Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Miliband’s five hurdles
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Miliband’s five hurdles
To say there’s been no movement in the opinion polls over the last two years would be untrue. Most obviously, UKIP’s average share doubled between early 2012 and the time of last year’s local elections, pushing the Lib Dems into a regular fourth, which remains the case despite a slight drop off for the Purples. There’s also been a small narrowing of the gap between Labour and the Conservatives, but at a …
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ge1997.html
328 out of 529 seats
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ge2001.html
323 out of 529 seats
The LD>LAB switching looks pretty strong and has remained constant for three years. I can't see many going back expecially, as the Ashcroft polling found, in the marginals.
My reading of the UKIP seepage is that this will be larger where it doesn't matter - not in the marginals. Where two of the main parties are fighting hard then the purples will get squeezed. This is good news for the Tories.
On leadership perceptions the blues have as big a problem as the reds. Nadine Dorries comments about "posh boys not knowing the price of bread" resonates and will continue to do so. That the CON team charged with writing the manifesto consists of six men who went to Eton and one who went to St Pauls speaks volumes. This is the Tory achilles heel and could be equally if not more damaging than the issues relating to Ed.
I assume they want to promote those two snippets, one of them seems to be aimed squarely at Labour, so it's _relevant to this thread_ !
The title is "Why UKIP is the only party standing up for ordinary working people".
http://youtu.be/6P_jL23QG4I
1) The biggest wildcard and which has biggest potential rock Ed M from his confident position. The polls are consistent it should not prove a problem for him, but in the same way I've felt the situation would always come round to a Labour majority, in 2015, I've felt the same about a Scottish Yes vote, much as I would wish otherwise on the latter.
2) Nailed on, no problems. The LD switchers have shown no sign of going back, and to suddenly be willing to do so right before a GE? I don't credit it (as Susan says below, many returning to a natural home, being a soft vote), and Labour can win enough with Con reduction and Lab improving on 2010 just slightly, that even if former LDs not switching back causes a few losses for the LDs in Con-LD seats, they will be safe enough.
3) Looking pretty solid as well, and even if Con recover a lot of their lost voters, they won't get them all back, costing them at best a few percentage points, which is all Labour need.
4) Could go either way, but I suspect Labour will be lucky - it was said 2010 was a good election to lose given all the economic pain that would occur, and while things have improved, will they have enough and will voters associate that with the present gov enough (or would it be a 'bound to happen eventually' approach) to not punish them for all the cuts, and there's always the chance that since things seem better, people could risk a Labour team who are all over the place on the economy as things are stronger now.
Miliband will be fine. Clegg is reviled beyond reason, to the point that no matter any good he says or does, he won't appeal to any former LDs or Lab voters (I am beginning to doubt the LDs will force him to step down later this year as well), so Ed M being weak is secure there, Cameron has some appear beyond the Tories, but a significant minority within his own ranks despise him and that will hurt his base vote and push up the UKIP factor, while Ed M has somehow managed to avoid being tarneshed with the negatives of the last government, despite being in it up to his neck in the backroom and in the open for a decade and more, so his weakness will not drag him down too much, not least because the Tories are so confused in messaging, having switched to 'Ed M is dangerous' early autumn last year with little success. The Labour brand remains strong enough it can survive any pullback he causes.
So, Ukraine eh? Not sure what the commentariat are wanting to happen. Some becry weakness in the face of Putin's blazen actions, others suggest that is the correct course as standing up to Russia directly is not to be done, by implication saying Ukraine is not worth all this. Rough stuff.
Sadly, must to bed immediately though, about to fall asleep at the keyboard. Good night.
2. Lib Dem switchers returning or defecting elsewhere again - the only way I can see a big Lib Dem surge is if Vince Cable becomes leader and they thoroughly disown everything they've done over the past 4 years and rule out going into coalition with the Tories again. Luckily for Labour, none of that seems on the cards. Those Lib Dem defectors going elsewhere is theoretically a possibility -- we saw in the Scottish election in 2011 that those former Lib Dems are happy to go elsewhere if there's a party more lefty than Labour on offer. But realistically there's probably too little time for a new leftwing party to break out in the rest of the UK before next year -- the Greens aren't going to do it, and Respect have if anything faded away further since the Bradford byelection.
