politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on Saturday: Harriet Harman could become LAB

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on Saturday: Harriet Harman could become LAB’s Michael Howard?

Sixty thousand tweets of support for Ed Miliband this last week may have put a dampener on speculation about his leadership survival prospects, though not as much as the definitive statement from Alan Johnson ruling himself out of any future contest. For all the goodwill in the country, those who have the Labour leader’s future in their hands remain the MPs and shadow ministers at Westminster.

Read the full story here

Indigo

If so, Harriet could be the man

Harperson will be the man ? I am not sure she would relish that description !

First ?

Wouldnt she be a disaster with what is left of the working class vote ? She epitomises everything the WWC voter dislikes about Labour, and the causes of the stampede to UKIP of some segments of their vote.

CarlottaVance

PIE in the sky?

I'll get my coat....

CarlottaVance

On a more serious note (and I think the criticisms of Harman and PIE ignore context and are overblown) - I think it would take a spectacular disaster to shift someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence - so I suspect he's there until May 8 2015, and quite possibly longer....

RodCrosby

Jeez, I thought I'd explained this enough times.

'All it would take for Miliband to be deposed...'

It would take for Ed Miliband to resign. Period. There is no mechanism for regicide at this juncture.

And Harpic wouldn't need to be 'voted for'; she becomes leader pro tem automatically, in the event of a vacancy.

The downsides are:-

i) she's Harpic, anti-matter to large sections of the electorate, with her XX=good, XY=bad obsessive prejudices. The PIE has not yet been fully served either. There are second-helpings available for the Press to tuck-in to, no doubt...

ii) she would only be pro tem leader, lacking legitimacy if the NEC let her stagger into the election campaign. A gift to political opponents - and a constitutional question-mark if she ever came within hissing distance of Downing Street...

iii) in the unlikely event of every woman and her bitch rallying round for some kind of 'coronation' - improbable, since the NEC are duty-bound to issue a formal call for nominations, if they choose to hold an 'election' - the cries of 'stitch-up', both within and without Labour would be deafening, and the liabilities identified at i) don't magically disappear either...

Indigo

The public school educated niece of the Countess of Longford as leader of the Labour Party.... well that puts paid to using any "party of public schoolboys and toffs" attack line for the duration

Swiss_Bob

She's bonkers. Isn't that an issue?

edmundintokyo

Wasn't Michael Howard more popular than IDS?

That said, maybe the 80/1 isn't bad - not just weird regicide scenarios but also actual, non-metaphorical buses etc.

SimonStClare

Swiss_Bob said:

She's bonkers. Isn't that an issue?

Good point, well made. - but they also elected Gordon Brown.

foxinsoxuk

I have been pointing out that Harriet Harman is the obvious successor should Ed resign (and it would have to come from him) for some time. I have a few quid on her as next leader at good odds. One difficulty is how the bookies would regard such a move, in that the terms of the bet are a payout for next permanent leader. How permanent does a leader have to be?

Whether she would be a good PM is a separate issue to whether she would have support within the party. The Labour party is increasingly London centric, and "right on" so her feminist agenda would be supported. In addition there is her constitutional position, as well as expressed opinion that there should either be a female leader or female deputy after every election.

I think that HH would do quite well as LOTO and in the campaign. She would not appeal to the average kipper, but she would pick up the female vote. She would also shift the focus of the campaign from economic issues (where Labour is weak) to social issues (where Labour is strong). She can be an effective parliamentarian and campaigner, being one of the few survivors of the 97 New Labour team. Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

foxinsoxuk

Indigo said:

The public school educated niece of the Countess of Longford as leader of the Labour Party.... well that puts paid to using any "party of public schoolboys and toffs" attack line for the duration

Dropping that ineffective attack line would be another plus for HH!

Part of the New Labour 97 success was dropping the class war stuff.

Indigo

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds. I know she isnt a candidate in the terms of this debate, and I am not her biggest fan either, but Mrs Balls is a much stronger candidate imo.

anotherDave

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that HH would do quite well as LOTO and in the campaign. She would not appeal to the average kipper, but she would pick up the female vote.

Is there any data to support the notion that female voters prefer female candidates?

Indigo

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that HH would do quite well as LOTO and in the campaign. She would not appeal to the average kipper, but she would pick up the female vote.

Is there any data to support the notion that female voters prefer female candidates?

Found a good paper reviewing the research here. The answer appears to be yes, sometimes, but its swamped by things like party affinity, and depends on the issues under consideration and the issues of the day, all voters lean more toward a male candidate when considering issues that are traditional male orientated (particularly military and law and order) and toward female candidates when considering issues that are stereotypically female areas of strength (health, family etc). This last bit suggests the key item is the extent to which you are successful in framing the debate around your candidate.

http://www.uh.edu/~pols1oj/paper3.htm

foxinsoxuk

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

foxinsoxuk

Indigo said:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that HH would do quite well as LOTO and in the campaign. She would not appeal to the average kipper, but she would pick up the female vote.

Is there any data to support the notion that female voters prefer female candidates?

