also, those lamenting the poor quality of the Labour leadership contenders, it's a shame none of the Lib Dem leadership hustings are going to be televised. Last Friday's hustings in Southampton was packed (overflowed into another room - over 200 people) and electrifying. Both Lamb and Farron were streets ahead of any of the Labourites. I know I am a Lib Dem, but even making allowance for any bias, genuinely much higher calibre candidates and much less politician speak.
@montie: If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader this will be hung around his neck by the Tory machine https://t.co/D8zRaamejG
Why would the public care about that?
Does anyone else feel completely underwhelmed by the hustings tonight. No one seemed passionate, the audience seemed to be left leaning, the microphone coverage was poor and Laura Kunesberg seemed to struggle to keep it together. Is this really the best labour can do, surely some of the deputy leader candidates would make a better showing or os it the case that most in the labour party do not want to take on a poisoned chalice
@chameleon big buzz. If you are looking for a betting tip, I wouldn't take one from me! But think Farron ahead, as scored higher on charisma. Lamb still good, just not got quite Tim's brilliant communication skills.
@montie: If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader this will be hung around his neck by the Tory machine https://t.co/D8zRaamejG
Why would the public care about that?
Does anyone else feel completely underwhelmed by the hustings tonight. No one seemed passionate, the audience seemed to be left leaning, the microphone coverage was poor and Laura Kunesberg seemed to struggle to keep it together. Is this really the best labour can do, surely some of the deputy leader candidates would make a better showing or os it the case that most in the labour party do not want to take on a poisoned chalice
The audience were pathetic. Empty seats and empty questions.
Some random thoughts as the hustings proceeded, though summaries first.
Cooper - Stressing her experience, but not taking any risks Burnham - I was confused what his messages were Kendall - Pretty bland, but at least clear on her message as 'fresh start' Corbyn - What did lefties bang on about before the Iraq War? (which I opposed, for the record)
@montie: If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader this will be hung around his neck by the Tory machine https://t.co/D8zRaamejG
Oh what a muppet. But I don't doubt he genuinely believes it.
The question was "would you resign if you were going to lose Labour the election?" He meant he puts the party before his own ego so he would go if necessary.
@MitchellSt: England scored 1327 runs in 6 games at World Cup, opponents included Scotland, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. 4 games vs NZ this month? 1425.
@montie: If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader this will be hung around his neck by the Tory machine https://t.co/D8zRaamejG
Oh what a muppet. But I don't doubt he genuinely believes it.
You're better than this! The question was "would you resign if you were going to lose Labour the election?" His "party comes first" response has to be seen in that context, as in he puts the party before his own ego so he would go if necessary.
Right, I was watching the cricket so I just caught the sound bite on the twitter link. That does put it in a rather different context.
Wouldn't Toby Young have been less likely to get caught if he'd been a bit more discreet? It's almost as if he wants people to be impressed by his hilarious antics more than he wants to consign Labour to electoral oblivion.
@montie: If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader this will be hung around his neck by the Tory machine https://t.co/D8zRaamejG
Oh what a muppet. But I don't doubt he genuinely believes it.
You're better than this! The question was "would you resign if you were going to lose Labour the election?" His "party comes first" response has to be seen in that context, as in he puts the party before his own ego so he would go if necessary.
Right, I was watching the cricket so I just caught the sound bite on the twitter link. That does put it in a rather different context.
Do you think he did well tonight?
I liked him, but I'm not sure if what I liked about him is what the general public will dislike about him. Imo, the problem is not he's policies (since he's really not particularly left-wing at all), but his tone: he has a tendency to rail against the Tories as being evil and all the rest of it. I dunno, I worry that it might look too "tribal" to a lot of people.
Yvette has pretty much the same policies as Andy, but I feel her more reasoned tone might come across better to swing voters.
YC: 'no easy answers' - except that cliche of course. AB: Opened with that I consider false attach on Cameron about stoking rather than reacting to national division, and the Westminster bubble. Didn't work for me, maybe for others. LK - Bit too much personal story, but fresh start appeal may appeal to some JC - Pretty normal sounding, probably as only time for platitudes in opening
Q01 - rebuild leftwing party AB - Doesn't want to take a stance LK - Weak attempt to deny a label as Blairite, despite seeking to claim in through action at start of nominations/ YC - pitch as steady, safe hands candidate JC - Dislike of New Labour seems more like mild disagreement than anything serious, given it seems like he'd never have left Labour
Standout comment - LK on spending more on debt interest than education, re impact on wishes to invest. Makes sense to me.
