I think if they go with Yvette Cooper then the Tories will lose.
Only if she puts a bag on her head and never speaks between now and May - she is odious.
I've thought for some time that I probably will vote Labour at the next election, but certainly not if the Party is led by YC.
The same would apply to her husband, and HH. I reckon I could just about live with Andy Burnham. Johnson would be fine, but is a non-runner. Chuka would be interesting, but is an unlikely replacement. All the rest are even more unlikely, having mostly seen either too many or too few summers.
It isn't going to happen though. Changing Leaders now would be electoral suicide. Ed still has the support of the Unions. They chose him, after all - not the Party members, nor the MPs. It would be an astonishing and wholly uncharacteristic admission of their own failure if they were to ditch him now.
Other news: didn't Mike once say the Tories did well (or was it the incumbent government) when fuel prices were low?
I predicted a few months ago that Osborne might engineer some sort of cut a few months out from an election - seems he's putting pressure on the market to do it:
I eagerly clicked on the story to find out some new facts and there aren't any. It is not a news story. You could make up a similar piece on discontent with the leadership in the Tory or LibDem party.
This sentence is typical of the piece:
"Privately some MPs are said to think the party is in "meltdown"."
Privately (unattrributable) some MPs are said (rumour) to think (inside their heads) the party is in "meltdown" (OTT).
I don't think it is biased reporting, just poor reporting.
"Some MPs say" would count as "weasel words" in Wikipedia!
None of this looks good but the Labour party didn't challenge Brown when he was wreaking the country; when he was paralysed by indecision and incompetence and when attack dogs (of the type Ed to his credit seems to have dispensed with) were wandering the corridors savaging cabinet ministers and everyone more junior at will.
Labour really don't do decapitations. Do they?
I would say Ed is definitely in a worse position than Brown was before the 2010GE. While Brown got more personal animosity from people, people still often had atleast a grudging respect for him, and there was a vague sense he was keen on giving help to the poorest. The most damaging thing for Ed is that people don't think he stands for anything at all. They just see him as a career politician jockeying (badly) for a job for himself, without having any reasons for WHY he'd want the job.
Furthermore, people could imagine Brown as Prime Minister. Admittedly, only because he was already, but that's still a significant advantage.
Brown was genuinely frightening. No one is scared of Ed.
Ridicule is a FAR more dangerous thing for a politican than fear. Ed is a joke. He just is. Where Labour go from here with him in the lead is anyone's guess.
Other news: didn't Mike once say the Tories did well (or was it the incumbent government) when fuel prices were low?
I predicted a few months ago that Osborne might engineer some sort of cut a few months out from an election - seems he's putting pressure on the market to do it:
I eagerly clicked on the story to find out some new facts and there aren't any. It is not a news story. You could make up a similar piece on discontent with the leadership in the Tory or LibDem party.
This sentence is typical of the piece:
"Privately some MPs are said to think the party is in "meltdown"."
Privately (unattrributable) some MPs are said (rumour) to think (inside their heads) the party is in "meltdown" (OTT).
I don't think it is biased reporting, just poor reporting.
If a journalist is getting such comments from two or more Labour MPs, don't you think that's newsworthy even if they insist that the comments aren't publicly attributed to them? On the assumption that Ross Hawkins is honestly reporting what he has been told, this seems like a huge news story to me, on or off the record.
None of this looks good but the Labour party didn't challenge Brown when he was wreaking the country; when he was paralysed by indecision and incompetence and when attack dogs (of the type Ed to his credit seems to have dispensed with) were wandering the corridors savaging cabinet ministers and everyone more junior at will.
Labour really don't do decapitations. Do they?
I would say Ed is definitely in a worse position than Brown was before the 2010GE. While Brown got more personal animosity from people, people still often had atleast a grudging respect for him, and there was a vague sense he was keen on giving help to the poorest. The most damaging thing for Ed is that people don't think he stands for anything at all. They just see him as a career politician jockeying (badly) for a job for himself, without having any reasons for WHY he'd want the job.
Furthermore, people could imagine Brown as Prime Minister. Admittedly, only because he was already, but that's still a significant advantage.
Brown was genuinely frightening. No one is scared of Ed.
Ridicule is a FAR more dangerous thing for a politican than fear. Ed is a joke. He just is. Where Labour go from here with him in the lead is anyone's guess.
The Labour party let Michael Foot and Gordon Brown lead them into general elections. I expect that they'll let Ed Miliband do so as well.
It's curious in all the talk of unity candidates that no one mentions the Deputy Leader as a possibility.
