Even then doubtful, at least in specific cases. Thatcher wasn't liked before the Falklands, was roundly beaten by Sunny Jim on most of the important measures on that 1979 opinion poll, and yet won the election. Likeability might be a facet, but it seems to come below peoples wallets, and the perception of being up the the job (with a program, in control).
I'm not saying that I disagree, but no-one on either side of this debate has deployed anything other than assertion (the Professor) or anecdote (this thread), as to whether poll responses to a likeability scale question (as opposed to a yes/no question) have any predictive power.
It's possible that the Professor has presented his data in academic articles, but I can't see any link to such articles in the article linked to by Mike Smithson.
"I'm not saying that I disagree, but no-one on either side of this debate has deployed anything other than assertion (the Professor) or anecdote (this thread), as to whether poll responses to a likeability scale question (as opposed to a yes/no question) have any predictive power."
Why is that our job? It is the Professor's.
If I put forward an implausible thesis --say, that the success of blogs is strongly correlated with baldness of the proprietor -- then the onus is on me to provide data to back up the thesis.
I'd like to see the Professor's workings to justify this sentence:
"It turns out that likeability is closely associated with other desirable traits that a successful leader needs, such as being seen as competent, decisive, in touch with ordinary people and honest."
There has been a lot of polling about Ed Miliband on all of these matters. He's done OK in polls on the latter two, not so much on the first two.
...raise pay to Living wage levels. However, the proposal, in my view has 3 potentially fatal flaws:
1. Higher UK wages will draw in even more immigrants than ever. 2. There is no guarantee that indigenous people will out-compete them for these jobs unless the incentives to opt for benefits are much more significantly reduced. 3. Labour will never tackle number 2.
Of course also while sympathising with higher wages as an aspiration for any good business there is also the danger that the trade-off would inevitably be higher unemployment once the bottom -line kicks in.
If the prevailing wage level at low skill levels is much higher than at present, then the income differential between benefits and low skill wages is greater and thus there is more incentive to work. So your point 2 is logically invalid.
I don't think that follows. Even if there indigenous population is motivated to get of the sofa and apply for the jobs because the wages are substantially better than benefits, its no guarantee that they will get the job in the face of competition from immigrants who might offer better qualifications, better work ethic, less complaining, less workplace militancy, and less likelihood of changing job, in exchange for whatever the new going rate is. As an employer that's a good thing, as a government paying for the benefits bill, less so.
In what way does reducing benefit rates make British employers more likely to employ British employees?
It doesn't make unemployed British people more highly skilled - the argument has always been about incentives. In the case of incentives it's the differential that matters, unless you are prepared to take benefit levels to below subsistence rates so that people on benefits are physically suffering - and thus have a greater incentive to work.
I didn't claim it would. The point I was making is that changing the level of pay compared to benefits will make no difference to the level of indigenous people employed, because at all possible levels the immigrant is offering a better product for the same money.
"Asking who is the best leader is a standard question used by a lot of pollsters to compare the party leaders. However, it is far from an ideal question because it tends to be biased towards the incumbent ..."
But then so is politics as a whole, so even if the 'Best Leader' question does incorporate that incumbent bonus, that doesn't necessarily make it invalid or, for that matter, less valid than a more neutral question.
I also have my doubts about using 'likeability' as a measure, which seems to focus on softer personal qualities and less on competence, something surely at least as relevant in a potential PM (and of course, elections are about the relative qualities of parties as a whole and of local candidates, as well as leaders).
That said, I do very much like the 'out of 10' question format and we should have a lot more asked along those lines. It is not simply enough to know whether people prefer A to B but by how much they do so, which is not just a matter of breadth but of depth too.
A lot of Academia has to justify its existence by regularly publishing papers - which is supposed to be new thinking or new theory - that is why so much rubbish is published. Also many researchers think of something new and then try to make the facts fit that belief/pet theory - which has happened in this case.
In times of trouble, and the UK is still in deep trouble, people look for a strong leader (to get them out of this inherited mess) and none of those are to be found on the Labour or LD benches. Indeed few are to be found among the Cons. Thatcher was far from being right on everything but she has a vision and led the drive to achieve that vision.
Today few parties or party leaders have credible visions (and most do not know what a feasible vision is) and that is why people are drifting away from the Cons, LAB & LDs to the Greens and UKIP - but alas neither of those have a total credible vision - both have small bits as a palliative to solve some perceived problems - but both are too tied up and blinkered by their own small agendas to be able to create a total viable vision for the UK.
For all their imperfections, Gove and Mrs May do have credible visions and the drive to achieve them, and even Boris is a good visionary but needs a good doer with him.
So that is why 2015 GE may still leave the UK in a mess and without a credible solution for going forward. The same problem lies with the EU who have too many troughers (for money and power) to think clearly. I had hopes of Frau Merkel, but she is too bound by her party political problems.
No shit Sherlock. The coalition started life with a 160bn deficit that is now down to a 100bn deficit. BFD! The giant pulsating gorilla in the corner of British politics (of all developed economies' politics in fact) is that we have a grossly unsustainable deficit funded welfare state - and that at some point we won't be able to borrow for it.
Ozzy knows this and is pushing as hard as he can get away with to address the problem. See public sector headcounts fall. His challenge is that recovering GDP and falling unemployment are not generating much extra tax. Anyway - he's pointed in the right direction and is trying.
Labour? Away with the fairies. In deep deep denial. Ed even 'forgot' to mention the deficit in his big speech! If they scrape home next May thanks to UKIP eating into Dave's vote they will suffer a party-destroying crisis of competence in dealing with the deficit (or not). Markets will smell blood. PM Miliband will be overwhelmed by events. His own and his party's reputation trashed for a long time. In 6 months' time Ed is either going to lose or to face a drama he and his party are not equipped to handle. There's no happy ending for Miliband even if he wins the GE.
"Ozzy knows this and is pushing as hard as he can get away with to address the problem"
Patrick I normally agree with the tone of most of your posts, but on Osborne pushing the deficit ? Well it gave me a chuckle on a cold wet morning in Brum.
We probably agree more than you think sir. I would like to have seen Ozzy being alot braver on cuts. But....he's a politician. "I know exactly what I need to do - I just don't know how to get re-elected when I've done it'. The reason we haven't cut more is that the electorate only has so much appetite for it. I think Ozzy has done as much as he can get away with. I wanted more (as it appears do you). Maybe he has underestimated how much cutting the public will support. There's 10bn overseas aid that could go for starters - politically sensitive but electorally maybe not...
I would love to know how different Osborne would have been if he had had the votes to carry a more radical approach. But he has been a Coalition Chancellor, restricted in his ambitions by what he could get through the bunch of anchors that are the LibDems....
One for Norman Baker and his fellow conspiracy theorists.
Tony Blair’s company is alleged to have brokered multi-million pound deals that earned £41,000 a month and two per cent commission on each transaction with an oil firm founded by a senior Saudi royal family member.
....This is the first time that a commercial contract of his has apparently been revealed, despite the petrol firm insisting it stays top secret, and it poses questions over Blair's role as a Middle East envoy and his vested personal interests following his decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
And yet, Mike, at local MP level you refer to incumbency as a poll factor. As the UK has a quasi-presidential system I'd be interested to know why you think it doesn't apply.
Not sure Mike thinks that it's currently a factor - the constituency polls seem not to support it. In some cases there is an anti-incumbency factor when voters have found they just don't like the MP very much. There was a tendency after 2010 for some of the new MPs to assume they were there for 10+ years and concentrate on getting to grips with Westminster (the same happened in 1997): they remembered the constituency stuff a bit late, and some damage had been done with unanswered mail, casual rudeness and so on.
On topic, I wonder if "liking" a political party (as opposed to the leader) is more of a factor than we realise. One pollsters (ComRes?) polls regularly on this, generally finding that people "like" Labour more than the Tories, and that may be a factor which underpins Labour's support even when the party has a bad week. I don't personally think it's the right word - it feels odd to me to say that one "likes" a party. People answering the poll are I'd guess saying "I feel broadly in tune with that party's values".
That doesn't stop them voting for someone else - e.g. I'd think that DavidL might feel broadly in tune with the idea of social solidarity and support for people in difficulty, but he doesn't think we're competent enough so he votes Tory except for a possible anti-SNP tactical vote. But people who think we're actually all a bit rubbish default to the party that seems closest to them. We see this on the right too - e.g. Patrick clearly doesn't think the Government is very good, but as I understand it he plans to vote Tory because he likes the general idea of a low-tax society which the Conservatives project as their ambition.
