Len McCluskey really is an awful man. Those union sound like they are almost having a massive hissy fit that the voting system no longer gives them the advantages they used to enjoy.
Report in one of the papers today that consideration was being given by Unison and the RMT to join with a third Union and set up their own political party. Funding of course would stop to Labour. Bizarrely that scenario would make Labour a tiny bit more electable but they couldn't then afford it.
Len McCluskey really is an awful man. Those union sound like they are almost having a massive hissy fit that the voting system no longer gives them the advantages they used to enjoy.
Report in one of the papers today that consideration was being given by Unison and the RMT to join with a third Union and set up their own political party. Funding of course would stop to Labour. Bizarrely that scenario would make Labour a tiny bit more electable but they couldn't then afford it.
I think Labour may have to take that risk. They cannot afford the likes of McCluskey controlling the party; Britain literally will have no opposition at all if that happens.
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
Last time each Union sent out its own ballot papers so could put Ed on envelope etc.
This time all ballot papers will be sent out by the Labour Party centrally (and returned to it centrally).
Unions can sign up affiliated members who will get a vote but Unions must give the names and addresses to the Labour Party centrally which will then send out all ballot papers.
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
Last time each Union sent out its own ballot papers so could put Ed on envelope etc.
This time all ballot papers will be sent out by the Labour Party centrally (and returned to it centrally).
Unions can sign up affiliated members who will get a vote but Unions must give the names and addresses to the Labour Party centrally which will then send out all ballot papers.
Ahhhh... Which explains then the less subtle method of "heavies" just to remind people who runs the party.
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
Heh, people have already discussed the various contenders and that Progress thing if they were interested, so I'm not about to rehash it for those that weren't, but in answer to the question 'How come you're only saying [how badly the campaign was run/targeted] now?', the responses were very amusing.
Burnham - Mean nothing answer about sharing responsibility Cooper - ditto Creagh - ditto Kendall - I tried as much as I could while being loyal Hunt - I thought it was fine at the time.
Interesting whether to take the dissembling approach to avoid answering, the tacit admission that they knew it was bad but 'my hands were tied' approach, or Hunt's, 'I genuinely didn't see a problem with it' approach.
It is as I thought and said.. Unite are a pox on the Labour party. The King is dead, Long live the KIng.. If you read the BBC website McCluskey said "In a BBC interview, he refused to be drawn on his preferred leadership candidate but said it was "essential that the correct leader emerged". Labour have learned nothing.. they have no way of stopping the Unions.
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
Heh, people have already discussed the various contenders and that Progress thing if they were interested, so I'm not about to rehash it for those that weren't, but in answer to the question 'How come you're only saying [how badly the campaign was run/targeted] now?', the responses were very amusing.
Burnham - Mean nothing answer about sharing responsibility Cooper - ditto Creagh - ditto Kendall - I tried as much as I could while being loyal Hunt - I thought it was fine at the time.
Interesting whether to take the dissembling approach to avoid answering, the tacit admission that they knew it was bad but 'my hands were tied' approach, or Hunt's, 'I genuinely didn't see a problem with it' approach.
Kendall's answer is probably the best here (giving Liz the benefit of the doubt here). Suggesting she was trying to be helpful without rocking the boat.
In fairness to the Unions, I really don't think the British public would automatically take against their preferred candidate, or even a union stooge - heck, apparently they don't really have a problem with an Eton and Oxford PPE Spad who's barely ever had a real job running things, and I doubt most of those things are popular with people - so as long as the unions pick a better candidate (assuming for the sake of argument their 'pick' proved the crucial determining factor) it would not automatically damage Labour in a way which was fatal.
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
Last time each Union sent out its own ballot papers so could put Ed on envelope etc.
This time all ballot papers will be sent out by the Labour Party centrally (and returned to it centrally).
Unions can sign up affiliated members who will get a vote but Unions must give the names and addresses to the Labour Party centrally which will then send out all ballot papers.
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
Last time each Union sent out its own ballot papers so could put Ed on envelope etc.