3. UKIP voters switching to Con - Nope, well established at this point that kippers hate the Tories almost as much as Labour
4. The economy - counterintuitively, I would actually say the Tories' biggest hope is that the global economy gets worse, with another huge crisis (one potentially brewing in China?) -- rightly or wrongly, people prefer the Tories when it comes to "crisis management", so there's a real palpable sense of danger at the next election, like there was last time when the Euro looked on the brink of collapse, then the Tories' line of it being too dangerous to switch over to Labour could resonate. On the other hand, if the recovery is well-established and looks unshakeable, then it makes it much easier for Labour to set the defining question as what type of recovery we want, a Tory recovery with all the spoils going to the rich or a Labour recovery with the poor and middle benefitting.
5. Leadership perception - doubtful. In the Scottish election, there was a MASSIVE gap between Alex Salmond and Iain Gray. But there's little evidence that a very slender gap between leaders, as there is between Ed and Dave, has ever made much of a difference in elections.
And I can almost guarantee you he was far far far to the right of me politically!
All I can say to the left wingers that answered my post on the previous thread is that if you like to live in a country where a significant minority speak another language as their first port of call, then fair enough. I think that's not for me, its not the best way for a country to live in happiness.. what more can I say?
Russians apparently have ordered all Ukrainian forces out of Crimea.
Will the Ukrainians oblige?
I have found that my knowledge and understanding of Spanish has increased significantly in the last few months, since I started fancying the Mexican diver Iván García. Before then, it was only about my 6th language (after English, French, German, Italian and Esperanto). Now it's probably about 4th.
It seems to me that she is bonkers and crazy (as well as evil) whereas Myra Hindley was evil and Rose West was a bit of both.
(geeky factoid: American ties have stripes going from top-left to bottom-right;
European ties have stripes going from top-right to bottom-left)
Did Farage say something about cultural diversity on London trains?
I have been a candidate in 3 parliamentary by-elections.
The UKIP candidates in those by-elections were one Asian, one black and one Farage.
" Assuming Miliband does become PM, does anyone really expect him to be a good one?"
I don't expect EdM to be any worse than Cameron and he'll be a lot better than Brown which, admittedly, is not saying much. Unlike Gordon he had the courage to fight for the job of leader in the most difficult of family circumstances.
The two interesting ones are Scotland and Perception. Let's assume that Scotland votes yes. Manna from heaven say the Tories, now we rule England forever. And people think this will have a negative impact on Labour's ability to win seats in England? People vote out of fear more than hope, and fear of the Tories would be amplified by their arrogant crowing post yes vote.
And leadership perception? I think its important but not as much as it once was - people are sick of photogenic vacuous liars. Clegg is a political dead man, Cameron sneers down his nose at people, Milliband looks odd. Could you see him meeting President Clinton someone asked - yes. People don't vote based on how they think the prospective PM will look to foreigners, they vote based on their lives. And again, people are sick of Blair clones. Clegg is one, Cameron tried to be one before the red mist took possession, David Milliband was one. Farage is not.....
Whether he'll be popular or not is another question though. I could see him out-strategizing the right and staying in power for a decade by divide and rule, to the ever-increasing infuriation of two-thirds of the voters.
DH is right with his five fairly low hurdles, so it leaves only the unexpected. Ukraine may oblige here, or Chinas slowdown. UKIP imploding or a change in leadership of any party may oblige.
But really we should prepare for PM Miliband, who will be a middling PM, and Ed Balls who will be a terrible chancellor. Tory infighting will give them a second term.
200,000 extra people at $40,000 GDP per capita = $8 billion "growth" in GDP
As all three cheeks of the political class are fully committed to unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public that number is likely to be at the very lowest end of the range estimate and won't include illegals etc so the actual number per year could be up to double that so
c. $8-16 billion in GDP "growth" per 200,000
c. $40-80 billion in GDP "growth" per million.
