A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
Unions are important to Labour. Lots of guff in the media about them. Put in brass tacks they provide competent people who can organise. Most union folk in Labour are as solid as a rock.
Indeed they are important to Labour - just not to anybody else. If union folk in Labour are 'solid as a rock' - and I have no reason to doubt you - then let them join the party as individual members.
In other words, to Labour they are important - but to everyone else they try to fix the leadership contest and impose their preferred policies on the party.
As someone just said, you are reduced to cities and former mining areas - you have an existential problem which cannot be fixed by merely electing a new leader.
I counted 389 seats where Labour scored more than 25% of the vote, compared to 48 LDs and 16 UKIP. It is not just the coalfields and inner cities where there is a significant vote to be had.
The problem with the unions is that their leaders are usually far to the left of the membership, and obsessed by politicking rather than the nuts and bolts reasons why people join a union: to negotiate terms and conditions for the staffside and be advocates in disputes with management.
There is still very much a need for unions. I left the BMA (only 60% of British docs are members) to join the HCSA (affiliated to the TUC no less!) Because the HCSA does not put out statements about global warming, but does stand up for its members in contractual disputes very effectively.
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
Unions are important to Labour. Lots of guff in the media about them. Put in brass tacks they provide competent people who can organise. Most union folk in Labour are as solid as a rock.
Indeed they are important to Labour - just not to anybody else. If union folk in Labour are 'solid as a rock' - and I have no reason to doubt you - then let them join the party as individual members.
In other words, to Labour they are important - but to everyone else they try to fix the leadership contest and impose their preferred policies on the party.
As someone just said, you are reduced to cities and former mining areas - you have an existential problem which cannot be fixed by merely electing a new leader.
Oh FFS, not that long ago the Tories were in a far worse state. Reduced to far fewer rural areas. It happens.
No need to swear - it makes it hard to take you seriously.
I am not for a minute saying that Labour will never again form a government - I am sure that they will. But you have some very serious problems you need to handle first.
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
Unions are important to Labour. Lots of guff in the media about them. Put in brass tacks they provide competent people who can organise. Most union folk in Labour are as solid as a rock.
Indeed they are important to Labour - just not to anybody else. If union folk in Labour are 'solid as a rock' - and I have no reason to doubt you - then let them join the party as individual members.
In other words, to Labour they are important - but to everyone else they try to fix the leadership contest and impose their preferred policies on the party.
As someone just said, you are reduced to cities and former mining areas - you have an existential problem which cannot be fixed by merely electing a new leader.
I counted 389 seats where Labour scored more than 25% of the vote, compared to 48 LDs and 16 UKIP. It is not just the coalfields and inner cities where there is a significant vote to be had.
The problem with the unions is that their leaders are usually far to the left of the membership, and obsessed by politicking rather than the nuts and bolts reasons why people join a union: to negotiate terms and conditions for the staffside and be advocates in disputes with management.
There is still very much a need for unions. I left the BMA (only 60% of British docs are members) to join the HCSA (affiliated to the TUC no less!) Because the HCSA does not put out statements about global warming, but does stand up for its members in contractual disputes very effectively.
Unions are not the problem - it's the link with the Labour party that is a big problem. Unions are fine. But the link is an anachronism far past its sell by date, and they will continue to influence the party to the left which is not helpful.
Like you, Stodge, i am having difficulty coming to terms with the defeat. Your analysis was interesting and valid, but I do think that the Tories did have a favourable economic wind. Many people on the doorstep thought the Tories economic policies had brought about the very low interest rates. It was difficult to dissuade them. The reduction in the price of fuel has also meant that many feel just a little better off. Again nothing to do with Tory policies. Osborne was also clever in targetting pensioners with his bond, which proved popular. So yes, Labour made many mistakes, Ed, economy, Scot Nats, and perhaps we were always going to struggle, but at the end of the day luck was on their side. As someone just said, if the omnishamble budget had happened in 2014 or 2015 it could have been a whole different ball game. On the leadership I am in favour of Kendall, but will watch her closely to see how things pan out. We need a new vision and someone not tainted with previous failures.
Owen Jones is on the BBC so often, does he have his own office / bed at broadcasting house? Be more cost effective to put a bed in a store cupboard for him, than constantly sending for a driver. I am sure he can write his Guardian column from there too.
The problem with the unions is that their leaders are usually far to the left of the membership, and obsessed by politicking rather than the nuts and bolts reasons why people join a union: to negotiate terms and conditions for the staffside and be advocates in disputes with management.
It's not even a case of union leaders being left-wing, particularly. It's more just a case of them choosing whoever strokes their egos the most.
