@PeteWishart: The biggest problem in the Lab leadership 'issue' is no-one seriously can see a PM Miliband. Lab voters laughed at that during the indyref.
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.
How?
Lord Ashcroft's polling is in line with current national polling.
Currently, the average is Con 32%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 16%.
Assuming uniform national swing, that gives Con 276, Labour 328, Lib Dem 18, UKIP 0,
We can then make some working assumptions:-
1. The Lib Dems outperform in seats they already hold. Let's say they retain 30. That costs the Conservatives 8, and Labour 4.
2. UKIP win 5 seats. That costs the Conservatives 4 and Labour 1.
3. First time incumbency boosts Conservative MPs who first got elected in 2010. That costs Labour 10, and gives the Conservatives 10.
4. The SNP surges in Scotland (but the surge is not as big shown in current polling). This costs Labour 8 seats.
That gives Conservative 274, Labour 305, Lib Dems 30, Others 41.
Then, assume that there's a small swing to the Conservatives and Lib Dems between now and polling day. So, we end up with something like Con 34%, Lab 31%, UKIP 13%, Lib Dem 10% . That's how I get to my figures.
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.
And would have done it better, of course. (I don't think he would have been great, but he certainly wouldn't have been as bad as Ed).
Having said that, I'm not convinced Labour's problems are fundamentally about Ed Miliband; they are structural problems relating to the fact that they have painted themselves into a corner where it is politically impossible for them to have a coherent economic policy. The blame for that should fall on Gordon Brown, principally.
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.
I think we need to move to more open policy formation. We expect parties to come out with policies fully formed ab initio. However you can no longer keep them sufficiently under wraps while you do due diligence on them, and in any case the crowd can always spot howlers when those at the top can't. Take the West Lothian Question. I'd like to see a party kicking around a few ideas in public, rather than sucking its teeth for a few months and coming up with something that is magically suddenly "Party Policy" (when they didn't have a policy at all last week) and completely unworkable, but which they feel they need to defend with all their might, even (or especially) the crap bits.
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.
And would have done it better, of course. (I don't think he would have been great, but he certainly wouldn't have been as bad as Ed).
Having said that, I'm not convinced Labour's problems are fundamentally about Ed Miliband; they are structural problems relating to the fact that they have painted themselves into a corner where it is politically impossible for them to have a coherent economic policy. The blame for that should fall on Gordon Brown, principally.
Labour have structural problems.
What is the cause of the Conservatives moribund position? It must be much more fundamental when you take into account their heavier press support?
One problem about the UK polling list on Wikipedia is that it is sorted by groundwork rather than publication date - so the Survation poll is several down.
Some comments
1) The SNP surge in Scotland continues unabated - with the other two parties close together 2) UKIP still do well in East (Leading), South East and South West (Leading) also equal with Labour in East Midalnds (but pretty poor in the West) 3) Labour look as if they will hold off challenge in Yorkshire, North East and North West 4) Very strong leave EU attitude 42% - remain, 58% - leave 5) Very surprising LD (2010) --> UKIP switch 6) The Labour strategy of keeping their own vote and attracting Lib Dems seems to be working at the moment. 7) The West Midlands is virtually level between Tories and Labour
(Finally - more Tories indicated support than Labour - but with the weighting the net result was more Labour support than Tory. Lib Dems are still being weighted higher - I assume this is because of their relatively high support in the last GE - but will accept another explanation. Also polling does not mention the name of any political party. Do not know whether this would increase/ decrease UKIP support if all parties were mentioned.)
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.
True, but it happened for IDS.
That is true, and - as logical_song points out - to Ming Campbell too. We could add Charles Kennedy to the list as well.
However, two big differences. Firstly, there's a cultural difference between the Tories and Labour in terms of their attitude towards removing leaders, with Labour far more reluctant to act historically (and also less able to, given the respective party rules).
But secondly, and more relevantly given that the Lib Dems were not much disposed to removing under-performing leaders pre-2005 either, we're far closer to the election than any of those examples, making the costs of a messy or botched removal, or of an unsatisfactory replacement, far higher. IDS, Campbell and Kennedy were all removed within the first half of a parliament. By contrast, we're talking here about Miliband being deposed in the last 10% of one. The risk/reward balance is tipping ever further the wrong way for those who want a replacement.