Found a good paper reviewing the research here. The answer appears to be yes, sometimes, but its swamped by things like party affinity, and depends on the issues under consideration and the issues of the day, all voters lean more toward a male candidate when considering issues that are traditional male orientated (particularly military and law and order) and toward female candidates when considering issues that are stereotypically female areas of strength (health, family etc). This last bit suggests the key item is the extent to which you are successful in framing the debate around your candidate.

http://www.uh.edu/~pols1oj/paper3.htm

As health and family are where Labour wants to place the debate HH would be a neat fit.

OldKingCole

British history has a long tradition of powerful female leaders appearing. Not often, but they’re usually significant. Boudicca (although of course she eventually went down to a disastrous defeat) Matilda, who fought “King" Stephen to a standstill, the Tudor half-sisters, especially Elizabeth and of course Victoria and, in parliamentary terms, Thatcher. The only “insignificant" Queen in her own right was Anne and perhaps Mary II, although she was probably more influential than might be seen at first glance.

And that leaves out the “powers behind the throne”!

We’re now accustomed to women in power, too.

Swiss_Bob

Seriously, you're discussing Harman in a positive light?

She's so thick she'd be laughed out of office the moment she came under serious scrutiny.

Go and watch her top ten YouTube moments, she's a joke.

Indigo

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that HH would do quite well as LOTO and in the campaign. She would not appeal to the average kipper, but she would pick up the female vote.

Is there any data to support the notion that female voters prefer female candidates?

Found a good paper reviewing the research here. The answer appears to be yes, sometimes, but its swamped by things like party affinity, and depends on the issues under consideration and the issues of the day, all voters lean more toward a male candidate when considering issues that are traditional male orientated (particularly military and law and order) and toward female candidates when considering issues that are stereotypically female areas of strength (health, family etc). This last bit suggests the key item is the extent to which you are successful in framing the debate around your candidate.

http://www.uh.edu/~pols1oj/paper3.htm

As health and family are where Labour wants to place the debate HH would be a neat fit.

Only if they succeed in moving the debate there, if the debate stays on the economy, and especially if the security situation deteriorates further, she would be a liability on the same terms.

MonikerDiCanio

EdM is fortunate to have a horror like Harman as his default successor. She's the stuff of fairytale nightmare.

Innocent_Abroad

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

I don't think Ed Miliband is a woman.

audreyanne

It's a good thread, but let's not forget that on Friday the heat will be back on the Conservatives, assuming they lose Rochester and Strood. No, Cameron won't go, but the narrative will shift again and were there to be any more defections that wouldn't help. Cameron is a lucky politician and I think he will pull through R&S. With Christmas approaching the hullabaloo over UKIP will die down ready for the real campaigns next year. As you know, I anticipate an outright Conservative majority.

So the next Labour leader will be installed later in 2015 after they lose.

anotherDave

Indigo said:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that HH would do quite well as LOTO and in the campaign. She would not appeal to the average kipper, but she would pick up the female vote.

Is there any data to support the notion that female voters prefer female candidates?

Found a good paper reviewing the research here. The answer appears to be yes, sometimes, but its swamped by things like party affinity, and depends on the issues under consideration and the issues of the day, all voters lean more toward a male candidate when considering issues that are traditional male orientated (particularly military and law and order) and toward female candidates when considering issues that are stereotypically female areas of strength (health, family etc). This last bit suggests the key item is the extent to which you are successful in framing the debate around your candidate.

http://www.uh.edu/~pols1oj/paper3.htm

Thanks for that. A good read.

foxinsoxuk

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that HH would do quite well as LOTO and in the campaign. She would not appeal to the average kipper, but she would pick up the female vote.

Is there any data to support the notion that female voters prefer female candidates?

Found a good paper reviewing the research here. The answer appears to be yes, sometimes, but its swamped by things like party affinity, and depends on the issues under consideration and the issues of the day, all voters lean more toward a male candidate when considering issues that are traditional male orientated (particularly military and law and order) and toward female candidates when considering issues that are stereotypically female areas of strength (health, family etc). This last bit suggests the key item is the extent to which you are successful in framing the debate around your candidate.

http://www.uh.edu/~pols1oj/paper3.htm

As health and family are where Labour wants to place the debate HH would be a neat fit.

Only if they succeed in moving the debate there, if the debate stays on the economy, and especially if the security situation deteriorates further, she would be a liability on the same terms.

I think that there is a lot of war weariness, so a female leader who was less keen to unleash airstrikes as first response to any foreign conflict might be onto a winner.

Labours economic policy is going to be very similar to the Coalitions. That is ordained by the deficit crisis. Where Labour can win is on social issues, pushing back against the reactionary tendencies of kippers and their fellow travellers on the right of the Tories.

The winning formula in 97 and 2001 for Labour was the combination of economic prudence with enlightened social attitudes. HH is not from the same sort of ideological background as Ed, she is more flexible and pragmatic, and also capable of machine politics. That is how she easily defeated Johnson for the deputy role.

JackW

An interesting Herders Saturday offering allowing PBers their full range of prejudices but I'm firmly of the view that :

Harriet Harman Will Never Be Prime Minister.

Sounds vaguely familiar ....

