politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New analysis finds current LAB voters reluctant to give Cor

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New analysis finds current LAB voters reluctant to give Corbyn their full backing

Looking back over GE2015 polls what should have raised questions about the voting intention findings was that in all the leader ratings of different forms Ed Miliband was always a long way behind Cameron. I made that mistake.

Read the full story here

CarlottaVance

First!

FluffyThoughts

^^^^^^^
Saddo....

FluffyThoughts

On-topic:

2016 should be fun: Sadly I doubt it will. Labour will struggle on; NSP will whinge from Edinborough; and our children and grandchildren will be scared by stories about the politicking of the "Lib-Dhimmies" (of which they will dismiss as a Crayola pastiche of 'Sarf Park).

Outwith England's exit from the EU - unlikely as 2017 is my bet - not much will happen....

For Surbiton....

DecrepitJohnL

Who else is there for Labour? Would-be successors need to establish their reputations (and achievements) between now and the next leadership election. Conservatives too, perhaps.

Indigo

"Corbyn has got the Ed Miliband problem"

Yes, being crap.

rcs1000

Any PBers going to CES next week?

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

deleted

Pong

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

Any PBers going to CES next week?

Is that still held at the same time / city as a porn convention?

dr_spyn

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Joe Kagan...

The turned down honours list - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-list/9039608/Official-JB-Priestley-Roald-Dahl-Lucian-Freud-and-LS-Lowry-among-277-others-turned-down-honours-from-the-Queen.html

felix

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

No more so than lord Spencer Livermore - except Cam celebrates winners while Labour loves a loser. twas ever thus.

richardDodd

LOL Lord Prescott..serial office secretary shagger..in the office of DPM

SquareRoot

Good Morning .The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming. The very idea that Burnham would have been anything but a disaster as Labour leader is confirmed..

rcs1000

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

Any PBers going to CES next week?

Is that still held at the same time / city as a porn convention?

Alas CES has gotten so big, the porn convention has been driven out of town.

FluffyThoughts

rcs1000 said:

Alas CES has gotten so big, the porn convention has been driven out of town.

Or merely gone 'under-cover'...?

RobD

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

I know. A knighthood is nowhere near enough for a man of his awesome amazingness.

david_herdson

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Crosby's understanding of the public has been shown by events to be massively in excess of anything the pollsters managed. For that insight alone, from which others can learn, the honour is deserved. He is a market leader in his field by a mile: in any other industry there'd have been no criticism.

Besides, far better for the state to reward political service with cheap gongs than with real power or money.

RobD

david_herdson said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Crosby's understanding of the public has been shown by events to be massively in excess of anything the pollsters managed. For that insight alone, from which others can learn, the honour is deserved. He is a market leader in his field by a mile: in any other industry there'd have been no criticism.

Besides, far better for the state to reward political service with cheap gongs than with real power or money.

You expressed what I was thinking much more eloquently

david_herdson

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

SquareRoot

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

Philip_Thompson

The funny thing is that if you took online "below the line" comments to be representative of Tories then Cameron was hated by his own side (especially on sites like the Telegraph). While the polls were bad this year, online commentators join the Twitterati as being completely unrepresentative.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Corbyn is daft as a drunken koala.

Philip_Thompson

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

As far as services to the country go, helping prevent Ed "is crap" Miliband become PM must be a major service worthy of an honour.

DecrepitJohnL

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

Perhaps a rock-paper-scissors election? SNP beat Lab; Lab (just about) beat Con; Con beat LD (which is where it breaks down).

Wanderer

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Why so? It's quite usual to give honours to such people - Tim Bell, Philip Gould.

Also Jimmy Savile OBE takes some beating, no?

malcolmg

FluffyThoughts said:

On-topic:

2016 should be fun: Sadly I doubt it will. Labour will struggle on; NSP will whinge from Edinborough; and our children and grandchildren will be scared by stories about the politicking of the "Lib-Dhimmies" (of which they will dismiss as a Crayola pastiche of 'Sarf Park).

Outwith England's exit from the EU - unlikely as 2017 is my bet - not much will happen....

For Surbiton....

We will see the London parties thrashed by a real Scottish political party for sure in 2016. Nice to see the third raters getting their just desserts.