Actually, I think Harriet could do a decent job of a Michael Howard-style "damage control" election result. Despite being posh, I actually think she's better at speaking plainly and understandably than most of the shadow cabinet automatons, and she would atleast do a better job of firing up the middle-class Left than Ed has done with his timid Tory-lite economic policies, the few % of votes that have leaked from Labour to the Greens in recent months should in theory be easy pickings for Labour to regain.
She wouldn't be seen as a credible prime minister, but frankly with the rate Labour's poll ratings are sliding, that probably wouldn't be an issue by the time she got the job as party leader anyway.
It wasn't just the disastrous speech that finished EdM, it was the Mansion Tax. The policy is the greatest political suicide since 1983.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
“There’s no shame in voting Ukip,” a building worker told me. “We want Ukip. He’ll sort all this immigration out
Still believe in shy UKIP?
1. Some UKIP voters are not shy -> all UKIP voters are not shy.
2. Some trees are evergreen -> all trees are evergreen.
You do realise that your argument can be stated as 1. above and that it is exactly as valid as 2., do you?
That's not the argument. It's whether when properly prompted the polls systematically understate UKIP because some of their voters are shy to admit to it, I have yet to see any evidence - but this is like INDYREF revisited - those "with faith" need no data - and contrary data is irrelevant....
I eagerly clicked on the story to find out some new facts and there aren't any. It is not a news story. You could make up a similar piece on discontent with the leadership in the Tory or LibDem party.
This sentence is typical of the piece:
"Privately some MPs are said to think the party is in "meltdown"."
Privately (unattrributable) some MPs are said (rumour) to think (inside their heads) the party is in "meltdown" (OTT).
I don't think it is biased reporting, just poor reporting.
"Some MPs say" would count as "weasel words" in Wikipedia!
Whilst Ed Balls is unpopular in the country, isn't he sufficiently popular within Labour MPs, members and trade unionists to justify shorter odds than 18/1 to be next leader?
You underestimate the amount of damage the Blair/Brown wars did to the Labour Party, David.
Balls was Brown's second-in-command, which is why he was a non-runner in the search for a replacement. He remains so, I think. Few would imagine his wife to be free from the stigma that attaches to him from that period.
Personally I would regard both as unacceptable, but I'm a voter rather than a Party Member, and not even a reliable one at that.
Note the German result: 65% think Euro membership a good thing, 24% bad - that puts the AfD fever among Eurosceptics in perspective.
On topic, it's hard to get excited about some anonymous MPs expressing a view - we've seen similar comments by Tory MPs about Cameron, but he rightly just shrugged them off.
None of this looks good but the Labour party didn't challenge Brown when he was wreaking the country; when he was paralysed by indecision and incompetence and when attack dogs (of the type Ed to his credit seems to have dispensed with) were wandering the corridors savaging cabinet ministers and everyone more junior at will.
Labour really don't do decapitations. Do they?
I would say Ed is definitely in a worse position than Brown was before the 2010GE. While Brown got more personal animosity from people, people still often had atleast a grudging respect for him, and there was a vague sense he was keen on giving help to the poorest. The most damaging thing for Ed is that people don't think he stands for anything at all. They just see him as a career politician jockeying (badly) for a job for himself, without having any reasons for WHY he'd want the job.
Furthermore, people could imagine Brown as Prime Minister. Admittedly, only because he was already, but that's still a significant advantage.
Brown was genuinely frightening. No one is scared of Ed.
Ridicule is a FAR more dangerous thing for a politican than fear. Ed is a joke. He just is. Where Labour go from here with him in the lead is anyone's guess.
When has Ed not been ridiculed since he became leader, his PR team have been third rate for too long, unless he doesn't respond to advice.
The Labour party let Michael Foot and Gordon Brown lead them into general elections. I expect that they'll let Ed Miliband do so as well.
It's curious in all the talk of unity candidates that no one mentions the Deputy Leader as a possibility.
Actually, I think Harriet could do a decent job of a Michael Howard-style "damage control" election result. Despite being posh, I actually think she's better at speaking plainly and understandably than most of the shadow cabinet automatons, and she would atleast do a better job of firing up the middle-class Left than Ed has done with his timid Tory-lite economic policies, the few % of votes that have leaked from Labour to the Greens in recent months should in theory be easy pickings for Labour to regain.
She wouldn't be seen as a credible prime minister, but frankly with the rate Labour's poll ratings are sliding, that probably wouldn't be an issue by the time she got the job as party leader anyway.
I think you underestimate the derision Hattie attracts for her uber-PC antics. If anything, it would alienate the 'true' working class more than EdM has.
Note the German result: 65% think Euro membership a good thing, 24% bad - that puts the AfD fever among Eurosceptics in perspective.
On topic, it's hard to get excited about some anonymous MPs expressing a view - we've seen similar comments by Tory MPs about Cameron, but he rightly just shrugged them off.
