If Yvette Cooper were leader, Labour would be nailed on to win a majority IMO. Why the party can't see this themselves is a mystery to me. Looks like they'd rather wait until 2020, although by then her potential appeal to the electorate may be blunted if Theresa May is leading the Tories.
The timing of the Scottish Independence Referendum is definitely going to have a huge impact on the start of the Labour Conference. There is also a huge risk that the aftermath of the result will totally drown out the normal higher level of media coverage that Labour would expect to a certain extent. We will have to wait and see if that turns out to be a positive or a negative for Ed Miliband.
But, both Ed Miliband and the Labour party are going to need to get their policy messages well honed over the summer to avoid this being a problem for them during this all important pre GE Conference season.
"Loneliness is one thing. A happy loner quite another Britain may well be 'Europe's loneliness capital', but being happily alone by choice is quite another matter"
"Canadian woman who stopped car to help ducks faces life in jail after causing fatal crash
Emma Czornobaj sentenced over deaths of Andre Roy and 16-year-old daughter Jessie for parking car on busy road after seeing ducklings without their mother"
If Yvette Cooper were leader, Labour would certainly not be any more nailed on to win a majority than they are right now under Ed Miliband. Not only is Cooper the Labour female equivalent of Ed Miliband, she is also married to Ed Balls rather than just a colleague. The next GE is going to be all about the economy, and one of Labour's weakest links right now is Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor...
If either Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper had became Labour Leader, they would both have quickly become seen as team Mr and Mrs Balls or Mrs and Mr Cooper as a result. This I suspect would quickly start causing real problems in any Labour Shadow Cabinet as has been noted in the past when Labour were last in Government as well.
If Yvette Cooper were leader, Labour would be nailed on to win a majority IMO. Why the party can't see this themselves is a mystery to me. Looks like they'd rather wait until 2020, although by then her potential appeal to the electorate may be blunted if Theresa May is leading the Tories.
Ed Miliband is a hopeless liability. Nearly all Labour party members I know and speak to say this this. Some of his own MPs tacitly or even openly acknowledge this. Many opinion polls demonstrate this.
He was foisted on the MPs/MEPs and the ordinary Labour Party members by the unions. He was the most popular choice with MPs and MEPs and Labour party members in every round of the leadership ballot.
Mike, OGH, expressed his view early on that Labour chose "the better brother" - and despite all subsequent evidence to the contrary, he holds to that preposterous position.
EiT says DM is "shit at politics". Nonsense. DM is one of the best communicators Labour has had in the generation that currently has their chance to assume power. EiT may have a point about Iraq but I doubt Iraq will be a major issue at the next GE for most voters; even for Labour voters, if DM was the leader.
Henry G is closely linked to the Trade Unions, I think. The very organisation who are responsible for the mess Labour now finds themselves in. Labour approach the next GE with an unelectable leader thanks to the Unions.
I often get calls wrong in politics - and in betting generally. But when I do, I am happy to hold up my hand and admit that I got it wrong.
In this case it's obvious to me that a major mistake was made in the choice of leader. It's simply ridiculous to say that "the idea that David M would have been better is fanciful rubbish"
When Labour fail to win the next GE maybe some sensible analysis of this issue will ensue.
EiT says DM is "shit at politics". Nonsense. DM is one of the best communicators Labour has had in the generation that currently has their chance to assume power.
Note the extraordinary modestness of this claim, which is the only positive argument you've made for why David woud have been effective in 9 paragraphs. Yes, he's a better communicator than Ed. Yes, the other competitors in the field had issues with how they communicated or how they came across. But he's not astonishingly good or anything - just one of the least bad of a weak field.
Against that, he's a terrible strategist, while Ed is very sharp. This is Mike's point about the unions: Whatever you think of them, their members make up a third of the electoral college, so if you want to win that election, it's not a good idea to piss them off for no good reason. That he did shows a serious lack of "find out whose votes you need then do some things to get them" skills, which are pretty much the most important element of the job description.
EiT may have a point about Iraq but I doubt Iraq will be a major issue at the next GE for most voters; even for Labour voters, if DM was the leader.
I think you're wildly underestimating how angry a lot of otherwise Labour-supporting people still are about this. And the government would have had some ways to keep the sore festering, while the reports from Iraq kept it in the news: Leaks about rendition, reports about who knew what, ongoing questions about whether and how David Miliband may have lied about it.
