politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation poll for the Mirror showing LAB 4% ahead could ta

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation poll for the Mirror showing LAB 4% ahead could take some of the pressure off Ed

Although Survation has become a major part of the UK polling scene since GE10 its standard Westminster voting surveys are only a small part of its output. Today, however, there’s a new poll for the Daily Mirror which could provide some relief for the Ed Miliband camp under siege after a day of leadership speculation.

Read the full story here

fitalass

First!
Sorry Mike, but how does this online Survation poll showing the Labour party are 4% ahead take the pressure of Ed Miliband, or even Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor for that matter when they are both tanking in the polls when it comes to the most important of issue of the day? Right now, Ed Miliband is trailing David Cameron on the Leadership stakes while he and Ed Balls are trailing Cameron and Osborne on the economy. That is a double whammy which makes the chances of the Labour even becoming the largest party at the next GE, never mind gaining a majority almost nil.

AndyJS

UKIP closing in.

edmundintokyo

Survation Baxtered: Lab maj 40.

In reality UKIP would probably get more than 3 seats...

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=27&TVCON=&LAB=31&TVLAB=&LIB=9&TVLIB=&UKIP=24&region=All+GB+changed+seats&boundary=2010&seat=--Show+all--&minorparties=Y

manofkent2014

I don't see how this gives Miliband any respite as in neither of the polls is there any real improvement in the Labour polling. The lead in the Survation poll is down to a drop in the Tory figure and bizarrely the large part of that seems to be mainly down to some bizarre rounding event in the last Survation poll (which added up to 103% whilst this one adds up to the expected 100%).

What these polls do not (because they cannot) indicate is any definitive improvement in Labour's Scottish position and if the papers are correct then it is that above all else (if this is being orchestrated by Brownites) which will be driving the disenchantment with Miliband.

It will be the Scottish polling in recent weeks that showed Labour trailing by double figures and on course to lose at least three quarters of their Scottish seats that will be paramount. I suspect unless there is a noticeable improvement in the Scottish position very soon then Mr. Ed will possibly be put out to grass........

Indigo

So are people are prepared to believe Labour are 4% ahead, but are going to suck their teeth at UKIP on 24% ?

edmundintokyo

Indigo said:

So are people are prepared to believe Labour are 4% ahead, but are going to suck their teeth at UKIP on 24% ?

It may just be right. Con on 27 and Lab on 31 both seem plausible, and LD on 9 seems a bit on the high side, so the rest of the votes must be going somewhere...

Indigo

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/

Interesting perspective from Mr Liddle. There is something about this analysis that rings true.

"But I suspect that the real pull of Ukip in England is that the party, and Mr Farage particularly, are seen as a corrective to the vapid, flaccid, spineless, politically correct and wholly London-centric mitherings of what, until May next year, we must call the main three parties."

"It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment. Oh, and its money and its comfort — a much-trumpeted economic recovery which has simply not been experienced anywhere else. London is not much liked, and still less admired, beyond its smug satellites and dormitories (which admittedly now stretch into the south Midlands). And Ukip has tapped into this reservoir of discontent with great success."

surbiton

fitalass said:

First!
Sorry Mike, but how does this online Survation poll showing the Labour party are 4% ahead take the pressure of Ed Miliband, or even Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor for that matter when they are both tanking in the polls when it comes to the most important of issue of the day? Right now, Ed Miliband is trailing David Cameron on the Leadership stakes while he and Ed Balls are trailing Cameron and Osborne on the economy. That is a double whammy which makes the chances of the Labour even becoming the largest party at the next GE, never mind gaining a majority almost nil.

Just remind me please. the Callaghan lead on Maggie regarding approval ratings in May 1979. Fat good it did Labour !

Alanbrooke

Indigo said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/

Interesting perspective from Mr Liddle. There is something about this analysis that rings true.

"But I suspect that the real pull of Ukip in England is that the party, and Mr Farage particularly, are seen as a corrective to the vapid, flaccid, spineless, politically correct and wholly London-centric mitherings of what, until May next year, we must call the main three parties."

"It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment. Oh, and its money and its comfort — a much-trumpeted economic recovery which has simply not been experienced anywhere else. London is not much liked, and still less admired, beyond its smug satellites and dormitories (which admittedly now stretch into the south Midlands). And Ukip has tapped into this reservoir of discontent with great success."

"ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london"

but that's nearly everybody :-)

AlastairMeeks

Alanbrooke said:

Indigo said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/

Interesting perspective from Mr Liddle. There is something about this analysis that rings true.

"But I suspect that the real pull of Ukip in England is that the party, and Mr Farage particularly, are seen as a corrective to the vapid, flaccid, spineless, politically correct and wholly London-centric mitherings of what, until May next year, we must call the main three parties."

"It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment. Oh, and its money and its comfort — a much-trumpeted economic recovery which has simply not been experienced anywhere else. London is not much liked, and still less admired, beyond its smug satellites and dormitories (which admittedly now stretch into the south Midlands). And Ukip has tapped into this reservoir of discontent with great success."

"ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london"

but that's nearly everybody :-)

It's odd how much the parasites hate the host. Time for London to leave the sour resentment behind.

Alanbrooke

antifrank said:

Alanbrooke said:

Indigo said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/

Interesting perspective from Mr Liddle. There is something about this analysis that rings true.

"But I suspect that the real pull of Ukip in England is that the party, and Mr Farage particularly, are seen as a corrective to the vapid, flaccid, spineless, politically correct and wholly London-centric mitherings of what, until May next year, we must call the main three parties."

"It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment. Oh, and its money and its comfort — a much-trumpeted economic recovery which has simply not been experienced anywhere else. London is not much liked, and still less admired, beyond its smug satellites and dormitories (which admittedly now stretch into the south Midlands). And Ukip has tapped into this reservoir of discontent with great success."

"ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london"

but that's nearly everybody :-)

It's odd how much the parasites hate the host. Time for London to leave the sour resentment behind.

lol, I think we might have different views on which one is which.

