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'.
There is an argument going on about the calculation of the lead and highlighting the leading party in their colour gives undue weight to that party in that poll.
WHAT?
Well, it's all done by consensus, so if casual users of this page (I expect there are many on PB) think this is stupid, it is best to go onto the Talk page and make a comment supporting the status quo. (Section 17, Synth) It is obvious to me that the removal of the highlighting has made the table harder to follow with the eye.
EDITED to add - I tend to feel that if I am a regular user of a Wikipedia page, I am morally obliged to edit it if I feel that something is not right. (And I make casual grammatical and factual amendments on all sorts of pages when I see them as well).
the reason just two grumpy MPs apparently actively agitating for the leadership has received so much coverage is that for months journalists have been talking off the record to Labourites who are privately increasingly unhappy – and increasing numbers of them feel this way. Those two MPs, still anonymous, are just the tip of a very big iceberg of misery. Reports of unrest, though, may uncork the tensions in the party and lead to more MPs taking a calculated risk to speak out. Or, they may have the opposite effect and cause the party to band tighter together against what it sees as a hostile press out to get it. We just don’t know yet.
The most interesting passage in that article is this paragraph:
"What we do know, or can at least be very confident of, is that there will be no serious leadership coup in Labour, or the Conservatives over the next few months. There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, but in the end the vast majority of MPs in both parties know that the public would not reward a new leader of an obviously divided party at the ballot box. ‘We’ve left it too late, haven’t we?’ one Labour frontbencher unhappy with the leadership tells me. Meanwhile Tory MPs are happy to band together for Cameron for the next six months, but big beasts such as Liam Fox and Theresa May are already doing preparatory work for a leadership contest, and backbenchers openly joke that ‘we’re loyal until 7 May’."
The betting implications are obvious, if you agree with it (I do).
"There is a problem with the leader, so we'll have to discard some of our targets," says my source. "Because the leader is doing that badly, it's such a turn-off. So we'll have to stop putting resources [in certain target seats]". They add that they will have to resort simply to "defending" seats they already hold, "rather than trying to win new ones". But this is still under discussion, and no numbers have yet been decided.
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'.
BenM - so is it fair that a Polish home owner can travel to London, get housing benefit and all the rest... but a Aberfan home owner won't get any help to move. Does this explain to you why the British haven't moved from down turned areas but the Poles can?
Eh?
Eh indeed.
your response just shows that you have no idea what is happening in the real world.
Better still, no sign of Tory share going anywhere and with R&S coming up.
Ed is under pressure, but he's lucky in his enemies. He needs to use this opportunity.
The average labour lead is about 1% and the direction of travel is towards a Tory lead, then there is the uncertainty of the election campaign and how well ed will perform on the stump. Complacency is always a good strategy ;-)
There is an argument going on about the calculation of the lead and highlighting the leading party in their colour gives undue weight to that party in that poll.
WHAT?
Well, it's all done by consensus, so if casual users of this page (I expect there are many on PB) think this is stupid, it is best to go onto the Talk page and make a comment supporting the status quo. (Section 17, Synth) It is obvious to me that the removal of the highlighting has made the table harder to follow with the eye.
Conspiratorially, I wonder whether Johann Lamont has been involved in any plotting. Her departure:
(a) accentuated and highlighted the weakness of Labour's Scottish position (b) specifically criticised Ed's office & by extension his leadership (c) got Jim Murphy out of the Westminster way
UKPR don't appear to use Survation to collate their polling averages. Why not?
They only use polls conducted in the last 20 days.
So prior to this Survation poll, the last survation poll was 12th of October, so it would be out of that time frame
The UKPR Polling Average takes in polls from the last 20 days and gives them weightings based on various factors, including how recently they were conducted, the past record of the pollster producing the figures, the methodology used, the sample size and how many polls have been produced by a single pollster. The detailed figures are at the bottom of the page. These are of course a matter of opinion, particularly my preference for polls that have been politically weighted,
the reason just two grumpy MPs apparently actively agitating for the leadership has received so much coverage is that for months journalists have been talking off the record to Labourites who are privately increasingly unhappy – and increasing numbers of them feel this way. Those two MPs, still anonymous, are just the tip of a very big iceberg of misery. Reports of unrest, though, may uncork the tensions in the party and lead to more MPs taking a calculated risk to speak out. Or, they may have the opposite effect and cause the party to band tighter together against what it sees as a hostile press out to get it. We just don’t know yet.
The most interesting passage in that article is this paragraph:
"What we do know, or can at least be very confident of, is that there will be no serious leadership coup in Labour, or the Conservatives over the next few months. There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, but in the end the vast majority of MPs in both parties know that the public would not reward a new leader of an obviously divided party at the ballot box. ‘We’ve left it too late, haven’t we?’ one Labour frontbencher unhappy with the leadership tells me. Meanwhile Tory MPs are happy to band together for Cameron for the next six months, but big beasts such as Liam Fox and Theresa May are already doing preparatory work for a leadership contest, and backbenchers openly joke that ‘we’re loyal until 7 May’."
The betting implications are obvious, if you agree with it (I do).
Should have put more on Ed at 2.66 this morning, wanted £25 to be matched at 2.78 - oh well was a little too greedy... Nice top up to the £70 I have at 6-4 I guess.
So we don't need to reduce immigration from the EU - which we can't do without leaving the EU as Farage correctly points out - and we need to massively reduce immigration from the rest of the world which we can do?
