politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave is beating Ed on leader ratings but on nothing like th

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave is beating Ed on leader ratings but on nothing like the scale of Major over Kinnock ahead of GE1992

One of the great hopes for the Tories as they face GE2015 with a deficit in the voting intention polls is what happened at GE1992. Then it will be recalled John Major was returned with a majority even though all the polls pointed to a hung parliament.

Read the full story here

Financier

The difference today is the UKIP effect

RobD

Miliband is clearly not alright!

I'll get me coat.

(BTW First, and you have a typo on your graph, Milband -> Miliband)

Edit: darn, second.

JBriskin

Great chart - amazing figure for Major.

MikeSmithson

JBriskin said:

Great chart - amazing figure for Major.

The great thing going for Major was his background and he could relate far better to ordinary people that old Etonians. That shows up in a vast range of data.

DavidL

One of the things that seems slightly odd to me in the Ipsos Mori figures is how incredibly stable they are. Both Cameron and Miliband's levels have varied by 2% over a period of 6 months. One would have expected more statistical noise than that.

Ed is currently at the bottom of his band but with such tiny changes one does wonder if all the flack he has been taking (much of it from Labour) has impinged on the public's consciousness at all.

Major's satisfaction levels are astonishing. I don't recall him being that popular, more mocked in fact.

TGOHF

6 months vs 9 months average ? Hmmm.

ThomasNashe

DavidL said:

One of the things that seems slightly odd to me in the Ipsos Mori figures is how incredibly stable they are. Both Cameron and Miliband's levels have varied by 2% over a period of 6 months. One would have expected more statistical noise than that.

Ed is currently at the bottom of his band but with such tiny changes one does wonder if all the flack he has been taking (much of it from Labour) has impinged on the public's consciousness at all.

Major's satisfaction levels are astonishing. I don't recall him being that popular, more mocked in fact.

Black Wednesday was the turning point. It was soon followed by the revolt of the Euro-loons, 'back to basics', the 'back me or sack me' leadership election and the ascent of Blair. All that makes us forget how popular Major was during his first two years as leader.

TGOHF

9 months to the election - 9 months ago Ed was -13. Now -28

JackW

TGOHF said:

9 months to the election - 9 months ago Ed was -13. Now -28

Do you consider, on mature reflection, that all things considered there's a small possibility, that in the round and musing in a dispassionate and disinterested fashion that, in conjunction with my good self that :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

TGOHF

JackW said:

TGOHF said:

9 months to the election - 9 months ago Ed was -13. Now -28

Do you consider, on mature reflection, that all things considered there's a small possibility, that in the round and musing in a dispassionate and disinterested fashion that, in conjunction with my good self that :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Mike has tried hard to pick a range of months that are different for both cases yet still show how disliked Ed is.

The trend isn't Eds friend either.

Let's hope you are correct anyway.

TGOHF

Sun poll on swing voters and Ed

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5737685/labour-could-win-general-election-by-cutting-immigration.html


UNDER-fire Ed Miliband has been told to vow to CUT immigration to win next year’s General Election.
A YouGov poll has revealed 45 per cent of swing voters could vote for Labour if its leader can finally stop the tide of new arrivals coming to Britain.

ToryJim

To an extent the current figures may reflect the fact that politics in general is not held in the same regard as was. There has always been the cynicism etc but the belief that it has no positive value is something that has emerged more recently. It's a very dangerous development and is cynically fuelled at times. How it will play out at a GE is intriguing but I suspect turnout will be low.

Pulpstar

WELL ALLLLLLRIGHHHHHHHT

WELL ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIGHT

WE'RE ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIGHT

DavidL

Interesting column in the ST yesterday by David Smith now available on his website: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002033.html#more

"the top 1% of earners (strictly speaking those at the 99th percentile) earned 11 times as much per hour as the bottom 1% (those at the 1st percentile) in 2013. That sounds quite a lot but it is down from almost 13 times in 1998. The minimum wage has supported people on low wages, while higher earners have suffered the biggest drop in incomes since 2011....

"The striking result in this report was that since 2007-8 – when the crisis first hit – the richest 20% of households have seen a drop of 5.2% in this measure of real incomes. The poorest 20%, in contrast, have seen a rise of 3.5%."

It is interesting what a contrast there is between this reality and the perception that the Tories, and the posh Etonians in particular, are only in this for the rich. In fact, partly because the well off are no longer earning the silly money in the City in the same numbers, there has been a fairly large fall in inequality during this government. The piece goes on to describe a similar effect on wealth.

When you look at the polling on leaders this indifference to people like us and focus on the rich are usually Cameron's biggest negatives. The government really needs to shout these figures and this analysis from the rooftops again and again until the message is received. It is frankly odd that they have not done so already.

If Cameron needs to shout about this what about Clegg and the Lib Dems? Surely they could more easily claim the credit for this and claim this is a result of their influence. The negatives in these areas are so ingrained for the Tories that few would want to give them the credit. Is this perhaps a way back for them, if only to a limited extent?

As for Labour, one feels another meme crashing down.

foxinsoxuk

TGOHF said:

Sun poll on swing voters and Ed

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5737685/labour-could-win-general-election-by-cutting-immigration.html


UNDER-fire Ed Miliband has been told to vow to CUT immigration to win next year’s General Election.
A YouGov poll has revealed 45 per cent of swing voters could vote for Labour if its leader can finally stop the tide of new arrivals coming to Britain.

The headline graph shows that Ed can win over the swing voters by adopting policies to the right of the Conservatives, or even UKIP.