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
I cannot fathom how anyone, on current polling and even allowing for some swingback, can project the Tories having most seats.
How?
Lord Ashcroft's polling is in line with current national polling.
Currently, the average is Con 32%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 16%.
Assuming uniform national swing, that gives Con 276, Labour 328, Lib Dem 18, UKIP 0,
We can then make some working assumptions:-
1. The Lib Dems outperform in seats they already hold. Let's say they retain 30. That costs the Conservatives 8, and Labour 4.
2. UKIP win 5 seats. That costs the Conservatives 4 and Labour 1.
3. First time incumbency boosts Conservative MPs who first got elected in 2010. That costs Labour 10, and gives the Conservatives 10.
4. The SNP surges in Scotland (but the surge is not as big shown in current polling). This costs Labour 8 seats.
That gives Conservative 274, Labour 305, Lib Dems 30, Others 41.
Then, assume that there's a small swing to the Conservatives and Lib Dems between now and polling day. So, we end up with something like Con 34%, Lab 31%, UKIP 13%, Lib Dem 10% . That's how I get to my figures.
That's exactly the method I am following for betting purposes, SeanF.
I'd give the SNP and UKIP a few more seats than you - the betting 'lines' are a good guide here - but even so my final figures are remarkably close to yours.
It's not a surcharge. It's correcting an underpayment.
Of course it is.
Which ever way Europhiles try to justify it, that is a gift to UKIP
For the time being, every news round is a gift to UKIP.
Farage must think he has the easiest job in the world. He Just has to sit back and watch everybody play into his hands.
It's pretty easy for things to play into your hands when your position that something terrible is terrible. You just have to wait for them to do something terrible. The EU does that a lot.
I'm still surprised this story hasn't got more coverage: the EU has sacked a UK prosecutor for whistle-blowing on the rampant corruption and bribe-taking at its Kosovo mission:
Then, assume that there's a small swing to the Conservatives and Lib Dems between now and polling day. So, we end up with something like Con 34%, Lab 31%, UKIP 13%, Lib Dem 10% . That's how I get to my figures.
I'd assume a big swing, if Ed doesn't go. He is Iain Gray on steroids.
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.
Also I think it's better if (at least some) people move in and out of politics rather than spend their whole careers in it. Both Milliband and Purnell could conceivably stand for election again when they get tired of their current roles. They probably won't - but we shouldn't see a career in-and-out of politics as being a strange thing. For a start, it stops us having to pay top dollar if they can go off and earn decent money for a few years, and will help them round out their experience.
With an endorsement like this Ed is still in trouble.
Norfolk News @thisisnorfolk 2m2 minutes ago EDP: Ed Miliband will lead Labour into the next election - but improvements are needed, says Norwich candidate... http://bit.ly/1sdMHH1
Improvements are needed, damning with faint praise, must have missed the bit about winning.
For the time being, every news round is a gift to UKIP.
Farage must think he has the easiest job in the world. He Just has to sit back and watch everybody play into his hands.
I think that is partly as a result of the "anti-london party" idea that was in the Speccie.
" It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment."
There has been such a dislocation between the main parties and the bulk of the population that right-leaning voters in the shires, and left-leaning WWC voters both look at the parties that are supposed to represent them and decide that they dont understand people like them. Farage is hoovering up the votes because the main parties don't understand the contempt with which they are held by most of the population, and they dont understand that every "eye catching initiative" they spring on the population just annoys them a little more. The solutions they offer to real problems that people are having seem fatuous and self-serving, and people have lost any confidence they had that the old parties actual want to solve their problems.
That is why its always Christmas for Farage, not because he is doing anything particularly well, but because the main parties completely fail to understand the vast majority of the people that they want to vote for them in six months time.