I'd like to see the Professor's workings to justify this sentence:
"It turns out that likeability is closely associated with other desirable traits that a successful leader needs, such as being seen as competent, decisive, in touch with ordinary people and honest."
There has been a lot of polling about Ed Miliband on all of these matters. He's done OK in polls on the latter two, not so much on the first two.
I don’t think the anecdotal evidence supports the contentipon in the case of the military.
As I remember it 1979 felt pretty much like the end of days. Callaghan was (on topic) a very likeable PM but he had lost his grip on his party and the country. The winter of discontent showed Unions at their very worst, political in a hard left way that is now hard to comprehend, self interested and on a huge ego trip. The Unions of today are a very pale shadow and mostly constructive, particularly in the private sector.
I really don't recall anyone who liked Mrs T in 79. She was much shriller and less polished than she became. But she came across as a woman with a plan whilst poor old Jim just looked bewildered that a movement that he had been a part of his entire life had destroyed his government.
In modern times the Postman is clearly likeable but even Ed is better than that. Running a country is difficult and I want people much smarter than me to be doing it. They will still make mistakes and I in the cheap seats will continue to throw the odd egg but my number one concern is that they understand the problems even if I don't agree with their solutions. Likeability is a second or even third order consideration.
You make a great point about the Unions they did some great work in the Private Sector after the crash, however the likes of McCluskey and Prentice still portray Unions in the ways of the past, gaining political influence more important than acting in the best interests of members.
The performance of Unison with regard to some Local Councils could not be less in the interests of the members they purport to represent.
As you allude to Eddie is not the worst option for Labour, I wouldn't underestimate him, if the Tories do that they are silly, he is desperate to win power. He has the desire and is crafty enough to do what it takes to make Labour the largest party. Labour have nobody else who would guarantee better performance, hence the Postman and Burnham front running to replace him, Ed is a political colossus compared to those two.
A lot of Academia has to justify its existence by regularly publishing papers - which is supposed to be new thinking or new theory - that is why so much rubbish is published. Also many researchers think of something new and then try to make the facts fit that belief/pet theory - which has happened in this case.
In times of trouble, and the UK is still in deep trouble, people look for a strong leader (to get them out of this inherited mess) and none of those are to be found on the Labour or LD benches. Indeed few are to be found among the Cons. Thatcher was far from being right on everything but she has a vision and led the drive to achieve that vision.
Today few parties or party leaders have credible visions (and most do not know what a feasible vision is) and that is why people are drifting away from the Cons, LAB & LDs to the Greens and UKIP - but alas neither of those have a total credible vision - both have small bits as a palliative to solve some perceived problems - but both are too tied up and blinkered by their own small agendas to be able to create a total viable vision for the UK.
For all their imperfections, Gove and Mrs May do have credible visions and the drive to achieve them, and even Boris is a good visionary but needs a good doer with him.
So that is why 2015 GE may still leave the UK in a mess and without a credible solution for going forward. The same problem lies with the EU who have too many troughers (for money and power) to think clearly. I had hopes of Frau Merkel, but she is too bound by her party political problems.
Indeed.
Two further points: the deficit is by no means merely a British (or UK) problem. All representative democracies have one, and there seem to be two reasons for this: (i) Chinese policy (ii) electoral pressure producing irresponsible economics.
Perhaps nothing can be done about (i), but there is an obvious remedy for (ii). Won't be too much political betting after it's applied, though.
1. Let the media know that even Labour's own MPs think he's crap. 2. Have days of media coverage on will we/won't we get rid of him. Cos he's crap. 3. Rally round, saying it's too late, we are stuck with him. Even though he is crap. 4. Go into an election with him with everybody now knowing, because of the in-fighting, that's he crap.
I know that's a bit harsh. But that's more or less what Labour have achieved with this.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
And yet, Mike, at local MP level you refer to incumbency as a poll factor. As the UK has a quasi-presidential system I'd be interested to know why you think it doesn't apply.
Not sure Mike thinks that it's currently a factor - the constituency polls seem not to support it. In some cases there is an anti-incumbency factor when voters have found they just don't like the MP very much. There was a tendency after 2010 for some of the new MPs to assume they were there for 10+ years and concentrate on getting to grips with Westminster (the same happened in 1997): they remembered the constituency stuff a bit late, and some damage had been done with unanswered mail, casual rudeness and so on.
On topic, I wonder if "liking" a political party (as opposed to the leader) is more of a factor than we realise. One pollsters (ComRes?) polls regularly on this, generally finding that people "like" Labour more than the Tories, and that may be a factor which underpins Labour's support even when the party has a bad week. I don't personally think it's the right word - it feels odd to me to say that one "likes" a party. People answering the poll are I'd guess saying "I feel broadly in tune with that party's values".
That doesn't stop them voting for someone else - e.g. I'd think that DavidL might feel broadly in tune with the idea of social solidarity and support for people in difficulty, but he doesn't think we're competent enough so he votes Tory except for a possible anti-SNP tactical vote. But people who think we're actually all a bit rubbish default to the party that seems closest to them. We see this on the right too - e.g. Patrick clearly doesn't think the Government is very good, but as I understand it he plans to vote Tory because he likes the general idea of a low-tax society which the Conservatives project as their ambition.
The problem is that people like certain parties/policies for the all the benefits/sweeties that they receive in the short term. However, it is highly likely that this policy does not serve and i is not the best for either their or their children's longer term interest.
I know as a potential MP that you only look to the next election - but that is a major problem when MPs rely on being elected for their income, instead of having an income-producing outside job. This problem not only affects MPs but councils as well.
1. Let the media know that even Labour's own MPs think he's crap. 2. Have days of media coverage on will we/won't we get rid of him. Cos he's crap. 3. Rally round, saying it's too late, we are stuck with him. Even though he is crap. 4. Go into an election with him with everybody now knowing, because of the in-fighting, that's he crap.
I know that's a bit harsh. But that's more or less what Labour have achieved with this.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
Plus the voters backs Dave and George over their stunning rebate victory on Friday and think Ed would have done crapper if he were in charge.
And to think people were talking about George having to resign on Friday.
Jim Callaghan on the Winter of Discontent. "Crisis, what crisis" and it was goodbye Jim.
But he didn't actually say "Crisis, what crisis" did he?
It's like Ed's 2p for the beggar. What matters is not what Labour leaders say or do, but what the Tory press (and this Forum is more and more part of the Tory press) repeats ad nauseam.
...raise pay to Living wage levels. However, the proposal, in my view has 3 potentially fatal flaws:
1. Higher UK wages will draw in even more immigrants than ever. 2. There is no guarantee that indigenous people will out-compete them for these jobs unless the incentives to opt for benefits are much more significantly reduced. 3. Labour will never tackle number 2.
Of course also while sympathising with higher wages as an aspiration for any good business there is also the danger that the trade-off would inevitably be higher unemployment once the bottom -line kicks in.
If the prevailing wage level at low skill levels is much higher than at present, then the income differential between benefits and low skill wages is greater and thus there is more incentive to work. So your point 2 is logically invalid.
If you take the view that current benefit levels are at subsistence level - ie they are at the minimum level required to subsist given the cost of living in the UK - then it is obviously preferable to increase the incentive to work by increasing wages rather than by decreasing benefits.
You could argue that benefit levels for people with many children are above subsistence level, but I think that benefit levels for the childless are more clearly not. In the former case one then has the question as to whether it is morally acceptable to force children - who can do nothing to improve their material condition until they are old enough to enter the world of work - to live at subsistence levels because of the decisions of their parents.
I certainly do not take the view that benefit levels are currently at subsistence levels. Maybe there'd be more takers for low paid jobs if they were. I think that too many have been allowed for too long to create lives on benefits and thus almost become unemployable at any level. I would be deeply ashamed to live on non-contributory benefits - for many on the left they are a right.
I see non-contributory benefits as a right that I enjoy as a result of living in a wealthy moral nation, *and* I would be deeply ashamed to have to rely on them - as indeed I was for six weeks in 2001.
For an over-25 the current rate of JSA is £72.40 per week. Is that not subsistence level?
Although it is worth remembering that that is before Housing Benefit, which (where I live) is about £250/week.
So, actually, your after-tax income is £320/week -> which may not be fabulously high, but isn't the end of the word. People can (and do) live on this.
