Re this, my own thinking was, I was still knackered from the Indyref, and given the difficulty in predicting the next election in my own country, I wasn't going to dip too much into the American elections.
Nobody cared about the midterms — Where did all the British US-election nerds go?
@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.
Re this, my own thinking was, I was still knackered from the Indyref, and given the difficulty in predicting the next election in my own country, I wasn't going to dip too much into the American elections.
Nobody cared about the midterms — Where did all the British US-election nerds go?
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:
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.
1 Luckily the Millibands and the Benns are American in their outlook. IHT is strictlty for the plebs.
Looking forward to receiving my copy of Newstatesman in post this morning. Hopefully I can find the old copy from four years ago when they heaped praise on Ed to be next leader and can contrast and compare.
It might make an interesting thread one of these days to ask "what would an effective 21st century Labour leader look like"? After all, Attlee and Blair were public school boys and Wilson an Oxford don. Are these now disqualifications?
One reason for the problem may be the Internet. It allows older Tories to trash the personalities of everyone in the other Parties (mainly, but not only, Labour) and whilst this is in theory true of all Parties it is the Tories who have the troops on the ground. (UKIP have a few, but I suspect Sean Fear would be the first to admit that they're mostly pretty raw, whereas the Tories are battle-hardened.)
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Normally Labour does not do pretty girls (look what happened to Blair's babes) but prefers the Bessie Braddocks or Abbots. Look how Caroline Flint was treated and her resentment but did not receive the support of the 'sisters'.
Unless this is repeated, I'm going to consider it an outlier (very nice one for UKIP, but still). Much like the Ipsos-MORI showing Labour being thwarted utterly in Scotland (which was subsequently backed up by others).
There are comparisons with last time and Clegg's bounce, but I'm not sure they're valid. For a start, this is a prolonged period of polling strength without anything unusual (like the debates). It's also backed up by demonstrations of real electoral success.
Whilst I do think some will drift from UKIP to the two largest [for now] parties based on who they want or fear being PM, I don't think that'll substantially erode the high percentage UKIP is likely to get.
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:
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.
Good poll for the centre-left. No question. Much larger leads than I'd thought. Slightly depressing for me, I'm much closer to the U.S. republican position.
Perhaps it reflects the British 'do your bit' and 'fair play' attitude. Tax still isn't popular and our centre of gravity on that, and welfare, still to the right of mainland Europe.
The question I asked yesterday still holds. What do Labour MPs know that makes them so jittery? Ed is strolling towards a 100 seat majority (60 if Scotland remains arsey). Time for Cameron to do something popular.
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.
Some of those questions imply more of a difference than there is. Take a look at the first one of asking what's the stronger argument, that people should be able to keep the money they earn or that they have moral duty to contribute to public services. It's like asking "what do you think is more important, loyalty or fairness"? You might get a big divide between two groups, but in reality most people in both groups think they're both very important, and it's going to be informed a lot by the latest situation they were thinking about.
Usual fatuous nonsense... labour party members probably wont find out who the self indulgent MPs are, since journos are not going to shop MPs that give them endless free copy, so not in their gift to forgive them or otherwise.
Let's hope he doesn't buckle later, like on the veto and EU budget.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. We should be much more stick, less carrot. Start vetoing, blocking and interfering with everything on the EU's agenda unless we get what we want.
Usual fatuous nonsense... labour party members probably wont find out who the self indulgent MPs are, since journos are not going to shop MPs that give them endless free copy, so not in their gift to forgive them or otherwise.
We all have some traitorous pig-dogs on our back benches
The question I asked yesterday still holds. What do Labour MPs know that makes them so jittery? Ed is strolling towards a 100 seat majority (60 if Scotland remains arsey). Time for Cameron to do something popular.
We the public, only get to see a little of Ed Miliband, and we've decided he's worse than Nick Clegg.
Labour MPs get to see Ed on a daily basis up close and personal.
Let's hope he doesn't buckle later, like on the veto and EU budget.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. We should be much more stick, less carrot. Start vetoing, blocking and interfering with everything on the EU's agenda unless we get what we want.
If the Tories demand a points system as part of their renegotiation, I'll be reconsidering my vote. Let's see.
"But Mr Lofven told the BBC: "The fact that one country believes that one thing is wrong does not mean that we can change because every country might have its own priorities and that may just ruin the European Union."
He's right. And that's why the EU is inherently wrong. As Machiavelli wrote, a confederacy of powers can only be 4-6 at the most, because beyond that each land loses any real authority and power drifts from the nations to the confederation.
We can't act in our national interest because it might harm the EU is not a rallying cry for how good the EU is.
Let's hope he doesn't buckle later, like on the veto and EU budget.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. We should be much more stick, less carrot. Start vetoing, blocking and interfering with everything on the EU's agenda unless we get what we want.
If the Tories demand a points system as part of their renegotiation, I'll be reconsidering my vote. Let's see.