I cannot see that happening.

MikeSmithson

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Sun poll on swing voters and Ed

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5737685/labour-could-win-general-election-by-cutting-immigration.html


UNDER-fire Ed Miliband has been told to vow to CUT immigration to win next year’s General Election.
A YouGov poll has revealed 45 per cent of swing voters could vote for Labour if its leader can finally stop the tide of new arrivals coming to Britain.

The headline graph shows that Ed can win over the swing voters by adopting policies to the right of the Conservatives, or even UKIP.

I cannot see that happening.

The biggest risk to Miliband and Labour is alienating 2010 LDs who form the red team's electoral crutch.

SquareRoot

Its not what the voters think at this stage, its what the MP's think of their own leader. That will be very telling. Do Labour MP's really feel that confident( and their PPC's) to go out and bat for Ed. The omens and briefings suggest no such confidence. If you are not confident in your message, you are doomed IMHO.

MikeSmithson

TGOHF said:

JackW said:

TGOHF said:

9 months to the election - 9 months ago Ed was -13. Now -28

Do you consider, on mature reflection, that all things considered there's a small possibility, that in the round and musing in a dispassionate and disinterested fashion that, in conjunction with my good self that :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Mike has tried hard to pick a range of months that are different for both cases yet still show how disliked Ed is.

The trend isn't Eds friend either.

Let's hope you are correct anyway.

I've now changed the periods over which the averages are calculated to 9 months in each case.

It was a fair point that these should have been the same. It actually makes very little difference

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

Interesting column in the ST yesterday by David Smith now available on his website: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002033.html#more

"the top 1% of earners (strictly speaking those at the 99th percentile) earned 11 times as much per hour as the bottom 1% (those at the 1st percentile) in 2013. That sounds quite a lot but it is down from almost 13 times in 1998. The minimum wage has supported people on low wages, while higher earners have suffered the biggest drop in incomes since 2011....

"The striking result in this report was that since 2007-8 – when the crisis first hit – the richest 20% of households have seen a drop of 5.2% in this measure of real incomes. The poorest 20%, in contrast, have seen a rise of 3.5%."

It is interesting what a contrast there is between this reality and the perception that the Tories, and the posh Etonians in particular, are only in this for the rich. In fact, partly because the well off are no longer earning the silly money in the City in the same numbers, there has been a fairly large fall in inequality during this government. The piece goes on to describe a similar effect on wealth.

When you look at the polling on leaders this indifference to people like us and focus on the rich are usually Cameron's biggest negatives. The government really needs to shout these figures and this analysis from the rooftops again and again until the message is received. It is frankly odd that they have not done so already.

If Cameron needs to shout about this what about Clegg and the Lib Dems? Surely they could more easily claim the credit for this and claim this is a result of their influence. The negatives in these areas are so ingrained for the Tories that few would want to give them the credit. Is this perhaps a way back for them, if only to a limited extent?

As for Labour, one feels another meme crashing down.

How does he define incomes? And does he address overall wealth?

MikeSmithson

SquareRoot said:

Its not what the voters think at this stage, its what the MP's think of their own leader. That will be very telling. Do Labour MP's really feel that confident( and their PPC's) to go out and bat for Ed. The omens and briefings suggest no such confidence. If you are not confident in your message, you are doomed IMHO.

The voters that matter to LAB and EdM are 2010 LD switchers - a fact that so many on here desperately try to ignore.

CD13

The problem for the Government is that the allegations of an establishment cover-up of this paedo group in the 80s and since does ring true for many people. The great and the good being able to hide their misdeeds is believable.

Today, we read that the Cambridge spy ring got away with it for many years despite their Soviet handlers regarding them as amateurish drunks. But they were part of the establishment and therefore untouchable.

SquareRoot

MikeSmithson said:

SquareRoot said:

Its not what the voters think at this stage, its what the MP's think of their own leader. That will be very telling. Do Labour MP's really feel that confident( and their PPC's) to go out and bat for Ed. The omens and briefings suggest no such confidence. If you are not confident in your message, you are doomed IMHO.

The voters that matter to LAB and EdM are 2010 LD switchers - a fact that so many on here desperately try to ignore.

I am sure you are right, but the point about the Labour message getting across is valid nevertheless. If voters don't have confidence in what is being put across they aren't going to vote for you.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Interesting column in the ST yesterday by David Smith now available on his website: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002033.html#more


As for Labour, one feels another meme crashing down.

How does he define incomes? And does he address overall wealth?

The article relies on ONS figures. But this summary from the IFS shows the reason for the result:

"As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, describing the squeeze on earnings and the fact that benefits were protected: “Benefits account for a relatively large share of household income towards the bottom, whereas earnings account for a relatively large share further up. After almost two decades in which inequality had changed little, this was enough to return it to its lowest level since 1996-7.”"

So all the inequality built up under the last Labour government has been reversed.

So far as wealth is concerned:

"the distribution of wealth is, like the distribution of income, stable. Again, not just my words or those of the ONS, but also Atkinson: “Downward trend in top wealth shares from 1923 to end of 1980s; now levelled off.”

So not so much improvement there but no deterioration either.

These figures are so contrary to public perception I think few will believe them unless they are repeatedly sold. If the government is smart enough to build another increase in the minimum wage into the Autumn Statement they could have quite a story to tell.

FalseFlag

MikeSmithson said:

SquareRoot said:

Its not what the voters think at this stage, its what the MP's think of their own leader. That will be very telling. Do Labour MP's really feel that confident( and their PPC's) to go out and bat for Ed. The omens and briefings suggest no such confidence. If you are not confident in your message, you are doomed IMHO.

