New party leaders

[KelvinsRightGlove]

More top work pap.

 

*KRG nods approvingly*

[shurlock]

As long as Labour don't elect anyone with the hubris of Kinnock they should be fine with some of the other candidates as well. I think it's too early to make a reliable judgement on leadership just yet - some will grow into the role during the campaign and others will wilt. The opportunity is there though, as this is shaping up to be the most divisive government since the poll tax Tories of 87.

 

 

The tories have a 100 seat majority, so whoever wins will have a huge task ahead of them. Cooper and Burnham feel like reheats from the Brown/Blair days -something that clearly hobbled Miliband. No number of photos of Burnham sipping a prematch pint at Goodison is going to change the fact that, as with Cooper, he's perceived as a Westminster clone. Never mind that he's tainted by the Mid-Staffs scandal.

 

I find Chuka Umunna the least credible, even though he's the current bookies favourite. Sharp insofar as he can parrot a brief; but devoid of any real sincerity and intellect and smacks of London elitism. He's like the Morcheeba of politicians and Mandy is more Simon Cowell than Simon Cowell. At root, his patronage is based on a wonky reading of history - as if the 1997 election was all down to Blair when, in reality, with the Tories in utter disarray, John Smith would have likely coasted to a similar victory.

 

Agree some will grow into role, though I think knowledge and expertise are easier to address/hone than perceptions of personality and other related intangibles. As to whether the government is shaping up to be more divisive, think that politically and rhetorically, the Tories are doing a pretty savvy job of driving a wedge between the deserving and undeserving poor which will cushion any fallout. That said, I do think the Tories are far more vulnerable on the economy than people are assuming.

[Wes Tender]

The show me cast-iron proof evidence fallacy. As if anything falling short of that becomes specious generalisation. Les, the last time you challenged me and you spent the next week wiping egg off your face.

 

No its based on what I've heard, seen and read. Indeed, Kuenssberg reported something to a similar effect last week on Newsnight. As to his attributes in taking on the tories, there's a pretty good piece on him in the Spectator from 2012 http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7764333/is-dan-the-man/ -and since then his stock has continued to climb. Otherwise there's the swivel-eyed court of public opinion aka the Daily Mail comment section that you're no doubt at home in.

Based on what you have managed so far to cite as evidence that the Tory hierarchy are having the living daylights scared out of them by the prospect of Dan Jarvis being elected as leader of the Labour Party, it isn't very impressive in supporting your contention. The people whose opinions matter in the Tory party are hardly going to come out in public and say who they would most fear as leader of the Labour Party, so any evidence has to be purely anecdotal hearsay and rumour. A bit like the mention in the Spectator about the life-long Tory saying that he would vote Labour if Jarvis was leader. It is meaningless.

 

An article in the Spectator over 3 years old is hardly compelling evidence anyway, is it? But even then, it is interesting from a couple of points of view; his voting for the bombing in Libya and the doubts that were mentioned about whether as an ex-Army officer he would have sufficient understanding of how businesses work and the importance of them to the economy.

 

It is suggested that he was causing concern to the right because he understood that the Labour Party needed to move towards the centre to be electable, yet this is something that was blindingly obvious to most sensible people who realised that Labour had elected the wrong Miliband as leader many years ago. But as he has indicated anyway that he will not stand, the whole thing is an irrelevance, unless he changes his mind based on stories that the Tories consider him to be Labour's best chance of being elected the next time around.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

The tories have a 100 seat majority, so whoever wins will have a huge task ahead of them. Cooper and Burnham feel like reheats from the Brown/Blair days -something that clearly hobbled Miliband. No number of photos of Burnham sipping a prematch pint at Goodison is going to change the fact that, as with Cooper, he's perceived as a Westminster clone. Never mind that he's tainted by the Mid-Staffs scandal.

 

I find Chuka Umunna the least credible, even though he's the current bookies favourite. Sharp insofar as he can parrot a brief; but devoid of any real sincerity and intellect and smacks of London elitism. He's like the Morcheeba of politicians and Mandy is more Simon Cowell than Simon Cowell. At root, his patronage is based on a wonky reading of history - as if the 1997 election was all down to Blair when, in reality, with the Tories in utter disarray, John Smith would have likely coasted to a similar victory.