Q02 - Immigration
YC - Same old same old at first, but did react to audience better. LK - A bit stronger and more distinct AB - I'm not sure what he's saying, though presenter cannot control him running on and on JC - Nothing special, just not tip toeing around issue
Q03 - the 'why can't you be like sturgeon' question
YC - reacting like she's scared of her, with very qualified criticism mixed with praise LK - On message re reaching out, but bland AB - 'Came into politics to take on concentration of power in elites of Wesminster'(paraphrase). I had to rewind to make sure I heard him correctly - he's been an MP for 14 years and apparently it's still like that and his own party don't agree still, if it's the plank of his campaign JC - Military intervention again!
Q04 budget surlpus JC - passionate but not clear to me. Don't need to balance books in 4-5 years? Ok, fine. But would he ever want to balance books? Seems like he would always resist any cuts at any time, even if in theory he might think there were times to balance, (and that he would require a failure to increase spending as a cut) LK - happy to go after JC, to present as 'sensible' AB - I think he's saying 'We didn't spend too much, but public think we did, so we need to regain trust by saying we need to cut now, even though I only believe that because we're not trusted, not because I think it's true' YC - peddling comforting lie about accusations Labour caused everything, not merely made worse. Ignored from then on.
Thought - I remain baffled at the idea Labour are saying there was not too much spending (at some point at least) and yet now we absolutely must cut spending
JC on benefits - again, not completely unreasonable, but I find it hard to believe he would accept any measures in reality that would in any way restrict anything.
What's the context here? The two-second vine doing the rounds isn't much help. It just looks like one platitude being answered with another.
EDIT: Ah, I see Danny565 has explained the context below. So Burnham was actually answering a question, while Kendall just saw an opportunity to get in a completely unrelated soundbite. Not sure why folk thinks this makes her seem appealing.
@montie: If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader this will be hung around his neck by the Tory machine https://t.co/D8zRaamejG
Oh what a muppet. But I don't doubt he genuinely believes it.
You're better than this! The question was "would you resign if you were going to lose Labour the election?" His "party comes first" response has to be seen in that context, as in he puts the party before his own ego so he would go if necessary.
Right, I was watching the cricket so I just caught the sound bite on the twitter link. That does put it in a rather different context.
Do you think he did well tonight?
It was the context. I thought Burnham did well, though he did interrupt the others. Best performance. Corbyn was just playing to the gallery over the Iraq war, which would get s cheer from any hall anywhere. Please can we have Chilcott soon?
@montie: If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader this will be hung around his neck by the Tory machine https://t.co/D8zRaamejG
Oh what a muppet. But I don't doubt he genuinely believes it.
The question was "would you resign if you were going to lose Labour the election?" He meant he puts the party before his own ego so he would go if necessary.
he would be like any other leader.... hang on for dear life.. none of them like relinquishing power. Its a fantasy to suggest for any leader its party before ego. Usually they get pushed out esp if they are Prime Minister
LK - buying into the idea she is the one the Tories will fear a bit much? Her 'Hell yes' moment? AB - Labour looked like it was run by elites and he will change that...even though same people will be running it. What? YC - trying to go after Tories at end, present as best able to take them on.
Loved the comment about YC and AB being in a government with people attacking each other in private but not admitting it.
All in all, fairly dull night, and summed up by one chap 'Heard it all before'. If reflective of future campaign, sure they might win in 5 years, but only if Tories lose for their own reasons (splits, length of government, poor leader) not out of a change in position.
Took me years to stop getting emails from John O'Farrell the last time I was (minutely and tangentially) involved with Labour, but think this might be worth the three quid. Has the quality/laboured unfunnyness of those email circulars improved since then?
Also, are they really going to cyber stalk every applicant by hand to keep our the Tories? Frankly they are likely to get more such "infiltration" from the Trots, are they going to be barred too? The effort will eat in to that £3. Just don't be a plonker and write"to destroy Labour"/"bring back Marx to the mainstream" and I'm sure most of us will be fine.
What's the context here? The two-second vine doing the rounds isn't much help. It just looks like one platitude being answered with another.
EDIT: Ah, I see Danny565 has explained the context below. So Burnham was actually answering a question, while Kendall just saw an opportunity to get in a completely unrelated soundbite. Not sure why folk thinks this makes her seem appealing.
I didn't even notice it when watching, but it could be made to play well. Being able to craft a gaffe from your opponent where there was not one, in context, is a useful skill to have if you can pull it off.
Politicians (and their pundit and supporting public) try it all the time, presenting every minor change from their opposite as a climbdown or u-turn, possibly in response to their own actions, and every minor slip of the tongue portrayed as symbolic of some dreadful belief that, of course, also infects the entire opposition party.
That said, Burnham seeming to imply he puts party before country would play well to some, as it says he has total loyalty to the party, which many people will think is automatically good for the country too.
Took me years to stop getting emails from John O'Farrell the last time I was (minutely and tangentially) involved with Labour, but think this might be worth the three quid. Has the quality/laboured unfunnyness of those email circulars improved since then?