To be fair to Farage, what he is spectacularly good at doing is getting the established parties to demonstrate how remote they are from the average citizen. Immigration is just one facet of this, Farage is the master of making a carefully judged comment which outrages the liberal metropolitans, and at the same time sounds reasonable to a lot of ordinary people. When the elites and the twitterati rant about whatever he just said, they are doing his work for him and demonstrating to everyone else how out of touch they are with the man in the street, and they fall for it every time!
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.
How?
Lord Ashcroft's polling is in line with current national polling.
Currently, the average is Con 32%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 16%.
Assuming uniform national swing, that gives Con 276, Labour 328, Lib Dem 18, UKIP 0,
We can then make some working assumptions:-
1. The Lib Dems outperform in seats they already hold. Let's say they retain 30. That costs the Conservatives 8, and Labour 4.
2. UKIP win 5 seats. That costs the Conservatives 4 and Labour 1.
3. First time incumbency boosts Conservative MPs who first got elected in 2010. That costs Labour 10, and gives the Conservatives 10.
4. The SNP surges in Scotland (but the surge is not as big shown in current polling). This costs Labour 8 seats.
That gives Conservative 274, Labour 305, Lib Dems 30, Others 41.
Then, assume that there's a small swing to the Conservatives and Lib Dems between now and polling day. So, we end up with something like Con 34%, Lab 31%, UKIP 13%, Lib Dem 10% . That's how I get to my figures.
Labour Govt with C&S support from LD’s plus PC/Green/Respect? Can’t see LD’s giving support to a Tory/DUP combination.
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.
True, but it happened for IDS.
That is true, and - as logical_song points out - to Ming Campbell too. We could add Charles Kennedy to the list as well.
However, two big differences. Firstly, there's a cultural difference between the Tories and Labour in terms of their attitude towards removing leaders, with Labour far more reluctant to act historically (and also less able to, given the respective party rules).
But secondly, and more relevantly given that the Lib Dems were not much disposed to removing under-performing leaders pre-2005 either, we're far closer to the election than any of those examples, making the costs of a messy or botched removal, or of an unsatisfactory replacement, far higher. IDS, Campbell and Kennedy were all removed within the first half of a parliament. By contrast, we're talking here about Miliband being deposed in the last 10% of one. The risk/reward balance is tipping ever further the wrong way for those who want a replacement.
Did the LD’s HAVE an under-performing leader prior to 2005? Steel was pretty good as was Ashdown. Pre merger again Steel was good, as was Thorpe, until his problems, and Grimond.
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.
And would have done it better, of course. (I don't think he would have been great, but he certainly wouldn't have been as bad as Ed).
Having said that, I'm not convinced Labour's problems are fundamentally about Ed Miliband; they are structural problems relating to the fact that they have painted themselves into a corner where it is politically impossible for them to have a coherent economic policy. The blame for that should fall on Gordon Brown, principally.
Labour have structural problems.
What is the cause of the Conservatives moribund position? It must be much more fundamental when you take into account their heavier press support?
I suggest two:-
1. There is a widespread belief that the Conservatives are only interested in protecting the interests of rich people, rather than "people like me."
2. Many centre-right voters don't think the Conservatives represent them on social issues.
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.
And would have done it better, of course. (I don't think he would have been great, but he certainly wouldn't have been as bad as Ed).
Having said that, I'm not convinced Labour's problems are fundamentally about Ed Miliband; they are structural problems relating to the fact that they have painted themselves into a corner where it is politically impossible for them to have a coherent economic policy. The blame for that should fall on Gordon Brown, principally.
Labour have structural problems.
What is the cause of the Conservatives moribund position? It must be much more fundamental when you take into account their heavier press support?
I suggest two:-
1. There is a widespread belief that the Conservatives are only interested in protecting the interests of rich people, rather than "people like me."
2. Many centre-right voters don't think the Conservatives represent them on social issues.
With an endorsement like this Ed is still in trouble.
Norfolk News @thisisnorfolk 2m2 minutes ago EDP: Ed Miliband will lead Labour into the next election - but improvements are needed, says Norwich candidate... http://bit.ly/1sdMHH1
Improvements are needed, damning with faint praise, must have missed the bit about winning.
