If we're going by the token of judging by seats that were Tory until 92/97 then that's shifting the goalposts massively - and again, it's a matter of total cherrypicking. You've got Ben Bradshaw running a deputy leadership campaign based around it, for one. Those seats certainly aren't alone in being (non-demographic) ones that have come to Labour and stayed with us since 1997.

 

It was you who was talking about 2015 specifically! It's been a long process in Merseyside starting from the 1980s, because of the robust approach local politicians have taken.

 

And hasn't Exeter mainly been swung by the university?

Edited July 16, 201510 yr by Danny

I'm fairly certain Corbyn will overtake Burnham in the next couple of days, if not tomorrow.

As of six minutes ago, Corbyn's in the lead with 49 nominations to Burnham's 48.

And hasn't Exeter mainly been swung by the university?

Well, it has been there since 1955! And the majority's wayyy bigger than the increase in students post-tuition fees, who incidentally have relatively poor turnout anyway.

 

That said I've been meaning for a while to compile the seats that have come over since 1997 and stuck with us, so this will at least give me a decent excuse to waste an hour or so finally doing it - even if boundary changes will almost certainly make deciding which ones are which a bit maddening.

As expected, Tim Farron is the new Lib Dem leader, winning 56.5% of the vote. I wish him the best of luck - he's going to need it.

You're in the wrong thread - this is the one for the (barely) relevant party.

Well done to one of my top 5 favourite guys named Tim on winning the Lib Dem leadership election. He'll do better than the last guy, one expects.

As has been repeated to exhaustion, I couldn't give less of a damn about tuition fees as I do about a party which screamed piety for a generation about no broken promises going back on its most totemic promise. And even before we get into the tiresome justifications about manifestos, the NUS pledge to always vote against any rises and for tuition fees to be abolished - with photographs of candidates posing with it proudly displayed on most election materials - is a pretty cast-iron promise. It goes over and above a typical broken promise. It's the equivalent of a priest having 'thou shalt not steal' as his signature sermon then robbing the church coffers the second he's promoted to bishop.

 

And yes, I'd be just as judgemental of it had Labour made a promise as much a centrepiece of its campaign and done literally the opposite once elected - which, no, before you repeat it, Labour committing to no top-up fees in 2001 was nowhere near at a similar level of prominence for. It also didn't come from a party that had attempted total piety over the grubby realities of politics prior to that point.

 

-x-

 

But yes, as the closest the Lib Dems come to a penance candidate, Farron probably is the best choice. Particularly for giving them a base for scooping up the handwringers that are currently with Labour (who'd likely be most iffy if Andy were elected) or any particularly pro-EU Labour voters should Corbyn get elected.

 

Ugh, I've just realised that if we get the (still very likely) result of Cameron-Andy-Tim as the three leaders all three have notably dodgy past LGBT rights records.

 

OK let's try a different approach then: I couldn't give a monkeys uncle about a party who doesn't rule the country backtracking on one minor policy (and has to compromise, central policy or not - and they all agree it was a huge mistake) but I do have issues over a party that introduced it while claiming to be the party of the working class and the poor and equality. How's that for hypocrisy? Labour backtracked on so many far more important policies, as I've happily listed before.

 

Or how about slagging off one party for introducing a better fairer version of their rubbish policy and then sticking with that policy (I hear no intention to change anything about it). hypocrites. I mean, really, splitting hairs or what. Bottom line they saw an opportunity to do serious damage to the Libdems over a trivial policy and f*cked up the big picture instead of attacking the Tories head-on right away. Tories laughed all the way to the election as the kill-Libdems policy backfired bigtime. The Labour party got what they deserved and the rest of us have to live with so many of their rubbish decisions and past policy disasters for another 5 miserable years.

 

Thanks Labour Party!

 

You're in the wrong thread - this is the one for the (barely) relevant party.

 

there isnt another thread as there are no actual libdem members posting, and this one seems to be an ongoing minute by minute newsletter between party members repeating what's already been said.

 

As long as you're enjoying it of course, no matter...

 

Labour leader opinion from a non-party-member-but-3-decades union member and supporter (ie potential voter, not a committed 100% guaranteed Labour voter):

 

Corbyn will give ammunition to the right-wing press and will repeat the early 80's lefty fiasco - the breakaway success parties like the SNP are not that left-wing, just more socially-minded.

 

Burnham is more appealing as a "normal", plain-speaker, to ordinary people pissed off at "hard-working family" bull, and he could make Cameron look like the rich toff toss he is far more successfully than the other candidates - even if he hasn't had a proper job.

 

More than anything, if the Labour Party doesn't rally round whoever is voted in, and sticks with them regardless, and gets to work attacking the Tories immediately, and be visible doing it in a decisive assertive fair argument each time (slagging off doesnt work) it's going to be at least another decade out of power, godhelpusall...

 

 

 

 

LMAO at the implication the Lib Dem collapse was down to Labour.

 

Credit to Tim, at least he seems to be ahead of you in having an element of recognition that a central promise that you sign as a separate pledge to always keep to is a ludicrous thing to claim as a mere trifle when you break it.