The voters that matter to LAB and EdM are 2010 LD switchers - a fact that so many on here desperately try to ignore.

Not enough for a majority and in doing so alienates the vast bulk of voters.

Early on leaders are a blank canvas voters can project what they want on, something Major initially benefited from.

Millsy

Why would you compare Cameron 9 years into party leadership and 4 years into being PM with Major who had only held both jobs for a year?

Look at the Ipsos Mori charts (pages 8 and 11): http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/June Pol Monitor charts_WR_FINAL.pdf

Cameron is in between Major and Thatcher/Blair on this timescale and Miliband is on a par with Hague three years into his leadership.

OldKingCole

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Interesting column in the ST yesterday by David Smith now available on his website: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002033.html#more

"the top 1% of earners (strictly speaking those at the 99th percentile) earned 11 times as much per hour as the bottom 1% (those at the 1st percentile) in 2013. That sounds quite a lot but it is down from almost 13 times in 1998. The minimum wage has supported people on low wages, while higher earners have suffered the biggest drop in incomes since 2011....

"The striking result in this report was that since 2007-8 – when the crisis first hit – the richest 20% of households have seen a drop of 5.2% in this measure of real incomes. The poorest 20%, in contrast, have seen a rise of 3.5%."

It is interesting what a contrast there is between this reality and the perception that the Tories, and the posh Etonians in particular, are only in this for the rich. In fact, partly because the well off are no longer earning the silly money in the City in the same numbers, there has been a fairly large fall in inequality during this government. The piece goes on to describe a similar effect on wealth.

When you look at the polling on leaders this indifference to people like us and focus on the rich are usually Cameron's biggest negatives. The government really needs to shout these figures and this analysis from the rooftops again and again until the message is received. It is frankly odd that they have not done so already.

If Cameron needs to shout about this what about Clegg and the Lib Dems? Surely they could more easily claim the credit for this and claim this is a result of their influence. The negatives in these areas are so ingrained for the Tories that few would want to give them the credit. Is this perhaps a way back for them, if only to a limited extent?

As for Labour, one feels another meme crashing down.

How does he define incomes? And does he address overall wealth?

Doesn’t take account of living costs though. For the rich the gap has shrunk a bit. For the poor, the rise in costs has overtaken any rise in income.

Pulpstar

FalseFlag said:

MikeSmithson said:

SquareRoot said:

Its not what the voters think at this stage, its what the MP's think of their own leader. That will be very telling. Do Labour MP's really feel that confident( and their PPC's) to go out and bat for Ed. The omens and briefings suggest no such confidence. If you are not confident in your message, you are doomed IMHO.

The voters that matter to LAB and EdM are 2010 LD switchers - a fact that so many on here desperately try to ignore.

Not enough for a majority and in doing so alienates the vast bulk of voters.

Early on leaders are a blank canvas voters can project what they want on, something Major initially benefited from.

Noone wants Miliband to get a majority though !

Pulpstar

I doubt Miliband will get nearly as many votes as Kinnock btw.

SouthamObserver

@DavidL - I have read the Smith piece now. It's interesting but there are a lot of potential holes in it. We need a far tighter definition of income - does it include bonuses, dividends and the like? If so, does it factor in the deferral in payments of these that occurred to take advantage of the new 45 pence tax rate and the reduction in dividends? If the ONS assesses by tax year (ie, 12/13) rather than calendar year that is going to have a very significant effect. The last ONS data that I can see was published in June 2014 and does, indeed, refer to 12/13. However, there could be stuff that I am missing. It's also noticeable that he is very woolly on wealth when we know that house prices are soaring and dividend taxes have been cut at a time when shares have never been higher.

Essentially, Smith's point seems to be that no government has done much about the rise in inequality that occurred during the 1980s. That seems reasonable to me and would certainly be one of my major criticisms of the last Labour government. What I fear may begin to happen now is that the gap may begin to widen again. Smith seems to have chosen very specific moments in time to make his points - before welfare freezes for the poorest and tax cuts for the richest kicked in.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Not sure this is a valid comparison. There's still a general (increased) distrust of politicians due to the expenses scandal and, perhaps even more importantly, it was more of a two party system in 1992, helping both Major and Kinnock. Now the two main parties are at mid-30s or lower, UKIP have a sizeable chunk, and the Lib Dems are, er, also present. We also have a much stronger SNP due to Labour's brilliantly thought out devolution.

And, we have a coalition.

Pulpstar

Miliband might get about as many votes as Major in 1997, and that may well be enough for him to become PM.

[Deleted User]

When discussing inequality we need to be careful to distinguish between inequality before the state does anything about and that after the state has acted. Tim Worstall over at the Adam Smith Institute blog has done some good stuff on this.

The ‘after intervention’ picture is, of course, much much less than the ‘raw’ figure. This is the whole point of a welfare state. On this view of inequality the UK is pretty good.

By far the biggest issue of inequality now is the amount of tax we levy on the low paid. To put more money back in poorer hands we need to stop taking it from them in the first place. And to stop wasting so much of what we do tax.

Innocent_Abroad

SquareRoot said:

MikeSmithson said:

SquareRoot said:

Its not what the voters think at this stage, its what the MP's think of their own leader. That will be very telling. Do Labour MP's really feel that confident( and their PPC's) to go out and bat for Ed. The omens and briefings suggest no such confidence. If you are not confident in your message, you are doomed IMHO.

