Carnyx To be fair to Murphy he did play a part in the No victory and along with Davidson made the most contribution to its victory, Labour was already soundly beaten in 2011 at Holyrood, Westminster was simply catching up in 2015, Jesus Christ could not have saved Labour then. It will be Holyrood where Labour need to rebuild first, helped by PR and tactical voting, and it is not impossible Murphy could be back, but this time as an MSP not an MP
Calum The 2011 elections were a disaster for Labour too, they had already lost most of their Glasgow seats at that election, well before 2015, on the list they won only 26%. If Sturgeon leaves open the prospect of indyref2 many Tories and LDs will start to tactically vote Labour without fear of a Miliband premiership coming out of it, that could save Labour a few seats in areas like Edinburgh and Aberdeen
ProRate Cameron will not be there in 2020, and post EU ref, especially if a narrow In, the Tories will have probably picked a more rightwing successor to stem leakage to UKIP, the LDs under Farron will have moved left and the Greens, UKIP and SNP obviously are ideological in nature, leaving an opportunity for Labour to reoccupy the centre ground, and though no Blair Cooper and Burnham are more linked to New Labour than Brown and certainly Ed Miliband
There is a 'suppose Cameron IS a centrist' imagining to my argument, which I don't in reality buy. But, if he is, if he wins the EU referendum comfortably (60/40 should do it) then he has a man who will be viewed absolutely as a continuity candidate in GO. Iraq and the Blair / Brown dynamic meant that by 2007 Labour couldn't take a continuity option.
There must surely be at least 35 Labour MP's who recognise that it would not be good for the Labour party to be heading into a second term of Opposition without having admitted the mistakes of the last Labour Government?
Strange how much of the doubtless well-intentioned advice from pb Tories is that Labour should start by admitting the Conservatives were right and Labour was wrong.
Every time I see a PB Tory advising Labour on their new leadership, I recall how so many Tories here and elsewhere thought that the sun shone out of Jim Murphy, whatever bit you care to pick. And look at his almost complete success in destroying SLAB in Westminster, not to mention doing serious damage to the Union in the process.
Yup. What diehard Tories want to hear from a Labour leader is completely different to what people who would actually consider voting Labour want to hear.
I wouldn't exactly consider myself a "diehard" though I'll admit I do normally vote Conservative in most elections, England is a fair way to the right of Scotland - I think to conflate Murphy and Kendall is fundamentally wrong.
Kendall could work in England, Murphy was full of lies and ran the most dishonest campaign I've ever bore witness to - #Toriesout when he needed them to tactically vote for him to save his own seat. It was sub-Clegg.
Kendall's biggest fan @foxinsoxuk isn't what I'd call a diehard Tory either...
Carnyx To be fair to Murphy he did play a part in the No victory and along with Davidson made the most contribution to its victory, Labour was already soundly beaten in 2011 at Holyrood, Westminster was simply catching up in 2015, Jesus Christ could not have saved Labour then. It will be Holyrood where Labour need to rebuild first, helped by PR and tactical voting, and it is not impossible Murphy could be back, but this time as an MSP not an MP
Unless he can rewrite the rule book in the next month, he'll have the biggest comeback since Lazarus just to be a MSP at all. The constituency places are already allocated to PPCs and the list places go first to sitting list MSPs. There'd need ot be some serious arm-twisting for anyone to make way for Mr Murphy.
The SNP Mps are simply pandering to their core vote - the spoilt children of Scotland.
As ever 98.5% of the Scottish population are not paying any attention to this story. This is a Westminster bubble and MSM story with nobody other than political nerds even aware of it. Your dismissive comment above as ever only drives the SNP surge forward, so many thanks for your help !!
Well the reason the Scots are not paying attention is the falling standards of literacy in Scotland under an SNP Government.A fall they have committed to reverse..
The compromise will be to let the old duffer sit there for the State Opening and then move out the way so relevant politicians can take part.
Labour are making themselves look like idiots over there. The established precedent should give the SNP the front two benches in that section. It just emphasises how out of control and segmented Labour is.
Skinner has sat in the same seat for roughly forty years. Established precedent is that it's his seat.
The SNP are perfectly entitled to the seats that the Lib Dems would occupy previously in opposition. That isn't Skinners seat though. Had the LD and SNP seat numbers not reversed then Skinner would still be sitting where he has sat for decades. Not the Lib Dems.
ProRate The best Cameron can probably hope for is a 10 point In lead, as present polling shows, unless a big renegotiation, however Juncker is only likely to allow token changes. GO has neither Cameron's charisma or appeal and will have a problem keeping Out Tory voters from going to UKIP while at the same time holding the voters who formerly backed Blair then switched in 2010
Those talking of Labour civil war really do know nothing about history. What is happening now is nothing like that. I remember the 80s and the Tories in the 90s. That really was carnage. What's happening now is a walk in the park. Maybe too much of one, to be honest.
With the greatest respect that seems extremely complacent - this is going to go on for months and with the obvious in fighting being magnified by the press and broadcast media, this is not going to work out well for labour
It'll work out better than not doing it; and it does not make it a civil war.
Entirely correct. A leadership contest is precisely that, a contest. Not a civil war. Nobody credible can say otherwise. For a contest to be contested is healthy and expected.
A civil war is when it happens outside of the window of a leadership contest. Now is the time to get it all out in the open because afterwards is too late.
ProRate The best Cameron can probably hope for is a 10 point In lead, as present polling shows, unless a big renegotiation, however Juncker is only likely to allow token changes. GO has neither Cameron's charisma or appeal and will have a problem keeping Out Tory voters from going to UKIP while at the same time holding the voters who formerly backed Blair then switched in 2010
Cameron can hope for at least 60% if not two thirds. It's not guaranteed but it's far from impossible.
It would be utterly wrong for the SNP to take the chair of the Justice committee - considering the significant differences in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK.
Carnyx If he was going to come back next year it would be as Labour candidate for Eastwood, a seat he won off the Tories in 1997 and held until 2015, that would depend on whether Ken Macintosh decides not to run again. Murphy still won 34% even in 2015, about 10% better than Labour did in Scotland as a whole. If not, no reason he could not return in 2020
The compromise will be to let the old duffer sit there for the State Opening and then move out the way so relevant politicians can take part.
Labour are making themselves look like idiots over there. The established precedent should give the SNP the front two benches in that section. It just emphasises how out of control and segmented Labour is.
The SNP may not have respect for the institution of Parliament or for a senior MP - but they should quickly learn some.