Plato_Says

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Wanderer

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

It seems to strike a particular nerve if the person is Australian.

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

The funny thing is that if you took online "below the line" comments to be representative of Tories then Cameron was hated by his own side (especially on sites like the Telegraph). While the polls were bad this year, online commentators join the Twitterati as being completely unrepresentative.

Yes, I saw Cameron condemned as a secret lib dem on the telegraph comments a few times. Amusing.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

FluffyThoughts said:

On-topic:

2016 should be fun: Sadly I doubt it will. Labour will struggle on; NSP will whinge from Edinborough; and our children and grandchildren will be scared by stories about the politicking of the "Lib-Dhimmies" (of which they will dismiss as a Crayola pastiche of 'Sarf Park).

Outwith England's exit from the EU - unlikely as 2017 is my bet - not much will happen....

For Surbiton....

We will see the London parties thrashed by a real Scottish political party for sure in 2016. Nice to see the third raters getting their just desserts.

Would that be the one that lost the referendum on its raison d'etre last year?

Pong

david_herdson said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Crosby's understanding of the public has been shown by events to be massively in excess of anything the pollsters managed. For that insight alone, from which others can learn, the honour is deserved. He is a market leader in his field by a mile: in any other industry there'd have been no criticism.

Besides, far better for the state to reward political service with cheap gongs than with real power or money.

Yes yes, David. We get it.

"A year ago today I received an unsolicited e-mail from an extremely senior Conservative election strategist, asking if I ever came to London as he’d be interested in picking my brains."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/31/david-herdson-writes-ed-miliband-my-part-in-his-downfall/

ThreeQuidder

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

Wanderer

Incidentally there's a YouTube video of Crosby giving a seminar on campaigning, dating from some time in the last Parliament. Very interesting.

Wanderer

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pong, how dare you impugn the good name of Viscount Sir David Herdson MBE OBE CBE?!

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Wasn't it a Sir Humphreyism?
In order to rubbish someone first you need to label them. (Or something like that)

Philip_Thompson

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Yes but it was effective because Miliband wasn't respected already - if he had been it would have gone down like a lead balloon. With Miliband being not respected then if it wasn't the Salmond's pocket meme then there is ever chance another meme would have caught the imagination.

RobD

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

But it had other indirect effects, like shoring up the Tory vote in England.

Philip_Thompson

Off topic I can't get to the BBC News webpage. It is giving an "Error 500" error code with an image of a clown against a black chalkboard with 500 written on it and fire behind it. But I've been having problems with my internet so don't know if its my side or the BBC's - is anyone else having problem connecting currently?

DecrepitJohnL

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party was all sweetness and light towards Brown and Miliband, with no personal abuse whatsoever. Though not necessarily in this universe.

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

david_herdson

Wanderer said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Why so? It's quite usual to give honours to such people - Tim Bell, Philip Gould.

Also Jimmy Savile OBE takes some beating, no?

Savile raised a huge amount of money for charity - something we now know he used as a kind of cover against investigation. For him not to have been honoured for that would have raised questions but on the principle of innocent until proven guilty I don't think it was inherently a bad award. The gross failure was the lack of effort towards 'proven guilty' given the evidence available.

DecrepitJohnL

Philip_Thompson said:

Off topic I can't get to the BBC News webpage. It is giving an "Error 500" error code with an image of a clown against a black chalkboard with 500 written on it and fire behind it. But I've been having problems with my internet so don't know if its my side or the BBC's - is anyone else having problem connecting currently?

The BBC news page does seem to be having problems.

Sandpit

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Don't forget Coulson! Someone else who, for all his faults, was very perceptive about how the 'man in the street' was thinking and how messaging can make for popular policy. Cameron tried very hard to keep him, although fair play to Tom Watson for the politics of somehow making this particular tabloid editor appear more of a scumbag than any other tabliod editor!

FluffyThoughts

malcolmg said:

We will see the London parties thrashed by a real Scottish political party for sure in 2016. Nice to see the third raters getting their just desserts.

Fairy-nuff:

Though I'd hesitate to call the Jockanese 'third-raters'. Second-tier perhaps....

ThreeQuidder

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Oh, indeed.

