PB Lefties still don't get it...you lost because your leader was a geek and he had no policies...nice piece of stone tho...
True. And the corollary of that is that pb Tories still don't get it -- you did not win because voters liked your policies, which gives you ample opportunity to piss them off over the next five years. I see Gove has already made a start on the Tory-voting lawyers.
Are you really saying the government shouldn't challenge a vested interest because they vote Tory?
What a sad, limited, depressing way to view the role of government.
It's how Labour operated; ignoring education reforms lest they upset teachers, and dodged sensible changes to healthcare for fear of upsetting the Left leaning voters in the NHS, to the detriment of patients.
Labour made lots of reforms to education, including the building programme, literacy hours, sure start, academies, university expansion, fees and loans. Not all of them were popular with teachers, more of whom voted Conservative than Labour in 2010. In health, Labour expanded use of the private sector, protected junior hospital doctors and downgraded consultants.
Well. If I want to win a referral from a customer I have to do a good job for them and then get their blessing. If however i present the problems involved in how we operate by complaining about another member of our staff, the customer will start to doubt how competent we are. They may not use us again and will certainly not refer us. Perhaps rcs some voters thought tha tway as well and saw through the Lib Dems:- 1. Magnifying every little problem of the coalition, molehills into mountains. 2. Not enough positive presentations on what excellent co-operation there was happening. 3. Reinforced the LD trust problem (tuition fees) by speaking in duplicituous term about their partners.
I'm sorry, I think this is absolute crap.
The LibDems - and I speak as a non LD voter myself - did not rebel against the government. Frankly, they complained less often about things than certain (Peter Bone, for example) Tory MPs.
The LibDems were a NOTA party, that benefited from people being able to project their beliefs on to them. (A little bit like like SeanT projected on to Obama in 2008, and how certain Paul_Mid_Beds projected on to UKIP.)
If the LibDems got into power, they were always going to disappoint two-thirds of their membership, because they had been all things to all people.
But the idea that if the LibDems had been a little more "Tory-lite" and uncomplaining that they would have won more seats is farcical.
The smallness of the majority is alluded to in the thread, but Dave is safer than one might think even if he loses his overall majority..MP's inconveniently don't seem to die off as regularly as they used to. Are there any figures (sorry if its a bit morbid) for the no of MP's deaths since 79 and for which party?
I don't know about figures but certainly MPs are younger, smoke less etc etc. I'd say 12 majority was enough for five years even assuming they lost every by-election.
There were 6 deaths of MPs in 20010-15 parliament. A number of others resigned to do other jobs. 21 in total, although 2 were sinn fein who never turn up anyway. Only 4 were Tory seats.
Doing the survey. It's pretty comprehensive, (I reckon 20-30 minutes to complete, I'm only half-done) but there are some good questions in there, not least on which races are vital for the calendar, so, if you're into F1, do fill it in.
Welcome to Don, but it's rather a disappointing article, to be honest. Any assessment of why and how Labour and the LibDems did so much worse than expected has to start by looking at the national vote-share figues, which were dire for both. That wasn't micro-targetting, or Tory money, it was (as Southam and others have already pointed out) the result of Ed Miliband, the SNP, and the lack of any coherence in Labour's message, against a background of the previous government's record which by any standard was exceptionally good given the inherited economic crisis and world economic conditions. (One of the most telling post-mortems was a Guardian focus group report shortly after the election, where one of the participants said he'd voted Labour, and wanted a Labour government, but he wasn't too displeased at the final result because "the last five years haven't been so bad, have they?").
In any case the argument that the election was somehow won by Tory money doesn't actually add up. Labour had plenty of money. Even the LibDems had plenty of money - Paddy Ashdown's whinge neglects to mention that the Conservatives were fighting in far more close contests than the LibDems.
The micro-targetting will, no doubt, have helped at the margins - partially offsetting Labour's unfair boundary advantage - but is not the main story of the night.
In our seat we DID win the ground war. Indeed it was noticeable just how minimal the group operation the Tories had.
And it didn't matter. We got our vote out. The Tories got their vote out too, and took most of the LibDems with them. They won the post war and the air war.
For me the point where I realised we were in trouble was when I spoke to several people on the doorstep who identified themselves as Labour leaning. And proceeded to throw at me a list of things Labour would do they disagreed with. And not a single one was Labour policy but they'd read it in the newspapers.
We were beaten nationally in the media. And we let that happen because our policy platform wasn't strong enough and didn't offer vision. If we can offer a strong proposal for the future of the country - with policies hung from that - then the media can't shoot big enough holes in it (cf Blair 97, Sturgeon 15). The frustration is that the "One Nation" platform could have been the vision. Then was quietly dropped.
The number of seats in the target list was chosen especially for you!
Another fan of the article!
Loved this quote:
Eleanor Roosevelt famously said: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." UKIP have spent all the time since the election discussing people when they should really be discussing ideas. This is not just unedifying, it is a dangerous missed opportunity for UKIP.
Might that apply to any other party : | InnocentFace |: ?
One micro-factor not mentioned since the election though it came up at the budget -- personal allowance rises will have made people just a little better off, and just in time.
The risk of SLAB separating from Labour is that come 2020 the Tories will just dust off the Labour in the SNP's pocket ad and have whoever is Labour leader being in SLAB/SNP's pocket. I think a safer approach might be to have a UK Labour leader and a SLAB MSP leader at Holyrood.
Just think, if Chris Huhne had been elected LibDem leader ahead of Nick Clegg, then the LibDems would probably only have gotten 18% in 2010, the Conservatives would probably have gotten a majority, and the LibDems would not have gone in to coalition, and would not therefore have been completely wiped out this year.
As far as I can see, it all boils down to there being no compelling case to change. People don't tend to swap a government otherwise. Major's administration had failed over Black Wednesday and corruption and there was a compelling case for renewal of the public services by Blair. Thatcher came in because many people felt a change in direction was needed especially over the behaviour of the unions.
What was the case for change this time from Labour?