The big issue is that if you are offered a £300/week (pre-tax job) then the incentive to go into work is small. How much better off will you be - even with in-work benefits?
But he's an out and out plonker who should never be anywhere near power.
Kinnock I could see as PM. Even Michael Foot. And Gordon's problem was that he froze in the headlights.
EdM is just road kill.
Gordon’s problem surely was that he had to wait too long. So when he did get his chance he messed it up. Probably spent far too much time thinking about what he was going to do when......
I can recall Sir Anthony Eden doing very much the same. Took us into an unwinnable war, because he was trying to show what a big man he was.
Jim Callaghan on the Winter of Discontent. "Crisis, what crisis" and it was goodbye Jim.
But he didn't actually say "Crisis, what crisis" did he?
It's like Ed's 2p for the beggar. What matters is not what Labour leaders say or do, but what the Tory press (and this Forum is more and more part of the Tory press) repeats ad nauseam.
See Citizen Kane, passim.
"I don't think other people in the world would share the view there is mounting chaos."
Is not a lot better given what was actually going on, not forgetting all the comments from the rest of Europe on the state of Britain.
I don't think likeability is a good indicator on its own, but neither is approval or "best PM" good on its own either.
We need some sort of long-term, weekly aggregation or average of likeability, approval and "doing well" for the main party leaders and the main parties.
The best i'm come up with is an average of Cameron "doing well", inverse of Miliband "doing well" and approval of the government (using YouGov data).
These numbers correlated almost exactly with the difference in VI between Tories and Labour in the last parliament, and in this parliament it is a pretty good match but probably distorted by the LDs being in government and it now being effectively a 4-party system.
But he's an out and out plonker who should never be anywhere near power.
Kinnock I could see as PM. Even Michael Foot. And Gordon's problem was that he froze in the headlights.
EdM is just road kill.
Gordon’s problem surely was that he had to wait too long. So when he did get his chance he messed it up. Probably spent far too much time thinking about what he was going to do when......
I can recall Sir Anthony Eden doing very much the same. Took us into an unwinnable war, because he was trying to show what a big man he was.
Suez was completely winnable and indeed, militarily, was won. Where Eden cocked up was on the diplomacy. The parallels between Eden and Brown run close on many levels, including their downfall being their supposed areas of expertise.
I don't think likeability is a good indicator on its own, but neither is approval or "best PM" good on its own either.
We need some sort of long-term, weekly aggregation or average of likeability, approval and "doing well" for the main party leaders and the main parties.
The best i'm come up with is an average of Cameron "doing well", inverse of Miliband "doing well" and approval of the government (using YouGov data).
These numbers correlated almost exactly with the difference in VI between Tories and Labour in the last parliament, and in this parliament it is a pretty good match but probably distorted by the LDs being in government and it now being effectively a 4-party system.
The past is a poor guide to the future. On the whole.
OGH They all had to get elected first, and of the 'dislikeable' PMs, Thatcher and Heath, what got them elected was an economic crisis in 1970 and 1979. Brown was never elected but thrown out after being PM in an economic crisis. Which suggests normally the more likeable PM wins except during times of economic difficulty
"This is why I think Ed is in more trouble than the polls suggest."
It seems as though there are people at the top of the Labour party would do believe this as well -- hence Ed's troubles.
The Labour party could win with (i) a personable & competent leader, or (ii) a poor leader, but an efficient and supportive team around him/her.
If Ed can't get his team onside, it really is over. He may limp on till May, till the final bullet, but it is over.
My feeling is the Labour party has now to defenestrate him.
Even if the new leader is Burnham or Cooper or Balls, the letting of the blood of the sacrificial victim provides catharsis.
Provided the new team can coalesce supportively around Burnham or Cooper, then the Labour party will be better off.
Labour have spent 4 years telling us that Ed is the new Messiah only to realise a few months before the election his real name is actually Brian Meanwhile it is reported in the media 1 in 3 Labour Labour MP's are in the pay of Unite.
It would be more honest to just make Len the leader and get Ed to make the tea.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
But really, is it? Let's say Reckless wins by a clear 10%. He will have done so on the back of the Labour vote deserting en masse - from a seat they used to hold - to return a piss-poor MP who is a member of a party that is even more anathema to the Labour DNA than the Tories.
A week on Friday for Labour will be time to reflect.
Is today super-dooper mega poll day with Populus, Lord A, YouGov....and drum roll....Gold Standard ICM to complete the feast?
I'm hopeful we'll see ICM today.
But feast your eyes on this in the mean time
David Cameron’s handling of the row over Brussels’ £1.7 billion surcharge demand has been strongly backed by the public, a poll for today’s Mail on Sunday has found.
As a political storm raged over the deal, which the Government claimed had halved the bill to £850 million, the Survation poll found that 42 per cent of voters agreed it was ‘a result for Britain’ – against 33 per cent who disagreed.
And a substantial 35 per cent of voters thought that if Labour leader Ed Miliband had been Prime Minister he would have secured a worse deal, compared with only 11 per cent who thought he would have done better.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
But really, is it? Let's say Reckless wins by a clear 10%. He will have done so on the back of the Labour vote deserting en masse - from a seat they used to hold - to return a piss-poor MP who is a member of a party that is even more anathema to the Labour DNA than the Tories.
A week on Friday for Labour will be time to reflect.
"Yay - the Tories lost!
Er.
Hmmmm....."
Yep, but trumping that will undeniably be the 'UKIP on the march" story. And good news stories for UKIP are seriously bad news for the Tories.
If Reckless hadn't been a knob and prostituted himself to a protest party who have no chance of power but an excellent chance of putting Labour in power, Labour's outlook now would be even more miserable. Suicidal in fact, and six months of in-fighting and severe depression would've ensued. And with Ed in charge too. Ouch.
Plus the voters backs Dave and George over their stunning rebate victory on Friday and think Ed would have done crapper if he were in charge.
And to think people were talking about George having to resign on Friday.
Finally, I get my chance to vent my spleen over this.
Normally, I don't bring people up over English spelling and grammar because I'm not perfect and I appreciate the difficulties of typing into a tablet/phone.
Now, crap is a noun, crappy is the adjective.
Normally, you can get away with it, as in the PB favourite 'Ed is crap'. Where this falls down is where you have to use a comparative i.e. Ed is crappier than...certainly not crapper, which again is a noun which means, well, you know.
Cf. Shit, shitty, shittier, shitter.
Edit: I am fully aware that TSE should have used an adverb, but that's for another day.
The problem is that people like certain parties/policies for the all the benefits/sweeties that they receive in the short term. However, it is highly likely that this policy does not serve and i is not the best for either their or their children's longer term interest.
I know as a potential MP that you only look to the next election - but that is a major problem when MPs rely on being elected for their income, instead of having an income-producing outside job. This problem not only affects MPs but councils as well.
I'll assume that your comment isn't meant personally (if it is, it's mistaken - I'll actually be better off if I don't win). But I think it also misjudges both MPs and voters. MPs generally get into politics because they want to improve the longer term. They then get seduced by feeling that the long-term interest requires their personal re-election next time and the sheer competitive factor (nobody likes to lose at anything), but being seriously worried about their income wasn't a significant factor among the MPs who I knew in 2010: they were either confident of getting into a good job or close to retirement.
As for voters, lots are perfectly willing to support something long-term if they believe in it. The problem is that they often don't - many feel that none of us have a convincing long-term plan. You don't give the impression that you think it yourself, about any party?
Plus the voters backs Dave and George over their stunning rebate victory on Friday and think Ed would have done crapper if he were in charge.
And to think people were talking about George having to resign on Friday.
Finally, I get my chance to vent my spleen over this.
Normally, I don't bring people up over English spelling and grammar because I'm not perfect and I appreciate the difficulties of typing into a tablet/phone.
Now, crap is a noun, crappy is the adjective.
Normally, you can get away with it, as in the PB favourite 'Ed is crap'. Where this falls down is where you have to use a comparative i.e. Ed is crappier than...certainly not crapper, which again is a noun which means, well, you know.
Cf. Shit, shitty, shittier, shitter.
Where were you when PB spent hours discussing what the plural of referendum was?
I came to the conclusion the answer was plebiscites.
Is today super-dooper mega poll day with Populus, Lord A, YouGov....and drum roll....Gold Standard ICM to complete the feast?
I'm hopeful we'll see ICM today.