"As Germany does not allow immigration without cause, it is necessary to be either enrolled with a school or university, have a specific job offer that fits the requirements of one of the work permit categories or intend to reunify with close family (spouse or minors) already within Germany (family reunification visa)."
We should have a unified points system with a quota. You get points for being young; for however skilled you are (or will be when you've finished your course), taking into account university quality; for the level of English fluency; for your knowledge of UK civics; for being in a serious relationship with a UK citizen; for your level of income; etc. Each year we let in the 100,000 people that score most highly on the list.
There is an argument going on about the calculation of the lead and highlighting the leading party in their colour gives undue weight to that party in that poll.
WHAT?
Well, it's all done by consensus, so if casual users of this page (I expect there are many on PB) think this is stupid, it is best to go onto the Talk page and make a comment supporting the status quo. (Section 17, Synth) It is obvious to me that the removal of the highlighting has made the table harder to follow with the eye.
Eh, I just changed it back.
Or you can do that! I admit I couldn't be bothered (especially if someone was going to change it back again) but I did put today's polls on in the old format. Actually, I admit I only just worked out how the formatting worked (I have always worked on cut & paste when posting results) and was going to look at it when I had a bit more time.
Mr. Eagles, presumably their defensive approach would be more focused on Scotland than elsewhere, if they went down that route?
Judging by the polls.
Yes. Definitely have to put more resources into Glasgow and the central belt than they would like with the most C2DE "45%" ripe and ready to jump ship to SNP.
...... the BBC is reporting that "some backbenchers" - the number still seems to be two at the moment - have been to see the chairman of the PLP, Dave Watts MP......
There is an argument going on about the calculation of the lead and highlighting the leading party in their colour gives undue weight to that party in that poll.
WHAT?
Well, it's all done by consensus, so if casual users of this page (I expect there are many on PB) think this is stupid, it is best to go onto the Talk page and make a comment supporting the status quo. (Section 17, Synth) It is obvious to me that the removal of the highlighting has made the table harder to follow with the eye.
Eh, I just changed it back.
Or you can do that! I admit I couldn't be bothered (especially if someone was going to change it back again) but I did put today's polls on in the old format. Actually, I admit I only just worked out how the formatting worked (I have always worked on cut & paste when posting results) and was going to look at it when I had a bit more time.
The editor is really crap. The syntax should be highlighted in different colours etc., much like you would find on a good programming editor thinggie.
We should have a unified points system with a quota. You get points for being young; for however skilled you are (or will be when you've finished your course), taking into account university quality; for the level of English fluency; for your knowledge of UK civics; for being in a serious relationship with a UK citizen; for your level of income; etc. Each year we let in the 100,000 people that score most highly on the list.
I agree entirely. However if we are in "UKIP 5 seats" land, that isn't going to happen. My point was that it would be quite easy for a British Government to be dramatically more strict on non-EU immigration (which is after all where the vast majority of cost appears to come from), without any realistic come back from the EU, and making life much harder for the nay-sayers, just by cloning the processes and requirements of Germany.
the reason just two grumpy MPs apparently actively agitating for the leadership has received so much coverage is that for months journalists have been talking off the record to Labourites who are privately increasingly unhappy – and increasing numbers of them feel this way. Those two MPs, still anonymous, are just the tip of a very big iceberg of misery. Reports of unrest, though, may uncork the tensions in the party and lead to more MPs taking a calculated risk to speak out. Or, they may have the opposite effect and cause the party to band tighter together against what it sees as a hostile press out to get it. We just don’t know yet.
The most interesting passage in that article is this paragraph:
"What we do know, or can at least be very confident of, is that there will be no serious leadership coup in Labour, or the Conservatives over the next few months. There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, but in the end the vast majority of MPs in both parties know that the public would not reward a new leader of an obviously divided party at the ballot box. ‘We’ve left it too late, haven’t we?’ one Labour frontbencher unhappy with the leadership tells me. Meanwhile Tory MPs are happy to band together for Cameron for the next six months, but big beasts such as Liam Fox and Theresa May are already doing preparatory work for a leadership contest, and backbenchers openly joke that ‘we’re loyal until 7 May’."
The betting implications are obvious, if you agree with it (I do).
Quote "There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon”
That has to be an unattractive prospect on several counts
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
Nah - they didn't do it to Brown and nobody wants to be the knifee.
How many weeks would it take to get a replacement - all wasted. Hattie replying to the Autumn statement ?
Election is very close. And don't forget the family strife of his becoming leader. To go through that and then not even contest the election would be very difficult. Plus, he still has a realistic prospect of becoming PM.
...... the BBC is reporting that "some backbenchers" - the number still seems to be two at the moment - have been to see the chairman of the PLP, Dave Watts MP......
Is this really worthy of comment - I think not.
Vs the 24 letters that Isabel Hardman reports have already been lodged with the '22 calling for a leadership contest against Cameron.
Even if the Tories go for Cameron after getting smashed in Rochester, even if Simon "son of a migrant attacking migrants like a Kipper" Dansczuk has been to see the PLP, neither party is going to bin its leader this close to the election. If there was an obvious successur waiting, a populist successor who could unite the divided parliamentary parties AND energise the public and get into the leadership unopposed, then maybe.
But the truth is that there is noone on either front bench who fits that job description. So both stay. Clegg too.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
The ridiculous thing is that Ed has such a low bar to clear. He just needs to come up with a couple of vaguely sensible policies that sound workable and then just not act like a complete oddball for a few months and the election is in the bag. Why can't he do it?
I just don't get it, what exactly has he been doing the last four years? What is his plan?