They are coming over as petty and petulant.
Respect someone who - whether you agree with his politics or not - has made a significant contribution to public life over many, many years.
Respect the institution that is Parliament - the place to which so many SNP MPs have now been elected.
Find a new way of making your voices heard without seeking to tear apart the fabric of the Commons to make a petty, petty point about who sits where.
Complete mush, it is these irrelevant and hopeless "customs" of parliament which many people find objectionable and outmoded, a broken, corrupt and completely outdated system which cares little for the people these MPs represent and only for ensuring their bank balance and bellies are filled.
Parliament deserves no respect until it is entirely elected and the UK has an elected head of state. Until then it should be treated with the disdain it merits.
What "contribution" has Skinner made? The only one I can think of was his part in the 1979 rebellion inserting the ridiculous 40% clause into the Scotland Act delaying a Scottish assembly for 18 years and holding back an Independence which would likely have happened around the time of the millennium
He deserves nothing but contempt and should have been deselected by his party years ago. He doesn't even come across as compes.
Wouldn't Skinner have been on the other side of the house from 74-79 and 97 - 10 ?
Yes but in the same seat on the opposite side. Regardless of which side of the house he was in he's always taken the same seat. So there's no precedence that Dair can claim to suggest after forty years he needs to move now.
Seriously do the SNP have nothing better to do than this?
Wouldn't Skinner have been on the other side of the house from 74-79 and 97 - 10 ?
Yes but in the same seat on the opposite side. Regardless of which side of the house he was in he's always taken the same seat. So there's no precedence that Dair can claim to suggest after forty years he needs to move now.
Seriously do the SNP have nothing better to do than this?
To be fair, Labour are being just as petty. Skinner is a dinosaur. The seat is not worth falling out over.
There must surely be at least 35 Labour MP's who recognise that it would not be good for the Labour party to be heading into a second term of Opposition without having admitted the mistakes of the last Labour Government?
Strange how much of the doubtless well-intentioned advice from pb Tories is that Labour should start by admitting the Conservatives were right and Labour was wrong.
Every time I see a PB Tory advising Labour on their new leadership, I recall how so many Tories here and elsewhere thought that the sun shone out of Jim Murphy, whatever bit you care to pick. And look at his almost complete success in destroying SLAB in Westminster, not to mention doing serious damage to the Union in the process.
Yup. What diehard Tories want to hear from a Labour leader is completely different to what people who would actually consider voting Labour want to hear.
I wouldn't exactly consider myself a "diehard" though I'll admit I do normally vote Conservative in most elections, England is a fair way to the right of Scotland - I think to conflate Murphy and Kendall is fundamentally wrong.
Kendall could work in England, Murphy was full of lies and ran the most dishonest campaign I've ever bore witness to - #Toriesout when he needed them to tactically vote for him to save his own seat. It was sub-Clegg.
Kendall's biggest fan @foxinsoxuk isn't what I'd call a diehard Tory either...
But the thing is, it might be wishful thinking but I can't see how a move to the Right economically will help Labour even in the South. Some of the places where Labour bombed in the South are pretty poor - Hastings & Rye, Thurrock, Southampton, Thurrock. Do those places really want to hear how Labour would cut their services and wouldn't tax millionaires? I can't really see the logic of it.
I'm not necessarily saying a move to the Left would work either though -- tbh, I'm starting to think parts of the South just feel Labour is "culturally" so distant from them that they're never going to win there no matter what they say or how far right or left they move.
ProRate The best Cameron can probably hope for is a 10 point In lead, as present polling shows, unless a big renegotiation, however Juncker is only likely to allow token changes. GO has neither Cameron's charisma or appeal and will have a problem keeping Out Tory voters from going to UKIP while at the same time holding the voters who formerly backed Blair then switched in 2010
Juncker has no say, as the EU is not a signatory to the treaties that govern its function. The people Cameron has to convince are in Berlin, Paris, Madrid and Rome.
Wouldn't Skinner have been on the other side of the house from 74-79 and 97 - 10 ?
Yes but in the same seat on the opposite side. Regardless of which side of the house he was in he's always taken the same seat. So there's no precedence that Dair can claim to suggest after forty years he needs to move now.
Seriously do the SNP have nothing better to do than this?
To be fair, Labour are being just as petty. Skinner is a dinosaur. The seat is not worth falling out over.
Skinner regards it as his seat, I don't think he could give a tinker's cuss if it looks good or bad. The SNP have slain many dinosaurs in Scotland, but the Beast of Bolsover won't be moved !
The compromise will be to let the old duffer sit there for the State Opening and then move out the way so relevant politicians can take part.
Labour are making themselves look like idiots over there. The established precedent should give the SNP the front two benches in that section. It just emphasises how out of control and segmented Labour is.
Skinner has sat in the same seat for roughly forty years. Established precedent is that it's his seat.
The SNP are perfectly entitled to the seats that the Lib Dems would occupy previously in opposition. That isn't Skinners seat though. Had the LD and SNP seat numbers not reversed then Skinner would still be sitting where he has sat for decades. Not the Lib Dems.
There are 650 MPs and roughly 400 seats. He has no more entitlement to that spot than anyone else, he should move over so that parliament can act properly and not as his personal fiefdom for unfunny quips and his idiotic childlike behaviour.
Wouldn't Skinner have been on the other side of the house from 74-79 and 97 - 10 ?
Yes but in the same seat on the opposite side. Regardless of which side of the house he was in he's always taken the same seat. So there's no precedence that Dair can claim to suggest after forty years he needs to move now.
Seriously do the SNP have nothing better to do than this?
To be fair, Labour are being just as petty. Skinner is a dinosaur. The seat is not worth falling out over.
No that's the mess the SNP have got themselves into is that they're not fighting Labour over this. They're fighting Skinner personally. A stupid unforced error as Skinner doesn't represent Labour.
I can't imagine the SNP winning any plaudits for telling an octogenarian that he can't sit in his seat that he's occupied for forty years. Even if Skinner is stuck in his ways its to be expected. My grandad is roughly the same age and always sits in the same seat too, I wouldn't think it big or clever to try and take that away from him. It's juvenile and petty posturing. That was obvious as soon as this came out.
I think Burnham will do significantly better than IDS.
Burnham will be Labour's Michael Howard (Milliband was Hague and IDS rolled into one)
He is a relatively competent and experienced politician. I don't think he can get Labour back into power but he can be a "safe pair of hands" which is exactly what Labour need's after the 2015 shock.