CD13

I'm useless at political predictions but the only one I think I may have got right was the Ed in Wee Eck's pocket would have an effect. A double whammy. It encouraged a few Labour voters to sit on their hands and a few Kippers to believe that it wasn't safe to vote Farage and let Salmond in via Ed.

I sensed this from a few people in the week before the election, and from people who don't normally wobble.

SquareRoot

ThreeQuidder said:

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Oh, indeed.

The SNP destruction of Labour in Scotland led to Miliband's immediate demise

Wanderer

Philip_Thompson said:

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Yes but it was effective because Miliband wasn't respected already - if he had been it would have gone down like a lead balloon. With Miliband being not respected then if it wasn't the Salmond's pocket meme then there is ever chance another meme would have caught the imagination.

I think that's right. At least, if Miliband had been seen as a stronger character people might have trusted him to work with the SNP and fight his corner. As it was, people imagined him taking dictation. Possibly unfair, but there it was.

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Off topic I can't get to the BBC News webpage. It is giving an "Error 500" error code with an image of a clown against a black chalkboard with 500 written on it and fire behind it. But I've been having problems with my internet so don't know if its my side or the BBC's - is anyone else having problem connecting currently?

The BBC news page does seem to be having problems.

Yep, it's down. Whoops, at least one IT guy is going to have a long day...

surbiton

Cameron has been there for 10 years. Corbyn for 3 months.

Wanderer

david_herdson said:

Wanderer said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Why so? It's quite usual to give honours to such people - Tim Bell, Philip Gould.

Also Jimmy Savile OBE takes some beating, no?

Savile raised a huge amount of money for charity - something we now know he used as a kind of cover against investigation. For him not to have been honoured for that would have raised questions but on the principle of innocent until proven guilty I don't think it was inherently a bad award. The gross failure was the lack of effort towards 'proven guilty' given the evidence available.

There should be some kind of bad haircut filter.

ydoethur

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Wasn't it a Sir Humphreyism?
In order to rubbish someone first you need to label them. (Or something like that)

'It is necessary to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.' 'A Conflict of Interest', Yes Prime Minister Series 2.

I have some sympathy with Burnham though, as this award to Crosby is inherently unfair. If Crosby is to be knighted for his services to the Conservative Party, Cooper and Kendall should be made Viscounts, Burnham an Earl and Corbyn at least a Marquis.

Philip_Thompson

surbiton said:

Cameron has been there for 10 years. Corbyn for 3 months.

So? Compare Cameron after 3 months to Corbyn after 3 months then and see if its any better for Corbyn ...

Wanderer

surbiton said:

Cameron has been there for 10 years. Corbyn for 3 months.

Yes, that is what makes it particularly bleak for Corbyn.

surbiton

http://energinet.dk/EN/El/Sider/Elsystemet-lige-nu.aspx

Danish "power right now"

Windpower hurrah !

Plato_Says

Are you part of the dreaded metropolitan elite? Do this quiz and find out

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/31/are-you-metropolitan-elite-labour-quiz?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

surbiton

Sandpit said:

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Don't forget Coulson! Someone else who, for all his faults, was very perceptive about how the 'man in the street' was thinking and how messaging can make for popular policy. Cameron tried very hard to keep him, although fair play to Tom Watson for the politics of somehow making this particular tabloid editor appear more of a scumbag than any other tabliod editor!

You mean Criminal Coulson. He is your hero ?

Freggles

Just to be clear.

Rosie Winterton the Chief Whip who Corbyn might reshuffle out has been made a dame?

They are using the honours system to troll Corbyn! XD

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Freggles, they could make Benn a viscount.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

FluffyThoughts said:

On-topic:

2016 should be fun: Sadly I doubt it will. Labour will struggle on; NSP will whinge from Edinborough; and our children and grandchildren will be scared by stories about the politicking of the "Lib-Dhimmies" (of which they will dismiss as a Crayola pastiche of 'Sarf Park).

Outwith England's exit from the EU - unlikely as 2017 is my bet - not much will happen....

For Surbiton....

We will see the London parties thrashed by a real Scottish political party for sure in 2016. Nice to see the third raters getting their just desserts.

Would that be the one that lost the referendum on its raison d'etre last year?

Only in control for 9 years and next one a landslide

MaxPB

surbiton said:

Cameron has been there for 10 years. Corbyn for 3 months.