I think everyone else here has been finding it very easy to get excited ...
It wasn't just the disastrous speech that finished EdM, it was the Mansion Tax. The policy is the greatest political suicide since 1983.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
He's an utter f-ing berk.
No one else got very excited about it, it's been around for years as a Cable/LD policy and it damaged balls more than miliband. Almost wholly irrelevant to either, though.
By the way, Tristram Hunt scares me as a prospect. I dislike him, but that's not the point. (I can't stand Blair either.) Hunt's dangerous. In a potentially powerful sort of way. He could lead Labour to power.
Annoyingly good looking too, which is a bit of a pain.
It wasn't just the disastrous speech that finished EdM, it was the Mansion Tax. The policy is the greatest political suicide since 1983.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
He's an utter f-ing berk.
It wasn't the mansion tax - it was the having nothing else but the mansion tax.
The blank piece of paper has become the touchpaper to burn down his leadership.
That circle around Ed "Fixing the Buses" Miliband looks a bit small in that large assembly hall. Or is he just talking very quietly so they need to sit close?
Think they'd have been better off doing the Q&A in a meeting room!
The Labour party let Michael Foot and Gordon Brown lead them into general elections. I expect that they'll let Ed Miliband do so as well.
It's curious in all the talk of unity candidates that no one mentions the Deputy Leader as a possibility.
Actually, I think Harriet could do a decent job of a Michael Howard-style "damage control" election result. Despite being posh, I actually think she's better at speaking plainly and understandably than most of the shadow cabinet automatons, and she would atleast do a better job of firing up the middle-class Left than Ed has done with his timid Tory-lite economic policies, the few % of votes that have leaked from Labour to the Greens in recent months should in theory be easy pickings for Labour to regain.
She wouldn't be seen as a credible prime minister, but frankly with the rate Labour's poll ratings are sliding, that probably wouldn't be an issue by the time she got the job as party leader anyway.
I think you underestimate the derision Hattie attracts for her uber-PC antics. If anything, it would alienate the 'true' working class more than EdM has.
UKIP would definitely win Cannock Chase if Hattie was in charge.
I eagerly clicked on the story to find out some new facts and there aren't any. It is not a news story. You could make up a similar piece on discontent with the leadership in the Tory or LibDem party.
This sentence is typical of the piece:
"Privately some MPs are said to think the party is in "meltdown"."
Privately (unattrributable) some MPs are said (rumour) to think (inside their heads) the party is in "meltdown" (OTT).
I don't think it is biased reporting, just poor reporting.
If a journalist is getting such comments from two or more Labour MPs, don't you think that's newsworthy even if they insist that the comments aren't publicly attributed to them? On the assumption that Ross Hawkins is honestly reporting what he has been told, this seems like a huge news story to me, on or off the record.
No I don't think it is a huge news story. It's full of blah masquerading as a story. Noise not signal.
Note the German result: 65% think Euro membership a good thing, 24% bad - that puts the AfD fever among Eurosceptics in perspective.
On topic, it's hard to get excited about some anonymous MPs expressing a view - we've seen similar comments by Tory MPs about Cameron, but he rightly just shrugged them off.
Yep agree Nick.
You must impress upon your MPs and PPCs to hold their nerve.
It wasn't just the disastrous speech that finished EdM, it was the Mansion Tax. The policy is the greatest political suicide since 1983.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
He's an utter f-ing berk.
It wasn't the mansion tax - it was the having nothing else but the mansion tax.
The blank piece of paper has become the touchpaper to burn down his leadership.
But the Mansion Tax infuriated and scared people who matter: not just the proprietors, but editors, sub-editors of newspapers and television programmes, film directors, senior producers, actors, theatre managers, literary agents and writers … a huge swathe of people who are vital to keep onside if you want to win. You don't threaten people in London who work hard, but who are soft-left with a conscience, that they might have to give up their homes, which is how it looked.
If Labour are serious about getting a replacement, they now need someone who is authentically working class. Andy Burnham would pass muster, Alan Johnson would do too. Most of the others, not so much.
Note the German result: 65% think Euro membership a good thing, 24% bad - that puts the AfD fever among Eurosceptics in perspective.
If the AfD started getting 24%, that would shake up German politics.
The lowest Ms Le Pen gets in the round 2 presidential polls is 36%, which ties with the 37% feeling the Euro is bad for France. (Her round one result is high 20s, low 30s)
The markets say otherwise, making Labour a clear favourite for most seats. This would suggest that your contention that "everyone who has studied politics knows it" to be demonstrably untrue, whether you personally are right in your view or not.
I doubt any of the serious players would want to take charge right now - a leadership election at this stge looks like a complete full blown crisis... Labour is in crisis, but only in Scotland for the moment. Bang average for England I'd say, though the Tories are also in the soup too - so relatively its a wash.
