notme said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.

Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.

Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.

I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.

Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.

Those were my main criticisms of him.

Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.

That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.

I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.

Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.

Both effective

Nick,

I blame the press as well as politicians. They seem to set the rules such that anyone who deviates from the party line is a "splitter".

The referendum question was a good one. 'No referendum' was the line from Ed so all had to appear to agree. It causes uncertainty, blah, blah. All spokesmen on TV did agree. They'll will row back furiously now and claim it's for the best.

Whether it's avoidance or direct lie, it still seems like the Bill Clinton quote "I did not agree to a referendum with that woman."

notme said:

Sandpit said:

notme said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.

Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.

Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.

I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.

Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.

Those were my main criticisms of him.

Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.

That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.

I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.

Yes, the campaign against Esther was quite disgusting.
Remind me again, who are the nasty party?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3048276/Tory-minister-calls-Miliband-condemn-sexist-campaign-against-branded-murderer-going-hell-Labour-rivals.html

I understand it got even worse after that....

Yes it did. Didn't want to say anything that could get Mike in trouble without a link to back it up though.

Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:

"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”

In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds.
DYOR

He is giving his view of the election results

notme said:

Sandpit said:

notme said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.

Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.

Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.

I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.

Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.

Those were my main criticisms of him.

Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.

That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.

I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.

Yes, the campaign against Esther was quite disgusting.
Remind me again, who are the nasty party?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3048276/Tory-minister-calls-Miliband-condemn-sexist-campaign-against-branded-murderer-going-hell-Labour-rivals.html

I understand it got even worse after that....

And let's not forget what happened to Charlotte Leslie in Bristol:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vandals-wreck-Bristol-MP-candidate-Charlotte/story-26425029-detail/story.html

JosiasJessop said:

Flightpathl said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

Tens of thousands?
The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.

Yes, tens of thousands.

As for your other question, for the initial values that are used in adverts and promotional materials:

1) You make the profile of the rolling road better match typical driving profiles, and not the ideal. Stop testing at high altitude, and do a range of tests with varying loads.

2) You also perform tests on the road in real-world conditions.

3) You then alter the required MOT results downwards accordingly.

As an aside, it's about time that manufacturers fiddling MPG figures in adverts was stopped.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/14/car-manufacturers-manipulating-fuel-efficiency-tests

It can be done: Euro NCAP have done a superb job wrt safety.

It's all legal .. It's the EU's fault for allowing the fiddles.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to Harriet Harman on Marr this morning was surreal. She is now endorsing the referendum and has much the same aims as David Cameron apparently but when Andrew Marr summed up her position as wanting and demanding a changed Europe but that if Europe refuses she agreed that she would still campaign to stay in an unreformed Europe !!!!!

That's Cameron's position too, you know. It will be lightly-masked by whatever "reforms" he can get (the EU is great at producing consensus wording that meets the needs of national governments), but you don't actually think he's going to campaign for "out", do you? Nor is he going to say "Well, I'm Prime Minister, but I don't really mind, do as you think best". He's going to say "I've got the best deal you could possibly hope for after rigorous and confrontational meetings, vote for it!"

Sometimes age has its advantages. I've seen PRECISELY this sequence under Harold Wilson.

peter_from_putney said:

Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:

"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”

In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds.
DYOR

Surely trying that will bring out UKIP in force as the anti-politics vote? When was the last time an MP resigned his seat to allow a party stooge to be elected in a safe seat?

notme said:

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

notme said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.

Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.

Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.

I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.

Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.

Those were my main criticisms of him.

Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.

That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.

I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.

Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.

Both effective

Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?

And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.

Ignoring the fact that Mirror hacking has been covered, it misses the the other factors that made NI hacking more newsworthy.

1) NI came first. News is news.
2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown.
3) Rupert Murdoch.
4) Milly Dowler.

It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).

DecrepitJohnL said:

notme said:

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

notme said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.

Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.

Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.

Those were my main criticisms of him.

Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.

That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.

I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.

Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.

Both effective

Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?