Er, Energy prices are too high and the NHS needs more money.
One micro-factor not mentioned since the election though it came up at the budget -- personal allowance rises will have made people just a little better off, and just in time.
Just think, if Chris Huhne had been elected LibDem leader ahead of Nick Clegg, then the LibDems would probably only have gotten 18% in 2010, the Conservatives would probably have gotten a majority, and the LibDems would not have gone in to coalition, and would not therefore have been completely wiped out this year.
Just think, if Chris Huhne had been elected LibDem leader ahead of Nick Clegg, then the LibDems would probably only have gotten 18% in 2010, the Conservatives would probably have gotten a majority, and the LibDems would not have gone in to coalition, and would not therefore have been completely wiped out this year.
In our seat we DID win the ground war. Indeed it was noticeable just how minimal the group operation the Tories had.
And it didn't matter. We got our vote out. The Tories got their vote out too, and took most of the LibDems with them. They won the post war and the air war.
For me the point where I realised we were in trouble was when I spoke to several people on the doorstep who identified themselves as Labour leaning. And proceeded to throw at me a list of things Labour would do they disagreed with. And not a single one was Labour policy but they'd read it in the newspapers.
We were beaten nationally in the media. And we let that happen because our policy platform wasn't strong enough and didn't offer vision. If we can offer a strong proposal for the future of the country - with policies hung from that - then the media can't shoot big enough holes in it (cf Blair 97, Sturgeon 15). The frustration is that the "One Nation" platform could have been the vision. Then was quietly dropped.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy and a 35% strategy.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy with 1 seat out of 59 in Scotland.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy going backwards in Wales.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy with a bare handful of seats in southern England outside London.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy when it went to war with business, of whatever size.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy when it looked down on those with aspiration for themselves and their families.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy going after those with wealth.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy going after those in London to pay for nurses in Scotland.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy when such few policies it had were based on sixth form politics class war.
Labour couldn't run a whelk stall...without it running up a trillion pound debt.
But the idea that if the LibDems had been a little more "Tory-lite" and uncomplaining that they would have won more seats is farcical.
No one is claiming that. You are making the same mistake that the LiibDems themselves made, which is to assume that being positive about coalition (and in particular about the LibDems' own role in the coalition) is the same as being Tory-lite, and that therefore the best policy for the LibDems was to insult and complain about their coalition partners, and in particular to impugn their motives.
It's possibly a fine distinction, but one they should have been very careful about. Every time Clegg came up with some petulant line such as 'the Tories want to balance the books on the backs of the poor', who was meant to respond to such a message by voting LibDem? Not anyone who agreed with it, because the response of anyone who agreed with it would naturally be 'So why the hell are you keeping them in government?'.
There were, I think, a few senior LibDems who managed get this right, notably Danny A, who always struck me as keeping well differentiated from the Conservatives whilst remaining positive about the concept of coalition. Fat lot of good it did him of course, but that was probably because of the particular conditions in Scotland.
The smallness of the majority is alluded to in the thread, but Dave is safer than one might think even if he loses his overall majority..MP's inconveniently don't seem to die off as regularly as they used to. Are there any figures (sorry if its a bit morbid) for the no of MP's deaths since 79 and for which party?
The Parliamentary Research Briefings on the election results include demographic information on the MPs elected. So for 2010 we can see that the average age of MPs was 50, down 1 year from 2005. I presume you can find this information for previous elections relatively easily on their website.
Unfortunately the Research Briefing for the election in 2015 is still provisional and so does not yet include this information.
It's an interesting quirk that MPs are tending to get younger at a time when the population as a whole is ageing, with policies being tailored to appeal particularly to the older voter.
Danny outperformed question 1 by 20%, and question 2 by 10% in his constituency on the Ashcroft polling. The halving of the Conservative vote and the fact he only lost a thousand votes too is telling - he did far better than I for one expected.
The SNP got just shy of 29,000 votes in a constituency with just over 77,000 in total available though, and pushed turnout up 10% - almost entirely one would guess to themselves. They did what all other parties have been unable to do for aeons, got the non voters out of bed and into the booth !
But the idea that if the LibDems had been a little more "Tory-lite" and uncomplaining that they would have won more seats is farcical.
No one is claiming that. You are making the same mistake that the LiibDems themselves made, which is to assume that being positive about coalition (and in particular about the LibDems' own role in the coalition) is the same as being Tory-lite, and that therefore the best policy for the LibDems was to insult and complain about their coalition partners, and in particular to impugn their motives.
It's possibly a fine distinction, but one they should have been very careful about. Every time Clegg came up with some petulant line such as 'the Tories want to balance the books on the backs of the poor', who was meant to respond to such a message by voting LibDem? Not anyone who agreed with it, because the response of anyone who agreed with it would naturally be 'So why the hell are you keeping them in government?'.
There were, I think, a few senior LibDems who managed get this right, notably Danny A, who always struck me as keeping well differentiated from the Conservatives whilst remaining positive about the concept of coalition. Fat lot of good it did him of course, but that was probably because of the particular conditions in Scotland.
I'm really hoping for a by-election caused by auto-erotic asphyxiation.
The tin-foil hat brigade would say that we have not yet had a by-election caused by auto-erotic asphyxiation. But we have had one caused by murder, probably by the security services....
Miss Plato, precisely, and lots of us pointed out at the time how stupid it was. The Lib Dems wrote their own epitaph (although at least they didn't spend £30,000 immortalising it in limestone).
But the idea that if the LibDems had been a little more "Tory-lite" and uncomplaining that they would have won more seats is farcical.
There were, I think, a few senior LibDems who managed get this right, notably Danny A, who always struck me as keeping well differentiated from the Conservatives whilst remaining positive about the concept of coalition.
Well, until that stunt with the yellow lunch-box. That just made him look a total knob.
Just think, if Chris Huhne had been elected LibDem leader ahead of Nick Clegg, then the LibDems would probably only have gotten 18% in 2010, the Conservatives would probably have gotten a majority, and the LibDems would not have gone in to coalition, and would not therefore have been completely wiped out this year.