If Labour are heading to defeat I'd imagine Burnham, Cooper, Harman and whoever would want Ed to OWN the defeat.
It wasn't just the disastrous speech that finished EdM, it was the Mansion Tax. The policy is the greatest political suicide since 1983.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
He's an utter f-ing berk.
It wasn't the mansion tax - it was the having nothing else but the mansion tax.
The blank piece of paper has become the touchpaper to burn down his leadership.
Would not ANY Labour leader struggle with this. The world has moved on. We have large debts and deficits that must be addressed. Labour is the party of having more cake and eating a larger slice of it too. In the real world there will be less cake. What is the point of Labour? Who do they represent? WWC - I think not! WTF are they any more? As (I think it was) DavidL posted earlier today there are big issues for a left of centre party to mull over and offer sensible workable non-bankrupting solutions to. Labour's policy journey here (Ed, Ed, Chuka, any of them) has been precisely zero. They are not fit to govern.
@SophyRidgeSky: Ed Balls says rumours of Ed Miliband leadership problems are "nonsense" and and it's the Tory party who are divided, "Labour are united."
Ed is in trouble. The MP's didn't want him. The party members didn't want him. All that is propping him up is the unions. Are they prepared to admit they dropped a bollock? The direction of travel strongly suggests their man is not going to be PM. Worse, many of Labour's voters are finally waking up, looking around at decades-long unchanging landscapes of urban decay, and asking - "what the hell is Labour for?" If they don't act now, then they carry the can for what happens next.
I do think Ed now realises he is not up to the job. He has had four years to project himself as the next Prime Minister. But his popularity is actually going backwards. I truly think that his loyalty to the party may well cause him to reflect deeply - and to step down. Perhaps as early as next week.
And I don't know who would be more disappointed by that - David Cameron or Nigel Farage.
Martin Shapland @MShapland 2m2 minutes ago Labour MP's now openly mocking Ed Miliband to Journo's - much more damaging than an actual change of leader.
Chris Mason @ChrisMasonBBC 6m6 minutes ago Former Labour minister--deeply frustrated with Ed Miliband's leadership--has told me "people normally grow into the role, but he's shrunk."
BBC Northampton @BBCNorthampton 1m1 minute ago Labour leader @Ed_Miliband tells @WillyGilder he won't stand down despite calls from his backbenchers.He says calls are 'nonsense frankly'
Oh Lord - was this one of Lucy's big ideas? Are these real people or the usual rent-a -crowd and is he gonna start quoting individuals endlessly from Northampton now instead of Primrose Hill.
“There’s no shame in voting Ukip,” a building worker told me. “We want Ukip. He’ll sort all this immigration out
Still believe in shy UKIP?
1. Some UKIP voters are not shy -> all UKIP voters are not shy.
2. Some trees are evergreen -> all trees are evergreen.
You do realise that your argument can be stated as 1. above and that it is exactly as valid as 2., do you?
That's not the argument. It's whether when properly prompted the polls systematically understate UKIP because some of their voters are shy to admit to it, I have yet to see any evidence - but this is like INDYREF revisited - those "with faith" need no data - and contrary data is irrelevant....
I don't have "faith", and the only evidence to test shyness, is actual outcomes. (You can't poll for it). So it remains and will remain a more or less plausible hypothesis unless and until we can compare say R&S result with the latest prompted poll.
Oh Lord - was this one of Lucy's big ideas? Are these real people or the usual rent-a -crowd and is he gonna start quoting individuals endlessly from Northampton now instead of Primrose Hill.
Oh and btw - since when do most people outside London truly rely on anything but their cars.
Chris Mason @ChrisMasonBBC 6m6 minutes ago Former Labour minister--deeply frustrated with Ed Miliband's leadership--has told me "people normally grow into the role, but he's shrunk."
Chris Mason @ChrisMasonBBC 6m6 minutes ago Former Labour minister--deeply frustrated with Ed Miliband's leadership--has told me "people normally grow into the role, but he's shrunk."
LMAO at him claiming this person "told him" -- it was quoted in a Daily Mail report hours ago!
Ed Miliband is facing a crisis of confidence amongst his backbenchers, with direct warnings being sent to the leader’s office that he has to improve his performance and complaints being channelled through the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, David Watts."
I don't believe Ed Miliband is about to go anywhere. Nothing organised. It's just a bout of nerves 6 months out from a tight election. Save your money.
BBC Northampton @BBCNorthampton 1m1 minute ago Labour leader @Ed_Miliband tells @WillyGilder he won't stand down despite calls from his backbenchers.He says calls are 'nonsense frankly'
Barnesian is likely to be harrumphing about tomorrow morning's papers, I fear.
