Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on where LAB stands post confernence and his
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on where LAB stands post confernence and his views on the leadership
Hi Mike, there’s a few questions to address before we get to whether Andy Burnham will replace Ed Miliband before the election. First of all when would Ed go? It would have to be in the next month or not at all. The new leader really needs 6 months at least to get known, take control and help voters get to know them. I doubt the Labour Party would have a coronation.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
Really do it, best move ever.
A long-standing principle of British government is that it deals even-handedly with its citizens, no matter what their political persuasion. Perhaps this is the principle that is no longer affordable...
If he does go, its not obvious who's next. We could see half a dozen candidates or more at this point: Burnham, Cooper, Chukka, Reeves, maybe even Darling or Johnson back from the wilderness.
The cretins who run the Tory party, I'm thinking about you Mr Osborne, had their chance in 2011 but they stupidly chucked ££££££££ into saving a system that only helps LAB.
It was blindingly obvious at the time yet they couldn't see it.
If there's a price to pay on May 8th then tough sh*t
"Ex-Chancellor Denis Healey, 97, tells @henrydeedes of Miliband: "I knew his dad well and I've met Ed a few times. He's not very good is he?"
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
His ego is light years ahead of his ability, a guy who has brown nosed his way to the top of the party, Miliband is not a leader but Burnham would be a gift to the Tories.
They're in a bit of non-mans land. The polls are 'ok' enough to currently give him victory, but those are only polls, and Henry has made the important point that polls can move quickly when politics are on peoples minds. Polls are like mood-music, they reflect roughly how people are feeling, but not how they will vote, and especially not after a GE campaign.
It’s so close in our new #GE2015 forecast. 51% chance of Tories as largest party, 49% Labour
The tabloids will have a field day.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-29367777
This is probably also the last by-election before the GE.
Andy Burnham looks like a baby seal that's about to be clubbed. He'll crack under pressure.
Cooper is surely a far more sensible option, she looks good, speaks intelligently and would have the strength of character to make her own stamp on the party. The only black mark is her husband, who actually would himself make a far better leader than either Miliband or Burnham.
The Lords reform plan was backed by the cabinet 18 of whose 23 members are Tories. If they'd had doubts then why didn't they put alternative proposals?
There isn't a matron of such a home in England to-day who can put her hand on her heart and say "it could never happen in my home". And there never will be. Might as well blame the Government for not abolishing murder.
And - for the avoidance of doubt - I am not condoning abuse (or murder).
*Innocent Face*
" would you like a shroud with your hospital bed madam ?"
She's good, clever and she's female.
Plus her husband, arguably the cleverest MP in the party, would be fully on side.
But Labour won't change now. If they get credit for anything then loyalty to a leader is something they have in spades (unless Gordon is around, brooding and pulling legs off spiders).
The Tories must be delighted with Ed. They should be miles behind in the polls by now. The lacklustre, unconvincing nature of Ed's leadership (he does nothing for me) has given them a glimmer.
I even think - despite his unpopularity with many - that Ed Balls would've done better. At least he's a signpost. Can't argue that he wouldn't have been strong and strident.
Only on PB!
It sounds like the Conservatives got what they wanted on both the issues.
As a side issue (and speaking as a coalitionista), both parties need congratulating for putting such ructions to one side and continuing to work together afterwards.
Ed is a duffer. Might be a nice bloke 1 to 1 as people say. So am I. But I know my limitations - and would never be so vainglorious as to put myself forward to lead my country. His Conference speech is gradually being acknowledged for the shocker it was. Driving back from Scotland, I listened to it all. Time and again, ideas were masked by the woeful presentation. A job interview with the British public? Sheesh. Putting aside that he has spent the last four years having that interview, if he was going for a job interview with me, he wouldn't have made the shortlist.
But Labour are stuck with him. I can't see the Unions who put him in place having the humility to admit they foisted a dud on the Party. But those in Labour who worry about the poll leads are right to worry. Next May, the voters will have to answer this question: Labour - under Ed Miliband - is it really worth the risk? Based on the final offering in Manchester, the answer will be a resounding no. And deservedly so.
Labour can then have a discussion over future direction - to discuss whether it can find a business model for the economy that does not repeatedly break. And broken it most certainly is. For the party of the working man to ALWAYS leave office with unemployment higher than it inherited from those evil baby-eating Tory lick-spittles of the capitalist exploiters, shows an organisation that is fundamentally deluded in what it achieves.