Also, are they really going to cyber stalk every applicant by hand to keep our the Tories? Frankly they are likely to get more such "infiltration" from the Trots, are they going to be barred too? The effort will eat in to that £3. Just don't be a plonker and write"to destroy Labour"/"bring back Marx to the mainstream" and I'm sure most of us will be fine.
"Up to 20 military personnel have been injured in a collision between troop carriers on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire Police have said. Two people with life-threatening injuries have been flown to Southampton General Hospital and eight people with "serious injuries" to Salisbury, South West Ambulance said."
Took me years to stop getting emails from John O'Farrell the last time I was (minutely and tangentially) involved with Labour, but think this might be worth the three quid. Has the quality/laboured unfunnyness of those email circulars improved since then?
Also, are they really going to cyber stalk every applicant by hand to keep our the Tories? Frankly they are likely to get more such "infiltration" from the Trots, are they going to be barred too? The effort will eat in to that £3. Just don't be a plonker and write"to destroy Labour"/"bring back Marx to the mainstream" and I'm sure most of us will be fine.
Most of us will not be identified!
Quite!
Is this Lib Dems for Jez btw? Surprised that's not a Thing, would benefit that party more than Tories in some ways.
Or is this just Doctors For Proper Socialist Wages?
Took me years to stop getting emails from John O'Farrell the last time I was (minutely and tangentially) involved with Labour, but think this might be worth the three quid. Has the quality/laboured unfunnyness of those email circulars improved since then?
Also, are they really going to cyber stalk every applicant by hand to keep our the Tories? Frankly they are likely to get more such "infiltration" from the Trots, are they going to be barred too? The effort will eat in to that £3. Just don't be a plonker and write"to destroy Labour"/"bring back Marx to the mainstream" and I'm sure most of us will be fine.
Most of us will not be identified!
Quite!
Is this Lib Dems for Jez btw? Surprised that's not a Thing, would benefit that party more than Tories in some ways.
Or is this just Doctors For Proper Socialist Wages?
Neither. I used to be in the Labour party, and could see myself voting for Kendall or possibly Burnham, but never the other two. I guess that is my order sorted out...
Wait, they're finally doing a remake of Final Fantasy VII?! Must have skipped past summaries of that somehow.
I have such nostalgic love for the game that it could be a terrible remake but it wouldn't matter, as I will preorder it well before then. In fact, I have such nostalgic love for the game, I'm hoping for what is usually the bad kind of remake - keeping things exactly the same, even the dumb stuff, just make it look prettier.
Now I need to know the position of the Labour leadership candidates on this news.
I didn't even notice it when watching, but it could be made to play well. Being able to craft a gaffe from your opponent where there was not one, in context, is a useful skill to have if you can pull it off.
Politicians (and their pundit and supporting public) try it all the time, presenting every minor change from their opposite as a climbdown or u-turn, possibly in response to their own actions, and every minor slip of the tongue portrayed as symbolic of some dreadful belief that, of course, also infects the entire opposition party.
That said, Burnham seeming to imply he puts party before country would play well to some, as it says he has total loyalty to the party, which many people will think is automatically good for the country too.
Sure, being able to fool people into thinking you're a decent and altruistic person is a valuable political skill. But I don't think Kendall achieves that in this exchange. As someone who had virtually no preconceptions about Kendall and Burnham, other than she's a bit right and he's a bit left, my impression from this incident is that Kendall is an opportunistic and dishonest platitude-bot.
Paul Richards @Labourpaul 13m13 minutes ago Eastbourne CLP has done a STV ballot. Burnham beats Cooper by 1 in 3rd round. For deputy, Watson wins in third round.
Not sure that Eastbourne with it's (presumably) minuscule amount of Labour members will be too representative, mind!
As far as the Ladbroke combination bet is concerned I would recommend dutching as the bet.I note there is no Corbyn/Flint price and it is tempting to get on at very good prices.This arrangement would suit JC ideally as he has his allotment tend and the paper-work would not fit on his bike.He could then delegate power to CF who would do a competent job.His great lieutenant Dennis Skinner turns up for work everyday so he would be a shoo-in for Chief Whip. Otherwise,never under-price the role of the sisterhood in Labour politics where 2 women in charge is the preferred option.I'd also be in for Cooper/Creasy,Cooper/Eagle,Cooper/Flint at 12-,50-1 and 20-1 respectively.Over 560% return pricing Corbyn/Flint at 150-1.The sisters will have to select their chosen candidate for deputy to beat Tom Watson. Both bookies favourites may well be over-priced and there is better value elsewhere.If the Labour party is having a nervous breakdown,it may be best to have the women in charge.
Wouldn't Toby Young have been less likely to get caught if he'd been a bit more discreet? It's almost as if he wants people to be impressed by his hilarious antics more than he wants to consign Labour to electoral oblivion.