Sean_F

In the words of Captain Blackadder "This has to be the worst idea since Abraham Lincoln said "I'm tired of kicking round the house. Let's go and take in a play". Forget the 35% strategy; it would be the 25% strategy under her leadership.

foxinsoxuk

audreyanne said:

It's a good thread, but let's not forget that on Friday the heat will be back on the Conservatives, assuming they lose Rochester and Strood. No, Cameron won't go, but the narrative will shift again and were there to be any more defections that wouldn't help. Cameron is a lucky politician and I think he will pull through R&S. With Christmas approaching the hullabaloo over UKIP will die down ready for the real campaigns next year. As you know, I anticipate an outright Conservative majority.

So the next Labour leader will be installed later in 2015 after they lose.

As one of the few female posters on this site, do you think that there is much more to be done in the field of gender equality?

Sean_F

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

Innocent_Abroad

I'm sorry to say that I found this post below David Herdson's usual standard. I'm sure that, like me, he subscribes to Peter Kellner's e-mails and Kellner wrote one this week on this very topic. According to his polling, Miliband is seen very positively by those who are currently minded to vote Labour (except in the immediate aftermath of a gaffe, no doubt) but by hardly anybody else. And Labour wouldn't be better off with another leader - they'd lose on the swings what they'd gain on the roundabouts.

There are two things going on. The first is nicely shown by Miliband's attack on Sports Direct's HR practices, and the Tory response - "we're doing something about it, you did nothing in 13 years".

The second can be seen by a consideration of which politicians are popular. Cameron gets an incumbency boost (although not as much of one as he'd like). Apart from that, it's the populists Farage and BoJo. And Labour's core vote doesn't do populism. It suspects it, it always has - Attlee and Wilson most certainly were not populists. They only accepted the snake-oil salesman Blair in the extraordinary circumstance of four lost elections and the tragic death of John Smith (tragic not only for the Labour Party but also for Unionism). They won't fall for another one.

Labour will lose and then they will have to reform. Quite possibly a name change but more than that, I hope: a thoroughgoing review of the relationship with the Unions that empowers the rank-and-file at the expense of the oligarchs.

Swiss_Bob

I'm tempted to offer thousands to one that she will never be leader of the Labour party except as a stopgap.

However, as Mr StClare pointed out we are talking about the party that allowed a psycho to run the country.

dr_spyn

Reminds me of the Private Eye Cover with Nixon - no one's going to shoot me with Spiro T Agnew next in line.

OblitusSumMe

JackW said:

An interesting Herders Saturday offering allowing PBers their full range of prejudices but I'm firmly of the view that :

Harriet Harman Will Never Be Prime Minister.

Sounds vaguely familiar ....

Even I have reached an age where there is far too much about life that is vaguely reminiscent. One imagines you spent much of 1982 telling people that:

David Steel Will Never Be Prime Minister.

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

Labour will lose and then they will have to reform. Quite possibly a name change but more than that, I hope: a thoroughgoing review of the relationship with the Unions that empowers the rank-and-file at the expense of the oligarchs.

I hope you are right, but unless its a catastrophic stomping from the electorate, and I dont think it will be at the moment, its more likely to be a lot of bromides about having more consultation, "listening" to the public, working harder to get their message across, and all the usual cliches.

audreyanne

foxinsoxuk said:

audreyanne said:

It's a good thread, but let's not forget that on Friday the heat will be back on the Conservatives, assuming they lose Rochester and Strood. No, Cameron won't go, but the narrative will shift again and were there to be any more defections that wouldn't help. Cameron is a lucky politician and I think he will pull through R&S. With Christmas approaching the hullabaloo over UKIP will die down ready for the real campaigns next year. As you know, I anticipate an outright Conservative majority.

So the next Labour leader will be installed later in 2015 after they lose.

As one of the few female posters on this site, do you think that there is much more to be done in the field of gender equality?

I certainly do: it seems a long time since Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately I can't see HH as the solution. She is too divisive.

Who might the next female leaders of the three main parties be? I'm not putting 'four' because I'm unsure if UKIP believe women should even have the vote?

OblitusSumMe

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Labour will lose and then they will have to reform. Quite possibly a name change but more than that, I hope: a thoroughgoing review of the relationship with the Unions that empowers the rank-and-file at the expense of the oligarchs.

I hope you are right, but unless its a catastrophic stomping from the electorate, and I dont think it will be at the moment, its more likely to be a lot of bromides about having more consultation, "listening" to the public, working harder to get their message across, and all the usual cliches.

Plus, whatever you might think about Labour's strategic weaknesses - and I probably disagree with you about that, but another time, eh? - the media narrative has already been created to dump all the blame for Labour's failure in GE2015 at the feet of Ed Miliband personally. Even if three times election winner St Tony Blair himself were to ride in on the sunset, take up the leadership mantle and lose the election horribly, Ed Miliband would still cop the blame.

Innocent_Abroad

audreyanne said:

foxinsoxuk said:

audreyanne said:

It's a good thread, but let's not forget that on Friday the heat will be back on the Conservatives, assuming they lose Rochester and Strood. No, Cameron won't go, but the narrative will shift again and were there to be any more defections that wouldn't help. Cameron is a lucky politician and I think he will pull through R&S. With Christmas approaching the hullabaloo over UKIP will die down ready for the real campaigns next year. As you know, I anticipate an outright Conservative majority.

