General Election 2015

[russycarps]

Anyone but burnham/balls wife

[LJS]

but you're ignoring the part where they reigned in the tories

A beautiful spelling mistake.

[kaosmark2]

So Tristam Hunt has bottled stanbding himself, but has - unsurprisingly - backed Liz Kendall.

Kendall is Blair's choice. Hunt is Mandelson's choice, but as ever Mandelson has deferred to Blair.

To be fair, from a Labour Party insider's view (not necessarily the public's view), Kendall is probably the right choice at this moment in time.

The problem is that she's not standing for election today but in 5 years time, and the political narrative could be very different when that comes around and leave Labour out in the cold. Again.

I'd much prefer a 'holding' temporary leader that everyone could get behind while they work out what's what and what they need to be saying in 5 years time.

He couldn't get the necessary MP votes could he?

I don't like how it's a 3-horse race. David Miliband, much to his credit, lent nominations to other candidates to ensure variety of options.

[eFestivals]

A beautiful spelling mistake.

doh

[eFestivals]

David Miliband, much to his credit, lent nominations to other candidates to ensure variety of options.

You mean to try and split the opposition to him so that he'd win.

Or do you really think he was thinking that the likes of Dianne Abbot would make a good leader who the country could vote for?

Divide and rule, divide and rule.

Even then, he was less popular than he thought he was, but one less slimeball in the HoC is a good thing.

Edited May 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

You mean to try and split the opposition to him so that he'd win.

Or do you really think he was thinking that the likes of Dianne Abbot would make a good leader who the country could vote for?

Divide and rule, divide and rule.

Even then, he was less popular than he thought he was, but one less slimeball in the HoC is a good thing.

Labour elections work under AV. It doesn't split the opposition.

[eFestivals]

Labour elections work under AV. It doesn't split the opposition.

oh yes it does.

It only ceases to do that if the manipulator and his most-feared opponent are the last two standing.

Before that point, splitting the vote of the opposition helps that manipulator's progression thru each 'round' of vote-counting, as well as making the most-feared opponent look weaker trhan he might otherwise be (which might cause some of that support to drift away).

Splitting the opposition's vote doesn't ensure a victory for a manipulator under AV, but it does help that manipulator.

[kaosmark2]

oh yes it does.

It only ceases to do that if the manipulator and his most-feared opponent are the last two standing.

Before that point, splitting the vote of the opposition helps that manipulator's progression thru each 'round' of vote-counting, as well as making the most-feared opponent look weaker trhan he might otherwise be (which might cause some of that support to drift away).

Splitting the opposition's vote doesn't ensure a victory for a manipulator under AV, but it does help that manipulator.

You mean the whole "tactically eliminate an opponent early" method which is theoretically possible under AV?

It's never looked like that has happened, nor did it do anything in the Labour leadership campaign - particularly as Diane Abbott was first out.

[eFestivals]

You mean the whole "tactically eliminate an opponent early" method which is theoretically possible under AV?

It's never looked like that has happened, nor did it do anything in the Labour leadership campaign - particularly as Diane Abbott was first out.

Yeah - tho the effect isn't necessarily as much as 'elimination'.

More hats in the ring means that some support will leak away from Hat One to Hat Two, causing Hat One to look less supported than they'd otherwise look. That might then cause others to look to support another.

Who David Miliband might have been trying to game I don't know, as I can't remember too much about what went on back then. But I suspect he always felt sure he'd win over his brother, so his aim might well have been to get his brother thru rather than block him.

i've been seeing comments online for years about how David nominating others was about trying to game the system, and nothing altruistic. I think they're probably bang on.

David Miliband is the guy who now heads a CIA cover unit, in case you've forgotten.

Edited May 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

But I suspect he always felt sure he'd win

Yup. He was incredibly arrogant. During the recent "wrong brother" years I've been incredibly critical of David, but I do think that having a mere 3 candidates, all of whom are fairly similar to each other, is detrimental to the party and UK politics.