He will bring Labour a decent improvement in terms of their party machine and he will win back a few seat's in 2020... Paving the way for a Labour majority in the mid 2020's.
Carnyx If he was going to come back next year it would be as Labour candidate for Eastwood, a seat he won off the Tories in 1997 and held until 2015, that would depend on whether Ken Macintosh decides not to run again. Murphy still won 34% even in 2015, about 10% better than Labour did in Scotland as a whole. If not, no reason he could not return in 2020
The problem with that is that Ken Macintosh is standing in that seat, as you note, and he is serious enough about staying on to stand for SLAB leader right now (unless there is some Cunning Plan, admittedly).
Sure, he is spoken of as an ally to Mr M, but he'd have to bump himself onto the list to make room, and that would be very unpopular with many SLABbers - remember what Dair pointed out, there are only so many list seats and they are already occupied de facto.
And if Mr Murphy comes back in 2020, he'd be not so much reanimated as reincarnated - and you have to look beyond the Good Book and more to the Buddhist sutras for that.
She really, really does believe that there must be terrifying things in the Tory manifesto - by definition - but you can tell by the feebleness of what she's come up with that she couldn't actually find any. Are we really supposed to believe that that she thinks legislating "to ensure that every public sector worker operating in a customer-facing role must speak fluent English" is terrifying?
Well, there's the rub. I've certainly read enough comments on social media, about how the Conservatives will have privatised the NHS, killed off the disabled, and dismantled the welfare state by 2020. Do they actually believe what they're saying? I don't know.
Skinner regards it as his seat, I don't think he could give a tinker's cuss if it looks good or bad. The SNP have slain many dinosaurs in Scotland, but the Beast of Bolsover won't be moved !
The Battle of Clay's Cross - the limit of the SNP advance. ;-)
The best parallel is probably a reverse 2001 in the sense that Labour have a long way back from where they are now! But this avoids the impact of Ukip, SNP and to a lesser extent the Greens, who managed decent percentages in some places.
For Labour to come back with a majority they will have to win votes and seats from both the SNP and the Tories - how the hell are they going to do that unless they face up to the realities of balanced budgets and losing Unite?? And at the same time avoiding more seepage to Ukip in the north and the Greens everywhere else!
On other hand, a Labour minority is in a sense even harder to get because it would mean a rainbow coalition involving the SNP, Plaid, SDLP, Greens - even if the numbers stack up, we saw how this went down with English voters
I'm bemused that the Blairites are so obsessed with getting Kendall on the ballot. If she's barely scraping together enough support from MPs, she ain't getting anywhere with the more left-leaning membership. If anything, I would've thought the Blairites would prefer her to be kept off the ballot so they could maintain the illusion that the contest was "stolen" from them for a few years and whine.
While I'm bemused that there are some who want to keep the old feuds going rather than have an open debate on the future. If the Labour electorate will have no truck with Kendall then let them say so in the ballot.
I suspect that Kendall will go down very well, she is an excellent communicator with a very natural style. Underlying this is a real sense of ambition and purpose. Liz refreshes the parts that other candidates cannot reach!
I actually agree that she should be let on the ballot. The "dirty tricks" with union barons trying to stitch things up looks awful for the party. plus it would be good for the party if all options are put on the table with the Blairite option (I would hope) being heavily defeated fair and square.
But I really don't agree she would go down well with the Labour membership, at all. She seems like a perfectly nice woman but she's not exactly overburdened with charisma, I'm not sure she would've even got onto the frontbench in any other political era. Plus, I feel the membership would say that a Labour party which just agrees with the Tories on everything by signing up to huge spending cuts and worshipping extreme wealth is not going to get anywhere, not even with "swing voters".
Don't let her rather frumpish dress sense fool you. She has real sparkle. Neither has she "signed up to huge spending cuts" or "worshipped extreme wealth". She has merely aknowledged that Labour overspent in the Brown years. That is something that even the Labour manifesto agreed, with its explicit need to bring down the deficit.
Not sure about the real sparkle, you seem to have a bit of a crush or you like to see Leicester in the limelight, unusual as that is, although she is about as Leicester as me.
I have seen her look impressive and also the standard Labour automaton, I wouldn't rate her above Cooper and I don't think the Conservatives would be too concerned by her, although she would be a better choice than Burnham.
Where having a woman Labour leader would help politics is we might see less of the class war nasty personal abuse that ruined so much of the debate in the last parliament. Cooper though surely would be a more sensible choice to the very inexperienced, unproven Kendall.
Out of context quote with no substantiation. Smells like the usual from the Telegraph.
The most interesting thing in that article was the line that some SNP MPs are looking for accommodation in Camden. Does SeanT have a spare room to let to Mhairi?
PT Wilson only won the EEC referendum 67-33%, Cameron is not going to be able to restore the Common Market whatever he achieves. With 90%+ of UKIP voters, 50-60%+ of Tories, 30% of Labour voters and a few LDs, nats and Greens voting Out you cannot be certain of anything
The compromise will be to let the old duffer sit there for the State Opening and then move out the way so relevant politicians can take part.
Labour are making themselves look like idiots over there. The established precedent should give the SNP the front two benches in that section. It just emphasises how out of control and segmented Labour is.
Skinner has sat in the same seat for roughly forty years. Established precedent is that it's his seat.
The SNP are perfectly entitled to the seats that the Lib Dems would occupy previously in opposition. That isn't Skinners seat though. Had the LD and SNP seat numbers not reversed then Skinner would still be sitting where he has sat for decades. Not the Lib Dems.
There are 650 MPs and roughly 400 seats. He has no more entitlement to that spot than anyone else, he should move over so that parliament can act properly and not as his personal fiefdom for unfunny quips and his idiotic childlike behaviour.
There are too many MPs so some have to stand yes. An octogenarian shouldn't be one of them. I don't care what party you support that is basic respect for the elderly. Precedence says it's his seat and if he doesn't want to move, why should he?
Skinner regards it as his seat, I don't think he could give a tinker's cuss if it looks good or bad. The SNP have slain many dinosaurs in Scotland, but the Beast of Bolsover won't be moved !
The Battle of Clay's Cross - the limit of the SNP advance. ;-)
PT Wilson only won the EEC referendum 67-33%, Cameron is not going to be able to restore the Common Market whatever he achieves. With 90%+ of UKIP voters, 50-60%+ of Tories, 30% of Labour voters and a few LDs, nats and Greens voting Out you cannot be certain of anything
The electorate is in truculent mood. They may take a complacent establishment consensus and blow it to smithereens. Don't think it can't happen - just look at the last GE.