But feast your eyes on this in the mean time
David Cameron’s handling of the row over Brussels’ £1.7 billion surcharge demand has been strongly backed by the public, a poll for today’s Mail on Sunday has found.
As a political storm raged over the deal, which the Government claimed had halved the bill to £850 million, the Survation poll found that 42 per cent of voters agreed it was ‘a result for Britain’ – against 33 per cent who disagreed.
And a substantial 35 per cent of voters thought that if Labour leader Ed Miliband had been Prime Minister he would have secured a worse deal, compared with only 11 per cent who thought he would have done better.
Thanks and yes I saw those figures over the weekend. But I'm not a great fan of either Survation or Opinium as pollsters (NOT casting aspersions on their professionalism/integrity etc etc and I include Lord A too), so am awaiting confirmation or otherwise from the more traditional companies. Doesn't MORI also publish at the end of the week around this time too?
'Look at him flapping around at EU Summits, a poor negotiator, friendless and without allies.'
Agree, Blair & Brown had lots of friends and allies in the EU,they loved the way they gave away UK taxpayers money,never objected to anything the EU did and for good measure found a scam to avoid the promised referendum on Lisbon.
Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) 10/11/2014 08:26 Theresa May called Tory promise on immigration "a comment" but PM in '11 said "net migration will be in 10s of 1000s ...No ifs. No buts"
Did anyone catch the inane grin on Eds face this morning as he left for work..That ought to scare the sh*t out of the likes of Putin
His refusing to go along with the attack on Syria certainly scared the Americans. The only major politician to assert this country's sovereignty in foreign affairs since the Vietnam war, perhaps more important than a photo.
All publicity is good publicity and so it is with Ed. His problem isn't that he's been seen as hopeless (other than by his opponents) it's that he's been invisible. This latest farago has cast the spotlight onto him and given him an outstanding opportunity to define himself and his vision.
No shit Sherlock. The coalition started life with a 160bn deficit that is now down to a 100bn deficit. BFD! The giant pulsating gorilla in the corner of British politics (of all developed economies' politics in fact) is that we have a grossly unsustainable deficit funded welfare state - and that at some point we won't be able to borrow for it.
Ozzy knows this and is pushing as hard as he can get away with to address the problem. See public sector headcounts fall. His challenge is that recovering GDP and falling unemployment are not generating much extra tax. Anyway - he's pointed in the right direction and is trying.
Labour? Away with the fairies. In deep deep denial. Ed even 'forgot' to mention the deficit in his big speech! If they scrape home next May thanks to UKIP eating into Dave's vote they will suffer a party-destroying crisis of competence in dealing with the deficit (or not). Markets will smell blood. PM Miliband will be overwhelmed by events. His own and his party's reputation trashed for a long time. In 6 months' time Ed is either going to lose or to face a drama he and his party are not equipped to handle. There's no happy ending for Miliband even if he wins the GE.
"Ozzy knows this and is pushing as hard as he can get away with to address the problem"
Patrick I normally agree with the tone of most of your posts, but on Osborne pushing the deficit ? Well it gave me a chuckle on a cold wet morning in Brum.
We probably agree more than you think sir. I would like to have seen Ozzy being alot braver on cuts. But....he's a politician. "I know exactly what I need to do - I just don't know how to get re-elected when I've done it'. The reason we haven't cut more is that the electorate only has so much appetite for it. I think Ozzy has done as much as he can get away with. I wanted more (as it appears do you). Maybe he has underestimated how much cutting the public will support. There's 10bn overseas aid that could go for starters - politically sensitive but electorally maybe not...
Sorry Patrick while I go along with political realism, I don't accept Osborne has done what he could. In 2010 voters were waiting for a kicking and he could and should have hit harder as he had a one off chance to get away with it. Likewise if he had tackled structural reforms back in 2011, the results would be coming in about now. Today he's boxed in by an election and "austerity" fatigue. Nonetheless I note he still finds it expedient to piss £12+ billion away each year on overseas aid.
Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1) 10/11/2014 07:13 So tough talk but no action - as usual: Returning Islamist fighters offered ‘jihadi rehab’ instead of prosecution: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
Is today super-dooper mega poll day with Populus, Lord A, YouGov....and drum roll....Gold Standard ICM to complete the feast?
I'm hopeful we'll see ICM today.
But feast your eyes on this in the mean time
David Cameron’s handling of the row over Brussels’ £1.7 billion surcharge demand has been strongly backed by the public, a poll for today’s Mail on Sunday has found.
As a political storm raged over the deal, which the Government claimed had halved the bill to £850 million, the Survation poll found that 42 per cent of voters agreed it was ‘a result for Britain’ – against 33 per cent who disagreed.
And a substantial 35 per cent of voters thought that if Labour leader Ed Miliband had been Prime Minister he would have secured a worse deal, compared with only 11 per cent who thought he would have done better.
Thanks and yes I saw those figures over the weekend. But I'm not a great fan of either Survation or Opinium as pollsters (NOT casting aspersions on their professionalism/integrity etc etc and I include Lord A too), so am awaiting confirmation or otherwise from the more traditional companies. Doesn't MORI also publish at the end of the week around this time too?
Yup, we should be getting the Ipsos-Mori on Wed/Thursday of this week.
Lest we forget, they are the gold standard of leadership ratings.
So it will be fascinating to see what they show, as the fieldwork should have been this weekend, not the best for Ed.
As for voters, lots are perfectly willing to support something long-term if they believe in it. The problem is that they often don't - many feel that none of us have a convincing long-term plan. You don't give the impression that you think it yourself, about any party?
Comment from Twitter today, via tech VC Marc Andreessen:
[Voters] are like Fortune 500 executives, they hire talent for their long term vision but judge them on short term performance.
The University of Essex is the place that Professor Anthony King resides.
The man who is the anti Dan Hodges.
No matter what it is, it is a truly terrrrribbbllle night for the Tory party.
Just saying like.
My step-mother studied at the University of Essex. She reads the Daily Mail (but votes Liberal Democrat - go figure). I think she managed to find her own, small, niche of friends there.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
But really, is it? Let's say Reckless wins by a clear 10%. He will have done so on the back of the Labour vote deserting en masse - from a seat they used to hold - to return a piss-poor MP who is a member of a party that is even more anathema to the Labour DNA than the Tories.
A week on Friday for Labour will be time to reflect.
"Yay - the Tories lost!
Er.
Hmmmm....."
Yep, but trumping that will undeniably be the 'UKIP on the march" story. And good news stories for UKIP are seriously bad news for the Tories.
If Reckless hadn't been a knob and prostituted himself to a protest party who have no chance of power but an excellent chance of putting Labour in power, Labour's outlook now would be even more miserable. Suicidal in fact, and six months of in-fighting and severe depression would've ensued. And with Ed in charge too. Ouch.
Where we differ is in the notion that "UKIP on the march" most damages the Tories. I believe that, point forward, any such march is going to come not from Tories - who have been bled dry by UKIP - but from a Labour party led by Ed is Crap. Ed's numbers with 2010 Labour voters went over a cliff in October. That won't result in a big shift to the Tories, but it will to both UKIP and the Can't Be Arsed Party.
But he's an out and out plonker who should never be anywhere near power.
Kinnock I could see as PM. Even Michael Foot. And Gordon's problem was that he froze in the headlights.
EdM is just road kill.
Gordon’s problem surely was that he had to wait too long. So when he did get his chance he messed it up. Probably spent far too much time thinking about what he was going to do when......
I can recall Sir Anthony Eden doing very much the same. Took us into an unwinnable war, because he was trying to show what a big man he was.
The time at the top of the party is interesting, as in recent years as soon as an election is lost the leader is gone.
This gives the new leader 4.5 years (with a fixed parliament act) as opposition leader which is too long. They would be better with 2.5 to 3 years maximum. After one term as with Cameron, we have had him as leader for 9.5 years. Long enough to say no more!
Also by selecting a leader as soon as the loss has happened you are at risk of all sorts of knee jerk reactions. You base your choice on the performance from the last parliament without giving potential candidates a breathing space to create the narrative of the direction in which they would take the party. In theory in the previous parliament they don't get that chance as they are loyal to the leader.
All publicity is good publicity and so it is with Ed. His problem isn't that he's been seen as hopeless (other than by his opponents) it's that he's been invisible. This latest farago has cast the spotlight onto him and given him an outstanding opportunity to define himself and his vision.
Spot on Roger.