Stodge Sunil Indeed and the Tories picked Hague over Clarke in 1997 too. Other examples are Labour picking Foot over Healey or the Tories Home over Butler
Ah yes it was Butler I think, not Macleod as I suggested previously, who Enoch said fluffed his chance to become leader instead of Home.
15% is a low threshold - to fail it basically means Burnham and Cooper need over 85% between them - that would be an extraordinarily high number.
Some may nominate Creagh but assuming she fails her nomination won't go in and these people can then switch to Kendall if necessary.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Kendall is the type of candidate like post-2000 Portillo who is currently more popular outside her own party because a) Centrist and so appeals to people with absolutely no interest in the Labour Party b) Appeals to journalists who have a lot of control over the direction of hype. Creagh might have been a better candidate of that nature, but Kendall did well on a Sunday morning TV show that lots of journalists were watching but c) partisans would still like to see if there is some way to win an election without ditching many of their dearly-held objectives, and the Blair example means choosing a centrist leader smacks of defeatism and, ultimately, masochism
A leader that moves quicker than the critics A positive, fresh vision of the future that inspires genuine enthusiasm without reference to Tories All parts of the movement working together. An end to the statement... I am better off with Labour because .......
And Luck
That's all flash and trash - what you need is an existential evaluation of what the point of the party is.
They don't need a 'positive fresh vision of the future' etc and the other guff - that's way in the future and merely something dishonest to sell - first they need to acquire a cohesive political philosophy on which to hang their policies. Anything backed by unions is a non-starter. Anything left of center (sorry - spell checker) is problematic.
This 'movement' stuff - you have to ditch the unions. They are an albatross around Labour's neck, even though they fund you, which is something else you need to deal with.
Unions are important to Labour. Lots of guff in the media about them. Put in brass tacks they provide competent people who can organise. Most union folk in Labour are as solid as a rock.
Indeed they are important to Labour - just not to anybody else. If union folk in Labour are 'solid as a rock' - and I have no reason to doubt you - then let them join the party as individual members.
In other words, to Labour they are important - but to everyone else they try to fix the leadership contest and impose their preferred policies on the party.
As someone just said, you are reduced to cities and former mining areas - you have an existential problem which cannot be fixed by merely electing a new leader.
I counted 389 seats where Labour scored more than 25% of the vote, compared to 48 LDs and 16 UKIP. It is not just the coalfields and inner cities where there is a significant vote to be had.
The problem with the unions is that their leaders are usually far to the left of the membership, and obsessed by politicking rather than the nuts and bolts reasons why people join a union: to negotiate terms and conditions for the staffside and be advocates in disputes with management.
There is still very much a need for unions. I left the BMA (only 60% of British docs are members) to join the HCSA (affiliated to the TUC no less!) Because the HCSA does not put out statements about global warming, but does stand up for its members in contractual disputes very effectively.
This is very true, well said. Unions should generally be a good thing. But (as a union man myself, though not a Labour man) the leaders are all too often nutty egomaniacal Trots.
15% is a low threshold - to fail it basically means Burnham and Cooper need over 85% between them - that would be an extraordinarily high number.
Some may nominate Creagh but assuming she fails her nomination won't go in and these people can then switch to Kendall if necessary.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Of course it was possible that if the maximum number of candidates had managed to get nominations that no prospective leader would have 'enjoyed the confidence' of any more than that amount - surely the idea is that MPs like the wider party might be inspired to be confident in the candidates, perhaps even one they did nominate, through the campaign. Of course now I believe we won't know how the MPs vote after the nomination stage, so the nomination stage is all we have to see how much support from the parliamentary party each one gets - even if theoretically one could be so amazing they convert nearly all the MPs to their side later.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Ed Milliband had less than one in four back him and the parliamentary party were pretty disciplined over the last five years.
The figure of one in six is still very stark! And, there is a qualitative difference. The cleavage in EdM's time was triumphant incumbent Brownians versus Blairites put to the sword. Whereas Kendall would be imposing change from outside - if, that is to say, she doesn't get a big surge of nominees from behind the apparent Burnham-Cooper wall.
EPG But Clarke was actually more popular than Portillo in 2001 and had been a Cabinet Minster for years, had he been Tory leader Labour would probably have lost their majority in 2005
15% is a low threshold - to fail it basically means Burnham and Cooper need over 85% between them - that would be an extraordinarily high number.
Some may nominate Creagh but assuming she fails her nomination won't go in and these people can then switch to Kendall if necessary.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Of course it was possible that if the maximum number of candidates had managed to get nominations that no prospective leader would have 'enjoyed the confidence' of any more than that amount - surely the idea is that MPs like the wider party might be inspired to be confident in the candidates, perhaps even one they did nominate, through the campaign. Of course now I believe we won't know how the MPs vote after the nomination stage, so the nomination stage is all we have to see how much support from the parliamentary party each one gets - even if theoretically one could be so amazing they convert nearly all the MPs to their side later.