This time all ballot papers will be sent out by the Labour Party centrally (and returned to it centrally).
Unions can sign up affiliated members who will get a vote but Unions must give the names and addresses to the Labour Party centrally which will then send out all ballot papers.
Ahhhh... Which explains then the less subtle method of "heavies" just to remind people who runs the party.
It doesn't stop Unite writing to its members outwith the ballot letter letting them know who the preferred candidate is.....
Heh, people have already discussed the various contenders and that Progress thing if they were interested, so I'm not about to rehash it for those that weren't, but in answer to the question 'How come you're only saying [how badly the campaign was run/targeted] now?', the responses were very amusing.
Burnham - Mean nothing answer about sharing responsibility Cooper - ditto Creagh - ditto Kendall - I tried as much as I could while being loyal Hunt - I thought it was fine at the time.
Interesting whether to take the dissembling approach to avoid answering, the tacit admission that they knew it was bad but 'my hands were tied' approach, or Hunt's, 'I genuinely didn't see a problem with it' approach.
Kendall's answer is probably the best here (giving Liz the benefit of the doubt here). Suggesting she was trying to be helpful without rocking the boat.
It's a matter which requires a delicate answer to be sure. My summary of their responses I think shows I too thought Kendall's was the best approach to take, but I do actually have some sympathy with the field of candidates in trying to figure out how far they can take things, which will depend on their previous positions held and how well they can come across now, as if you are handling other areas better you can probably get away with criticising in effect yourself for not recognising or acknowledging the defaults last time more.
It is as I thought and said.. Unite are a pox on the Labour party. The King is dead, Long live the KIng.. If you read the BBC website McCluskey said "In a BBC interview, he refused to be drawn on his preferred leadership candidate but said it was "essential that the correct leader emerged". Labour have learned nothing.. they have no way of stopping the Unions.
Quite, Labour seem determined to think that the problem was Ed and his messaging, so if they can deliver the same message in a different way....
Len and comrades are really a blast from the past. Just as Labour should go with a Kendall or Jarvis for leader, so they should break the links with the unions. They are no longer representatives of the average working man, rather creatures of the featherbedded public sector and their final salary pensions.
This is one thing Labour got so wrong. They were more bothered about activist-type use of FB (which costs nothing), - snip What matters in FB is the underlying demographic data that allows precise targeting (and which will only get more precise as time goes on). - snip The Conservatives now have some very good experience of doing this, - snip Tailored messages are particularly interesting and useful. - snip What a lot of people don't know. AOL has reinvented itself and now have some of the best tech for pushing targeted video adverts to mobile users and measuring customer response to them. This is where things are going in the next few years.
I am not sure I want to be pushed by targeted advertising. But it is happening even on PB. I am currently being told how not to run out of money during retirement. What is really interesting is that this seems to work in politics. And of course re Facebook (not PB I would guess) the data on its users is sold to its advertisers. Labour talked a good game about social media but they were clueless. The Tories kept quiet but they were ruthless.
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
Although it would be ironic if our first non-white PM was Sajid Javid.
I keep on reading this. There is not a jot of evidence to support it.
He has the same chances as Sayeeda who last time.
No evidence Javid could be our first non-white PM you mean? I'm not sure what would constitute evidence to be honest. He's just been promoted and is not one of the older guard in terms of a place at the top table (Osborne, May etc), so there's a credible theory he could be a 'newish' leadership candidate when an opening arises, that's about it I think.
FU John Lilburne I would accept the contributory principle simply being calculated on income tax contributions paid yes, one of the few things Labour did say during the election that was sensible was indeed the idea that if you pay in more to the system you get more out in benefits, a policy which was not actually that far from UKIP's idea that 'you put more into the pot you get more out'
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
In fairness to the Unions, I really don't think the British public would automatically take against their preferred candidate, or even a union stooge - heck, apparently they don't really have a problem with an Eton and Oxford PPE Spad who's barely ever had a real job running things, and I doubt most of those things are popular with people - so as long as the unions pick a better candidate (assuming for the sake of argument their 'pick' proved the crucial determining factor) it would not automatically damage Labour in a way which was fatal.