And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.

Ignoring the fact that Mirror hacking has been covered, it misses the the other factors that made NI hacking more newsworthy.

1) NI came first. News is news.
2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown.
3) Rupert Murdoch.
4) Milly Dowler.

It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).

Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.

madasafish said:

JosiasJessop said:

Flightpathl said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

Tens of thousands?
The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.

Yes, tens of thousands.

As for your other question, for the initial values that are used in adverts and promotional materials:

1) You make the profile of the rolling road better match typical driving profiles, and not the ideal. Stop testing at high altitude, and do a range of tests with varying loads.

2) You also perform tests on the road in real-world conditions.

3) You then alter the required MOT results downwards accordingly.

As an aside, it's about time that manufacturers fiddling MPG figures in adverts was stopped.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/14/car-manufacturers-manipulating-fuel-efficiency-tests

It can be done: Euro NCAP have done a superb job wrt safety.

It's all legal .. It's the EU's fault for allowing the fiddles.

They're only 'allowing' them in the fact that the manufacturers are exploiting loopholes.

It's why independent NCAP-style test labs need setting up. They would test cars when models are first introduced, and then, for every 100,000 (say) cars sold in a country, one is picked randomly from a showroom and tested.

If each major European country had a test lab (as I think happens with Euro NCAP), then you would detect outliers as well.

I see little downside to this. The cost would not even be that great in the larger scale of things.

Well, I hope we can all agree that the Govt. should provide there are funds available to ensure that the Mirror hacking is exposed to the same degree of criminal prosecution as NI. Let the juries decide....

Today's Sunday Times yougov has Andy Burnham seen as most likely to win the next election for Labour with Cooper second Kendal 3rd, though Kendal 2nd with Tories

All Labour Tory UKIP

Burnham 20 Burnham 25 Burnham 15 Burnham 21
Cooper 10 Cooper 14 Cooper 8 Cooper 9
Kendal 8 Kendal 5 Kendal 13 Kendal 7
Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 0

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2g0umt985b/SundayTimesResults_150522_Website.pdf

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to Harriet Harman on Marr this morning was surreal. She is now endorsing the referendum and has much the same aims as David Cameron apparently but when Andrew Marr summed up her position as wanting and demanding a changed Europe but that if Europe refuses she agreed that she would still campaign to stay in an unreformed Europe !!!!!

What's even more strange is that she's making policy at all. Yes, she's Labour's leader but only temporarily. There's nearly five years of parliament to go and she's about to stand down herself. Her role should be limited to keeping things functioning while her party sorts its future out. She shouldn't be tying the hands of her successor (and his or her shadow cabinet) in this way. What if Cooper or Burnham or Kendall disagrees with her, as they have every right to do? Will they reverse the policy again? The best thing one of the candidates could do is come out directly against her and the change before she tries to impose more policies and close down debate on her terms.

Difficult for Labour not to have a view on this, one way or another. Hopefully she's spoken to the candidates and arrived at an agreed position.

I think most people would accept that party unity in the middle of a leadership election isn't essential. Arguably, it's necessary *not* to have unity. Otherwise what are they voting on?

peter_from_putney said:

MarqueeMark said:

peter_from_putney said:

Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:

"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”

In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds.
DYOR

Brand Miliband got buggered....

Two years is a long time in politics, especially should Andy Burnham mess up which is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities and Huddersfield has been known to produce a Labour Prime Minister in the past.

Harold Wilson was born in Warneford Rd in Milnsbridge. This has an HD postcode but is actually now in the Colne Valley constituency.

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.

That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.

"That or may not be true"

What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications

It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.

If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.

(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.

You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).

ScottP There already is, he is Peter Mandelson and Osborne copied him

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.

That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.

"That or may not be true"

What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications

It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.

If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.

(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.

You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).

I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.

Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?

Scott_P said:

Haha.

Labourlist opine the Osborne is a Master Political Strategist. Some might even say genius...