The average bloke off the street would put up a better fist than this. Seriously.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
Nah - they didn't do it to Brown and nobody wants to be the knifee.
How many weeks would it take to get a replacement - all wasted. Hattie replying to the Autumn statement ?
You're probably right, I'm not putting any money on it. But if it's true that they are tagetting fewer seats the mood in the Party could swing fast. If he's going at all it will be before Xmas. The Tories managed to do it with IDS, Labour would find a way if they really wanted to.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
I can't imagine he'll step aside. He just doesn't seem to have the emotional intelligence to realise he's no good.
Labour will have to wield the knife and fast. I'd say if he makes it another week then he's probably safe.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
I agree on that. This is not like a minister cocking something up or using intemperate words. Things that will blow over. This is about Ed's inherent crapness. And that ain't going away.
How will things be better for Labour going into an election campaign with a leader who is still crap?
The Ed out momentum definitely doesn't seem to have been maintained today. I think he has got through it, this incident will be played down as two rogue dissenters.
The Ed out momentum definitely doesn't seem to have been maintained today. I think he has got through it, this incident will be played down as two rogue dissenters.
Goerge Osborne getting the £1.7 Billion to the top of the news agenda has given the Westminster journos something else to chew on.
He may not be that likeable, George but he is a smart cookie.
The ridiculous thing is that Ed has such a low bar to clear. He just needs to come up with a couple of vaguely sensible policies that sound workable and then just not act like a complete oddball for a few months and the election is in the bag. Why can't he do it?
I think the policies bit is becoming a problem for both parties. Anything that was both easy to do, and looked attractive to the electorate, has been done. They are left with things which are either a b**ger to do, and/or are likely to be controversial/courageous to tell to the public. The internet ages seems to make politicians think they have to react to everything so everyone tries to make policy on the hoof without proper thought. The internet and the think-tanks between them usually give only minutes between a policy being announced, and someone spotting the flaws in it, often before the announcement has even got into the newspapers... so the "safe" option seems to some to look like a policy vacuum, if you dont have any policies, no one is going to hate them.
Mr. Eagles, presumably their defensive approach would be more focused on Scotland than elsewhere, if they went down that route?
That seems likely.
Clearly Labour strategists have learnt the lessons from Zama.
They might have the advantage of numerical supremacy/electoral geography, but if you're led by a crap leader, you need to plan accordingly, or you're going to get pounded like a dockside hooker, and lose the war/election.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
To be fair, CS, I don't think there has been an opportune moment to defenestrate Ed.
That was not the case with Brown. Had David Miliband resigned when he was expected to, Brown would certainly have gone. DM's decision to support Brown not only sank his own Leadership chances, it also took several others out of the frame - notably James Purnell and Mr & Mrs Balls. This left an already indistinguished field threadbare when a new Leader had to be selected after the Election defeat. Ed was probably the best choice from a bunch that hasn't improved much in quality since.
And he has had his moments. Look at the Party Polls throughout his Leadership and it isn't obvious why he should have been removed at any time before now.
Not that Now is much of an option with the election so close.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
There is a very big difference between a minister in trouble and a party leader in trouble. You can replace a minister within hours and - unless it's an exceptionally big beast - the overall nature of the government will be unchanged vs how it was prior to the immediate crisis prompting the resignation / saking. By contrast, replacing a leader can take weeks (and can't be guaranteed to take less time beforehand, even if it subsequently ends up doing so), has no certain outcome and could substantially change the nature of the government.
Miliband's position is not yet anywhere near untenable (see today's party VI polls), but it's clear that while no-one is yet prepared to act against him, nor is anyone prepared to put in any great effort to go and defend him either.
Plus, he still has a realistic prospect of becoming PM.
No. He has a realistic probability of losing worse than Brown, annihilated in Scotland, even losing support in London.
Jack W was right. EMWNBPM
Suppose the Tories don't recover. Suppose all those C2 voters that are supposed to help Dave over the line, vote Nige.
The Tories have 303 seats. They are clearly going to lose quite a few in the North and in London. If UKIP do enough damage in places like Clacton, Thanet, Thurrock, then Miliband as PM remains conceivable with the Tories down at c.270.
Ed Miliband won't lead a majority Labour government. He may, through the efforts and failings of others, scrape together enough to lead a minority one with a left leaning alliance.
I wouldn't put money on it, but it's still feasible.
Let's face it, the public's opinion of him can't get any worse from here on in, can it?
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
There is a very big difference between a minister in trouble and a party leader in trouble. You can replace a minister within hours and - unless it's an exceptionally big beast - the overall nature of the government will be unchanged vs how it was prior to the immediate crisis prompting the resignation / saking. By contrast, replacing a leader can take weeks (and can't be guaranteed to take less time beforehand, even if it subsequently ends up doing so), has no certain outcome and could substantially change the nature of the government.
Miliband's position is not yet anywhere near untenable (see today's party VI polls), but it's clear that while no-one is yet prepared to act against him, nor is anyone prepared to put in any great effort to go and defend him either.
Plus, he still has a realistic prospect of becoming PM.
No. He has a realistic probability of losing worse than Brown, annihilated in Scotland, even losing support in London.
Jack W was right. EMWNBPM
Suppose the Tories don't recover. Suppose all those C2 voters that are supposed to help Dave over the line, vote Nige.
The Tories have 303 seats. They are clearly going to lose quite a few in the North and in London. If UKIP do enough damage in places like Clacton, Thanet, Thurrock, them Miliband as PM remains conceivable with the Tories down at 270.