Tony Blair was also the Union's preferred candidate. Burnham , in a previous life, was a Blairite too !
Javid? Who knows what the future holds. But as for his mmm... intellect and drive and energy... he became 'the youngest VP of Chase Manhattan a managing director at Deutsche Bank and, one year later, global head of Emerging Markets Structuring' then 'to Singapore as head of Deutsche Bank's credit trading, equity convertibles, commodities and private equity businesses in Asia' and 'a board member of Deutsche Bank International Limited' Well we can only guess at what all this really means, but he does not look a duffer. In comparison all we can say about poor Yvette is that she was the chief economic correspondent of The Independent. Oh and an intern for Bill Clinton in Arkansas.
Very, very glad I did not join Labour last week. McCluskey is a complete arsehole.
If his candidate (inasmuch as someone comes to be seen as such) is defeated, would your joining Labour be back on, if I may ask?
It's not who so much as how and why. If Burnham ends up leader after a wide-ranging debate in which all views are heard, considered and civilly discussed that's one thing. If it happens because debate has been shutdown and the unions have pulled the strings that is something else entirely. Right now, I am very glad to be just watching. There'd be no point wasting time and money on a party not interested in dealing with reality.
Javid? Who knows what the future holds. But as for his mmm... intellect and drive and energy... he became 'the youngest VP of Chase Manhattan a managing director at Deutsche Bank and, one year later, global head of Emerging Markets Structuring' then 'to Singapore as head of Deutsche Bank's credit trading, equity convertibles, commodities and private equity businesses in Asia' and 'a board member of Deutsche Bank International Limited' Well we can only guess at what all this really means, but he does not look a duffer. In comparison all we can say about poor Yvette is that she was the chief economic correspondent of The Independent. Oh and an intern for Bill Clinton in Arkansas.
Not read the comments so sorry if its been already said but winning the Tories winning so many Lib-Dem seats has significantly reduced the range of seats for a Hung Parliament and removed one long term advantage Labour had in possible coalition partners, since except for Clegg for the last 40 years or so the Lib Dems have been more likely to back Labour than the Conservatives.
I didn't see the point of targeting Lib Dem seats two weeks ago as under Clegg in a Hung Parliament the Lib Dems were more likely to back Cameron than Miliband plus SNP. But winning the seats altogether has changed the landscape entirely.
Realistically barring some incredible Lib Dem recovery PC/SDLP/Green/Lib Dem won't be more than about 20 or so now. DUP/UUP is around 9, so excluding the SNP that's a net difference of 11 in favour of Labour from the "others".
That means far more than last time, the choice next time is either Tory or Labour plus SNP. With the Lib Dems neutralised, that is the choice now.
Mr Eagles makes the very reasonable point that ex-Lib Dem seats are not nailed-on for the Tories next time, so should not be ruled out of potential hung parliament land.
There are six Conservative seats (like Lewes) where the winning margin was less than the increase in the Labour vote, and 14 where it's less than the increase in Labour plus Green. If the LDs get some of the tactical voting back in those seats, then those seats would seem to be the first to go yellow again.
But what about first time incumbency bonus? Lets not forget that many of these seat gains have unseated long-standing MPs who would have previously had an incumbency bonus. That is gone now.
Plus these new MPs will build up an incumbency bonus on their own.
I keep reading about this incumbency bonus. Particularly, for the Tories. It helped them in Middle England. Not in London, though.
I think the regional swings are more important. Exit polls work on regional swings.
Are you sure there was no incumbency bonus for the Tories in London?
Yes London swung to Labour. In fact as a whole England swung to Labour. However many first time constituencies had a different result.
Take as an Battersea in London, a first time incumbency. It swung away from Labour and to the Tories.
I'd like to see some evidence that even in London there was no first time incumbency bonus. Regional swing and incumbency were both factors on the night.