Tepid, lukewarm responses from every Labour MP and prospective MP who is asked about his position. It's really striking that there's no-one in the party with the exception of Kinnock who is prepared to unequivocally endorse him. This weekend is going to be crucial; if Burnham and Cooper can agree a smooth process for the coup and its aftermath, then he's a gonner. And frankly, he deserves it - has been the worst Labour leader ever, by a mile.
It's not a surcharge. It's correcting an underpayment.
Of course it is.
Which ever way Europhiles try to justify it, that is a gift to UKIP
UKIP thinks if EU breaks wind it's a gift to them.
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.
Blimey you are scared!
I'm looking forward with glee to post-2015 when Labour will hemorrhage votes to UKIP if Ed Miliband gets into power. Just imagine their faces when all those white working class northern voters, that they were sure were reliably left-wing, turn out to care more about issues like English identity and immigration.
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 o 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.
I think we need to move to more open policy formation. We expect parties to come out with policies fully formed ab initio. However you can no longer keep them sufficiently under wraps while you do due diligence on them, and in any case the crowd can always spot howlers when those at the top can't. Take the West Lothian Question. I'd like to see a party kicking around a few ideas in public, rather than sucking its teeth for a few months and coming up with something that is magically suddenly "Party Policy" (when they didn't have a policy at all last week) and completely unworkable, but which they feel they need to defend with all their might, even (or especially) the crap bits.
Regretably, John, I think the problem is more fundamental than that.
I'm enjoying reading Max Hastings' WWI history, Catastrophe. I wouldn't say his analysis of the origins is especially sound or novel, but it does make you think that the political structures of the major players in the drama were hopelessly out of sync with the times. You basically had 18th Century political systems trying to handle 20th Century problems arising from the huge technological, economic and cultural changes in the decades before the start of WW1.
Am I wrong to detect a similar mismatch now? Think of the changes you and I have witnessed in the just the last 20 years. Yet our political system is still rooted in the habits and Parliamentary traditions which served us well when Disraeli and Gladstone were going at it hammer and tongs, but which appear hopelessly anachronistic now.
I do hope it doesn't take another WW to move us forward.
It's not a surcharge. It's correcting an underpayment.
Of course it is.
Which ever way Europhiles try to justify it, that is a gift to UKIP
UKIP thinks if EU breaks wind it's a gift to them.
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.
Blimey you are scared!
I'm looking forward with glee to post-2015 when Labour will hemorrhage votes to UKIP if Ed Miliband gets into power. Just imagine their faces when all those white working class northern voters, that they were sure were reliably left-wing, turn out to care more about issues like English identity and immigration.
I think too many Labour types (me included until a couple of years ago) assumed WWC were just progressives that hadn't got it yet, rather than socially conservative types that wanted govt on their side to protect wages
Anyhow I am off to see the poppies! Any PB Londoner who wants to join me is welcome!
Lord Ashcroft's polling is in line with current national polling.
etc etc
Sean, thanks for this.
I can see the logic, but I think the flaw is not in your adjustments which seem perfectly fair and reasonable, but in the UNS figures coming up with 276 Tory and 328 Labour from polls of 32 and 33% respectively. I just don't buy that at all. If the Tories get anything like as low as 32% nationally, they are going be struggling to get beyond 220-250 seats is my gut feeling - obviously one would expect Labour to be at 40% if the Tories were only getting 32%, in the old world, and that's all changed now, but still it seems unlikely given how many marginal seats the Tories have with majorities in the hundreds or less than 5k.
Unless Farage can be neutered and the Tories get in the high 30s with Labour still c31-32, I just cannot see how the Tories can get to a position of majority or workable minority.
Of course improvements need making! Why is noone giving Milliband their full and wholesome support? Look at the polls! But the same is true with the Tories, and the LibDems are beyond hope and are already now planning for their post-massacre leadership campaign.
That people are unhappy in the Labour party is not news. We are a divided party difficult to lead with a leader that not everyone voted for and a media that blatantly fails to report anything we say then claims we have no policies.
But we also recognise that whats happening with us is also happening with the others. The problem is a westminster elite that transcends party boundaries and is collectively out of touch with the real world. Which is why we now have record (and increasing) scores for other parties and the "big" three heading into the pit.