LMAO at the implication the Lib Dem collapse was down to Labour. God, if we're in for another five years of this kind of pious nonsense...

 

no it was down to the Tories and Labour and the press getting the boot in collectively. labour fell for it and joined in helped in no small way by student strops.

 

Glad I can entertain you though. Notice you had no reply about Labour hypocrisy though...

there isnt another thread as there are no actual libdem members posting, and this one seems to be an ongoing minute by minute newsletter between party members repeating what's already been said.

 

As long as you're enjoying it of course, no matter...

Well, it is a thread about the Labour Party. You're more than free to create one for the Lib Dems.

Notice you had no reply about Labour hypocrisy though...

Yes, because the arguments have been very, very well rehearsed and given your reply engaged with basically nothing I said in the original post (i.e. *still* stuck with the 'COMPROMISE AND MANIFESTO' line and the 'LABOUR BACKTRACKED TOO' when I prebutted it all, right there), I realised it would basically be another fun round of tail-chasing.

Newsnight encapsulating why Corbyn is surging. Two posh boys (Chuka and Tristram) smugly telling members that they have to forget about helping the poor and getting better public services, and instead obsess about surpluses and smacking people "who can work but refuse to work".

But he does support equal marriage. He agonised over it - because of his religion - but he got there in the end.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/m...y-marriage-vote

 

Unfortunately all that is being reported is the fact he didn't vote at all which the papers are translating to "hang him - he's a horrible, homophobic hypocrite"

OK let's try a different approach then: I couldn't give a monkeys uncle about a party who doesn't rule the country backtracking on one minor policy (and has to compromise, central policy or not - and they all agree it was a huge mistake) but I do have issues over a party that introduced it while claiming to be the party of the working class and the poor and equality. How's that for hypocrisy? Labour backtracked on so many far more important policies, as I've happily listed before.

 

Or how about slagging off one party for introducing a better fairer version of their rubbish policy and then sticking with that policy (I hear no intention to change anything about it). hypocrites. I mean, really, splitting hairs or what. Bottom line they saw an opportunity to do serious damage to the Libdems over a trivial policy and f*cked up the big picture instead of attacking the Tories head-on right away. Tories laughed all the way to the election as the kill-Libdems policy backfired bigtime. The Labour party got what they deserved and the rest of us have to live with so many of their rubbish decisions and past policy disasters for another 5 miserable years.

 

Thanks Labour Party!

Ha, better fairer version.

 

You do make me laugh.

Ha, better fairer version.

 

You do make me laugh.

 

feel free to campaign to bring back the previous debt-inducing system..... :P

 

Me, I'll campaign to bring back free education.

Yes, because the arguments have been very, very well rehearsed and given your reply engaged with basically nothing I said in the original post (i.e. *still* stuck with the 'COMPROMISE AND MANIFESTO' line and the 'LABOUR BACKTRACKED TOO' when I prebutted it all, right there), I realised it would basically be another fun round of tail-chasing.

 

hmm isn't "backtracking" a kinder media-friendlier version of "lying about your policies".

 

So glad we agree then..... :)

feel free to campaign to bring back the previous debt-inducing system..... :P

 

Me, I'll campaign to bring back free education.

Oh I'm sorry, did I just imagine the £27k (minimum) debt my friends will have when they leave?

 

If you want free education this is a very funny way of going about it.

Oh I'm sorry, did I just imagine the £27k (minimum) debt my friends will have when they leave?

 

If you want free education this is a very funny way of going about it.

 

potential debt if they earn enough to get taxed on future earnings. as opposed to an actual financial debt hanging over you from the moment you leave (and let's not forget Labour introduced fees and intended to keep 6k per year without changing the system - that's how strongly they feel sorry for students from poorer background. So under your own party's system you would be leaving with either 9k instant debt, 18k instant debt - had the Libdems not changed the system - or 27k in taxes down the line when you can afford to be taxed more.) So you really need to complain to your party policy deciders.....

 

I never said it was my preferred method, just the least bad alternative option.

 

As I said, though, any of the political parties are perfectly free to campaign to change the new system, or fees, and I will support any reduction in fees all the way down to zero. I await with interest to see what the next Labour party leader proposes......and the Libdem leader.

potential debt if they earn enough to get taxed on future earnings. as opposed to an actual financial debt hanging over you from the moment you leave (and let's not forget Labour introduced fees and intended to keep 6k per year without changing the system - that's how strongly they feel sorry for students from poorer background. So under your own party's system you would be leaving with either 9k instant debt, 18k instant debt - had the Libdems not changed the system - or 27k in taxes down the line when you can afford to be taxed more.) So you really need to complain to your party policy deciders.....

This is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read. The repayment system pre-2012 was EXACTLY THE SAME as the repayment system after 2012, only the threshold for repayment was increased at the same time as the reform. That doesn't transform it from 'instant debt' to a tax - that's doublespeak at a level even the Lib Dems defending it at the time would've blanched at.