And Huhne would still be married to Vicky Pryce and neither of them would have gone to prison!
Nicola Sturgeon demands veto over wind farm subsidies The First Minister says the UK Government should not cut taxpayer funding for onshore wind without her permission as energy experts warn about the cost.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy when such few policies it had were based on sixth form politics class war.
I feel we all know what this looks like, but find it hard to describe - a bit like porn.
What is it about EdM's stance/manner that made it a by-word for his persona/credo?
It may have been because Ed was raised in a household where the father figure was a communist who regularly entertained Labour hierarchy at home. Ed then immersed himself in left-wing politics at University before being groomed as a SPAD and then parachuted into a safe Labour seat ‘op-north’ – Ed’s spent his entire life surround by those that espouse class war as a means to an end, he’s never really grown up or known anything different – poor bugger never stood a chance…!
Mr. StClare, I believe King Stephen gave Doncaster away to King David [of Scotland]. I forget whether that was because David was winning the war, or Stephen was.
Edited extra bit: incidentally, I think that's the cause of the amusing story during the referendum that Doncaster ought to be Scottish [legally], because it's never technically been given back.
Labour's lack of policy is something that affects all parties. If we go back to 2010, we heard that David Cameron and other Cabinet ministers had not known what Lansley and IDS in particular were doing, and that during the coalition negotiations, the LibDem negotiators seemed unfamiliar with their own manifesto.
Since all parties have changed their conferences into rallies, policy is not argued or tested beyond the slogan stage.
The failure of Miliband's leadership that I can't comprehend is that he was supposed to be a policy wonk. He was dismissed as a geek, a nerd. As someone who's always been a bit of a nerd myself I think the country could be ready for geeks. In this era of Facebook and computers, geeks and nerds have never been so relatively successful or popular.
But that's because their ideas have done well. The least I'd expect from a policy wonk is a number of intelligent policies. But what were Labour's policies rather than vacuous platitudes like on the stone. Ed lacked the charisma party leaders normally have that but in the area that was supposed to be his strength - intelligent policies he was even more shockingly lacking.
Public sector net borrowing, excluding public sector banks, fell to £6.8bn in April. This was £2.5bn lower than the same month a year ago and well below economists' expectations for a more modest decline to £8.3bn.
Tax receipts grew by 3.4pc in April compared with a year ago, including a 11.3pc rise in corporation tax receipts, to £5.7bn, and a 3.7pc rise in income tax receipts, to £11.6bn. VAT receipts rose by 3.4pc, to £10.6bn.
Mr. Taffys, how the next Labour leader attempts to get the party funded will be of significant importance. The fact unions seem to constantly be uniting [ahem] into an ever smaller number of increasingly large super-unions will only increase the power of the unions by concentrating funding support in a smaller number of hands.
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
''The fact unions seem to constantly be uniting [ahem] into an ever smaller number of increasingly large super-unions will only increase the power of the unions by concentrating funding support in a smaller number of hands.''
I thought last night's QT was instructive on unions and labour generally. Hilary DeVey's comments in particular.
Creasey went a whiter shade of pale when Hilary suggested unions aren't needed any more!
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
There are limits but the Conservatives exploited two loopholes. First, they started spending a long time ago, when no short campaign limits applied. Secondly, the restrictions on television advertising and party election broadcasts do not apply to youtube videos -- where the Conservatives have quite a lot of what are basically US-style "attack ads" that would not be allowed on television, and that can be drawn to the attention of micro-targeted voters using email or social media.
The failure of Miliband's leadership that I can't comprehend is that he was supposed to be a policy wonk. He was dismissed as a geek, a nerd. As someone who's always been a bit of a nerd myself I think the country could be ready for geeks. In this era of Facebook and computers, geeks and nerds have never been so relatively successful or popular.
But that's because their ideas have done well. The least I'd expect from a policy wonk is a number of intelligent policies. But what were Labour's policies rather than vacuous platitudes like on the stone. Ed lacked the charisma party leaders normally have that but in the area that was supposed to be his strength - intelligent policies he was even more shockingly lacking.
Agreed - a policy wonk offering safe but effective political administration would win by a landslide. Most punters really don't care about politics - they just want an easy life.
Ed had two basic problems: 1. Wonkish policies identified the structural problems with the economy but not the solutions. 2. He's a poor communicator. Less of a problem if you have a strong team around you but he didn't.
So 7 years now after the crash and the world economy isn't any better with the next crash possible any day now if Greece implodes and sets off the chain reaction across Europe. The need to evolve our economic framework is still there. But the simple truth is that very few of our politicians can look beyond the neo-liberal established system.
I want a Labour leader who can invoke the spirit of 45 and start with a blank sheet of paper. What is this country about, what things does it need, how best to pay for them. Because at the moment we have creaking and insufficient infrastructure and not enough skills and even a looming lack of power generating capacity. We need to build and invest and money is basically free to borrow if you are a government and no politician south of the border wants to talk about investment. When did investment become synonymous with subsidy?
The failure of Miliband's leadership that I can't comprehend is that he was supposed to be a policy wonk. He was dismissed as a geek, a nerd. As someone who's always been a bit of a nerd myself I think the country could be ready for geeks. In this era of Facebook and computers, geeks and nerds have never been so relatively successful or popular.
But that's because their ideas have done well. The least I'd expect from a policy wonk is a number of intelligent policies. But what were Labour's policies rather than vacuous platitudes like on the stone. Ed lacked the charisma party leaders normally have that but in the area that was supposed to be his strength - intelligent policies he was even more shockingly lacking.
The problem is that Miliband was a nerd, not a geek. Although either would make a poor party leader or top politician, nerds are much worse. :-)
The signs:
1) He could not speak human. Used terms like 'predistribution' as if they were common currency.
2) He has no mates. Not even in his own family, or, so it seems after the election, in the party.
3) He was awkward socially. Especially when eating bacon.
4) Cared what others thought of him.
5) Theory mattered more than practice.