Yeah, absolutely. But it is hard to see why one would vote for a challenger after being so quick to nominate a frontrunner. I can see it working the other way around, but the psychology of switching to vote for the more likely loser is difficult for me to understand. And the qualitative nature of the race between continuity Burnham/Cooper versus reformer Kendall matters as well. The vast bulk of nominations are going, albeit apparently unhappily, to no-change candidates.
I observe that Clarke did not win the leadership either.
Clarke could possibly have won if he'd taken IDS more seriously. He was woefully under-prepared for the televised Newsnight debate between the two of them.
15% is a low threshold - to fail it basically means Burnham and Cooper need over 85% between them - that would be an extraordinarily high number.
Some may nominate Creagh but assuming she fails her nomination won't go in and these people can then switch to Kendall if necessary.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Kendall is the type of candidate like post-2000 Portillo who is currently more popular outside her own party because a) Centrist and so appeals to people with absolutely no interest in the Labour Party b) Appeals to journalists who have a lot of control over the direction of hype. Creagh might have been a better candidate of that nature, but Kendall did well on a Sunday morning TV show that lots of journalists were watching but c) partisans would still like to see if there is some way to win an election without ditching many of their dearly-held objectives, and the Blair example means choosing a centrist leader smacks of defeatism and, ultimately, masochism
Over 90 of the MPs entered in 2010 or 2015. They do not want to be opposition backbenchers their whole careers. They will vote on policy, but will also want someone who is a winner. The same goes for many members. Can Liz round up enough supporters? I think so.
Interesting to see George Osborne is 43. Same age as Liz...
Butler was always going to be kept down by his one persistent flaw as a candidate. There is a reason why the first three post-war Tory Prime Ministers were Churchill, Eden and Macmillan, a triumvirate who had been skulking around the fringes in the mid-to-late 30s. They got something very right, as people saw it, that Butler got very wrong.
For all the talk of Labour going through a patch of blood-letting, they're actually in a pretty good place. All three candidates are a significant improvement on Ed (who, much maligned though he was, was himself a significant improvement on Gordon). There are no out-and-out nutters on offer who could accidentally slip through the net a la Michael Foot. To my (Tory) eyes, by far the most attractive candidate of the three is Liz Kendall; her detractors describe her as Blairite, but I can only see that she is in the sense that she, in contrast to her predecessor a) doesn't necessarily regard the private sector as a semi-criminal enterprise, b) appears to have actually met some of the white working class without instinctively loathing them or treating them as a sociology project, and c) might win an election. She has a slightly annoying reedy voice, but that didn't appear to hold Margaret Thatcher back. Of the other two, Andy Burnham suffers by his association with the unions, Stafford General Hospital, being slightly Scouse and looking a little odd (but all of these are a big step forward from Ed Miliband's similar electoral drawbacks), and Yvette Cooper is too associated with Ed Balls. But really, all three are miles ahead of what Labour had before.
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
Welcome to the new you! I made the mistake of having a really boring account name that I used elsewhere rather than the one I wanted to use (which had been the 'quote' that showed up with my Discus account) and I'm too worried people won't know how much of an obsessed anorak I am if I started afresh.
I'd like to think there are some awkward conversations going on where someone told a candidate they'd back them, but having now seen the pitch of some of the others have decided to change their pick. Purely as an amusing scenario, no other reason.
15% is a low threshold - to fail it basically means Burnham and Cooper need over 85% between them - that would be an extraordinarily high number.
Some may nominate Creagh but assuming she fails her nomination won't go in and these people can then switch to Kendall if necessary.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Kendall is the type of candidate like post-2000 Portillo who is currently more popular outside her own party because a) Centrist and so appeals to people with absolutely no interest in the Labour Party b) Appeals to journalists who have a lot of control over the direction of hype. Creagh might have been a better candidate of that nature, but Kendall did well on a Sunday morning TV show that lots of journalists were watching but c) partisans would still like to see if there is some way to win an election without ditching many of their dearly-held objectives, and the Blair example means choosing a centrist leader smacks of defeatism and, ultimately, masochism
Over 90 of the MPs entered in 2010 or 2015. They do not want to be opposition backbenchers their whole careers. They will vote on policy, but will also want someone who is a winner. The same goes for many members. Can Liz round up enough supporters? I think so.
Interesting to see George Osborne is 43. Same age as Liz...