I'm not sure this is a point in favour of Jez as you would like it to be. Even Ed had an early glow.

ydoethur

Freggles said:

Just to be clear.

Rosie Winterton the Chief Whip who Corbyn might reshuffle out has been made a dame?

They are using the honours system to troll Corbyn! XD

I'd overlooked that one! Now that is funny!

Wanderer

ydoethur said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Wasn't it a Sir Humphreyism?
In order to rubbish someone first you need to label them. (Or something like that)

'It is necessary to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.' 'A Conflict of Interest', Yes Prime Minister Series 2.

I have some sympathy with Burnham though, as this award to Crosby is inherently unfair. If Crosby is to be knighted for his services to the Conservative Party, Cooper and Kendall should be made Viscounts, Burnham an Earl and Corbyn at least a Marquis.

Hmm. I wonder if Burnham would have accepted. He appears to be quite the opportunist. There are worse gigs than being a Tory peer.

malcolmg

ThreeQuidder said:

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Oh, indeed.

Easily taken in down there, any old snake oil salesman can fool them

rcs1000

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Off topic I can't get to the BBC News webpage. It is giving an "Error 500" error code with an image of a clown against a black chalkboard with 500 written on it and fire behind it. But I've been having problems with my internet so don't know if its my side or the BBC's - is anyone else having problem connecting currently?

The BBC news page does seem to be having problems.

Yep, it's down. Whoops, at least one IT guy is going to have a long day...

500 is bad gateway, I think.

That means their load balancer has probably fallen over. I'd guess they're using nginx.

And in about 2 minutes it will have been restarted...

MaxPB

rcs1000 said:

Any PBers going to CES next week?

No, I was on our list of attendees but thankfully I managed to weasel my way out of it. Had enough conventions both as an exhibitor and in attendance. I'm surprised you're going though? They are long and hateful events.

surbiton

RobD said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

I know. A knighthood is nowhere near enough for a man of his awesome amazingness.

Will he get a knighthood in Canada too ? After all, he is a man of awesome amazingness.

malcolmg

surbiton said:

RobD said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

I know. A knighthood is nowhere near enough for a man of his awesome amazingness.

Will he get a knighthood in Canada too ? After all, he is a man of awesome amazingness.

Some people need to get a life, he is a useless tool. A monkey could have won that given the opposition.

rcs1000

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Any PBers going to CES next week?

No, I was on our list of attendees but thankfully I managed to weasel my way out of it. Had enough conventions both as an exhibitor and in attendance. I'm surprised you're going though? They are long and hateful events.

TBH, it's easier than trekking around China visiting all the up and coming mobile phone companies on a "one per city per day" basis. This way I see them all in the course of 48 hours. I also get to meet some quite exciting new start-ups. And I'm seeing a bunch of VR guys while I'm there (HTC, etc.)

I'm also going on from their to a telecoms conference in Utah. (Where I might manage an afternoon skiing...)

david_herdson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Freggles, they could make Benn a viscount.

They should do that anyway just for the laugh, particularly now that a loophole in the law means that a newly created hereditary peer can still sit in the Commons.

p.s. @ydoethur - Corbyn's English, so he'd be a Marquess unless you were proposing giving him a Scottish title?

AlastairMeeks

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

ydoethur

david_herdson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Freggles, they could make Benn a viscount.

They should do that anyway just for the laugh, particularly now that a loophole in the law means that a newly created hereditary peer can still sit in the Commons.

p.s. @ydoethur - Corbyn's English, so he'd be a Marquess unless you were proposing giving him a Scottish title?

Why not? That would be multiple trolling - hereditary peer, services to the Conservatives and services to the SNP as well!

EDIT - What title could Benn take? His brother is Viscount Stansgate, of course, so maybe he could be Viscount Sitsfence?

Wanderer

AlastairMeeks said:

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

Osborne?

Wanderer

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Freggles, they could make Benn a viscount.

Now that would have been hilarious.

Plato_Says

Making a virtue into a problem. Too honest, too principled...

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Wasn't it a Sir Humphreyism?
In order to rubbish someone first you need to label them. (Or something like that)

CD13

Ms Plato,

"Are you part of the dreaded metropolitan elite? Do this quiz and find out."