So the next Labour leader will be installed later in 2015 after they lose.

As one of the few female posters on this site, do you think that there is much more to be done in the field of gender equality?

I certainly do: it seems a long time since Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately I can't see HH as the solution. She is too divisive.

Who might the next female leaders of the three main parties be? I'm not putting 'four' because I'm unsure if UKIP believe women should even have the vote?

Only if they clean behind the fridge.

anotherDave

OblitusSumMe said:

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Labour will lose and then they will have to reform. Quite possibly a name change but more than that, I hope: a thoroughgoing review of the relationship with the Unions that empowers the rank-and-file at the expense of the oligarchs.

I hope you are right, but unless its a catastrophic stomping from the electorate, and I dont think it will be at the moment, its more likely to be a lot of bromides about having more consultation, "listening" to the public, working harder to get their message across, and all the usual cliches.

Plus, whatever you might think about Labour's strategic weaknesses - and I probably disagree with you about that, but another time, eh? - the media narrative has already been created to dump all the blame for Labour's failure in GE2015 at the feet of Ed Miliband personally. Even if three times election winner St Tony Blair himself were to ride in on the sunset, take up the leadership mantle and lose the election horribly, Ed Miliband would still cop the blame.

If after the election, the SNP/UKIP/Greens are seen to have displaced Labour with x group of voters, surely the attempt to win them back will itself focus blame/reform to policy rather than personnel?

foxinsoxuk

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Indigo

audreyanne said:

Who might the next female leaders of the three main parties be? I'm not putting 'four' because I'm unsure if UKIP believe women should even have the vote?

I think Suzanne Evans, their Deputy Leader might be surprised to hear that. As would their candidates for Corby, Rotherham and Eastleigh. I believe 1 in 6 of UKIP candidates are female, almost exactly the same as the Tories, but without all this nasty messing around with "a-lists"

Swiss_Bob

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

The whole tee-shirt episode is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about down thread.

Out of interest can you list some of the qualities you think would make her a good PM apart from her being a woman?

(Statistically I believe that female leaders start more wars than males)

Sean_F

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

Vinny

I really do not see how harriet Harman could improve Labour's prospects. She is the person who berated our armed forces for smoking a cigarette in public after having been on active service! She was the prime mover in all this equality legislation: the end result, the UK less equal than ever it was before after having sufferered a barrage of repression.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Vinny, comparing Farage in a pub to Harman's bloody daft comments about it being sexist to call a woman 'love' would be a sharp contrast.

MarqueeMark

Have we ascertained how many of the 60,000 tweets came from the "Save Ed" Tories? I imagine CCHQ's tapping fingers were red raw....

MarqueeMark

I suspect Hapless Harriet is not the person to prise the WWC voters back from UKIP. I suspect she probably thinks "good riddance....traitorous misogynous pig-dogs..."

Scott_P

MarqueeMark said:

Have we ascertained how many of the 60,000 tweets came from the "Save Ed" Tories? I imagine CCHQ's tapping fingers were red raw....

They worked!

david_herdson

RodCrosby said:

Jeez, I thought I'd explained this enough times.

'All it would take for Miliband to be deposed...'

It would take for Ed Miliband to resign. Period. There is no mechanism for regicide at this juncture.

There is no mechanism utilising Labour's constitution (well, there is but it's so cumbersome as to be useless). There are, however, political mechanisms that could force his resignation - and a forced resignation amounts to a deposing.

RodCrosby said:

And Harpic wouldn't need to be 'voted for'; she becomes leader pro tem automatically, in the event of a vacancy.

The decision (1) to delay and election, and (2) of senior shadow cabinet ministers to rally round Harman are both votes of a sort. You don't necessarily need to cast ballot papers to vote on a decision.

RodCrosby said:

The downsides are:-

i) she's Harpic, anti-matter to large sections of the electorate, with her XX=good, XY=bad obsessive prejudices. The PIE has not yet been fully served either. There are second-helpings available for the Press to tuck-in to, no doubt...

That I'd agree with but it should be remembered that she won the deputy leadership with those same feminist views (pre-PIE scandal admittedly), so they're not universally unpopular.

RodCrosby said:

ii) she would only be pro tem leader, lacking legitimacy if the NEC let her stagger into the election campaign. A gift to political opponents - and a constitutional question-mark if she ever came within hissing distance of Downing Street...

That's one of the biggest advantages of the process. If she led Labour to victory, she'd be crowned leader unopposed, or near enough; if she lost, she could be disposed of without difficulty. No credible candidate could put their name forward after the GE, having failed to demand the chance to do so beforehand.

RodCrosby said:

iii) in the unlikely event of every woman and her bitch rallying round for some kind of 'coronation' - improbable, since the NEC are duty-bound to issue a formal call for nominations, if they choose to hold an 'election' - the cries of 'stitch-up', both within and without Labour would be deafening, and the liabilities identified at i) don't magically disappear either...

Didn't happen with Howard. The public and party will accept the process if it produces the outcome they want. At 3-4 months before the election, with strategy and manifesto to produce, both would understand that a process that takes 6-8 weeks would be unmanageable.

