Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why are the Lib Dems partying like it’s 1993?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited October 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why are the Lib Dems partying like it’s 1993?

They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. So Talleyrand said of the Bourbons and so much the same might be said of the Lib Dems today. If there’s one thing that we should take from the Witney by-election campaigns, it was the extent to which 2010-15 are now for the Lib Dems non-years.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    First ..... again!
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    edited October 2016
    Second like remain and AV.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Excellent header - and so true.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    edited October 2016
    Fourth! Like the Lib Dems, UKIP, Lib Dems, UKIP....
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The Lib Dems, like the itsy bitsy spider, have to restart somewhere. At the moment all they really have is being a local party for local people.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    Not sure I agree with the premise of the article Mr Herdson, the party of eight are hardly in a position to do much else, other than at a local level.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    National - IPSOS/Reuters - Sample 1,183 - 16-20 Oct

    Clinton 45.5 .. Trump 37.0

    http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_26/filters/LIKELY:1
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Katie Gluek and Kyle Cheney of "Politico" report on a spike in early voting by women voters :

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/early-voting-women-battleground-states-230176
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    Morning all.

    Not sure I agree with the premise of the article Mr Herdson, the party of eight are hardly in a position to do much else, other than at a local level.

    UKIP and the SNP were in that positon once. In soe ways, UKIP never left it yet they still got their key policy delivered despite it being opposed by all three traditional Westminster parties.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited October 2016

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Good points. But don't the LDs have more fundamental problems? With 8 MPs they have to prove to themselves that they are still in the game, that it worth thinking about policy and competing for attention.

    As such Witney was a success. They feel good about themselves for the first time in ages. I reckon they now believe they could win a more marginal seat.

  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    Ouch! ..... but so true.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Jonathan said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Good points. But don't the LDs have more fundamental problems? With 8 MPs they have to prove to themselves that they are still in the game, that it worth thinking about policy and competing for attention.

    As such Witney was a success. They feel good about themselves for the first time in ages. I reckon they now believe they could win a more marginal seat.

    They can prove they're in the game by being relevant and different. There's a big gap in the market for a credible opposition at the moment. You'd think that ought to be opportunity enough to start winning over centre-left voters from Labour and some swing voters from the Tories.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    No doubt its been commented on before, with the usual rigorous analysis ("Evil B*stard Tory gerrymandering" etc etc), but the bit of Scotland I am most familiar with does look like a dogs dinner: 'Angus Glens & Dundee East' - lumping the housing scheme at Fintry in with the small towns of Angus will have done nothing for the blood pressure of the burghers of Forfar.....

    http://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/2018_westminster/initial_proposals/maps/Scotland.pdf

    I suspect the 5% limit was drawn a little tight.....
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited October 2016

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
  • Options
    POTUS Countdown

    Sporting Index Mid-Spreads:

    Clinton 325 Trump 213

    538.com Predictions:

    Clinton 341 Trump 196
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    Morning. Great article David, so true about the LDs. They got power, and should be shouting from the rooftops about their achievements in government. Rather, they all see 2010-15 as the embarrassing episode in their past they'd all like to forget about, while looking forward to the next attempt to come second in a by-election.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    edited October 2016
    Great piece Mr Herdson.

    I agree. Witney is all very well - but it's a tactical advance. Keep going like this and they might be back in government in something like 2525.

    What they need to do is position themselves as able to partner (whether through formal coalition or some less formal arragement) with either the Tories or Labour, and the pitch to the electorate is as a moderating influence on either.

    There's never been a better time. For many centrists, the Tories are vulnerable on Brexit especially. There's an opportunity for the LDs to major on this with an explicit view to seek compromise from the Tories in a future coalition or other arrangement.

    On the left, Labour look extreme on both the economy and national defence. Although a Labour government currently looks unlikely, there will still be votes for an LD party seeking to temper Labour's less appealing policies.

    With a national strategy of "don't let the bastards get away with it, we can be a sane and honest broker with either", and focusing on key policies which expose Tory and Lbour weakness, they could get back into the 20s in terms of seats. As it is, I tend to agree with predictions that recovery will be limited to one or two only.
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited October 2016
    Jonathan, I agree with your several comments below about the LDs. They do provide an alternative, especially these days.
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I have always thought, since they are created that they are ultimately pointless. If you are a socialist you might like winning elections, but you are still a socialist if you lose them. Likewise for Greens and UKIPers. The Tories don't talk about them much, but even they have a set of beliefs. There are things that they wouldn't do because they don't believe in them even though they might be expedient. As far as I can see the Lib Dems have no such core set of beliefs and values. Without them, the just become a handy repository of protest votes. That is a public service of sorts, but hardly something that would get me fired up.
  • Options
    The minority Party in a coalition always gets shafted. And Tim Farron, like Jeremy Corbyn, is in a job that's too big for him. And given the strength of Toryism in shire England, perhaps there's no point in any other Party even aspiring to power in the foreseeable future. It may turn out that Cameron laid down his political life for his friends...
  • Options
    fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited October 2016

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.

    Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.

    To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
    I agree with that premise but similarly, you can't run a car on fumes. I would have thought that 'local work' should offer a better opprtunity to develop a deeper relationship with the voters, combined with a national stance of putting pressure on the government more effectively - and more sensibly - than Labour. Obviously, with eight MPs, they can't do that primarily in parliament so they need a first-rate media strategy. It not as if they don't have friends there.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2016

    Morning all.

    Not sure I agree with the premise of the article Mr Herdson, the party of eight are hardly in a position to do much else, other than at a local level.

    UKIP and the SNP were in that positon once. In some ways, UKIP never left it yet they still got their key policy delivered despite it being opposed by all three traditional Westminster parties.
    Ah, now I get your point. - I think the Lib Dems have always had a problem projecting to a wider audience what they represent as a party, rather than what they’re against. With UKIP and SNP the message was clear and simple, however if the LDs wish to be a national party of governance one day, they’ll need a far broader platform than that. - Unfortunately they appear to have opted for nothing more than the anti-leave party for the time being, which only entrenches the perception of the LDs as a minor protest group content with running parish councils.
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478

    I have always thought, since they are created that they are ultimately pointless. If you are a socialist you might like winning elections, but you are still a socialist if you lose them. Likewise for Greens and UKIPers. The Tories don't talk about them much, but even they have a set of beliefs. There are things that they wouldn't do because they don't believe in them even though they might be expedient. As far as I can see the Lib Dems have no such core set of beliefs and values. Without them, the just become a handy repository of protest votes. That is a public service of sorts, but hardly something that would get me fired up.