Perhaps terrifyingly for Labour, many of the 2015 intake seemed positively happy to stand under an EdM manifesto and to dissuade change in a rightward direction. I wonder if it's because they disproportionately come from ex-Lib Dem seats, seeing themselves as slayers of centre-deviationism?
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
Welcome to the new you! I made the mistake of having a really boring account name that I used elsewhere rather than the one I wanted to use (which had been the 'quote' that showed up with my Discus account) and I'm too worried people won't know how much of an obsessed anorak I am if I started afresh.
When the site moved from Disqus we lost much of that track record anyway, so I reckoned it was worth it for a name with more intrigue. I've long been hoping for the Twitter handle @thewhiterabbit (so you could "Follow @thewhiterabbit") but alas it is already taken.
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
Welcome to the new you! I made the mistake of having a really boring account name that I used elsewhere rather than the one I wanted to use (which had been the 'quote' that showed up with my Discus account) and I'm too worried people won't know how much of an obsessed anorak I am if I started afresh.
Mine carried over from the Leicester City fansite. Jamie Vardy picked for England I see?
Interesting! His shooting is wayward but his pace and energy often pulls opposing defences out of place so others can score. Bet on this basis if he starts the match.
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
"Posts: 0" it says, without a hint of something being wrong.
I am a tad disappointed, White Rabbit.
After Grandiose, I expected you would be elevated (by the lift operator at the House of Lords) to at least Landed_Gentry, Earl_Of_March, or possibly even The Honourable Peregrine David Euan Malcolm Hay, later Moncreiffe of that Ilk.
WhiteRabbit makes me wonder if you've been reading your Charles Dodgson while being repeatedly hit on the head with the EdStone as penance
15% is a low threshold - to fail it basically means Burnham and Cooper need over 85% between them - that would be an extraordinarily high number.
Some may nominate Creagh but assuming she fails her nomination won't go in and these people can then switch to Kendall if necessary.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Kendall is the type of candidate like post-2000 Portillo who is currently more popular outside her own party because a) Centrist and so appeals to people with absolutely no interest in the Labour Party b) Appeals to journalists who have a lot of control over the direction of hype. Creagh might have been a better candidate of that nature, but Kendall did well on a Sunday morning TV show that lots of journalists were watching but c) partisans would still like to see if there is some way to win an election without ditching many of their dearly-held objectives, and the Blair example means choosing a centrist leader smacks of defeatism and, ultimately, masochism
Over 90 of the MPs entered in 2010 or 2015. They do not want to be opposition backbenchers their whole careers. They will vote on policy, but will also want someone who is a winner. The same goes for many members. Can Liz round up enough supporters? I think so.
Interesting to see George Osborne is 43. Same age as Liz...
Perhaps terrifyingly for Labour, many of the 2015 intake seemed positively happy to stand under an EdM manifesto and to dissuade change in a rightward direction. I wonder if it's because they disproportionately come from ex-Lib Dem seats, seeing themselves as slayers of centre-deviationism?
Nothing changes minds and principles faster than a whiff of power...
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
Welcome to the new you! I made the mistake of having a really boring account name that I used elsewhere rather than the one I wanted to use (which had been the 'quote' that showed up with my Discus account) and I'm too worried people won't know how much of an obsessed anorak I am if I started afresh.
Mine carried over from the Leicester City fansite. Jamie Vardy picked for England I see?
Interesting! His shooting is wayward but his pace and energy often pulls opposing defences out of place so others can score. Bet on this basis if he starts the match.
Presumably more in that left-winger role than an as a forward (but I've noticed he does tend to take that deeper, wider role, even when playing as a forward).
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
"Posts: 0" it says, without a hint of something being wrong.
I am a tad disappointed, White Rabbit.
After Grandiose, I expected you would be elevated (by the lift operator at the House of Lords) to at least Landed_Gentry, Earl_Of_March, or possibly even The Honourable Peregrine David Euan Malcolm Hay, later Moncreiffe of that Ilk.
WhiteRabbit makes me wonder if you've been reading your Charles Dodgson while being repeatedly hit on the head with the EdStone as penance
I can't really remember how I alighted at "Grandiose" on the first site I sued it. I do remember having to think up something for the there are then though.
My peerage has been lost in the post.
Carroll's white rabbit has been rather moulded by more recent popular culture. Thus "to go down the rabbit hole" is to enter a period of adventure, or intrigue, now most famously in the Matrix, but also frequently associated with hallucionegic drugs... thus the white rabbit becomes the guide, or instigator. The person to follow through a mad world.
I read that many Labour MPs want another leadership election in three years, without even knowing who will win this one. What a striking vote of no confidence in all comers. Problem: An EdM leadership election in mid-2013 would have resulted in his resounding re-election, so why would it be different this time? Admittedly, giving your new leader less than 18 months in the public eye would be folly. Given this, we must assume there are tactics going on. Why would you want to defer your Labour leadership bid for three years, or why would you want to help other MPs defer theirs? Suggestions? Holyrood 2016. Cardiff Bay 2016. European referendum 2016/17.