Indigo

MarqueeMark said:

Have we ascertained how many of the 60,000 tweets came from the "Save Ed" Tories? I imagine CCHQ's tapping fingers were red raw....

Quite a lot of them appeared to want to save Eric Morecambe, Eddie Murphy and Esther McVey!

DecrepitJohnL

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

I'm not sure about that. For a start, Harman's "feminism for posh people" might well appeal to Conservative women who are the ones personally impacted by glass ceilings. Secondly, even if you are right that Harman appeals to some but not others, surely the same complaint is made about Ed Miliband? Thirdly, events, dear boy, events.

So what events might happen over the winter to change the electoral calculus (whatever that means)?

NHS in crisis, perhaps? The Daily Express has probably already forecast a particularly harsh winter (it normally does) and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has this very week urged patients not to bother their doctors who are already too busy (I nearly wrote snowed under).

Then there is Christmas itself, which for many families will be the acid test of whether George Osborne really has raised real wages and living standards, or whether Labour is right about the cost of living crisis.

Easterross

David a very interesting thread until you suggest Hattie the man hater could be Labour's answer to Michael Howard. Howard achieved a modicum of success, especially in relation to the LibDems. I well remember the LibDems proudly announcing their decapitation strategy which would see Howard, Teresa May and several other senior Tories removed. In the final event of course each of those Tories saw their majorities soar to place them beyond LibDem hopes for at least a generation.

It is remarkable that IF anyone believes the opinion polls, we are seeing a party heading for government talking about removing its leader. Of course the polls are nonsense and most of us know that. A fortnight before the Euro elections, numerous PBers were proclaiming Tory meltdown etc etc and of course when the London votes were finally counted, had it not been for London, the Tories would have beaten Labour both in terms of votes and seats.

IF the Tories lose Rochester badly on Thursday then for a few days the pressure will be back on David Cameron. IF the result is relatively close and the pollsters have exaggerated the UKIP lead, the narrative will be straight back to Ed, especially if the story of the night is the collapse in the Labour vote.

Indigo

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not sure about that. For a start, Harman's "feminism for posh people" might well appeal to Conservative women who are the ones personally impacted by glass ceilings.

Seriously ? That one part of her platform might appeal to Conservative women, but just about everything else she has ever said or done would have most Conservatives, men or women, running for the hills. It would be like asking liberal voters to vote for Peter Lilley because he happens to be in favour of legalising marijuana.

david_herdson

Innocent_Abroad said:

I'm sorry to say that I found this post below David Herdson's usual standard. I'm sure that, like me, he subscribes to Peter Kellner's e-mails and Kellner wrote one this week on this very topic. According to his polling, Miliband is seen very positively by those who are currently minded to vote Labour (except in the immediate aftermath of a gaffe, no doubt) but by hardly anybody else. And Labour wouldn't be better off with another leader - they'd lose on the swings what they'd gain on the roundabouts. ...

Sorry you're not so keen on this week's offering. I don't subscribe to Peter Kellner's e-mails, as it happens, and had decided to do this topic a few days ago. I first ran the idea in August 2013 but because of the timetable issues now effectively ruling out the possibility of a full leadership election (for any party, for that matter), I felt it was worth revisiting.

I disagree that Ed is seen very positively by Labour's core vote. The YouGov poll from 6-7 Nov for the Sunday Times had a response among Labour's current support for the question "Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party?" at 47-47. Among Labour's 2010 vote, 59 say 'badly' to 33 'well' (and for the electorate at large, it's 74-18). That net zero compares with ratings of +87 for Cameron among current Tory voters and +22 for Clegg among LDs.

By a margin of three (43-40), current Labour voters want him to stay on for the election - or put another way, almost two-fifths want him to go. Among Labour's 2010 vote, the figures are 35-45 in favour of him being shown the door.

In other questions, more than half of Labour's current voters don't think Miliband has made it clear what he stands for, a majority of twenty (39-19) believe him to be a weak rather than strong leader (44-15 among 2010 voters), and a third of Labour's current voters don't believe him to be up to the job of PM.

If that's "seen very positively", I'd hate to see the numbers should Labour's voters turn against him.

Easterross

OldKingCole said:

British history has a long tradition of powerful female leaders appearing. Not often, but they’re usually significant. Boudicca (although of course she eventually went down to a disastrous defeat) Matilda, who fought “King" Stephen to a standstill, the Tudor half-sisters, especially Elizabeth and of course Victoria and, in parliamentary terms, Thatcher. The only “insignificant" Queen in her own right was Anne and perhaps Mary II, although she was probably more influential than might be seen at first glance.

And that leaves out the “powers behind the throne”!

We’re now accustomed to women in power, too.

A bit unfair on the Stuart queens. Mary deposed her own father in a bloodless coup and Anne's reign saw the Union of the Parliaments and considerable success by a chap named Churchill knocking stuffing out of the French.

david_herdson

MonikerDiCanio said:

EdM is fortunate to have a horror like Harman as his default successor. She's the stuff of fairytale nightmare.