Yep, definitely a nerd.
Fortunately he breaks one definition of nerdism: "the person who you will one day call boss". Thankfully, we as a country will never have Miliband as our boss.
Whenever Labour claims that the Tories had more money and it's unfair/boohoo, I just roll my eyes.
We had the entirely ficticious Ashcroft Millions in 2010. But the Left hugged this chimera to themselves like a blue blanket.
If a Party can't get paying members or donors - well then they're doing something wrong. Labour seems to be perennially unwilling to sort out their own union problems.
Offering peerages for donations by Labour in the 90-00s was very wrong - but I'm sure those same people would've coughed up anyway in the main.
If you're going to give truck loads of readies to a Party - you're on a personal mission. Just the bragging rights pays for itself on the dinner party circuit. But Labour threw their own donors under the bus in the rush away from Lord Levy and tried to blame Peter Watt the then Gen Sec for it.
No wonder few businessmen want to go anywhere near them just a decade or so later. And luvvies for all their ululations don't seem to give much at all.
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
By 2020 people will have moved on from Facebook (my kids did ages ago) or, like me, they will never have been on it in the first place. My expectation is that the social media market will be more fragmented making this kind of operation difficult.
In any event it is very much in the interests of the likes of Messina to claim remarkable things for the work he did and charged so highly for. I am not saying it didn't help but there were a series of following winds.
I had been predicting on here that the incredible bias that used to exist in favour of Labour in the electoral system would unwind making forecasts that the Tories would lose large number of seats if they were less than 11.4% ahead in England inaccurate. Many of the reasons I gave for this came to pass.
I predicted that the Labour vote would improve in their safe seats from their Brown nadir. They did with very little effect on the number of their seats.
I predicted that the Tory vote would be made more efficient because UKIP would reduce their majorities in their safe seats. They did. In addition it seems some potential tories went to UKIP in Labour safe seats as well. The Tories basically gained centre voters in the marginal for right wing voters in safe seats and no hopers, a very good swop.
I predicted that the Tories would improve their efficiency by gaining Lib Dem seats. I completely underestimated the scale of this but that is because I was stupid enough to believe the polls. I also predicted that the Labour vote would go up in these seats because of the red Liberals to the benefit of the tories, not Labour.
I predicted that the efficiency of the Labour vote would be significantly reduced by results in Scotland. Again this turned out even more than I predicted.
All of these trends may have been augmented by clever online focussed campaigning but the trends themselves probably delivered the majority of their seats.
Labour needs to watch the idea that they lost because they were outspent or done in by some sophisticated campaign techniques. Their problems are far more fundamental than that.
You also predicted a Labour government or, at best, a Conservative plurality...
Yes I did, because I was stupid enough to believe the polls and that is what they were telling us. In short I expected all those favourable trends to be swamped by a nearly 4 % swing to Labour in England from the last election. If there had been such a swing none of these factors would have come close to overcoming that.
Reading my original post again it does look vainglorious. That really was not the intention (as you rightly point out I called the election result seriously wrong) and you are right to call me up on it.
Whenever Labour claims that the Tories had more money and it's unfair/boohoo, I just roll my eyes.
We had the entirely ficticious Ashcroft Millions in 2010. But the Left hugged this chimera to themselves like a blue blanket.
If a Party can't get paying members or donors - well then they're doing something wrong. Labour seems to be perennially unwilling to sort out their own union problems.
Offering peerages for donations by Labour in the 90-00s was very wrong - but I'm sure those same people would've coughed up anyway in the main.
If you're going to give truck loads of readies to a Party - you're on a personal mission. Just the bragging rights pays for itself on the dinner party circuit. But Labour threw their own donors under the bus in the rush away from Lord Levy and tried to blame Peter Watt the then Gen Sec for it.
No wonder few businessmen want to go anywhere near them just a decade or so later. And luvvies for all their ululations don't seem to give much at all.
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
Doing the survey. It's pretty comprehensive, (I reckon 20-30 minutes to complete, I'm only half-done) but there are some good questions in there, not least on which races are vital for the calendar, so, if you're into F1, do fill it in.
That was a better survey than I expected,and covers most of the issues facing F1.
It's a shame it missed one question though: "How traitorous have the BBC been over their handling of F1", which should have only one option: "very".
The number of seats in the target list was chosen especially for you!
Another fan of the article!
Loved this quote:
Eleanor Roosevelt famously said: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." UKIP have spent all the time since the election discussing people when they should really be discussing ideas. This is not just unedifying, it is a dangerous missed opportunity for UKIP.
Might that apply to any other party : | InnocentFace |: ?
Also loved antifrank's piece. Frankly there's a lot of pieces on antifrank's blog that, suitably edited (mostly cut down!) would have made excellent headers on PB. If antifrank had a semi-regular guest slot here that would be good - would also be good for the political diversity of this site.
Whenever Labour claims that the Tories had more money and it's unfair/boohoo, I just roll my eyes.
We had the entirely ficticious Ashcroft Millions in 2010. But the Left hugged this chimera to themselves like a blue blanket.
If a Party can't get paying members or donors - well then they're doing something wrong. Labour seems to be perennially unwilling to sort out their own union problems.
Offering peerages for donations by Labour in the 90-00s was very wrong - but I'm sure those same people would've coughed up anyway in the main.
If you're going to give truck loads of readies to a Party - you're on a personal mission. Just the bragging rights pays for itself on the dinner party circuit. But Labour threw their own donors under the bus in the rush away from Lord Levy and tried to blame Peter Watt the then Gen Sec for it.
No wonder few businessmen want to go anywhere near them just a decade or so later. And luvvies for all their ululations don't seem to give much at all.
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
I didn't comment directly on the article but I thought that it was very good - thank you Mr Brind. Whatever the truth about the Labour ground game, it is certainly the case that the Lib Dems were overwhelmed, contrary to the expectations of most people (including me) at the start of the campaign. The Conservatives must have been doing something right.