PT Wilson only won the EEC referendum 67-33%, Cameron is not going to be able to restore the Common Market whatever he achieves. With 90%+ of UKIP voters, 50-60%+ of Tories, 30% of Labour voters and a few LDs, nats and Greens voting Out you cannot be certain of anything
Seriously delusional.. :-).. Ed Miliband would be proud of his pupil.....
GIN1138 But Burnham is younger and fresher than Michael H and moreover he will not have to face Cameron again as Howard had to face Blair, 2020 is the equivalent of 2007, not 2005
PT Wilson only won the EEC referendum 67-33%, Cameron is not going to be able to restore the Common Market whatever he achieves. With 90%+ of UKIP voters, 50-60%+ of Tories, 30% of Labour voters and a few LDs, nats and Greens voting Out you cannot be certain of anything
People err for the status quo if they're uncertain.
The status quo ante in Wilson's day was no EEC membership. The status quo now is membership. All else being equal the passage of time would see more say in not less.
Nothing is certain indeed but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that 50% of Tory voters voting out if Cameron etc are pushing In. While the notion 30% of the 2015 Lib Dems voting Out is about as plausible as 30% of Kippers voting In.
Carnyx If Macintosh does not win the Labour leadership himself who knows, he may see Murphy as the 'king across the water', but Murphy would probably back Macintosh for leader anyway so it would only arise if Macintosh failed to win it
Mr. C, on the other hand, every referendum lately (ok, two, but still) has sided with the status quo.
Half the Conservatives, most of Labour and pretty much every other party will campaign for In. Only half the Conservatives, a handful of Labour and UKIP will be for Out.
The BBC will be for In. I think that more newspapers than expected may go for In as well.
The electorate want to kick politicians, but the choice will be presented as uncertainty versus a slightly stained comfort blanket. Out will be unable to unite, I would suggest, and will fail to offer a basic vision of what Out means.
I think In will win by a fairly comfortable margin.
Wouldn't Skinner have been on the other side of the house from 74-79 and 97 - 10 ?
Yes but in the same seat on the opposite side. Regardless of which side of the house he was in he's always taken the same seat. So there's no precedence that Dair can claim to suggest after forty years he needs to move now.
Seriously do the SNP have nothing better to do than this?
To be fair, Labour are being just as petty. Skinner is a dinosaur. The seat is not worth falling out over.
No that's the mess the SNP have got themselves into is that they're not fighting Labour over this. They're fighting Skinner personally. A stupid unforced error as Skinner doesn't represent Labour.
I can't imagine the SNP winning any plaudits for telling an octogenarian that he can't sit in his seat that he's occupied for forty years. Even if Skinner is stuck in his ways its to be expected. My grandad is roughly the same age and always sits in the same seat too, I wouldn't think it big or clever to try and take that away from him. It's juvenile and petty posturing. That was obvious as soon as this came out.
You think someone who is "stuck in their ways" is beneficial to the decision making process? The man is out of touch with society and should have been deselected years ago.
The compromise will be to let the old duffer sit there for the State Opening and then move out the way so relevant politicians can take part.
Labour are making themselves look like idiots over there.
I'm not sure it's Labour who are coming across badly here. I vehemently disagree with most of what Skinner believes in, but I have a lot of respect for him and his obvious passion for politics, and for doing what he obviously believes is right. For decade after decade after decade.
The basic lack of respect for politician venerated by all sides paints the SNP in a very poor light. That's my 2 cents, anyway.
Skinner is a nasty piece of work who claims to be a socialist while defending the 'privilege' of a reserved seat in the H/C. No way. He should be put out to grass pronto - and I hate the SNP!
Out of context quote with no substantiation. Smells like the usual from the Telegraph.
Quick question Dair. How often do you make a comment that's negative about the SNP? I ask because it seems fantasy to say the Skinner seat battle makes him/Labour look bad.
Mr. Price, Labour still use the transferable vote nonsense, right?
Just wondering how that'll affect things.
Interesting piece, incidentally. For what it's worth, I think a 3 year break clause is mental. It'd make every loser from the leadership try and bolster their prospects, and they could even ally to oust the incumbent and have a second shot. And why's it needed? Because Labour MPs are too weak to do what's necessary.
I think Burnham will do significantly better than IDS.
Burnham will be Labour's Michael Howard (Milliband was Hague and IDS rolled into one)
He is a relatively competent and experienced politician. I don't think he can get Labour back into power but he can be a "safe pair of hands" which is exactly what Labour need's after the 2015 shock.
He will bring Labour a decent improvement in terms of their party machine and he will win back a few seat's in 2020... Paving the way for a Labour majority in the mid 2020's.
Don't agree I would see Cooper as more the Howard safe leader. Burnham I would say is more as a cross between the worst of Miliband and Brown, he has the ambition and inflated opinion of his own ability of Miliband, with the suspect temperament of Brown. Add that to the closeness to Lenny and he is a total no no.
Also I have read his Northern roots might help him, black mark there as well outside Merseyside his Scouse roots are a negative, most people in the North and Midlands have little time for Scousers outside the immediate area, where Labour are fine.
In the key marginals a Scouse Labour leader is a negative starting point not a positive even in the North.
Skinner regards it as his seat, I don't think he could give a tinker's cuss if it looks good or bad. The SNP have slain many dinosaurs in Scotland, but the Beast of Bolsover won't be moved !
The Battle of Clay's Cross - the limit of the SNP advance. ;-)
Clay Cross is NE Derbyshire, not Bolsover!
There's a fine history of battlefield names being chosen more for reasons of poetry than accuracy, and it's close enough.
My Grandad used to live in NE Derbyshire and, much as he admired Harry Barnes, he was more affectionate of the Beast of Bolsover.
Mr. C, on the other hand, every referendum lately (ok, two, but still) has sided with the status quo.
Half the Conservatives, most of Labour and pretty much every other party will campaign for In. Only half the Conservatives, a handful of Labour and UKIP will be for Out.
The BBC will be for In. I think that more newspapers than expected may go for In as well.
The electorate want to kick politicians, but the choice will be presented as uncertainty versus a slightly stained comfort blanket. Out will be unable to unite, I would suggest, and will fail to offer a basic vision of what Out means.
I think In will win by a fairly comfortable margin.