All arguments about "growth" based on GDP estimates should subtract the extra GDP being imported via unlimited mass immigration.
"if there aren’t any bumps in the road between now and May 2015. That should have fed through into a nascent feel-good effect"
These threads are like a "spot who doesn't have any relatives on zero hours contracts" game.
The reason is obvious. We now have a fixed term parliament. It doesn't matter how opinion pollsters attempt to force people to think about the question, they aren't. They are not interested. That's right. Even in an era of general malaise to politics they aren't remotely interested in a General Election which is over a year away.
Why does this matter so much? Because the media meme just isn't election orientated. Normally at this point of the cycle we would either have a GE called, or be on the back of six months of speculation, heightening awareness and the febrile atmosphere. The fixed term has, unintentionally, killed remaining interest in politics. It's all irrelevant at the moment. Of course this site must keep soldiering on, and pollsters must battle valiantly but it's meaningless. The polls are meaningless.
To wit, what will happen come next January / February when at last minds begin to focus on the real deal? Will the economy be booming so strongly that it becomes the key driver as the Conservatives turn the screw on Labour? What happens when Boris and Cammo are seen campaigning forcefully together?
But most of all, do you really, really, think Ed Miliband will be thought of as Prime Minister material? I'd put him in that Michael Howard / IDS bracket of little or no hope. Rather like Michael Gove he just doesn't have it with the public and he will be found wanting. I think in the last six weeks of the GE campaign he will be revealed as the British Michael Dukakis, or, indeed, another example of a Neil Kinnock.
2. Only a Cable leadership offers any threat of undoing the damage done by Clegg on tuition fees. No sign of that for some bizarre reason.
3. No sign of the right-wing settling down this side of 2025 let alone 2015. The British tea party is here to stay.
4. A recovering economy didn't help Major very much. With the blame increasingly shared between the two parties and Osborne as popular as herpes, I wouldn't count on this dividend if I were in no11. Change the Chancellor and the Tories might have more of a chance.
5. This is the only one labour need to really worry about. Ed still lacks the popular touch. Like Thatcher in 79 he doesn't look like a PM, and Sunny Jim (Dave) will still be more popular in 2015. But the most successful leaders never really "look like a PM" when they start out. The trick is to get into no10 and then you can change perceptions from there.
Brown's appallingness was truly exceptional. It is rare was such an obviously unsuitable person to become head of a government.
It would work if they angled it right. The Con Achilles heel is being seen as a PR company for the City so straightforward attacks on wealth do the trick. The Lab Achilles heel is the quangocracy / nomenklatura i.e. the caste of people who hijacked the welfare state and turned it into their personal (and increasingly hereditary) cradle to gravy train.
I agree with audreyanne that fixed term parliaments have changed a lot of discourse, taking away the possibility of a snap election.
I'd put Miliband in the Neil Kinnock category for a reason. He's not in the same league as Gordon Brown in terms of personality malfunction but he's still conniving and slippery. His posturing on points just to massage public opinion suggests a nasty trait of doing and saying anything to look good. That's not leadership. It's unprincipled politicking of student union type. But he's also dangerous because, like Uriah Heap, he jumps in on topics in a way that makes him sound 'every so humble and sincere'. And he will stop at nothing to succeed, even shafting his own brother. Actually because of that I think he's worse than Kinnock. I'm not actually sure we have seen his equivalent in British politics since the Second World War. You can see why the Conservative leadership think he's a c***.
These people are always found out eventually. The key will be whether it happens before the vote or after. That it will happen is inevitable.
I answered your post and disagreed with you; you say that you're an ex-Labour voter, and so I'm probably to the right of you in some ways. As with most things in politics, immigration and languages has far from a perfect left<->right split.
Besides you were using figures of 22% for London, and now saying the entire country?