The voters that matter to LAB and EdM are 2010 LD switchers - a fact that so many on here desperately try to ignore.

I am sure you are right, but the point about the Labour message getting across is valid nevertheless. If voters don't have confidence in what is being put across they aren't going to vote for you.

Well, if Labour promises to keep all the Tory cuts - because polling shows that, pensioners apart, people actively dislike the poor (probably connected with the significant racism of the "ordinary voter") - then it's hard to see what else the Tories have to campaign on other than personalities. And since Cameron's isn't, for the reason already stated on this thread, that attractive, best to go negative on Miliband and hook into that "ordinary voter racism" - as with Kinnock.

SouthamObserver

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Interesting column in the ST yesterday by David Smith now available on his website: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002033.html#more

"the top 1% of earners (strictly speaking those at the 99th percentile) earned 11 times as much per hour as the bottom 1% (those at the 1st percentile) in 2013. That sounds quite a lot but it is down from almost 13 times in 1998. The minimum wage has supported people on low wages, while higher earners have suffered the biggest drop in incomes since 2011....

"The striking result in this report was that since 2007-8 – when the crisis first hit – the richest 20% of households have seen a drop of 5.2% in this measure of real incomes. The poorest 20%, in contrast, have seen a rise of 3.5%."

It is interesting what a contrast there is between this reality and the perception that the Tories, and the posh Etonians in particular, are only in this for the rich. In fact, partly because the well off are no longer earning the silly money in the City in the same numbers, there has been a fairly large fall in inequality during this government. The piece goes on to describe a similar effect on wealth.

When you look at the polling on leaders this indifference to people like us and focus on the rich are usually Cameron's biggest negatives. The government really needs to shout these figures and this analysis from the rooftops again and again until the message is received. It is frankly odd that they have not done so already.

If Cameron needs to shout about this what about Clegg and the Lib Dems? Surely they could more easily claim the credit for this and claim this is a result of their influence. The negatives in these areas are so ingrained for the Tories that few would want to give them the credit. Is this perhaps a way back for them, if only to a limited extent?

As for Labour, one feels another meme crashing down.

How does he define incomes? And does he address overall wealth?

Doesn’t take account of living costs though. For the rich the gap has shrunk a bit. For the poor, the rise in costs has overtaken any rise in income.

If Smith's point is that too much wealth inequality is not a healthy thing then I agree with him. And if the government has taken measures that will see this reduced on a permanent, non-crisis-related basis, then it is certainly to be applauded. We'll have to wait to see about that though. I am not sure that we are going to be able to tell for a while yet.

SouthamObserver

Pulpstar said:

I doubt Miliband will get nearly as many votes as Kinnock btw.

And Cameron will fall millions short of what Major got.

MikeSmithson

Pulpstar said:

I doubt Miliband will get nearly as many votes as Kinnock btw.

The only place where Miliband will be on the ballot is Doncaster N.
We don't vote for leaders
We don't vote for parties
We vote for individuals MPs in in the places where we are registered to vote.

OldKingCole

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Interesting column in the ST yesterday by David Smith now available on his website: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002033.html#more

"the top 1% of earners (strictly speaking those at the 99th percentile) earned 11 times as much per hour as the bottom 1% (those at the 1st percentile) in 2013. That sounds quite a lot but it is down from almost 13 times in 1998. The minimum wage has supported people on low wages, while higher earners have suffered the biggest drop in incomes since 2011....

"The striking result in this report was that since 2007-8 – when the crisis first hit – the richest 20% of households have seen a drop of 5.2% in this measure of real incomes. The poorest 20%, in contrast, have seen a rise of 3.5%."

It is interesting what a contrast there is between this reality and the perception that the Tories, and the posh Etonians in particular, are only in this for the rich. In fact, partly because the well off are no longer earning the silly money in the City in the same numbers, there has been a fairly large fall in inequality during this government. The piece goes on to describe a similar effect on wealth.

When you look at the polling on leaders this indifference to people like us and focus on the rich are usually Cameron's biggest negatives. The government really needs to shout these figures and this analysis from the rooftops again and again until the message is received. It is frankly odd that they have not done so already.

If Cameron needs to shout about this what about Clegg and the Lib Dems? Surely they could more easily claim the credit for this and claim this is a result of their influence. The negatives in these areas are so ingrained for the Tories that few would want to give them the credit. Is this perhaps a way back for them, if only to a limited extent?

As for Labour, one feels another meme crashing down.

How does he define incomes? And does he address overall wealth?

Doesn’t take account of living costs though. For the rich the gap has shrunk a bit. For the poor, the rise in costs has overtaken any rise in income.

If Smith's point is that too much wealth inequality is not a healthy thing then I agree with him. And if the government has taken measures that will see this reduced on a permanent, non-crisis-related basis, then it is certainly to be applauded. We'll have to wait to see about that though. I am not sure that we are going to be able to tell for a while yet.

Agreed.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, ask the poor if they'd prefer to be richer even if it meant inequality rising (ie the richer becoming even wealthier at the same time). One suspect they'd prefer to be able to heat their home and afford food at the same time, even if it meant the wealthiest being able to afford a second yacht.

SouthamObserver

Patrick said:

When discussing inequality we need to be careful to distinguish between inequality before the state does anything about and that after the state has acted. Tim Worstall over at the Adam Smith Institute blog has done some good stuff on this.

The ‘after intervention’ picture is, of course, much much less than the ‘raw’ figure. This is the whole point of a welfare state. On this view of inequality the UK is pretty good.