@LabourList: Before Labour finds it’s next leader, it needs to find its George Osborne - and fast, writes @OllyDeed http://labli.st/1GwEQjt

Has tim retweeted that?

*innocent face*

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.

That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.

"That or may not be true"

What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications

It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.

If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.

(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.

You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).

I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.

Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?

Read what I wrote. Whether that part is true (or only partly true) is irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up. And, again, it has nothing to do with party politics -- and even there, the papers were not aligned as you imply.

Kim Howells on Labour's troubles -

"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.

"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.

He also attacked Ed Miliband for promoting "unmitigated gloom" which he described as "dull, it's boring, it does not inspire anyone".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-32863727

Not entirely sure what he means by radical thinking, but Miliband did little to encourage anything other than a core vote. Yet how far were Labour divorced from policies of PC, SNP, or The Greens?

Radical is rather like progressive, a cover for all sorts of catch all policies.

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.

"That or may not be true"

What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications

It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.

If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.

(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.

You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).

I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.

Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?

Read what I wrote. Whether that part is true (or only partly true) is irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up. And, again, it has nothing to do with party politics -- and even there, the papers were not aligned as you imply.

I did read it. Your response was to Sandpit's point, and is in that context.

And FFS, it is not 'only partly true'. It is absolutely true. To say otherwise is nothing other than low smear. ("Oh, it is unlikely they did it, but I don't like them and therefore they must have").

The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.

That is its great strength and also its great weakness. The numbers in Labour who would prefer to lose with honour than to win with compromise is, I'd estimate, a good deal higher then in the Conservatives. That gives the Tories a greater hunger for power and Labour a greater sense of purpose. It also gives Labour its sense of moral superiority, which is at best a double-edged sword.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Russia came second?!?

Media scare tactics on Putin (or should I say Vladolph?) clearly rapidly losing their effectiveness (except on PB).

We got 5 points. But I'm sure this was the year when they said we've got a real, real, chance of winning?

Why fans of Russian foreign policy (or rather that absurd idea that because Western powers also engage in questionable activities for their own gain, that Russia is above reproach) are making coming second as some point about media scare tactics on Russia not working, I've no idea. Personally I thought Russia deserved to win last year, when media feeling against them was a lot stronger, and they still placed well then, so perhaps it's just that in addition to their reasonable bloc vote they also pick decent entries?

But no, let's make some implicit point about how fantastic Russia are and how terrible we in the West are, as tiresome as that is.

Anyone seen 'Pouter about btw ?

HYUFD said:

dh Mandelson can still have a role behind the scenes, don't forget he was involved in 1987 too even before Blair and Brown and began the first steps in the recovery from Labour's 1983 trouncing

True, though some might also suggest Mandelson contributed in part to the 1992 defeat and had nothing to do with Labour's recovery under John Smith.

DecrepitJohnL said:

You have the timeline wrong in that outrage had already been caused before it was doubted who deleted the messages. Cause must come before effect, so later doubts are irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up.

Eh? It was always 'under doubt' who deleted the messages. It was an accusation - a false one - made in the media, mainly by people who could not be bothered asking experts how the system worked. There were always alternatives to what may have happened, and therefore doubt.

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

dh Mandelson can still have a role behind the scenes, don't forget he was involved in 1987 too even before Blair and Brown and began the first steps in the recovery from Labour's 1983 trouncing

True, though some might also suggest Mandelson contributed in part to the 1992 defeat ...

I'm sure they would because they hate Mandelson and what he stands for. I'd be intrigued to hear their evidence.

The Sheffield rally was Philip Gould's idea though has become more significant in retrospect than it ostensibly was at the time. Labour's Shadow Budget in 1992 was probably a bigger mistake. Smith probably did more to cost Labour the election than anyone and if their recovery afterwards was due to anyone it was a default effect against Conservative failings. Smith probably would have gone on to win in 1997 - he was safe enough to enough - but not on the scale Blair did.

dr_spyn said:

Kim Howells on Labour's troubles -

"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.