When is his big speech? I remember people saying it was going to be after the byelection, but wasn't sure when.
Usual fatuous nonsense... labour party members probably wont find out who the self indulgent MPs are, since journos are not going to shop MPs that give them endless free copy, so not in their gift to forgive them or otherwise.
The question I asked yesterday still holds. What do Labour MPs know that makes them so jittery? Ed is strolling towards a 100 seat majority (60 if Scotland remains arsey). Time for Cameron to do something popular.
If you think Labour are heading for 375 seats, I'm sure you can get great odds.
Little change in the polling average this week: Labour continue to hold a slim one-point lead over the Tories, 33% to 32%. What movement there is comes further down the order, with UKIP dropping a point to 15% and the Liberal Democrats gaining one to 8%.
That small improvement for the Lib Dems translates into them holding onto an extra two seats in our central forecast (for a total of 28, up from 26 last week), and knocks two off the Tories’ total (300, down from 302). That’d leave the Tories as the largest party, with 9 seats more than Labour on 291, but 26 short of a majority.
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.
That's rather unfair considering that women couldn't even be elected to parliament until 1918. On that basis, it took 61 years.
If you reckon on it taking at least 15 years for an MP to ascend to the leadership under the requirements assumed necessary until recently, then it comes down to something closer to 45.
UKIP, as the Anti-Federalist League, was founded in 1991. They're more than halfway through their first 45 years and have had an all-male line-up so far.
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.
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.
I would expect a lot of the UKIP vote to evaporate during an election campaign - saying you will vote UKIP in an opinion poll is a free hit, pretty much like a by-election you can send a message to the party you are likely to vote for but a bit disenchanted with. Look what happened to the "I agree with Nick" VI last time. But UKIP seems to be building a solid base in the low-mid teens, it hasn't scored less than 13% with any pollster since September.
I think we could be due a ComRes/IoS and maybe an Opinium this weekend, they both come out about fortnightly and the last survey dates were 15-16 Oct and 21-24 Oct respectively. But then Survation for the Mirror is new, they normally work for the Mail, the Mirror doesn't usually commission polls but the Sunday Mirror shares the IoS ComRes polls.
It might make an interesting thread one of these days to ask "what would an effective 21st century Labour leader look like"? After all, Attlee and Blair were public school boys and Wilson an Oxford don. Are these now disqualifications?
One reason for the problem may be the Internet. It allows older Tories to trash the personalities of everyone in the other Parties (mainly, but not only, Labour) and whilst this is in theory true of all Parties it is the Tories who have the troops on the ground. (UKIP have a few, but I suspect Sean Fear would be the first to admit that they're mostly pretty raw, whereas the Tories are battle-hardened.)
I think the last bit is a bit rich given the extent to which social media, and especially twitter is dominated by lefties.
To answer the main point, Labour have slightly shot themselves in the foot on this one. The idea candidate would seem to be a well qualified thinker from solid working class roots. These however are a dwindling breed since the abolition of grammar schools, which provided a clear path for ambitious working-class kids to get a good quality education, and step from there to a top-end university.
The bigger problem for the labour party is to decide what it actually stands for. It currently appears repelled by the WWC, and prefers to be a party of upper middle-class guardian readers, benefit claimants, and immigrants, but thats becoming increasingly crowded territory. Do they want to connect with their roots, or is another party going to sweep those up over the next few years as the traditional loyalists die off and younger people dont see the point.
See in the Guardian that Polly Toynbee is commenting on Assisted Dying and not the political story of the moment. Has she been demoted, not trusted, is she heartbroken or just enjoying the Tuscan sun?
See in the Guardian that Polly Toynbee is commenting on Assisted Dying and not the political story of the moment. Has she been demoted, not trusted, is she heartbroken or just enjoying the Tuscan sun?
48 hrs for the homing pigeon to arrive from Tuscany means she can't react in time ?
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.
Janice Atkinson ? Marta Andreasen ? Nikki Sinclaire ?
Which one is your money on ?
That shows a lack of knowledge. Nikki Sinclaire has left UKIP and has set up another Party. Andreasen has been sidelined. Atkinson or Evans, sure. I am sure the controlling cabal of British politics will be very keen to get rid of Farage as soon as they can.
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.
Janice Atkinson ? Marta Andreasen ? Nikki Sinclaire ?
Which one is your money on ?
That shows a lack of knowledge. Nikki Sinclaire has left UKIP and has set up another Party. Andreasen has been sidelined. Atkinson or Evans, sure. I am sure the controlling cabal of British politics will be very keen to get rid of Farage as soon as they can.
My point exactly - it shows a pattern that as women rise they get put down - by Nigel. MA certainly claimed that was the case when she went.
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Union types wont let a woman near the leadership. More chance of a woman leading UKIP - ie zero.
I'm pretty sure UKIP will have a female leader quicker than the 141 years it took the Tories.