I have been doing the sane rational thing tonight and just come back from the pub. Judging from the reports/comments it seems the pantomime season has opened early.
What's the context here? The two-second vine doing the rounds isn't much help. It just looks like one platitude being answered with another.
EDIT: Ah, I see Danny565 has explained the context below. So Burnham was actually answering a question, while Kendall just saw an opportunity to get in a completely unrelated soundbite. Not sure why folk thinks this makes her seem appealing.
I didn't even notice it when watching, but it could be made to play well. Being able to craft a gaffe from your opponent where there was not one, in context, is a useful skill to have if you can pull it off.
Politicians (and their pundit and supporting public) try it all the time, presenting every minor change from their opposite as a climbdown or u-turn, possibly in response to their own actions, and every minor slip of the tongue portrayed as symbolic of some dreadful belief that, of course, also infects the entire opposition party.
That said, Burnham seeming to imply he puts party before country would play well to some, as it says he has total loyalty to the party, which many people will think is automatically good for the country too.
That was horrifically poor. You can see why Burnham came fourth in 2010.
Corbyn won it for me, at least he seemed to be genuine.
I think thats the key point. They are all clueless (which lets face it is why they are in the Labour Party) but at least Corbyn believes the rubbish he spouts.
I think I might pay my £3 if I thought I could write in Hodges on the ballot.
I thought Burnham came across quite well, but not sure if his passion and down-to-earth-ness might be perceived as being too lightweight to the general public.
I really want some detailed focus groups to be carried out on swing voters on whether Yvette or Andy comes across better to them, because although I have a slight personal preference for Andy, I mainly want the one of them who has the best chance of winning. (Won't be voting for Liz even if by some freak of nature she comes across best to swing voters.)
I'm surprised to say quite genuinely that Corbyn is the only one with leadership speaking skills. The other three sound very thin and unstatesmanlike.
Yes, I always thought he came across a bit dull when I've seen him before, but he actually sounds quite pumped up tonight (if you ignore the substance of what he's saying).
Personal qualities and ability to win are different things. I've known Jeremy on and off for 50 years, since I was a callow teenage volunteer and he was the agent in Hornsey. He's intelligent, likeable, has coherent ideas and has more experience than anyone in responding politely and reasonably to people who don't agree with him. He's not about vanity, or careerism. So at a personal level he's probably the candidate with the best leadership qualities.
Unfortunately, the Tories would screw us if he was leader. If we had PR and Labour was split into a left and right half as in most PR countries, I'd vote for him, as the leader best qualified to get us a solid 25% of the vote and do reasonable things with it. But we don't.
On topic, Burnham/Creasy looks quite a good shot at 6-1. People voting for experience and likeability in slot 1 and a bright new face in slot 2.
Just back from the night's other hustings - those for the LD leader at one of the UCL halls in London.
Over 1,000 LD members in attendance and on a show of hands, about a quarter of the audience were new members i.e: had joined since the election. I thought both candidates were very good in both their set speeches and in response to questions from the floor.
Norman speaks with authority and care (he was a lawyer in a previous life) while Tim is all passion, fire and rhetoric. Given our current predicament, Tim is for me the obvious choice as we need a leader who will shout and be controversial because that's the only way the Party will be heard again.
Given I saw odds of 1/10 Farron and 5/1 Lamb a while back, the audience was much more finely balanced. The Lamb campaigners were more numerous and better organised than the Farronistas and before the set speeches I reckon Lamb led 55-45 but by the end of the evening it was much closer.
London is as crucial for the LDs as it is for Labour with big constituency parties in Kingston, Sutton, Richmond and Southwark. Lynne Featherstone (who is a Lamb supporter) was the only ex-MP I saw this evening.
This election reminds me of the first LD election between Paddy Ashdown and Alan Beith which Paddy won comfortably but while I think Tim will win Norman will run him much closer than the odds suggest.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 2m2 minutes ago In 2010 just 8.5% of LAB members gave Andy Burnham their first choice - tonight we found out why. He's a loser.
I hate it when Mike sits on the fence
I think I said ages ago if Burnham is the answer Labour are asking the wrong question. That does not mean that he will not win. I am afraid that the BBC picture of the 4 of them is just appalling. Is poor Yvette deliberately trying to come across as the spinster from hell? There must be some reason why Kendall is insisting on wearing the trousers and Corbyn doing his best to look like a libdem. Why is Labour holding these TV debates and washing their shop soiled laundry in public?? If this is the Labour leadership, what the sodding hell is its shadow cabinet going to look like? It looks like Harriet Harman has decided her best epitaph is to be 'the best leader Labour never had'.
Just back from the night's other hustings - those for the LD leader at one of the UCL halls in London.