Incidentally, I found this table that I'd prepared in 2010 looking at the Lib Dems' vulnerability if Labour tactical voters ceased to vote tactically for the Lib Dems:
The failure of Miliband's leadership that I can't comprehend is that he was supposed to be a policy wonk. He was dismissed as a geek, a nerd. As someone who's always been a bit of a nerd myself I think the country could be ready for geeks. In this era of Facebook and computers, geeks and nerds have never been so relatively successful or popular.
But that's because their ideas have done well. The least I'd expect from a policy wonk is a number of intelligent policies. But what were Labour's policies rather than vacuous platitudes like on the stone. Ed lacked the charisma party leaders normally have that but in the area that was supposed to be his strength - intelligent policies he was even more shockingly lacking.
Agreed - a policy wonk offering safe but effective political administration would win by a landslide. Most punters really don't care about politics - they just want an easy life.
Ed had two basic problems: 1. Wonkish policies identified the structural problems with the economy but not the solutions. 2. He's a poor communicator. Less of a problem if you have a strong team around you but he didn't.
So 7 years now after the crash and the world economy isn't any better with the next crash possible any day now if Greece implodes and sets off the chain reaction across Europe. The need to evolve our economic framework is still there. But the simple truth is that very few of our politicians can look beyond the neo-liberal established system.
I want a Labour leader who can invoke the spirit of 45 and start with a blank sheet of paper. What is this country about, what things does it need, how best to pay for them. Because at the moment we have creaking and insufficient infrastructure and not enough skills and even a looming lack of power generating capacity. We need to build and invest and money is basically free to borrow if you are a government and no politician south of the border wants to talk about investment. When did investment become synonymous with subsidy?
When Labour did not know the difference between revenue and capital. In Wales the Labour government wastes European money on lots of bits of revenue expenditure where there is no long lasting benefit instead of using it as capital to improve the infrastructure.
Mr. Jessop, indeed, appointing Judas Iscariot as the BBC's top F1 bigwig has not worked well.
The survey's long but I am glad it's comprehensive and does offer options to [not in so many words] say the glam bullshit is not important, and sprinklers are a deranged idea. There weren't many questions when I felt an answer I might want to give wasn't offered as an option.
We'll see what impact it has, but I hope lots of people participate, and that the results are made public (though I'm less confident on the second point than the first).
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
There are limits but the Conservatives exploited two loopholes. First, they started spending a long time ago, when no short campaign limits applied. Secondly, the restrictions on television advertising and party election broadcasts do not apply to youtube videos -- where the Conservatives have quite a lot of what are basically US-style "attack ads" that would not be allowed on television, and that can be drawn to the attention of micro-targeted voters using email or social media.
Wow! YouTube! How expensive is that? Boo hoo hoo... ' Attack Ads! We wuz robbed. ' I was right, Labour are in a world of shit.
Miss Plato at 11.35, the appropriate line from Michael Caine, as the labour party pink bus exploded around Miliband is 'you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off'.
By 2020 people will have moved on from Facebook (my kids did ages ago) or, like me, they will never have been on it in the first place. My expectation is that the social media market will be more fragmented making this kind of operation difficult.
In any event it is very much in the interests of the likes of Messina to claim remarkable things for the work he did and charged so highly for. I am not saying it didn't help but there were a series of following winds.
I had been predicting on here that the incredible bias that used to exist in favour of Labour in the electoral system would unwind making forecasts that the Tories would lose large number of seats if they were less than 11.4% ahead in England inaccurate. Many of the reasons I gave for this came to pass.
I predicted that the Labour vote would improve in their safe seats from their Brown nadir. They did with very little effect on the number of their seats.
I predicted that the Tory vote would be made more efficient because UKIP would reduce their majorities in their safe seats. They did. In addition it seems some potential tories went to UKIP in Labour safe seats as well. The Tories basically gained centre voters in the marginal for right wing voters in safe seats and no hopers, a very good swop.
I predicted that the Tories would improve their efficiency by gaining Lib Dem seats. I completely underestimated the scale of this but that is because I was stupid enough to believe the polls. I also predicted that the Labour vote would go up in these seats because of the red Liberals to the benefit of the tories, not Labour.
I predicted that the efficiency of the Labour vote would be significantly reduced by results in Scotland. Again this turned out even more than I predicted.
All of these trends may have been augmented by clever online focussed campaigning but the trends themselves probably delivered the majority of their seats.
Labour needs to watch the idea that they lost because they were outspent or done in by some sophisticated campaign techniques. Their problems are far more fundamental than that.
You also predicted a Labour government or, at best, a Conservative plurality...
Yes I did, because I was stupid enough to believe the polls and that is what they were telling us. In short I expected all those favourable trends to be swamped by a nearly 4 % swing to Labour in England from the last election. If there had been such a swing none of these factors would have come close to overcoming that.
Reading my original post again it does look vainglorious. That really was not the intention (as you rightly point out I called the election result seriously wrong) and you are right to call me up on it.
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
There are limits but the Conservatives exploited two loopholes. First, they started spending a long time ago, when no short campaign limits applied. Secondly, the restrictions on television advertising and party election broadcasts do not apply to youtube videos -- where the Conservatives have quite a lot of what are basically US-style "attack ads" that would not be allowed on television, and that can be drawn to the attention of micro-targeted voters using email or social media.
Wow! YouTube! How expensive is that? Boo hoo hoo... ' Attack Ads! We wuz robbed. ' I was right, Labour are in a world of shit.
If you want to analyse the election results, you have to take everything into account.
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
There are limits but the Conservatives exploited two loopholes. First, they started spending a long time ago, when no short campaign limits applied. Secondly, the restrictions on television advertising and party election broadcasts do not apply to youtube videos -- where the Conservatives have quite a lot of what are basically US-style "attack ads" that would not be allowed on television, and that can be drawn to the attention of micro-targeted voters using email or social media.
Wow! YouTube! How expensive is that? Boo hoo hoo... ' Attack Ads! We wuz robbed. ' I was right, Labour are in a world of shit.