Last night's thread should be a must-read for anyone interested in the fear that people have about immigration. I mean, a burly man feeling afraid to walk through Whitechapel Market!
I see him as better than Brown, a fairly low bar, but still an enigma. I do not blame him for standing against his brother, primogeniture is no way to pick a party leader, but he does have an admirable ruthless streak.
The fundamental reason why he is so unpopular though us that people voted *against* Sarkozy not for Hollande. I suspect Ed May face the same challenge.
Note ... I voted Labour throughout the eighties, but I'd never vote for Ed.
He's being a purely reactionary leader: a focus group tells him the public don't like something, and his team daydreams a radical solution. They don't care it won't work and will cause harm; they say it anyway.
His problem will be if he has to try to implement those policies.
His time as head of DECC should act as a warning.
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-03-01/unite-wants-members-engaged-with-grassroots-labour/
Depressingly, Miliband is favourite to become PM after the next election.
Mr. Y0kel, cheers for that rather worrying post.
F1: Mercedes delayed getting out due to changing a high mileage part (precautionary). They've had troubles at every day of the final test so far. However, they've still done (I think) more than twice the laps of Red Bull. The latter team does seem to finally be getting somewhere.
The biggest question marks are perhaps over McLaren and Ferrari. Both have been pretty solid and done a lot of miles. Magnussen could be a challenger for the title. [Hope so, I put a little on him at 50/1].
I see Miliband as more like Wilson, tactician rather than grand strategist, with perceptions of enemies all around. I think that because of how he rose to power Miliband will see plots and enemies around himself, probably mostly imagined rather than real. These will handicap his administration as much as "events" and the economy do.
Got to say I'm somewhat concerned by this notion that the response to rape convictions being 'too low' is to try and lower the bar for conviction. Victims deserve justice, and the innocent deserve a fair trial. Rape usually (because of the crime's nature) involves one man and one woman in a private place. If court procedures can be altered to make it easier, or at least less harrowing, for victims then that should be done. However, lowering the bar for conviction is no justice at all.
As well as increasing the chances of the innocent being convicted, that means the guilty may be likelier to get away with it (if an innocent man is accused, arrested, charged and convicted the case is closed and the rapist will remain at large).
Russian troops were on the move inside Ukrainian territory on Friday
Russia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed in a statement that armoured units were operating inside Ukraine
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukraine-latest--the-invasion-begins-armed-russianspeaking-gunmen-with-crimea-in-their-grip-as-barack-obama-warns-moscow-9161476.html
Still, Obama and the EU have a Nobel Peace Prize each, so I'm sure they'll make it alright.
Also...
@hugorifkind: My Week: Harriet Harman (£) http://t.co/ff5GlYzoXm
More interesting still was the obituary for Stuart Hall:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10629087/Stuart-Hall.html
He sounds very prescient, both in his preelection comments in 1979 and 1997, and some of his other writings. It sounds as if his socialogical essays are worth still worth reading.
Feb 1996 / 2014
Govt: -66 / -27
PM: -40 / -16
LotO: +19 / -31
LibD: +16 / -54
As can be seen today, with the late John Smith wife and Anthony Blair agreeing with his proposed reforms.
Many a conservative as can be seen below, are fighting a re run of the election of 92, I think this will be a big mistake. They should be looking at how to beat a Wilsonesque type of an opponent not a 80s Labour leader.
That's not to say that we should stand idly by if we have an option. The problem is that we don't seem to have an option.
It looks like those calls for a Plan B are falling on deaf ears. Rather, the plan over the next few days is to prove just why Mr Osborne is bluffing.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-plan-a-is-the-only-way-for-salmond.23543641
Business is not the only constituency that needs to roll up its sleeves. More is required from Britain’s political leadership. While the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have pitched in, they lack support in the key marginal constituencies, particularly in the west of Scotland. The Labour party needs to put its shoulder more firmly behind the unionist campaign.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4be81142-a07a-11e3-8557-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2uhRMXYfi
Awesome.