Had five MPs voted differently in 2007, Alan Johnson would be Miliband's deputy.

weejonnie

audreyanne said:

foxinsoxuk said:

audreyanne said:

It's a good thread, but let's not forget that on Friday the heat will be back on the Conservatives, assuming they lose Rochester and Strood. No, Cameron won't go, but the narrative will shift again and were there to be any more defections that wouldn't help. Cameron is a lucky politician and I think he will pull through R&S. With Christmas approaching the hullabaloo over UKIP will die down ready for the real campaigns next year. As you know, I anticipate an outright Conservative majority.

So the next Labour leader will be installed later in 2015 after they lose.

As one of the few female posters on this site, do you think that there is much more to be done in the field of gender equality?

I certainly do: it seems a long time since Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately I can't see HH as the solution. She is too divisive.

Who might the next female leaders of the three main parties be? I'm not putting 'four' because I'm unsure if UKIP believe women should even have the vote?

The UKIP deputy leader is Suzanne Evans - which suggests that political dogma out-trumps research in your household.

MarqueeMark

david_herdson said:

There is no mechanism utilising Labour's constitution (well, there is but it's so cumbersome as to be useless). There are, however, political mechanisms that could force his resignation - and a forced resignation amounts to a deposing.

It's called A Phone-call From Len....

That said, who are they going to choose for the coronation in his place? It redefines "plumbing the depths" when Ed looks the best of a bad bunch....

Innocent_Abroad

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

I'm sorry to say that I found this post below David Herdson's usual standard. I'm sure that, like me, he subscribes to Peter Kellner's e-mails and Kellner wrote one this week on this very topic. According to his polling, Miliband is seen very positively by those who are currently minded to vote Labour (except in the immediate aftermath of a gaffe, no doubt) but by hardly anybody else. And Labour wouldn't be better off with another leader - they'd lose on the swings what they'd gain on the roundabouts. ...

Sorry you're not so keen on this week's offering. I don't subscribe to Peter Kellner's e-mails, as it happens, and had decided to do this topic a few days ago. I first ran the idea in August 2013 but because of the timetable issues now effectively ruling out the possibility of a full leadership election (for any party, for that matter), I felt it was worth revisiting.

I disagree that Ed is seen very positively by Labour's core vote. The YouGov poll from 6-7 Nov for the Sunday Times had a response among Labour's current support for the question "Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party?" at 47-47. Among Labour's 2010 vote, 59 say 'badly' to 33 'well' (and for the electorate at large, it's 74-18). That net zero compares with ratings of +87 for Cameron among current Tory voters and +22 for Clegg among LDs.

By a margin of three (43-40), current Labour voters want him to stay on for the election - or put another way, almost two-fifths want him to go. Among Labour's 2010 vote, the figures are 35-45 in favour of him being shown the door.

In other questions, more than half of Labour's current voters don't think Miliband has made it clear what he stands for, a majority of twenty (39-19) believe him to be a weak rather than strong leader (44-15 among 2010 voters), and a third of Labour's current voters don't believe him to be up to the job of PM.

If that's "seen very positively", I'd hate to see the numbers should Labour's voters turn against him.

I thought you might throw some such numbers at me. I should have checked Kellner's e-mail before writing, so mea culpa.

I suppose I'm not generally in favour of people writing articles about Parties they're personally opposed to, although obviously it's fun to do so...

Hope to see you all to-morrow...

david_herdson

Easterross said:

David a very interesting thread until you suggest Hattie the man hater could be Labour's answer to Michael Howard. Howard achieved a modicum of success, especially in relation to the LibDems. I well remember the LibDems proudly announcing their decapitation strategy which would see Howard, Teresa May and several other senior Tories removed. In the final event of course each of those Tories saw their majorities soar to place them beyond LibDem hopes for at least a generation.

It is remarkable that IF anyone believes the opinion polls, we are seeing a party heading for government talking about removing its leader. Of course the polls are nonsense and most of us know that. A fortnight before the Euro elections, numerous PBers were proclaiming Tory meltdown etc etc and of course when the London votes were finally counted, had it not been for London, the Tories would have beaten Labour both in terms of votes and seats.

IF the Tories lose Rochester badly on Thursday then for a few days the pressure will be back on David Cameron. IF the result is relatively close and the pollsters have exaggerated the UKIP lead, the narrative will be straight back to Ed, especially if the story of the night is the collapse in the Labour vote.

I'd agree with much of that. The point is though that Labour now effectively has only two options as its leader for the election: Miliband and Harman. As far as the betting markets are concerned, that has a significant impact on where the value lies. Yes, Burnham (say) could be the next PM, if the Tories win the election, Cameron serves a full term, and Labour, having elected Burnham in the interim, wins in 2020 - but there are a lot of conditions to that and it'd be six years to collect on (there are other routes too but none is easy and all are long).

MarqueeMark

david_herdson said:

If that's "seen very positively", I'd hate to see the numbers should Labour's voters turn against him.

Give it time, David, give it time....

About late April should do it.

saddo

If Miliband carries on as he is it could happen.

It increasingly looks like he's in an isolated bubble of group thinkers who believe all that he says to be true. This bubble is way below any 29% voter share target.

