Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Miliband rumblings haven’t quietened down after the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Miliband rumblings haven’t quietened down after the weekend then he could be in trouble
Looking over the past couple of days the trigger for the Miliband leadership speculation appears to have been a highly critical article in the normally Ed-friendly New Statesman by the Editor, Jason Cowley. He then went on to stand by his views on Sky News.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"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.
They will fail to get momentum behond a leadership challenge because the process is too difficult and because it would be political folly to change leader so close to an election (voters hate divided parties).
All the rebels are doing is damaging their party, albeit a little less than a leadership contest would.
The Lib Dems were more intelligent about the tactics and pulled back from a leadership challenge. Conservatives are slowly catching on as well.
Next YouGov is for the Sunday Times.
The thing to note about that, most of the fieldwork will be done today
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%)
That person doesn't exist. Plus I can't see people like Chuka standing by and letting someone else in.
Plus there's no mechanism for a stalking horse.
If he goes it will be if enough shadow cabinet ministers publicly say Ed is crap and he must go.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-constituency-markets-today-putting.html
@GuidoFawkes: Latest Labour strategy: 'Please retweet to save our leader!' #SaveEd http://t.co/KL2zWPFIsK http://t.co/jwuRZ0uCNe
@GuidoFawkes: Labour insider: "Trickett is verging on being educationally sub-normal."
On the one hand they are relatively new to the game, on the other hand they have had some successes so far. But that last poll just looked freakish, and thinking of Survation's polling over a longer run, I'm not sure many people expect UKIP to perform as well as Survation suggests.
I'm just wondering, is seeing the Tories fare badly on a Survation poll (with Labour not performing particularly well either) pretty cold comfort compared to a similar lead in, say, an ICM poll?
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1293/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-poll.htm
OK, so Kinnock joins the illustrious company of Hardie and Wilson!
A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation.
[...]
"A growing body of evidence..."[14] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
"It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)
"Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
"Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)
"It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)
"Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)
"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
"It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)
"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
"Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)
"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
"Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
"It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?¹)
"It was noted that..." (By whom, why, when?)
"Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)
"Studies show..." (what studies?)
"A recent study at a leading university..." (How recent is your study? At what university?)
"(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)
"Some argue..." (who?)
"Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)
"More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)
"The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?)
They are the most innovative pollster out there, and their turn around times are impressive, and why they have a lot of clients.
I know the efforts they put into their polling.
On their Westminster VI polls, they prompt for UKIP, which leads to UKIP being higher/overstated.
But not prompting for UKIP does lead to UKIP being understated in my opinion.
So Survation give the theoretical ceiling of what UKIP can achieve, whereas ICM/Populus probably represent the lowest UKIP can expect.
Which is a very useful tool to have.
I spent an hour on the phone to Damian of Survation on Saturday night, he's very open and honest about what they do.
That gives me a lot of confidence in them.
Also note the demise of the BNP - where will their votes go?
I completely agree.
Well, almost. If the big beasts of the cabinet came together and told him to go, on pain of their joint resignation, he'd have to go. But they won't because they wouldn't be able to agree on what would happen next, even if they thought Miliband's removal was essential.
In any case, as Mike also says, the pressure will move on to Cameron later in the month, and as he pointed out in the leader to the last thread, Labour is still ahead in the polls (though the direction of travel must be worrying for Labour supporters).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
It's the same problem they had with Brown. It is of course a truth universally acknowledged that Ed is useless, but that is of itself not enough. To dislodge him (or even for him to persuade himself that he should go), a number of other points have to be considered:
1) The disruption of a change so close to the election
2) Such disruption might be manageable if the would-be plotters could agree amongst themselves on a replacement candidate to ensure a rapid transition. That's a big 'if', of course.
3) But there is no replacement candidate who is so obviously superior to Ed that everyone (including those who would have to sacrifice their own ambitions) would stand aside for him or her
4) And, even if all of those difficulties could be overcome, and the big beasts in the Shadow Cabinet, together with the union heavies, could sort it all out amongst themselves, that is still not enough to guarantee a smooth transition - it would only require a few of the nuttier MPs to decide to nominate an alternative candidate for the whole cumbersome mechanics of a full-blown leadership contest to be invoked. If that happened, it is likely that those who'd said they'd stand aside would change their minds and put their hats in the ring. This is not something to be considered with equanimity when's there's an election in six months' time.
5) All this to get Yvette or Andy, neither of who is exactly going to set the world on fire? What's more, the backbiting wouldn't disappear even if they did change leader - there would still be the underlying battles about policy positioning, which are still going on under the surface.
The bottom line is that the risk/reward ratio is massively skewed against anything happening - except of course that the grumbling and disunity will continue.
All of which is very satisfactory, from the Conservatives' point of view.
See my post from 4th November.
"My current thinking: a very plausible scenario IMHO is the Tories drop 5 seats to UKIP and around 18 marginals to Labour, but compensate with making 14 gains from the Lib Dems. That'd leave them with 297 seats (all things else considered)
Labour would likely have made some losses to the SNP so even given the pick ups from the Tories and Lib Dems would not be ahead on seats. Perhaps c.275 seats. The Lib Dems would likely be sub-30 seats, making it impossible to form a stable majority coalition with the Tories (although I wouldn't totally rule it out) and Cameron gets first dibs as the incumbent Prime Minister.
It's for that reason I backed a Conservative minority government on Ladbrokes a month ago at 10/1, which i thought a very good price. I'm starting to think that might actually now happen."