We all know what high regard politicians and media folk are held in.
Question is will the fear mongering work, an independent Britain is more sustainable than an independent Scotland. Hopefully enough business leaders speak up.
I think if the EU offer no reforms then Out will win from discussions I have seen, a lot of people seem to be on the fence.
The compromise will be to let the old duffer sit there for the State Opening and then move out the way so relevant politicians can take part.
Labour are making themselves look like idiots over there.
I'm not sure it's Labour who are coming across badly here. I vehemently disagree with most of what Skinner believes in, but I have a lot of respect for him and his obvious passion for politics, and for doing what he obviously believes is right. For decade after decade after decade.
The basic lack of respect for politician venerated by all sides paints the SNP in a very poor light. That's my 2 cents, anyway.
Skinner is a nasty piece of work who claims to be a socialist while defending the 'privilege' of a reserved seat in the H/C. No way. He should be put out to grass pronto - and I hate the SNP!
Is "unspoofable" the correct word to use at this point?
Wouldn't Skinner have been on the other side of the house from 74-79 and 97 - 10 ?
Yes but in the same seat on the opposite side. Regardless of which side of the house he was in he's always taken the same seat. So there's no precedence that Dair can claim to suggest after forty years he needs to move now.
Seriously do the SNP have nothing better to do than this?
To be fair, Labour are being just as petty. Skinner is a dinosaur. The seat is not worth falling out over.
No that's the mess the SNP have got themselves into is that they're not fighting Labour over this. They're fighting Skinner personally. A stupid unforced error as Skinner doesn't represent Labour.
I can't imagine the SNP winning any plaudits for telling an octogenarian that he can't sit in his seat that he's occupied for forty years. Even if Skinner is stuck in his ways its to be expected. My grandad is roughly the same age and always sits in the same seat too, I wouldn't think it big or clever to try and take that away from him. It's juvenile and petty posturing. That was obvious as soon as this came out.
You think someone who is "stuck in their ways" is beneficial to the decision making process? The man is out of touch with society and should have been deselected years ago.
No I don't agree with anything he has to say. Except for abolishing the monarchy but there's not many in my party who agree and I think you agree on that one.
But he's an MP elected by his constituents. I'll oppose everything he stands for, but I don't oppose treating him with common courtesy and basic respect. Can you not understand the difference?
I think Burnham will do significantly better than IDS.
Burnham will be Labour's Michael Howard (Milliband was Hague and IDS rolled into one)
He is a relatively competent and experienced politician. I don't think he can get Labour back into power but he can be a "safe pair of hands" which is exactly what Labour need's after the 2015 shock.
He will bring Labour a decent improvement in terms of their party machine and he will win back a few seat's in 2020... Paving the way for a Labour majority in the mid 2020's.
Don't agree I would see Cooper as more the Howard safe leader. Burnham I would say is more as a cross between the worst of Miliband and Brown, he has the ambition and inflated opinion of his own ability of Miliband, with the suspect temperament of Brown. Add that to the closeness to Lenny and he is a total no no.
Also I have read his Northern roots might help him, black mark there as well outside Merseyside his Scouse roots are a negative, most people in the North and Midlands have little time for Scousers outside the immediate area, where Labour are fine.
In the key marginals a Scouse Labour leader is a negative starting point not a positive even in the North.
Burnham does not sound particularly Scouse at all.
I tend to agree with Janan Ganesh's recent FT column where he said the leader that Labour elect is more important than having a post-mortem and working out exact policy positions.
Labour need a charismatic leader who looks like a possible PM, then they need to cross their fingers and hope that the Tories fcuk up somehow.
Mr. Price, Labour still use the transferable vote nonsense, right?
Just wondering how that'll affect things.
Interesting piece, incidentally. For what it's worth, I think a 3 year break clause is mental. It'd make every loser from the leadership try and bolster their prospects, and they could even ally to oust the incumbent and have a second shot. And why's it needed? Because Labour MPs are too weak to do what's necessary.
Even the Lib Dems axed Kennedy and Campbell.
Yes, they use AV. In an open contest that tends to favour the most central candidate (not necessarily the most centrist), provided they can get through the early rounds.
It's more than possible that Yvette could beat Andy & Liz head-to-head, but gets eliminated before them.
Out of context quote with no substantiation. Smells like the usual from the Telegraph.
Quick question Dair. How often do you make a comment that's negative about the SNP? I ask because it seems fantasy to say the Skinner seat battle makes him/Labour look bad.
There are plenty of criticisms that can be levelled at the SNP, their failure to tackle Apartheid in Scotland, they're weakness over 50p Tax and Mansion Tax and their tendency to play safe meaning a failure to fully capitalise on their support.
But this is not one of them. As the third largest party with 56 seats, they should be merited the front two benches in that section. No ifs buts and no "Dennis wants to crack a weak joke when Black Rod walks by".
PhilipThompson Heath had already taken us into the EEC by the referendum. I said 30% of Labour voters at least (30% of 30 is 9%) add that to half of the Tories 37% ie 18.5% and 13% of UKIP voters and you get to 40% for Out and that is conservative and not allowing for any Liberal, Green or nat outs (and there are certainly some SNP voters who would vote Out)
Tory voters will only vote for In in large numbers if a major renegotiation, which is unlikely, Cameron is more likely to get token concessions
Bolsover and Clay Cross..Two socialist crap heaps No idea why the locals put up with it.Their choice to support the Skinner dynasty..
Bolsover has a splendid castle, and both areas are within spitting distance of the glorious peak district. Also these places fired the boilers of the industrial revolution. They might be in decline but its worth remembering the sacrifices communities like this made.
Oh and they are in substantially worse condition than they were 50 years ago because Maggie decided she'd rather have a large chunk of the residents on the dole instead of cutting coal.
You think someone who is "stuck in their ways" is beneficial to the decision making process? The man is out of touch with society and should have been deselected years ago.
No I don't agree with anything he has to say. Except for abolishing the monarchy but there's not many in my party who agree and I think you agree on that one.
But he's an MP elected by his constituents. I'll oppose everything he stands for, but I don't oppose treating him with common courtesy and basic respect. Can you not understand the difference?
It has nothing to do with courtesy or respect. He is an irrelevant backbencher and does not merit a place on the front benches when there are SNP portfolio spokespeople who cannot sit on the front benches.
Skinner is an irrelevant and there are not enough seats for the MPs that are there, it is therefore of no value to waste a space on someone just so they can crack a crap joke once a year.