Over 1,000 LD members in attendance and on a show of hands, about a quarter of the audience were new members i.e: had joined since the election. I thought both candidates were very good in both their set speeches and in response to questions from the floor.
Norman speaks with authority and care (he was a lawyer in a previous life) while Tim is all passion, fire and rhetoric. Given our current predicament, Tim is for me the obvious choice as we need a leader who will shout and be controversial because that's the only way the Party will be heard again.
Given I saw odds of 1/10 Farron and 5/1 Lamb a while back, the audience was much more finely balanced. The Lamb campaigners were more numerous and better organised than the Farronistas and before the set speeches I reckon Lamb led 55-45 but by the end of the evening it was much closer.
London is as crucial for the LDs as it is for Labour with big constituency parties in Kingston, Sutton, Richmond and Southwark. Lynne Featherstone (who is a Lamb supporter) was the only ex-MP I saw this evening.
This election reminds me of the first LD election between Paddy Ashdown and Alan Beith which Paddy won comfortably but while I think Tim will win Norman will run him much closer than the odds suggest.
Evening Stodge. Do you not worry that Farron lacks substance - a kind of soft-left Farage-lite - and will eventually be 'found out'? Would it not be better to have a more modest fightback, taking back a few tight seats (e.g. Cambridge) with Lamb, less fiery but talking sense when the other parties are sloganeering?
Just back from the night's other hustings - those for the LD leader at one of the UCL halls in London.
Over 1,000 LD members in attendance and on a show of hands, about a quarter of the audience were new members i.e: had joined since the election. I thought both candidates were very good in both their set speeches and in response to questions from the floor.
Norman speaks with authority and care (he was a lawyer in a previous life) while Tim is all passion, fire and rhetoric. Given our current predicament, Tim is for me the obvious choice as we need a leader who will shout and be controversial because that's the only way the Party will be heard again.
Given I saw odds of 1/10 Farron and 5/1 Lamb a while back, the audience was much more finely balanced. The Lamb campaigners were more numerous and better organised than the Farronistas and before the set speeches I reckon Lamb led 55-45 but by the end of the evening it was much closer.
London is as crucial for the LDs as it is for Labour with big constituency parties in Kingston, Sutton, Richmond and Southwark. Lynne Featherstone (who is a Lamb supporter) was the only ex-MP I saw this evening.
This election reminds me of the first LD election between Paddy Ashdown and Alan Beith which Paddy won comfortably but while I think Tim will win Norman will run him much closer than the odds suggest.
Evening Stodge. Do you not worry that Farron lacks substance - a kind of soft-left Farage-lite - and will eventually be 'found out'? Would it not be better to have a more modest fightback, taking back a few tight seats (e.g. Cambridge) with Lamb, less fiery but talking sense when the other parties are sloganeering?
The problem is modesty could mean political death. Nobody will hear the quiet man.
Just back from the night's other hustings - those for the LD leader at one of the UCL halls in London.
Over 1,000 LD members in attendance and on a show of hands, about a quarter of the audience were new members i.e: had joined since the election. I thought both candidates were very good in both their set speeches and in response to questions from the floor.
Norman speaks with authority and care (he was a lawyer in a previous life) while Tim is all passion, fire and rhetoric. Given our current predicament, Tim is for me the obvious choice as we need a leader who will shout and be controversial because that's the only way the Party will be heard again.
Given I saw odds of 1/10 Farron and 5/1 Lamb a while back, the audience was much more finely balanced. The Lamb campaigners were more numerous and better organised than the Farronistas and before the set speeches I reckon Lamb led 55-45 but by the end of the evening it was much closer.
London is as crucial for the LDs as it is for Labour with big constituency parties in Kingston, Sutton, Richmond and Southwark. Lynne Featherstone (who is a Lamb supporter) was the only ex-MP I saw this evening.
This election reminds me of the first LD election between Paddy Ashdown and Alan Beith which Paddy won comfortably but while I think Tim will win Norman will run him much closer than the odds suggest.
Sounds a good turnout. I am going to the East Mids Hustings on July 6. My feelings are like yours. I prefer Lamb in many ways, but Farron is more fiery and that is what is needed at present. With a more democratic party than the others without the same fuhrerprinzipat the leaders politics are not quite as critical as other parties.
Danish polls with 1 day to go - centre-right ahead by 1.5, 1.5 and 1.6. These may not fully reflect the final 10-party leader debate (a Danish tradition two days before the vote - works surprisingly well) if anything the centre-right seem to have edged that, so I'd think they were favourites.
Was watching The BBC at War with J Dimbleby on BBC2 post newsnight. Talking about the controversy of the BBC not being allowed to broadcast the Internationale on their "national anthems of the allies" programme, by orders of Churchill himself, until the USSR and UK signed an agreement some time after the start of Barbarossa and we were sufficiently allied for Winston to relent. Brief overview of the politically difficult lyrics.