By far the biggest issue of inequality now is the amount of tax we levy on the low paid. To put more money back in poorer hands we need to stop taking it from them in the first place. And to stop wasting so much of what we do tax.

I agree that prioritising tax cuts for the wealthiest - whether that be on income or dividends - should not be the priority.

TheScreamingEagles

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Financier

As Major was PM for only 18 months before the GE and the Gulf War was quite popular as it was in the defence of invaded Kuwait, surely this is too short a period for a fair comparison. OTOH, Kinnock had been LOTO since 1983 and whilst he had improved the standing of Labour, there was still plenty of dissension in the Labour camp.

SouthamObserver

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, ask the poor if they'd prefer to be richer even if it meant inequality rising (ie the richer becoming even wealthier at the same time). One suspect they'd prefer to be able to heat their home and afford food at the same time, even if it meant the wealthiest being able to afford a second yacht.

I am sure you are right. Let's hope that the government agrees. I am certainly in the school that argues for equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome. And I am someone who has become a top rate taxpayer thanks to the welfare state and the redistributive principles upon which it is based. Without it I would be nowhere near the position I am in today.

TheScreamingEagles

Actually the Tories great hope isn't Ed Miliband, it's the brilliance of George Osborne.

Remember he's the most popular UK wide politician in the country.

Remember how he changed the narrative in 2007 to stop the election that never was?

He'll do the same in 2015 with his budget.

He will go down in history as one of the truly great strategists, up there with Atwater, Caesar, Eisenhower and Schwarzkopf.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, the threshold for the higher rate should be raised. Letting it stay as is and inflation drag more people into it is, in my view [and, alas, I'm a long way from being there] bloody stupid, and quite unfair.

Khan's nonsense over ethnic quotas is a perfect example of why you're right that equality of opportunity rather than outcome is the only fair approach.

TGOHF

MikeSmithson said:

Pulpstar said:

I doubt Miliband will get nearly as many votes as Kinnock btw.

The only place where Miliband will be on the ballot is Doncaster N.
We don't vote for leaders
We don't vote for parties
We vote for individuals MPs in in the places where we are registered to vote.

Thanks - will avoid further barbs from other cynics

MikeSmithson

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Dream on

[Deleted User]

Eisenhower? Strategist?

He was a genius coalition builder. A truly great smoother of ruffles and quite brilliant at managing an alliance with some truly awful subordinates (Monty).

But he was no strategist. Militarily he sucked. The polar opposite of Montgomery who absolutely shined at strategy and planning, was OK at execution (as long as he seriously outnumbered the enemy), and was the most vile arrogant destructive bombastic narcissist any boss ever had to deal with.

If you want to choose a historically great strategist my vote would go to Zhukov and Operation Uranus.

TheScreamingEagles

Patrick said:

Eisenhower? Strategist?

He was a genius coalition builder. A truly great smoother of ruffles and quite brilliant at managing an alliance with some truly awful subordinates (Monty).

But he was no strategist. Militarily he sucked. The polar opposite of Montgomery who absolutely shined at strategy and planning, was OK at execution (as long as he seriously outnumbered the enemy), and was the most vile arrogant destructive bombastic narcissist any boss ever had to deal with.

If you want to choose a historically great strategist my vote would go to Zhukov and Operation Uranus.

Eisenhower's strategies, inter alia, saw the liberation of Western Europe.

Operation Ueanus? Bah.

Any battle that involves defeating the Italians is scraping the barrel.

A bit like saying England are going to win the Rugby World Cup just because they just beat Scotland

SouthamObserver

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

TheScreamingEagles

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

hucks67

If Ed were Welsh with a strong accent, he would be polling similar to Kinnock. I really do think that to be elected as PM for the UK, the leader of a party needs to come from middle England, without a strong accent. I am not sure most English voters would be attracted to a leader who had a strong northern or west country accent either.

It is a strange thing really, but if you search online about how people react to regional accents, it is bigger issue than it should be.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

Actually it is bias in favour of Labour, not really against the Conservatives. Whilst UKIP and Lib Dems are sub 30 that doesn't make any practical difference 0- but Labour is the only party that could achieve a majority on ~ 34% of the vote.

MikeSmithson

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

Rubbish. The election is NOT decided by national party vote aggregates but by first past the post contests in 650 separate seats. To say that national aggregates should come into it implies that in 2010 the Tories should have got just 36.2% of the seats. They actually got 47.2% of the seats.

Was that wrong.

The LDs got 8.7% of the seats on 23.2% of the UK vote



If you want to play national aggregate proportionately then fine but don't do it selectively when it suits your case.

SouthamObserver

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

It's the electoral system that the Tories want. And it is biased in favour of them too. They got 36% of the vote in 2010, but around 45% of the seats in the Commons. They would win an overall majority in 2015 on far less than a majority of votes cast

The economy is on the up, Ed is crap and the LDs are in meltdown. The Tories should cruise to victory next year. If they don't they will only have themselves to blame.

OldKingCole

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

Worked the other way round in the 50’s and 60’s. Don’t recall Tory complaints then!

hucks67

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

Rubbish. The election is NOT decided by national party vote aggregates but by first past the post contests in 650 separate seats. To say that national aggregates should come into it implies that in 2010 the Tories should have got just 36.2% of the seats. They actually got 47.2% of the seats.

Was that wrong.

The LDs got 8.7% of the seats on 23.2% of the UK vote



If you want to play national aggregate proportionately then fine but don't do it selectively when it suits your case.