And Andy Burnham? Again, it shows how far Labour has its head up its arse if it thinks he is the answer. He would be eviscerated by the media for what happened to the NHS on his watch. Ed might be useless, but at least he doesn't have multiple deaths on his conscience....
FWIW my expectation is Con 35%, Lab 25%, UKIP 23% and the rest to the others, with the Lib Dems getting fewer votes in Britain than the SNP do in Scotland. (And the SNP to win more seats than UKIP.)
"Electoral Calculus" says this gives a Tory majority of only 30, which feels all wrong to me - I think the "swing" model's broke for this election at least. Might work again the one after.
I’m not sure what to make of Andy Burnham. A Scouser who went to Cambridge but has spent all his life since puberty in politics and has a tendency to cry. Perhaps he lacks what Ed calls “intellectual confidence”, but is in Ed’s case and that of nearly all politicians “intellectual arrogance”.
To be a politician and to get on, you probably need to be convinced that you are special and see further than the ‘hoi poloi’. Unfortunately, that means you can never doubt that you are always right.
The Guardian is also an example; it knows that being politically correct is ... well ... correct. That is why it cannot understand Professor Jay’s view that political correctness was a factor in the Rotherham child rapes. It just cannot be, and no amount of evidence will change that fact. To believe that “Pakistani heritage” might take advantage of that fact does not compute. The messenger must be misguided, the victims somehow responsible.
Some on the left accept the facts, some do not. Those politicIans on the right OFTEN have the same faults.
Richard Dawkins and some atheists also fall into this trap, as did some previous Popes. The “I am infallible” feeling because “I instinctively know better” is universal.
OK, the Papal infallibility ruling was always supposedly dependent on the will of the Church (that is the members’ views) but some Popes forgot that. They would have made good politicians, or heads of Rotherham Childrens’ Services, or editors of poorly performing broadsheets with a superiority complex. Or let us be honest, some posters on political betting sites
“My uncle’s a slum missionary
He’s saving young maidens from sin
He’ll save you a blonde for a shilling
My God how the money rolls in!”
Which suggests, as Mr I A reports, that there was indeed widespread knowledge of abuse. Other scout troops scoutmasters were often matters of concern. Never, or at least in only one case of which I’m aware, one’s own, though!
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.
What the public showed during the 92-97 period is that they really do not like divided parties. If it is true that two more Tory MP's are defecting to UKIP, this could be fatal blow to the Tories election chances. There has also been talk of Cameron being replaced as leader with Boris coming back to Westtminster, if people in Uxbridge vote for him.
He can perform to his own supporters but in real debate he is terrible, watch him against Hunt one on one and you will see that. He has a thick skin and massive self-regard, when the going gets hard though he hasn't enough intellect to handle the pressure.
she doesn't say how they will finish,
my God how the money rolls in.
Dons vicars, bishops and choirboys, girls.
There was a jolly old bishop from Birmingham,
who buggered three maids,
while confirming them....
There was a young man of St Johns,
who wanted to bugger the swans,
etc.
Or in Guildford either.....
I was a militant atheist for a while and was definitely of the mindset that childish name calling of something dear to other peoples hearts ( "spaghetti monster" or "sky fairy" ) was oh so clever. Richard Dawkins was a bit of a hero, along with the likes of Dan Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.
Now their hectoring tone reminds me of the people who resort to smearing and false accusations on here. Some atheists act as if they deserve a medal for figuring out that the re is no way of proving Gods existence, as if believers didn't know that already.
The same kind of mindset employs the double standard of saying so much of life is not black and white but subtle shades of grey yet being absolutely rigidly black and white on things they have strong opinions about, especially when it allows them to mock those on the other side of the argument (gay marriage is another subject on which I find free thinking liberals are extremely illiberal, opposition to mass immigration is another where refusal to agree with them is license to be called whatever extreme names they choose)
I think the cursor might've just passed over something which triggered it. Anyone else had this sort of thing? It's bloody irritating.
@Tykejohnno IIRC was our Man On The Spot there.
Bring him on.
EdM will not go before the GE, he and his coterie are too well insulated from the real world to understand what is happening in the UK, and to appreciate the feelings and fears of the people who are suffering from the effects of excessive immigration, enforced multiculturalism, council fines for using bins incorrectly etc (instead of using a better solution to bin collection).
EdM and his friends are interested only in power (as was TB) and not in the interests of his electorate. If he had their interest at heart, he would have laid out more concrete and realistic proposals in his conference speech.
* We live in a country and a global economy driven by private business.
* Most voters are aspirational and want to get on.
* The NHS in its current form is unsustainable.
* The same applies to state spending generally.