This bubble thinks his speech this week has fixed his lack of broad voter appeal. Why else would he come out and attack Sports Direct as the weekends lead message. I had no idea the SD party was planning to stand in the next election.

david_herdson

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

I'm sorry to say that I found this post below David Herdson's usual standard. I'm sure that, like me, he subscribes to Peter Kellner's e-mails and Kellner wrote one this week on this very topic. According to his polling, Miliband is seen very positively by those who are currently minded to vote Labour (except in the immediate aftermath of a gaffe, no doubt) but by hardly anybody else. And Labour wouldn't be better off with another leader - they'd lose on the swings what they'd gain on the roundabouts. ...

Sorry you're not so keen on this week's offering. I don't subscribe to Peter Kellner's e-mails, as it happens, and had decided to do this topic a few days ago. I first ran the idea in August 2013 but because of the timetable issues now effectively ruling out the possibility of a full leadership election (for any party, for that matter), I felt it was worth revisiting.

I disagree that Ed is seen very positively by Labour's core vote. The YouGov poll from 6-7 Nov for the Sunday Times had a response among Labour's current support for the question "Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party?" at 47-47. Among Labour's 2010 vote, 59 say 'badly' to 33 'well' (and for the electorate at large, it's 74-18). That net zero compares with ratings of +87 for Cameron among current Tory voters and +22 for Clegg among LDs.

By a margin of three (43-40), current Labour voters want him to stay on for the election - or put another way, almost two-fifths want him to go. Among Labour's 2010 vote, the figures are 35-45 in favour of him being shown the door.

In other questions, more than half of Labour's current voters don't think Miliband has made it clear what he stands for, a majority of twenty (39-19) believe him to be a weak rather than strong leader (44-15 among 2010 voters), and a third of Labour's current voters don't believe him to be up to the job of PM.

If that's "seen very positively", I'd hate to see the numbers should Labour's voters turn against him.

I thought you might throw some such numbers at me. I should have checked Kellner's e-mail before writing, so mea culpa.

I suppose I'm not generally in favour of people writing articles about Parties they're personally opposed to, although obviously it's fun to do so...

Hope to see you all to-morrow...

I find it a lot easier to write about parties I don't support - it's far harder to keep objectivity on my own.

david_herdson

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

There is no mechanism utilising Labour's constitution (well, there is but it's so cumbersome as to be useless). There are, however, political mechanisms that could force his resignation - and a forced resignation amounts to a deposing.

It's called A Phone-call From Len....

That said, who are they going to choose for the coronation in his place? It redefines "plumbing the depths" when Ed looks the best of a bad bunch....

But they can't. Either they keep Ed or they don't. If they don't they either have an election - in which case the whole thing gets uncontrollably thrown to the members, affiliates and so on - or they unite around Harman. There's no middle ground.

I don't accept that they could unite around a Miliband-generation candidate; a Balls, Cooper, Burnham, Ummuna or similar. Apart from the fact that there would still need to be the mechanics of an election in that instance, should anyone else put their name forward, it would mean all those of that generation potentially forfeiting any chance to lead their party, were the candidate to do a Blair and serve more than a decade. Were one of them clearly superior to the rest, they might accept such a sacrifice but is any - and is any seen by those closest to the action as such? I've not seen any evidence to suggest so.

shadsy

Although HH is my MP and it would be interesting, I hope this doesn't happen. There will be all sorts of betting rules related hassle about whether she'd count as the "permanent" leader, or just a temporary one until a conference (which would mean we wouldn't pay out until an actual leadership election happens).

Scott_P

saddo said:

This bubble thinks his speech this week has fixed his lack of broad voter appeal. Why else would he come out and attack Sports Direct as the weekends lead message. I had no idea the SD party was planning to stand in the next election.

Is Miliband going to discipline the 60 Labour MPs who allegedly employ staff on zero hours contracts?

TGOHF

Labourites including our dear NPXMP stood by the last wholly unsuitable leader all the way to defeat and less than 29% in a GE.

History will repeat itself..

audreyanne

Scott_P said:

saddo said:

This bubble thinks his speech this week has fixed his lack of broad voter appeal. Why else would he come out and attack Sports Direct as the weekends lead message. I had no idea the SD party was planning to stand in the next election.

Is Miliband going to discipline the 60 Labour MPs who allegedly employ staff on zero hours contracts?

Or, indeed, the illegal immigrant working for Labour HQ
http://order-order.com/2014/11/14/arnie-the-accidental-tourist/

audreyanne

weejonnie said:

audreyanne said:

foxinsoxuk said:

audreyanne said:

It's a good thread, but let's not forget that on Friday the heat will be back on the Conservatives, assuming they lose Rochester and Strood. No, Cameron won't go, but the narrative will shift again and were there to be any more defections that wouldn't help. Cameron is a lucky politician and I think he will pull through R&S. With Christmas approaching the hullabaloo over UKIP will die down ready for the real campaigns next year. As you know, I anticipate an outright Conservative majority.

So the next Labour leader will be installed later in 2015 after they lose.

As one of the few female posters on this site, do you think that there is much more to be done in the field of gender equality?

I certainly do: it seems a long time since Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately I can't see HH as the solution. She is too divisive.

Who might the next female leaders of the three main parties be? I'm not putting 'four' because I'm unsure if UKIP believe women should even have the vote?

The UKIP deputy leader is Suzanne Evans - which suggests that political dogma out-trumps research in your household.

Perception.