[LJS]

Yup. He was incredibly arrogant. During the recent "wrong brother" years I've been incredibly critical of David, but I do think that having a mere 3 candidates, all of whom are fairly similar to each other, is detrimental to the party and UK politics.

I agree with this. It seems to me they are all offering a return to Blairism. Surely there is someone left in the Labour party with a belief in something at least a tiny bit socialist?

[eFestivals]

I agree with this. It seems to me they are all offering a return to Blairism. Surely there is someone left in the Labour party with a belief in something at least a tiny bit socialist?

Burnham is supposedly that 'left' alternative. The man who started the privatisation of the NHS.

It's the senior MPs trying to stitch things up for their benefit rather than the party's, because it's not like they've taken the time to listen to what their local members might think.

Tho to be fair, the point is to get elected, and they know where there're votes to be won - and it's not by going left.

[kaosmark2]

I agree with this. It seems to me they are all offering a return to Blairism. Surely there is someone left in the Labour party with a belief in something at least a tiny bit socialist?

Yes, but none of them are prepared to stand after the trouncing Ed got, nor are the senior MPs whose primary goal is power prepared to back them.

Edited May 20, 2015 by kaosmark2

[LJS]

Burnham is supposedly that 'left' alternative. The man who started the privatisation of the NHS.

It's the senior MPs trying to stitch things up for their benefit rather than the party's, because it's not like they've taken the time to listen to what their local members might think.

Tho to be fair, the point is to get elected, and they know where there're votes to be won - and it's not by going left.

I know this is your view, the question is how far to the right is too far?

There also appears to be some evidence that the middle class "aspirational" voters they are all chasing actually stayed with the Labour party - It's their "core" vote they lost.

I suppose the real point is, as I think both of us have said, they should be sorting out what their core policy positions are before electing a leader. If, as sadly is they case, they are careering ahead with a leadership election, there should at least be some competing visions from the potential leaders...like there was last time.

Scotland, I think is a different problem & there seems to be growing calls for Scottish Labour to break away completely from the UK Labour party. Whilst this is superficially attractive, I'm not sure it doesn't hold its own problems further down the road.

Of course Scottish Labour's salvation may lie in the likelihood that, as you have pointed out, the SNP are unlikely to be able to maintain the level of support they currently have indefinitely.

[kaosmark2]

In Scotland they lost their core vote. In NE England a large part of their core went to UKIP - ditto a few other areas.

In South England several of their core went to Green.

To say they can continue to take their core for granted is ridiculous.

[pink_triangle]

Yup. He was incredibly arrogant. During the recent "wrong brother" years I've been incredibly critical of David, but I do think that having a mere 3 candidates, all of whom are fairly similar to each other, is detrimental to the party and UK politics.

Isn't it 4 (Burnham, Cooper, creagh and Kendall)or has creagh dropped out. I can't see how Burnham fails to win now. He seems to have support of the most mps, unions and party members.

[kaosmark2]

Isn't it 4 (Burnham, Cooper, creagh and Kendall)or has creagh dropped out. I can't see how Burnham fails to win now. He seems to have support of the most mps, unions and party members.

Last I heard Creagh couldn't get the votes but hadn't officially withdrawn.

[eFestivals]

I know this is your view, the question is how far to the right is too far?

Or the alternative question: what worth is a political view that never achieves power to implement it?

A political view which doesn't get elected is worthless at the end of the day.

So 'how far to the right is too far' is when they're picking up more votes than is needed to achieve power.

There also appears to be some evidence that the middle class "aspirational" voters they are all chasing actually stayed with the Labour party - It's their "core" vote they lost.

the numbers prove differently.

If they lost their 'core vote', then that 'core vote' wanted something more right wing than Labour offered.

The votes don't lie.

Scotland, I think is a different problem & there seems to be growing calls for Scottish Labour to break away completely from the UK Labour party.

This sort of comment has me wetting myself.

People like you say you want to be independent, but you expect the hated other to do things for you - proving your lack of independence.

If Scotland is about to become indie, why are those independently-minded people unable to act independently and form and support their own independent party?

History tells me that's already happened in Scotland, and no one was interested in it.

I reckon there's something to be learnt there.