If they're worried about being called the "metropolitan elite", how would they like "bed wetters"?

AlastairMeeks

Wanderer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

Osborne?

Yes, he passes the Two Minutes Hate test. But first Labour need to stop being so unfraternal to each other.

blackburn63

Good to see the EU getting a bashing in the papers today, here's what that well known xenophobic little Englander Dr David Owen once said

“It is the weak nerve centre of a flabby semi-state, with almost defenceless frontiers, where humanitarian rhetoric masks spinelessness.”

Absolutely spot on.

Plato_Says

How did I forget him!

Sandpit said:

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Don't forget Coulson! Someone else who, for all his faults, was very perceptive about how the 'man in the street' was thinking and how messaging can make for popular policy. Cameron tried very hard to keep him, although fair play to Tom Watson for the politics of somehow making this particular tabloid editor appear more of a scumbag than any other tabliod editor!

TheScreamingEagles

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato_Says said:

Re Lynton. This is just yet another example of the Two Minute Hate that Labour use against any perceived enemy. The use of someone's name as a byword for some evil. Thatcher Milk Snatcher, Ashcroft's Millions, Murdoch Press et al. Now it's Crosby as a catch all for dark arts.

Listen to almost any Labour politician and you'll hear a variation of this. Ed Balls did it all the time. Framing a name as an insult or accusation.

Wasn't it a Sir Humphreyism?
In order to rubbish someone first you need to label them. (Or something like that)

A Sir Lyntonism

Frame the choice and set the parameters or your opponent will

A campaign is a choice. You need to be deliberate in the way you define yourself and what you believe in, as well as how you define your competitor or opponent (and have the evidence to back it up).

You need a simple story that explains what you’re trying to achieve in terms that are relevant to people.

Your story needs to be positive and differentiating.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7265214

MaxPB

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Any PBers going to CES next week?

No, I was on our list of attendees but thankfully I managed to weasel my way out of it. Had enough conventions both as an exhibitor and in attendance. I'm surprised you're going though? They are long and hateful events.

TBH, it's easier than trekking around China visiting all the up and coming mobile phone companies on a "one per city per day" basis. This way I see them all in the course of 48 hours. I also get to meet some quite exciting new start-ups. And I'm seeing a bunch of VR guys while I'm there (HTC, etc.)

I'm also going on from their to a telecoms conference in Utah. (Where I might manage an afternoon skiing...)

Fair enough. Though I'm not convinced of the value in knowing all of the Chinese brands given they all clone each other's devices and most will never leave China. Those that do will end up in shanzai shops in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Vive is really good, Oculus needs a lot of work and PS VR is probably the best so far and also releasing soonest. I've used VR extensively (well PS VR) and I'm still not convinced on mass market appeal, media is a shared experience for the majority of people, I don't know how VR fits into that, a few million gamers and forever alone basement dwellers is not something I would be confident building a billion dollar industry on. Its also a shame that the porn expo isn't there until next month, I'm sure there are a lot of, err, interesting uses for VR and porn...

kle4

malcolmg said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Oh, indeed.

Easily taken in down there, any old snake oil salesman can fool them

Please. I pride myself in only purchasing from the very finest of snake oil salesmen. No hucksters here, and my snake has never gleamed more.

AlastairMeeks said:

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

Osborne seems a likely candidate, he is generally disliked anyway after all

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, Corbyn is crap really doesn't do justice to the magnificence of the appallingness of personal ratings.

I think we need to come up with a new adjective for his crapness.

Corbyn is Hannibalesque?

JohnLoony

When I was a child/teenager I fairly quickly realised that New Year's resolutions were a load of rubbish. If something is worth doing, one is already doing it; if one is not already doing it, there is probably a good reason for not doing it.

So in 2015 it was the first time in decades that I made a New Year's Resolution: to do all I could to get Gavin Barwell re-elected as MP for Croydon Central.

Mission Accomplished.

Wanderer

AlastairMeeks said:

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

One could ask, how do the various Tory leadership hopefuls compare as Labour hate-figures.