OblitusSumMe

27.46% v 30.84%
Lead 3.38%
Rounding is kind to Labour in this poll - on slender margins have political fortunes been decided before.

Alanbrooke

Ed's survival making the front pages

CarlottaVance

I'm sure the YouGov 1% lead will settle Labour nerves too:

Among VI
Led by people of real ability:
Con: 67
Lab: 38

Leaders prepared to take tough/unpopular decisions
Con: 82
Lab: 27

Sean_F

I think Labour strategists would take the view that 31% is still a terrible number, and that the huge UKIP figure depresses the Conservative share.

Alanbrooke

Sean_F said:

I think Labour strategists would take the view that 31% is still a terrible number, and that the huge UKIP figure depresses the Conservative share.

it's not exactly the best starting position and is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Indigo

Sean_F said:

I think Labour strategists would take the view that 31% is still a terrible number, and that the huge UKIP figure depresses the Conservative share.

I agree. They are also go to suspect (I think probably wrongly) that half the UKIP vote will slide back to the Tories in the privacy of the polling booth. I think the opposite might actually be the case if the fratricide continues, the voters might decided a plague on both their houses and vote UKIP because they can't see any difference between the platforms offered by Ed and Dave and neither appeals to them, and the don't believe the supposed differences will actually occur (ie, Ed will talk about building council houses, but won't, and Dave will talk about leaving the EU, but won't)

AJK

Very difficult to oust a Labour leader. Miliband will have to do the decent thing, or they are stuck with him. If he stays they are walking at Somme like pace to the sound of the GE guns and will pay the price for a silly leadership voting mechanism.

TGOHF

Alanbrooke said:

Indigo said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/

Interesting perspective from Mr Liddle. There is something about this analysis that rings true.

"But I suspect that the real pull of Ukip in England is that the party, and Mr Farage particularly, are seen as a corrective to the vapid, flaccid, spineless, politically correct and wholly London-centric mitherings of what, until May next year, we must call the main three parties."

"It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment. Oh, and its money and its comfort — a much-trumpeted economic recovery which has simply not been experienced anywhere else. London is not much liked, and still less admired, beyond its smug satellites and dormitories (which admittedly now stretch into the south Midlands). And Ukip has tapped into this reservoir of discontent with great success."

"ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london"

but that's nearly everybody :-)

Ukip - the party for people who hate people ?

Michael O'Leary from Ryanair laying into Vince Cable on BBC is entertaining...

chestnut

Survation have a poor track record with Con/UKIP in the last six months.

The daily YG has an implied outcome of LAB 31.6 CON 31.5 when 2010 and Now votes are turned into ratios.

The 10 day average lead for Labour in London continues to dip.

Sean_F

Indigo said:

Sean_F said:

I think Labour strategists would take the view that 31% is still a terrible number, and that the huge UKIP figure depresses the Conservative share.

I agree. They are also go to suspect (I think probably wrongly) that half the UKIP vote will slide back to the Tories in the privacy of the polling booth. I think the opposite might actually be the case if the fratricide continues, the voters might decided a plague on both their houses and vote UKIP because they can't see any difference between the platforms offered by Ed and Dave and neither appeals to them, and the don't believe the supposed differences will actually occur (ie, Ed will talk about building council houses, but won't, and Dave will talk about leaving the EU, but won't)

I'd be amazed if UKIP did win 24%. If they did, then conventional seat calculations would cease to apply.

Innocent_Abroad

Well, you can get 16-1 against Yvette becoming next PM. Sounds like value - I certainly expect it to be maybe half that by next week.

And my prediction of Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23 is shaping up nicely (at least the UKIP bit is!).

What of course none of us know is how the voters would respond to Yvette taking over in a "palace coup" - she might turn out to be even more gaffe-prone than Ed, after all. But Labour should have had its first woman leader long before now, surely.

Monksfield

No way on earth do Con beat Lab by 10

TGOHF

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11214969/Ed-Miliband-is-not-Labours-only-problem.html

The received wisdom among his party critics is that tone, not policy, is Labour’s undoing. In this they delude themselves. The party’s problem is that it is still run by the same people who crashed the economy into the wall just four years ago. Cynically, they hope to win an election with the support of about one third of the electorate, though their near-meltdown in Scotland has probably put paid to that.

chestnut

Sean_F said:

I think Labour strategists would take the view that 31% is still a terrible number, and that the huge UKIP figure depresses the Conservative share.

It's still a winning position though. What sign is there of ex-Tory UKIP voters returning to the Tories?

In the last two PMQs Miliband has gone on two of his most hopeless topics with immigration and the EU. Why?

Have they calculated/gambled that the electoral maths and dynamics mean that damaging Cameron allows them to win on much less than 35%?

Are they aiming for an alliance of the left if there is no majority?

Indigo

Sean_F said:

I'd be amazed if UKIP did win 24%. If they did, then conventional seat calculations would cease to apply.

So would I, but I can believe the 16% that the polls seem to be averaging around. I think both Tories and Labour expect that to drop sub 10% in the polling booth, its that bit I feel is wishful thinking, and that they might actually put on a percent or two in the privacy of the booth.

DavidL

These polls come too early to pick up the consequences of yesterday's wobble. If that has an effect it will be more obvious by Sunday. A tory lead at that point and the pressure will stay on.

I am interested that manofkent2014 thinks this is being driven by Brownites and Scotland. Scotland I can see, there is a whole group of job for life MPs who are suddenly very scared and think Ed (after his referendum performance) is a major part of the problem. But Ed was also a part of the Brown team. Have they really turned on him?

How does he respond to Burnham and Cooper's apparent disloyalty? He does not have the strength to sack them. Sack Cooper and Balls goes too. Way too much for Ed to take on at this point.

Swiss_Bob

How's a Con majority Govt looking now compared to a few days ago?

audreyanne

Swiss_Bob said:

How's a Con majority Govt looking now compared to a few days ago?

Better than ever, but we could do with a few more polls like this Survation one this side of Christmas. We have to keep EdM in place until February.

UKIP will fade away when politics gets serious next year.