Janice Atkinson ? Marta Andreasen ? Nikki Sinclaire ?
Which one is your money on ?
That shows a lack of knowledge. Nikki Sinclaire has left UKIP and has set up another Party. Andreasen has been sidelined. Atkinson or Evans, sure. I am sure the controlling cabal of British politics will be very keen to get rid of Farage as soon as they can.
You show a lack of knowledge of sarcasm.
Did you have your sarcasm detector removed by the Bilderberg lizards?
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
49% tell YouGov that LAB would be more likely to win GE2010 if EdM was replaced as leader. 5% said less likely. LAB voters split 54% to 7%
That's not very meaningful unless it specifies who he's replaced with (it does, however, give a good idea of how well the public views Miliband). Unless we have polling with named leaders - say Cooper, Balls, Burnham, Blair (for comparative purposes), and David Miliband - I don't think we can read too much into it.
Didn't the pre-2012 US presidential election consistently show that 'unnamed generic Republican' was the best opponent to take on Obama, according to the polling, and that the GOP's score instantly dropped as soon as a genuine possibility was named? I suspect Labour's in something of a similar position.
It might make an interesting thread one of these days to ask "what would an effective 21st century Labour leader look like"? After all, Attlee and Blair were public school boys and Wilson an Oxford don. Are these now disqualifications?
One reason for the problem may be the Internet. It allows older Tories to trash the personalities of everyone in the other Parties (mainly, but not only, Labour) and whilst this is in theory true of all Parties it is the Tories who have the troops on the ground. (UKIP have a few, but I suspect Sean Fear would be the first to admit that they're mostly pretty raw, whereas the Tories are battle-hardened.)
I think the last bit is a bit rich given the extent to which social media, and especially twitter is dominated by lefties.
To answer the main point, Labour have slightly shot themselves in the foot on this one. The idea candidate would seem to be a well qualified thinker from solid working class roots. These however are a dwindling breed since the abolition of grammar schools, which provided a clear path for ambitious working-class kids to get a good quality education, and step from there to a top-end university.
The bigger problem for the labour party is to decide what it actually stands for. It currently appears repelled by the WWC, and prefers to be a party of upper middle-class guardian readers, benefit claimants, and immigrants, but thats becoming increasingly crowded territory. Do they want to connect with their roots, or is another party going to sweep those up over the next few years as the traditional loyalists die off and younger people dont see the point.
Agree, Labour have to find out/understand what they stand for and who they represent. Unfortunately they lack such leadership and nobody on their front bench has the vital and necessary vision. They just think of making short term political points and so have become divorced from the electorate.
In fact their cox is steering one way whilst the oarsmen/women are rowing in a different direction. He/they are steering straight for the rocks in the rapids because of clouded and partial vision, whilst the oarsmen are seeking the water flows between the rocks which lead to calmer waters downstream.
Labour, if they are to exist in 2040, needs a new set of thinkers and time in the backwaters/benches to reconsider the justification for their existence.
Regarding the 35% err 31% strategy - it won't even be that. We have seen the future, and it was the Ashcroft poll where both Labour and Tory polled less than 30%. I detect an air of euphoria from PB Tories - the knives are out for Ed! (they're not), so Labour will implode! (no) and UKIP will dissolve (no) meaning Tories sweep to victory! Victory! Victory!
No.
Inside the bubble the view is that all is tickety boo, things are much better and people will see that and vote Tory. No. Things are awful, and people are angry not just here but across Europe. The powers that be want to keep spraying the valium around so don't report how bad things are, don't report the mass protests in this country for wages or the NHS, and certainly don't report rioting in Belgium yesterday or the surge of Podemos in Spain.
But in the real world people are increasingly angry. They aren't impressed with Technocrat Labour thats clear. Definitely not impressed with LieDems. And can't fathom the inhumanity of the Tories. Which leaves them with none of the main parties really saying what they think - the system is increasingly unfair, is broken, needs a big fix. Which is why they're not voting at all, or going UKIP SNP or Green.
Its the race to the bottom election. We've already had the argument about benchmarks against other elections and realised that you can't compare. Now you need to realise that the anger driving UKIP is as real as the awful state of the economy and unless the mainstream parties say and do something, we will all sink.
All this talk about how Cameron can't get anything out of Europe is surely good for him. If everyone was saying that he should be able to get the reform he wants then it would be hard to paint it as a victory.
As it is, any concessions he can get can be sold as a major achievement for him.
Didn't the pre-2012 US presidential election consistently show that 'unnamed generic Republican' was the best opponent to take on Obama, according to the polling, and that the GOP's score instantly dropped as soon as a genuine possibility was named? I suspect Labour's in something of a similar position.
I think you are right. When you dont name a name people tend to have their ideal candidate in mind, possibly even their idealised candidate. Then you mention someone they know, or know of, and its not the same at all. Their ideal candidate ticks all the boxes and is clearly the man/woman for the job, the realistic candidates irritate them for one reason or another.