 

Agree some will grow into role, though I think knowledge and expertise are easier to address/hone than perceptions of personality and other related intangibles. As to whether the government is shaping up to be more divisive, think that politically and rhetorically, the Tories are doing a pretty savvy job of driving a wedge between the deserving and undeserving poor which will cushion any fallout. That said, I do think the Tories are far more vulnerable on the economy than people are assuming.

 

Again, largely agree with this.

 

I'm tempted to suggest that perhaps you are slightly underplaying the role Blair played. Granted, my knowledge of this is learned as history having been too young to really notice it at the time. I think he did play a role in helping to unify a party that itself was fractured. I think he also was a driving force in moving the party more towards the centre ground (arguably Blair is in some ways RoC).

 

That's not to say you are wrong in the mess of the Tories, and people's general apathy towards them after 18 years of government at the time playing a huge role also.

 

Dunno, may be wrong. As I said, this is an impression from looking back at it as a piece of history, instead of lived experience.

Edited 14 May, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove

[shurlock]

Based on what you have managed so far to cite as evidence that the Tory hierarchy are having the living daylights scared out of them by the prospect of Dan Jarvis being elected as leader of the Labour Party, it isn't very impressive in supporting your contention. The people whose opinions matter in the Tory party are hardly going to come out in public and say who they would most fear as leader of the Labour Party, so any evidence has to be purely anecdotal hearsay and rumour. A bit like the mention in the Spectator about the life-long Tory saying that he would vote Labour if Jarvis was leader. It is meaningless.

 

An article in the Spectator over 3 years old is hardly compelling evidence anyway, is it? But even then, it is interesting from a couple of points of view; his voting for the bombing in Libya and the doubts that were mentioned about whether as an ex-Army officer he would have sufficient understanding of how businesses work and the importance of them to the economy.

 

It is suggested that he was causing concern to the right because he understood that the Labour Party needed to move towards the centre to be electable, yet this is something that was blindingly obvious to most sensible people who realised that Labour had elected the wrong Miliband as leader many years ago. But as he has indicated anyway that he will not stand, the whole thing is an irrelevance, unless he changes his mind based on stories that the Tories consider him to be Labour's best chance of being elected the next time around.

 

Les, are you really that thick or deficient at reading. I've never tried to claim that its the position of Tory bigwigs. I've always presented it as my own personal opinion. Nothing more. My only contention is that I'm not the only one thinking it.

[shurlock]

Again, largely agree with this.

 

I'm tempted to suggest that perhaps you are slightly underplaying the role Blair played. Granted, my knowledge of this is learned as history having been too young to really notice it at the time. I think he did play a role in helping to unify a party that itself was fractured. I think he also was a driving force in moving the party more towards the centre ground (arguably Blair is in some ways RoC).

 

That's not to say you are wrong in the mess of the Tories, and people's general apathy towards them after 18 years of government at the time playing a huge role also.

 

Dunno, may be wrong. As I said, this is an impression from looking back at it as a piece of history, instead of lived experience.

 

Blair mattered enormously; but he's also inspired a huge hagiography among Blairites such that context -i.e. the Tories deep unpopularity and the fact that John Smith was also successfully steering a moderate, albeit slightly different course- that it tends to fall out of the picture whenever his contribution is assessed.

[Wes Tender]

Les, are you really that thick or deficient at reading. I've never tried to claim that its the position of Tory bigwigs. I've always presented it as my own personal opinion. Nothing more. My only contention is that I'm not the only one thinking it.

 

Shylock, your opinion has been proven to be without any cogent foundation and now you are becoming abusive. You state an opinion like this

Dan Jarvis would have scared the living daylights out of the Tories.

 

and are not able then to provide any substantiation for it beyond it being your own opinion and that of others unspecified, and a 3 year old Spectator article? It's all pretty feeble, isn't it?

[shurlock]

Shylock, your opinion has been proven to be without any cogent foundation and now you are becoming abusive. You state an opinion like this

 

and are not able then to provide any substantiation for it beyond it being your own opinion and that of others unspecified, and a 3 year old Spectator article? It's all pretty feeble, isn't it?