    To (over?) simplify:
    Polarity is British politics middle name.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited October 2016

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
    I agree with that premise but similarly, you can't run a car on fumes. I would have thought that 'local work' should offer a better opprtunity to develop a deeper relationship with the voters, combined with a national stance of putting pressure on the government more effectively - and more sensibly - than Labour. Obviously, with eight MPs, they can't do that primarily in parliament so they need a first-rate media strategy. It not as if they don't have friends there.
    I would have thought the first step of that media strategy is to move on from 2015, appear relevant and get journalists interested again. The best way to achieve this is to look competitive in elections.

    If the LDs had soft pedalled Witney and came third, they would be worse off.

    You're right there has to be more to it, but I assert that this was a necessary precursor to recovery.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    Toms said:

    I have always thought, since they are created that they are ultimately pointless. If you are a socialist you might like winning elections, but you are still a socialist if you lose them. Likewise for Greens and UKIPers. The Tories don't talk about them much, but even they have a set of beliefs. There are things that they wouldn't do because they don't believe in them even though they might be expedient. As far as I can see the Lib Dems have no such core set of beliefs and values. Without them, the just become a handy repository of protest votes. That is a public service of sorts, but hardly something that would get me fired up.

    To (over?) simplify:
    Polarity is British politics middle name.
    Nonsense. There'll always be a constituency for liberalism. It might ebb and flow, but it's there.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
    They've started, but down the wrong road. Hence why I think they're making the same mistakes again. The iternal contradictions that build up in a series of tactical local battles become unsustainable under the pressure of a hung parliament.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
    I agree with that premise but similarly, you can't run a car on fumes. I would have thought that 'local work' should offer a better opprtunity to develop a deeper relationship with the voters, combined with a national stance of putting pressure on the government more effectively - and more sensibly - than Labour. Obviously, with eight MPs, they can't do that primarily in parliament so they need a first-rate media strategy. It not as if they don't have friends there.
    I would have thought the first step of that media strategy is to move on from 2015, appear relevant and get journalists interested again. The best way to achieve this is to look competitive in elections.

    If the LDs had soft pedalled Witney and came third, they would be worse off.

    You're right there has to be more to it, but I assert that this was a necessary precursor to recovery.
    Well I still disagree. Relevance will be maintained by keeping the government on their toes more effectively than Labour. There ought to be opportunity to work with moderate Labour backbenches to that end, though they shouldn't get too close; abandoning equidistance was the Lib Dems' great error in the first place.

    But really, do you think that anyone in the media will give a stuff next week about the Lib Dems' result in Witney?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    Sandpit said:

    they all see 2010-15 as the embarrassing episode in their past they'd all like to forget about, while looking forward to the next attempt to come second in a by-election.

    Yes, they're doing the 'oh god, I was so drunk last night - I didn't really, did I?' routine instead of standing by their record. "it was far from perfect, we were the junior partner, but we're proud of this, this and this.'

    But as Mr Herdson points out, unless they've got a clear steer for what 'this, this and this' are, they'll fall into exactly the same trap next time a coalition comes beckoning.....
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
    I agree with that premise but similarly, you can't run a car on fumes. I would have thought that 'local work' should offer a better opprtunity to develop a deeper relationship with the voters, combined with a national stance of putting pressure on the government more effectively - and more sensibly - than Labour. Obviously, with eight MPs, they can't do that primarily in parliament so they need a first-rate media strategy. It not as if they don't have friends there.
    I would have thought the first step of that media strategy is to move on from 2015, appear relevant and get journalists interested again. The best way to achieve this is to look competitive in elections.

    If the LDs had soft pedalled Witney and came third, they would be worse off.

    You're right there has to be more to it, but I assert that this was a necessary precursor to recovery.
    Well I still disagree. Relevance will be maintained by keeping the government on their toes more effectively than Labour. There ought to be opportunity to work with moderate Labour backbenches to that end, though they shouldn't get too close; abandoning equidistance was the Lib Dems' great error in the first place.

    But really, do you think that anyone in the media will give a stuff next week about the Lib Dems' result in Witney?
    Nope. But they will feel energised, try a bit harder and might find it slightly easier to get a hearing.

  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478

    Toms said:

    I have always thought, since they are created that they are ultimately pointless. If you are a socialist you might like winning elections, but you are still a socialist if you lose them. Likewise for Greens and UKIPers. The Tories don't talk about them much, but even they have a set of beliefs. There are things that they wouldn't do because they don't believe in them even though they might be expedient. As far as I can see the Lib Dems have no such core set of beliefs and values. Without them, the just become a handy repository of protest votes. That is a public service of sorts, but hardly something that would get me fired up.

    To (over?) simplify:
    Polarity is British politics middle name.
    Nonsense. There'll always be a constituency for liberalism. It might ebb and flow, but it's there.
    I was arguing by inference. My bad, maybe.
    I think you are agreeing with me.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    fitalass said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.

    Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.

    To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
    Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser. It does not mean advocating Remain (that ship sailed in June), but it does mean opposing the Hard Brexiteers in the government with their increasing isolationism. Being pro-European does not mean being anti-British. Leavers fail to comprehend this.

    Ground up campaigning and fighting hard for every seat at every level is the only place to start. The LDs will become the opposition to the Tory hegemony over most of Shire and suburban Britain, where Corbynism has little appeal.

    The question of what to do in the reasonably likely situation of holding the balance of power with the SNP after the next election does need to be resolved. It is not going to be coalition with the Tories though.
  • Options
    fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited October 2016

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    Just over a decade ago Willie Rennie won the Dunfermline and West Fife seat in a by-election for the Libdems, their last by-election win and a real surprise on the night even then. Then John Mason won the Glasgow East seat in a by-election for the SNP. Both seats were then regained by the Labour party at the subsequent GE in 2010. I suspect that the newly appointed Conservative MP for Witney will not only retain his seat at the next GE, but substantially increase his majority on a far higher turnout as a result. The Libdems threw everything at this by-election, and they are not even electorally close to putting themselves in a position to win it or regain any of the 54 seats they have lost over the last two elections next time. And this is despite some recent local election successes while coming from such a low base.
  • Options

    FPT
    rcs1000 said:

    Re not being able to access the site today; the DynDNS servers (which resolve names such as www.politicalbetting.com into IP addresses) were taken down by a DDoS attack today. Some people (those who's DNS servers are pwered by DynDNS) who were unlucky enough to have come to the end of their cache period (browsers and computers and even some networks cache DNS look-ups) will have therefore failed to connect to the site for a while today.