It is not conservative it is extremely optimistic for you to hope for half of the supporters of a party backing In. Similarly optimistic to claim 30% of Labour. But even on your very optimistic figures In still has a 20% lead.
The most extreme BOO voters for both parties have already gone to UKIP. Barring some major screw up Out can expect all the UKIP votes and maybe a quarter of Tory and Labour voters.
Liz is not from Leicester, but has adopted it and Leicester is famously welcoming to incomers.
Her plans for a ground up system driven by service users with power devolved downwards is quite revolutionary. Some advocate marketisation for this, but Liz does not. She believes that the welfare state can be much more customer friendly while remaining state delivered.
Bolsover and Clay Cross..Two socialist crap heaps No idea why the locals put up with it.Their choice to support the Skinner dynasty..
Bolsover and Clay Cross have grim estates within but are by no means the worst small towns in the North East Derbyshire area, Staveley beats them both hands down, Shirebrook as well.
Scandalously late big investment has gone in around the new motorway junction area 29A and Shirebrook, although a lot of the new work has attracted Eastern European Labour, Skinner has played his part in that new investment to be fair.
I do expect though the demographics to follow some of the marginals a bit further south and trend more Conservative as time goes on, more in the NE Derbyshire seat than Bolsover.
Mr. Rob, didn't Wilson close more pits than Thatcher?
Yes that's correct, lots of pits closed under Wilson with the cooperation of the NUM too. They closed declining coal fields (South Wales/Scotland/Durham ect) and shifted resources and miners to expanding fields (Notts/Leicestershire/Warwickshire). The Thatcher/Major closures were done without any 'plan for coal', also that's when the Derby/Notts coalfield (which Boslover sits in) was mainly affected.
May's comments on the police would have a little more weight if overseas aid and non-frontline NHS spending also had to face some cuts instead of being allowed to keep all their fat while the likes of the police, defence, local government, justice, culture and welfare are slashed to the bone
May's comments on the police would have a little more weight if overseas aid and non-frontline NHS spending also had to face some cuts instead of being allowed to keep all their fat while the likes of the police, defence, local government, justice, culture and welfare are slashed to the bone
She really, really does believe that there must be terrifying things in the Tory manifesto - by definition - but you can tell by the feebleness of what she's come up with that she couldn't actually find any. Are we really supposed to believe that that she thinks legislating "to ensure that every public sector worker operating in a customer-facing role must speak fluent English" is terrifying?
She doesn't like increasing money for the NHS or delivering "schools for parents and communities that want them" either...
Mr. Rob, didn't Wilson close more pits than Thatcher?
Yes that's correct, lots of pits closed under Wilson with the cooperation of the NUM too. They closed declining coal fields (South Wales/Scotland/Durham ect) and shifted resources and miners to expanding fields (Notts/Leicestershire/Warwickshire). The Thatcher/Major closures were done without any 'plan for coal', also that's when the Derby/Notts coalfield (which Boslover sits in) was mainly affected.
Under possible rationale should there be a "plan for coal"? Coal was a means to an end, not an end in itself. That is what too many in the hard left failed to ever grasp.
Coal was needed to provide energy. There should have been a "plan for energy" and there was - using a mix of nuclear, oil and gas as well as coal. While ending the need for power cuts or a three day week.
Coal strikes made coal unreliable long before Thatcher. Now when we plug a device into a socket and turn a switch it works. Good riddance to the idea of energy being an optional something that we might have if some people felt like it.
I think Burnham will do significantly better than IDS.
Burnham will be Labour's Michael Howard (Milliband was Hague and IDS rolled into one)
He is a relatively competent and experienced politician. I don't think he can get Labour back into power but he can be a "safe pair of hands" which is exactly what Labour need's after the 2015 shock.
He will bring Labour a decent improvement in terms of their party machine and he will win back a few seat's in 2020... Paving the way for a Labour majority in the mid 2020's.
The key difference is that Howard went into it not expecting to win the 2005 election, but precisely to stabilise the party and give the next generation the chance to prove themselves.
You can partly blame my ancestors for any mess that has been made in Clay Cross
I can beat that!
You can partly blame my ancestors for any mess that has been made in Northern Ireland. And India. And Eire, come to think of it. And the less said about America the better
macisback But neither Burnham or Cooper will face Cameron again as Howard did Blair (Howard was of course a Liverpool FC supporter)
Personally never liked Howard and never would have voted for him, his choice of football club made that even more certain.
Wouldn't bet against Cameron going again, if he is the most likely winner again next time from the leading Conservative politicians, which I can't see he won't be.
Mr. Rob, didn't Wilson close more pits than Thatcher?
Yes that's correct, lots of pits closed under Wilson with the cooperation of the NUM too. They closed declining coal fields (South Wales/Scotland/Durham ect) and shifted resources and miners to expanding fields (Notts/Leicestershire/Warwickshire). The Thatcher/Major closures were done without any 'plan for coal', also that's when the Derby/Notts coalfield (which Boslover sits in) was mainly affected.
Under possible rationale should there be a "plan for coal"? Coal was a means to an end, not an end in itself. That is what too many in the hard left failed to ever grasp.
Coal was needed to provide energy. There should have been a "plan for energy" and there was - using a mix of nuclear, oil and gas as well as coal. While ending the need for power cuts or a three day week.
Coal strikes made coal unreliable long before Thatcher. Now when we plug a device into a socket and turn a switch it works. Good riddance to the idea of energy being an optional something that we might have if some people felt like it.
I think the main issue is if you are planning to make mass redundancies in areas that already have high unemployment and low job prospect levels. The closures in the 60s were part of a plan, and light industry was able to take on many of the laid off workers. The 80s/90s closures didn't come with any substantial plans for the areas affected, so you ended up with towns like Worksop having horrendous heroin abuse levels circa 2000.
If a pit is unprofitable, but the cost of closure including knock on economic and social problems is significant, should it be shut? There's a good economic debate there.
I accept your point about strikes, they turned the idea of energy security on its head.
Watford30 Local government spending down 40% while overseas aid has been increased is outrageous
MD Agree, ringfencing was a terrible idea, has drastically weakened our armed forces and meant that our own poor and vulnerable have had to bear a disproportionate share of the burden while grand overseas aid projects are thought up to try and justify the coffers overflowing at DFID and far too much of that still fails to reach those who actually need it. Each department should have faced exactly the same percentage cuts
Out of context quote with no substantiation. Smells like the usual from the Telegraph.