For most of 2012 and 2013 there was a rolling discussion on PB that Ed was being smart in not defining himself or his policies as it would allow his enemies to attack him. Now we see the flip side of that approach where he has let a vacuum be created around him which has been filled by voters saying he's not up to much/ doesn't stand for anything and he has no real time to change that perception.
Mr Keeping my powder dry has become Mr Craperoo by default.
The University of Essex is the place that Professor Anthony King resides.
The man who is the anti Dan Hodges.
No matter what it is, it is a truly terrrrribbbllle night for the Tory party.
Just saying like.
My step-mother studied at the University of Essex. She reads the Daily Mail (but votes Liberal Democrat - go figure). I think she managed to find her own, small, niche of friends there.
It has just dawned on me, that the University of Essex is in Essex and its alumni includes John Bercow.
Talk about a double whammy of awfulness if you attended The University of Essex when John Bercow was an undergraduate.
Plus the voters backs Dave and George over their stunning rebate victory on Friday and think Ed would have done crapper if he were in charge.
And to think people were talking about George having to resign on Friday.
Finally, I get my chance to vent my spleen over this.
Normally, I don't bring people up over English spelling and grammar because I'm not perfect and I appreciate the difficulties of typing into a tablet/phone.
Now, crap is a noun, crappy is the adjective.
Normally, you can get away with it, as in the PB favourite 'Ed is crap'. Where this falls down is where you have to use a comparative i.e. Ed is crappier than...certainly not crapper, which again is a noun which means, well, you know.
Cf. Shit, shitty, shittier, shitter.
Edit: I am fully aware that TSE should have used an adverb, but that's for another day.
The Greens, Scottish Nationalist party and Plaid Cymru have joined forces to ask the BBC to rethink its plans to exclude them from the main TV leaders’ debates in next year’s general election .
The call is being made in a joint letter to the corporation that has also been backed by some cross-benchers and the Labour MP Baroness Helena Kennedy.
It comes as the BBC launches a public consultation on its election guidelines, but not specifically on its plans for the leader debates.
Plus the voters backs Dave and George over their stunning rebate victory on Friday and think Ed would have done crapper if he were in charge.
And to think people were talking about George having to resign on Friday.
Finally, I get my chance to vent my spleen over this.
Normally, I don't bring people up over English spelling and grammar because I'm not perfect and I appreciate the difficulties of typing into a tablet/phone.
Now, crap is a noun, crappy is the adjective.
Normally, you can get away with it, as in the PB favourite 'Ed is crap'. Where this falls down is where you have to use a comparative i.e. Ed is crappier than...certainly not crapper, which again is a noun which means, well, you know.
Cf. Shit, shitty, shittier, shitter.
Edit: I am fully aware that TSE should have used an adverb, but that's for another day.
I see non-contributory benefits as a right that I enjoy as a result of living in a wealthy moral nation, *and* I would be deeply ashamed to have to rely on them - as indeed I was for six weeks in 2001.
For an over-25 the current rate of JSA is £72.40 per week. Is that not subsistence level?
When working away from home I actually struggle to spend £20/week on food. And that includes fresh vegetables and fruit. My bread costs up to £2.00 and I only have a small freezer-unit (so choices have to be made).
Given an adult would have access to Housing-Benefit* (until IDS gets his 'single-payment' off the ground) what is the rest expended upon? I'd accept that internet-communications are required to assist with searching for employment: I assume that these can-be/are supplied by Job-Centres and libraries.
* I pay around £800/month for accommodation, utilities and council-tax. All from post-tax income. I barely can afford to save (as my bar-bill is [MODERATED]) yet some would argue I should pay more...!
Is today super-dooper mega poll day with Populus, Lord A, YouGov....and drum roll....Gold Standard ICM to complete the feast?
I'm hopeful we'll see ICM today.
But feast your eyes on this in the mean time
David Cameron’s handling of the row over Brussels’ £1.7 billion surcharge demand has been strongly backed by the public, a poll for today’s Mail on Sunday has found.
As a political storm raged over the deal, which the Government claimed had halved the bill to £850 million, the Survation poll found that 42 per cent of voters agreed it was ‘a result for Britain’ – against 33 per cent who disagreed.
And a substantial 35 per cent of voters thought that if Labour leader Ed Miliband had been Prime Minister he would have secured a worse deal, compared with only 11 per cent who thought he would have done better.
Thanks and yes I saw those figures over the weekend. But I'm not a great fan of either Survation or Opinium as pollsters (NOT casting aspersions on their professionalism/integrity etc etc and I include Lord A too), so am awaiting confirmation or otherwise from the more traditional companies. Doesn't MORI also publish at the end of the week around this time too?
Yup, we should be getting the Ipsos-Mori on Wed/Thursday of this week.
Lest we forget, they are the gold standard of leadership ratings.
So it will be fascinating to see what they show, as the fieldwork should have been this weekend, not the best for Ed.
Did I read ICM out today ? And the usual Pop and YG ?
The University of Essex is the place that Professor Anthony King resides.
The man who is the anti Dan Hodges.
No matter what it is, it is a truly terrrrribbbllle night for the Tory party.
Just saying like.
My step-mother studied at the University of Essex. She reads the Daily Mail (but votes Liberal Democrat - go figure). I think she managed to find her own, small, niche of friends there.
It has just dawned on me, that the University of Essex is in Essex and its alumni includes John Bercow.
Talk about a double whammy of awfulness if you attended The University of Essex when John Bercow was an undergraduate.
I mean, Essex and John Bercow concurrently.
Come on. That is drivel.
Essex has one of the the best political science groups in the country and Whiteley is a well respected and major authority of UK electoral politics.
Is today super-dooper mega poll day with Populus, Lord A, YouGov....and drum roll....Gold Standard ICM to complete the feast?
I'm hopeful we'll see ICM today.
But feast your eyes on this in the mean time
David Cameron’s handling of the row over Brussels’ £1.7 billion surcharge demand has been strongly backed by the public, a poll for today’s Mail on Sunday has found.
As a political storm raged over the deal, which the Government claimed had halved the bill to £850 million, the Survation poll found that 42 per cent of voters agreed it was ‘a result for Britain’ – against 33 per cent who disagreed.
And a substantial 35 per cent of voters thought that if Labour leader Ed Miliband had been Prime Minister he would have secured a worse deal, compared with only 11 per cent who thought he would have done better.
Thanks and yes I saw those figures over the weekend. But I'm not a great fan of either Survation or Opinium as pollsters (NOT casting aspersions on their professionalism/integrity etc etc and I include Lord A too), so am awaiting confirmation or otherwise from the more traditional companies. Doesn't MORI also publish at the end of the week around this time too?
Yup, we should be getting the Ipsos-Mori on Wed/Thursday of this week.
Lest we forget, they are the gold standard of leadership ratings.
So it will be fascinating to see what they show, as the fieldwork should have been this weekend, not the best for Ed.
Did I read ICM out today ? And the usual Pop and YG ?
If they follow their normal schedule, it should be out today.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
But really, is it? Let's say Reckless wins by a clear 10%. He will have done so on the back of the Labour vote deserting en masse - from a seat they used to hold - to return a piss-poor MP who is a member of a party that is even more anathema to the Labour DNA than the Tories.
A week on Friday for Labour will be time to reflect.
"Yay - the Tories lost!
Er.
Hmmmm....."
Yep, but trumping that will undeniably be the 'UKIP on the march" story. And good news stories for UKIP are seriously bad news for the Tories.
If Reckless hadn't been a knob and prostituted himself to a protest party who have no chance of power but an excellent chance of putting Labour in power, Labour's outlook now would be even more miserable. Suicidal in fact, and six months of in-fighting and severe depression would've ensued. And with Ed in charge too. Ouch.
Where we differ is in the notion that "UKIP on the march" most damages the Tories. I believe that, point forward, any such march is going to come not from Tories - who have been bled dry by UKIP - but from a Labour party led by Ed is Crap. Ed's numbers with 2010 Labour voters went over a cliff in October. That won't result in a big shift to the Tories, but it will to both UKIP and the Can't Be Arsed Party.
I'm sorry but that is not supported. See latest Ashcroft 12k sample marginals polling. UKIP has the support of more than twice the numbers CON switchers than LAB ones and that's in the marginals where it matters.
With mega sample sizes like this you can draw conclusions.
The University of Essex is the place that Professor Anthony King resides.
The man who is the anti Dan Hodges.