I thought Ed was going to sack anyone who briefed against a colleague...
@SophyRidgeSky: Labour source: reshuffle "shows there isn't going to be any strategic shift. He's promoted his friends, and is retreating to a comfort zone"
I suspect this is a short term wobble which will be largely forgotten by tomorrow.
But if today's story causes Labour to shed another 2-3% and its polling gets down to GB levels that in itself will be a story and, possibly, a self fulfilling prophecy. This has only happened with Ashcroft so far and his numbers are all over the place. A Yougov with Labour at 29 would really get people chattering.
Labour are really vulnerable right now. Only matching Tory weakness prevents this from being a full blown panic.
@SophyRidgeSky: Ed Balls says rumours of Ed Miliband leadership problems are "nonsense" and and it's the Tory party who are divided, "Labour are united."
It wasn't just the disastrous speech that finished EdM, it was the Mansion Tax. The policy is the greatest political suicide since 1983.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
He's an utter f-ing berk.
It wasn't the mansion tax - it was the having nothing else but the mansion tax.
The blank piece of paper has become the touchpaper to burn down his leadership.
But the Mansion Tax infuriated and scared people who matter: not just the proprietors, but editors, sub-editors of newspapers and television programmes, film directors, senior producers, actors, theatre managers, literary agents and writers … a huge swathe of people who are vital to keep onside if you want to win. You don't threaten people in London who work hard, but who are soft-left with a conscience, that they might have to give up their homes, which is how it looked.
What on earth was he thinking?
The people you're talking about simply don't exist. Virtually any middle-class person who is in the least bit inclined to vote Labour would ideologically be in favour of high taxes.
Of all the many problems that have doomed Labour/Ed, the mansion tax is not in the top 20.
BBC Radio Sheffield @BBCSheffield 2m2 minutes ago The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, has dismissed reports of an organised attempt to oust Ed Miliband "as nonsense".
The markets say otherwise, making Labour a clear favourite for most seats. This would suggest that your contention that "everyone who has studied politics knows it" to be demonstrably untrue, whether you personally are right in your view or not.
You're wrong.
The markets are more tilted to the Conservatives at GE2015 than is supported by the current opinion polls, especially with their electoral college advantage. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats Betters rate the Conservative chances far more highly than an ill-informed straight reading of current polling would support, and are backing that with their money. It's not just past performance or incumbency or even the usual swing back. It's doubts about Miliband taking home Labour. Would you back Labour to win with your own hard-earned money? Hells bells I know I wouldn't, and remember most of my big wins haven't taken into account personal preferences. Has anyone on here apart from Nick Palmer backed a Labour win? The markets are not backing a Labour win compared to polling.
The people you're talking about simply don't exist. Virtually any middle-class person who is in the least bit inclined to vote Labour would ideologically be in favour of high taxes.
I don't believe Ed Miliband is about to go anywhere. Nothing organised. It's just a bout of nerves 6 months out from a tight election. Save your money.
But are those nerves going to settle any time in the coming six months, Henry?
BBC Radio Sheffield @BBCSheffield 2m2 minutes ago The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, has dismissed reports of an organised attempt to oust Ed Miliband "as nonsense".
"organised" attempts are not really a Labour speciality, are they?
Talk about picking out niff naff and trivia. The facts don't support the hysterical anti-immigration case regardless of consituent elements.
@BenM are second generation immigrants, ie those born in the UK whose parents were born abroad, considered to be natives? Or are they immigrants? Or are they a bit of both?
And is this question niff naff and trivia, and am I a hysterical anti-immigrant for asking?
@BenM are you too offended by the question to even engage with it?
The people you're talking about simply don't exist. Virtually any middle-class person who is in the least bit inclined to vote Labour would ideologically be in favour of high taxes.
...for other people, sure...
'It is a truth universally acknowledged that all taxpayers believe in higher taxes on those who earn a lot more than them' - I know my Jane Austen:)
The people you're talking about simply don't exist. Virtually any middle-class person who is in the least bit inclined to vote Labour would ideologically be in favour of high taxes.
...for other people, sure...
No, for themselves.
For the record, I'm only talking about middle-class, intellectual LEFTIES -- a great many of the middle class will be opposed to the mansion tax, but these will largely be people who never even voted for Blair. Despite what Audreyanne's saying, the real leakage under Ed's watch has been among the working-class and the "striving" lower middle class, not the trendy London rich middle class (and even most of those have left have probably gone to the even more high-taxing Greens).
It wasn't just the disastrous speech that finished EdM, it was the Mansion Tax. The policy is the greatest political suicide since 1983.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
He's an utter f-ing berk.