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
Welcome to the new you! I made the mistake of having a really boring account name that I used elsewhere rather than the one I wanted to use (which had been the 'quote' that showed up with my Discus account) and I'm too worried people won't know how much of an obsessed anorak I am if I started afresh.
Mine carried over from the Leicester City fansite. Jamie Vardy picked for England I see?
Interesting! His shooting is wayward but his pace and energy often pulls opposing defences out of place so others can score. Bet on this basis if he starts the match.
Presumably more in that left-winger role than an as a forward (but I've noticed he does tend to take that deeper, wider role, even when playing as a forward).
He usually plays on the side (either left or right, and often swapping) of a 343 formation, with a slightly deeper target man, so if this formation then expect Rooney or Austin to be the scorer.
I read that many Labour MPs want another leadership election in three years, without even knowing who will win this one. What a striking vote of no confidence in all comers. Problem: An EdM leadership election in mid-2013 would have resulted in his resounding re-election, so why would it be different this time? Admittedly, giving your new leader less than 18 months in the public eye would be folly. Given this, we must assume there are tactics going on. Why would you want to defer your Labour leadership bid for three years, or why would you want to help other MPs defer theirs? Suggestions? Holyrood 2016. Cardiff Bay 2016. European referendum 2016/17.
I doubt any "hostile" election in three years would be successful. Only one with at least the previous agreement of the interim leader, most probably with them not standing again. As to why: well, it would have to be someone who only wanted three years.
Potentially someone who thought they'd only be able to successfully contest this election on that basis, but I doubt it.
More likely someone who wants to see the Labour Party mended as "their contribution" - someone who was always the birdesmaid in years passed. Hence why Johnson is mentioned so frequently.
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
"Posts: 0" it says, without a hint of something being wrong.
I am a tad disappointed, White Rabbit.
After Grandiose, I expected you would be elevated (by the lift operator at the House of Lords) to at least Landed_Gentry, Earl_Of_March, or possibly even The Honourable Peregrine David Euan Malcolm Hay, later Moncreiffe of that Ilk.
WhiteRabbit makes me wonder if you've been reading your Charles Dodgson while being repeatedly hit on the head with the EdStone as penance
I can't really remember how I alighted at "Grandiose" on the first site I sued it. I do remember having to think up something for the there are then though.
My peerage has been lost in the post.
Carroll's white rabbit has been rather moulded by more recent popular culture. Thus "to go down the rabbit hole" is to enter a period of adventure, or intrigue, now most famously in the Matrix, but also frequently associated with hallucionegic drugs... thus the white rabbit becomes the guide, or instigator. The person to follow through a mad world.
That sounds suspiciously like Graham Norton, who should be kept out of range of Roman Polanski, the original 5 foot pole nobody wants to touch.
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
Welcome to the new you! I made the mistake of having a really boring account name that I used elsewhere rather than the one I wanted to use (which had been the 'quote' that showed up with my Discus account) and I'm too worried people won't know how much of an obsessed anorak I am if I started afresh.
Mine carried over from the Leicester City fansite. Jamie Vardy picked for England I see?
Interesting! His shooting is wayward but his pace and energy often pulls opposing defences out of place so others can score. Bet on this basis if he starts the match.
Presumably more in that left-winger role than an as a forward (but I've noticed he does tend to take that deeper, wider role, even when playing as a forward).
He usually plays on the side (either left or right, and often swapping) of a 343 formation, with a slightly deeper target man, so if this formation then expect Rooney or Austin to be the scorer.
Which means either pushing Welbeck similarly out wide or having Rooney/Austin/Welbeck all compete for the central position. I would have thought Sterling would fit best in the other wide role. I think we need to tone down the "total football" World Cup experiment a bit - kep the central column and give the wingers the creative role.
@BBCNewsnight: Our @BBCAllegra confirms that Stephen Kinnock and other new MPs are calling for a three year 'tenure' for the next Labour leader
Sounds about right, and then Jarvis, Chukka and Stella can fight it out properly.
What they should be advocating is a rule change so that a leader can be deposed more easily. A fixed term just makes for a lame duck.
The rules allow a leader to be deposed, you just need people to be willing to put their heads above the parapet and pull the trigger. The problem isn't the rules, its people being to frit to stand up and say "you need to go".
Everyone and their uncle now seems to know what Miliband did wrong and knew it at the time, but which of these Labour MPs were publicly calling No Confidence in Miliband beforehand?