"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.

Well, yes, true to an extent. However, I think if he took the trouble to check his figures carefully he would notice that the fact Labour held the actual seats in the old coalfields because the other parties divided the opposition vote between them masked a very large drop in the vote share. Labour's vote in its heartlands did a passable impression of a stone - Scotland was the most stunning example, but there were an awful lot of seats in Wales and the North of England that would have gone had any other party managed to attract the tactical votes, seats where Labour used to have an absolute majority (like Aberavon, Bridgend or even Rhondda).

Winning in southern England would be great - but it needs to make sure it's not losing everywhere else at the same time.

ydoethur said:

dr_spyn said:

Kim Howells on Labour's troubles -

"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.

"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.

Well, yes, true to an extent. However, I think if he took the trouble to check his figures carefully he would notice that the fact Labour held the actual seats in the old coalfields because the other parties divided the opposition vote between them masked a very large drop in the vote share. Labour's vote in its heartlands did a passable impression of a stone - Scotland was the most stunning example, but there were an awful lot of seats in Wales and the North of England that would have gone had any other party managed to attract the tactical votes, seats where Labour used to have an absolute majority (like Aberavon, Bridgend or even Rhondda).

Winning in southern England would be great - but it needs to make sure it's not losing everywhere else at the same time.

There are many seats in Wales where Labour has lost one third of its vote since the 1997 high-water mark. Not the redoubt it was by any means (I said here I'd expected Wales to be a poor result for Labour - and it came to pass...)

"Halfon's choice of tie in the above footage promises that he will never be PM. No chance, not in a million years. "

uh oh, HCOTITAFPTHWNPMNCNIAMY or HCOTITAFPTHWNPM

NEW THREAD

ydoethur said:

dr_spyn said:

Kim Howells on Labour's troubles -

"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.

"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.

Well, yes, true to an extent. However, I think if he took the trouble to check his figures carefully he would notice that the fact Labour held the actual seats in the old coalfields because the other parties divided the opposition vote between them masked a very large drop in the vote share. Labour's vote in its heartlands did a passable impression of a stone - Scotland was the most stunning example, but there were an awful lot of seats in Wales and the North of England that would have gone had any other party managed to attract the tactical votes, seats where Labour used to have an absolute majority (like Aberavon, Bridgend or even Rhondda).

Winning in southern England would be great - but it needs to make sure it's not losing everywhere else at the same time.

Indeed. The key battlegrounds remain primarily those made up of towns near or abutting bigger cities in the midlands, North West and Yorkshire.

The Morley & Outwood example is a good one of how the ex-mining areas are trending away from Labour. Balls obviously won the seat when it was created, in 2010, from the previous constituencies of Normanton (which he previously represented) and Morley & Rothwell.

Normanton was solidly Labour, with them polling above 50% in all elections bar two since at least the 1920s, peaking at an 84% share in 1945 (unless you count the two times when Lab was returned unopposed in 1924 and a by-election in 1933). Prior to 1909, it was Lib or Lib-Lab back to its creation in 1885. Andrea Jenkyn's victory there thus provided the first Tory representation for the town since 1880 (i.e. before the Third Reform Act).

Morley & Rothwell, was no more marginal throughout its existence, coinciding with the Blair victories, consistently returning Labour MPs with 30% majorities. Before then, it was essentially Morley & Leeds South, from the 1983-92 elections, and was also consistently Labour (not by as much but even in 1983, Labour still had a 14% margin). Prior to that, the Batley & Morley constituency is the relevant predecessor and was also Labour from its creation in 1918 with the sole exception of 1931.

Now, you could argue that M&O and its predecessors was never the kind of pit-village constituency that parts of S Yorks or S Wales are/were, which has an element of truth but the numbers speak for themselves.

Chasing after votes in the south is all very well but pretty pointless if Labour leak votes to UKIP and seats to the Tories.

Of course, PR would resolve the dilemma, meaning that all parties would need to campaign everywhere.