    And there's not a lot we can do about it.

    It worked until my train got into Bedford Last night (which is more than can be said for Thameslink)

    However once I was in Bedford it then stopped working for most of the evening.

    It was clearly a plot by OGHs pet lizards, who of course are controlled by MI5 and run the local internet, who were very embarrased about his comedy script on the Witney by election yesterday, to save face for OGH by stopping people from reading it.

  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
    I agree with that premise but similarly, you can't run a car on fumes. I would have thought that 'local work' should offer a better opprtunity to develop a deeper relationship with the voters, combined with a national stance of putting pressure on the government more effectively - and more sensibly - than Labour. Obviously, with eight MPs, they can't do that primarily in parliament so they need a first-rate media strategy. It not as if they don't have friends there.
    I would have thought the first step of that media strategy is to move on from 2015, appear relevant and get journalists interested again. The best way to achieve this is to look competitive in elections.

    If the LDs had soft pedalled Witney and came third, they would be worse off.

    You're right there has to be more to it, but I assert that this was a necessary precursor to recovery.
    Well I still disagree. Relevance will be maintained by keeping the government on their toes more effectively than Labour. There ought to be opportunity to work with moderate Labour backbenches to that end, though they shouldn't get too close; abandoning equidistance was the Lib Dems' great error in the first place.

    But really, do you think that anyone in the media will give a stuff next week about the Lib Dems' result in Witney?
    Nope. But they will feel energised, try a bit harder and might find it slightly easier to get a hearing.

    I think we've reached a point of agreement there. It's an ephemeral advantage for them though.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Sandpit said:

    they all see 2010-15 as the embarrassing episode in their past they'd all like to forget about, while looking forward to the next attempt to come second in a by-election.

    Yes, they're doing the 'oh god, I was so drunk last night - I didn't really, did I?' routine instead of standing by their record. "it was far from perfect, we were the junior partner, but we're proud of this, this and this.'

    But as Mr Herdson points out, unless they've got a clear steer for what 'this, this and this' are, they'll fall into exactly the same trap next time a coalition comes beckoning.....
    The Coalition is being denied just as much by the Mayite Tories too, despite all the leading figures having held major roles in it.

    Increasingly the Coalition is going to be seen as a golden era of good government, and the Tory government that followed as increasing poor. That is an easy prediction to make, partly because the wheels are coming off already, but mostly because that is the fate of all governments.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    You can't start a car in fourth gear. They have started. That was the necessary first step. You can't do policy in a purely abstract context. Now they have some hope and a reset relationship with the voters . That is a good thing.
    I agree with that premise but similarly, you can't run a car on fumes. I would have thought that 'local work' should offer a better opprtunity to develop a deeper relationship with the voters, combined with a national stance of putting pressure on the government more effectively - and more sensibly - than Labour. Obviously, with eight MPs, they can't do that primarily in parliament so they need a first-rate media strategy. It not as if they don't have friends there.
    I would have thought the first step of that media strategy is to move on from 2015, appear relevant and get journalists interested again. The best way to achieve this is to look competitive in elections.

    If the LDs had soft pedalled Witney and came third, they would be worse off.

    You're right there has to be more to it, but I assert that this was a necessary precursor to recovery.
    Well I still disagree. Relevance will be maintained by keeping the government on their toes more effectively than Labour. There ought to be opportunity to work with moderate Labour backbenches to that end, though they shouldn't get too close; abandoning equidistance was the Lib Dems' great error in the first place.

    But really, do you think that anyone in the media will give a stuff next week about the Lib Dems' result in Witney?
    Nope. But they will feel energised, try a bit harder and might find it slightly easier to get a hearing.

    I think we've reached a point of agreement there. It's an ephemeral advantage for them though.
    Acorns. Thanks for a thought provoking piece. I appreciate how much work you put in.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    The LibDems should set up their USP as only being concerned with local politics. They are good at it. They can argue it provides a practical brake on some of the crazier impact of national Govt., at a level that affects peoples' lives. In time, some of those well regarded local LibDem councillors might find favour and get promotion up to Westminster.

    Basically, they need to time shift back 30 or more years. Back to a time when "prepare for Govt.!" was one of those easily derided, easily forgotten things the leader said annually at Conference. "Prepare for LOCAL Govt.!" on the other hand - that is something that can be delivered, without bending the Party all out of shape.

    The LibDems are only any use when they have something to OPPOSE. And best when that is a national Govt., from up on the moral high ground. They should give up aspiration of being that party of national Govt. It doesn't suit them, It requires riding two or more horses in different directions and ultimately it pulls them apart. They are much better leaning on the fence, sucking air through their teeth and saying "I wouldn't do it like that....".

    That way, they greatly reduce the risk of playing to their least attractive aspect - being the Party of Sanctimonious Bastards. Tuition fees, anyone?
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited October 2016

    Jonathan said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Good points. But don't the LDs have more fundamental problems? With 8 MPs they have to prove to themselves that they are still in the game, that it worth thinking about policy and competing for attention.

    As such Witney was a success. They feel good about themselves for the first time in ages. I reckon they now believe they could win a more marginal seat.

    They can prove they're in the game by being relevant and different. There's a big gap in the market for a credible opposition at the moment. You'd think that ought to be opportunity enough to start winning over centre-left voters from Labour and some swing voters from the Tories.
    Indeed, they should be honing their policies out of their comfort zone so that the likes of TSE find it irresistible to support them.

    They have an open goal to replace Labour as opposition in much of the country at the moment if they embrace orange book liberalism with a compassionate edge.

    I cant help thinking they would have kept a good slew of their southern England seats if they hadnt been so negative about the coalition at the end and then got into a willy waving contest with labour at the election about how dreadful the tories are, turning off tory sympathisers for their candidates while not getting back the lab ones they lost by joining the coalition. A dreadful strategic error
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    JackW said:
    Four point lead is exactly what the early voting is showing there compared to last time.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,203
    fitalass said:

    Jonathan said:

    I thought the LDs approached Witney in exactly the right way.

    Whilst it was always a long shot - ex PMs seat and Tories above 40% - the LDs are not going to return to winning ways sitting on their hands.

    The lessons they learned and relearrned in Witney will be useful in future winnable by-elections.