New parliament, new account for the User Formerly Known as Grandiose.
Welcome to the new you! I made the mistake of having a really boring account name that I used elsewhere rather than the one I wanted to use (which had been the 'quote' that showed up with my Discus account) and I'm too worried people won't know how much of an obsessed anorak I am if I started afresh.
Mine carried over from the Leicester City fansite. Jamie Vardy picked for England I see?
Interesting! His shooting is wayward but his pace and energy often pulls opposing defences out of place so others can score. Bet on this basis if he starts the match.
Presumably more in that left-winger role than an as a forward (but I've noticed he does tend to take that deeper, wider role, even when playing as a forward).
He usually plays on the side (either left or right, and often swapping) of a 343 formation, with a slightly deeper target man, so if this formation then expect Rooney or Austin to be the scorer.
Which means either pushing Welbeck similarly out wide or having Rooney/Austin/Welbeck all compete for the central position. I would have thought Sterling would fit best in the other wide role. I think we need to tone down the "total football" World Cup experiment a bit - kep the central column and give the wingers the creative role.
I think more likely for Vardy to come on for Sterling second half and Austin for Rooney.
For all the talk of Labour going through a patch of blood-letting, they're actually in a pretty good place. All three candidates are a significant improvement on Ed (who, much maligned though he was, was himself a significant improvement on Gordon). There are no out-and-out nutters on offer who could accidentally slip through the net a la Michael Foot. To my (Tory) eyes, by far the most attractive candidate of the three is Liz Kendall; her detractors describe her as Blairite, but I can only see that she is in the sense that she, in contrast to her predecessor a) doesn't necessarily regard the private sector as a semi-criminal enterprise, b) appears to have actually met some of the white working class without instinctively loathing them or treating them as a sociology project, and c) might win an election. She has a slightly annoying reedy voice, but that didn't appear to hold Margaret Thatcher back. Of the other two, Andy Burnham suffers by his association with the unions, Stafford General Hospital, being slightly Scouse and looking a little odd (but all of these are a big step forward from Ed Miliband's similar electoral drawbacks), and Yvette Cooper is too associated with Ed Balls. But really, all three are miles ahead of what Labour had before.
If Burnham is such a significant improvement on Miliband why did he come fourth last time? What's changed? And importantly why could not of these MPs stand up when it was so clear Miliband was failing over a five year period?
Back in 2005 there was a serious debate between the Cameron "modernisers" and the Davis "clear blue water" approach, a debate over the future of the party in policy, priorities and more. Where is that debate today for Labour?
All I see is a glorified popularity contest. I don't see any form of serious debate over changing tack into a different direction as Cameron was proposing before he was elected, or as Blair was proposing before he was. Steady as she goes but with a new captain isn't what is needed.
Anyone know why this is ...? The Lib Dems are a minor party now, are they still going to appear every week as it seems to be the case.
There was no UKIP representative on the panel, don't know if they were invited but refused to send anyone or just weren't invited. But why are the Lib Dems permanently invited still?
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Ed Milliband had less than one in four back him and the parliamentary party were pretty disciplined over the last five years.
Yes, nominating X doesn't mean you deeply mistrust Y. It doesn't even necessarily mean you'll vote for X. I've not decided who I'll vote for as leader yet (Stella wins my deputy vote in a canter), but I wouldn't hate any of the remaining 4, for the reasons Cookie sets out.
I think the 3-year probation period idea is nuts, though. The Tory media would do the tick-tock routine for 1000 days. If the new leader is good, we don't need it. If they're rubbish, we have the familiar choice of sticking with them or risking a major row - but the latter will arise even with a formal 3-year challenge period. Let's try to get it right, without a prenup giving an exit route.
Anyone know why this is ...? The Lib Dems are a minor party now, are they still going to appear every week as it seems to be the case.
There was no UKIP representative on the panel, don't know if they were invited but refused to send anyone or just weren't invited. But why are the Lib Dems permanently invited still?
Maybe the loyalty oaths in blood haven't been sent back to Nige yet.
I read that many Labour MPs want another leadership election in three years, without even knowing who will win this one. What a striking vote of no confidence in all comers.
Indeed. It's tantamount to saying they are worried whoever they pick will be crap, but not crap enough for anyone to force a leadership change so they need to write into the rules that they will need to renew their leadership at that point. And as you point out, Ed M would have easily won re-election if he'd faced the same issue, so what's even the point?
Maybe whoever Labour pick will be crap, so crap the party will, this time, replace them before the next GE, but if that is going to happen, it'll happen whether there's a rule in place about another election in a few years or not, and if there is one it is just stir up the opponents, internal and external.
