Michael Edwards for South Derbyshire

Labour has held Glenrothes, increasing our share of the vote from the 2005 General Election and increasing our vote from 2005. 

The Tory party was reduced to a miserable 4% share of the vote. 

As Winston Churchill might have said,  "We may allow ourselves a short period of celebration". 

Even during the Summer, generally the public were not blaming the Gov't for the economic problems.  Now there is a recognition of the challenges Britain faces and of Gordon Brown's success in leading the global efforts to avoid a crash of the banks. 

But we know there is still a lot to do - most particularly, to help people through the downturn and to try to mitigate the downturn. 

Labour has held Glenrothes, increasing our share of the vote from the 2005 General Election and increasing our vote from 2005. 

The Tory party was reduced to a miserable 4% share of the vote. 

As Winston Churchill might have said,  "We may allow ourselves a short period of celebration". 

Even during the Summer, generally the public were not blaming the Gov't for the economic problems.  Now there is a recognition of the challenges Britain faces and of Gordon Brown's success in leading the global efforts to avoid a crash of the banks. 

But we know there is still a lot to do - most particularly, to help people through the downturn and to try to mitigate the downturn. 

Labour has held Glenrothes, increasing our share of the vote from the 2005 General Election and increasing our vote from 2005. 

The Tory party was reduced to a miserable 4% share of the vote. 

As Winston Churchill might have said,  "We may allow ourselves a short period of celebration". 

Even during the Summer, generally the public were not blaming the Gov't for the economic problems.  Now there is a recognition of the challenges Britain faces and of Gordon Brown's success in leading the global efforts to avoid a crash of the banks. 

But we know there is still a lot to do - most particularly, to help people through the downturn and to try to mitigate the downturn. 

Special day today.  The unveiling of a statue of Brian Clough right in the heart of Nottingham city centre. 

Barbara Clough unveiled the statue which she called perfect.  Gary Newbon hosted the ceremonies and used some of the Clough lines to great effect - as all the civics lined up before the statue, he pointed to them and said "lovely chains, but none of them championship medals". 

The statue was paid for by the public, the £70,000 having been organised by ordinary Forest fans. 

For the tribute given four years ago, see - http://www.michaeledwards.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=12180     

Special day today.  The unveiling of a statue of Brian Clough right in the heart of Nottingham city centre. 

Barbara Clough unveiled the statue which she called perfect.  Gary Newbon hosted the ceremonies and used some of the Clough lines to great effect - as all the civics lined up before the statue, he pointed to them and said "lovely chains, but none of them championship medals". 

The statue was paid for by the public, the £70,000 having been organised by ordinary Forest fans. 

For the tribute given four years ago, see - http://www.michaeledwards.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=12180     

Special day today.  The unveiling of a statue of Brian Clough right in the heart of Nottingham city centre. 

Barbara Clough unveiled the statue which she called perfect.  Gary Newbon hosted the ceremonies and used some of the Clough lines to great effect - as all the civics lined up before the statue, he pointed to them and said "lovely chains, but none of them championship medals". 

The statue was paid for by the public, the £70,000 having been organised by ordinary Forest fans. 

For the tribute given four years ago, see - http://www.michaeledwards.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=12180     

Good news from the United States.  Barack Obama's victory represents many things (see www.me4sd.com), not least hope that the USA will now face up to global challenges like climate change. 

Not good news for the Tories - see an excellent post by Luke Akehurst - http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2008/11/cameron-co-on-mccain-palin.html#links  Key political message -  It was a vote against Tory economic philosophy that Obama described as - “... that old, discredited ... philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

I went to a special election night party, but the BBC coverage made the occassion quite dull.  It should have been about how people were voting and why.  All that IT available to show how the people were actually voting and they didn't use it. Instead it focussed on talking heads on the last 8 years & the next 4 and they missed the basic story like explaining which states had to change. 

Frustrating to see the talking heads still talking about the "Bradley effect".  From what I can see of the results compared against the average of polls published by www.RealClearPolitics.com, the pollsters had a good night.  Most of the states were within 4% of the final result (28 out of 36 measured). 

Pollsters blotted their copy book a bit in the some of the most important states.   They underestimated Obama's margin in Pennsylvania (by 4% so a surprise to see the result from this key state declared as soon as polls closed), and two switching states (Nevada (5%) and New Mexico (5%)). 

McCain did much better than predicted in 5 states - Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, New York and Arizona (which gave us much higher hopes than could ever be expected that McCain might lose his own state). 

Problems remain though for the pollsters both in the USA and here.  In explaining how they checked for false returns from members of the public surveyed, they showed how they use judgment to test for what problems they've experienced in the past.  Not sure that's enough. 