Proletarian revolutionary blah di blah.
AND IN THE BACKGROUND, PUMPED UP TO FULL VOLUME, THEY PLAY NOT THE INTERNATIONALE BUT THE LATER STATE ANTHEM OF THE USSR ... Introduced later in the war, iirc, because it was felt more important to foster nationalism and pride in the Soviet struggle against Nazism than the minimal emotional sustenance that comes of promoting international revolutionary comradeship. With reworked lyrics, still the patriotic song of Putin's Russia. BUT IT ISN'T THE SODDING INTERNATIONALE YOU BLOODY INCOMPETENT CAN'T EVEN DO BEING LEFTY PROPERLY ANYMORE NITWIT USELESS UNPAID TEENAGE INTERN LICENCE-FEE-SUCKING PATHETIC CAN'T-BE-ARSED-TO-DO-MINIMAL-RESEARCH-THESE-DAYS-DESPITE-INVENTION-OF-GOOGLE-AND-DEVOID-OF-BASIC-CULTURAL-HISTORICAL-KNOWLEDGE "RESEARCHER" MORONS (plus the idiot editor(s) who didn't spot this and let it go out in this state).
For goodness sake. Recognising the anthem of international revolutionary socialism used to be part of the admissions test for Auntie sometime, didn't it?
Turned off in disgust. Disappointed. Thought it JD look like a pillock though suspect it wasn't his fault and he would have clutched head in hands when he saw the broadcast for the first time. Or so one would hope.
Mildly disconcerted at newly found disgust levels of my inner pedant. Is this a sign I am too stressed, or have too high expectations, or just have false memories of more people getting basic stuff right in Olden Times? Gah.
"The city of Copenhagen, whose mayor Frank Jensen recently banned its 45,000 employees from using Ryanair, nevertheless owns stocks in the controversial airline, according to Politiken.
The municipality has been in a highly publicized battle with Ryanair over the last few months about the company’s lack of a Danish collective bargaining agreement and the low wages paid to its employees, which has been fought in the courts and also led to a Twitter feud."
Just back from the night's other hustings - those for the LD leader at one of the UCL halls in London.
Over 1,000 LD members in attendance and on a show of hands, about a quarter of the audience were new members i.e: had joined since the election. I thought both candidates were very good in both their set speeches and in response to questions from the floor.
Norman speaks with authority and care (he was a lawyer in a previous life) while Tim is all passion, fire and rhetoric. Given our current predicament, Tim is for me the obvious choice as we need a leader who will shout and be controversial because that's the only way the Party will be heard again.
Given I saw odds of 1/10 Farron and 5/1 Lamb a while back, the audience was much more finely balanced. The Lamb campaigners were more numerous and better organised than the Farronistas and before the set speeches I reckon Lamb led 55-45 but by the end of the evening it was much closer.
London is as crucial for the LDs as it is for Labour with big constituency parties in Kingston, Sutton, Richmond and Southwark. Lynne Featherstone (who is a Lamb supporter) was the only ex-MP I saw this evening.
This election reminds me of the first LD election between Paddy Ashdown and Alan Beith which Paddy won comfortably but while I think Tim will win Norman will run him much closer than the odds suggest.
Sounds a good turnout. I am going to the East Mids Hustings on July 6. My feelings are like yours. I prefer Lamb in many ways, but Farron is more fiery and that is what is needed at present. With a more democratic party than the others without the same fuhrerprinzipat the leaders politics are not quite as critical as other parties.
"When in doubt, march towards the sound of gunfire!" said Jo Grimond who first led the Libs away from extinction, and one couldn't regard either him or Jeremy Thorpe (I know, I know) as being exactly colourless.In later years the Party (?parties) did better under "charismatic" leaders ..... Ashdown, Kennedy ......... than the more managerial Steel and Clegg.
As a former member and still voter I suspect Farron as Leader, even if he put his foot in it once or twice would be a better bet. Farron as Leader, Lamb heavily involved in policy.
Incidentall, I wonder what Farron would be like on HIGNFY? Can't see Lamb making an impression there!
Comments
Not Newsnights finist hour.
Cooper - Stressing her experience, but not taking any risks
Burnham - I was confused what his messages were
Kendall - Pretty bland, but at least clear on her message as 'fresh start'
Corbyn - What did lefties bang on about before the Iraq War? (which I opposed, for the record)
Do you think he did well tonight?
Yvette has pretty much the same policies as Andy, but I feel her more reasoned tone might come across better to swing voters.
YC: 'no easy answers' - except that cliche of course.
AB: Opened with that I consider false attach on Cameron about stoking rather than reacting to national division, and the Westminster bubble. Didn't work for me, maybe for others.