 

Les, it was always an opinion until you flustered and blustered off on a flight of fantasy. Feel free to check the other press, Newsnight and Sunday Politics show if you want further corroboration. As the Telegraph asked very recently: "How would the CCHQ attack machine approach a Labour leader who served his country in two wars? A man who is raising two children alone after losing his wife to cancer. Like it or not, personality and persona count for a lot in politics today". As for the Spectator article, you wanted to know what his attributes were, that was as good a starting point as any.

Edited 14 May, 2015 by shurlock

[Jonnyboy]

Dan Jarvis seems to have scared the living daylights out of Les.

[CB Fry]

Dan Jarvis seems to have scared the living daylights out of Les.

SUBSTANTIATE THAT OPINION WITH WRITTEN EVIDENCE.

[Jonnyboy]

SUBSTANTIATE THAT OPINION WITH WRITTEN EVIDENCE.

 

 

...

[Wes Tender]

Les, it was always an opinion until you flustered and blustered off on a flight of fantasy. Feel free to check the other press, Newsnight and Sunday Politics show if you want further corroboration. As the Telegraph asked very recently: "How would the CCHQ attack machine approach a Labour leader who served his country in two wars? A man who is raising two children alone after losing his wife to cancer. Like it or not, personality and persona count for a lot in politics today". As for the Spectator article, you wanted to know what his attributes were, that was as good a starting point as any.

 

Shylock

I don't need any further corroboration, as what you have dished up so far doesn't lead me to conclude that you have proven your point. Your opinion is that the Tories would be bricking it if Jarvis were to be elected as Labour Party leader and mine is that they wouldn't.

 

Questions about how he might be attacked by Tory Central office are hypothetical, as he has indicated that he will not be standing. He says that is for family reasons which may well be true, or it could be that he deems himself inadequately experienced at this stage to take on that role.

[Wes Tender]

Dan Jarvis seems to have scared the living daylights out of Les.

 

Why would I be worried about him? I couldn't care a toss who leads the Labour Party. I'll leave the worrying about that to you lefties whose problem it is since your last leader got trounced by the Tory toffs.

[View From The Top]

Shylock

I don't need any further corroboration, as what you have dished up so far doesn't lead me to conclude that you have proven your point. Your opinion is that the Tories would be bricking it if Jarvis were to be elected as Labour Party leader and mine is that they wouldn't.

 

Questions about how he might be attacked by Tory Central office are hypothetical, as he has indicated that he will not be standing. He says that is for family reasons which may well be true, or it could be that he deems himself inadequately experienced at this stage to take on that role.

 

What part of bringing up 2 kids with no wife don't you understand?

[Bobbyboy]

Who's going to introduce stripes instead of traditional part colours? Do these leaders know nothing about Stripe Science?

[Wes Tender]

What part of bringing up 2 kids with no wife don't you understand?

 

The bit that says that he remarried in 2013 and has another child with his new wife?

[bridge too far]

Chuka has removed himself from the contest

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/15/chuka-umunna-withdraws-from-labour-leadership-race_n_7289936.html?1431683007&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

[Verbal]

Chuka has removed himself from the contest

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/15/chuka-umunna-withdraws-from-labour-leadership-race_n_7289936.html?1431683007&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

 

There's more to this than meets the eye - wait for the papers on Sunday. As I said earlier, we need the race to be really underway to see who may emerge as a credible leader. I imagine it won't be of the current favourites, and may even be Dan Jarvis, even though he's formally out.

[trousers]

Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson

BREAKING Team Chukka insist there was & is no unwelcome press story coming. That is not why he has pulled out they say

[Verbal]

Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson

BREAKING Team Chukka insist there was & is no unwelcome press story coming. That is not why he has pulled out they say

 

Which isn't quite what he's saying. His spinners are saying his decision is not because of any particular story, but because of 'pressures'.

[bridge too far]

One report said journos were door-stepping his mother. Maybe he thought that was unacceptable.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Which isn't quite what he's saying. His spinners are saying his decision is not because of any particular story, but because of 'pressures'.