If you want to analyse the election results, you have to take everything into account.
What... like the attack PBB from Coogan? 'evil Tories will privatise the NHS' ?
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
There are limits but the Conservatives exploited two loopholes. First, they started spending a long time ago, when no short campaign limits applied. Secondly, the restrictions on television advertising and party election broadcasts do not apply to youtube videos -- where the Conservatives have quite a lot of what are basically US-style "attack ads" that would not be allowed on television, and that can be drawn to the attention of micro-targeted voters using email or social media.
Wow! YouTube! How expensive is that? Boo hoo hoo... ' Attack Ads! We wuz robbed. ' I was right, Labour are in a world of shit.
If you want to analyse the election results, you have to take everything into account.
What... like the attack PBB from Coogan? 'evil Tories will privatise the NHS' ?
I was struck by Mark Ferguson's decision to leave LList in favour of Liz Kendal's campaign. A very long time ago - maybe 3 or more yrs, he wrote a highly critical piece on EdM in the North and the nicknames activists gave to him. I think he referred to Zen Ed even then.
@SophyRidgeSky: The first Labour leadership hustings will take place in Nuneaton... the place that ended Miliband's hopes of election victory at 1am...
@GuidoFawkes: Newsnight Labour Leadership Debate will be presented by Laura K and will be broadcast live from Nuneaton . 17 June, 7pm on BBC2
Will the Tories get equivalent prime time?
Why should they? Its not an election time and we had a televised Question Time debate between the leadership candidates in our last leadership election. I suspect we will something in our next one too.
Might be a decent guide to how the (non-union) party membership will vote. Looks an uphill task for Cooper to be in contention.
Yes, although one needs to be careful with self-select voodoo polls.
I think we can, however, already conclude two things:
1) Bye-bye Mary. It was nice meeting you.
2) No other candidates are likely to enter the race - amongst the 'Other' category that people were offered, no one name stands out (except maybe one E. Miliband!)
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
There are limits but the Conservatives exploited two loopholes. First, they started spending a long time ago, when no short campaign limits applied. Secondly, the restrictions on television advertising and party election broadcasts do not apply to youtube videos -- where the Conservatives have quite a lot of what are basically US-style "attack ads" that would not be allowed on television, and that can be drawn to the attention of micro-targeted voters using email or social media.
Wow! YouTube! How expensive is that? Boo hoo hoo... ' Attack Ads! We wuz robbed. ' I was right, Labour are in a world of shit.
If you want to analyse the election results, you have to take everything into account.
What... like the attack PBB from Coogan? 'evil Tories will privatise the NHS' ?
Sounds better than Freeman's "I vote Labour because I was raised to be decent;so are you decent or not?"
Can anyone explain to me the point in, or appeal of, Yvette Cooper.
She's not the lefty candidate (Burnham) She's not the Blairite candidate (Kendall) She's not the only woman in the field She's very closely linked to the ancien regime
Is she the Lib Dems of the Labour Leadership contest?
I agree with Mr Nabavi at 10.01am. A very poor article. Ashdowns quote was wrong, there are limits on election spending anyway. If this is typical of Labour's analysis then they are, to quote a line from Full Metal Jacket, 'in a world of shit'.
There are limits but the Conservatives exploited two loopholes. First, they started spending a long time ago, when no short campaign limits applied. Secondly, the restrictions on television advertising and party election broadcasts do not apply to youtube videos -- where the Conservatives have quite a lot of what are basically US-style "attack ads" that would not be allowed on television, and that can be drawn to the attention of micro-targeted voters using email or social media.
Wow! YouTube! How expensive is that? Boo hoo hoo... ' Attack Ads! We wuz robbed. ' I was right, Labour are in a world of shit.
If you want to analyse the election results, you have to take everything into account.
What... like the attack PBB from Coogan? 'evil Tories will privatise the NHS' ?
Sounds better than Freeman's "I vote Labour because I was raised to be decent;so are you decent or not?"
Can anyone explain to me the point in, or appeal of, Yvette Cooper.
She's not the lefty candidate (Burnham) She's not the Blairite candidate (Kendall) She's not the only woman in the field She's very closely linked to the ancien regime
Is she the Lib Dems of the Labour Leadership contest?
Can anyone explain to me the point in, or appeal of, Yvette Cooper.
She's not the lefty candidate (Burnham) She's not the Blairite candidate (Kendall) She's not the only woman in the field She's very closely linked to the ancien regime
Is she the Lib Dems of the Labour Leadership contest?
I guess she's the safest choice - she's experienced, doesn't gaffe, and is relentlessly on-message.
Can anyone explain to me the point in, or appeal of, Yvette Cooper.
She's not the lefty candidate (Burnham) She's not the Blairite candidate (Kendall) She's not the only woman in the field She's very closely linked to the ancien regime
Is she the Lib Dems of the Labour Leadership contest?
From the piece posted earlier, Labour can choose comfort (Burnham), way ahead (Kendall) or fudge (Cooper)
Can anyone explain to me the point in, or appeal of, Yvette Cooper.
She's not the lefty candidate (Burnham) She's not the Blairite candidate (Kendall) She's not the only woman in the field She's very closely linked to the ancien regime
Is she the Lib Dems of the Labour Leadership contest?
I guess she's the safest choice - she's experienced, doesn't gaffe, and is relentlessly on-message.
That can be the only explanation, but it's not like Burnham is known for being a loose cannon.
Some might go so far as to suggest George Osborne is something of a genius...
I criticised him for not cutting quickly enough, but now the tories have won, goodness me.
Imagine the tax cuts for ordinary people he'll have the cash for before 2020.
The Tories never stopped cutting the structural spending.
Result: 3rd. world country with gated communities and wide screen TVs but unable to afford an acceptable health service (e.g., like France or Sweden's, they both spend several percent more of GDP). Existing infrastructure, like roads and railways, falling apart. Exceedingly poor-quality new buildings compared to construction in other European countries. Not nearly enough of them either, compounding a dire housing shortage.