Indeed. It's tantamount to saying they are worried whoever they pick will be crap, but not crap enough for anyone to force a leadership change so they need to write into the rules that they will need to renew their leadership at that point.
The other way of interpreting it is that they want to make a 'brave' choice but don't quite have the courage without a fall-back option.
It is hard to imagine how any parliamentary party would act if its leader enjoyed the confidence of about one in six of its MPs.
Ed Milliband had less than one in four back him and the parliamentary party were pretty disciplined over the last five years.
Yes, nominating X doesn't mean you deeply mistrust Y. It doesn't even necessarily mean you'll vote for X. I've not decided who I'll vote for as leader yet (Stella wins my deputy vote in a canter), but I wouldn't hate any of the remaining 4, for the reasons Cookie sets out.
I think the 3-year probation period idea is nuts, though. The Tory media would do the tick-tock routine for 1000 days. If the new leader is good, we don't need it. If they're rubbish, we have the familiar choice of sticking with them or risking a major row - but the latter will arise even with a formal 3-year challenge period. Let's try to get it right, without a prenup giving an exit route.
But in most countries, they don't pick their candidate for president/prime minister until much closer to the election?
We could even do like Germany and formally separate out the "party leader" and then have a separate selection for the "prime minister candidate" about a year before the election (which could be but wouldn't necessarily have to be the party leader).
PT All Cameron really offered was Blair mark 2 at that time, they are talking a bit more about aspiration, business etc but it will be the events of the next 5 years and indeed the new Tory leader and the mood for change which determines the result, the Tories had already lost the 1997 election before Blair became leader, Labour lost because of Brown's dithering and his economic errors in their last term
'Indeed. It's tantamount to saying they are worried whoever they pick will be crap'
If a company hires a CEO that turns out to be crap they are fired, why should a political party be different?
Parties should fire a leader who turns out to be crap. But they are saying they don't have the balls to instigate the firing process unless they write in a condition they have a review first. They shouldn't need that - having a ticking clock undermines whoever they pick, and they can 'review' if the leader is crap and fire them without having that ticking clock, that formal review process (nothing wrong with considering 2 years out if they need to change direction, but no need to do it openly if you don't have to - now even if they are good, but not great, speculation will abound within and and without the party). It adds nothing to the process except acknowledging their own inability to fire someone who should be fired.
'they can 'review' if the leader is crap and fire them without having that ticking clock'
But we know they won't..
I think it's a good idea to have a vote of confidence after 3 years, keeps whoever wins on their toes.If there had previously been a mandatory vote then sub standard leaders like Brown & Miliband would have been dumped before they inflicted major damage on their party.
"Vince Cable on the Lib Dem collapse: the Tories won because fear triumphed over hope
In an exclusive essay, Vince Cable reflects on a “devastating” election for Labour and the Lib Dems – and explains why Scotland could become “like Ireland a century ago but without the bombs (hopefully)”
Comments
The problem with the unions is that their leaders are usually far to the left of the membership, and obsessed by politicking rather than the nuts and bolts reasons why people join a union: to negotiate terms and conditions for the staffside and be advocates in disputes with management.
There is still very much a need for unions. I left the BMA (only 60% of British docs are members) to join the HCSA (affiliated to the TUC no less!) Because the HCSA does not put out statements about global warming, but does stand up for its members in contractual disputes very effectively.
Owen Jones is from Sheffield and lived in Manchester.
Normally chaps with such a background have such impeccable political judgement.
I am not for a minute saying that Labour will never again form a government - I am sure that they will. But you have some very serious problems you need to handle first.
Are people over 25 too old to learn? Should we write them off as having missed their chance to learn? Shocking attitude.
Watch this instead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t9sk3/election-2015-1-election-2015-part-1
Osborne was also clever in targetting pensioners with his bond, which proved popular.
So yes, Labour made many mistakes, Ed, economy, Scot Nats, and perhaps we were always going to struggle, but at the end of the day luck was on their side. As someone just said, if the omnishamble budget had happened in 2014 or 2015 it could have been a whole different ball game.
On the leadership I am in favour of Kendall, but will watch her closely to see how things pan out. We need a new vision and someone not tainted with previous failures.
Kendall is the type of candidate like post-2000 Portillo who is currently more popular outside her own party because
a) Centrist and so appeals to people with absolutely no interest in the Labour Party
b) Appeals to journalists who have a lot of control over the direction of hype. Creagh might have been a better candidate of that nature, but Kendall did well on a Sunday morning TV show that lots of journalists were watching
but
c) partisans would still like to see if there is some way to win an election without ditching many of their dearly-held objectives, and the Blair example means choosing a centrist leader smacks of defeatism and, ultimately, masochism
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aKbKlNRgI-qA2KOTD9MTMgcFu57UiIa2obcJk4L3Ia4/edit#gid=0
"Posts: 0" it says, without a hint of something being wrong.