I'm doing a "bottom up" analysis of the seats, as well as top down. This includes:
- Quality of candidate/MP currently in place
- 1st time incumbency bonus
- Current constituency betting odds
- Ashcroft marginal polls (taking into account a +/- 5% error)
- Views of swing voters on preferred PM/likelihood to switch (also Ashcroft)
- Local party activity
- Local election results
- General UK wide trends (particularly over last 18 months)
I'm also forecasting what vote shares should be on election day. I expect something like Con-35%, Lab-29%, Lib Dem-10%, UKIP-15%, Others-11%
I think the way you're viewing it (that what the opinion polls state today are the shares the main parties may get on election day) isn't representative of what will happen. I think the Conservatives will be much closer to the 35% that Cameron scored in the wake of his successful party conference speech. When the focus is on the candidates for Prime Minister, and voters are thinking about electing the next government, the polls will move.
I make provision for the debates. I make provision for the relative campaigning strengths of the main parties - think the Tories will be pretty tight in the marginals. The Lib Dem "firewall" to be much more variable, depending on which seat it is, than is generally assumed. I make provision for 20% of UKIP voters returning Conservative.
Conversely, I'm not sure they'll be much recovery for Miliband. There may be for Clegg. No candidate for Prime Minister who generates that much doubt in the minds of swing voters will be able to take more than 20 seats directly off the governing party.
You can see my blog for more analysis: http://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/
I'm going to do a fuller analysis of the Tory defence over the next week.
Attlee lost two in a row, in 1951 and 1955. He also lost in 1935.
Now, that can either be brought home to him next May, when the verdict is delivered by the voters. Or it can come after a period of intense reflection - and the acknowledgment that if he waits, he takes the Party down with him. Ed is Labour to his bone marrow - the idea of his personal ambition even possibly preventing the removal of the Coalition will, in my opinion of the guy, lead him to resign, within the next 10 days.
East Lothian CLP: Murphy and Dugdale
Glasgow Kelvin CLP: Findlay and Clark
Shetland CLP: Murphy and Dugdale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heywood_and_Middleton_by-election,_2014#Polling
He thought there was a late swing to UKIP.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/10/lord-ashcroft-the-by-election-that-shows-why-polls-are-not-predictions.html
One further thought: how much does a Labour leadership election cost?
http://order-order.com/2014/11/07/question-time-goes-well-for-ed-voter-calls-labour-leader-a-turd/
He's not really a complete human being, in the generally understood sense.
Why wait out Ed only to lose to Rachel Reeves...? (Len is still not going to back him)
Depends on whether you think Miliband will just lose, or will wreck the car.
If Miliband loses but gets 285 seats, then you want to take over the driver's seat in June, and hit the gas pedal.
However, if Miliband is gonna lose Scotland and go backward in England & Wales, you need to get him out of the car now.
That there is something going on suggests that some people thank there is a danger of Ed trashing the car.
Because only a danger as great as that warrants raising the leadership issue so close to the election.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-11-07/burnham-ed-miliband-has-pulled-people-together/
"We're getting on with the job, we are a united team, united behind Ed, and we're working behind this Labour government".
Problem for Burnham is party isn't in government, a united team doesn't leak stories to the press, getting on with the job - sounds like Brown, and is the job knifing Ed in the back?
Bury North and Pendle may be some of the Tories weaker marginals but there'll be a hard fight to retain them.
07/11/2014 12:48
Stuart Wheeler is to seek a High Court injunction against any decision by the House of Commons on Monday to opt Britain back into the EAW
UKIP (@UKIP)
07/11/2014 12:53
A QC representing Mr Wheeler will argue that opting UK back into the EAW without a referendum is a clear breach of the “referendum lock”
Taken together well worthy of the 2014 POTY award in my view, no doubt about it.
PS. On that logic you would have lost in GE2010!
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/460753/#Comment_460753
OK, so Kinnock joins the illustrious company of Hardie and Attlee.
Wilson did, however, lose an election and then go on to fight another one, which is a relevant point in terms of how the party treats (treated?) leaders who lose.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/tories-launch-us-style-attack-ad-on-mark-reckless/
On @LookNorth at 1330, we're in Doncaster asking Ed Miliband's constituents whether they're backing him to continue as Labour Party leader.
Could be a long, long search, will they be using helicopters and sniffer dogs to seek out the missing?
Closed bets are in profit though, yes.
Are you coming to Dirty Dicks ?
Wouldn't mind an experienced punter checking my GE book...
1970 and Feb 1974.
Ps emailed you
The problem then is that Harman would probably be worse than Miliband.
But for this story to continue we would need some shadow cabinet resignations. And pretty much everyone is ruling that out in ways that would be awkward. So Ed staggers on. This is a party that has forgotten how to win.
Yep, e-mail safely received and I'll get back to you once Jolly Green Neil stirs himself!
I can understand the 'all-green' approach though. It's more comfortable if you're not personally 100% sure. It depends on the punter and the risk appetite.
Ditto for Heath in 1966 but of course that was an election that no one expected the Tories to win and he'd only been leader for a year. Of course he would have been toast had 1970 been another loss (cue Anthony Wells's magificent counter-factual).
The net is littered with photos of Ewan McGregor - Eric Morecombe – Ed Murphy - Eddie Mair – Esther McVey etc etc, for 4 PM
For what it's worth, I still think that DM was right not to resign - the Brownites would never have forgiven him and he could very easily have become the 2009 equivalent of Heseltine in 1990: a heavyweight stalking horse for a 'clean' alternative leader (Darling?) for the party to unite behind, while Brownites concocted half-truths about Brown 'never having lost an election'.
It also signals to MPs thinking of defecting that they'd better be damn sure that their local support is rock-solid.
Of course, putting in all this effort and then getting sunk by 20 points would indeed be devastating!
Quoting Austen?
At a time like this?
Sheesh!