If the Tories lose in 2015, I can see many wanting to look at changing from FPTP, because they won't have won an election since 1992. Of course the boundaries may be changed by 2020, but it may not help the Tories too much. Perhaps the Tories should try to increase their membership numbers and not be so reliant on rich donors.

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

It's the electoral system that the Tories want. And it is biased in favour of them too. They got 36% of the vote in 2010, but around 45% of the seats in the Commons. They would win an overall majority in 2015 on far less than a majority of votes cast

The economy is on the up, Ed is crap and the LDs are in meltdown. The Tories should cruise to victory next year. If they don't they will only have themselves to blame.

Nothing like a but of reverse expectations management to start the day

ToryJim

Mr Eagles there were 12 labours of Hercules or Heracles if you name him properly

SouthamObserver

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

It's the electoral system that the Tories want. And it is biased in favour of them too. They got 36% of the vote in 2010, but around 45% of the seats in the Commons. They would win an overall majority in 2015 on far less than a majority of votes cast

The economy is on the up, Ed is crap and the LDs are in meltdown. The Tories should cruise to victory next year. If they don't they will only have themselves to blame.

Nothing like a but of reverse expectations management to start the day

Not really. I am expecting a hung Parliament. I am not going to be voting Labour.

TheScreamingEagles

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

Rubbish. The election is NOT decided by national party vote aggregates but by first past the post contests in 650 separate seats. To say that national aggregates should come into it implies that in 2010 the Tories should have got just 36.2% of the seats. They actually got 47.2% of the seats.

Was that wrong.

The LDs got 8.7% of the seats on 23.2% of the UK vote



If you want to play national aggregate proportionately then fine but don't do it selectively when it suits your case.

Yes it was wrong, some of us do favour electoral reform.

TheScreamingEagles

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/30/one-year-to-go-how-do-dave-and-ed-compare-to-their-predecessors/

No matter how you look at it, Ed's a duffer.

Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.

The electoral system is biased against the blues.

The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.

The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.

It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.

Worked the other way round in the 50’s and 60’s. Don’t recall Tory complaints then!

I wasn't around in the 50s or 60s

TheScreamingEagles

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

[Deleted User]

Mike democracy is a great brake but not necessarily a great steering wheel.

We live in a rob Peter to pay Paul society. Paul can outvote Peter and so he votes himself a nice fat unaffordable welfare state. This model which has survived since the second world war is reaching the end of its shelf life. We’re all maxed out on debt and can’t bring ourselves to reform and compete as it doesn’t sell well with Paul. (and even less well with Pierre)

FPTP, STV, full PR, some whacky hybrid involving numbers squared, presidential systems – they all suffer from the core problem of not keeping the kiddies away from the sweetshop.

Cyclefree

MikeSmithson said:

JBriskin said:

Great chart - amazing figure for Major.

The great thing going for Major was his background and he could relate far better to ordinary people that old Etonians. That shows up in a vast range of data.

No - the great thing going for Major was what he achieved despite - or perhaps because of - his background - and his personal qualities. By all accounts he is a charmer and has excellent negotiating skills. And he certainly had empathy and an understanding of how ordinary people think and feel. Being an OE is not a handicap if the person concerned has an interest in and a willingness to reach out to people from a different background. But that is down to how a person thinks about themselves and the world and, crucially, whether they realise that their own experience of the world is not the only possible way.

The criticism of Cameron et al - and I would include much of the Labour and Lib Dem hierarchy in this - is that being privileged they have no desire to learn about let alone empathise with those who do not have their advantages. They think that their life is the only possible correct way to live and despise - or appear to despise or patronise - anyone with a different view. I actually think that Cameron is the least culpable on this score because his experience with his son must have been a hell of a trauma (I have experience of what it is like to have a child suffer a crippling disease) but perhaps because of that he does not want to let it too obviously govern his political responses.

TheScreamingEagles

ToryJim said:

Mr Eagles there were 12 labours of Hercules or Heracles if you name him properly

I know, I had the number 7 on my mind during that post

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

Coulson's sentence sounded perfectly reasonable to me, neither too long nor too short - the judge got it spot on.

Similiarly I thought Harris' sentence was about right, perhaps could have been a couple of years longer - 4 years behind bars given his age would have been optimal (8 years)

TheScreamingEagles

Bloody hell

The 7/7 memorial has been defaced

Police said that the memorial was defaced overnight and daubed with slogans such as 'Blair lied thousands died' and '4 innocent Muslims.'

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-07/7-7-memorial-vandalised-on-anniversary-of-attacks/

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.

TheScreamingEagles

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.

Like Dave, I believe in giving people second chances.

TheScreamingEagles

Hmmm

Populus @PopulusPolls · 22s

New Populus VI: Lab 38 (+3); Cons 31 (-3); LD 9 (=); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 8 (=) Tables http://popu.lu/s_vi140707

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, despicable behaviour, but (from a lunatic's perspective) a good way to try and provoke a backlash.

Mr. Jim, quite.

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bloody hell

The 7/7 memorial has been defaced

Police said that the memorial was defaced overnight and daubed with slogans such as 'Blair lied thousands died' and '4 innocent Muslims.'

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-07/7-7-memorial-vandalised-on-anniversary-of-attacks/

In the standard piece on it there us a quote from the Parks Manager that they are "very disappointed". It sounds woefully inadequate, I don't think most people will be "disappointed" they will be "outraged" or "livid". Why do we put up with such mealy mouthed passivity in the face of deliberate provocation?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/graffiti-daubed-on-77-memorial-on-ninth-anniversary-of-bombings-9588355.html

MikeSmithson

Today's 31% CON share from Populus online is the lowest since July 2013. The LAB 38% share equals the highest since Feb 2

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.