I didn't comment directly on the article but I thought that it was very good - thank you Mr Brind. Whatever the truth about the Labour ground game, it is certainly the case that the Lib Dems were overwhelmed, contrary to the expectations of most people (including me) at the start of the campaign. The Conservatives must have been doing something right.
Incidentally, I found this table that I'd prepared in 2010 looking at the Lib Dems' vulnerability if Labour tactical voters ceased to vote tactically for the Lib Dems:
Comments
The LibDems - and I speak as a non LD voter myself - did not rebel against the government. Frankly, they complained less often about things than certain (Peter Bone, for example) Tory MPs.
The LibDems were a NOTA party, that benefited from people being able to project their beliefs on to them. (A little bit like like SeanT projected on to Obama in 2008, and how certain Paul_Mid_Beds projected on to UKIP.)
If the LibDems got into power, they were always going to disappoint two-thirds of their membership, because they had been all things to all people.
But the idea that if the LibDems had been a little more "Tory-lite" and uncomplaining that they would have won more seats is farcical.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32835866
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–present)
On that score, Cameron is safe for 5 years.
In any case the argument that the election was somehow won by Tory money doesn't actually add up. Labour had plenty of money. Even the LibDems had plenty of money - Paddy Ashdown's whinge neglects to mention that the Conservatives were fighting in far more close contests than the LibDems.
The micro-targetting will, no doubt, have helped at the margins - partially offsetting Labour's unfair boundary advantage - but is not the main story of the night.
And it didn't matter. We got our vote out. The Tories got their vote out too, and took most of the LibDems with them. They won the post war and the air war.
For me the point where I realised we were in trouble was when I spoke to several people on the doorstep who identified themselves as Labour leaning. And proceeded to throw at me a list of things Labour would do they disagreed with. And not a single one was Labour policy but they'd read it in the newspapers.
We were beaten nationally in the media. And we let that happen because our policy platform wasn't strong enough and didn't offer vision. If we can offer a strong proposal for the future of the country - with policies hung from that - then the media can't shoot big enough holes in it (cf Blair 97, Sturgeon 15). The frustration is that the "One Nation" platform could have been the vision. Then was quietly dropped.
Loved this quote:
Eleanor Roosevelt famously said: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." UKIP have spent all the time since the election discussing people when they should really be discussing ideas. This is not just unedifying, it is a dangerous missed opportunity for UKIP.
Might that apply to any other party : | InnocentFace |: ?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/kezia-dugdale-to-run-for-scottish-labour-leader-1-3780495
The risk of SLAB separating from Labour is that come 2020 the Tories will just dust off the Labour in the SNP's pocket ad and have whoever is Labour leader being in SLAB/SNP's pocket. I think a safer approach might be to have a UK Labour leader and a SLAB MSP leader at Holyrood.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/8/newsid_2538000/2538165.stm
What was the case for change this time from Labour?
Er, Energy prices are too high and the NHS needs more money.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy with 1 seat out of 59 in Scotland.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy going backwards in Wales.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy with a bare handful of seats in southern England outside London.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy when it went to war with business, of whatever size.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy when it looked down on those with aspiration for themselves and their families.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy going after those with wealth.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy going after those in London to pay for nurses in Scotland.
Labour couldn't run a One Nation strategy when such few policies it had were based on sixth form politics class war.
Labour couldn't run a whelk stall...without it running up a trillion pound debt.
It's possibly a fine distinction, but one they should have been very careful about. Every time Clegg came up with some petulant line such as 'the Tories want to balance the books on the backs of the poor', who was meant to respond to such a message by voting LibDem? Not anyone who agreed with it, because the response of anyone who agreed with it would naturally be 'So why the hell are you keeping them in government?'.
There were, I think, a few senior LibDems who managed get this right, notably Danny A, who always struck me as keeping well differentiated from the Conservatives whilst remaining positive about the concept of coalition. Fat lot of good it did him of course, but that was probably because of the particular conditions in Scotland.
Con 14
Lab 10
SNP 2 (Energy and Scotland)
What is it about EdM's stance/manner that made it a by-word for his persona/credo?
Unfortunately the Research Briefing for the election in 2015 is still provisional and so does not yet include this information.
It's an interesting quirk that MPs are tending to get younger at a time when the population as a whole is ageing, with policies being tailored to appeal particularly to the older voter.
Danny outperformed question 1 by 20%, and question 2 by 10% in his constituency on the Ashcroft polling. The halving of the Conservative vote and the fact he only lost a thousand votes too is telling - he did far better than I for one expected.
The SNP got just shy of 29,000 votes in a constituency with just over 77,000 in total available though, and pushed turnout up 10% - almost entirely one would guess to themselves. They did what all other parties have been unable to do for aeons, got the non voters out of bed and into the booth !
Occasionally, they remembered to do this - but it was way after the event so looked like But, Look...That Was Us!!
I have to lay the worst blame at Vince's feet - he even dithered about voting for his own tuition fee Bill FFS.
The First Minister says the UK Government should not cut taxpayer funding for onshore wind without her permission as energy experts warn about the cost.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon/11620425/Nicola-Sturgeon-demands-veto-over-wind-farm-subsidies.html
What is it about EdM's stance/manner that made it a by-word for his persona/credo?
It may have been because Ed was raised in a household where the father figure was a communist who regularly entertained Labour hierarchy at home. Ed then immersed himself in left-wing politics at University before being groomed as a SPAD and then parachuted into a safe Labour seat ‘op-north’ – Ed’s spent his entire life surround by those that espouse class war as a means to an end, he’s never really grown up or known anything different – poor bugger never stood a chance…!
Edited extra bit: incidentally, I think that's the cause of the amusing story during the referendum that Doncaster ought to be Scottish [legally], because it's never technically been given back.
Since all parties have changed their conferences into rallies, policy is not argued or tested beyond the slogan stage.