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

What of course none of us know is how the voters would respond to Yvette taking over in a "palace coup" - she might turn out to be even more gaffe-prone than Ed, after all. But Labour should have had its first woman leader long before now, surely.

She doesn't strike me as gaff-prone. Her problem will be she is also a bit otherworldly, and also there is going to be the suspicious of Vote Cooper - Get Balls, at least in terms of policy, plus she would presumably give him whatever cabinet position he wants, so that would be Balls for Chancellor, not an attractive proposition. Plus she is another Oxford PPE, hardly the flavor of the month with left leaning voters.

TGOHF

DavidL said:

These polls come too early to pick up the consequences of yesterday's wobble. If that has an effect it will be more obvious by Sunday. A tory lead at that point and the pressure will stay on.

I am interested that manofkent2014 thinks this is being driven by Brownites and Scotland. Scotland I can see, there is a whole group of job for life MPs who are suddenly very scared and think Ed (after his referendum performance) is a major part of the problem. But Ed was also a part of the Brown team. Have they really turned on him?

How does he respond to Burnham and Cooper's apparent disloyalty? He does not have the strength to sack them. Sack Cooper and Balls goes too. Way too much for Ed to take on at this point.

Usual next poll is Yougov for Sunday Times. Wonder if other polls will now be rustled up.

bigjohnowls

Todays Survation LAB 339 CON 244 LD 36 Other 31

EICIPM Dave is not

audreyanne

Monksfield said:

No way on earth do Con beat Lab by 10

If you look back through the year, Survation have often had the Conservatives in the 20's.

I have a long-standing bet with Nick Palmer that we will win clear by 6%, but I think now that it will be nearer double figures.

Casino_Royale

Just listened to the seven o'clock news on the R4 Today programme. It started with 3 minutes of entirely anti-eurosceptic news articles: the highly critical opinions of Cameron's northern EU 'allies' on migration reform, and the £1.7bn bill. Then it went onto the CBI urging its members to speak out against euroscepticism. Later this morning, they are interviewing Ken Clarke for his views on Cameron achieving a successful renegotiation.

Is this what passes for editorial balance at the BBC?

TGOHF

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

What of course none of us know is how the voters would respond to Yvette taking over in a "palace coup" - she might turn out to be even more gaffe-prone than Ed, after all. But Labour should have had its first woman leader long before now, surely.

She doesn't strike me as gaff-prone. Her problem will be she is also a bit otherworldly, and also there is going to be the suspicious of Vote Cooper - Get Balls, at least in terms of policy, plus she would presumably give him whatever cabinet position he wants, so that would be Balls for Chancellor, not an attractive proposition. Plus she is another Oxford PPE, hardly the flavor of the month with left leaning voters.

She is Ed in a dress. Best outcome is she takes over next June as LoTo - Boris vs her in 2020 would be like Foreman vs Audley Harrison.

bigjohnowls

audreyanne said:

Monksfield said:

No way on earth do Con beat Lab by 10

If you look back through the year, Survation have often had the Conservatives in the 20's.

I have a long-standing bet with Nick Palmer that we will win clear by 6%, but I think now that it will be nearer double figures.

You must be mad 10%.

The most optimistic Tories i know dont believe a lead as big as that is possible.

audreyanne

Indigo said:

Sean_F said:

I'd be amazed if UKIP did win 24%. If they did, then conventional seat calculations would cease to apply.

So would I, but I can believe the 16% that the polls seem to be averaging around. I think both Tories and Labour expect that to drop sub 10% in the polling booth, its that bit I feel is wishful thinking, and that they might actually put on a percent or two in the privacy of the booth.

Hmmm not sure I'd go that low. It's possible they will wind up single figures when Farage gets grilled but I reckon something like 11-14% is more likely.

Gadfly

Indigo said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/

Interesting perspective from Mr Liddle. There is something about this analysis that rings true.

It does indeed ring true. Every evening I pass through the wardrobe into the world of Channel 4 News. This fantastical place is occupied by smartly dressed intelligent metropolitan people who can clearly afford to support redistributive politics and who clearly loathe pretty much anything that smacks of capitalism or unfairness.

From my oop north perspective this is truly a magical world, and in some ways I wish I could afford to live in such a manner. But upon returning to reality I realise that this will never happen.

As Liddle says, Miliband is the "almost the personification of effete, metropolitan-liberal milquetoast opinion", but I suspect that this applies to all of those around him; hence I doubt that I would view Yvette any differently.

TGOHF

Casino_Royale said:

Just listened to the seven o'clock news on the R4 Today programme. It started with 3 minutes of entirely anti-eurosceptic news articles: the highly critical opinions of Cameron's northern EU 'allies' on migration reform, and the £1.7bn bill. Then it went onto the CBI urging its members to speak out against euroscepticism. Later this morning, they are interviewing Ken Clarke for his views on Cameron achieving a successful renegotiation.

Is this what passes for editorial balance at the BBC?

Keep listening - Medi Hasan and some Labour Lord kicking lumps out of Ed now.

audreyanne

chestnut said:

Survation have a poor track record with Con/UKIP in the last six months.

The daily YG has an implied outcome of LAB 31.6 CON 31.5 when 2010 and Now votes are turned into ratios.

The 10 day average lead for Labour in London continues to dip.

Very interesting on London. Gosh. I've marked Labour as outperforming in London, which could be significant but you think they're dipping there too?

DavidL

What is noticeable in all of Labour's recent travails is that it is not doing the Tories much good. They continue to increase their lead in traditionally important matters like economic competence and leadership and they don't increase their support. It must be frustrating and concerning them.

A major feature of this Parliament is the almost total lack of Con-Labour or Labour-Con switchers. The Tories go down when UKIP goes up. Labour goes down when the Lib Dems recover even marginally. Very few switch directly.