    This is precisely the missing-the-wood-for-the-trees thinking I wrote about. What does winning by-elections actually get you? Winning the odd MP here and there (not that they've even been very god at that recently) is nothing compared with losing 49 in a night.
    Just over a decade ago Willie Rennie won the Dunfermline and West Fife seat in a by-election for the Libdems, their last by-election win and a real surprise on the night even then. Then John Mason won the Glasgow East seat in a by-election for the SNP. Both seats were then regained by the Labour party at the subsequent GE in 2010. I suspect that the newly appointed Conservative MP for Witney will not only retain his seat at the next GE, but substantially increase his majority on a far higher turnout as a result. The Libdems threw everything at this by-election, and they are not even electorally close to putting themselves in a position to win it or regain any of the 54 seats they have lost over the last two elections next time. And this is despite some recent local election successes while coming from such a low base.
    Witney wasn't a seat that LD would even entertain at GE. It's eastern neighbour is however, as are bath, cheltenham, yate etc. We saw enough flickers yesterday to see that if May's Tories pursue a divisive and harmful line, then there will be regaining of territory.

    May has a thin thin majority but behaves as if it is bigger; that can only end in tears.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,715

    fitalass said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country.
    To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
    Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser. It does not mean advocating Remain (that ship sailed in June), but it does mean opposing the Hard Brexiteers in the government with their increasing isolationism. Being pro-European does not mean being anti-British. Leavers fail to comprehend this.

    Ground up campaigning and fighting hard for every seat at every level is the only place to start. The LDs will become the opposition to the Tory hegemony over most of Shire and suburban Britain, where Corbynism has little appeal.

    The question of what to do in the reasonably likely situation of holding the balance of power with the SNP after the next election does need to be resolved. It is not going to be coalition with the Tories though.
    Agreed, Leavers saying that being internationalist is "putting the EU before the UK", or even treacherous, is just plain stupid.
    The LibDems need to get themselves in the position of being able to participate in government both locally and nationally and winning elections is obviously necessary for that. By-elections provide a way that they can get noticed and build support.
    As for unique selling points, the Tories will say that they are good with the economy, but Brexit if mishandled may cause them problems there. Already it seems there is some friction between their party and business groups.
    Labour are traditionally the party of the workers but Corbyn seems to have exited stage left and they are not progressing very much, if at all.
    The Lib Dems have faced the problem of people asking what they are 'for'. At least they can offer one part of the answer. They are against a hard Brexit, for a soft Brexit, internationalist and moderate. It's a start and needs to be built upon. If they could peel off some of the Tories business support that would help with credibility and financial support.
  • Options
    JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited October 2016
    amongst the other well-founded criticisms of this article - im afraid to say I think Mr Herdson is my least favourite writer here - does anyone remember his certainty the Corbyn era was over ? Sorry you got some wrong info mate ! - Id like to point out that the premise that the Tories are 'popular' is based on untested polling and hasn't been borne out in any actual electoral results so far - in which they've pretty much universally done badly by comparison.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited October 2016
    I met Tim Farron a couple of months ago at an evening to meet the new Lib Dem leader. He's a nice enough person and surrounded by supportive and sincere Lib Dems and plenty of alcohol this was an ideal place to show himself. Unfrtunately after a short time the sense that he's the insubstantial figure many had thought was obvious and beyond doubt.

    Of all the political parties the Lib Dems are the one that's most defined by their leader. I found myself thinking that if only they had an Ashdown or a Clegg or a Thorpe or even a Steel this could be their moment (it was shortly after Brexit) but they haven't.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,715

    The LibDems should set up their USP as only being concerned with local politics. They are good at it. They can argue it provides a practical brake on some of the crazier impact of national Govt., at a level that affects peoples' lives. In time, some of those well regarded local LibDem councillors might find favour and get promotion up to Westminster.

    Basically, they need to time shift back 30 or more years. Back to a time when "prepare for Govt.!" was one of those easily derided, easily forgotten things the leader said annually at Conference. "Prepare for LOCAL Govt.!" on the other hand - that is something that can be delivered, without bending the Party all out of shape.

    The LibDems are only any use when they have something to OPPOSE. And best when that is a national Govt., from up on the moral high ground. They should give up aspiration of being that party of national Govt. It doesn't suit them, It requires riding two or more horses in different directions and ultimately it pulls them apart. They are much better leaning on the fence, sucking air through their teeth and saying "I wouldn't do it like that....".

    That way, they greatly reduce the risk of playing to their least attractive aspect - being the Party of Sanctimonious Bastards. Tuition fees, anyone?

    Advice from a well know friend of the LibDems!
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115

    The LibDems should set up their USP as only being concerned with local politics. They are good at it. They can argue it provides a practical brake on some of the crazier impact of national Govt., at a level that affects peoples' lives. In time, some of those well regarded local LibDem councillors might find favour and get promotion up to Westminster.

    Basically, they need to time shift back 30 or more years. Back to a time when "prepare for Govt.!" was one of those easily derided, easily forgotten things the leader said annually at Conference. "Prepare for LOCAL Govt.!" on the other hand - that is something that can be delivered, without bending the Party all out of shape.

    The LibDems are only any use when they have something to OPPOSE. And best when that is a national Govt., from up on the moral high ground. They should give up aspiration of being that party of national Govt. It doesn't suit them, It requires riding two or more horses in different directions and ultimately it pulls them apart. They are much better leaning on the fence, sucking air through their teeth and saying "I wouldn't do it like that....".

    That way, they greatly reduce the risk of playing to their least attractive aspect - being the Party of Sanctimonious Bastards. Tuition fees, anyone?

    Advice from a well know friend of the LibDems!
    If you think it bad advice - say why.....
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited October 2016
    Roger said:

    I met Tim Farron a couple of months ago at an evening to meet the new Lib Dem leader. He's a nice enough person and surrounded by supportive and sincere Lib Dems this was an ideal place to show himself. Unfrtunately after a short time the sense that he's the insubstantial figure many had thought him to be was obvious and beyond doubt.

    Of all the political parties the Lib Dems are the most defined by their leader. I found myself musing that if only they had an Ashdown or a Clegg or a Thorpe or even a Steel this could be their moment (it was shortly after Brexit) but in Tim Farron they haven't.

    Farron can make the LDs feel good about themselves. They need that.

    He was also a good bet at generating some attention by differentiating the LDs from Labour. This value perished when Labour elected Corbyn and essentially out bid the LibDems at that end of the market.
  • Options
    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.
  • Options
    It's a fantastic header and as far as it goes, and it goes a long way I agree with it. It's over four years since I left the party and I've no plans to rejoin. As a now external observer it seems the Lib Dems are now an unwieldy coalition of two opposing groups both making the same mistake. You have the militant coalicious who feel 2010 to 2015 was a golden era. The ungrateful electorate will realise their false consciousness over this in due course. On the other side are the Bobby Ewing crowd who think 2010 to 2015 never happened. What both are in denial over is that #1 If two thirds of your voters are protest and/or tactical then ever winning power will lead to collapse. #2 That Tuition Fees was an extraordinary and unforced act of self immolation precisely because of #1.