It might make an interesting thread one of these days to ask "what would an effective 21st century Labour leader look like"? After all, Attlee and Blair were public school boys and Wilson an Oxford don. Are these now disqualifications?
One reason for the problem may be the Internet. It allows older Tories to trash the personalities of everyone in the other Parties (mainly, but not only, Labour) and whilst this is in theory true of all Parties it is the Tories who have the troops on the ground. (UKIP have a few, but I suspect Sean Fear would be the first to admit that they're mostly pretty raw, whereas the Tories are battle-hardened.)
I think the last bit is a bit rich given the extent to which social media, and especially twitter is dominated by lefties.
To answer the main point, Labour have slightly shot themselves in the foot on this one. The idea candidate would seem to be a well qualified thinker from solid working class roots. These however are a dwindling breed since the abolition of grammar schools, which provided a clear path for ambitious working-class kids to get a good quality education, and step from there to a top-end university.
The bigger problem for the labour party is to decide what it actually stands for. It currently appears repelled by the WWC, and prefers to be a party of upper middle-class guardian readers, benefit claimants, and immigrants, but thats becoming increasingly crowded territory. Do they want to connect with their roots, or is another party going to sweep those up over the next few years as the traditional loyalists die off and younger people dont see the point.
That's really what I was driving at. It's not just an "Ed made a hash of his conference speech" issue, but it appears to be a structural problem. Labour is predicated on class politics whilst reality is increasingly about identity politics. Arguably the first task of any government to-day is the prevention of racial violence.
Anyway, that's me done for to-day. See you to-morrow, God willing.
It might make an interesting thread one of these days to ask "what would an effective 21st century Labour leader look like"? After all, Attlee and Blair were public school boys and Wilson an Oxford don. Are these now disqualifications?
One reason for the problem may be the Internet. It allows older Tories to trash the personalities of everyone in the other Parties (mainly, but not only, Labour) and whilst this is in theory true of all Parties it is the Tories who have the troops on the ground. (UKIP have a few, but I suspect Sean Fear would be the first to admit that they're mostly pretty raw, whereas the Tories are battle-hardened.)
A more interesting thread might be 'are the values and abilities necessary to make an effective 21st century Labour leader compatible with the skills and values required to win the Labour leadership?'.
Your second paragraph is a classic case of shooting the messenger. The social media is not having a go at Miliband because he is Labour; they are having a go because he is crap.
It might make an interesting thread one of these days to ask "what would an effective 21st century Labour leader look like"? After all, Attlee and Blair were public school boys and Wilson an Oxford don. Are these now disqualifications?
One reason for the problem may be the Internet. It allows older Tories to trash the personalities of everyone in the other Parties (mainly, but not only, Labour) and whilst this is in theory true of all Parties it is the Tories who have the troops on the ground. (UKIP have a few, but I suspect Sean Fear would be the first to admit that they're mostly pretty raw, whereas the Tories are battle-hardened.)
Congratulations on providing the most one eyed post of the morning.
The question I asked yesterday still holds. What do Labour MPs know that makes them so jittery? Ed is strolling towards a 100 seat majority (60 if Scotland remains arsey). Time for Cameron to do something popular.
I asked the same question. I think perhaps a realisation (or at least a belief) that governing may be utterly destructive for the party in government. I think its wrongheaded, but there you go.
Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll Cameron and Farage into looking like bullies
Freggles (Labour need a pretty, girly girl who knows how to troll...) Sounds like Angela Eagle - she already has form in trolling the TV studios as a victim of bullying after her loutish behaviour during PMQs.
Holland issues his Mea Culpa - will Ed follow his leader's example?
"French President Francois Hollande has said he will not seek re-election in 2017 if he fails to cut unemployment.
In a televised interview, Mr Hollande acknowledged he had made mistakes since taking office in 2012 but vowed to go "to the end" to reform the economy.
The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Paris says the interview is widely seen as an attempt by Mr Hollande to revive his flagging popularity.
Earlier on Thursday, a new poll put the president's approval rating at 12%.
Unemployment in France is currently at 11% and economic growth has all but ground to a halt.
With Mr Hollande's popularity at an all-time low, the far-right Front National led by Marine Le Pen has been making steady gains.
"I've got a thick skin. For two-and-a-half years I've been hanging on," said Mr Hollande.
Mr. Chestnut, I must agree. Umunna would be worse than Miliband. He could be the poster boy for the class of professional politicians, and didn't he edit Wikipedia to claim some (himself) saw him as a British Obama?
At least Miliband has the intellectual self-confidence not to come out with rubbish like that.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
"French President Francois Hollande has said he will not seek re-election in 2017 if he fails to cut unemployment.
Thats very magnanimous of him when he is at 14% and falling in the French polls. On those sort of scores he isn't going to get into the second round, never mind the presidency.
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!
What were the percentages in LAs last marginal poll Bearing in mind that the voters would be less likely to switch as it would give the seat to the rival party?