Ed Miliband won't lead a majority Labour government. He may, through the efforts and failings of others, scrape together enough to lead a minority one with a left leaning alliance.
I wouldn't put money on it, but it's still feasible.
Let's face it, the public's opinion of him can't get any worse from here on in, can it?
That's spot on, Chestnut.
Much depends on how many seats are picked up by the LDs, UKIP and the SNP. The better those three perform, the more likely NOM becomes. At present, only the LDs are languishing but they have some potential for improvement.
Labour and Conservatives can only hope for a collapse of the SNP and UKIP. It's always possible, but not much sign of it yet.
The ridiculous thing is that Ed has such a low bar to clear. He just needs to come up with a couple of vaguely sensible policies that sound workable and then just not act like a complete oddball for a few months and the election is in the bag. Why can't he do it?
I think the policies bit is becoming a problem for both parties. Anything that was both easy to do, and looked attractive to the electorate, has been done. They are left with things which are either a b**ger to do, and/or are likely to be controversial/courageous to tell to the public. The internet ages seems to make politicians think they have to react to everything so everyone tries to make policy on the hoof without proper thought. The internet and the think-tanks between them usually give only minutes between a policy being announced, and someone spotting the flaws in it, often before the announcement has even got into the newspapers... so the "safe" option seems to some to look like a policy vacuum, if you dont have any policies, no one is going to hate them.
The British general public are not particularly understanding. They want world class public services, but they don't want to have to pay for them. They want less bureaucracy but then oppose any reforms that are proposed.
It's not really any wonder that politicians look completely useless when there isn't really much of substance that they can say or do that won't mean them getting booted out at the next election. Hence a load of empty suits that look good on the telly getting to lead the parties. Except Ed who can't even manage that.
"Let's face it, the public's opinion of him can't get any worse from here on in, can it?"
I think it can, we really don't know him that well at all.
Yes, I think there are depths unplumbed that only the election campaign might reveal. Who would have predicted bigotgate? Ed is worse than Gordo; how many similar gaffes can he squeeze into the next six months? And the debates (if they happen) - a 2 hour PMQ style pummeling?
Nearly as much as Captain Renault was shocked to discover gambling was taking place in Rick's cafe.
A key shift in the deadline debate has been France, which is due to get £790million back in rebates, from the budget revision that led to the UK surcharge.
Are they too stupid to realise their contribution to the EU budget will be a lot worse if the UK leaves.
Re @SouthamObserver yesterday suggesting Farage weeping at the poppy display was a publicity stunt worse than Ed's tramp and Dave's Guinness, presumably set up by Farage to curry favour as the cameras "just happened" to be there
He said this morning on LBC that he didn't shed a tear and reports that he did were an exaggeration
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
To be fair, CS, I don't think there has been an opportune moment to defenestrate Ed.
That was not the case with Brown. Had David Miliband resigned when he was expected to, Brown would certainly have gone. DM's decision to support Brown not only sank his own Leadership chances, it also took several others out of the frame - notably James Purnell and Mr & Mrs Balls. This left an already indistinguished field threadbare when a new Leader had to be selected after the Election defeat. Ed was probably the best choice from a bunch that hasn't improved much in quality since.
And he has had his moments. Look at the Party Polls throughout his Leadership and it isn't obvious why he should have been removed at any time before now.
Not that Now is much of an option with the election so close.
It's been obvious that he'd crap from the moment he opened his mouth. I can't believe anyone thought anything else.
And there's a perfect moment to get rid of him, now. Just get it over and done with, line someone up quickly and it'll all be back to business in a month.
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.
Yup. That's almost exactly where I'm at.
Can either of you explain how you get to those numbers?
I can see the Tories winning a handful of Lib Dem seats. Most LD losses will go to Labour. Maybe the odd Labour seat will go Tory if UKIP/Green/SNP take lefty votes. Labour will lose seats directly to the SNP, for sure.
But all that is a sideshow to the simple fact that, as Lord Ashcroft's polling proves, and as the national polls confirm, dozens of seats the Tories gained off Labour in 2010 are going to go straight back to Labour, and more so in the north, midlands, urban south, and Wales.
If UKIP have a real surge rather than a nuisance upswing, then the Tory party could be truly decimated to a rump of safe seats.
I cannot fathom how anyone, on current polling and even allowing for some swingback, can project the Tories having most seats.
Mr. Pulpstar, could you clarify: is 2.66 for him to stay or go?
I stuck £50 on him this morning at 2.66 to be next PM.
This is equivalent to 2.58 net of Betfair's 5% commission and looks like a great value bet, with an implied probability of only 38.8% compared with the major bookies' average price of around even money .... Hills and Bet Victor are as short as 4/5 (1.8), where the implied probability is therefore 55.6%
"EEA immigration is great! It makes up for 4% of the loss from non-EEA immigration! Therefore more immigration is needed!"
All immigration since 2001 is a net benefit.
You're obsessed with a number that includes immigrants that have been here for decades!
Whose greatest net contribution to the exchequer was before the time period under review!
On the other hand, recent immigrants, i.e. those who came after 1999, have made positive fiscal contributions irrespective of origin.
"irrespective of origin".
The numbers I was talking include all immigrants both those that have been here decades and those currently in work (of which there are a lot more). If that's a massive net drain then that means immigration, long-term, is a net negative.
In fact, I'm using the same time period used in the £4.4bn mentioned everywhere. You're the one that's trying to fix the numbers by only including the recent migrants that haven't had kids, pensions and elderly healthcare yet. The fact that it's such a small positive even when you only include the recent ones shows what a disaster it will be long term.