I pointed out months ago on this forum that it was an ISIS target and had much more significance strategically than many more high profile locations. The failure of the Iraqi forces to hold it just shows you what a crock they are. On here I previously went through the actual reliable fighting size of the Iraqi army versus its actual size and the numbers were nearly beyond belief.
You want to defeat ISIS in Syria & Iraq? Commit forces consistently and in strength and prepare for a long fight and holding territory.
Ah right, no one on the West has the balls for that reality so instead we talk about just bombing them a bit, completely failing to understand how this outfit works.
That leaves getting the locals to do the work, which is viable if you had a sensible choice of locals but you can't really expect to influence that if your support is somewhat inconsistent and half hearted. The West long blew a great chance to better manage the situation in Syria when it sat on its collective arse, the growth of IS in Syria starting largely & directly from radicals in Iraq that the Iraqi government quite happily let go over the border because they thought they'd be rid of them, until they started to return.
As it is, the big stories from Ramadi are.
1. The Iraqi military and its associated Shia militias can't operate on more than one front consistently to effect. 2. It doesn't bode well when Sunni tribes who decided to fight against the IS threat in and around Ramadi lost here as well.
On an another note, I notice the BBC are reporting that IS is using refugee boats in the Med as a smuggling tool for its own fighters. This, frankly, overstates the threat on that route considerably as it stands today and the Libyan government is playing a PR game. The bigger issue by far is returnee citizens and land smuggling routes via the Balkans and organisational hubs in Austria and elsewhere.
Given the Wests woeful ability to understand what modern counter-insurgency with conventional elements is, what will kill IS in Iraq & Syria is itself (anyone who cannot understand the potential for this outfit to eat itself is missing a trick) and locals. It needs a political strategy and a military one, it needs consistency to wear them down. None of these the West seems able or willing to do so its better to stop pissing about and stay out if it isn't going to get its act together and leave it to regional actors.
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
Although it would be ironic if our first non-white PM was Sajid Javid.
The article does not take into account the "backgrounds" of the different communities.
The original Pakistani, Bangladeshi immigrants came to the UK to do manual work - Pakistanis in industry , Bangladeshis in the service sector, mainly restaurants. Afro-Caribbean's came to work in London Transport and similar places. In other words, the original communities were "working class" as we used to describe them.
Indians, Chinese and people from Africa , were professionals. Students who stayed behind etc. Only in the last ten to twenty years more professionals have joined them.
East African Asians [ mostly Indian ] came as business people [ initially many as shop-keepers ] even though that may not have been their profession in East Africa.
So, the "success" of Bangladeshi and Pakistanis have to be viewed slightly differently. Having said that, the academic improvements of school children in Tower Hamlets has been very good. Three Bangladeshi women are now MPs !
FlightPath Yvette Cooper has a first from Oxford, degrees from Harvard and LSE and worked as chief economic correspondent for a national broadsheet, Sajid studied economics and politics at Exeter and made a lot of money in the City, commendable but no reason why he should automatically be a better PM than Yvette
FlightPath Yvette Cooper has a first from Oxford, degrees from Harvard and LSE and worked as chief economic correspondent for a national broadsheet, Sajid studied economics and politics at Exeter and made a lot of money in the City, commendable but no reason why he should automatically be a better PM than Yvette
Someones degrees count for sh1t if they don't have a clue how to get things done and done right.
Comments
I enjoyed it when she retweeted this:
https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/596593823725264896
Just like the rise of the BQ in Canada lead to 10 years of Tory rule so far.
The centre-left Liberals there choose Prince Charming "hair spray for brains" Justin Trudeau as leader after they were crushed in 2011, they enjoyed a huge bounce in the polls but as the election comes closer the sheer stupidity of their sexy leader has gradually chipped away their lead and now they have collapsed again after their Tax plans were published .