LK - Bit too much personal story, but fresh start appeal may appeal to some
JC - Pretty normal sounding, probably as only time for platitudes in opening
Q01 - rebuild leftwing party
AB - Doesn't want to take a stance
LK - Weak attempt to deny a label as Blairite, despite seeking to claim in through action at start of nominations/
YC - pitch as steady, safe hands candidate
JC - Dislike of New Labour seems more like mild disagreement than anything serious, given it seems like he'd never have left Labour
Standout comment - LK on spending more on debt interest than education, re impact on wishes to invest. Makes sense to me.
Q02 - Immigration
YC - Same old same old at first, but did react to audience better.
LK - A bit stronger and more distinct
AB - I'm not sure what he's saying, though presenter cannot control him running on and on
JC - Nothing special, just not tip toeing around issue
Q03 - the 'why can't you be like sturgeon' question
YC - reacting like she's scared of her, with very qualified criticism mixed with praise
LK - On message re reaching out, but bland
AB - 'Came into politics to take on concentration of power in elites of Wesminster'(paraphrase). I had to rewind to make sure I heard him correctly - he's been an MP for 14 years and apparently it's still like that and his own party don't agree still, if it's the plank of his campaign
JC - Military intervention again!
Q04 budget surlpus
JC - passionate but not clear to me. Don't need to balance books in 4-5 years? Ok, fine. But would he ever want to balance books? Seems like he would always resist any cuts at any time, even if in theory he might think there were times to balance, (and that he would require a failure to increase spending as a cut)
LK - happy to go after JC, to present as 'sensible'
AB - I think he's saying 'We didn't spend too much, but public think we did, so we need to regain trust by saying we need to cut now, even though I only believe that because we're not trusted, not because I think it's true'
YC - peddling comforting lie about accusations Labour caused everything, not merely made worse. Ignored from then on.
Thought - I remain baffled at the idea Labour are saying there was not too much spending (at some point at least) and yet now we absolutely must cut spending
JC on benefits - again, not completely unreasonable, but I find it hard to believe he would accept any measures in reality that would in any way restrict anything.
EDIT: Ah, I see Danny565 has explained the context below. So Burnham was actually answering a question, while Kendall just saw an opportunity to get in a completely unrelated soundbite. Not sure why folk thinks this makes her seem appealing.
LK - buying into the idea she is the one the Tories will fear a bit much? Her 'Hell yes' moment?
AB - Labour looked like it was run by elites and he will change that...even though same people will be running it. What?
YC - trying to go after Tories at end, present as best able to take them on.
Loved the comment about YC and AB being in a government with people attacking each other in private but not admitting it.
All in all, fairly dull night, and summed up by one chap 'Heard it all before'. If reflective of future campaign, sure they might win in 5 years, but only if Tories lose for their own reasons (splits, length of government, poor leader) not out of a change in position.
But in politics, perceptions and soundbites matter more than the truth
http://bit.ly/1d27GMs
Took me years to stop getting emails from John O'Farrell the last time I was (minutely and tangentially) involved with Labour, but think this might be worth the three quid. Has the quality/laboured unfunnyness of those email circulars improved since then?
Also, are they really going to cyber stalk every applicant by hand to keep our the Tories? Frankly they are likely to get more such "infiltration" from the Trots, are they going to be barred too? The effort will eat in to that £3. Just don't be a plonker and write"to destroy Labour"/"bring back Marx to the mainstream" and I'm sure most of us will be fine.
Politicians (and their pundit and supporting public) try it all the time, presenting every minor change from their opposite as a climbdown or u-turn, possibly in response to their own actions, and every minor slip of the tongue portrayed as symbolic of some dreadful belief that, of course, also infects the entire opposition party.
That said, Burnham seeming to imply he puts party before country would play well to some, as it says he has total loyalty to the party, which many people will think is automatically good for the country too.
Two people with life-threatening injuries have been flown to Southampton General Hospital and eight people with "serious injuries" to Salisbury, South West Ambulance said."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33177401
Is this Lib Dems for Jez btw? Surprised that's not a Thing, would benefit that party more than Tories in some ways.
Or is this just Doctors For Proper Socialist Wages?
Pop goes the weasel..... Or boom goes the weasel....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11682277/Greeks-admit-they-will-default-at-the-end-of-the-month-as-central-bank-turns-on-government.html
What happens then?
I have such nostalgic love for the game that it could be a terrible remake but it wouldn't matter, as I will preorder it well before then. In fact, I have such nostalgic love for the game, I'm hoping for what is usually the bad kind of remake - keeping things exactly the same, even the dumb stuff, just make it look prettier.
Now I need to know the position of the Labour leadership candidates on this news.
A) half of what he did prior to Grexit!