No matter what it is, it is a truly terrrrribbbllle night for the Tory party.
Just saying like.
My step-mother studied at the University of Essex. She reads the Daily Mail (but votes Liberal Democrat - go figure). I think she managed to find her own, small, niche of friends there.
It has just dawned on me, that the University of Essex is in Essex and its alumni includes John Bercow.
Talk about a double whammy of awfulness if you attended The University of Essex when John Bercow was an undergraduate.
I mean, Essex and John Bercow concurrently.
Come on. That is drivel.
Essex has one of the the best political science groups in the country and Whiteley is a well respected and major authority of UK electoral politics.
It was more a comment on the Essex the place and the awfulness of John Bercow.
I mean, have you ever been to Essex.
Only two decent things to come out of Essex are Depeche Mode and Sunil.
Ed is speaking today to offer big business a deal - he'll never take Britain out of the UK providing they raise pay to Living wage levels.
This is a reminder of how Ed Miliband gets to be leading a large political party, and favourite to become the next Prime Minister, despite being the third least charismatic person in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all her various colonies and dominions.
The EU is a tricky issue for Labour as so many voters disagree with them on it and it involves cooperating with foreigners which is always unpopular, but this is a very clever and sharp way to frame it.
As for voters, lots are perfectly willing to support something long-term if they believe in it. The problem is that they often don't - many feel that none of us have a convincing long-term plan. You don't give the impression that you think it yourself, about any party?
Comment from Twitter today, via tech VC Marc Andreessen:
[Voters] are like Fortune 500 executives, they hire talent for their long term vision but judge them on short term performance.
On topic, is there any evidence that any of this stuff - likeability, PM ratings or whatever - is a better predictor than just looking at the (post-97) polls? The voters generally know who the party leaders are, so why wouldn't it already be priced into regular voting intention?
Agree. Sunny Jim was “likeable” but the perception was that he wasn’t in control. Maggie gave the impression of being in control, and having around her a group who supported her.
One of the great what-if’s is what if Callaghan had gone to the country in the Autumn of 1978. He’d probably have just about squeaked back and the Tories would have dumped Mrs T.
I don't think Jim would have won in 98 although I accept it would have been closer. The IMF nonsense was hugely damaging in the same way that Black Wednesday was for the Tories, damaging Labour's reputation for economic competence for a generation. Labour today should be much more worried about being so far behind on that measure.
I also think that if Mrs T had been dumped the tories would have come up with someone pretty similar. The intellectual underpinning for what became known as Thatcherism was deep and wide. I really don't see a modern equivalent. All the current mainstream parties are in one way Thatcher's children but that over emphasises and over personalises a movement that was not at all restricted to the UK and which changed the world bringing on the collapse of communism and the creation of the modern world. Like Blair a generation later Thatcher rode the zeitgeist brilliantly but her role in creating it is over stated.
Keith Joseph, the "Mad Monk" was the intellectual behind "Thatcherism". Even less "likeable" than the lady herself!
In some respects but I have a lot of time for the contributions of Geoffrey Howe and then, later, Nigel Lawson. The latter's book, "The view from Number 11" remains in my judgment the best book by a politician on politico-economics I have read and sets out the principles, the morality and the utility of most of what we call Thatcherism far more clearly than the lady ever did herself.
Enjoyed hearing her on R4 this morning though! Not terribly easy to reconcile that with the Iron lady.
I expect that whoever is in power after the election is going to have to do more cuts and more tax rises. When we're told about spending commitments and tax cuts by the parties before the election, all we have to do is ask them about what is going to suffer as a result.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
We probably agree more than you think sir. I would like to have seen Ozzy being alot braver on cuts. But....he's a politician. "I know exactly what I need to do - I just don't know how to get re-elected when I've done it'. The reason we haven't cut more is that the electorate only has so much appetite for it. I think Ozzy has done as much as he can get away with. I wanted more (as it appears do you). Maybe he has underestimated how much cutting the public will support. There's 10bn overseas aid that could go for starters - politically sensitive but electorally maybe not...
Sorry Patrick while I go along with political realism, I don't accept Osborne has done what he could. In 2010 voters were waiting for a kicking and he could and should have hit harder as he had a one off chance to get away with it. Likewise if he had tackled structural reforms back in 2011, the results would be coming in about now. Today he's boxed in by an election and "austerity" fatigue. Nonetheless I note he still finds it expedient to piss £12+ billion away each year on overseas aid.
He should just be moved on.
Do you think that nice Mr Clegg would have let him. We won't know until the memoirs, but I wouldn't be too sure that all sorts of cuts weren't floated at The Quad or in cabinet and gotten the thumbs down from Clegg. Particularly after the tuition fees fiasco there was no way Clegg was going to want his name associated with any but the most superficial cuts.
>My step-mother studied at the University of Essex. She reads the Daily Mail (but votes Liberal Democrat - go figure). I think she managed to find her own, small, niche of friends there.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people that run the country.
Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) 10/11/2014 08:26 Theresa May called Tory promise on immigration "a comment" but PM in '11 said "net migration will be in 10s of 1000s ...No ifs. No buts"
That was an unusual misstep by someone who has proved a remarkably safe pair of hands in one of the most difficult departments in government. Almost Freudian, I would say.
The Tory incompetence involved in allowing the national debt to spiral out of control and the deficit measures failure is exemplified by Eric Pickles' fecklessness in the waste of valuable public resources.No wonder the Tories will leave the country's finances worse than Greece in 2015. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-eric-pickles-spends-4600153
"This is why I think Ed is in more trouble than the polls suggest."
It seems as though there are people at the top of the Labour party would do believe this as well -- hence Ed's troubles.
The Labour party could win with (i) a personable & competent leader, or (ii) a poor leader, but an efficient and supportive team around him/her.
If Ed can't get his team onside, it really is over. He may limp on till May, till the final bullet, but it is over.
My feeling is the Labour party has now to defenestrate him.
Even if the new leader is Burnham or Cooper or Balls, the letting of the blood of the sacrificial victim provides catharsis.
Provided the new team can coalesce supportively around Burnham or Cooper, then the Labour party will be better off.
Is it not the case though that the likes of Harman and Umunna (GOK why the latter rates himself so highly, but it's clear he does) are not simply going to stand aside and allow any of that lot to be crowned unopposed?
The steps required for achieve a coronation simply strain credulity:
1/ Miliband looks at himself in the mirror and admits he's not up to it. Er, he would do this why? He actually mouths off about his intellectual self-confidence. He doesn't agree he's not up to it, because part of his poverty of judgement is that he doesn't appreciate the poverty of his judgement.
2/ He decides to put his own political career behind something else, in this case the interests of the Labour party. Eh? Ed put his own career ahead of his family twice, by knifing his brother and by marrying Justine only when it became politically convenient. Ed values nothing more than his political career. Nothing.
3/ Ed and the party recognise that there is one clear candidate who would do better. The trouble is, nobody else does and nor do the polls point to anyone, unless we include Andrew Farmer. Moreover, on current polling Ed's going to win a majority. What's the problem again?
4/ Everyone else stands aside to let Andrew Farmer become leader. And nobody has any problem with this at all. The unions are happy for their puppet to be booted out even though he's on course to win. Batty Hattie and Chuka are fine with it and have no ambitions in that direction themselves at all.
It just isn't going to happen, I don't think. When Broon got the job unopposed it was because the vacancy had already arisen and everyone was frightened of his smear machine. These factors are not in place here.
The Tory incompetence involved in allowing the national debt to spiral out of control and the deficit measures failure is exemplified by Eric Pickles' fecklessness in the waste of valuable public resources.No wonder the Tories will leave the country's finances worse than Greece in 2015. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-eric-pickles-spends-4600153
Perhaps you should read your own stories
Communities minister Brandon Lewis said the number of cars since Labour was in charge has gone down from six to two between seven ministers.
He added: “The hypocrisy of Labour is breath-taking. We have reduced the cost of ministerial cars substantially.”
Haven't Labour given themselves another problem by effectively announcing "Ed is dead" is dead? The implication seems to be they'll "do a Livingstone" with an early post-election change of PM (older - quite a lot older! - readers will recall the GLC Labour group's removal of Andrew McIntosh after he'd won the election for them).
in 2005 the Tory message "Vote Blair, get Brown" backfired because many voters thought "suits me ...". Do they think voters might actually prefer Labour on the basis "Vote Ed, get someone else - not sure who, but they'll be Labour and not Ed so why not?".