    Unfortunately Farron has sought to bridge this divide by publiclly embracing the coalicious position to add to his original Bobby Ewing one. So David Herdson puts his finger on. Yes Witney is good. The Lib Dems could have done nothing else but to go for. It's real progress. But it's also a bit like going back on the booze after an alcoholic breakdown. The deep dark place they need to go is the lack of a core vote based on philosophy and socioeconomic interests. It's only by building this that they can hold territory after gaining it. Instead there is the real danger we're back to what was called the Bandwagon in the Alliance days. Localist Byelection glory gained entirely by the dissatisfaction of others.

    I said at the time the post Huhne Eastleigh Byelection was a ' victory from which they would never recover ' . Thankfully ( ? ) the Lib Dems have escaped a similar fate in Witney.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    JWisemann said:

    amongst the other well-founded criticisms of this article - im afraid to say I think Mr Herdson is my least favourite writer here - does anyone remember his certainty the Corbyn era was over ? Sorry you got some wrong info mate ! - Id like to point out that the premise that the Tories are 'popular' is based on untested polling and hasn't been borne out in any actual electoral results so far - in which they've pretty much universally done badly by comparison.

    Nope, I don't remember that one. But then I've probably written about 400 articles for PB; I can't get them all right. Remind me.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    Jonathan said:



    [Farron] was also a good bet at generating some attention by differentiating the LDs from Labour. This value perished when Labour elected Corbyn and essentially out bid the LibDems at that end of the market.

    That's a really good point.
  • Options
    Cheap twaddle. In fact Libdems are proud of what we did in Government. Most of us have seen the Witney result as confirmation of what we already suspected - that our recovery has got off to a good start but has a long way to go.
    We are no longer much interested in Protest, we leave that to Labour. We want to form a Government, however long that takes.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653

    fitalass said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.

    Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.

    To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
    Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
    For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?

    How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?

    We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    It's a fantastic header and as far as it goes, and it goes a long way I agree with it. It's over four years since I left the party and I've no plans to rejoin. As a now external observer it seems the Lib Dems are now an unwieldy coalition of two opposing groups both making the same mistake. You have the militant coalicious who feel 2010 to 2015 was a golden era. The ungrateful electorate will realise their false consciousness over this in due course. On the other side are the Bobby Ewing crowd who think 2010 to 2015 never happened. What both are in denial over is that #1 If two thirds of your voters are protest and/or tactical then ever winning power will lead to collapse. #2 That Tuition Fees was an extraordinary and unforced act of self immolation precisely because of #1.

    Unfortunately Farron has sought to bridge this divide by publiclly embracing the coalicious position to add to his original Bobby Ewing one. So David Herdson puts his finger on. Yes Witney is good. The Lib Dems could have done nothing else but to go for. It's real progress. But it's also a bit like going back on the booze after an alcoholic breakdown. The deep dark place they need to go is the lack of a core vote based on philosophy and socioeconomic interests. It's only by building this that they can hold territory after gaining it. Instead there is the real danger we're back to what was called the Bandwagon in the Alliance days. Localist Byelection glory gained entirely by the dissatisfaction of others.

    I said at the time the post Huhne Eastleigh Byelection was a ' victory from which they would never recover ' . Thankfully ( ? ) the Lib Dems have escaped a similar fate in Witney.

    So back in the 90s the Lib Dems had a series of one night stands with the electorate. It was fun but ultimately meaningless.

    In 2010, they had a five year long term relationship, but it quickly turned sour and they got dumped.

    The question is where next? Speed dating. getting to know people. building up self esteem and feeling attractive again doesn't feel like the worst move.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    I met Tim Farron a couple of months ago at an evening to meet the new Lib Dem leader. He's a nice enough person and surrounded by supportive and sincere Lib Dems this was an ideal place to show himself. Unfrtunately after a short time the sense that he's the insubstantial figure many had thought him to be was obvious and beyond doubt.

    Of all the political parties the Lib Dems are the most defined by their leader. I found myself musing that if only they had an Ashdown or a Clegg or a Thorpe or even a Steel this could be their moment (it was shortly after Brexit) but in Tim Farron they haven't.

    Farron can make the LDs feel good about themselves. They need that.

    He was also a good bet at generating some attention by differentiating the LDs from Labour. This value perished when Labour elected Corbyn and essentially out bid the LibDems at that end of the market.
    I think you're talking policy. The Lib Dems have never been defined by policy just being the sensible alternative to the other's extremes. But to be that they need a Blair or a Clegg or a even a Cameron. Tim unfortunately has limp handshake written all over him
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653

    Sandpit said:

    they all see 2010-15 as the embarrassing episode in their past they'd all like to forget about, while looking forward to the next attempt to come second in a by-election.

    Yes, they're doing the 'oh god, I was so drunk last night - I didn't really, did I?' routine instead of standing by their record. "it was far from perfect, we were the junior partner, but we're proud of this, this and this.'

    But as Mr Herdson points out, unless they've got a clear steer for what 'this, this and this' are, they'll fall into exactly the same trap next time a coalition comes beckoning.....
    The Coalition is being denied just as much by the Mayite Tories too
    Link?
  • Options
    fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited October 2016
    @foxinsoxuk, I was a passionate Remainer who got to the point of only very occasionally posting on PB in run up to the EU Referendum. I then posted on here about how gutted I was at the result, but also acknowledged that democracy had spoken and we were leaving the EU. Again like you, I agree that 'Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser'. But next year we are going to be in a very tough battle with the EU and trying very hard to get the best deal for the UK as we Brexit. But if the Libdems, SNP and some Labour MPs are seen to be siding with the EU rather than the UK in this battle, it will be electorally damaging to those parties. For the LDs to become the opposition to Tory hegemony over most of Shire and suburban Britain again, they have to at least be seen as being on the side of those voters again. Right now, they simple are not even on the same page politically.