 

Probably wants to run for Mayor

[moonraker]

The Labour Party is in a very bad place. The left is fragmented, Greens, Nationalist (SNP and Plaid) the LD's all attract left of centre voters. Blair was the one leader who has been able to counter the other left of centre parties. He did this by relegating the role of the unions and offering 'middle class' voters a voice. Miliband unpicked all of this and got what he deserved at the poles. I cannot see a natural successor to Blair and therefore the left will remain fragmented, allowing the Tories to continue without an effective challenge, a depressing thought. To all you LD bashers just wait and see what you get from an unfettered tory government, you might then just appreciate the bravery of the LD’s. Clegg may have made some mistakes but history will not be as critical as the electorate have been.

We now face a generation of rule by the greedy, selfish and self centred, Tories, whose right wing is full of wannabee Kippers who wont jump ship for fear of loosing power. Cameron will do well to remind his smug party that they are only supported by 25% of the electorate, hardly a resounding mandate.

[Patrick Bateman]

Chuka has removed himself from the contest

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/15/chuka-umunna-withdraws-from-labour-leadership-race_n_7289936.html?1431683007&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

 

Don't blame him. I honestly don't see why anyone would want to be a party leader and potential PM now, there really is too much rubbish that comes with the territory and you couldn't pay me enough to do it, seriously!

[shurlock]

The Labour Party is in a very bad place. The left is fragmented, Greens, Nationalist (SNP and Plaid) the LD's all attract left of centre voters. Blair was the one leader who has been able to counter the other left of centre parties. He did this by relegating the role of the unions and offering 'middle class' voters a voice. Miliband unpicked all of this and got what he deserved at the poles. I cannot see a natural successor to Blair and therefore the left will remain fragmented, allowing the Tories to continue without an effective challenge, a depressing thought. To all you LD bashers just wait and see what you get from an unfettered tory government, you might then just appreciate the bravery of the LD’s. Clegg may have made some mistakes but history will not be as critical as the electorate have been.

We now face a generation of rule by the greedy, selfish and self centred, Tories, whose right wing is full of wannabee Kippers who wont jump ship for fear of loosing power. Cameron will do well to remind his smug party that they are only supported by 25% of the electorate, hardly a resounding mandate.

 

Another straight-bat rerun of Blairism would never work. Ultimately Blair could afford to take the North and Scotland for granted as he made peace down South. In the short-term, it worked spectacularly well; but it also began a long-term process of estrangement that has seen support in the North and Scotland splinter to the SNP, UKIP and other smaller parties.

 

That is the most salient legacy of Blairism as it relates to the rebuilding and future of the Labour party. Blair had it relatively easy; any future Labour leader has the nightmare of realigning three different constituencies. The biggest thing Labour can hope for is that the Tories become spectacularly unpopular and voters realise that FPTP is, at its core, a two-party game.

[moonraker]

Another straight-bat rerun of Blairism would never work. Ultimately Blair could afford to take the North and Scotland for granted as he made peace down South. In the short-term, it worked spectacularly well; but it also began a long-term process of estrangement that has seen support in the North and Scotland splinter to the SNP, UKIP and other smaller parties.

 

That is the most salient legacy of Blairism as it relates to the rebuilding and future of the Labour party. Blair had it relatively easy; any future Labour leader has the nightmare of realigning three different constituencies. The biggest thing Labour can hope for is that the Tories become spectacularly unpopular and voters realise that FPTP is, at its core, a two-party game.

 

I agree a carbon copy of Blair is not what is required, but acceptance by the Labour inner circle that political parties exist to represent the widest possible views of the electorate not would be a good starting point. I also agree that with our current FPTP system then we we are a two party state. I am always amused when I listen to tories and labour defending the indefesable FPTP, its the one thing they agree on beacuse it ensures only they can attain power.

[Coxford_lou]

That is the most salient legacy of Blairism as it relates to the rebuilding and future of the Labour party. Blair had it relatively easy; any future Labour leader has the nightmare of realigning three different constituencies. The biggest thing Labour can hope for is that the Tories become spectacularly unpopular and voters realise that FPTP is, at its core, a two-party game.

 

I don't know if he did, I think he just made it look easy. I don't think there's anything about the Blair approach that the public wouldn't want again, he just lost their confidence because of Iraq.

[shurlock]

I don't know if he did, I think he just made it look easy. I don't think there's anything about the Blair approach that the public wouldn't want again, he just lost their confidence because of Iraq.