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
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".
Are you a weird Ed loyalist, Nicholas. I think we should be told.
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 difference being of course is that more Americans than Brits understand the reality of the state demanding money with menaces.
However, I do note your use of a strawman in describing the "average republicans" position.
Also, your figures are wrong, it is more like abolish X, Y and Z and have a flat tax of 10% but only starting at over £26,000
I asked the same question. I think perhaps a realisation (or at least a belief) that governing may be utterly destructive for the party in government. I think its wrongheaded, but there you go.
So what is going to happen if Labour come to power, just as the economy turns down in the second half of next year, and they find they have to cut 40+bn from public spending, at the same time as their party is basically funded by the large unions, and after most of their MPs paraded around telling the electorate that they would not be as nasty as the Tories, and that there was still plenty of fruit on the Magic Money Tree (there isn't).
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.
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.
I would expect a lot of the UKIP vote to evaporate during an election campaign - saying you will vote UKIP in an opinion poll is a free hit, pretty much like a by-election you can send a message to the party you are likely to vote for but a bit disenchanted with. Look what happened to the "I agree with Nick" VI last time. But UKIP seems to be building a solid base in the low-mid teens, it hasn't scored less than 13% with any pollster since September.
I think we could be due a ComRes/IoS and maybe an Opinium this weekend, they both come out about fortnightly and the last survey dates were 15-16 Oct and 21-24 Oct respectively. But then Survation for the Mirror is new, they normally work for the Mail, the Mirror doesn't usually commission polls but the Sunday Mirror shares the IoS ComRes polls.
Mr O'Flynn's interview in the Spectator suggests that UKIP think 20% is a realistic target.
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
It is interesting to compare how the party ratings have changed during the 600 YouGov Polls that have taken place since the end of May 2012.
Labour's share has declined and UKIP's has risen. The Conservative share has wobbled about but hasn't actually changed that much over the period, and the LibDem share shows a similar pattern.
I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Ed Miliband.
Is that a good or bad thing for him?
Bad. Nobody gets to become PM on a symapthy vote.
He'd be an utter utter disaster as PM. Hollande-ish. We must keep him and Labour away from power. If Miliband getting trampled into the dirt, despite being a 'nice guy', is the price to be paid then that's absolutely fine. He's a politician. He aspires to control you and your life. You need cut him no slack whatever. Kick him while he's down and piss on the body.
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
That is in the sort of range I can imagine. I'd reverse the Conservatives and Labour scores.
As I say on my post this morning (linked to below), No Overall Majority looks like a great bet, even at 1.7.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
Is there any sort of stable/viable government on those figures?
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
An interesting assertion. Just where do you think that 9% is going to go at the election?
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Most of us call that "winning", last time it enabled the Tories to form a government that looks like it will last the full 5 years, with help from the LDs of course. (And if they lose a substantial amount of votes and/or seats I will happily say they "lost" just as Gordon did last time).
Stop Press: BenM thinks the Tories may win the election, but is selective in his use of language.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
Is there any sort of stable/viable government on those figures?
A continuation of a Con/Lib Dem coalition with tacit support from either the SNP or the DUP. Simples.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
An interesting assertion. Just where do you think that 9% is going to go at the election?
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Most of us call that "winning", last time it enabled the Tories to form a government that looks like it will last the full 5 years, with help from the LDs of course. (And if they lose a substantial amount of votes and/or seats I will happily say they "lost" just as Gordon did last time).
Stop Press: BenM thinks the Tories may win the election, but is selective in his use of language.
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up. * No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions * Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap. * Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward * EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration * Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment * NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results * Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Mr O'Flynn's interview in the Spectator suggests that UKIP think 20% is a realistic target.
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
On current figures (averaging around 16%) that looks unlikely. It involves gaining voters due to the glare of election campaign publicity (and we saw last time that can evaporate as quickly as it happens) and not losing people who either (a) currently give "protest VI" in polls but intend to vote for a mainstream party at the GE and (b) get cold feet during the election campaign.
A couple more tranches of the Panelbase polling commissioned by Wings over Sctoland, focussing on the SLAB leadership and EU respectively.
The [edit] former results are interesting - not just because Mr Brown, and Mr DK/Don't Care, score just as well as Mr Murphy with Labour voters, but also because he's actually 1% MORE popular with Tory than Labour voters, which is hardly a surprise give the demographics of his seat. But all the same, it does reflect his wider perception, as well as a dilemma for the future.
By comparison, Mr Findlay and Mr Boyack are nowhere, though as this is to do with ordinary voters it may reflect the relative levels of publicity the three candidates have had over the last few months.
"Merthyr council has begun 45 day consultation with workers - but no-one is sure what they are consulting on.
Unions have warned a council that it is breaching its national agreement after launching a consultation which could see staff sacked and re-employed on worse terms.
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council has begun a 45-day formal consultation for all staff – but it has not been made clear what the authority is actually consulting on.