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0NZ1PA20150514
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/conservatives-say-liberals-miscalculated-cost-of-trudeau-tax-plan-by-1-billion
Meanwhile the left NDP which chose a leader less sexy (he even has a beard) but with more gravitas and seriousness, is surging ahead aided by their win in super-conservative Alberta after ruthless policy and organizational targeting.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-election-2015-ndp-sings-for-joy-harper-s-caucus-like-morgue-1.3063472
It shows the importance of having the proper leader who fits into the proper strategy.
TBH, that makes the EdStone pale into insignificance as a prat PR move. What were his team thinking of? It's just embarrassing.
In that election the NDP went from 10% in 2012 to 40% now and the Tories from 44% in 2012 to 28%.
Many of us thought that SLAB were facing something close to an extinction event.
None of us thought that Labour would fail so badly in its target seats. Like missing number 1. And 2. And 3?
None of us thought that Labour would have a string of losses to counter those gains they make from the Tories.
It was these latter two points that caused our little heads to explode as the results came in. It was outside what seemed possible, let alone probable. I remember a comment or two maybe a fortnight before polling, where somebody asked what Labour seats might be at risk. I think we came up with
1 Halifax (due to late selection issues - ironically, held by Labour in the end).
2 Er...that's it.
https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/596593823725264896
On the theme of Swarzenegger films, I'm looking forward to one lefty saying to another.
"Cameron's raised the price of air.
Again?"
"Cameron's raised the price of air.
Again?"
Lol!
*puts on Austrian accent* "Cameron: yuv've gaht wat you want. Now, give dem dare ayhr!
I gave the following list on 27 Apr, based on a sense of where the Tories were working hard: Ultimately 4/6 were Con gains, and the other 2 had positive swings to Con. Incredible targeting from Crosby and team.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32773780
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/600037258587156481
Gower
Birmingham Northfield
Soton Itchen
Telford
Walsall N
Derby N
Morley & Outwood
Middlesbrough S
(Corby)
So Plymouth Moor View, Bolton West & Vale of Clwyd may have been a little unexpected.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085502/Just-week-Britain-celebrated-liberation-Europe-war-enactors-dress-NAZIS-World-War-Two-festival.html
On a more serious note, what do we think of this?
"Mr Messina also believed the Conservatives did well by aggressively pushing the party's message on social media like Facebook in marginal constituencies.
The Telegraph can disclose that a team of ten staff at Conservative Campaign Headquarters designed ads that were promoted on the newsfeeds of potential voters, identified by their postcode, age and sex.
Nearly 50 per cent of marginal voters are on the site, including increasing numbers of older voters. By polling day, 80 per cent of social media users in marginal seats had been contacted by the Tories over the site.
In order to push the Conservative message, activists who posted the most Tory adverts on social media were rewarded with prizes, including posters signed by George Osborne and books by Boris Johnson.
The Conservatives knew their strategy was bearing fruit when Lord Ashcroft, the pollster, reported a man telling a focus group he did not trust Labour because "they left that note, ‘there’s no money in the pot’. I saw it on Facebook”.
They also received adverts over YouTube, the video hosting website, tailored to their demographic profile based on log in data.
Older users received adverts on the Tories’ pension plans, while young users were shown adverts promoting Help to Buy."
I must admit, I'm instinctively sceptical about the decisive impact of Facebook and Youtube on an election result. But, then again, the sniper-level targeting of Labour marginals by the Conservatives (leading to pick-ups like Vale of Clwyd and Gower) does suggest a very finely honed operation.
I'd been trying to draw attention to this in the run-up to polling day. One corollary of "it was Messina what won it" is there should be no such advantage next time; another is there was no great popular upsurge of support for specific Tory policies; another is that Labour leadership candidates are agonising over the wrong things and learning the wrong lessons.
I liked the tweet about "now class, you final assignment, work out the probability of this distribution happening by chance?"
https://m.ladbrokes.com/en/#!event_details?id=220028508
Or maybe they are just keeping that line of argument for after Grexit, should it happen.
Almost a half of new Chartered Accountants and Solicitors are Asians. A third of Doctors. 33 MPs are from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh extraction, I understand. 5%. More than their share of the population.