Like Dave, I believe in giving people second chances.

As do I but I treat Huhne as the exception that proves the rule. I simply cannot abide the sanctimony of the man, he reeks of an attitude of bien pensant holier than thou superiority that literally puts my teeth on edge.

TheScreamingEagles

Is Mandy saying Ed is going to lead Labour to defeat?

Labour will not win the next election if it buries its head in the sand and denies that it will be decided in the centre ground, Lord Mandelson says on Monday in an interview ahead of the 20th anniversary of Tony Blair's election as Labour leader.

Blair is due to give a speech on 21 July to mark 20 years since he became Labour leader. It is likely to prove a challenge to those supporters of Ed Miliband who believe the country has moved to the left in the wake of the financial crash.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/06/general-election-centre-ground-mandelson-miliband-labour-leader-blair

GIN1138

Big Populus lead for Labour.

We must wait for news from The Good Lord.

TheScreamingEagles

GIN1138 said:

Big Populus lead for Labour.

We must wait for news from The Good Lord.

I predict a big Lab lead with the Good Lord.

bigjohnowls

Todays Populus LAB 367 CON 233 LD 23 Other 27 (ukpr)

Ed is crap is landslide PM in another outlier poll 10 months today is GE2015

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Owls, competence and acquiring supreme political office have never necessarily gone hand in hand. cf Arcadius and Honorius.

TheScreamingEagles

TheScreamingEagles said:

Is Mandy saying Ed is going to lead Labour to defeat?

Labour will not win the next election if it buries its head in the sand and denies that it will be decided in the centre ground, Lord Mandelson says on Monday in an interview ahead of the 20th anniversary of Tony Blair's election as Labour leader.

Blair is due to give a speech on 21 July to mark 20 years since he became Labour leader. It is likely to prove a challenge to those supporters of Ed Miliband who believe the country has moved to the left in the wake of the financial crash.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/06/general-election-centre-ground-mandelson-miliband-labour-leader-blair

Errr, that Guardian piece has a correction, and erm, well I think their correction is also going to need a correction

• This article was amended on 7 July 2014. It referred to 2006 as the year in which Blair resigned as prime minister and Labour lost power. Both those events happened in 2007. This has been corrected.

isam

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bloody hell

The 7/7 memorial has been defaced

Police said that the memorial was defaced overnight and daubed with slogans such as 'Blair lied thousands died' and '4 innocent Muslims.'

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-07/7-7-memorial-vandalised-on-anniversary-of-attacks/

In the standard piece on it there us a quote from the Parks Manager that they are "very disappointed". It sounds woefully inadequate, I don't think most people will be "disappointed" they will be "outraged" or "livid". Why do we put up with such mealy mouthed passivity in the face of deliberate provocation?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/graffiti-daubed-on-77-memorial-on-ninth-anniversary-of-bombings-9588355.html

It is the mealy mouthed under reaction of spokesmen and politicians that drives moderate people towards extremism.

Pulpstar

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.

Like Dave, I believe in giving people second chances.

As do I but I treat Huhne as the exception that proves the rule. I simply cannot abide the sanctimony of the man, he reeks of an attitude of bien pensant holier than thou superiority that literally puts my teeth on edge.

Chris Huhne's smiling face was there when I looked up pomposity in the dictionary.

BobaFett

GIN1138 said:

Big Populus lead for Labour.

We must wait for news from The Good Lord.

#CrossoverSaturday

Stick to forecasting the weather - you are good at that! ;-)

rcs1000

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.

I'm all in favour of harsher prison sentences for Chris Huhne.

Surely there's something we can get him on?

BobaFett

TheScreamingEagles said:

Is Mandy saying Ed is going to lead Labour to defeat?

Labour will not win the next election if it buries its head in the sand and denies that it will be decided in the centre ground, Lord Mandelson says on Monday in an interview ahead of the 20th anniversary of Tony Blair's election as Labour leader.

Blair is due to give a speech on 21 July to mark 20 years since he became Labour leader. It is likely to prove a challenge to those supporters of Ed Miliband who believe the country has moved to the left in the wake of the financial crash.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/06/general-election-centre-ground-mandelson-miliband-labour-leader-blair

Excellent work by the Blairites, reminding the idealistic Red Liberals every day why Labour is now the party for them and can safely be voted for. Mandy taking one for the team. Good man.

JackW

MODERATOR

You have mail via "Vanilla"

Thank you.

TheScreamingEagles

God no!

Oscar Pistorius ‘can sue for mistrial’ over footage aired on Channel 7

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oscar-pistorius-can-sue-for-mistrial-over-footage-aired-on-channel-7/story-fnb64oi6-1226979936741?nk=3e9dd4db83284b6a2fb13bd4cee43f5b

Pulpstar

Conservative Majority available to lay @ 3.95 on Betfair still.

I'm balls red on that.

Innocent_Abroad

Patrick said:

Mike democracy is a great brake but not necessarily a great steering wheel.

We live in a rob Peter to pay Paul society. Paul can outvote Peter and so he votes himself a nice fat unaffordable welfare state. This model which has survived since the second world war is reaching the end of its shelf life. We’re all maxed out on debt and can’t bring ourselves to reform and compete as it doesn’t sell well with Paul. (and even less well with Pierre)

FPTP, STV, full PR, some whacky hybrid involving numbers squared, presidential systems – they all suffer from the core problem of not keeping the kiddies away from the sweetshop.