Gordon Brown is the top choice amongst Labour voters followed by Jim Murphy, followed by Don't Know/Don't Care. The other candidates are basically statistical noise.
Looks like Murphy it is then unless Labour party members don't reflect Labour Party Voters.
Ed Miliband won't lead a majority Labour government. He may, through the efforts and failings of others, scrape together enough to lead a minority one with a left leaning alliance.
I do wonder what the reality of this Left-leaning Alliance would be. If Ed ends up 30 votes short and brings in the remains of the LDs and a couple of Greens to make up the numbers, how would things go then. It seems to me the sort of marriage that would make the current coalition look like it was made in heaven. There will be enough orange book LDs around that passing a real left-wing budget will be hard work. Several billion pounds worth of cuts are going to be required before the end of the year, just as the economic cycle turns down. All those different left leaners are going to a) oppose anything that looks like a cut b) have completely different ideas about who should be taxed to make up for what they can't cut. It will be mayhem.. what are the odds on a complete lame duck government that cant pass anything of consequence for five years, and cant even be put out of its misery because of the fixed term parliament act.
"EEA immigration is great! It makes up for 4% of the loss from non-EEA immigration! Therefore more immigration is needed!"
All immigration since 2001 is a net benefit.
You're obsessed with a number that includes immigrants that have been here for decades!
Whose greatest net contribution to the exchequer was before the time period under review!
On the other hand, recent immigrants, i.e. those who came after 1999, have made positive fiscal contributions irrespective of origin.
"irrespective of origin".
The numbers I was talking include all immigrants both those that have been here decades and those currently in work (of which there are a lot more). If that's a massive net drain then that means immigration, long-term, is a net negative.
In fact, I'm using the same time period used in the £4.4bn mentioned everywhere. You're the one that's trying to fix the numbers by only including the recent migrants that haven't had kids, pensions and elderly healthcare yet. The fact that it's such a small positive even when you only include the recent ones shows what a disaster it will be long term.
But we don't know, yet, whether @BenM considers the kids that the immigrants might have had to be natives or immigrants..
One normally critical senior Labour MP said there was a wave of dissatisfaction about the leader but no concerted plot that he was aware of: “I think this will fizzle out,” he said.
Another Labour figure said morale was terrible. “Obviously everyone wants him gone but nobody is properly organising a coup,” he said. “The most likely outcome is a botched coup which further weakens him.”
Mr. Pulpstar, could you clarify: is 2.66 for him to stay or go?
I stuck £50 on him this morning at 2.66 to be next PM.
This is equivalent to 2.58 net of Betfair's 5% commission and looks like a great value bet, with an implied probability of only 38.8% compared with the major bookies' average price of around even money .... Hills and Bet Victor are as short as 4/5 (1.8), where the implied probability is therefore 55.6%
Balls next chancellor at 7-2 is still the daddy of my Labour value bets I think though.
Re @SouthamObserver yesterday suggesting Farage weeping at the poppy display was a publicity stunt worse than Ed's tramp and Dave's Guinness, presumably set up by Farage to curry favour as the cameras "just happened" to be there
He said this morning on LBC that he didn't shed a tear and reports that he did were an exaggeration
The philistine!!
ScottP and SouthamObserver have demonstrated an ignorance of modern life than is simply astounding.
Anyone in any crowd is surrounded by tens of cameras. Just take that phone out of your pocket to see an example.
The ridiculous thing is that Ed has such a low bar to clear. He just needs to come up with a couple of vaguely sensible policies that sound workable and then just not act like a complete oddball for a few months and the election is in the bag. Why can't he do it?
I think the policies bit is becoming a problem for both parties. Anything that was both easy to do, and looked attractive to the electorate, has been done. They are left with things which are either a b**ger to do, and/or are likely to be controversial/courageous to tell to the public. The internet ages seems to make politicians think they have to react to everything so everyone tries to make policy on the hoof without proper thought. The internet and the think-tanks between them usually give only minutes between a policy being announced, and someone spotting the flaws in it, often before the announcement has even got into the newspapers... so the "safe" option seems to some to look like a policy vacuum, if you dont have any policies, no one is going to hate them.
It just goes to show the limits of populism as both a program and practice of politics.
I have a feeling that if there is a politician out there with the boldness and charisma to tell it like it is, that politician could truly seize the day. Sadly, I don't think there is such a person, and suspect they would be stifled by their Party and the main stream media anyway, but perhaps other PBers have other ideas.
Gordon Brown is the top choice amongst Labour voters followed by Jim Murphy, followed by Don't Know/Don't Care. The other candidates are basically statistical noise.
Looks like Murphy it is then unless Labour party members don't reflect Labour Party Voters.
Indeed, though as all score 28-29% there's no real difference between these three top runners.
An additional point is that, as I noted earlier, Mr M is even more popular (or, within presumable limits of error, just as popular) with Tory voters. Which may by implication pose a problem in terms of keeping on board the 72% of Labour voters who didn't rate Mr M first.
"EEA immigration is great! It makes up for 4% of the loss from non-EEA immigration! Therefore more immigration is needed!"
All immigration since 2001 is a net benefit.
You're obsessed with a number that includes immigrants that have been here for decades!
Whose greatest net contribution to the exchequer was before the time period under review!
On the other hand, recent immigrants, i.e. those who came after 1999, have made positive fiscal contributions irrespective of origin.
"irrespective of origin".
The numbers I was talking include all immigrants both those that have been here decades and those currently in work (of which there are a lot more). If that's a massive net drain then that means immigration, long-term, is a net negative.