So why is this news? Because the media sets the agenda, its news because its been made news, then it all calms down leaving people scratching their heads about where it came from and nursing their bruises. But by the weekend it'll be back to battling the enemy (the Tories) and watching their own internecine battles as the media moves on to the next "news".
One problem about the UK polling list on Wikipedia is that it is sorted by groundwork rather than publication date - so the Survation poll is several down.
In what way is that a problem? It makes the point that the fieldwork was carried out nearly a week ago and this poll is less up to date than 5 polls published before it, not to mention the other two published today.
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.
True, but it happened for IDS.
That is true, and - as logical_song points out - to Ming Campbell too. We could add Charles Kennedy to the list as well.
However, two big differences. Firstly, there's a cultural difference between the Tories and Labour in terms of their attitude towards removing leaders, with Labour far more reluctant to act historically (and also less able to, given the respective party rules).
But secondly, and more relevantly given that the Lib Dems were not much disposed to removing under-performing leaders pre-2005 either, we're far closer to the election than any of those examples, making the costs of a messy or botched removal, or of an unsatisfactory replacement, far higher. IDS, Campbell and Kennedy were all removed within the first half of a parliament. By contrast, we're talking here about Miliband being deposed in the last 10% of one. The risk/reward balance is tipping ever further the wrong way for those who want a replacement.
Did the LD’s HAVE an under-performing leader prior to 2005? Steel was pretty good as was Ashdown. Pre merger again Steel was good, as was Thorpe, until his problems, and Grimond.
Depends on what you view as under-performing. Certainly, when the newly merged Lib Dems (or SLD's as they briefly were), were polling 3-4%, in fourth place behind the Greens, they could have dropped Ashdown. Looking further back, obviously the Alliance boomed in the 80s but failed to capitalise in seats: was that a failure? Thorpe could (and in other parties would) have been vulnerable after the 1970 election, when Liberals saw their parliamentary presence halved.
But they didn't. Perhaps the most remarkable non-removal was Asquith, who took over a party which had getting on for 400 seats and retired with one that had just 40 (none of which was his own, given that he'd lost his seat for the second time during his leadership).
Lord Ashcroft's polling is in line with current national polling.
etc etc
Sean, thanks for this.
I can see the logic, but I think the flaw is not in your adjustments which seem perfectly fair and reasonable, but in the UNS figures coming up with 276 Tory and 328 Labour from polls of 32 and 33% respectively. I just don't buy that at all. If the Tories get anything like as low as 32% nationally, they are going be struggling to get beyond 220-250 seats is my gut feeling - obviously one would expect Labour to be at 40% if the Tories were only getting 32%, in the old world, and that's all changed now, but still it seems unlikely given how many marginal seats the Tories have with majorities in the hundreds or less than 5k.
Unless Farage can be neutered and the Tories get in the high 30s with Labour still c31-32, I just cannot see how the Tories can get to a position of majority or workable minority.
First Past the Post still works enormously in the Conservatives' favour; just not quite as enormously as in Labour's favour.
With an endorsement like this Ed is still in trouble.
Norfolk News @thisisnorfolk 2m2 minutes ago EDP: Ed Miliband will lead Labour into the next election - but improvements are needed, says Norwich candidate... http://bit.ly/1sdMHH1
Improvements are needed, damning with faint praise, must have missed the bit about winning.
Tepid, lukewarm responses from every Labour MP and prospective MP who is asked about his position. It's really striking that there's no-one in the party with the exception of Kinnock who is prepared to unequivocally endorse him. This weekend is going to be crucial; if Burnham and Cooper can agree a smooth process for the coup and its aftermath, then he's a gonner. And frankly, he deserves it - has been the worst Labour leader ever, by a mile.
And Hattie, who stands in pole position for succession. Then there are the Unions to pacify. Then some MPs have big egos, Chukka may fancy a punt. Finally the letter announcing your success is delivered by the Postman.
It is not a Burnham / Cooper certainty.
It will be tough to get all the competitors to stand aside, this could be the best chance for any of them (except Chukka) to become PM. All the others will be too old / around too long to be contenders in 2020.