Given that the UKIP analysis is that they are all the same and given the lack of clear policy differences (partly because Labour has so few) this seems rather odd. Is it perhaps yet another indication that our politics is becoming more identification driven? I do think this identity politics lies at the bottom of Ed's problem. Traditional Labour voters simply cannot relate to him at all. They still relate to the party but he is alien to their experience.

foxinsoxuk

I quite like Cooper, who has a strange androgenous charm, but have never seen what she does in Balls. It would not be tenable to have a married couple in the top two posts, it would make him untouchable. Burnham is the better bet.

Though not inconceivable for Harriet Harman to step up if Ed steps down. That is the only way a contest would be avoided.

Sean_F

chestnut said:

Sean_F said:

I think Labour strategists would take the view that 31% is still a terrible number, and that the huge UKIP figure depresses the Conservative share.

It's still a winning position though. What sign is there of ex-Tory UKIP voters returning to the Tories?

In the last two PMQs Miliband has gone on two of his most hopeless topics with immigration and the EU. Why?

Have they calculated/gambled that the electoral maths and dynamics mean that damaging Cameron allows them to win on much less than 35%?

Are they aiming for an alliance of the left if there is no majority?

I'm not sure it is a winning position. Labour would lose too many seats to SNP and UKIP to get a majority, IMO.

audreyanne

bigjohnowls said:

audreyanne said:

Monksfield said:

No way on earth do Con beat Lab by 10

If you look back through the year, Survation have often had the Conservatives in the 20's.

I have a long-standing bet with Nick Palmer that we will win clear by 6%, but I think now that it will be nearer double figures.

You must be mad 10%.

The most optimistic Tories i know dont believe a lead as big as that is possible.

You don't know many Conservatives then.

A scenario of Conservatives 37-39% and Labour 27-29% is not only possible, it's looking increasingly likely.

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

Just listened to the seven o'clock news on the R4 Today programme. It started with 3 minutes of entirely anti-eurosceptic news articles: the highly critical opinions of Cameron's northern EU 'allies' on migration reform, and the £1.7bn bill. Then it went onto the CBI urging its members to speak out against euroscepticism. Later this morning, they are interviewing Ken Clarke for his views on Cameron achieving a successful renegotiation.

Is this what passes for editorial balance at the BBC?

Maybe they don't realise that eurosceptics exist.

Innocent_Abroad

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

What of course none of us know is how the voters would respond to Yvette taking over in a "palace coup" - she might turn out to be even more gaffe-prone than Ed, after all. But Labour should have had its first woman leader long before now, surely.

She doesn't strike me as gaff-prone. Her problem will be she is also a bit otherworldly, and also there is going to be the suspicious of Vote Cooper - Get Balls, at least in terms of policy, plus she would presumably give him whatever cabinet position he wants, so that would be Balls for Chancellor, not an attractive proposition. Plus she is another Oxford PPE, hardly the flavor of the month with left leaning voters.

Oh, she read PPE, did she? Very wise. I was a little worried she might have been a Girton girl...

Why do I think UKIP will poll 23%? (I certainly didn't expect them to be anywhere near that in any poll before the Dissolution.) Largely because I expect Garage to be able to present himself as hard done by in the arrangements for the TV debates. If the "old" Parties have any sense they'll give him as much air-time as he wants and even more - it's all rope to hang himself with.

A Parliament in which the Kippers had a significant bloc of seats wouldn't last eighteen months and they'd be lucky to hold half a dozen of them at the following election. And most of those would go grovelling back to the Tories they came from.

Casino_Royale

Indigo said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/

Interesting perspective from Mr Liddle. There is something about this analysis that rings true.

"But I suspect that the real pull of Ukip in England is that the party, and Mr Farage particularly, are seen as a corrective to the vapid, flaccid, spineless, politically correct and wholly London-centric mitherings of what, until May next year, we must call the main three parties."

"It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment. Oh, and its money and its comfort — a much-trumpeted economic recovery which has simply not been experienced anywhere else. London is not much liked, and still less admired, beyond its smug satellites and dormitories (which admittedly now stretch into the south Midlands). And Ukip has tapped into this reservoir of discontent with great success."

That's a very good article.

Antifrank: London has absolutely no right to be independent, and never will be. It is the beating heart of our nation, and has been for over a thousand years. This is about the issue created by the detached political, economic and cultural orbit of it that has grown up, particularly over the last 25 years, and how to fix it.

DavidL

foxinsoxuk said:

I quite like Cooper, who has a strange androgenous charm, but have never seen what she does in Balls. It would not be tenable to have a married couple in the top two posts, it would make him untouchable. Burnham is the better bet.

Though not inconceivable for Harriet Harman to step up if Ed steps down. That is the only way a contest would be avoided.

Two good points there. If Burnham has offered a non aggression pact he is the one who gets what job he likes and that is probably going to be Chancellor.

Secondly, because of Labour's constitution Harriet is key to any coup against Ed. As things stand if he goes she becomes leader. She really has to be prepared to play ball. And I suspect she is much more likely to do that for a woman.

chestnut

audreyanne said:

Very interesting on London. Gosh. I've marked Labour as outperforming in London, which could be significant but you think they're dipping there too?

The 10 day average has a CON-LAB swing of just 1.2% since 2010.

It's at odds with Ashcroft's LAB/CON marginals, but is perhaps explained by something else happening in areas that aren't being looked at.

I haven't any true idea of what it is, but it might be;

Middle London annoyance at the mansion tax?
Tories v Libs in suburban seats?
UKIP eating into the Labour vote in the remaining pockets of WWC areas?

I wonder how many people are factoring tax creep into their thinking about the mansion (London) tax?

AlastairMeeks

There's a big mismatch between conventional bookies and Betfair. The best price you can get on Ed Miliband at conventional bookies on "Prime Minister after next general election" is 4/5. But on Betfair, Ed Miliband was last matched at 2.84 to be next Prime Minister, with plenty of liquidity at 2.66.

Scott_P

@MShapland: Dianne Abbot says if Ed Miliband goes Harriet Harman will be leader. Abort the coup people. Abort it now #bbctw

@iainmartin1: .@HackneyAbbott on BBC TW says won't be new Labour leader but if is will be H Harman. She might as well send a case of champagne to CCHQ.