In fact, I'm using the same time period used in the £4.4bn mentioned everywhere. You're the one that's trying to fix the numbers by only including the recent migrants that haven't had kids, pensions and elderly healthcare yet. The fact that it's such a small positive even when you only include the recent ones shows what a disaster it will be long term.
I've only ever made comments about "recent" immigrants because that's what the report shows. Table 6 panel b page 26 - recent non EEA migration £5,207m net contribution.
You're the one who has gone off piste about so called costs of non EEA migrants between 1995 and 2011 of which there is only part data.
You make the same mistake the rightwing tabloids made.
Don't you see? You cannot make the conclusions you are trying to do based on this report.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Put it this way, if Cameron had the same sort of conference Ed did I wouldn't have backed him this morning.
This has the feeling of every Ministerial/Leader resignation. How long before he steps aside for the sake of his Party saying "I have become the story" or "I need to spend more time with my family". How often do politicians manage to ride something this bad out?
There is a very big difference between a minister in trouble and a party leader in trouble. You can replace a minister within hours and - unless it's an exceptionally big beast - the overall nature of the government will be unchanged vs how it was prior to the immediate crisis prompting the resignation / saking. By contrast, replacing a leader can take weeks (and can't be guaranteed to take less time beforehand, even if it subsequently ends up doing so), has no certain outcome and could substantially change the nature of the government.
Miliband's position is not yet anywhere near untenable (see today's party VI polls), but it's clear that while no-one is yet prepared to act against him, nor is anyone prepared to put in any great effort to go and defend him either.
Clever. Make it an election issue, refuse to back down and make Cameron look week just before the election, which would allow Labour to win and prevent a referendum.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
To be fair, CS, I don't think there has been an opportune moment to defenestrate Ed.
That was not the case with Brown. Had David Miliband resigned when he was expected to, Brown would certainly have gone. DM's decision to support Brown not only sank his own Leadership chances, it also took several others out of the frame - notably James Purnell and Mr & Mrs Balls. This left an already indistinguished field threadbare when a new Leader had to be selected after the Election defeat. Ed was probably the best choice from a bunch that hasn't improved much in quality since.
And he has had his moments. Look at the Party Polls throughout his Leadership and it isn't obvious why he should have been removed at any time before now.
Not that Now is much of an option with the election so close.
Now both DM and Purnell have taken up positions in the highly lucrative third sector, how brave and noble of them.
Mr. Pulpstar, could you clarify: is 2.66 for him to stay or go?
I stuck £50 on him this morning at 2.66 to be next PM.
This is equivalent to 2.58 net of Betfair's 5% commission and looks like a great value bet, with an implied probability of only 38.8% compared with the major bookies' average price of around even money .... Hills and Bet Victor are as short as 4/5 (1.8), where the implied probability is therefore 55.6%
Balls next chancellor at 7-2 is still the daddy of my Labour value bets I think though.
True enough, that was indeed a cracker - but sadly it's no longer there. Balls is currently 11/8 with Ladbrokes to be the next CotE, I'd personally rather have Hammond at 6/1.
This morning Ed Miliband is not facing a coup. It’s much more serious than that.
Coups are structured, formalised plots, organised by a relatively small number of dedicated individuals. What we’ve seen over the last 48 hours is a convulsion; a spontaneous outpouring of the anger and frustration that has been gradually building up within the parliamentary Labour Party over the past four years.
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
To be fair, CS, I don't think there has been an opportune moment to defenestrate Ed.
That was not the case with Brown. Had David Miliband resigned when he was expected to, Brown would certainly have gone. DM's decision to support Brown not only sank his own Leadership chances, it also took several others out of the frame - notably James Purnell and Mr & Mrs Balls. This left an already indistinguished field threadbare when a new Leader had to be selected after the Election defeat. Ed was probably the best choice from a bunch that hasn't improved much in quality since.
And he has had his moments. Look at the Party Polls throughout his Leadership and it isn't obvious why he should have been removed at any time before now.
Not that Now is much of an option with the election so close.
Now both DM and Purnell have taken up positions in the highly lucrative third sector, how brave and noble of them.
Purnell was entitled to feel severely let down by his peers, notably DM himself. I don't blame him for calling it a day.
Not sure what else DM could have done after losing the election to his brother. It must grate mightily that has to watch his brother doing the job that he knows could have been his.
Comments
https://electionsetcdev.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/forecast-b-141107.png?w=474&h=264
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000mcgG2zI3b_U/s/860/860/Flint-Caroline-200110013775.jpg
EDITED to add - I tend to feel that if I am a regular user of a Wikipedia page, I am morally obliged to edit it if I feel that something is not right. (And I make casual grammatical and factual amendments on all sorts of pages when I see them as well).
The most interesting passage in that article is this paragraph:
"What we do know, or can at least be very confident of, is that there will be no serious leadership coup in Labour, or the Conservatives over the next few months. There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, but in the end the vast majority of MPs in both parties know that the public would not reward a new leader of an obviously divided party at the ballot box. ‘We’ve left it too late, haven’t we?’ one Labour frontbencher unhappy with the leadership tells me. Meanwhile Tory MPs are happy to band together for Cameron for the next six months, but big beasts such as Liam Fox and Theresa May are already doing preparatory work for a leadership contest, and backbenchers openly joke that ‘we’re loyal until 7 May’."
The betting implications are obvious, if you agree with it (I do).