Last month the council proposed to cut all staff members’ pay by 3%. But that plan was scrapped at the 11th hour after it was revealed the Local Government Association (LGA) is currently negotiating a pay rise for council staff next year, which contradicted the Merthyr council proposals.
However, the council has now voted through a consultation which could see it dismiss more than 1,000 staff before re-employing them on worse terms and conditions if an agreement is not met."
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Survation is a poor poll for the Tories (poor for Labour too but not quite so bad) which, although UKIP are at least 9 points too high, show the bias is towards a low Tory share with no sign of any potential increase.
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Tories the largest party is probably (just) the likeliest outcome.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295 Lab 275 Lib Dem 30, SNP 20, UKIP 5, Other 7, NI 18
or thereabouts.
Is there any sort of stable/viable government on those figures?
Tory-DUP with Lib Dems and UKIP providing confidence and supply.
When you think about it, Labour really would be strolling to victory if it had a decent leader.
Hmmm. Then you think about it a bit more. What would this "decent leader" have to say on immigration? Or on the deficit?
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up. * No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions * Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap. * Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward * EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration * Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment * NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results * Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
"Free for all UK citizens" is illegal under EU law. To exclude foreigners fairly you would have to move to purely insurance-based systems for the NHS and benefits, or have a long qualification period. EU citizens have to be entitled under exactly the same basis as UK citizens, if resident in the UK.
@BenM after your CREAMing all over the thread yesterday morning, I'm still eager to know your answers to my 2nd generation immigrant questions.
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
I think I used niff naff and trivia - basically the tired old scenario most prejudiced individuals go through when their wrongheaded assumptions are directly challenged:
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
Bollocks. At best the studies show EU immigration = economic win. Rest of the world immigration costs us a world-class health and education and infrastructure system.
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
"Concentrated clusters of support". UKIP are increasingly sewing up the eurosceptic vote, the anti-mass immigration vote and the anti-London vote. They need to win back the libertarian vote with a high profile campaign on civil liberties, vowing to bring back habeas corpus, a right to privacy, no government searches without individual warrants, the right to free speech etc. It could also win them friends in the media and the chattering classes.
Comments
@BBCNormanS: Labour party members wil not forgive self indulgent MPs muttering to journalists says @PeterHain @BBCr4today
@CCHQPress: Blunt talk from a shadow minister “everybody is talking about how sh** he is.” #JustNotUpToIt
http://t.co/hTIrtjgNUK
Nobody cared about the midterms — Where did all the British US-election nerds go?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nobody-cared-about-the-midterms--where-did-all-the-british-uselection-nerds-go-9844800.html
Luckily the Millibands and the Benns are American in their outlook. IHT is strictlty for the plebs.
One reason for the problem may be the Internet. It allows older Tories to trash the personalities of everyone in the other Parties (mainly, but not only, Labour) and whilst this is in theory true of all Parties it is the Tories who have the troops on the ground. (UKIP have a few, but I suspect Sean Fear would be the first to admit that they're mostly pretty raw, whereas the Tories are battle-hardened.)
Unless this is repeated, I'm going to consider it an outlier (very nice one for UKIP, but still). Much like the Ipsos-MORI showing Labour being thwarted utterly in Scotland (which was subsequently backed up by others).
There are comparisons with last time and Clegg's bounce, but I'm not sure they're valid. For a start, this is a prolonged period of polling strength without anything unusual (like the debates). It's also backed up by demonstrations of real electoral success.
Whilst I do think some will drift from UKIP to the two largest [for now] parties based on who they want or fear being PM, I don't think that'll substantially erode the high percentage UKIP is likely to get.
F1: Sauber has contract row with Sutil (who has been dropped for next year):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29945378
Perhaps it reflects the British 'do your bit' and 'fair play' attitude. Tax still isn't popular and our centre of gravity on that, and welfare, still to the right of mainland Europe.
Labour MPs get to see Ed on a daily basis up close and personal.
No wonder they are revolting.
If you get polled, tell them you're voting Labour and you think Ed is brilliant and doing a great job.
#SaveEd
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29944564
"But Mr Lofven told the BBC: "The fact that one country believes that one thing is wrong does not mean that we can change because every country might have its own priorities and that may just ruin the European Union."
He's right. And that's why the EU is inherently wrong. As Machiavelli wrote, a confederacy of powers can only be 4-6 at the most, because beyond that each land loses any real authority and power drifts from the nations to the confederation.
We can't act in our national interest because it might harm the EU is not a rallying cry for how good the EU is.
Marta Andreasen ?
Nikki Sinclaire ?
Which one is your money on ?
The whole cabal of Miliband, Benn, Balls, Cooper, Burnham, Harman etc have their DNA all over the last disastrous Labour administration.
It will take an unfamiliar, and untainted, face to get people to think again.