Haven't Labour given themselves another problem by effectively announcing "Ed is dead" is dead? The implication seems to be they'll "do a Livingstone" with an early post-election change of PM (older - quite a lot older! - readers will recall the GLC Labour group's removal of Andrew McIntosh after he'd won the election for them).
in 2005 the Tory message "Vote Blair, get Brown" backfired because many voters thought "suits me ...". Do they think voters might actually prefer Labour on the basis "Vote Ed, get someone else - not sure who, but they'll be Labour and not Ed so why not?".
Big front page splash in today's FT on the reality of the budget cuts to come and Osborne's smoke and mirrors over cuts versus tax.
Yeah, £48 billion worth of cuts rather than £25bn expected.
If Ed becomes PM on say 31% of the vote, and has to enact those cuts, well Labour could be down low teens in the polls.
Labour could be destroyed for a generation in the next parliament.
I have said exactly that for a long time, that if Labour win then socialism will be destroyed for a generation at least
Socialism is already dead as a viable way of organising a country. Just the socialists don't realise it yet. Redward and his mob have over 30 years of real world changes to catch up with in their worldview. A Labour admininstration in 2015 will be an epiphany.
Ed is speaking today to offer big business a deal - he'll never take Britain out of the UK providing they raise pay to Living wage levels.
This is a reminder of how Ed Miliband gets to be leading a large political party, and favourite to become the next Prime Minister, despite being the third least charismatic person in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all her various colonies and dominions.
The EU is a tricky issue for Labour as so many voters disagree with them on it and it involves cooperating with foreigners which is always unpopular, but this is a very clever and sharp way to frame it.
Are PB people saying what they mean today? Will Ed take Britain out of the UK? I guess that would leave Northern Ireland?
Comments
It's possible that the Professor has presented his data in academic articles, but I can't see any link to such articles in the article linked to by Mike Smithson.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-09/jeanclaude-juncker-needs-to-go
Why is that our job? It is the Professor's.
If I put forward an implausible thesis --say, that the success of blogs is strongly correlated with baldness of the proprietor -- then the onus is on me to provide data to back up the thesis.
"It turns out that likeability is closely associated with other desirable traits that a successful leader needs, such as being seen as competent, decisive, in touch with ordinary people and honest."
There has been a lot of polling about Ed Miliband on all of these matters. He's done OK in polls on the latter two, not so much on the first two.
The man who is the anti Dan Hodges.
No matter what it is, it is a truly terrrrribbbllle night for the Tory party.
Just saying like.
But then so is politics as a whole, so even if the 'Best Leader' question does incorporate that incumbent bonus, that doesn't necessarily make it invalid or, for that matter, less valid than a more neutral question.
I also have my doubts about using 'likeability' as a measure, which seems to focus on softer personal qualities and less on competence, something surely at least as relevant in a potential PM (and of course, elections are about the relative qualities of parties as a whole and of local candidates, as well as leaders).
That said, I do very much like the 'out of 10' question format and we should have a lot more asked along those lines. It is not simply enough to know whether people prefer A to B but by how much they do so, which is not just a matter of breadth but of depth too.
It is likely to keep Ed as leader.
#WeBackEd
In times of trouble, and the UK is still in deep trouble, people look for a strong leader (to get them out of this inherited mess) and none of those are to be found on the Labour or LD benches. Indeed few are to be found among the Cons. Thatcher was far from being right on everything but she has a vision and led the drive to achieve that vision.
Today few parties or party leaders have credible visions (and most do not know what a feasible vision is) and that is why people are drifting away from the Cons, LAB & LDs to the Greens and UKIP - but alas neither of those have a total credible vision - both have small bits as a palliative to solve some perceived problems - but both are too tied up and blinkered by their own small agendas to be able to create a total viable vision for the UK.
For all their imperfections, Gove and Mrs May do have credible visions and the drive to achieve them, and even Boris is a good visionary but needs a good doer with him.
So that is why 2015 GE may still leave the UK in a mess and without a credible solution for going forward. The same problem lies with the EU who have too many troughers (for money and power) to think clearly. I had hopes of Frau Merkel, but she is too bound by her party political problems.
Maybe his memoirs will tell us in due course.
One for Norman Baker and his fellow conspiracy theorists.
Tony Blair’s company is alleged to have brokered multi-million pound deals that earned £41,000 a month and two per cent commission on each transaction with an oil firm founded by a senior Saudi royal family member.
....This is the first time that a commercial contract of his has apparently been revealed, despite the petrol firm insisting it stays top secret, and it poses questions over Blair's role as a Middle East envoy and his vested personal interests following his decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/tony-blairs-company-brokered-deals-with-chinese-officials-for-saudi-arabia-oil-firm-9849835.html
On topic, I wonder if "liking" a political party (as opposed to the leader) is more of a factor than we realise. One pollsters (ComRes?) polls regularly on this, generally finding that people "like" Labour more than the Tories, and that may be a factor which underpins Labour's support even when the party has a bad week. I don't personally think it's the right word - it feels odd to me to say that one "likes" a party. People answering the poll are I'd guess saying "I feel broadly in tune with that party's values".
That doesn't stop them voting for someone else - e.g. I'd think that DavidL might feel broadly in tune with the idea of social solidarity and support for people in difficulty, but he doesn't think we're competent enough so he votes Tory except for a possible anti-SNP tactical vote. But people who think we're actually all a bit rubbish default to the party that seems closest to them. We see this on the right too - e.g. Patrick clearly doesn't think the Government is very good, but as I understand it he plans to vote Tory because he likes the general idea of a low-tax society which the Conservatives project as their ambition.
The performance of Unison with regard to some Local Councils could not be less in the interests of the members they purport to represent.
As you allude to Eddie is not the worst option for Labour, I wouldn't underestimate him, if the Tories do that they are silly, he is desperate to win power. He has the desire and is crafty enough to do what it takes to make Labour the largest party. Labour have nobody else who would guarantee better performance, hence the Postman and Burnham front running to replace him, Ed is a political colossus compared to those two.
Should add that it was the evil Sun paraphrasing the cuddly old commie.
Two further points: the deficit is by no means merely a British (or UK) problem. All representative democracies have one, and there seem to be two reasons for this: (i) Chinese policy (ii) electoral pressure producing irresponsible economics.
Perhaps nothing can be done about (i), but there is an obvious remedy for (ii). Won't be too much political betting after it's applied, though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11219710/Ukip-plot-to-unseat-Ed-Miliband-at-the-general-election.html
But the headline is the usual rubbish. Not a plot, just normal politicking.
1. Let the media know that even Labour's own MPs think he's crap.
2. Have days of media coverage on will we/won't we get rid of him. Cos he's crap.
3. Rally round, saying it's too late, we are stuck with him. Even though he is crap.
4. Go into an election with him with everybody now knowing, because of the in-fighting, that's he crap.
I know that's a bit harsh. But that's more or less what Labour have achieved with this.
The Tories - who haven't been great themselves lately - must be chuffed to bits.
The light at the end of the tunnel for Labour is Rochester.
But he's an out and out plonker who should never be anywhere near power.
Kinnock I could see as PM.
Even Michael Foot.
And Gordon's problem was that he froze in the headlights.
EdM is just road kill.
The problem is that people like certain parties/policies for the all the benefits/sweeties that they receive in the short term. However, it is highly likely that this policy does not serve and i is not the best for either their or their children's longer term interest.
I know as a potential MP that you only look to the next election - but that is a major problem when MPs rely on being elected for their income, instead of having an income-producing outside job. This problem not only affects MPs but councils as well.
There I go making a schoolboy error after ripping into Mr Innocent.
And to think people were talking about George having to resign on Friday.
See Citizen Kane, passim.
So, actually, your after-tax income is £320/week -> which may not be fabulously high, but isn't the end of the word. People can (and do) live on this.
The big issue is that if you are offered a £300/week (pre-tax job) then the incentive to go into work is small. How much better off will you be - even with in-work benefits?
I can recall Sir Anthony Eden doing very much the same. Took us into an unwinnable war, because he was trying to show what a big man he was.
Is not a lot better given what was actually going on, not forgetting all the comments from the rest of Europe on the state of Britain.
We need some sort of long-term, weekly aggregation or average of likeability, approval and "doing well" for the main party leaders and the main parties.