But that's because their ideas have done well. The least I'd expect from a policy wonk is a number of intelligent policies. But what were Labour's policies rather than vacuous platitudes like on the stone. Ed lacked the charisma party leaders normally have that but in the area that was supposed to be his strength - intelligent policies he was even more shockingly lacking.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11622841/Boost-for-George-Osborne-as-tax-receipts-rise-in-April.html
Public sector net borrowing, excluding public sector banks, fell to £6.8bn in April. This was £2.5bn lower than the same month a year ago and well below economists' expectations for a more modest decline to £8.3bn.
Tax receipts grew by 3.4pc in April compared with a year ago, including a 11.3pc rise in corporation tax receipts, to £5.7bn, and a 3.7pc rise in income tax receipts, to £11.6bn. VAT receipts rose by 3.4pc, to £10.6bn.
We can only imagine the size of the tory war chest in 2020.
Shock and awe.
I thought last night's QT was instructive on unions and labour generally. Hilary DeVey's comments in particular.
Creasey went a whiter shade of pale when Hilary suggested unions aren't needed any more!
Ed had two basic problems:
1. Wonkish policies identified the structural problems with the economy but not the solutions.
2. He's a poor communicator. Less of a problem if you have a strong team around you but he didn't.
So 7 years now after the crash and the world economy isn't any better with the next crash possible any day now if Greece implodes and sets off the chain reaction across Europe. The need to evolve our economic framework is still there. But the simple truth is that very few of our politicians can look beyond the neo-liberal established system.
I want a Labour leader who can invoke the spirit of 45 and start with a blank sheet of paper. What is this country about, what things does it need, how best to pay for them. Because at the moment we have creaking and insufficient infrastructure and not enough skills and even a looming lack of power generating capacity. We need to build and invest and money is basically free to borrow if you are a government and no politician south of the border wants to talk about investment. When did investment become synonymous with subsidy?
The signs:
1) He could not speak human. Used terms like 'predistribution' as if they were common currency.
2) He has no mates. Not even in his own family, or, so it seems after the election, in the party.
3) He was awkward socially. Especially when eating bacon.
4) Cared what others thought of him.
5) Theory mattered more than practice.
Yep, definitely a nerd.
Fortunately he breaks one definition of nerdism: "the person who you will one day call boss". Thankfully, we as a country will never have Miliband as our boss.
I campaign intelligently.
You exploit loopholes.
He is an underhanded git.
We had the entirely ficticious Ashcroft Millions in 2010. But the Left hugged this chimera to themselves like a blue blanket.
If a Party can't get paying members or donors - well then they're doing something wrong. Labour seems to be perennially unwilling to sort out their own union problems.
Offering peerages for donations by Labour in the 90-00s was very wrong - but I'm sure those same people would've coughed up anyway in the main.
If you're going to give truck loads of readies to a Party - you're on a personal mission. Just the bragging rights pays for itself on the dinner party circuit. But Labour threw their own donors under the bus in the rush away from Lord Levy and tried to blame Peter Watt the then Gen Sec for it.
No wonder few businessmen want to go anywhere near them just a decade or so later. And luvvies for all their ululations don't seem to give much at all.
IN order to do that they have created a Disney theme park Victorian society out of modern Britain which voters find utterly alienating.
Cue Owen Jones' misty eyed evocation of Keir Hardie last night, and Toynbee's absurd comparison of pre war Britain and the modern tories.
Yes there are problems. But they are a world away from those the left identify.
Reading my original post again it does look vainglorious. That really was not the intention (as you rightly point out I called the election result seriously wrong) and you are right to call me up on it.
Love the word 'Ululations' - reminds me of Africa
It's a shame it missed one question though: "How traitorous have the BBC been over their handling of F1", which should have only one option: "very".
I criticised him for not cutting quickly enough, but now the tories have won, goodness me.
Imagine the tax cuts for ordinary people he'll have the cash for before 2020.
I'm still laughing at the Zulu spoofing on a recent thread = "Lefties... thousands of them!!"
Incidentally, I found this table that I'd prepared in 2010 looking at the Lib Dems' vulnerability if Labour tactical voters ceased to vote tactically for the Lib Dems:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1RDQ4wbLZZuCg_0Nc6gQRS9wjL7BuYDualkvWJ2orvrc&hl=en&authkey=CJ6b3NkH
As you can see, the Conservatives did better than even the worst case scenario that I had envisaged at that point.
The survey's long but I am glad it's comprehensive and does offer options to [not in so many words] say the glam bullshit is not important, and sprinklers are a deranged idea. There weren't many questions when I felt an answer I might want to give wasn't offered as an option.
We'll see what impact it has, but I hope lots of people participate, and that the results are made public (though I'm less confident on the second point than the first).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/list-mps-endorsements-labour-leadership-candidates
Currently showing:
Yvette: 17
Andy: 23
Liz: 14
Mary: 1
I think we can soon write off Ms Creagh
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/burnham-shows-early-lead-while-deputy-leader-race-starts-as-dead-heat/
Not to be taken too literally.
I can't find it right now, but it was prescient.
Pickles has been conspicuous by is absence - is he ok?
The decision will be taken on 12 September, of course, so a mid-June debate is some way ahead of that.
I think we can, however, already conclude two things:
1) Bye-bye Mary. It was nice meeting you.
2) No other candidates are likely to enter the race - amongst the 'Other' category that people were offered, no one name stands out (except maybe one E. Miliband!)
She's not the lefty candidate (Burnham)
She's not the Blairite candidate (Kendall)
She's not the only woman in the field
She's very closely linked to the ancien regime
Is she the Lib Dems of the Labour Leadership contest?
"Yes, I honestly backed that total loser Miliband"
or
"Ha, they paid me a boatload of cash to perform that crap"
So yes, she would be the 'Lib Dem' candidate
Most parts of Wembley would be significantly improved by the detonation of a 50kg World War II bomb.
One of your blogs on the Lib.Dems was so cautionary about Lib.Dem constituencies that it almost said:
'Warning: Lib.Dem constituency. Normal punters are advised not to bet'.
Very good advice to anyone who didn't have access to private constituency polls ... most of us I think.