Wiggins was the 120th starter in a race aimed specifically at the slower end of the time trial spectrum. His attempt in the City Road Club open 10-mile time trial
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/32768258
So Johnny how did you get on today son.
I came 2nd.
Well done, how far behind the winner were you.
About 10 mins dad.
10 minutes, in a 10 mile race, who was he, Bradley Wiggins.
How did you guess?
Plus these new MPs will build up an incumbency bonus on their own.
I think the regional swings are more important. Exit polls work on regional swings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_federal_election
Given the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers) why is she now as short as 4.1 on Betfair?
Is it that the consensus is that people will just vote on what they see, irrespective of Union influence?
eg We can be 99% certain there will be a BBC1 QT Labour candidates special - if she performs very well on that will it be enough for voters to ignore everything else?
I must admit, I'm instinctively sceptical about the decisive impact of Facebook and Youtube on an election result. But, then again, the sniper-level targeting of Labour marginals by the Conservatives (leading to pick-ups like Vale of Clwyd and Gower) does suggest a very finely honed operation.
This is one thing Labour got so wrong. They were more bothered about activist-type use of FB (which costs nothing), which was why my feed was polluted by friends and others promoting Labour in a rather farcical circle-jerk where they would positively comment on each others anti-Tory rants. (*)
What matters in FB is the underlying demographic data that allows precise targeting (and which will only get more precise as time goes on). And by 2020 FB will just be one way amongst many by which this will be done: in fact, the service that may be most influential in 2020 might not have been started yet, or may just be a small start-up in someone's bedroom.
The Conservatives now have some very good experience of doing this, and the money to do it. If Labour want to replicate it, they'll have to start getting their act together in the next couple of years, and even then they'll be behind. And the funding.
Tailored messages are particularly interesting and useful.
(*) Some of the most incisive political conversations on my FB feed were from the anarchists/hippy peeps. They were wonderfully deluded, but thoughtfully and knowledgeably so.
What a lot of people don't know. AOL has reinvented itself and now have some of the best tech for pushing targeted video adverts to mobile users and measuring customer response to them. This is where things are going in the next few years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
@MikeL -- iven the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers)
Didn't stop them last time was it not pictures of Ed on envelopes or something?
- Party must champion workers, says Unite chief http://t.co/BJFuou9WXV
But she is up against the Burnham and Cooper machines both of which are formidable, and I have my doubts that Labour are yet willing to step outside their comfort zone.
This time all ballot papers will be sent out by the Labour Party centrally (and returned to it centrally).
Unions can sign up affiliated members who will get a vote but Unions must give the names and addresses to the Labour Party centrally which will then send out all ballot papers.
I actually also support something Labour talked about for a while, and something that occurs in Sweden, which is the more you "put in" i.e the more tax you have paid over the years, the more you are entitled to should you need to draw benefits etc.
(Or If you think otherwise we will send the boys round. )
On Len and the unions, I can see why Len did not name a particular candidate he wants to win, but if he is widely reported as saying Labour must choose the correct one, with the threat of the unions pulling their funding implicit or explicit if they choose incorrectly (we shall see), the potential power of the unions over the process is already made pretty clear, so not naming a particular candidate would hardly seem to matter.
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085260/Ethnic-minorities-likely-win-professional-jobs-doctors-lawyers-civil-servants.html
Although it would be ironic if our first non-white PM was Sajid Javid.
Burnham - Mean nothing answer about sharing responsibility
Cooper - ditto
Creagh - ditto
Kendall - I tried as much as I could while being loyal
Hunt - I thought it was fine at the time.
Interesting whether to take the dissembling approach to avoid answering, the tacit admission that they knew it was bad but 'my hands were tied' approach, or Hunt's, 'I genuinely didn't see a problem with it' approach.
Labour have learned nothing.. they have no way of stopping the Unions.
He has the same chances as Sayeeda who last time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085089/Syria-s-Monuments-Men-hide-2-000-year-old-artefacts-ISIS-advance-Palmyra.html
Len and comrades are really a blast from the past. Just as Labour should go with a Kendall or Jarvis for leader, so they should break the links with the unions. They are no longer representatives of the average working man, rather creatures of the featherbedded public sector and their final salary pensions.