The best i'm come up with is an average of Cameron "doing well", inverse of Miliband "doing well" and approval of the government (using YouGov data).
These numbers correlated almost exactly with the difference in VI between Tories and Labour in the last parliament, and in this parliament it is a pretty good match but probably distorted by the LDs being in government and it now being effectively a 4-party system.
Most of his colleagues voted for someone else.
They have to work with someone they don't rate.
Look at him flapping around at EU Summits, a poor negotiator, friendless and without allies.
The last few days have shown that Britain can't afford Cameron's kind of embarrassing little Englanderism.
Meanwhile it is reported in the media 1 in 3 Labour Labour MP's are in the pay of Unite.
It would be more honest to just make Len the leader and get Ed to make the tea.
The actual quote was "I don't think other people in the world would share the view [that] there is mounting chaos", as he returned from Guadaloupe.
A week on Friday for Labour will be time to reflect.
"Yay - the Tories lost!
Er.
Hmmmm....."
Mahoosive typo by CNN
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2BaiYcIUAAyjLj.jpg
Believe me, I'm happy for Osborne's little white lie to slow burn to the campaign.
But feast your eyes on this in the mean time
David Cameron’s handling of the row over Brussels’ £1.7 billion surcharge demand has been strongly backed by the public, a poll for today’s Mail on Sunday has found.
As a political storm raged over the deal, which the Government claimed had halved the bill to £850 million, the Survation poll found that 42 per cent of voters agreed it was ‘a result for Britain’ – against 33 per cent who disagreed.
And a substantial 35 per cent of voters thought that if Labour leader Ed Miliband had been Prime Minister he would have secured a worse deal, compared with only 11 per cent who thought he would have done better.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827026/Voters-Cameron-EU-cash-half-Mail-Sunday-poll-say-PM-right-stand-Brussels-1-75bn-bill.html
If Reckless hadn't been a knob and prostituted himself to a protest party who have no chance of power but an excellent chance of putting Labour in power, Labour's outlook now would be even more miserable. Suicidal in fact, and six months of in-fighting and severe depression would've ensued. And with Ed in charge too. Ouch.
Normally, I don't bring people up over English spelling and grammar because I'm not perfect and I appreciate the difficulties of typing into a tablet/phone.
Now, crap is a noun, crappy is the adjective.
Normally, you can get away with it, as in the PB favourite 'Ed is crap'. Where this falls down is where you have to use a comparative i.e. Ed is crappier than...certainly not crapper, which again is a noun which means, well, you know.
Cf. Shit, shitty, shittier, shitter.
Edit: I am fully aware that TSE should have used an adverb, but that's for another day.
As for voters, lots are perfectly willing to support something long-term if they believe in it. The problem is that they often don't - many feel that none of us have a convincing long-term plan. You don't give the impression that you think it yourself, about any party?
See you to-morrow, God willing...
I came to the conclusion the answer was plebiscites.
'Look at him flapping around at EU Summits, a poor negotiator, friendless and without allies.'
Agree, Blair & Brown had lots of friends and allies in the EU,they loved the way they gave away UK taxpayers money,never objected to anything the EU did and for good measure found a scam to avoid the promised referendum on Lisbon.
10/11/2014 08:26
Theresa May called Tory promise on immigration "a comment" but PM in '11 said "net migration will be in 10s of 1000s ...No ifs. No buts"
He should just be moved on.
10/11/2014 07:13
So tough talk but no action - as usual: Returning Islamist fighters offered ‘jihadi rehab’ instead of prosecution:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
Lest we forget, they are the gold standard of leadership ratings.
So it will be fascinating to see what they show, as the fieldwork should have been this weekend, not the best for Ed.
Not sure Thatcher's or Heath's likeability scores would have predicted their wins against more favoured oppositions.
This gives the new leader 4.5 years (with a fixed parliament act) as opposition leader which is too long. They would be better with 2.5 to 3 years maximum. After one term as with Cameron, we have had him as leader for 9.5 years. Long enough to say no more!
Also by selecting a leader as soon as the loss has happened you are at risk of all sorts of knee jerk reactions. You base your choice on the performance from the last parliament without giving potential candidates a breathing space to create the narrative of the direction in which they would take the party. In theory in the previous parliament they don't get that chance as they are loyal to the leader.
For most of 2012 and 2013 there was a rolling discussion on PB that Ed was being smart in not defining himself or his policies as it would allow his enemies to attack him. Now we see the flip side of that approach where he has let a vacuum be created around him which has been filled by voters saying he's not up to much/ doesn't stand for anything and he has no real time to change that perception.
Mr Keeping my powder dry has become Mr Craperoo by default.
Talk about a double whammy of awfulness if you attended The University of Essex when John Bercow was an undergraduate.
I mean, Essex and John Bercow concurrently.
The call is being made in a joint letter to the corporation that has also been backed by some cross-benchers and the Labour MP Baroness Helena Kennedy.
It comes as the BBC launches a public consultation on its election guidelines, but not specifically on its plans for the leader debates.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/10/bbc-tv-election-debates-greens-snp-plaid-cymru-ukip
Edit - Crappy is an Americanism
Given an adult would have access to Housing-Benefit* (until IDS gets his 'single-payment' off the ground) what is the rest expended upon? I'd accept that internet-communications are required to assist with searching for employment: I assume that these can-be/are supplied by Job-Centres and libraries.
* I pay around £800/month for accommodation, utilities and council-tax. All from post-tax income. I barely can afford to save (as my bar-bill is [MODERATED]) yet some would argue I should pay more...!
Essex has one of the the best political science groups in the country and Whiteley is a well respected and major authority of UK electoral politics.
With mega sample sizes like this you can draw conclusions.
I mean, have you ever been to Essex.
Only two decent things to come out of Essex are Depeche Mode and Sunil.
The EU is a tricky issue for Labour as so many voters disagree with them on it and it involves cooperating with foreigners which is always unpopular, but this is a very clever and sharp way to frame it.
If Ed becomes PM on say 31% of the vote, and has to enact those cuts, well Labour could be down low teens in the polls.
Labour could be destroyed for a generation in the next parliament.
Clever and largely true!
Fair dinkum.
But I like Ozzy.
Enjoyed hearing her on R4 this morning though! Not terribly easy to reconcile that with the Iron lady.
I'm sure all parties have been preparing clever tax wheezes. I could even come up with a couple myself if I tried.
Con 34 (+1) Lab 36 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 13 (-1) Greens 4 (nc)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_10_11-2014_BPC.pdf
10/11/2014 09:39
Excellent piece from @oflynnmep - the CBI are nothing more than subsidy junkies ukip.org/o_flynn_hits_o…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-eric-pickles-spends-4600153
The steps required for achieve a coronation simply strain credulity:
1/ Miliband looks at himself in the mirror and admits he's not up to it. Er, he would do this why? He actually mouths off about his intellectual self-confidence. He doesn't agree he's not up to it, because part of his poverty of judgement is that he doesn't appreciate the poverty of his judgement.
2/ He decides to put his own political career behind something else, in this case the interests of the Labour party. Eh? Ed put his own career ahead of his family twice, by knifing his brother and by marrying Justine only when it became politically convenient. Ed values nothing more than his political career. Nothing.
3/ Ed and the party recognise that there is one clear candidate who would do better. The trouble is, nobody else does and nor do the polls point to anyone, unless we include Andrew Farmer. Moreover, on current polling Ed's going to win a majority. What's the problem again?
4/ Everyone else stands aside to let Andrew Farmer become leader. And nobody has any problem with this at all. The unions are happy for their puppet to be booted out even though he's on course to win. Batty Hattie and Chuka are fine with it and have no ambitions in that direction themselves at all.
It just isn't going to happen, I don't think. When Broon got the job unopposed it was because the vacancy had already arisen and everyone was frightened of his smear machine. These factors are not in place here.
Communities minister Brandon Lewis said the number of cars since Labour was in charge has gone down from six to two between seven ministers.
He added: “The hypocrisy of Labour is breath-taking. We have reduced the cost of ministerial cars substantially.”
"But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage.
No ifs. No buts.
That's a promise we made to the British people. And it's a promise we are keeping."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13083781
in 2005 the Tory message "Vote Blair, get Brown" backfired because many voters thought "suits me ...". Do they think voters might actually prefer Labour on the basis "Vote Ed, get someone else - not sure who, but they'll be Labour and not Ed so why not?".
Will Ed take Britain out of the UK? I guess that would leave Northern Ireland?