Osborne 9/10 (because nobody's perfect)
May 8/10 (emphasis on her conference speech this year)
Boris 3/10 (imo, whatever his faults, Boris is hard to really dislike. David Cameron seems to manage though)
Hammond ??
Hunt 7/10 (baby-eating NHS privatiser)
Javid 6/10 (wrong kind of Muslim bus-driver's son, friend of Osborne, bald)

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Max, PS the PlayStation version?

Do you think this will be like BetaMax/VHS and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, where multiple competitors will have one victor and the rest will crumble, or will multiple VR approaches be able to succeed?

ydoethur

JohnLoony said:

When I was a child/teenager I fairly quickly realised that New Year's resolutions were a load of rubbish. If something is worth doing, one is already doing it; if one is not already doing it, there is probably a good reason for not doing it.

So in 2015 it was the first time in decades that I made a New Year's Resolution: to do all I could to get Gavin Barwell re-elected as MP for Croydon Central.

Mission Accomplished.

In 2000, I made a New Year's Resolution that I have kept, with no trouble at all, for 16 years.

It was to stop making New Year's Resolutions.

AlastairMeeks

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so much a failure of overall figures - though that was bad - but a failure to understand the extent to which regional or sectional factors would magnify the national picture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Oh, indeed.

Easily taken in down there, any old snake oil salesman can fool them

Please. I pride myself in only purchasing from the very finest of snake oil salesmen. No hucksters here, and my snake has never gleamed more.

AlastairMeeks said:

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

Osborne seems a likely candidate, he is generally disliked anyway after all

One disadvantage of making it all about George Osborne is that it doesn't fit in with Jeremy Corbyn's schtick about not personalising attacks. And it would lead to open season on him too.

I think Labour are going to need something more abstract like the Bedroom Tax. Maybe "the Cuts" is enough. Tricky.

Plato_Says

We used to joke that those who bought gym membership in January were Resolutionists.

JohnLoony said:

When I was a child/teenager I fairly quickly realised that New Year's resolutions were a load of rubbish. If something is worth doing, one is already doing it; if one is not already doing it, there is probably a good reason for not doing it.

So in 2015 it was the first time in decades that I made a New Year's Resolution: to do all I could to get Gavin Barwell re-elected as MP for Croydon Central.

Mission Accomplished.

AlastairMeeks

Maybe disaffected Labour supporters need to take Crosby Stills & Nash's advice. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

blackburn63

david_herdson said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Crosby's understanding of the public has been shown by events to be massively in excess of anything the pollsters managed. For that insight alone, from which others can learn, the honour is deserved. He is a market leader in his field by a mile: in any other industry there'd have been no criticism.

Besides, far better for the state to reward political service with cheap gongs than with real power or money.

Mr Herdson you one of my favourite article writers on here but that is utter tosh, knighting somebody for masterminding an election victory is disgraceful, if Blair had knighted Alistair Campbell you would have been apoplectic. I'm afraid even the more rational Tories are embarrassing themselves here.

kle4

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Wanderer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

SquareRoot said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, we need to be careful about not over-reacting. We also need to be careful about trusting the pollsters on one metric while ignoring them on another. Why should they be any more reliable on leader ratings than voting intention? Arguably, you could answer that by saying that one is a current view and the other is to an extent predictive, even if the question is "how would you in an election today", but it's a fine distinction.

The 1979 example has been trotted out enough times but remains valid. Had we gone with the leader ratings then we'd have predicted a Labour win, or at least, another hung parliament.

There were a lot of straws in the wind that suggested that the online polling was wrong. There were few straws in the wind that suggested the entire industry was as wrong as it was. In particular, the scale of the key Con-Lab battleground swing was missed.

I'd suggest that the biggest error in predicting the 2015 result was not so mucpicture.

Quite , IMHO it was the SNP wot won it for Dave... both in destroying Labour in Scotland , plus frightening voters into voting for Dave (Salmond writing Labour budget )

SNP gains from Labour had no direct effect on the election result.

The Salmond's-pocket meme was effective in England though.

Oh, indeed.

Easily taken in down there, any old snake oil salesman can fool them

Please. I pride myself in only purchasing from the very finest of snake oil salesmen. No hucksters here, and my snake has never gleamed more.

AlastairMeeks said:

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

Osborne seems a likely candidate, he is generally disliked anyway after all

One disadvantage of making it all about George Osborne is that it doesn't fit in with Jeremy Corbyn's schtick about not personalising attacks. And it would lead to open season on him too.