Major betting implications if this story is true
"There is a problem with the leader, so we'll have to discard some of our targets," says my source. "Because the leader is doing that badly, it's such a turn-off. So we'll have to stop putting resources [in certain target seats]". They add that they will have to resort simply to "defending" seats they already hold, "rather than trying to win new ones". But this is still under discussion, and no numbers have yet been decided.http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/things-have-changed-rapidly-last-48-hours-what-s-going-labour-party
Though if the kippers are polling as high as this then Leicester West may be vulnerable.
your response just shows that you have no idea what is happening in the real world.
(a) accentuated and highlighted the weakness of Labour's Scottish position
(b) specifically criticised Ed's office & by extension his leadership
(c) got Jim Murphy out of the Westminster way
So prior to this Survation poll, the last survation poll was 12th of October, so it would be out of that time frame
The UKPR Polling Average takes in polls from the last 20 days and gives them weightings based on various factors, including how recently they were conducted, the past record of the pollster producing the figures, the methodology used, the sample size and how many polls have been produced by a single pollster. The detailed figures are at the bottom of the page. These are of course a matter of opinion, particularly my preference for polls that have been politically weighted,
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
"What we do know, or can at least be very confident of, is that there will be no serious leadership coup in Labour, or the Conservatives over the next few months. There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, but in the end the vast majority of MPs in both parties know that the public would not reward a new leader of an obviously divided party at the ballot box. ‘We’ve left it too late, haven’t we?’ one Labour frontbencher unhappy with the leadership tells me. Meanwhile Tory MPs are happy to band together for Cameron for the next six months, but big beasts such as Liam Fox and Theresa May are already doing preparatory work for a leadership contest, and backbenchers openly joke that ‘we’re loyal until 7 May’."
The betting implications are obvious, if you agree with it (I do).
Should have put more on Ed at 2.66 this morning, wanted £25 to be matched at 2.78 - oh well was a little too greedy... Nice top up to the £70 I have at 6-4 I guess.
http://electionsetc.com/
I think that is the most likely result
They're stuck with a duffer and they won't get rid of him. Again.
Yes. Definitely have to put more resources into Glasgow and the central belt than they would like with the most C2DE "45%" ripe and ready to jump ship to SNP.
...... the BBC is reporting that "some backbenchers" - the number still seems to be two at the moment - have been to see the chairman of the PLP, Dave Watts MP......
Is this really worthy of comment - I think not.
"What we do know, or can at least be very confident of, is that there will be no serious leadership coup in Labour, or the Conservatives over the next few months. There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, but in the end the vast majority of MPs in both parties know that the public would not reward a new leader of an obviously divided party at the ballot box. ‘We’ve left it too late, haven’t we?’ one Labour frontbencher unhappy with the leadership tells me. Meanwhile Tory MPs are happy to band together for Cameron for the next six months, but big beasts such as Liam Fox and Theresa May are already doing preparatory work for a leadership contest, and backbenchers openly joke that ‘we’re loyal until 7 May’."
The betting implications are obvious, if you agree with it (I do).
Quote "There may be those who try and end up looking like Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon”
That has to be an unattractive prospect on several counts
How many weeks would it take to get a replacement - all wasted. Hattie replying to the Autumn statement ?
Election is very close. And don't forget the family strife of his becoming leader. To go through that and then not even contest the election would be very difficult. Plus, he still has a realistic prospect of becoming PM.
Brown is the only example you need
Even if the Tories go for Cameron after getting smashed in Rochester, even if Simon "son of a migrant attacking migrants like a Kipper" Dansczuk has been to see the PLP, neither party is going to bin its leader this close to the election. If there was an obvious successur waiting, a populist successor who could unite the divided parliamentary parties AND energise the public and get into the leadership unopposed, then maybe.
But the truth is that there is noone on either front bench who fits that job description. So both stay. Clegg too.
I thought it was the Leader of the Opposition for the Budget, and Shadow Chancellor for the Autumn Statement.
I just don't get it, what exactly has he been doing the last four years? What is his plan?
The average bloke off the street would put up a better fist than this. Seriously.
Jack W was right. EMWNBPM
Over and over again.
Labour will have to wield the knife and fast. I'd say if he makes it another week then he's probably safe.
How will things be better for Labour going into an election campaign with a leader who is still crap?
He may not be that likeable, George but he is a smart cookie.
You're obsessed with a number that includes immigrants that have been here for decades!
Whose greatest net contribution to the exchequer was before the time period under review! "irrespective of origin".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11215420/EU-surcharge-deadline-to-be-delayed-until-after-the-general-election.html
This could be the end. Either it calms the nerves, or of he cocks it up, push them over the edge
EDIT: getting flashbacks of Nicola Murray writing her conference speech in a hotel room...
Hell, pass me my popcorn and pray they implode sooner, but not too soon, rather than later.
Clearly Labour strategists have learnt the lessons from Zama.
They might have the advantage of numerical supremacy/electoral geography, but if you're led by a crap leader, you need to plan accordingly, or you're going to get pounded like a dockside hooker, and lose the war/election.
That was not the case with Brown. Had David Miliband resigned when he was expected to, Brown would certainly have gone. DM's decision to support Brown not only sank his own Leadership chances, it also took several others out of the frame - notably James Purnell and Mr & Mrs Balls. This left an already indistinguished field threadbare when a new Leader had to be selected after the Election defeat. Ed was probably the best choice from a bunch that hasn't improved much in quality since.
And he has had his moments. Look at the Party Polls throughout his Leadership and it isn't obvious why he should have been removed at any time before now.
Not that Now is much of an option with the election so close.