 

I think he had it easy in terms of Scotland and the North being captive Labour voters. However much he drifted to the centre or trumpeted globalisation, he knew those two bases, however reluctantly, would follow him. That no longer appears to be the case. Any future Labour leader not only has to appeal to the South but rethink how to connect with voters that previous Labour leaders, including Blair, could afford to take for granted. A much more challenging task.

[Wade Garrett]

There's more to this than meets the eye - wait for the papers on Sunday. As I said earlier, we need the race to be really underway to see who may emerge as a credible leader. I imagine it won't be of the current favourites, and may even be Dan Jarvis, even though he's formally out.

 

Dan Jarvis or Liz Kendall will get the job.

[Wes Tender]

Cameron will do well to remind his smug party that they are only supported by 25% of the electorate, hardly a resounding mandate.

 

I do wish that people would stop creating myths about the voting figures. The Tories polled 36.9% of the votes cast. You can't go and include those who didn't bother to vote in creating a percentage of the entire electorate. If people chose not to vote, that is up to them. Neither can anybody bleat about the outcome if they didn't bother to vote. And the assumption cannot be made that none of those who didn't vote would have voted Conservative. If you wish to make out this sort of argument, then 2 million fewer people voted for the second party, Labour. As many favour PR, then the Tories would still have been elected with perhaps an even lower percentage of the electorate, which on your argument would make it even more unfair and you would end up complaining that the government only had 20% or so of public support.

[shurlock]

I do wish that people would stop creating myths about the voting figures. The Tories polled 36.9% of the votes cast. You can't go and include those who didn't bother to vote in creating a percentage of the entire electorate. If people chose not to vote, that is up to them. Neither can anybody bleat about the outcome if they didn't bother to vote. And the assumption cannot be made that none of those who didn't vote would have voted Conservative. If you wish to make out this sort of argument, then 2 million fewer people voted for the second party, Labour. As many favour PR, then the Tories would still have been elected with perhaps an even lower percentage of the electorate, which on your argument would make it even more unfair and you would end up complaining that the government only had 20% or so of public support.

 

Les, what's your point about PR? It appears to make very little sense.

[buctootim]

Les, what's your point about PR? It appears to make very little sense.

 

He just doesn't like it. The rest is fluff attempting to disguise that fact.

 

I often dont vote where I now live in mid Sussex because its a very safe seat. When I lived in fairly marginal Brighton Pavilion I always did. If we had PR the turnout would go up and we would get more legitimate government - probably coalitions which command well over 50% of the votes - instead of dictatorship of majority by the minority.

Edited 15 May, 2015 by buctootim

[hutch]

He just doesn't like it. The rest is fluff attempting to disguise that fact.

 

I often dont vote where I now live in mid Sussex because its a very safe seat. When I lived in fairly marginal Brighton Pavilion I always did. If we had PR the turnout would go up and we would get more legitimate government - probably coalitions which command well over 50% of the votes - instead of dictatorship of majority by the minority.

I think the main point he was making is sound, although it got a bit lost.

 

It is just as likely that 59% of the electorate supports the Tories as the 24% that actually voted for them, because nobody knows which party the 35% that didn't vote actually support. The truth is somewhere in between.

[JackFrost]

Who are Les & Shylock?

[buctootim]

I think the main point he was making is sound, although it got a bit lost.

 

It is just as likely that 59% of the electorate supports the Tories as the 24% that actually voted for them, because nobody knows which party the 35% that didn't vote actually support. The truth is somewhere in between.

 

I don't think anyone is pretending all the non voters are anti Tory. For me its about getting a voting system which gives value to all votes and encourages people to turn out and make their mark. Its not about sour grapes or manipulating the scores because you didnt like the result. Democracy is about more than supporting whatever system gives your party the best chance of winning. PR in the last election probably would have delivered a much more right wing Conservative / UKIP coalition. That doesn't mean I think its the wrong thing to do.

[TheCholulaKid]

When I lived in fairly marginal Brighton Pavilion I always did.

 

Me too. I miss those days.

 

Now live in the safest of safe seats. So safe in fact that I saw the incumbent Prime Minister at the doctor's surgery this afternoon. Can't imagine what affliction he was suffering with...

[Jonnyboy]

Me too. I miss those days.