Little change in the polling average this week: Labour continue to hold a slim one-point lead over the Tories, 33% to 32%. What movement there is comes further down the order, with UKIP dropping a point to 15% and the Liberal Democrats gaining one to 8%.
That small improvement for the Lib Dems translates into them holding onto an extra two seats in our central forecast (for a total of 28, up from 26 last week), and knocks two off the Tories’ total (300, down from 302). That’d leave the Tories as the largest party, with 9 seats more than Labour on 291, but 26 short of a majority.
http://electionsetc.com/2014/11/07/forecast-update-7-november-2014/
If you reckon on it taking at least 15 years for an MP to ascend to the leadership under the requirements assumed necessary until recently, then it comes down to something closer to 45.
UKIP, as the Anti-Federalist League, was founded in 1991. They're more than halfway through their first 45 years and have had an all-male line-up so far.
I think we could be due a ComRes/IoS and maybe an Opinium this weekend, they both come out about fortnightly and the last survey dates were 15-16 Oct and 21-24 Oct respectively. But then Survation for the Mirror is new, they normally work for the Mail, the Mirror doesn't usually commission polls but the Sunday Mirror shares the IoS ComRes polls.
49% tell YouGov that LAB would be more likely to win GE2010 if EdM was replaced as leader. 5% said less likely. LAB voters split 54% to 7%
To answer the main point, Labour have slightly shot themselves in the foot on this one. The idea candidate would seem to be a well qualified thinker from solid working class roots. These however are a dwindling breed since the abolition of grammar schools, which provided a clear path for ambitious working-class kids to get a good quality education, and step from there to a top-end university.
The bigger problem for the labour party is to decide what it actually stands for. It currently appears repelled by the WWC, and prefers to be a party of upper middle-class guardian readers, benefit claimants, and immigrants, but thats becoming increasingly crowded territory. Do they want to connect with their roots, or is another party going to sweep those up over the next few years as the traditional loyalists die off and younger people dont see the point.
Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH
If the Tory Twitter grassroots have a favourite hashtag, it’s probably #SaveEd, writes @wallaceme on @ConHome http://bit.ly/1GwkDJh
Did you have your sarcasm detector removed by the Bilderberg lizards?
That should be very alarming for blues supporters. Most seem to have given up on winning in May anyway, and a crushing Rochester defeat is looming, but it is obvious the Tory best hope is to come out as largest Party again.
Is that a good or bad thing for him?
Didn't the pre-2012 US presidential election consistently show that 'unnamed generic Republican' was the best opponent to take on Obama, according to the polling, and that the GOP's score instantly dropped as soon as a genuine possibility was named? I suspect Labour's in something of a similar position.
I think he's safe until June (fingers crossed) - certainly taken the heat off GO in Brussels.
In fact their cox is steering one way whilst the oarsmen/women are rowing in a different direction. He/they are steering straight for the rocks in the rapids because of clouded and partial vision, whilst the oarsmen are seeking the water flows between the rocks which lead to calmer waters downstream.
Labour, if they are to exist in 2040, needs a new set of thinkers and time in the backwaters/benches to reconsider the justification for their existence.
No.
Inside the bubble the view is that all is tickety boo, things are much better and people will see that and vote Tory. No. Things are awful, and people are angry not just here but across Europe. The powers that be want to keep spraying the valium around so don't report how bad things are, don't report the mass protests in this country for wages or the NHS, and certainly don't report rioting in Belgium yesterday or the surge of Podemos in Spain.
But in the real world people are increasingly angry. They aren't impressed with Technocrat Labour thats clear. Definitely not impressed with LieDems. And can't fathom the inhumanity of the Tories. Which leaves them with none of the main parties really saying what they think - the system is increasingly unfair, is broken, needs a big fix. Which is why they're not voting at all, or going UKIP SNP or Green.
Its the race to the bottom election. We've already had the argument about benchmarks against other elections and realised that you can't compare. Now you need to realise that the anger driving UKIP is as real as the awful state of the economy and unless the mainstream parties say and do something, we will all sink.
As it is, any concessions he can get can be sold as a major achievement for him.
Anyway, that's me done for to-day. See you to-morrow, God willing.
Your second paragraph is a classic case of shooting the messenger. The social media is not having a go at Miliband because he is Labour; they are having a go because he is crap.
If you started to offer advice to Mark Reckless and UKIP I would explode!
Are they counted as natives, immigrants, or a bit of both?
And is the question "niff naff" (I think that was the term you used)? And is my asking it evidence that I'm a hysterical anti-immigrant bigot?
"French President Francois Hollande has said he will not seek re-election in 2017 if he fails to cut unemployment.
In a televised interview, Mr Hollande acknowledged he had made mistakes since taking office in 2012 but vowed to go "to the end" to reform the economy.
The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Paris says the interview is widely seen as an attempt by Mr Hollande to revive his flagging popularity.
Earlier on Thursday, a new poll put the president's approval rating at 12%.