    The SNP got a bounce and did very well in the last GE after losing the Independence Referendum. But then again, that was not that surprising considering the fact that some No voters had no problem eighteen months ago voting SNP to make sure that Scotland still had a strong voice within the UK at Westminster. That the SNP have so quickly wasted this opportunity with their petty grudge and grievance politics has surprised even me, and I was pretty cynical to begin with. Willie Rennie in Scotland is now desperately trying to imitate Ruth Davidson as is Kezia Dugdale after both made a massive mistake of entertaining a more pro Independence stance last year in the wake of their parties GE defeats. A huge mistake which has cost both parties dear. But even now, they are still far more obsessed with attacking the Conservatives who are now the main opposition to the incumbent SNP Government at Holyrood. So no wonder the ever growing number of anti SNP voters are looking to the Scots Conservatives rather than the Libdems or Labour to be their voice and fight their corner against an ever increasingly unpopular SNP Government. Ignore the party polling, just watch how Sturgeon's personal ratings have fallen while Ruth Davidson's have increased right across the party spectrum.
  • Options
    JennyFreemanJennyFreeman Posts: 488
    edited October 2016

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    Nothing of substance has changed since.
    Errr David we have had a Presidential Debate in which Trump implied the result would be challenged if his rival wins. We had Michelle Obama enter the fray and Trump responding and then we had 4 tracker polls in the last 24 hours, 3 of which have Trump in the lead. We have a MSM convinced Hillary is on for a landslide with implied probabilities of 93-99% being stated.

    Sometimes British political commentators do themselves few favours with Americans. Though the same can be said the other way around, the US is just a teeny-weeny bit important in world affairs.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Good morning, everyone.

    Good piece, Mr. Herdson. The comfort zone is a lovely place to snuggle up with your chums, but it's no way to build a political empire.

    F1: Ron Dennis is under threat from shareholders and could be replaced by Martin Whitmarsh. Or Ross Brawn. Bloody hell. [Apparently so could Justin King].

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37734686
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Roger said:

    I met Tim Farron a couple of months ago at an evening to meet the new Lib Dem leader. He's a nice enough person and surrounded by supportive and sincere Lib Dems and plenty of alcohol this was an ideal place to show himself. Unfrtunately after a short time the sense that he's the insubstantial figure many had thought was obvious and beyond doubt.

    Of all the political parties the Lib Dems are the one that's most defined by their leader. I found myself thinking that if only they had an Ashdown or a Clegg or a Thorpe or even a Steel this could be their moment (it was shortly after Brexit) but they haven't.

    Farron will appear a little unsubstantial, as unlike most frontbenchers he has never held a government office. He is likeable enough, and that is not a bad start with such an unlikeable government.

    Witney demonstrated that former LD voters can be persuaded to return. No wonder it is the PB tories that are looking over their shoulders. The atavistic Leavers that have taken over their party are going to leave plenty of space for a centrist party of sound (local) government and internationalist outlook.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    F1: qualifying is at 7pm, it seems. So the pre-qualifying piece will be rather later than usual.
  • Options
    On the other hand while it's too early to tell how disastrous Brexit will be the early signs are ominous. Once the immeadiate trauma heals and the Leave/Remain binary divide fades into the distance there is a real philosophical and socioeconomic base for the Lib Dems to represent. The problem with Pavement Politics in my experience isn't Pavement Politics as such which can be transformative and empowering. It's Pavement Politics done in a highly conservative manner. In many way modern Britain is too liberal for the Liberal Democrats. Brexit will probably change that. Small l liberals, a highly creative minority and hegemonic diaspora will become counter cultural, feel in internal exile and will need to cluster. The danger/likelihood is Brexit will be like Iraq with the Lib Dems campaigning against it then being smug about how badly it went. What they need is something big to campaign *for* then defend in subsequent governments. What do the Lib Dems want to replace our soon to disappear EU membership with ?
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    Nothing of substance has changed since.
    Errr David we have had a Presidential Debate in which Trump implied the result would be challenged if his rival wins. We had Michelle Obama enter the fray and Trump responding and then we had 4 tracker polls in the last 24 hours, 3 of which have Trump in the lead. We have a MSM convinced Hillary is on for a landslide with implied probabilities of 93-99% being stated.

    Sometimes British political commentators do themselves few favours with Americans. Though the same can be said the other way around, the US is just a teeny-weeny bit important in world affairs.
    Stuff has happened, but the race is the shame. The only polls with a Trump lead are Ras and LA times, and wirh state polls and early voting seemingly going Clintons waym Only so many times you can say 'Clinton's going to ein'
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited October 2016
    The Register has a crib for yesterday's outage, and Wikileaks are implying their supporters were behind it as revenge for cutting off Assange internet.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/21/dyn_dns_ddos_explained/?mt=1477114012956

    The US customers of all these were effected

    Spotify
    Netflix
    Twitter
    PayPal
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    On the other hand while it's too early to tell how disastrous Brexit will be the early signs are ominous. Once the immeadiate trauma heals and the Leave/Remain binary divide fades into the distance there is a real philosophical and socioeconomic base for the Lib Dems to represent. The problem with Pavement Politics in my experience isn't Pavement Politics as such which can be transformative and empowering. It's Pavement Politics done in a highly conservative manner. In many way modern Britain is too liberal for the Liberal Democrats. Brexit will probably change that. Small l liberals, a highly creative minority and hegemonic diaspora will become counter cultural, feel in internal exile and will need to cluster. The danger/likelihood is Brexit will be like Iraq with the Lib Dems campaigning against it then being smug about how badly it went. What they need is something big to campaign *for* then defend in subsequent governments. What do the Lib Dems want to replace our soon to disappear EU membership with ?

    The whole of politics needs to restate what it's for.

    Parties are against the Tories, the EU, Brexit, immigration, borrowing, austerity. Westminster, And so on
  • Options

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resilient base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you because of any given one.
    A welcome article David. Principles and policies are essential but also need to be based on a philosophy. Liberalism has free trade in its DNA, yet the present Lib Dem party has no such belief. They lean to a statist preference for an entity such as the EU with all its barriers, regulations, protected groups and distorted markets. The interchange between Clegg and Ryan Bourne on BBC DP this week illustrates this. Will the Lib Dems be built on Liberalism or Socialism?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Dr. Foxinsox, I don't think Farron's a terrible person but I'm not sure I'd class him as likeable either [beyond the normal likeability of most people].

    He may benefit from not being seen as stern as May or as demented as Corbyn. But he seems too much of a preacher.

    It's also worth noting that whilst the Conservatives (UKIP being busy eating its own face) now have ownership of our leaving the EU, that does mean that the other parties are all scrabbling for the other half of the field (not counting reluctant Remain voters who accept democratic decisions...). A bit like the SNP in Scotland, where there are multiple unionist parties struggling to break through and splitting the unionist vote.

    The Lib Dems aren't centrist. They're just not full-blown mental socialists. But that's returning to my point about Corbyn. They also seem reluctant to accept the result of a democratic vote, which isn't an endearing quality.