I think Labour are going to need something more abstract like the Bedroom Tax. Maybe "the Cuts" is enough. Tricky.

I thought general opposition to cuts would be enough for Labour after 5 years and was wrong, but perhaps after 10 it would, I Corbyn can rebuild his ratings somewhat and Cameron's successor is crap - particularly if Osborne has, as seems probable, failed in his own targets to eliminate the deficit again by then.

Sean_F

AlastairMeeks said:

If Labour aren't going to rally around Jeremy Corbyn they need to find something to rally against. In the first part of the last Parliament, Nick Clegg served that function. Who or what might serve the purpose this time round?

The Queen and the British Army.

surbiton

AlastairMeeks said:

Maybe disaffected Labour supporters need to take Crosby Stills & Nash's advice. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

I prefer teach the children to love Labour.

Plato_Says

Labour made Gould a lord. I don't understand your point.

blackburn63 said:

david_herdson said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Crosby's understanding of the public has been shown by events to be massively in excess of anything the pollsters managed. For that insight alone, from which others can learn, the honour is deserved. He is a market leader in his field by a mile: in any other industry there'd have been no criticism.

Besides, far better for the state to reward political service with cheap gongs than with real power or money.

Mr Herdson you one of my favourite article writers on here but that is utter tosh, knighting somebody for masterminding an election victory is disgraceful, if Blair had knighted Alistair Campbell you would have been apoplectic. I'm afraid even the more rational Tories are embarrassing themselves here.

kle4

I joke about New Year's resolutions, but without terming it as such I did start a diet and exercise regime from around January 4th last year, and lost 2 stone in 2 months (only a quarter of which has been put back on), so it does work out sometimes.

I doubt my 'walk ten miles a day, have one chicken breast in one slice of bread with a small piece of cheese for dinner' regime was very healthy though.

AlastairMeeks

blackburn63 said:

david_herdson said:

Pong said:

Lol @ Lynton Crosby.

Must be a contender for the most dishonourable honour ever.

Quite high risk, too.

Crosby's understanding of the public has been shown by events to be massively in excess of anything the pollsters managed. For that insight alone, from which others can learn, the honour is deserved. He is a market leader in his field by a mile: in any other industry there'd have been no criticism.

Besides, far better for the state to reward political service with cheap gongs than with real power or money.

Mr Herdson you one of my favourite article writers on here but that is utter tosh, knighting somebody for masterminding an election victory is disgraceful, if Blair had knighted Alistair Campbell you would have been apoplectic. I'm afraid even the more rational Tories are embarrassing themselves here.

There are abundant examples of party strategists getting honours, Spencer Livermore being the most recent but also Philip Gould and Tim Bell. I'm not a fan of the honours system but I struggle to see how this knighthood breaks new ground.

JohnLoony

Yesterday I mentioned in passing that I have the Daily Telegraph obituary of Omar Bongo on my bedroom wall. For the sake of being complete, I should list the various other things on my bedroom wall:

Obituaries of:
Omar Bongo
Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
Nicholas Fairbairn MP
Baroness (Nancy) Seear
Geoffrey Dickens MP
David "Screaming Lord" Sutch
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas

Newspaper articles about:
A train crash in North Dakota
Prince Harry's first day at Eton
A Wispa advert projected onto the dome of St Paul's Cathedral
A noisy parrot
Prince William attending the christening of his godson
A TV debate between Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Boris Nemtsov
The birth of Brooklyn Beckham
The 82nd birthday of Kim Il Sung
The 120th birthday of Jeanne Calment

And various pictures of a few hunks, mostly Tim Henman and Leonardo DiCaprio.

On the opposite wall are lots of posters of various other gorgeous hunks, but no newpaper articles.

ydoethur

surbiton said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Maybe disaffected Labour supporters need to take Crosby Stills & Nash's advice. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

I prefer teach the children to love Labour.

The party, the verb or the process?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 63, Campbell did more than that. He poisoned politics, and his approach towards Dr David Kelly was not exemplary. And then there's the dodgy dossier. It's hard to think of a more malign influence on modern politics (although the cabal of cronies who conspired with McBride et al. are worthy of comparison).