[viberunner]

I agree with very little of the choices the LibDems made about coalition, but you're ignoring the part where they reigned in the tories and made the last govt less evil than it might have otherwise been.

Aye, Fred West raped and killed 12 women but it if wasn't for Rose West, who helped and went along with those 12, then he would have raped and killed 13. That's a woman not raped and killed.. and because of Rose West. (That's an actual and true story).

We mustn't, what's the word, oh yes... we mustn't ignore that.

I'm starting to see plenty of Scottish voices - SNP supporters - criticising the SNP in one way or other, far from impressed with various antics of theirs. Maybe they'll be the next party about whom lots of people will say "they won't be missed".

I bet you are. I mean, I only live in Scotland so it's very handy for me to have an avowedly and dogmatic anti-SNP voice in the South West of England tell me what's going on up here.

Thanks a million you've been grrreat!

PS how does one see a voice? A wav file editor perhaps? As Urethra Franklin said, are you the CIA or something?

[eFestivals]

Aye, Fred West raped and killed 12 women but it if wasn't for Rose West, who helped and went along with those 12, then he would have raped and killed 13. That's a woman not raped and killed.. and because of Rose West. (That's an actual and true story).

We mustn't, what's the word, oh yes... we mustn't ignore that.

I see you're managing your normal levels of intelligence.

The world wouldn't have stopped if the LibDems hadn't teamed up with the tories. There would have been another election very soon after, and the tories would have cleaned up.

Just as with this election, 'the people' would have wanted a 'strong govt' over a weak govt or no govt.

I bet you are. I mean, I only live in Scotland so it's very handy for me to have an avowedly and dogmatic anti-SNP voice in the South West of England tell me what's going on up here.

yeah, but the world passes you by entirely. Here you are slagging off Labour for all sorts of nasties, while Salmond gets a free pass for selling the SNP to Murdoch. So much for independence.

And when Sturgeon says "SNP", you hear "Scotland".

Isn't the modern world an amazing thing? It means I'm able to hear more unrestrained Scottish voices from here than you're hearing from there. Who'd have thought it, eh?

And you might also find out how one lone Slovenian woman took on and defeated all pro-indy voices, to the extent that you lost.

Of course, you only get to see such things if you pay attention rather than read from the myth sheet. Perhaps you ought to try it, and then you might find out why the majority of countrymen won't accept your poor indy dream, and what you'll have to do to get them to?

Edited May 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

The world wouldn't have stopped if the LibDems hadn't teamed up with the tories. There would have been another election very soon after, and the tories would have cleaned up.

The Tories did fear not winning, meaning the Lib Dems could have been stronger. The Bedroom Tax still applies to disabled people. There were very many little things the LDs could have done, but the point is it wasn't in the DNA or frame of reference for the very rich posh Tory boys who led the LDs.

And the result was electoral suicide. They weren't a sufficiently mitigating force and the result is they might never get another opportunity.

yeah, but the world passes you by entirely. Here you are slagging off Labour for all sorts of nasties, while Salmond gets a free pass for selling the SNP to Murdoch. So much for independence.

I'm no fan of Murdoch but I don't despise him any more than any other media proprietor. Richard Desmond is a foul creature. The Nazis aristocrats who own the Daily Mail? The Mirror group engaged in systematic phone hacking criminality, insider share dealing, and hired Piers Moron for years? Hell, even the Independent (as it was when it was founded) is now owned by an ex-KGB Russian oligarch.

And The Guardian, bless its upper-middle-class Lib-Dem-enabling cashmere socks, exists only through the continued largesse of a Trust Fund.

I know it's nothing something the Tinpot Trots like to hear but you already have the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star and the thing is nobody wants to fucking read them. Would it really mortally wound them to review Mad Max on a 1-to-4 star rating based on the action sequences and not have three sides of A3 radical trans-feminist critique of it?

Yes Salmond is willing to talk to Murdoch. It's arguably better that than sitting in a leaky caravan parked off the A9 heating a tin of Campbell's Cock-a-Leekie soup over a single-ring Vango gas heater mutting to himself "it wisnae wurthit".