Who knows what the future holds. But as for his mmm... intellect and drive and energy...
he became
'the youngest VP of Chase Manhattan
a managing director at Deutsche Bank and, one year later, global head of Emerging Markets Structuring'
then 'to Singapore as head of Deutsche Bank's credit trading, equity convertibles, commodities and private equity businesses in Asia'
and 'a board member of Deutsche Bank International Limited'
Well we can only guess at what all this really means, but he does not look a duffer.
In comparison all we can say about poor Yvette is that she was the chief economic correspondent of The Independent. Oh and an intern for Bill Clinton in Arkansas.
Getting quite depressed at my crappy salary now.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9528312/inside-the-milibunker-the-last-days-of-ed-did-ed-miliband-sacrifice-ed-balls/
Dan Hodge's fascinating (and very funny) take on the final hour's in the MiliBunker!
Yes London swung to Labour. In fact as a whole England swung to Labour. However many first time constituencies had a different result.
Take as an Battersea in London, a first time incumbency. It swung away from Labour and to the Tories.
I'd like to see some evidence that even in London there was no first time incumbency bonus. Regional swing and incumbency were both factors on the night.
I pointed out months ago on this forum that it was an ISIS target and had much more significance strategically than many more high profile locations. The failure of the Iraqi forces to hold it just shows you what a crock they are. On here I previously went through the actual reliable fighting size of the Iraqi army versus its actual size and the numbers were nearly beyond belief.
You want to defeat ISIS in Syria & Iraq? Commit forces consistently and in strength and prepare for a long fight and holding territory.
Ah right, no one on the West has the balls for that reality so instead we talk about just bombing them a bit, completely failing to understand how this outfit works.
That leaves getting the locals to do the work, which is viable if you had a sensible choice of locals but you can't really expect to influence that if your support is somewhat inconsistent and half hearted. The West long blew a great chance to better manage the situation in Syria when it sat on its collective arse, the growth of IS in Syria starting largely & directly from radicals in Iraq that the Iraqi government quite happily let go over the border because they thought they'd be rid of them, until they started to return.
As it is, the big stories from Ramadi are.
1. The Iraqi military and its associated Shia militias can't operate on more than one front consistently to effect.
2. It doesn't bode well when Sunni tribes who decided to fight against the IS threat in and around Ramadi lost here as well.
On an another note, I notice the BBC are reporting that IS is using refugee boats in the Med as a smuggling tool for its own fighters. This, frankly, overstates the threat on that route considerably as it stands today and the Libyan government is playing a PR game. The bigger issue by far is returnee citizens and land smuggling routes via the Balkans and organisational hubs in Austria and elsewhere.
Given the Wests woeful ability to understand what modern counter-insurgency with conventional elements is, what will kill IS in Iraq & Syria is itself (anyone who cannot understand the potential for this outfit to eat itself is missing a trick) and locals. It needs a political strategy and a military one, it needs consistency to wear them down. None of these the West seems able or willing to do so its better to stop pissing about and stay out if it isn't going to get its act together and leave it to regional actors.
The original Pakistani, Bangladeshi immigrants came to the UK to do manual work - Pakistanis in industry , Bangladeshis in the service sector, mainly restaurants.
Afro-Caribbean's came to work in London Transport and similar places. In other words, the original communities were "working class" as we used to describe them.
Indians, Chinese and people from Africa , were professionals. Students who stayed behind etc. Only in the last ten to twenty years more professionals have joined them.
East African Asians [ mostly Indian ] came as business people [ initially many as shop-keepers ] even though that may not have been their profession in East Africa.
So, the "success" of Bangladeshi and Pakistanis have to be viewed slightly differently. Having said that, the academic improvements of school children in Tower Hamlets has been very good. Three Bangladeshi women are now MPs !
Nuclear and wind are producing 40% of the UK's energy atm:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/