So if pollsters still have to improve, what about the elections themselves? 

Can it be accaptable that volunteers have to work so hard to get voters registered in the world's most powerful free society?  Registration should be much more automatic and the onus on local government to get the register much more up to date.

And can it be acceptable for people to queue on election day to vote?  Or for counting machines to be used that may not have a clear accounting trail? 

And for the country's politics? 

I'm astonished at how such a developed country is stuck on basics like getting medical care for everyone.  And to hear Amercian pundits de-cry Britain's NHS whilst overlooking such a fundamental wrong. 

Good news from the United States.  Barack Obama's victory represents many things (see www.me4sd.com), not least hope that the USA will now face up to global challenges like climate change. 

Not good news for the Tories - see an excellent post by Luke Akehurst - http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2008/11/cameron-co-on-mccain-palin.html#links  Key political message -  It was a vote against Tory economic philosophy that Obama described as - “... that old, discredited ... philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

I went to a special election night party, but the BBC coverage made the occassion quite dull.  It should have been about how people were voting and why.  All that IT available to show how the people were actually voting and they didn't use it. Instead it focussed on talking heads on the last 8 years & the next 4 and they missed the basic story like explaining which states had to change. 

Frustrating to see the talking heads still talking about the "Bradley effect".  From what I can see of the results compared against the average of polls published by www.RealClearPolitics.com, the pollsters had a good night.  Most of the states were within 4% of the final result (28 out of 36 measured). 

Pollsters blotted their copy book a bit in the some of the most important states.   They underestimated Obama's margin in Pennsylvania (by 4% so a surprise to see the result from this key state declared as soon as polls closed), and two switching states (Nevada (5%) and New Mexico (5%)). 

McCain did much better than predicted in 5 states - Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, New York and Arizona (which gave us much higher hopes than could ever be expected that McCain might lose his own state). 

Problems remain though for the pollsters both in the USA and here.  In explaining how they checked for false returns from members of the public surveyed, they showed how they use judgment to test for what problems they've experienced in the past.  Not sure that's enough. 

So if pollsters still have to improve, what about the elections themselves? 

Can it be accaptable that volunteers have to work so hard to get voters registered in the world's most powerful free society?  Registration should be much more automatic and the onus on local government to get the register much more up to date.

And can it be acceptable for people to queue on election day to vote?  Or for counting machines to be used that may not have a clear accounting trail? 

And for the country's politics? 

I'm astonished at how such a developed country is stuck on basics like getting medical care for everyone.  And to hear Amercian pundits de-cry Britain's NHS whilst overlooking such a fundamental wrong. 

Good news from the United States.  Barack Obama's victory represents many things (see www.me4sd.com), not least hope that the USA will now face up to global challenges like climate change. 

Not good news for the Tories - see an excellent post by Luke Akehurst - http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2008/11/cameron-co-on-mccain-palin.html#links  Key political message -  It was a vote against Tory economic philosophy that Obama described as - “... that old, discredited ... philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

I went to a special election night party, but the BBC coverage made the occassion quite dull.  It should have been about how people were voting and why.  All that IT available to show how the people were actually voting and they didn't use it. Instead it focussed on talking heads on the last 8 years & the next 4 and they missed the basic story like explaining which states had to change. 

Frustrating to see the talking heads still talking about the "Bradley effect".  From what I can see of the results compared against the average of polls published by www.RealClearPolitics.com, the pollsters had a good night.  Most of the states were within 4% of the final result (28 out of 36 measured). 

Pollsters blotted their copy book a bit in the some of the most important states.   They underestimated Obama's margin in Pennsylvania (by 4% so a surprise to see the result from this key state declared as soon as polls closed), and two switching states (Nevada (5%) and New Mexico (5%)). 

McCain did much better than predicted in 5 states - Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, New York and Arizona (which gave us much higher hopes than could ever be expected that McCain might lose his own state). 

Problems remain though for the pollsters both in the USA and here.  In explaining how they checked for false returns from members of the public surveyed, they showed how they use judgment to test for what problems they've experienced in the past.  Not sure that's enough. 

So if pollsters still have to improve, what about the elections themselves? 

Can it be accaptable that volunteers have to work so hard to get voters registered in the world's most powerful free society?  Registration should be much more automatic and the onus on local government to get the register much more up to date.

And can it be acceptable for people to queue on election day to vote?  Or for counting machines to be used that may not have a clear accounting trail? 

And for the country's politics? 

I'm astonished at how such a developed country is stuck on basics like getting medical care for everyone.  And to hear Amercian pundits de-cry Britain's NHS whilst overlooking such a fundamental wrong.