When Ed beat David in the leadership election, I was glad - merely because I like Ed and I dislike David. He makes me groan. He is a wimp (for the reasons given in the article) and he is toxic (for the reasons given in the article).
If Ed become PM (and of course I hope he doesn't) he will at least be new, and not a ghastly reminder of the last gasps of the rotten old / new Labour government.
When Ed beat David in the leadership election, I was glad - merely because I like Ed and I dislike David. He makes me groan. He is a wimp (for the reasons given in the article) and he is toxic (for the reasons given in the article).
If Ed become PM (and of course I hope he doesn't) he will at least be new, and not a ghastly reminder of the last gasps of the rotten old / new Labour government.
Maybe whether Ed becomes PM will depend on whether Gavin Barwell is able to hold his seat.
Maybe whether Ed becomes PM will depend on whether Gavin Barwell is able to hold his seat.
Gavin Barwell is so amazingly brilliant that he will inevitably be re-elected with a majority of at least 70,000. Whether Ed Miliband becomes PM will depend on the results in the marginal constituencies.
Comments
The party is ahead in the polls, but there is no sense of certain victory – and one of the great dividing lines is the leader himself
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/ed-miliband-leadership-policy-labour?CMP=twt_fd
Russia to defeat Belgium, Algeria to defeat South Korea, and USA! USA! USA! to beat Portugal.
Bosnia hit the post in injury time.
But, both Ed Miliband and the Labour party are going to need to get their policy messages well honed over the summer to avoid this being a problem for them during this all important pre GE Conference season.
"Loneliness is one thing. A happy loner quite another
Britain may well be 'Europe's loneliness capital', but being happily alone by choice is quite another matter"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/22/britain-loneliness-capital-isolation-being-alone
Emma Czornobaj sentenced over deaths of Andre Roy and 16-year-old daughter Jessie for parking car on busy road after seeing ducklings without their mother"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/10916470/Canadian-woman-who-stopped-car-to-help-ducks-faces-life-in-jail-after-causing-fatal-crash.html
If either Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper had became Labour Leader, they would both have quickly become seen as team Mr and Mrs Balls or Mrs and Mr Cooper as a result. This I suspect would quickly start causing real problems in any Labour Shadow Cabinet as has been noted in the past when Labour were last in Government as well.
This is arrant nonsense.
Ed Miliband is a hopeless liability. Nearly all Labour party members I know and speak to say this this. Some of his own MPs tacitly or even openly acknowledge this. Many opinion polls demonstrate this.
He was foisted on the MPs/MEPs and the ordinary Labour Party members by the unions. He was the most popular choice with MPs and MEPs and Labour party members in every round of the leadership ballot.
Mike, OGH, expressed his view early on that Labour chose "the better brother" - and despite all subsequent evidence to the contrary, he holds to that preposterous position.
EiT says DM is "shit at politics". Nonsense. DM is one of the best communicators Labour has had in the generation that currently has their chance to assume power. EiT may have a point about Iraq but I doubt Iraq will be a major issue at the next GE for most voters; even for Labour voters, if DM was the leader.
Henry G is closely linked to the Trade Unions, I think. The very organisation who are responsible for the mess Labour now finds themselves in. Labour approach the next GE with an unelectable leader thanks to the Unions.
I often get calls wrong in politics - and in betting generally. But when I do, I am happy to hold up my hand and admit that I got it wrong.
In this case it's obvious to me that a major mistake was made in the choice of leader. It's simply ridiculous to say that "the idea that David M would have been better is fanciful rubbish"
When Labour fail to win the next GE maybe some sensible analysis of this issue will ensue.
Against that, he's a terrible strategist, while Ed is very sharp. This is Mike's point about the unions: Whatever you think of them, their members make up a third of the electoral college, so if you want to win that election, it's not a good idea to piss them off for no good reason. That he did shows a serious lack of "find out whose votes you need then do some things to get them" skills, which are pretty much the most important element of the job description. I think you're wildly underestimating how angry a lot of otherwise Labour-supporting people still are about this. And the government would have had some ways to keep the sore festering, while the reports from Iraq kept it in the news: Leaks about rendition, reports about who knew what, ongoing questions about whether and how David Miliband may have lied about it.
When Ed beat David in the leadership election, I was glad - merely because I like Ed and I dislike David. He makes me groan. He is a wimp (for the reasons given in the article) and he is toxic (for the reasons given in the article).
If Ed become PM (and of course I hope he doesn't) he will at least be new, and not a ghastly reminder of the last gasps of the rotten old / new Labour government.