"And frankly, he deserves it - has been the worst Labour leader ever, by a mile."
Correct.
Kinnock (who I dislike) could at least deliver a speech, and on occasions produce truly superb oratory (Llandudno conference).
Foot had a scintillating intellect, even though he was a poor leader at a time when the Labour party was not able to be led. His biography of Aneurin Bevan is still superb.
The best that can be said about Ed Miliband is that he is basically quite likeable (in the way that say Postman Pat or Thomas the Tank Engine is likeable).
I don't feel angry about Miliband any more. I feel very sorry for him.
He has a long dark night of misery waiting for him. Defeat is coming.
And defeat bought at the cost of huge damage to personal relationships in his immediate family.
@paulwaugh: Neil Kinnock and now Ken Livingstone hv come out to support Ed M. And Chuka Umunna only Shadow Cab minister so far to do same today. So far.
@MrHarryCole: Ken: "no one is talking to me about changing the labour leader". first five words of that are crucial.
Right, here's ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for week-ending 2nd November, including the Survation poll (Fieldwork ended last Saturday, you see!):
If the EU payment is delayed until after the next election, presumably it will be an issue in the Tory leadership campaign after Cameron resigns?
If the Tories are still in office then Cameron stays and there's no contest. If they're not then they'll be unanimously indignant about whatever the ultimate outcome is so it will only be an issue in the way that ObamaCare was an issue in the Republican primary.
smithson is amazing, even when he quotes a poll favouring Labour he has to have a dig at them. I always thought this site was supposed to be independent but clearly it is not as Smithson is a devout Tory
(Obviously this is UNS with strong bedrock support - but is quite amusing)
To compound the absurdity, Orkney and Shetland electorate 33,085 x 70% turnout x 0.17% majority => if 20 island voters change their mind and vote SNP they would have a whitewash!
Comments
www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYaoTminLw
I very much doubt it.
Farage must think he has the easiest job in the world. He Just has to sit back and watch everybody play into his hands.
Pleasing scenes.
Currently, the average is Con 32%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 16%.
Assuming uniform national swing, that gives Con 276, Labour 328, Lib Dem 18, UKIP 0,
We can then make some working assumptions:-
1. The Lib Dems outperform in seats they already hold. Let's say they retain 30. That costs the Conservatives 8, and Labour 4.
2. UKIP win 5 seats. That costs the Conservatives 4 and Labour 1.
3. First time incumbency boosts Conservative MPs who first got elected in 2010. That costs Labour 10, and gives the Conservatives 10.
4. The SNP surges in Scotland (but the surge is not as big shown in current polling). This costs Labour 8 seats.
That gives Conservative 274, Labour 305, Lib Dems 30, Others 41.
Then, assume that there's a small swing to the Conservatives and Lib Dems between now and polling day. So, we end up with something like Con 34%, Lab 31%, UKIP 13%, Lib Dem 10% . That's how I get to my figures.
Having said that, I'm not convinced Labour's problems are fundamentally about Ed Miliband; they are structural problems relating to the fact that they have painted themselves into a corner where it is politically impossible for them to have a coherent economic policy. The blame for that should fall on Gordon Brown, principally.
What is the cause of the Conservatives moribund position? It must be much more fundamental when you take into account their heavier press support?
Some comments
1) The SNP surge in Scotland continues unabated - with the other two parties close together
2) UKIP still do well in East (Leading), South East and South West (Leading) also equal with Labour in East Midalnds (but pretty poor in the West)
3) Labour look as if they will hold off challenge in Yorkshire, North East and North West
4) Very strong leave EU attitude 42% - remain, 58% - leave
5) Very surprising LD (2010) --> UKIP switch
6) The Labour strategy of keeping their own vote and attracting Lib Dems seems to be working at the moment.
7) The West Midlands is virtually level between Tories and Labour
(Finally - more Tories indicated support than Labour - but with the weighting the net result was more Labour support than Tory. Lib Dems are still being weighted higher - I assume this is because of their relatively high support in the last GE - but will accept another explanation. Also polling does not mention the name of any political party. Do not know whether this would increase/ decrease UKIP support if all parties were mentioned.)