Edited May 21, 2015 by viberunner

[eFestivals]

The Tories did fear not winning, meaning the Lib Dems could have been stronger. The Bedroom Tax still applies to disabled people. There were very many little things the LDs could have done, but the point is it wasn't in the DNA or frame of reference for the very rich posh Tory boys who led the LDs.

And the result was electoral suicide. They weren't a sufficiently mitigating force and the result is they might never get another opportunity.

and yet something else would have happened if the LibDems didn't do what they did, and that 'something else' might have been worse.

You'd doing the same mindless thing as you do with Scottish indy, and look at what we have and say "that's bad I want none of it" without considering how the alternatives might work out. Not everything that's different is better.

I'm no fan of Murdoch but I don't despise him any more than any other media proprietor. Richard Desmond is a foul creature. The Nazis aristocrats who own the Daily Mail? The Mirror group engaged in systematic phone hacking criminality, insider share dealing, and hired Piers Moron for years? Hell, even the Independent (as it was when it was founded) is now owned by an ex-KGB Russian oligarch.

yeah, because all of the other media owners get invited into Downing Street (or Salmond's place) to dictate to that elected leader what their policies MUST be.

Another case of your limited thinking.

Murdoch is the only media owner who has been 100% caught corrupting elected govt office holders - and the only one he's certain to have corrupted is Salmond.

So you have to play it down to give Salmond a free pass. It's moronic.

Yes Salmond is willing to talk to Murdoch.

Salmond is much more willing than just to talk. He sold Scotland to Murdoch.

This is proven beyond all doubt.

Salmond is corrupt.

FFS.

[LJS]

Salmond is much more willing than just to talk. He sold Scotland to Murdoch.

This is proven beyond all doubt.

You're funny.

[eFestivals]

You're funny.

Salmond and snippers are the funny ones, I'm pissing myself at him being corrupt and you lot lauding him still.

Salmond is proven corrupt.

What is it that you're having such difficulty with?

Salmond sold Scotland to Murdoch, and Salmond is such a prick he didn't even extract a minimal price - tho I'm sure he saw Murdoch's endorsement of the SNP as payment enough.

[LJS]

Or the alternative question: what worth is a political view that never achieves power to implement it?

A political view which doesn't get elected is worthless at the end of the day.

So 'how far to the right is too far' is when they're picking up more votes than is needed to achieve power.

the numbers prove differently.

If they lost their 'core vote', then that 'core vote' wanted something more right wing than Labour offered.

The votes don't lie.

This sort of comment has me wetting myself.

People like you say you want to be independent, but you expect the hated other to do things for you - proving your lack of independence.

If Scotland is about to become indie, why are those independently-minded people unable to act independently and form and support their own independent party?

History tells me that's already happened in Scotland, and no one was interested in it.

I reckon there's something to be learnt there.

Of course there is a trade off between principle & electability. Your assumption that that necessarily means Labour shoudl lurch to the right is what I would challenge. We simply don't know what would happen if Labour went further left because no one has tried it for over 30 years.

As for the Scottish Labour party going it alone, I'm not quite sure what you are on about here. I merely stated that it is being increasingly mentioned as an option and I am clearly talking about in the context of the UK still existing. Sure I'd like to see an Independent Labour Party in an Independent Scotland but that is not what I am on about.

Salmond and snippers are the funny ones, I'm pissing myself at him being corrupt and you lot lauding him still.

Salmond is proven corrupt.

What is it that you're having such difficulty with?

Salmond sold Scotland to Murdoch, and Salmond is such a prick he didn't even extract a minimal price - tho I'm sure he saw Murdoch's endorsement of the SNP as payment enough.

Your problem is you add 2 & 2 together & get about 4,132,743.

What has been proved is that alex had some meetings with Rupert & Alex agreed to lobby the Uk government on Rupert's behalf although he never actually did that lobbying because there was nothing to lobby for.

This has now been magnified into Alex "selling Scotland" to Rupert. you don't think you're maybe just exaggerating a tad here Neil?