David 48
EdM 27
Andy 22
EdB 13
Diane 4
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own Personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who's there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI
Otherwise,never under-price the role of the sisterhood in Labour politics where 2 women in charge is the preferred option.I'd also be in for Cooper/Creasy,Cooper/Eagle,Cooper/Flint at 12-,50-1 and 20-1 respectively.Over 560% return pricing Corbyn/Flint at 150-1.The sisters will have to select their chosen candidate for deputy to beat Tom Watson.
Both bookies favourites may well be over-priced and there is better value elsewhere.If the Labour party is having a nervous breakdown,it may be best to have the women in charge.
https://twitter.com/Edsbrown/status/611287726906810368
[chucks IMF down well]
That man plucks.
Rabies, not as bad as Cholera...
Judging from the reports/comments it seems the pantomime season has opened early.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0615k1w/newsnight-labour-leaders
I think I might pay my £3 if I thought I could write in Hodges on the ballot.
Unfortunately, the Tories would screw us if he was leader. If we had PR and Labour was split into a left and right half as in most PR countries, I'd vote for him, as the leader best qualified to get us a solid 25% of the vote and do reasonable things with it. But we don't.
On topic, Burnham/Creasy looks quite a good shot at 6-1. People voting for experience and likeability in slot 1 and a bright new face in slot 2.
Just back from the night's other hustings - those for the LD leader at one of the UCL halls in London.
Over 1,000 LD members in attendance and on a show of hands, about a quarter of the audience were new members i.e: had joined since the election. I thought both candidates were very good in both their set speeches and in response to questions from the floor.
Norman speaks with authority and care (he was a lawyer in a previous life) while Tim is all passion, fire and rhetoric. Given our current predicament, Tim is for me the obvious choice as we need a leader who will shout and be controversial because that's the only way the Party will be heard again.
Given I saw odds of 1/10 Farron and 5/1 Lamb a while back, the audience was much more finely balanced. The Lamb campaigners were more numerous and better organised than the Farronistas and before the set speeches I reckon Lamb led 55-45 but by the end of the evening it was much closer.
London is as crucial for the LDs as it is for Labour with big constituency parties in Kingston, Sutton, Richmond and Southwark. Lynne Featherstone (who is a Lamb supporter) was the only ex-MP I saw this evening.
This election reminds me of the first LD election between Paddy Ashdown and Alan Beith which Paddy won comfortably but while I think Tim will win Norman will run him much closer than the odds suggest.
Why is Labour holding these TV debates and washing their shop soiled laundry in public?? If this is the Labour leadership, what the sodding hell is its shadow cabinet going to look like? It looks like Harriet Harman has decided her best epitaph is to be 'the best leader Labour never had'.
Proletarian revolutionary blah di blah.
AND IN THE BACKGROUND, PUMPED UP TO FULL VOLUME, THEY PLAY NOT THE INTERNATIONALE BUT THE LATER STATE ANTHEM OF THE USSR ... Introduced later in the war, iirc, because it was felt more important to foster nationalism and pride in the Soviet struggle against Nazism than the minimal emotional sustenance that comes of promoting international revolutionary comradeship. With reworked lyrics, still the patriotic song of Putin's Russia. BUT IT ISN'T THE SODDING INTERNATIONALE YOU BLOODY INCOMPETENT CAN'T EVEN DO BEING LEFTY PROPERLY ANYMORE NITWIT USELESS UNPAID TEENAGE INTERN LICENCE-FEE-SUCKING PATHETIC CAN'T-BE-ARSED-TO-DO-MINIMAL-RESEARCH-THESE-DAYS-DESPITE-INVENTION-OF-GOOGLE-AND-DEVOID-OF-BASIC-CULTURAL-HISTORICAL-KNOWLEDGE "RESEARCHER" MORONS (plus the idiot editor(s) who didn't spot this and let it go out in this state).
For goodness sake. Recognising the anthem of international revolutionary socialism used to be part of the admissions test for Auntie sometime, didn't it?
Turned off in disgust. Disappointed. Thought it JD look like a pillock though suspect it wasn't his fault and he would have clutched head in hands when he saw the broadcast for the first time. Or so one would hope.
Mildly disconcerted at newly found disgust levels of my inner pedant. Is this a sign I am too stressed, or have too high expectations, or just have false memories of more people getting basic stuff right in Olden Times? Gah.
The municipality has been in a highly publicized battle with Ryanair over the last few months about the company’s lack of a Danish collective bargaining agreement and the low wages paid to its employees, which has been fought in the courts and also led to a Twitter feud."
http://www.thelocal.dk/20150617/city-of-copenhagen-owns-ryanair-stock
As a former member and still voter I suspect Farron as Leader, even if he put his foot in it once or twice would be a better bet. Farron as Leader, Lamb heavily involved in policy.
Incidentall, I wonder what Farron would be like on HIGNFY? Can't see Lamb making an impression there!