However, two big differences. Firstly, there's a cultural difference between the Tories and Labour in terms of their attitude towards removing leaders, with Labour far more reluctant to act historically (and also less able to, given the respective party rules).
But secondly, and more relevantly given that the Lib Dems were not much disposed to removing under-performing leaders pre-2005 either, we're far closer to the election than any of those examples, making the costs of a messy or botched removal, or of an unsatisfactory replacement, far higher. IDS, Campbell and Kennedy were all removed within the first half of a parliament. By contrast, we're talking here about Miliband being deposed in the last 10% of one. The risk/reward balance is tipping ever further the wrong way for those who want a replacement.
I'd give the SNP and UKIP a few more seats than you - the betting 'lines' are a good guide here - but even so my final figures are remarkably close to yours.
I'm still surprised this story hasn't got more coverage: the EU has sacked a UK prosecutor for whistle-blowing on the rampant corruption and bribe-taking at its Kosovo mission:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/eu-accused-over-kosovo-mission-failings
The replacement might be - but that is for another day.
Dan Hodges has a new Tele blog saying Ed must stay.
1) Neil Kinnock had the story of the decade
2) Neil Kinnock was being a nasty homophobe and off to join UKIP
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh
And here's Neil Kinnock coming to Ed's defence too. Calls rumours 'total puff':
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Neil-Kinnock-dismisses-Miliband-plot-rumours/story-24348519-detail/story.html …
Norfolk News @thisisnorfolk 2m2 minutes ago
EDP: Ed Miliband will lead Labour into the next election - but improvements are needed, says Norwich candidate... http://bit.ly/1sdMHH1
Improvements are needed, damning with faint praise, must have missed the bit about winning.
" It is the London establishment, and its fatuous and self-serving shibboleths, which is loathed throughout the rest of the country, in a way which has not quite been seen before, even if there was always a certain divide. The London of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, and the BBC and Channel 4 and the quangos and extremely well-fed and gobby third sector institutions, and the lawyers and the bankers; the establishment."
There has been such a dislocation between the main parties and the bulk of the population that right-leaning voters in the shires, and left-leaning WWC voters both look at the parties that are supposed to represent them and decide that they dont understand people like them. Farage is hoovering up the votes because the main parties don't understand the contempt with which they are held by most of the population, and they dont understand that every "eye catching initiative" they spring on the population just annoys them a little more. The solutions they offer to real problems that people are having seem fatuous and self-serving, and people have lost any confidence they had that the old parties actual want to solve their problems.
That is why its always Christmas for Farage, not because he is doing anything particularly well, but because the main parties completely fail to understand the vast majority of the people that they want to vote for them in six months time.
To be fair to Farage, what he is spectacularly good at doing is getting the established parties to demonstrate how remote they are from the average citizen. Immigration is just one facet of this, Farage is the master of making a carefully judged comment which outrages the liberal metropolitans, and at the same time sounds reasonable to a lot of ordinary people. When the elites and the twitterati rant about whatever he just said, they are doing his work for him and demonstrating to everyone else how out of touch they are with the man in the street, and they fall for it every time!
And that was written by Kevin McGuire ?
Heart of stone etc..
1. There is a widespread belief that the Conservatives are only interested in protecting the interests of rich people, rather than "people like me."
2. Many centre-right voters don't think the Conservatives represent them on social issues.
I have to recalculate ELBOW for last weekend - their fieldwork ended on Saturday and they held onto the data for 6 days!
I'm enjoying reading Max Hastings' WWI history, Catastrophe. I wouldn't say his analysis of the origins is especially sound or novel, but it does make you think that the political structures of the major players in the drama were hopelessly out of sync with the times. You basically had 18th Century political systems trying to handle 20th Century problems arising from the huge technological, economic and cultural changes in the decades before the start of WW1.
Am I wrong to detect a similar mismatch now? Think of the changes you and I have witnessed in the just the last 20 years. Yet our political system is still rooted in the habits and Parliamentary traditions which served us well when Disraeli and Gladstone were going at it hammer and tongs, but which appear hopelessly anachronistic now.