I'm sure the DT's 12,000 readers in Scotland will find this story interesting, as I said this is a Westminster bubble and MSM story with little traction in Scotland. As for the DT quoting SNP sources, the DT have a very poor track record on reporting accurately on Scottish matters e.g. Ruth Davidson and burly men !!
Charles Had Howard not been facing Blair in 2005 he may well have thought he could win, whoever is Labour leader will not be facing Cameron in 2020, that is the difference
Watford30 Local government spending down 40% while overseas aid has been increased is outrageous
MD Agree, ringfencing was a terrible idea, has drastically weakened our armed forces and meant that our own poor and vulnerable have had to bear a disproportionate share of the burden while grand overseas aid projects are thought up to try and justify the coffers overflowing at DFID and far too much of that still fails to reach those who actually need it. Each department should have faced exactly the same percentage cuts
Local authorities took on an extra 180,000 workers between 1997 and 2010. I'm sure that plenty of that was non-frontline 'fat', and a lot of it remains to be trimmed.
I think the main issue is if you are planning to make mass redundancies in areas that already have high unemployment and low job prospect levels. The closures in the 60s were part of a plan, and light industry was able to take on many of the laid off workers. The 80s/90s closures didn't come with any substantial plans for the areas affected, so you ended up with towns like Worksop having horrendous heroin abuse levels circa 2000.
If a pit is unprofitable, but the cost of closure including knock on economic and social problems is significant, should it be shut? There's a good economic debate there.
I accept your point about strikes, they turned the idea of energy security on its head.
The problem was that we needed secure energy and so we needed a plan secure energy that couldn't rely upon a single insecure break point. Had the unions not caused energy supply to be unreliable then the pit closures may never have happened. But the coal was not just unprofitable; it was both unprofitable and unreliable - the worst of all worlds.
This was as we were heading into a technological age too. Computers have changed the world we live in dramatically and much of the science and technology was coming from the UK - but how could the UK be a serious nation using the technology we were helping invent if we didn't have sustainable electricity and guaranteed supply?
Secure energy supply is a matter of security and not just money. Compromising our security as well as supporting the financial aspects of unprofitable pits was unsustainable. Nowadays we view nations not having secure energy supply as being a third world problem - it is never a price worth paying for a nation like the UK.
Comments
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/05/20/patients-left-unwashed-and-forced-to-drink-from-vases-yet-former-stafford-hospital-staff-claimed-3-million-during-failings-period/
Tax-dodger Hodge quits as PAC chair
http://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/margaret-hodge-not-standing-again-pac-chair
Kendall could work in England, Murphy was full of lies and ran the most dishonest campaign I've ever bore witness to - #Toriesout when he needed them to tactically vote for him to save his own seat. It was sub-Clegg.
Kendall's biggest fan @foxinsoxuk isn't what I'd call a diehard Tory either...
Unless he can rewrite the rule book in the next month, he'll have the biggest comeback since Lazarus just to be a MSP at all. The constituency places are already allocated to PPCs and the list places go first to sitting list MSPs. There'd need ot be some serious arm-twisting for anyone to make way for Mr Murphy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11618229/SNP-MPs-told-to-behave-like-adults-amid-concerns-about-lightweight-image.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoASZyihalc
The SNP are perfectly entitled to the seats that the Lib Dems would occupy previously in opposition. That isn't Skinners seat though. Had the LD and SNP seat numbers not reversed then Skinner would still be sitting where he has sat for decades. Not the Lib Dems.
A civil war is when it happens outside of the window of a leadership contest. Now is the time to get it all out in the open because afterwards is too late.
This guy is damaged goods. Labour would be crazy to elect him. I read some lunatic rubbish today that he is the candidate the tories 'fear'
All those commentators who got the election so spectacularly wrong. It seems they are still in a job.
Parliament deserves no respect until it is entirely elected and the UK has an elected head of state. Until then it should be treated with the disdain it merits.
What "contribution" has Skinner made? The only one I can think of was his part in the 1979 rebellion inserting the ridiculous 40% clause into the Scotland Act delaying a Scottish assembly for 18 years and holding back an Independence which would likely have happened around the time of the millennium
He deserves nothing but contempt and should have been deselected by his party years ago. He doesn't even come across as compes.
Mr. Simon, that would seem a very strange appointment indeed.
Seriously do the SNP have nothing better to do than this?
Is precedence important, or is it an irrelevant and hopeless "custom" of Parliament?
I'm not necessarily saying a move to the Left would work either though -- tbh, I'm starting to think parts of the South just feel Labour is "culturally" so distant from them that they're never going to win there no matter what they say or how far right or left they move.
I can't imagine the SNP winning any plaudits for telling an octogenarian that he can't sit in his seat that he's occupied for forty years. Even if Skinner is stuck in his ways its to be expected. My grandad is roughly the same age and always sits in the same seat too, I wouldn't think it big or clever to try and take that away from him. It's juvenile and petty posturing. That was obvious as soon as this came out.
Burnham will be Labour's Michael Howard (Milliband was Hague and IDS rolled into one)
He is a relatively competent and experienced politician. I don't think he can get Labour back into power but he can be a "safe pair of hands" which is exactly what Labour need's after the 2015 shock.
He will bring Labour a decent improvement in terms of their party machine and he will win back a few seat's in 2020... Paving the way for a Labour majority in the mid 2020's.
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/murphy-ally-ken-macintosh-set-to-throw-his-hat-in-the-ring-for-leadership-of-scottish-labour.3127
Sure, he is spoken of as an ally to Mr M, but he'd have to bump himself onto the list to make room, and that would be very unpopular with many SLABbers - remember what Dair pointed out, there are only so many list seats and they are already occupied de facto.
And if Mr Murphy comes back in 2020, he'd be not so much reanimated as reincarnated - and you have to look beyond the Good Book and more to the Buddhist sutras for that.
Peerage for Mr Murphy perhaps?
"my record in constituencies beginning with B is unsurpassed."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/lord-ashcroft-we-can-all-agree-it-wasn-t-great-election-pollsters
For Labour to come back with a majority they will have to win votes and seats from both the SNP and the Tories - how the hell are they going to do that unless they face up to the realities of balanced budgets and losing Unite?? And at the same time avoiding more seepage to Ukip in the north and the Greens everywhere else!