AlastairMeeks

And in my final piece for now looking at the constituency markets, I put the different elements together and draw some conclusions about how the next election seems to be shaping up:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-constituency-markets-today-putting.html

Scott_P

@LabourList: A message to Labour's anonymous rebels - put up or shut up http://labli.st/1Gw2UBM

AlastairMeeks

The FT has a good scoop on the EU bill:

http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2014/11/07/compromise-on-uks-e2-1bn-eu-bill-the-leaked-plan/

OldKingCole

bigjohnowls said:

Todays Survation LAB 339 CON 244 LD 36 Other 31

EICIPM Dave is not

Can one really forecast that low a result for the SNP?. Of your 31 “Others” 18 are, presumably NI Irish which gives 13 ..... 1 Green, 3 PC, 1 Speaker leaves 8 SNP. Let alone UKIP. know very little about Scotland, other than that which I read here and elsewhere, but I would have thought that unlikely. Labour’s 4-5 too high and Conservative 1 too high I would have thought.

Still EICIPM, Dave isn’t of course.

Scrapheap_as_was

Yes - he's safe!!! Phew, well done the Mirror and Survation.

If he's not.

Yes - bring on Yvette! OGH is one shrewd cookie. Can he find my bet slip too from circa 2011 with some bookie... might be Ladbrokes of course but their website is pants for old bets and I can't see it on there.

chestnut

Sean_F said:

I'm not sure it is a winning position. Labour would lose too many seats to SNP and UKIP to get a majority, IMO.

I agree, if that's the way we're defining winning.

If we're defining winning as Miliband in number 10 and Balls at number 11 with Labour as the main party in a left leaning alliance, then I think the race is still on.

Ordinarily, I'd expect Cameron to see him off, but the UKIP effect is clearly keeping Labour afloat in a lot of places, as illustrated in numerous constituencies in Monday's marginal polling.

Scott_P

The time for false praise and flattery, prevarication and procrastination, is long past. Ed Miliband should resign his leadership of the Labour Party, voluntarily if possible, forcibly if necessary. Within days, preferably, within weeks if not, but certainly before Christmas. Otherwise, with the collapse of the party’s Scottish vote, defeat for Labour at next year’s general election has moved from the probable to the almost inevitable.

He has a collection of policy beads which he occasionally puts on public view, but they will never be threaded in a string of pearls or form a comprehensible manifesto. In 1945 Attlee urged Britons: “Let us Face the Future.” Miliband offers us “Let us Go Back to the Past.” Instead of a policy of hope we get the politics of resentment. He is surrounded by acolytes and sycophants. They are the only people who have his ear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11214944/The-Labour-Partys-big-beasts-must-act-to-remove-Ed-Miliband-now.html

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

There's a big mismatch between conventional bookies and Betfair. The best price you can get on Ed Miliband at conventional bookies on "Prime Minister after next general election" is 4/5. But on Betfair, Ed Miliband was last matched at 2.84 to be next Prime Minister, with plenty of liquidity at 2.66.

I could look very foolish soon but on the basis that it turned out to be the right thing to do with Clegg I've taken £50 of the 2.66 and left a further £25 at 2.82 available.

foxinsoxuk

Scott_P said:

@MShapland: Dianne Abbot says if Ed Miliband goes Harriet Harman will be leader. Abort the coup people. Abort it now #bbctw

@iainmartin1: .@HackneyAbbott on BBC TW says won't be new Labour leader but if is will be H Harman. She might as well send a case of champagne to CCHQ.

Harriet Harman at 33/1 with Shadsy seems a good price. She has union backing, and was part of the formidable 1997 New Labour team. A female face would stand out against the macho men in any debate. The mechanism to avoid a contest is there.

How long would she have to be in post to not be a temporary leader for betting purposes?

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

There's a big mismatch between conventional bookies and Betfair. The best price you can get on Ed Miliband at conventional bookies on "Prime Minister after next general election" is 4/5. But on Betfair, Ed Miliband was last matched at 2.84 to be next Prime Minister, with plenty of liquidity at 2.66.

I could look very foolish soon but on the basis that it turned out to be the right thing to do with Clegg I've taken £50 of the 2.66 and left a further £25 at 2.82 available.

I've backed Ed Miliband on this market too.

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

There's a big mismatch between conventional bookies and Betfair. The best price you can get on Ed Miliband at conventional bookies on "Prime Minister after next general election" is 4/5. But on Betfair, Ed Miliband was last matched at 2.84 to be next Prime Minister, with plenty of liquidity at 2.66.

I could look very foolish soon but on the basis that it turned out to be the right thing to do with Clegg I've taken £50 of the 2.66 and left a further £25 at 2.82 available.

I've backed Ed Miliband on this market too.

Obviously the other factor in this market is Dave staying in place after Rochester and Strood.

Scott_P

Ok, panic over...

@BBCNormanS: Labour @BenPBradshaw dismisses criticism of Ed Miliband as "westminster tittle tattle"

dr_spyn

foxinsoxuk said:

Scott_P said:

@MShapland: Dianne Abbot says if Ed Miliband goes Harriet Harman will be leader. Abort the coup people. Abort it now #bbctw

@iainmartin1: .@HackneyAbbott on BBC TW says won't be new Labour leader but if is will be H Harman. She might as well send a case of champagne to CCHQ.

Harriet Harman at 33/1 with Shadsy seems a good price. She has union backing, and was part of the formidable 1997 New Labour team. A female face would stand out against the macho men in any debate. The mechanism to avoid a contest is there.

How long would she have to be in post to not be a temporary leader for betting purposes?

Harriet Harman, how does she appeal to the wobbling Labour voters in Scotland, NW England, W Midlands? Part of Labour's problem is due to their electoral college dumping a Unite or Union puppet on the membership and PLP, she highlights that weakness.

Scott_P

@BBCNormanS: Team Miliband dismiss Ed M criticism as "media games..stories without foundations..bit of nonsense"

Socrates

antifrank said:

The FT has a good scoop on the EU bill:

http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2014/11/07/compromise-on-uks-e2-1bn-eu-bill-the-leaked-plan/

So the compromise is "you pay the shakedown, just at a different time"? Cameron has already made public statements that he won't pay "anything like" that amount.