It wasn't the mansion tax - it was the having nothing else but the mansion tax.
The blank piece of paper has become the touchpaper to burn down his leadership.
But the Mansion Tax infuriated and scared people who matter: not just the proprietors, but editors, sub-editors of newspapers and television programmes, film directors, senior producers, actors, theatre managers, literary agents and writers … a huge swathe of people who are vital to keep onside if you want to win. You don't threaten people in London who work hard, but who are soft-left with a conscience, that they might have to give up their homes, which is how it looked.
What on earth was he thinking?
The people you're talking about simply don't exist. Virtually any middle-class person who is in the least bit inclined to vote Labour would ideologically be in favour of high taxes.
Absolute garbage.
They certainly exist, and it's too tempting not to put 'because I know them.' Well, some of them.
At the General Election everyone votes mindful of how it will affect them. It's human nature. It's the driving force behind what makes us as a species so successful. Yes yes, of course we all want to be altruistic, or most of us do, and yes yes of course we 'want' to do our bit and will try to do so.
But only if our home is secure. You don't mess with that. No-one is going to vote to do good if it involves giving up their home. Some will vote for higher taxes, sure, although Tony Blair's brilliant success was founded on NOT taxing the middle class too heavily.
No-one will ever vote to lose their home.
When the catastrophe of Miliband is written in years to come, the Mansion Tax will be found to be the nail in his coffin. It turned the media from mildly critical to outright hatred.
“There’s no shame in voting Ukip,” a building worker told me. “We want Ukip. He’ll sort all this immigration out
Still believe in shy UKIP?
1. Some UKIP voters are not shy -> all UKIP voters are not shy.
2. Some trees are evergreen -> all trees are evergreen.
You do realise that your argument can be stated as 1. above and that it is exactly as valid as 2., do you?
That's not the argument. It's whether when properly prompted the polls systematically understate UKIP because some of their voters are shy to admit to it, I have yet to see any evidence - but this is like INDYREF revisited - those "with faith" need no data - and contrary data is irrelevant....
I don't have "faith", and the only evidence to test shyness, is actual outcomes. (You can't poll for it). So it remains and will remain a more or less plausible hypothesis unless and until we can compare say R&S result with the latest prompted poll.
Clacton didn't show any "shy UKIP" - the two bye-election polls showed UKIP ON 56 & 64 - they got 59.7.
Well, if there's no coup, Ed probably just needs to make it through to Christmas, when he should be out of the news for a while to recover. Though he'll probably end up giving a rabbi a festive ham or something.
“There’s no shame in voting Ukip,” a building worker told me. “We want Ukip. He’ll sort all this immigration out
Still believe in shy UKIP?
1. Some UKIP voters are not shy -> all UKIP voters are not shy.
2. Some trees are evergreen -> all trees are evergreen.
You do realise that your argument can be stated as 1. above and that it is exactly as valid as 2., do you?
That's not the argument. It's whether when properly prompted the polls systematically understate UKIP because some of their voters are shy to admit to it, I have yet to see any evidence - but this is like INDYREF revisited - those "with faith" need no data - and contrary data is irrelevant....
I don't have "faith", and the only evidence to test shyness, is actual outcomes. (You can't poll for it). So it remains and will remain a more or less plausible hypothesis unless and until we can compare say R&S result with the latest prompted poll.
Clacton didn't show any "shy UKIP" - the two bye-election polls showed UKIP ON 56 & 64 - they got 59.7.
“There’s no shame in voting Ukip,” a building worker told me. “We want Ukip. He’ll sort all this immigration out
Still believe in shy UKIP?
1. Some UKIP voters are not shy -> all UKIP voters are not shy.
2. Some trees are evergreen -> all trees are evergreen.
You do realise that your argument can be stated as 1. above and that it is exactly as valid as 2., do you?
That's not the argument. It's whether when properly prompted the polls systematically understate UKIP because some of their voters are shy to admit to it, I have yet to see any evidence - but this is like INDYREF revisited - those "with faith" need no data - and contrary data is irrelevant....
I don't have "faith", and the only evidence to test shyness, is actual outcomes. (You can't poll for it). So it remains and will remain a more or less plausible hypothesis unless and until we can compare say R&S result with the latest prompted poll.
Clacton didn't show any "shy UKIP" - the two bye-election polls showed UKIP ON 56 & 64 - they got 59.7.
What evidence do you have for shy UKIP?
When you decided you were going to use Clacton as an example didn't you think about an election held on the same day and consider checking if that proved or disproved your theory?
Labour can't be mad enough to for the hat-trick of disastrous errors, can they? So far they've made two massive blunder: (a) to have chosen Ed in the first place, and (b) not to have ditched him when it was obvious he'd be a disaster, i.e. about three years ago.