Interesting to see George Osborne is 43. Same age as Liz...
Of the other two, Andy Burnham suffers by his association with the unions, Stafford General Hospital, being slightly Scouse and looking a little odd (but all of these are a big step forward from Ed Miliband's similar electoral drawbacks), and Yvette Cooper is too associated with Ed Balls. But really, all three are miles ahead of what Labour had before.
Interesting! His shooting is wayward but his pace and energy often pulls opposing defences out of place so others can score. Bet on this basis if he starts the match.
After Grandiose, I expected you would be elevated (by the lift operator at the House of Lords) to at least Landed_Gentry, Earl_Of_March, or possibly even The Honourable Peregrine David Euan Malcolm Hay, later Moncreiffe of that Ilk.
WhiteRabbit makes me wonder if you've been reading your Charles Dodgson while being repeatedly hit on the head with the EdStone as penance
EPG Appeasement I presume
My peerage has been lost in the post.
Carroll's white rabbit has been rather moulded by more recent popular culture. Thus "to go down the rabbit hole" is to enter a period of adventure, or intrigue, now most famously in the Matrix, but also frequently associated with hallucionegic drugs... thus the white rabbit becomes the guide, or instigator. The person to follow through a mad world.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vEkJP4fCveodSTBIqm2M8YyINdn2BMVffiiR6MIhrQs/edit#gid=0
Stella Creasy obtained the seventh highest in Walthamstow.
Potentially someone who thought they'd only be able to successfully contest this election on that basis, but I doubt it.
More likely someone who wants to see the Labour Party mended as "their contribution" - someone who was always the birdesmaid in years passed. Hence why Johnson is mentioned so frequently.
How the hell does he rate a weekly chat show?
Everyone and their uncle now seems to know what Miliband did wrong and knew it at the time, but which of these Labour MPs were publicly calling No Confidence in Miliband beforehand?
'Tim Farron on QT asking Len McCluskey to back his leadership bid, sounding dangerously close to being serious.'
Certainly better than being completely ignored.
Back in 2005 there was a serious debate between the Cameron "modernisers" and the Davis "clear blue water" approach, a debate over the future of the party in policy, priorities and more. Where is that debate today for Labour?
All I see is a glorified popularity contest. I don't see any form of serious debate over changing tack into a different direction as Cameron was proposing before he was elected, or as Blair was proposing before he was. Steady as she goes but with a new captain isn't what is needed.
There was no UKIP representative on the panel, don't know if they were invited but refused to send anyone or just weren't invited. But why are the Lib Dems permanently invited still?
I think the 3-year probation period idea is nuts, though. The Tory media would do the tick-tock routine for 1000 days. If the new leader is good, we don't need it. If they're rubbish, we have the familiar choice of sticking with them or risking a major row - but the latter will arise even with a formal 3-year challenge period. Let's try to get it right, without a prenup giving an exit route.
https://twitter.com/Hugodixon/status/601479411490250753
Open Europe getting exposed spreading nonsense.
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/who-said-eu-federalists-dont-get.html
The comments make for entertaining reading. In particular: Playing the poodle has obviously paid off.
' But why are the Lib Dems permanently invited still? '
Surely they will rotate with the other minor parties.
Maybe whoever Labour pick will be crap, so crap the party will, this time, replace them before the next GE, but if that is going to happen, it'll happen whether there's a rule in place about another election in a few years or not, and if there is one it is just stir up the opponents, internal and external.
Good night all.
We could even do like Germany and formally separate out the "party leader" and then have a separate selection for the "prime minister candidate" about a year before the election (which could be but wouldn't necessarily have to be the party leader).
'Indeed. It's tantamount to saying they are worried whoever they pick will be crap'
If a company hires a CEO that turns out to be crap they are fired, why should a political party be different?
'Question Time more like a meeting of the Socialist Workers Party tonight..'.
More like the Students Union with Jones & Farron plus Creasy trying to suck up to UNITE.
'they can 'review' if the leader is crap and fire them without having that ticking clock'
But we know they won't..
I think it's a good idea to have a vote of confidence after 3 years, keeps whoever wins on their toes.If there had previously been a mandatory vote then sub standard leaders like Brown & Miliband would have been dumped before they inflicted major damage on their party.
In an exclusive essay, Vince Cable reflects on a “devastating” election for Labour and the Lib Dems – and explains why Scotland could become “like Ireland a century ago but without the bombs (hopefully)”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/vince-cable-lib-dems-were-victims-tory-fear
Black, disabled, gay, war veteran rabbit against the bomb !