Earlier this week, Mr Swinney published analysis about what would happen if, in the event of a Yes vote, Westminster held its line on not having a currency union. This, he pointed out, would lead to those living south of the Border having an extra £130 billion of debt dumped on them, resulting in around £5bn a year in additional interest payments and equivalent to a penny on income tax.
Then, Mr Salmond argued that if a currency union were agreed between Edinburgh and London, the good folk of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would not have a say on such a matter through their own referendum.
The words land, cloud and cuckoo spring to mind. The idea that all three main Westminster parties, having firmly rejected a currency/monetary/banking union, then, after a Yes vote, suddenly cave in, blithely change their minds and agree to one without seeking the mandate of the people of the UK, is for the birds.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/inside-track-three-key-issues-that-will-unlock-the-future.23541929
77399. PB 2014 Mk2 Diplomacy game needs a final player
http://www.playdiplomacy.com
"Mollusc" whoever he was has decided its not for him.
Very simple rules http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0RLSs7IL9 very fun though.
Liberal 3 day/2 day/2 day deadlines so no rush either.
Password is OGH
Hollande's main problem is one that faces all French presidents that win power - the absolute refusal of a large number of French voters to face reality. He did not win because he was the anti-Sarkozy, he won because he told them what they wanted to hear. If you look at what the FN is saying now it is essentially the same thing: you can keep your short working hours, long holidays, guaranteed holidays, great pensions etc. Where they differ from Hollande 2012 is that they say France's problems are all the fault of immigrants and the EU.
I don't think we live in the same kind of country. And I think that because of FPTP voters here do tend to be more "anti" than "pro" when casting their ballots. That actually gives governments a bit of leeway. People here broadly accept that public spending has to come down, the issue is much more about how it is done. That gives EdM a lot of wriggle room. I don't think he is dangerous. I think he is totally uninspiring as a leader. However, he has identified issues that go to the heart of why so many people feel so dissatisfied with things, even if his solutions are not the best.
I have believed we'll get another hung Parliament after GE 2015 since the autumn of 2010 and I see no reason to change my mind. Around 35% of voters in England are first and foremost implacable, left of centre, anti-Tories and because of the Coalition the LDs are no longer an option for them. In Wales that figure is higher, in Scotland it is higher still but the referendum and the SNP muddy the water - and I'd expect Labour to lose a few seats there in 2015, whether Yes or No wins. Putting all that together, this means Labour will win more votes than it did in 2010 and will probably win most seats. But not enough for a majority.
Calling the Yes campaign a shambles on this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
Miliband is younger at the same stage but can I see him ever having Wilson's gravitas? You must be joking, right?
As said below, he simply isn't Prime Minister material.
The only real defence is to say that people thought differently in the 1970's about a lot of things and permitting a paedophile pressure group to have influence was one of them. Trying to re-write history just makes Harman look a fool.
Better get used to going to coffee shop # 1 and queue for an hour for a cup of National Café Service coffee if Labour gets in next time
What Swinney now seems to have said is that unless Scotland gets a currency union after independence it will unilaterally declare independence. That is totally extraordinary and would be an utter catastrophe for Scotland. But if the SNP can convince enough voters otherwise, Yes wins. That's all nationalists really care about. For them an independent Scotland excluded from membership of all international bodies, unable to access funding on the markets except at penal rates and subject to trade tariffs in its single biggest export market (so that Scotland's UK debt contributions can be paid) are preferable to remaining part of the UK. But that's nationalism for you. At its heart it is always a reactionary credo.
In the event of vote in favour of leaving the UK, Scotland would become an entirely new state. Companies based in an independent Scottish state would therefore no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK chose to place or compete domestically for national security reasons; this would also apply to Scotland-based subsidiaries of UK companies. Where they could continue to compete they would be pitching for business against other international competitors.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/285961/Scotland_infographics_26022014.pdf
No doubt 'statement of the bleeding obvious' will be denounced as bullying and bluster.......
Ed sides with tax dodging multinational Starbucks against UK worker-owned Waitrose.
Wait until the dailies get wind of this....