On other hand, a Labour minority is in a sense even harder to get because it would mean a rainbow coalition involving the SNP, Plaid, SDLP, Greens - even if the numbers stack up, we saw how this went down with English voters
I have seen her look impressive and also the standard Labour automaton, I wouldn't rate her above Cooper and I don't think the Conservatives would be too concerned by her, although she would be a better choice than Burnham.
Where having a woman Labour leader would help politics is we might see less of the class war nasty personal abuse that ruined so much of the debate in the last parliament. Cooper though surely would be a more sensible choice to the very inexperienced, unproven Kendall.
Silly to fight a battle you're not going to win.
Seriously delusional.. :-).. Ed Miliband would be proud of his pupil.....
On that note, both the Clay Cross Company and Butterley were lost under New Labour. They are missed.
The status quo ante in Wilson's day was no EEC membership. The status quo now is membership. All else being equal the passage of time would see more say in not less.
Nothing is certain indeed but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that 50% of Tory voters voting out if Cameron etc are pushing In. While the notion 30% of the 2015 Lib Dems voting Out is about as plausible as 30% of Kippers voting In.
Half the Conservatives, most of Labour and pretty much every other party will campaign for In. Only half the Conservatives, a handful of Labour and UKIP will be for Out.
The BBC will be for In. I think that more newspapers than expected may go for In as well.
The electorate want to kick politicians, but the choice will be presented as uncertainty versus a slightly stained comfort blanket. Out will be unable to unite, I would suggest, and will fail to offer a basic vision of what Out means.
I think In will win by a fairly comfortable margin.
Supporters of @MaryCreaghMP "pretty confident" will secure required 35 nominations for leadership contest
Just wondering how that'll affect things.
Interesting piece, incidentally. For what it's worth, I think a 3 year break clause is mental. It'd make every loser from the leadership try and bolster their prospects, and they could even ally to oust the incumbent and have a second shot. And why's it needed? Because Labour MPs are too weak to do what's necessary.
Even the Lib Dems axed Kennedy and Campbell.
Also I have read his Northern roots might help him, black mark there as well outside Merseyside his Scouse roots are a negative, most people in the North and Midlands have little time for Scousers outside the immediate area, where Labour are fine.
In the key marginals a Scouse Labour leader is a negative starting point not a positive even in the North.
My Grandad used to live in NE Derbyshire and, much as he admired Harry Barnes, he was more affectionate of the Beast of Bolsover.
Question is will the fear mongering work, an independent Britain is more sustainable than an independent Scotland. Hopefully enough business leaders speak up.
I think if the EU offer no reforms then Out will win from discussions I have seen, a lot of people seem to be on the fence.
But he's an MP elected by his constituents. I'll oppose everything he stands for, but I don't oppose treating him with common courtesy and basic respect. Can you not understand the difference?
Labour need a charismatic leader who looks like a possible PM, then they need to cross their fingers and hope that the Tories fcuk up somehow.
It's more than possible that Yvette could beat Andy & Liz head-to-head, but gets eliminated before them.
But this is not one of them. As the third largest party with 56 seats, they should be merited the front two benches in that section. No ifs buts and no "Dennis wants to crack a weak joke when Black Rod walks by".
Tory voters will only vote for In in large numbers if a major renegotiation, which is unlikely, Cameron is more likely to get token concessions
RCS1000 You are technically right yes
Oh and they are in substantially worse condition than they were 50 years ago because Maggie decided she'd rather have a large chunk of the residents on the dole instead of cutting coal.
Skinner is an irrelevant and there are not enough seats for the MPs that are there, it is therefore of no value to waste a space on someone just so they can crack a crap joke once a year.
The most extreme BOO voters for both parties have already gone to UKIP. Barring some major screw up Out can expect all the UKIP votes and maybe a quarter of Tory and Labour voters.
Crush, Never! ;-)
Liz is not from Leicester, but has adopted it and Leicester is famously welcoming to incomers.
Her plans for a ground up system driven by service users with power devolved downwards is quite revolutionary. Some advocate marketisation for this, but Liz does not. She believes that the welfare state can be much more customer friendly while remaining state delivered.
She co edited a paper on this just last autumn:
http://www.policy-network.net/publications_detail.aspx?ID=4746
In many ways this is the equivalent of the Orange Book. It shows that Liz has thought more about the issues than most in Labour.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/business-news/400-distribution-jobs-for-chesterfield-1-7220598 etc...
@Dair, @Richard_Dodd I'm no Labour man but you've both gone too far :P
Scandalously late big investment has gone in around the new motorway junction area 29A and Shirebrook, although a lot of the new work has attracted Eastern European Labour, Skinner has played his part in that new investment to be fair.
I do expect though the demographics to follow some of the marginals a bit further south and trend more Conservative as time goes on, more in the NE Derbyshire seat than Bolsover.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-porn-movie-mogul-Johnny-Rockard-suspended/story-26541848-detail/story.html
Due Diligence Rules OK. How has he upset Nigel Farage?
Coal was needed to provide energy. There should have been a "plan for energy" and there was - using a mix of nuclear, oil and gas as well as coal. While ending the need for power cuts or a three day week.
Coal strikes made coal unreliable long before Thatcher. Now when we plug a device into a socket and turn a switch it works. Good riddance to the idea of energy being an optional something that we might have if some people felt like it.
Burnham wants to win.
http://www.capx.co/labour-looks-totally-stuffed/
You can partly blame my ancestors for any mess that has been made in Northern Ireland. And India. And Eire, come to think of it. And the less said about America the better
Wouldn't bet against Cameron going again, if he is the most likely winner again next time from the leading Conservative politicians, which I can't see he won't be.
If a pit is unprofitable, but the cost of closure including knock on economic and social problems is significant, should it be shut? There's a good economic debate there.
I accept your point about strikes, they turned the idea of energy security on its head.
MD Agree, ringfencing was a terrible idea, has drastically weakened our armed forces and meant that our own poor and vulnerable have had to bear a disproportionate share of the burden while grand overseas aid projects are thought up to try and justify the coffers overflowing at DFID and far too much of that still fails to reach those who actually need it.
Each department should have faced exactly the same percentage cuts
This was as we were heading into a technological age too. Computers have changed the world we live in dramatically and much of the science and technology was coming from the UK - but how could the UK be a serious nation using the technology we were helping invent if we didn't have sustainable electricity and guaranteed supply?
Secure energy supply is a matter of security and not just money. Compromising our security as well as supporting the financial aspects of unprofitable pits was unsustainable. Nowadays we view nations not having secure energy supply as being a third world problem - it is never a price worth paying for a nation like the UK.