Unemployment in France is currently at 11% and economic growth has all but ground to a halt.
With Mr Hollande's popularity at an all-time low, the far-right Front National led by Marine Le Pen has been making steady gains.
"I've got a thick skin. For two-and-a-half years I've been hanging on," said Mr Hollande.
"I have made mistakes. Who hasn't?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29939750
At least Miliband has the intellectual self-confidence not to come out with rubbish like that.
Ed Miliband's woes not mentioned on R5L, lower down on R4.
A smart move by George.
My best guess at this stage is:
Con 295
Lab 275
Lib Dem 30,
SNP 20,
UKIP 5,
Other 7,
NI 18
or thereabouts.
However, I do note your use of a strawman in describing the "average republicans" position.
Also, your figures are wrong, it is more like abolish X, Y and Z and have a flat tax of 10% but only starting at over £26,000
I've repeatedly asked you a couple of simple questions and you've not replied to them. Maybe they're more complicated for you than I expected...
"In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9361742/ukips-patrick-oflynn-on-the-genius-nigel-farage-and-why-douglas-carswells-votes-wont-set-party-policy/
Labour's share has declined and UKIP's has risen. The Conservative share has wobbled about but hasn't actually changed that much over the period, and the LibDem share shows a similar pattern.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/vn51y084s27b47d/Last 600 YouGov polls.jpg#
He'd be an utter utter disaster as PM. Hollande-ish. We must keep him and Labour away from power. If Miliband getting trampled into the dirt, despite being a 'nice guy', is the price to be paid then that's absolutely fine. He's a politician. He aspires to control you and your life. You need cut him no slack whatever. Kick him while he's down and piss on the body.
I think the first thing that such a decent leader would have to say is "sorry". And then show they have learnt from the mistakes of the past. And that is where it gets tough. What does this "decent leader" do to fix the fundamental break in Labour's business model - when it always loads the private sector up with way more taxes and borrowing costs for the public sector than the private sector can sustain? No-one in Labour has come close to addressing that fundamental.
As I say on my post this morning (linked to below), No Overall Majority looks like a great bet, even at 1.7.
Stop Press: BenM thinks the Tories may win the election, but is selective in his use of language.
Lol yeah right.
Reeves is a lightweight.
Chuka OTOH...
Stop Press: BenM thinks the Tories may win the election, but is selective in his use of language.
See @Sean_Fs post. In that scenario no one wins.
Take 9 off UKIP, distribute a couple to Labour, the balance to Tories and you get back to the range other pollsters are showing.
New Labour leader announces
* Uk aspirational country - I will help everyone up.
* No more pandering to vested interests - whether business or unions
* Live within our means - benefits only for the poorest - keep the cap, tax credits phased out for those above the cap.
* Honesty and integrity - hard work will get reward
* EU referendum including question on whether to limit immigration
* Citizens get a NHS/Education card - if you can't produce you don't get free treatment
* NHS/ Education - free for all Uk citizens but no dogma about who provides - will be evidence based on what produces the best results
* Rise in minimum wage of 5% from day 1.
Would storm home with 40%.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-reluctant-internationalists/
A couple more tranches of the Panelbase polling commissioned by Wings over Sctoland, focussing on the SLAB leadership and EU respectively.
The [edit] former results are interesting - not just because Mr Brown, and Mr DK/Don't Care, score just as well as Mr Murphy with Labour voters, but also because he's actually 1% MORE popular with Tory than Labour voters, which is hardly a surprise give the demographics of his seat. But all the same, it does reflect his wider perception, as well as a dilemma for the future.
By comparison, Mr Findlay and Mr Boyack are nowhere, though as this is to do with ordinary voters it may reflect the relative levels of publicity the three candidates have had over the last few months.
"Merthyr council has begun 45 day consultation with workers - but no-one is sure what they are consulting on.
Unions have warned a council that it is breaching its national agreement after launching a consultation which could see staff sacked and re-employed on worse terms.
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council has begun a 45-day formal consultation for all staff – but it has not been made clear what the authority is actually consulting on.
Last month the council proposed to cut all staff members’ pay by 3%. But that plan was scrapped at the 11th hour after it was revealed the Local Government Association (LGA) is currently negotiating a pay rise for council staff next year, which contradicted the Merthyr council proposals.
However, the council has now voted through a consultation which could see it dismiss more than 1,000 staff before re-employing them on worse terms and conditions if an agreement is not met."
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/merthyr-council-proposes-sack-staff-8065643
Meanwhile Wales is proposing to strengthen its Welsh Language legislation - what about prioritising Health, Education and the Economy first?
Get all fussy about the figures in attempt to find any support for their misguided belief system.
Big picture is: immigration = economic win.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/labour-leader-ed-miliband-announces-plans-to-help-bus-passengers-during-visit-to-northampton-college-1-6402927#.VFyOkPIRF
Another, its great to be hear stuff introduction - does he ever change his speech patterns?