Going for (c): Ditching him a few months before a GE, would be suicidal.
Their best policy is to hope for the best, and if by some misfortune they find themselves in the nightmare scenario of actually being in government under Ed, ditch him then before the Labour brand is irrevocably tarnished.
The markets say otherwise, making Labour a clear favourite for most seats. This would suggest that your contention that "everyone who has studied politics knows it" to be demonstrably untrue, whether you personally are right in your view or not.
I'm not a great fan of the wisdom of crowds theory, or the wisdom of punters - they switch with the polls just like we do. But the markets are backing a Labour win, as, cough, your own link shows. The polls back a slightly larger win. Either is fine.
The markets say otherwise, making Labour a clear favourite for most seats. This would suggest that your contention that "everyone who has studied politics knows it" to be demonstrably untrue, whether you personally are right in your view or not.
You're wrong.
The markets are more tilted to the Conservatives at GE2015 than is supported by the current opinion polls, especially with their electoral college advantage. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats Betters rate the Conservative chances far more highly than an ill-informed straight reading of current polling would support, and are backing that with their money. It's not just past performance or incumbency or even the usual swing back. It's doubts about Miliband taking home Labour. Would you back Labour to win with your own hard-earned money? Hells bells I know I wouldn't, and remember most of my big wins haven't taken into account personal preferences. Has anyone on here apart from Nick Palmer backed a Labour win? The markets are not backing a Labour win compared to polling.
Don't know that, then you know nuffin' Jon Snow.
What have your big wins been, out of interest? And did you have any money on R&S being the first open primary in the UK? And why was anyone going to lose their home over the mansion tax?
Comments
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/530361561358295040/photo/1
:grow-up:
The same would apply to her husband, and HH. I reckon I could just about live with Andy Burnham. Johnson would be fine, but is a non-runner. Chuka would be interesting, but is an unlikely replacement. All the rest are even more unlikely, having mostly seen either too many or too few summers.
It isn't going to happen though. Changing Leaders now would be electoral suicide. Ed still has the support of the Unions. They chose him, after all - not the Party members, nor the MPs. It would be an astonishing and wholly uncharacteristic admission of their own failure if they were to ditch him now.
His backbenchers are mulling him falling under one
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2016-elections-rand-paul-112629.html?hp=l7
The Kentucky GOP is looking to switch from a primary to a caucus to enable Paul to run for president and senator.
I predicted a few months ago that Osborne might engineer some sort of cut a few months out from an election - seems he's putting pressure on the market to do it:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29924710
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgee3IGYZsU
:before-dr-prassanan-engages-brain-cell:
EtA: Early "Safety-Dance"...?
The GBP price of oil is the crucial element though, and the GBP has dipped against the USD recently mitigating some of the drop.
She wouldn't be seen as a credible prime minister, but frankly with the rate Labour's poll ratings are sliding, that probably wouldn't be an issue by the time she got the job as party leader anyway.
With one of the stupidest and most ill-conceived policies ever devised he alienated a swathe of vital backers who live in London. The media have been at his throat ever since, and not just the media, but others who Tony Blair spent years woo-ing to the Labour soft-left cause: from people in film, actors, writers … movers and shakers who have a social conscience but don't want to think their homes might go.
He's an utter f-ing berk.
Balls was Brown's second-in-command, which is why he was a non-runner in the search for a replacement. He remains so, I think. Few would imagine his wife to be free from the stigma that attaches to him from that period.
Personally I would regard both as unacceptable, but I'm a voter rather than a Party Member, and not even a reliable one at that.
On topic, it's hard to get excited about some anonymous MPs expressing a view - we've seen similar comments by Tory MPs about Cameron, but he rightly just shrugged them off.
Your best hope is probably that it gains traction and he goes. Leaders in their honeymoon usually get a bounce.
Under EdM Labour will not win. Everyone who has studied politics knows it.
Annoyingly good looking too, which is a bit of a pain.
The blank piece of paper has become the touchpaper to burn down his leadership.
Think they'd have been better off doing the Q&A in a meeting room!
Or on a bus...
We can leave your friends behind
Cos your friends don't dance
And if they don't dance
Well, they're no friends of mine"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPau5QYtYs
You must impress upon your MPs and PPCs to hold their nerve.
Onwards with Ed.
Apparently the statement is going to be about buses, not the leadership. Panic over folks.
What on earth was he thinking?
The lowest Ms Le Pen gets in the round 2 presidential polls is 36%, which ties with the 37% feeling the Euro is bad for France. (Her round one result is high 20s, low 30s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_Presidential_election,_2017
The markets say otherwise, making Labour a clear favourite for most seats. This would suggest that your contention that "everyone who has studied politics knows it" to be demonstrably untrue, whether you personally are right in your view or not.