    Miss Fitalass, interesting post on Scotland. Tallies with my (admittedly English) view that people don't want Diet Coke. Pro-independence types will always want the SNP, and if Labour have handed the unionist banner to the Conservatives, that only helps the blues.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    What a coincidence

    Prof McDonough
    22 October 1962. US President John F. Kennedy announced on TV that American reconnaissance planes had discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba. https://t.co/SoPuPmoBee
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    F1: It's only practice, but this report of the second one does make it sound like Red Bull have a fighting chance.

    Ricciardo is still available at 13 (each way for top 2) to win at Ladbrokes. I put a small sum on that a few days ago.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37735645
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    fitalass said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.

    Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.

    To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
    Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
    For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?

    How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?

    We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
    There are no tariffs or quotas on exports (apart from weapons) to the EU from the 42 Least developed countries under the Everything But Arms deal. The Cotonou agreements take this further.



  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    On the other hand while it's too early to tell how disastrous Brexit will be the early signs are ominous. Once the immeadiate trauma heals and the Leave/Remain binary divide fades into the distance there is a real philosophical and socioeconomic base for the Lib Dems to represent. The problem with Pavement Politics in my experience isn't Pavement Politics as such which can be transformative and empowering. It's Pavement Politics done in a highly conservative manner. In many way modern Britain is too liberal for the Liberal Democrats. Brexit will probably change that. Small l liberals, a highly creative minority and hegemonic diaspora will become counter cultural, feel in internal exile and will need to cluster. The danger/likelihood is Brexit will be like Iraq with the Lib Dems campaigning against it then being smug about how badly it went. What they need is something big to campaign *for* then defend in subsequent governments. What do the Lib Dems want to replace our soon to disappear EU membership with ?

    The whole of politics needs to restate what it's for.

    Parties are against the Tories, the EU, Brexit, immigration, borrowing, austerity. Westminster, And so on
    Yes. It's the biggest change of my political life time. Political parties used to be about making their support groups lives better. Now all they promise is to make their supporters ' Out ' groups lives worse.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    edited October 2016
    O/T - but a phrase that has gained some currency in the US Presidential campaign - 'gaslighting' - seeking to coerce someone into believing they are mad - originally comes from a London stage play - 'Gaslight' - if you've only ever seen the inferior MGM remake, the original British film (which survived MGM's attempts to destroy all the prints and the negative) - is far superior:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPcYkxmhGs0
  • Options

    fitalass said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.

    Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.

    To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
    Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
    For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
    How does an 'internationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
    We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
    Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
    "How does an 'internationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?"

    It does not fit with Liberalism. Which is a fundamental problem of the Lib Dems.

  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited October 2016

    O/T - but a phrase that has gained some currency in the US Presidential campaign - 'gaslighting' - seeking to coerce someone into believing they are mad - originally comes from a London stage play - 'Gaslight' - if you've only ever seen the inferior MGM remake, the original British film (which survived MGM's attempts to destroy all the prints and the negative) - is far superior:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPcYkxmhGs0

    It's a great movie. Hoax media is another new popular term for the main channels
  • Options

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
    BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Jonathan said:

    On the other hand while it's too early to tell how disastrous Brexit will be the early signs are ominous. Once the immeadiate trauma heals and the Leave/Remain binary divide fades into the distance there is a real philosophical and socioeconomic base for the Lib Dems to represent. The problem with Pavement Politics in my experience isn't Pavement Politics as such which can be transformative and empowering. It's Pavement Politics done in a highly conservative manner. In many way modern Britain is too liberal for the Liberal Democrats. Brexit will probably change that. Small l liberals, a highly creative minority and hegemonic diaspora will become counter cultural, feel in internal exile and will need to cluster. The danger/likelihood is Brexit will be like Iraq with the Lib Dems campaigning against it then being smug about how badly it went. What they need is something big to campaign *for* then defend in subsequent governments. What do the Lib Dems want to replace our soon to disappear EU membership with ?

    The whole of politics needs to restate what it's for.

    Parties are against the Tories, the EU, Brexit, immigration, borrowing, austerity. Westminster, And so on
    Yes. It's the biggest change of my political life time. Political parties used to be about making their support groups lives better. Now all they promise is to make their supporters ' Out ' groups lives worse.
    In a low growth/high debt environment (as things are in most parts of the world) then blaming others for taking too big of share is the way to garner votes, on both the left and right.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Submarine, a natural consequence of the shift brought about, or accelerated, by the likes of Blair and Campbell.

    When attacking, you determine the ground. It's more powerful to ask a question than make a statement. When on the defensive, you're on the back foot. So, the drive to accuse is one of political advantage (like when the oligarchs and democrats would pre-emptively murder one another in Greek city states in the Peloponnesian War). The media wants headlines and goes scalp-hunting in lieu of interviewing, the smallest of disagreements is called a split and freedom of speech for politicians has perhaps never been lower.

    We put political people under a microscope whilst barely glancing at their actual policies. Journalists make the most fundamental mistakes (conflating deficit and debt).

    For that matter, yesterday's report by Laura Kuenssberg[sp] was dire. She said May was pleading [she wasn't] then asked how May could expect a say in the EU as we're leaving [as long as we're paying members it seems more than fair to exercise the rights whilst bearing the responsibilities of a member].
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,081
    edited October 2016
    fitalass said:

    against an ever increasingly unpopular SNP Government.

    Props for consistency.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/789610620467294208
  • Options
    The Independent: Hillary Clinton campaign HQ evacuated after 'white substance' found. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwxPi6jDA
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    619 said:
    It is Halloween next week. Trick or treat.
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    PlatoSaid said:



    O/T - but a phrase that has gained some currency in the US Presidential campaign - 'gaslighting' - seeking to coerce someone into believing they are mad - originally comes from a London stage play - 'Gaslight' - if you've only ever seen the inferior MGM remake, the original British film (which survived MGM's attempts to destroy all the prints and the negative) - is far superior:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPcYkxmhGs0

    It's a great movie. Hoax media is another new popular term for the main channels
    Popular amongst moron circles.
  • Options

    fitalass said:

    On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?

    Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
    Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now
    SNIP
    To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
    Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
    For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?

    How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?

    We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
    There are no tariffs or quotas on exports (apart from weapons) to the EU from the 42 Least developed countries under the Everything But Arms deal. The Cotonou agreements take this further.
    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85406
    "Ironically, it takes a Green MEP and the Guardian to tell the story, leaving the eurosceptics missing a trick. The MEP is a German member of the Green Party, Ska Keller, who says, "Developing countries have a gun pointed at their chest – either they sign or their market access to the EU is restricted", appalled at the way the EU brokered a trade agreement with east Africa late last year. 