RochdalePioneers

An interesting 24 hours:
1. The "rebellion" that by 7pm some TV news pundits were already saying seemed unreal. It was the death rattle of Blairite entryists lapped up by a right wing media desperate for a stop Ed story. Sorry all, he's going nowhere and going off conversations with local Blairite loyalists even they think we all need to pull behind Ed.
2. This poll is not good news for anyone. Kippers a few % behind the Tories when Labour are only a few % ahead of them says this - Kippers could be topping the poll before the election. The point where Tory dreamers claimed kipper voters would "go home" keeps being passed and their support gets stronger and angrier.
3. "Are the mainstream parties in crisis" asked QT last night. No, but they will be unless they wake up. SNP and UKIP both offered an analysis of the current problems and a solution - that's why they do so well. Labour and the Tories are locked in a death spiral as to who can deny there is a crisis and blame the other for the bits they have to admit, with no hope on the table.

How do you stop Farage? Vision. He has it (shudder), and its this driving their vote note Europe or immigration.

MarqueeMark

Harriet is key. Those touting Cooper as next leader need to think - and where does Harriet go? Because surely Labour can't go into the election with a woman as Leader and Deputy? So where does Harriet go? And why?

I also think Cooper has some issues. She is not a well-regarded constituency MP. She suffered a 12.5% swing against her at the last election. And she has been a pretty ineffectual Shadow Home Secretary - arguably the reason May has had such an easy ride through various crises that would have sunk some other Home Secretaries. And have her ME-related health issues completely gone away, for someone who would be PM?

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

There's a big mismatch between conventional bookies and Betfair. The best price you can get on Ed Miliband at conventional bookies on "Prime Minister after next general election" is 4/5. But on Betfair, Ed Miliband was last matched at 2.84 to be next Prime Minister, with plenty of liquidity at 2.66.

I could look very foolish soon but on the basis that it turned out to be the right thing to do with Clegg I've taken £50 of the 2.66 and left a further £25 at 2.82 available.

I've backed Ed Miliband on this market too.

Obviously the other factor in this market is Dave staying in place after Rochester and Strood.

The only circumstances in which it would be rational for Tory Eurosceptics to challenge David Cameron in the wake of a defeat in Rochester & Strood would be if they reckoned the Conservatives were going to win the general election with or without him, and they wanted to make sure that it would be without him. Otherwise, it is in their own interests for him to stay in place.

CarlottaVance

Sean_F said:

Indigo said:

Sean_F said:

I think Labour strategists would take the view that 31% is still a terrible number, and that the huge UKIP figure depresses the Conservative share.

I agree. They are also go to suspect (I think probably wrongly) that half the UKIP vote will slide back to the Tories in the privacy of the polling booth. I think the opposite might actually be the case if the fratricide continues, the voters might decided a plague on both their houses and vote UKIP because they can't see any difference between the platforms offered by Ed and Dave and neither appeals to them, and the don't believe the supposed differences will actually occur (ie, Ed will talk about building council houses, but won't, and Dave will talk about leaving the EU, but won't)

I'd be amazed if UKIP did win 24%.

If the "shy UKIP voter" crowd are to be believed, it will be higher than that!

Scott_P

@BBCNormanS: Team Miliband point to latest opinion poll giving party four point lead under Ed M leadership

And there was much rejoicing, especially at CCHQ...

Indigo

dr_spyn said:

Harriet Harman, how does she appeal to the wobbling Labour voters in Scotland, NW England, W Midlands? Part of Labour's problem is due to their electoral college dumping a Unite or Union puppet on the membership and PLP, she highlights that weakness.

Fundamentally they have a "He who pays the piper, calls the tune" problem. It doesnt matter how union friendly the person elected is, if they want their party to avoid bankruptcy, they are going to have to toe the line with the unions. Expect to see Unite wheeling out their demand for a Minister for Unions again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10939309/Union-demands-Cabinet-minister-in-Labour-government.html

"Trade unions are demanding a dedicated seat at the Cabinet table under a Labour government, a senior Unite official has claimed."

Millsy

It's a bit worrying for Labour that we are now less than 6 months until the election and these jitters seem to be getting worse not better. The Tories have seemed a lot less disloyal recently.

Socrates

Good on Cameron. He's standing firm:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/06/cameron-rejects-eu-compromise-deal-to-pay-budget-demand-in-installments_n_6117792.html

Let's hope he doesn't buckle later, like on the veto and EU budget.

Itajai

audreyanne said:

chestnut said:

Survation have a poor track record with Con/UKIP in the last six months.

The daily YG has an implied outcome of LAB 31.6 CON 31.5 when 2010 and Now votes are turned into ratios.

The 10 day average lead for Labour in London continues to dip.

Very interesting on London. Gosh. I've marked Labour as outperforming in London, which could be significant but you think they're dipping there too?

Mansion tax?
Trendy lefties don't like paying taxes. Just for others to do so.

[Deleted User]

Something has changed in the last few days re Ed Miliband. Clearly after 4 years the country has made up its mind about him - and decided he's a milquetoast lefty Islington gimp, a figure for ridicule. He has become the story. And that horrible fact is now causing tremors within the Labour party. It also gives them a horrible dilemma - either to stick with him and suffer the consequences or to try to dump him and suffer the consequences.

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.

NickPalmer

I agree with LabourList's "Put up or shut up", as you'd expect, but you can't really impose omerta on everyone - there's always going to be a backbencher or a peer or a donor who is willing to infulge a journalist. However, unless it gets a major figure involved on the record the story will die out from lack of oxygen - there is a limit to how many stories you can base on "a former Shadow Cabinet member said..." and "the mood was unhappy among several backbenchers who didn't want to be named".