Miliband's position is not yet anywhere near untenable (see today's party VI polls), but it's clear that while no-one is yet prepared to act against him, nor is anyone prepared to put in any great effort to go and defend him either.
The Tories have 303 seats. They are clearly going to lose quite a few in the North and in London. If UKIP do enough damage in places like Clacton, Thanet, Thurrock, then Miliband as PM remains conceivable with the Tories down at c.270.
Ed Miliband won't lead a majority Labour government. He may, through the efforts and failings of others, scrape together enough to lead a minority one with a left leaning alliance.
I wouldn't put money on it, but it's still feasible.
Let's face it, the public's opinion of him can't get any worse from here on in, can it?
Rich/Richer
Poor/Poorer
Nearly as much as Captain Renault was shocked to discover gambling was taking place in Rick's cafe.
I think it can, we really don't know him that well at all.
Much depends on how many seats are picked up by the LDs, UKIP and the SNP. The better those three perform, the more likely NOM becomes. At present, only the LDs are languishing but they have some potential for improvement.
Labour and Conservatives can only hope for a collapse of the SNP and UKIP. It's always possible, but not much sign of it yet.
It's not really any wonder that politicians look completely useless when there isn't really much of substance that they can say or do that won't mean them getting booted out at the next election. Hence a load of empty suits that look good on the telly getting to lead the parties. Except Ed who can't even manage that.
Are they too stupid to realise their contribution to the EU budget will be a lot worse if the UK leaves.
He said this morning on LBC that he didn't shed a tear and reports that he did were an exaggeration
The philistine!!
And there's a perfect moment to get rid of him, now. Just get it over and done with, line someone up quickly and it'll all be back to business in a month.
I can see the Tories winning a handful of Lib Dem seats. Most LD losses will go to Labour. Maybe the odd Labour seat will go Tory if UKIP/Green/SNP take lefty votes. Labour will lose seats directly to the SNP, for sure.
But all that is a sideshow to the simple fact that, as Lord Ashcroft's polling proves, and as the national polls confirm, dozens of seats the Tories gained off Labour in 2010 are going to go straight back to Labour, and more so in the north, midlands, urban south, and Wales.
If UKIP have a real surge rather than a nuisance upswing, then the Tory party could be truly decimated to a rump of safe seats.
I cannot fathom how anyone, on current polling and even allowing for some swingback, can project the Tories having most seats.
How?
Top nugget -- last Labour leader straight ejected by party came from row over controlling Mussolini almost 80yrs ago.
http://on.ft.com/1u5RsaW
@steve_hawkes: Ed Miliband's fight back will be on Facebook this afternoon - (can I have some friends pls)
The numbers I was talking include all immigrants both those that have been here decades and those currently in work (of which there are a lot more). If that's a massive net drain then that means immigration, long-term, is a net negative.
In fact, I'm using the same time period used in the £4.4bn mentioned everywhere. You're the one that's trying to fix the numbers by only including the recent migrants that haven't had kids, pensions and elderly healthcare yet. The fact that it's such a small positive even when you only include the recent ones shows what a disaster it will be long term.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/slim-pickings/
Gordon Brown is the top choice amongst Labour voters followed by Jim Murphy, followed by Don't Know/Don't Care. The other candidates are basically statistical noise.
Looks like Murphy it is then unless Labour party members don't reflect Labour Party Voters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11215420/EU-surcharge-deadline-to-be-delayed-until-after-the-general-election.html
In fact, I'm using the same time period used in the £4.4bn mentioned everywhere. You're the one that's trying to fix the numbers by only including the recent migrants that haven't had kids, pensions and elderly healthcare yet. The fact that it's such a small positive even when you only include the recent ones shows what a disaster it will be long term.
But we don't know, yet, whether @BenM considers the kids that the immigrants might have had to be natives or immigrants..
The issue at Zama was the quality of troops, not leader.
Market seems to have been pulled now.
Anyone in any crowd is surrounded by tens of cameras. Just take that phone out of your pocket to see an example.
I have a feeling that if there is a politician out there with the boldness and charisma to tell it like it is, that politician could truly seize the day. Sadly, I don't think there is such a person, and suspect they would be stifled by their Party and the main stream media anyway, but perhaps other PBers have other ideas.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=arfHsnxE-MU
An additional point is that, as I noted earlier, Mr M is even more popular (or, within presumable limits of error, just as popular) with Tory voters. Which may by implication pose a problem in terms of keeping on board the 72% of Labour voters who didn't rate Mr M first.
In fact, I'm using the same time period used in the £4.4bn mentioned everywhere. You're the one that's trying to fix the numbers by only including the recent migrants that haven't had kids, pensions and elderly healthcare yet. The fact that it's such a small positive even when you only include the recent ones shows what a disaster it will be long term.
I've only ever made comments about "recent" immigrants because that's what the report shows. Table 6 panel b page 26 - recent non EEA migration £5,207m net contribution.
You're the one who has gone off piste about so called costs of non EEA migrants between 1995 and 2011 of which there is only part data.
You make the same mistake the rightwing tabloids made.
Don't you see? You cannot make the conclusions you are trying to do based on this report.
Which ever way Europhiles try to justify it, that is a gift to UKIP
...as he tries not to trip over at the Cenotaph?
You're a menace to the Tories who have built you up into the ugly xenophobic beast you are today that's for sure.
As a Labour voter I'm much more sanguine about the UKIP "surge". Surge away and weaken all the Tory attempts to cling undeservedly onto power.
Not sure what else DM could have done after losing the election to his brother. It must grate mightily that has to watch his brother doing the job that he knows could have been his.