    In this case, she says, the gun was pointed at Kenya – more specifically, its cut flowers industry. The flower business is a lucrative one, worth more than €10bn (£7.7bn) worldwide every year, and Kenya is one of the world's largest exporters of cut stems. 

    So it was a crushing blow when Europe imposed tariffs on Kenya's cut flowers in October last year, potentially making their blooms significantly more expensive than those grown on European soil. '
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    Nothing of substance has changed since.
    Errr David we have had a Presidential Debate in which Trump implied the result would be challenged if his rival wins. We had Michelle Obama enter the fray and Trump responding and then we had 4 tracker polls in the last 24 hours, 3 of which have Trump in the lead. We have a MSM convinced Hillary is on for a landslide with implied probabilities of 93-99% being stated.

    Sometimes British political commentators do themselves few favours with Americans. Though the same can be said the other way around, the US is just a teeny-weeny bit important in world affairs.
    We've had lots of threads recebtly on the election . Can't remember if we had a thread on the 11 point polling lead Hilary had in 1 poll.
  • Options
    nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    It's a fantastic header and as far as it goes, and it goes a long way I agree with it. It's over four years since I left the party and I've no plans to rejoin. As a now external observer it seems the Lib Dems are now an unwieldy coalition of two opposing groups both making the same mistake. You have the militant coalicious who feel 2010 to 2015 was a golden era. The ungrateful electorate will realise their false consciousness over this in due course. On the other side are the Bobby Ewing crowd who think 2010 to 2015 never happened. What both are in denial over is that #1 If two thirds of your voters are protest and/or tactical then ever winning power will lead to collapse. #2 That Tuition Fees was an extraordinary and unforced act of self immolation precisely because of #1.

    Unfortunately Farron has sought to bridge this divide by publiclly embracing the coalicious position to add to his original Bobby Ewing one. So David Herdson puts his finger on. Yes Witney is good. The Lib Dems could have done nothing else but to go for. It's real progress. But it's also a bit like going back on the booze after an alcoholic breakdown. The deep dark place they need to go is the lack of a core vote based on philosophy and socioeconomic interests. It's only by building this that they can hold territory after gaining it. Instead there is the real danger we're back to what was called the Bandwagon in the Alliance days. Localist Byelection glory gained entirely by the dissatisfaction of others.

    I said at the time the post Huhne Eastleigh Byelection was a ' victory from which they would never recover ' . Thankfully ( ? ) the Lib Dems have escaped a similar fate in Witney.

    Interesting analysis along with the original post.
    I spent some time with the LD's during the remain campaign. It struck me that there are far too many agendas going on within the party to develop a coherent movement or narrative. weird liberal, classic liberal, stubborn liberal, libertarian liberal, Social democratic liberal. I was also surprised that support for staying in the EU was far from unaminous (there was a liberal leave campaign), lots of internal disagreement over issues and a lack of discipline (the smartest guy - the former PPC in the local party acted as a mediating presence between these forces).
    I've also worked for them at local government level. Consensus of opinion within the industry is that lib dem controlled councils are very difficult to work for because of their indecisiveness.
    They are nonetheless very likeable, pragmatic and pleasant people.
    I don't think the resurgence post Witney and with Farron at the helm is really going anywhere. I think there is just too much baggage from the protest/coalition divide in the party and conflicting views are all over the place.



  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    Nothing of substance has changed since.
    Errr David we have had a Presidential Debate in which Trump implied the result would be challenged if his rival wins. We had Michelle Obama enter the fray and Trump responding and then we had 4 tracker polls in the last 24 hours, 3 of which have Trump in the lead. We have a MSM convinced Hillary is on for a landslide with implied probabilities of 93-99% being stated.

    Sometimes British political commentators do themselves few favours with Americans. Though the same can be said the other way around, the US is just a teeny-weeny bit important in world affairs.
    Like I say, nothing of substance.

    Trump remains an egotistical narcissist; Hillary remains dull and a bit sleazy; the polls taken as a set reinforce other data, all pointing to a comfortable Hillary win.
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    Nothing of substance has changed since.
    Errr David we have had a Presidential Debate in which Trump implied the result would be challenged if his rival wins. We had Michelle Obama enter the fray and Trump responding and then we had 4 tracker polls in the last 24 hours, 3 of which have Trump in the lead. We have a MSM convinced Hillary is on for a landslide with implied probabilities of 93-99% being stated.

    Sometimes British political commentators do themselves few favours with Americans. Though the same can be said the other way around, the US is just a teeny-weeny bit important in world affairs.
    We've had lots of threads recebtly on the election . Can't remember if we had a thread on the 11 point polling lead Hilary had in 1 poll.
    Considering the relative importance of the US Presidential election vs a by-election hold by the Tories in a safe seat we're being very parochial.

    The US election is dynamite and the paucity of threads on here is feeble. I've seen virtually nothing on the incredibly important Senate and House races, nothing on Governorships and zilch on state-by-state breakdowns.

    "Disappointing" to be euphemistic.
  • Options
    scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    Uniondivie

    But Fitaloss has already thought of that! She says we have to ignore the political party ratings so the SNP still in the stratosphere of 50 per cent plus does not count in her world.

  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.

    It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.

    Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited October 2016

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
    BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
    Looking at 538, the range of probable outcomes does include a 13% chance of a Trump win, but a 43% chance of a Clinton landslide:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-there-are-4-ways-this-election-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

    Clinton takes Texas is more likely than Trump taking Pennsylvania:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-texas-opportunity-and-her-texas-problem/

    Relying on wikileaks and poisoning the well of American politics doesn't seem to be going well for Trump. Humiliating defeat has never been more deserved, and looks nailed on.
  • Options

    The Independent: Hillary Clinton campaign HQ evacuated after 'white substance' found. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwxPi6jDA


    There's a classic House of Cards episode in which that happens. It was sent by their own team.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
    BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
    Morning all,

    We have been talking about Trump and Clinton all week on PB. On the betting front most PB people seem to have moved on to discussing college votes on indexes as the main event is seen as being over.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Trump still looks like a sell at 208 for the electoral college on Sporting Index to me.
  • Options

    Who are the LibDems?

    Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.

    I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
    BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
    Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP and LA Times all have Trump leading. But that's not really the point. The US election scores a 99.99999 importance relative to a Witney by-election tory hold of 0.00001.
This discussion has been closed.