* You are not going to get anywhere in government without fiscal credibility.
* Immigration is an issue of central importance to voters, as is cultural identity.
I don't see any coherence in Labour's approach to any of these things. This does not let the Tories off the hook at all - there is, in fact, a very credible, compelling social democratic case to be made for new ways to look at all of the above issues (see people such as Hopi Sen), the problem is that Labour is not doing it.
Voted LD because Lab were hopeless but couldn't bring themselves to vote Cons, so went for the notionally left wing party; angry at LDs for not being more left wing (IN A COALITION AS JUNIOR PARTY) than (old) Lab so go back to (old) Lab.
Seriously, what on earth did they expect?
Lab is welcome to them.
Agree with you regarding GB - he is a fighter - but the best of a very bad bunch and not good for the employees of UKplc.
Ed Balls at least has a bit of spunk about him I suppose. Frank Field, Alan Johnson, and Danczuk too.
It doesn't bother me who wins the next election, part of me is still willing Ed to succeed out of a combo of sense of loyalty and feeling sorry for him... But last nights This Week was a long piss take out of him, Andrew Rawnsleys clip about his speech was pretty devastating, he made Ed look an absolute chump of the highest order. I can't imagine him being PM
Galloway destroyed Jacqui Smith on there by the way... I thought she was going to start crying at one point. He has convinced me that we shouldn't go ahead with air strikes on ISIS
That said, I suspect most of the parties wish the 21st Century would go away - in fairness to UKIP it's the one that comes nearest to articulating it.....
Ahem.
After Miliband, who? If he fails to become PM at the next election, Cooper would seem likely. If he becomes PM, I suspect Reeves and Umunna will try their hands, but will be hamstrung, particularly the latter, by being rubbish.
#UKIP Chairman Steve Crowther starts proceedings. #BBCParliament
I bit of an echo though on the soundsystem. Oh getting better now.
Which gives the tories a chance. In an election where they have spent 5 years clearing up other peoples' mess, one of the longest declines in real income recorded in economic history, the loss of the thick end of 1m public sector jobs and even more third sector jobs where funding has been cut, divisions over Europe and a surging UKIP, the collapse of Lib Dem support into Labour's hands, an out of date electoral role that is heavily biased against them and the inevitable compromises of Coalition and they have a chance.
Thank you Ed. Thank you very much.
The writer of the article goes on to say that that wasn’t entirely fair to either Harold Wilson or John Major and doesn’t discuss potential PM’s, but it does seem to me, as someone who can just about recall Attlee being in charge, that there were giants about in those day. I’m well aware of the danger of rose-tinted reverse view glasses, but it does seem that today’s crop of party leaders, and thereabouts too, have no stand-out figures who have either charisma or ability.
Can one imagine even the later Macmilland or Douglas-Home “forgetting” some of his speech. Or beng so discorganised that he didn’t have cue cards somewhere? I know that Ed wants to give the impression that he’s speaking from the heart, but all he’s being is a poor imitation of that obvious PR chameleon, Cameron.
Very much agree with your list of problems. Also to add ae:
The rate of increase and change in technology, which affects jobs availability
The decline of our education standards relative to those of other competing countries
The unemployability of many of our people
The cost and sources of energy
The UK's high cost structure.
Eventually NHS will move from curing to disease/illness prevention, but not in the next 5-10 years.
SO, I believe we re not too far away from agreement, even if we appear to come from differing viewpoints.
If you are agreeable, I would like to correspond with you away from PB, please ask Mike for my email address.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YiJ_FIOgd-w
Who do we think this is?
The odd thing is that this comradely affection for Andy Burnham didn't seem to be very evident in the 2010 leadership contest, where he came an ignominious 4th out of 5 and only a touch ahead of Diane Abbott. I rather think the electoral college were right then.
On the question of whether there is any realistic chance of Ed being defenestrated before the GE, I think Henry G is greatly over-stating it with his estimate of 10%; Nick P is closer to the mark with 0%. One thing I'm quite sure about is that there is one person in the Labour Party who has absolutely confidence in the leader's ability - and he's not going voluntarily.
First good laugh of the day too. Richard Dawkins who is clearly a very smart man reminds me of the pee-take of MaryAnne Sieghart in Private Eye - with her two daughters Intelligensia and Brainella.
A mickey take of him would be very hard to do.
Andy's mum is a seal. His father is Dale Winton. His grandad is Big Bird.
A couple more hours on PB and we'll have the whole family tree.
There is a particular Sesame St character he reminds me of, sorry for noticing