 

Now live in the safest of safe seats. So safe in fact that I saw the incumbent Prime Minister at the doctor's surgery this afternoon. Can't imagine what affliction he was suffering with...

 

Murdochsemenstingitis.

[View From The Top]

I don't think anyone is pretending all the non voters are anti Tory. For me its about getting a voting system which gives value to all votes and encourages people to turn out and make their mark. Its not about sour grapes or manipulating the scores because you didnt like the result. Democracy is about more than supporting whatever system gives your party the best chance of winning. PR in the last election probably would have delivered a much more right wing Conservative / UKIP coalition. That doesn't mean I think its the wrong thing to do.

 

Same here. UKIP, with the amount of votes they gained, to have only 1 MP, makes a mockery of the system. Now I despise everything they stand for and their rather boorish and myopic supporters but that doesn't detract from the fact that their votes proved meaningless. Same for the Greens.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Spent an enjoyable evening getting totally bladderated with my mate from the gutter press. Anyway, he told me what we all suspected about Chucka with the sudden appearance of "The Girlfriend" . However , the interesting thing is the rumoured story is one of old Chucka and a very famous fella. Said he did not know the name and at the moment they ( the rag chasing it) " can't stand the story up" ( whatever that means ) , but watch this space.

[TheCholulaKid]

Murdochsemenstingitis.

 

He was shouting loudly into his phone to the Prime Minister of Nepal (I kid you not) so maybe there's something wrong with his hearing (longer term issue perhaps).

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11610165/Andy-Burnham-Deficit-was-too-large-when-Labour-was-in-Government.html

[buctootim]

Spent an enjoyable evening getting totally bladderated with my mate from the gutter press. Anyway, he told me what we all suspected about Chucka with the sudden appearance of "The Girlfriend" . However , the interesting thing is the rumoured story is one of old Chucka and a very famous fella. Said he did not know the name and at the moment they ( the rag chasing it) " can't stand the story up" ( whatever that means ) , but watch this space.

 

I had a journo mate who used to say exactly the same about Prince Edward - pre Sophie and how it would all come out soon. Im not saying its not true, but journos tend to believe the yarns their colleagues spin about almost having a blockbuster story, just cant quite get the formal substantiation more often than they should.

[badgerx16]

Spent an enjoyable evening getting totally bladderated with my mate from the gutter press. Anyway, he told me what we all suspected about Chucka with the sudden appearance of "The Girlfriend" . However , the interesting thing is the rumoured story is one of old Chucka and a very famous fella. Said he did not know the name and at the moment they ( the rag chasing it) " can't stand the story up" ( whatever that means ) , but watch this space.

 

And if true, why would it matter ?

[hypochondriac]

Yvette is the first Labour leader who has actually articulated exactly where I believe Labour went wrong. On that basis I want her to win:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/19/yvette-cooper-labour_n_7311022.html

[shurlock]

Yvette is the first Labour leader who has actually articulated exactly where I believe Labour went wrong. On that basis I want her to win:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/19/yvette-cooper-labour_n_7311022.html

 

I find it superficial and little more than defensive sloganeering, myself.

[hypochondriac]

I find it superficial and little more than defensive sloganeering, myself.

 

 

Pray tell which leader you prefer?

[View From The Top]

Pray tell which leader you prefer?

 

I'd prefer her myself but she's playing to the gallery as you'd expect at this stage.

[hypochondriac]

I'd prefer her myself but she's playing to the gallery as you'd expect at this stage.

 

She's made a more convincing argument than the head of unite or the likes of Diane Abbott that's for sure.

[shurlock]

Pray tell which leader you prefer?

 

Still too early to say as none of the candidates are 'ideological' in any real sense. For instance, it's not clear what Burnham believes in. For a prospective Labour leader, Cooper's article seemed more Tory than the Tories. It's quite possible to be for free and open competition while being slightly sceptical of the claims of big business which, understandably, has an interest in restricting competition.

 

There are many practices that sophisticated businesses and businessmen are unhappy with -some with quite radical policy implications; rather than take these by the nettle, the tendency is for some on the left to be cowed into a corner out of fear being labelled anti-enterprise.

Edited 20 May, 2015 by shurlock

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I've been most impressed by what Liz Kendall's had to say so far, but do worry that she isn't "prime ministerial" enough for the electorate