I do hope it doesn't take another WW to move us forward.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29952505
Anyhow I am off to see the poppies! Any PB Londoner who wants to join me is welcome!
Miliband = Varro, Maguire = Paullus
I can see the logic, but I think the flaw is not in your adjustments which seem perfectly fair and reasonable, but in the UNS figures coming up with 276 Tory and 328 Labour from polls of 32 and 33% respectively. I just don't buy that at all. If the Tories get anything like as low as 32% nationally, they are going be struggling to get beyond 220-250 seats is my gut feeling - obviously one would expect Labour to be at 40% if the Tories were only getting 32%, in the old world, and that's all changed now, but still it seems unlikely given how many marginal seats the Tories have with majorities in the hundreds or less than 5k.
Unless Farage can be neutered and the Tories get in the high 30s with Labour still c31-32, I just cannot see how the Tories can get to a position of majority or workable minority.
That people are unhappy in the Labour party is not news. We are a divided party difficult to lead with a leader that not everyone voted for and a media that blatantly fails to report anything we say then claims we have no policies.
But we also recognise that whats happening with us is also happening with the others. The problem is a westminster elite that transcends party boundaries and is collectively out of touch with the real world. Which is why we now have record (and increasing) scores for other parties and the "big" three heading into the pit.
So why is this news? Because the media sets the agenda, its news because its been made news, then it all calms down leaving people scratching their heads about where it came from and nursing their bruises. But by the weekend it'll be back to battling the enemy (the Tories) and watching their own internecine battles as the media moves on to the next "news".
(Obviously this is UNS with strong bedrock support - but is quite amusing)
But they didn't. Perhaps the most remarkable non-removal was Asquith, who took over a party which had getting on for 400 seats and retired with one that had just 40 (none of which was his own, given that he'd lost his seat for the second time during his leadership).
I can see the logic, but I think the flaw is not in your adjustments which seem perfectly fair and reasonable, but in the UNS figures coming up with 276 Tory and 328 Labour from polls of 32 and 33% respectively. I just don't buy that at all. If the Tories get anything like as low as 32% nationally, they are going be struggling to get beyond 220-250 seats is my gut feeling - obviously one would expect Labour to be at 40% if the Tories were only getting 32%, in the old world, and that's all changed now, but still it seems unlikely given how many marginal seats the Tories have with majorities in the hundreds or less than 5k.
Unless Farage can be neutered and the Tories get in the high 30s with Labour still c31-32, I just cannot see how the Tories can get to a position of majority or workable minority.
First Past the Post still works enormously in the Conservatives' favour; just not quite as enormously as in Labour's favour.
Yes, I read that and by and large agreed with it.
Here's something similar from Mark Mardel which I think is even better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/markmardell/
It is not a Burnham / Cooper certainty.
It will be tough to get all the competitors to stand aside, this could be the best chance for any of them (except Chukka) to become PM. All the others will be too old / around too long to be contenders in 2020.
Correct.
Kinnock (who I dislike) could at least deliver a speech, and on occasions produce truly superb oratory (Llandudno conference).
Foot had a scintillating intellect, even though he was a poor leader at a time when the Labour party was not able to be led. His biography of Aneurin Bevan is still superb.
The best that can be said about Ed Miliband is that he is basically quite likeable (in the way that say Postman Pat or Thomas the Tank Engine is likeable).
I don't feel angry about Miliband any more. I feel very sorry for him.
He has a long dark night of misery waiting for him. Defeat is coming.
And defeat bought at the cost of huge damage to personal relationships in his immediate family.
@MrHarryCole: Ken: "no one is talking to me about changing the labour leader". first five words of that are crucial.
Lab 32.6% (-0.7)
Con 31.5% (-0.8)
UKIP 17.3% (+1.4)
LD 7.7% (+0.4)
Lab lead 1.1% (nc)
changes from our very first ELBOW on 17th August:
Lab -3.5%
Con -1.6%
UKIP +4.2%
LD -1.1%
Lab lead -1.9% (ie. was 3.0%, now 1.1%)