If Labour are heading to defeat I'd imagine Burnham, Cooper, Harman and whoever would want Ed to OWN the defeat.
@benatipsosmori: @SophyRidgeSky when they have to say that...
I do think Ed now realises he is not up to the job. He has had four years to project himself as the next Prime Minister. But his popularity is actually going backwards. I truly think that his loyalty to the party may well cause him to reflect deeply - and to step down. Perhaps as early as next week.
And I don't know who would be more disappointed by that - David Cameron or Nigel Farage.
Labour MP's now openly mocking Ed Miliband to Journo's - much more damaging than an actual change of leader.
Former Labour minister--deeply frustrated with Ed Miliband's leadership--has told me "people normally grow into the role, but he's shrunk."
Labour leader @Ed_Miliband tells @WillyGilder he won't stand down despite calls from his backbenchers.He says calls are 'nonsense frankly'
@VickiYoung01: Miliband says rumours of a challenge to his leadership are nonsense.
Ed Miliband is facing a crisis of confidence amongst his backbenchers, with direct warnings being sent to the leader’s office that he has to improve his performance and complaints being channelled through the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, David Watts..
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/06/ed-miliband-faces-labour-leadership-crisis?CMP=twt_gu
Ed Miliband is facing a crisis of confidence amongst his backbenchers, with direct warnings being sent to the leader’s office that he has to improve his performance and complaints being channelled through the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, David Watts."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/06/ed-miliband-faces-labour-leadership-crisis?CMP=twt_gu
@SophyRidgeSky: Labour source: reshuffle "shows there isn't going to be any strategic shift. He's promoted his friends, and is retreating to a comfort zone"
But if today's story causes Labour to shed another 2-3% and its polling gets down to GB levels that in itself will be a story and, possibly, a self fulfilling prophecy. This has only happened with Ashcroft so far and his numbers are all over the place. A Yougov with Labour at 29 would really get people chattering.
Labour are really vulnerable right now. Only matching Tory weakness prevents this from being a full blown panic.
Of all the many problems that have doomed Labour/Ed, the mansion tax is not in the top 20.
When that's the case, you know it's time to get rid of him.
The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, has dismissed reports of an organised attempt to oust Ed Miliband "as nonsense".
The markets are more tilted to the Conservatives at GE2015 than is supported by the current opinion polls, especially with their electoral college advantage.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats
Betters rate the Conservative chances far more highly than an ill-informed straight reading of current polling would support, and are backing that with their money. It's not just past performance or incumbency or even the usual swing back. It's doubts about Miliband taking home Labour. Would you back Labour to win with your own hard-earned money? Hells bells I know I wouldn't, and remember most of my big wins haven't taken into account personal preferences.
Has anyone on here apart from Nick Palmer backed a Labour win?
The markets are not backing a Labour win compared to polling.
Don't know that, then you know nuffin' Jon Snow.
*the horror*
For the record, I'm only talking about middle-class, intellectual LEFTIES -- a great many of the middle class will be opposed to the mansion tax, but these will largely be people who never even voted for Blair. Despite what Audreyanne's saying, the real leakage under Ed's watch has been among the working-class and the "striving" lower middle class, not the trendy London rich middle class (and even most of those have left have probably gone to the even more high-taxing Greens).
They certainly exist, and it's too tempting not to put 'because I know them.' Well, some of them.
At the General Election everyone votes mindful of how it will affect them. It's human nature. It's the driving force behind what makes us as a species so successful. Yes yes, of course we all want to be altruistic, or most of us do, and yes yes of course we 'want' to do our bit and will try to do so.
But only if our home is secure. You don't mess with that. No-one is going to vote to do good if it involves giving up their home. Some will vote for higher taxes, sure, although Tony Blair's brilliant success was founded on NOT taxing the middle class too heavily.
No-one will ever vote to lose their home.
When the catastrophe of Miliband is written in years to come, the Mansion Tax will be found to be the nail in his coffin. It turned the media from mildly critical to outright hatred.
Some people honestly don't believe it
What evidence do you have for shy UKIP?
Where is David Miliband when his party needs him?
IS now the time for the British Obama?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWwyVQ2IQuE
it's too late - Ed has been marked as the blame depository for 2015.
Going for (c): Ditching him a few months before a GE, would be suicidal.
Their best policy is to hope for the best, and if by some misfortune they find themselves in the nightmare scenario of actually being in government under Ed, ditch him then before the Labour brand is irrevocably tarnished.
He goes, and the stellar Harman still has time to turn things round...
Given this position, which you are quite correct to point out, you must be frustrated by certain of your colleagues. What the f8ck are they on?