O/T, by the way, an amusing contrast in US and UK attitudes to tax:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/06/unlike-brits-americans-dont-think-tax-morally-righ/

It's not often (except on religion) that you see such a marked difference, and it seems quite a strong party divide within Britain too. When we comment on US politics, it's worth keeping this totally different perspective in mind. When a Tory says "Let's get government out of everyday lives" he doesn't actually mean "Let's abolish the NHS and the Environment Agency and privatise the school system and have a flat rate tax of 20%", but a Republican might think just that.

Pulpstar

Millsy said:

It's a bit worrying for Labour that we are now less than 6 months until the election and these jitters seem to be getting worse not better. The Tories have seemed a lot less disloyal recently.

Labour isn't the party with 2 defections.

I'l admit I've gone deep blood red against a Labour majority, but today seems like a good day to back the Labour side of things via Mr Miliband at 2.66 next PM as a proxy for Most seats.

Of course this statement could look daft in the fullness of time, but hey you have to live a little.

Alanbrooke

NickPalmer said:

I agree with LabourList's "Put up or shut up", as you'd expect, but you can't really impose omerta on everyone - there's always going to be a backbencher or a peer or a donor who is willing to infulge a journalist. However, unless it gets a major figure involved on the record the story will die out from lack of oxygen - there is a limit to how many stories you can base on "a former Shadow Cabinet member said..." and "the mood was unhappy among several backbenchers who didn't want to be named".

O/T, by the way, an amusing contrast in US and UK attitudes to tax:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/06/unlike-brits-americans-dont-think-tax-morally-righ/

It's not often (except on religion) that you see such a marked difference, and it seems quite a strong party divide within Britain too. When we comment on US politics, it's worth keeping this totally different perspective in mind. When a Tory says "Let's get government out of everyday lives" he doesn't actually mean "Let's abolish the NHS and the Environment Agency and privatise the school system and have a flat rate tax of 20%", but a Republican might think just that.

hmmm not quite convinced on that Mr P, I suspect the UK attitude is more other people have a duty to pay taxes for public services.

AlastairMeeks

NickPalmer said:

I agree with LabourList's "Put up or shut up", as you'd expect, but you can't really impose omerta on everyone - there's always going to be a backbencher or a peer or a donor who is willing to infulge a journalist. However, unless it gets a major figure involved on the record the story will die out from lack of oxygen - there is a limit to how many stories you can base on "a former Shadow Cabinet member said..." and "the mood was unhappy among several backbenchers who didn't want to be named".

O/T, by the way, an amusing contrast in US and UK attitudes to tax:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/06/unlike-brits-americans-dont-think-tax-morally-righ/

It's not often (except on religion) that you see such a marked difference, and it seems quite a strong party divide within Britain too. When we comment on US politics, it's worth keeping this totally different perspective in mind. When a Tory says "Let's get government out of everyday lives" he doesn't actually mean "Let's abolish the NHS and the Environment Agency and privatise the school system and have a flat rate tax of 20%", but a Republican might think just that.

The LabourList "Put up or shut up" editorial looks naive to me. The editorial should just have read "shut up". "Putting up" will not do any good and indeed would just prolong the agony. "Shutting up" would, however, do some good.

dr_spyn

William Hill ‏@sharpeangle 2m2 minutes ago
Yvette Cooper 11/4 fav to succeed Ed Miliband if/when he goes - but he's 9/2 to be gone by General Election day,1/8 still there. #Miliband

foxinsoxuk

dr_spyn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Scott_P said:

@MShapland: Dianne Abbot says if Ed Miliband goes Harriet Harman will be leader. Abort the coup people. Abort it now #bbctw

@iainmartin1: .@HackneyAbbott on BBC TW says won't be new Labour leader but if is will be H Harman. She might as well send a case of champagne to CCHQ.

Harriet Harman at 33/1 with Shadsy seems a good price. She has union backing, and was part of the formidable 1997 New Labour team. A female face would stand out against the macho men in any debate. The mechanism to avoid a contest is there.

How long would she have to be in post to not be a temporary leader for betting purposes?

Harriet Harman, how does she appeal to the wobbling Labour voters in Scotland, NW England, W Midlands? Part of Labour's problem is due to their electoral college dumping a Unite or Union puppet on the membership and PLP, she highlights that weakness.

That is the conundrum, but she may appeal to Worcester Woman more than Ed.

I also think she is vain enough to want to be first female Labour PM.

I would not vote for her myself, but to me 33/1 looks like value.

TheScreamingEagles

Someone remind me to send a case of champagne to the Survation offices.

Pulpstar

@Antifrank It certainly would. I think Mr Balls will want to keep Ed in situ too. I do recall a while back he was having to deal with speculation over his job.

Scott_P

@JGForsyth: Cut-through alert: lead story on Magic FM is Cooper and Burnham denying that they are preparing for a post-Miliband moment

@BBCr4today: Ken Clarke on Ed Miliband: ‘I share the judgement of the majority of the public about whether he looks like a potential PM’ #r4today

TheScreamingEagles

On the Cooper-Burnham non aggression pact, why do I get the feeling it will end much like the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact did.

Pulpstar

Those Survation numbers looks remarkably like the raw Populus numbers do alot of the time.

Pulpstar

Scott_P said:

@JGForsyth: Cut-through alert: lead story on Magic FM is Cooper and Burnham denying that they are preparing for a post-Miliband moment

What are they meant to stay lol ?

Jonathan

NickPalmer said:

I agree with LabourList's "Put up or shut up", as you'd expect, but you can't really impose omerta on everyone - there's always going to be a backbencher or a peer or a donor who is willing to infulge a journalist. However, unless it gets a major figure involved on the record the story will die out from lack of oxygen - there is a limit to how many stories you can base on "a former Shadow Cabinet member said..." and "the mood was unhappy among several backbenchers who didn't want to be named".

It's all very well the leadership asking for unity. At some point soon there has to be some action to correct what everyone agrees has been a truly dismal Autumn.

If the leadership does nothing, I don't thing anyone can blame backbenchers/supporters from grumbling.

Pulpstar

"Cooper/Burnham refuse to answer questions on a post Miliband moment"
"Cooper/Burnham accept they could prepare for a post Miliband moment"
"Cooper/Burnham deny they could prepare for a post Miliband moment"...