So you want a military coup, then?

OldKingCole

I think the Red Liberals are going to be reminded by Blair of why they left Labour in the first place. The big swing Lab>LD came as a consequence of Iraq, and Charlie Kennedy’s principled stand.

rcs1000

Patrick said:

Mike democracy is a great brake but not necessarily a great steering wheel.

We live in a rob Peter to pay Paul society. Paul can outvote Peter and so he votes himself a nice fat unaffordable welfare state. This model which has survived since the second world war is reaching the end of its shelf life. We’re all maxed out on debt and can’t bring ourselves to reform and compete as it doesn’t sell well with Paul. (and even less well with Pierre)

FPTP, STV, full PR, some whacky hybrid involving numbers squared, presidential systems – they all suffer from the core problem of not keeping the kiddies away from the sweetshop.

Surely it's time to recognise that the rule of law, and the fundamental rights of individuals not to be molested by the state is more important than democracy.

We have tyranny of the plurality (which is like tyranny of the majority, but which requires even fewer votes to achieve): and that means a few can vote to steal from the hardworking, strip rights from the blue-eyed, and can choose to ban things which were never criminal under common law.

MarqueeMark

MikeSmithson said:

The LDs got 8.7% of the seats on 23.2% of the UK vote

I suspect next year the gap between those two numbers will be very much narrower....

Pulpstar

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

The LDs got 8.7% of the seats on 23.2% of the UK vote

I suspect next year the gap between those two numbers will be very much narrower....

It will be, but FPTP will still work against the Lib Dems. Labour to be the big big winners from the system next year with UKIP the losers, Conservatives more or less neutral with Lib Dems slight losers.

Because people will compare Labour to Conservative and UKIP/Lib Dem though the Lib Dems will seen to be winners from the system when in fact they won't be.

anotherDave

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb Chris Huhne article about sentencing (and prisons.)

Andy Coulson's pointless jail term only plays to the pitchforks

Our prison obsession is driven not by evidence that it works, but by a cruel, tabloid-fuelled schadenfreude in our nation's pysche

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession

I recently read Megan McArdle's 'The Up Side of Down', one chapter covered an effective probation system from Hawaii. The punchline being that to change behaviour even minor offences must be punished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii's_Opportunity_Probation_with_Enforcement_(HOPE)

For a Justice system that would presumably require an alternative to (expensive) prisons, corporal punishment seems the most likely candidate.

Innocent_Abroad

rcs1000 said:

Patrick said:

Mike democracy is a great brake but not necessarily a great steering wheel.

We live in a rob Peter to pay Paul society. Paul can outvote Peter and so he votes himself a nice fat unaffordable welfare state. This model which has survived since the second world war is reaching the end of its shelf life. We’re all maxed out on debt and can’t bring ourselves to reform and compete as it doesn’t sell well with Paul. (and even less well with Pierre)

FPTP, STV, full PR, some whacky hybrid involving numbers squared, presidential systems – they all suffer from the core problem of not keeping the kiddies away from the sweetshop.

Surely it's time to recognise that the rule of law, and the fundamental rights of individuals not to be molested by the state is more important than democracy.

We have tyranny of the plurality (which is like tyranny of the majority, but which requires even fewer votes to achieve): and that means a few can vote to steal from the hardworking, strip rights from the blue-eyed, and can choose to ban things which were never criminal under common law.

"Strip rights from the blue-eyed"??? What rights did they ever have, or ought they to have, or have had, that don't inhere in the rest of us?

[Deleted User]

Innocent_Abroad said:

Patrick said:

Mike democracy is a great brake but not necessarily a great steering wheel.

We live in a rob Peter to pay Paul society. Paul can outvote Peter and so he votes himself a nice fat unaffordable welfare state. This model which has survived since the second world war is reaching the end of its shelf life. We’re all maxed out on debt and can’t bring ourselves to reform and compete as it doesn’t sell well with Paul. (and even less well with Pierre)

FPTP, STV, full PR, some whacky hybrid involving numbers squared, presidential systems – they all suffer from the core problem of not keeping the kiddies away from the sweetshop.

So you want a military coup, then?

No - Just need to accept that we will live in a country that must endure a whackjob economic policy every other decade or so.

AJK

The Tories probably have a bigger war chest for this coming GE than they did in 1992 (and some rather rum friends if 'The Observer's article on the Hurlingham club fundraiser is anything to go by).
The attack ads will be relentless. Labour probably ought to make them an election issue (and political party funding).

BobaFett

Pulpstar said:

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

The LDs got 8.7% of the seats on 23.2% of the UK vote

I suspect next year the gap between those two numbers will be very much narrower....

It will be, but FPTP will still work against the Lib Dems. Labour to be the big big winners from the system next year with UKIP the losers, Conservatives more or less neutral with Lib Dems slight losers.

Because people will compare Labour to Conservative and UKIP/Lib Dem though the Lib Dems will seen to be winners from the system when in fact they won't be.

The Tories will be far, far from neutral. They will be big winners from the FPP premium as usual - most probably getting 40+% of the seats on ~35% of the vote. Hence why Tory moaning about the electoral system should be met with complete derision.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. AJK, funding's tricky for all parties. A whiff of state funding (full state funding, if you like) would really put people's backs up, and Labour aren't squeaky clean in the public's imagination due to the unions.

It really is a situation politicians can't win, because the public seem to want no-one to fund parties.

Smarmeron

@anotherDave
"corporal punishment seems the most likely candidate."

"Bring back the birch" has a nostalgic ring to it.