TheScreamingEagles

Jonathan said:

NickPalmer said:

I agree with LabourList's "Put up or shut up", as you'd expect, but you can't really impose omerta on everyone - there's always going to be a backbencher or a peer or a donor who is willing to infulge a journalist. However, unless it gets a major figure involved on the record the story will die out from lack of oxygen - there is a limit to how many stories you can base on "a former Shadow Cabinet member said..." and "the mood was unhappy among several backbenchers who didn't want to be named".

It's all very well the leadership asking for unity. At some point soon there has to be some action to correct what everyone agrees has been a truly dismal Autumn.

If the leadership does nothing, I don't thing anyone can blame backbenchers/supporters from grumbling.

IDS went not long after the conference season.

I think people view conference season as a test run for the General Election campaign, Ed bombed and Dave dazzled despite the Tory conference being destabilised by one traitorous pig-dog defecting on the eve of the Tory conference, and speculation that another would on the day of Dave's speech.

Pulpstar

Jonathan said:

NickPalmer said:

I agree with LabourList's "Put up or shut up", as you'd expect, but you can't really impose omerta on everyone - there's always going to be a backbencher or a peer or a donor who is willing to infulge a journalist. However, unless it gets a major figure involved on the record the story will die out from lack of oxygen - there is a limit to how many stories you can base on "a former Shadow Cabinet member said..." and "the mood was unhappy among several backbenchers who didn't want to be named".

It's all very well the leadership asking for unity. At some point soon there has to be some action to correct what everyone agrees has been a truly dismal Autumn.

If the leadership does nothing, I don't thing anyone can blame backbenchers/supporters from grumbling.

Well divided parties tend to get hammered at the polls so it'd be in their own interests to back him or sack him instead of leading a chinese whispering campaign.

Simon Danczuk is probably one of the grumblers I think tbh... Miliband should find out who they are and give them the Hoon/Hewitt/Byers treatment. Time to Gordon up !

Freggles

Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies

rottenborough

Morning betters,

Anyone know why Betfair (exch) doesn't have Johnson in the list of next Lab leader?

Pulpstar

£454 of the 2.66 Ed Miliband next PM still up for anyone interested.

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

On the Cooper-Burnham non aggression pact, why do I get the feeling it will end much like the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact did.

the stop chuka pact

Innocent_Abroad

Alanbrooke said:

NickPalmer said:

I agree with LabourList's "Put up or shut up", as you'd expect, but you can't really impose omerta on everyone - there's always going to be a backbencher or a peer or a donor who is willing to infulge a journalist. However, unless it gets a major figure involved on the record the story will die out from lack of oxygen - there is a limit to how many stories you can base on "a former Shadow Cabinet member said..." and "the mood was unhappy among several backbenchers who didn't want to be named".

O/T, by the way, an amusing contrast in US and UK attitudes to tax:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/06/unlike-brits-americans-dont-think-tax-morally-righ/

It's not often (except on religion) that you see such a marked difference, and it seems quite a strong party divide within Britain too. When we comment on US politics, it's worth keeping this totally different perspective in mind. When a Tory says "Let's get government out of everyday lives" he doesn't actually mean "Let's abolish the NHS and the Environment Agency and privatise the school system and have a flat rate tax of 20%", but a Republican might think just that.

hmmm not quite convinced on that Mr P, I suspect the UK attitude is more other people have a duty to pay taxes for public services.

A fair tax is one that's paid by other people. There's a reason why Labour set the "mansion tax" threshhold at £2m and not £5m or £1m.

Financier

Joe Haines (Harold Wilson's PR man) makes some pertinent points in the Telegraph:

"It is a stark and brutal choice that Labour faces. It is not a choice about Miliband’s future but about the future of the party itself. The disintegration we are witnessing in Scotland can be seen in southern England, too. In a normal situation, with a rampant Opposition, Labour should expect to win Rochester and Strood, not hoping to come a not-too-distant third behind Ukip and the Tories.....

But the wounds left by that (Blair/Brown)government are still open and his going could cauterise them. Iain Duncan Smith suffered a similar fate for a similar reason.

Even with the advantage of unfairly drawn constituency boundaries, Labour cannot hope to win a majority in England except through an extraordinary, unforeseeable and miraculous turn of events. Senior figures in the party know this and talk about it in private. Publicly, they profess a loyalty to their leader that they do not have. They do not deny the inevitability of Miliband’s departure, only the timing......

Miliband’s greatest failing is his inability to understand how the world of politics has changed. He is not a Marxist but he has some of the Marxist rigidity of thinking. It is as if he was born, grew up and matured in the 1970s and doesn’t realise that the day of mass party membership is over....

Instead of a policy of hope we get the politics of resentment. He is surrounded by acolytes and sycophants. They are the only people who have his ear. Repealing the Tory “bedroom tax” is not a policy, it is a reaction......

Has he never read a book on the history of politics in the last century? Lloyd George, Harold Wilson, Tony Blair all wasted years of parliamentary time tinkering with reform while an indifferent public worried about unimportant things like health, inflation, unemployment and pensions......

Edmund Burke (and several others) reputedly said that evil comes when good men do nothing. Labour’s good men should not be afraid to heed the words of a Tory and act upon them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11214944/The-Labour-Partys-big-beasts-must-act-to-remove-Ed-Miliband-now.html

felix

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Team Miliband point to latest opinion poll giving party four point lead under Ed M leadership

And there was much rejoicing, especially at CCHQ...

It is a bad mistake to single out one rather unimpressive poll as evidence that Labour are soaring to power on 31% whilst ignoring much smaller leads elsewhere. It also leaves them exposed if we get more cross-overs.

Itajai

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Team Miliband point to latest opinion poll giving party four point lead under Ed M leadership

And there was much rejoicing, especially at CCHQ...

Interesting how a few months ago it was the 35% strategy (which I always thought was bunkum) and now Labour think they only need 31%.

Cloud cuckoo land.