AlastairMeeks

The SNP have adopted the idea of a Yes alliance:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/new-snp-deputy-leader-stewart-hosie-wants-campaigning-energy-of-yes-harnessed-1.684438

I guess we now need to see how it will work.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Saddo, it's because they offer zero hours contracts. As do some Labour MPs, or so I've read.

rottenborough

shadsy said:

Although HH is my MP and it would be interesting, I hope this doesn't happen. There will be all sorts of betting rules related hassle about whether she'd count as the "permanent" leader, or just a temporary one until a conference (which would mean we wouldn't pay out until an actual leadership election happens).

Tricky, but if she was leader during May 2015 GE, then pay at that point.

rottenborough

On the Labour leadership front, Newstatesman this week has a small snippet noting that Chukka has been promised some big money donors.

audreyanne

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

Then there is Christmas itself, which for many families will be the acid test of whether George Osborne really has raised real wages and living standards, or whether Labour is right about the cost of living crisis.

I don't agree. Christmas is always a squeeze for 99.9% of the population.

The real acid test will be after the budget in March and therefore in pay packets at the end of March and April, the latter being 1 week before the Election.

This isn't aimed at you by the way but I sometimes wonder if people on here stop and think about what people really care about, and why the cards are now massively stacked in the Conservatives' favour. To be neck-and-neck, or even slightly ahead, of a Labour party with a lame duck leader six months out and an improving economy puts them within sight of the finishing line.

The spoiler is UKIP, but they will fade next year when the heat's turned up and people get serious about real politics.

Swiss_Bob

CiF can be comedy gold:

askeans 15 November 2014 7:15am

Oh FFS Ed.
So the powerful vested interest is......
?the mafia
The banks
Some shadowy evil organisation
No it's a sports shop!

This sums him up - heart's in the right place but just misses the point / scale of the issues we face.

audreyanne

By the way, not that I think anyone apart from kipper-bangers give a fig about the EU but it has been a good week for Europe with the economic data and the Rosetta mission.

Swiss_Bob

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.

I agree that she would not regain support of WWC men, or the golf club blazer kippers either, but that is not her target. She may well gain a lot of support from their wives and daughters, the sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

She also brings a feminist perspective to the immigration debate, being on record about how muslim veiling is an obstacle to female integration and participation in public life.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

Then there is Christmas itself, which for many families will be the acid test of whether George Osborne really has raised real wages and living standards, or whether Labour is right about the cost of living crisis.

The spoiler is UKIP, but they will fade next year when the heat's turned up and people get serious about real politics.

We live in hope. As do you with your wishful thinking. No serious commentator thinks UKIP's vote will fade in the run up to the GE.

MarqueeMark

Swiss_Bob said:

CiF can be comedy gold:

askeans 15 November 2014 7:15am

Oh FFS Ed.
So the powerful vested interest is......
?the mafia
The banks
Some shadowy evil organisation
No it's a sports shop!

This sums him up - heart's in the right place but just misses the point / scale of the issues we face.

"The dark force is strong with this one..."

The slightly paranoid ramblings are starting already. That which doesn't kill you makes you stranger.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11230782/That-which-does-not-kill-Ed-Miliband-probably-wont-make-him-stronger.html

saddo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Saddo, it's because they offer zero hours contracts. As do some Labour MPs, or so I've read.

Zero hour contracts is the point. They've become an iconic touch stone point for Labour bubble types as a symbol of nasty capitalism at its worst.

The reality is the majority of those working on them really like the contact and have higher levels of job satisfaction than those on full time contracts.

If Ed bans them 100000 plus jobs will go and many companies will go out of business.

It's just the politics of the stupid.

Easterross

TGOHF said:

Labourites including our dear NPXMP stood by the last wholly unsuitable leader all the way to defeat and less than 29% in a GE.

History will repeat itself..

By May I suspect lots of Labour MPs and candidates inc NPXMP will be wishing Labour polls as high as 29%. I think they will get 25-28% and people like Anna Soubry will have 4 figure majorities.

The Tories will hopefully go into the GE with a promise to reduce the size of the HoC to 600 or fewer MPs. How does Labour argue against that!

Roger

"This bubble thinks his speech this week has fixed his lack of broad voter appeal."

He doesn't personally need 'voter appeal'. Unlike his shallow opponents who think being fun in a pub is what you need to be PM Labour voters don't give a shit. They want to know what their party are going to do nothing more.

The Tories are dead in the water. They've almost reached junk status. The only thing preventing Cameron from going down as the least successful Prime Minister of all time is that Labour voters will stay at home because their party aren't giving them a reason to vote.

It's abysmal leadership but it's nothing to do with Ed's personality or wonkiness.

chestnut

saddo said:

If Miliband carries on as he is it could happen.

It increasingly looks like he's in an isolated bubble of group thinkers who believe all that he says to be true. This bubble is way below any 29% voter share target.

This bubble thinks his speech this week has fixed his lack of broad voter appeal. Why else would he come out and attack Sports Direct as the weekends lead message. I had no idea the SD party was planning to stand in the next election.

The biggest users of zero hours contracts are the not-for-profit/charity sector, job-hopping is eminently possible now for unhappy employees (and is at six year high) thanks to the vast improvements in employment/vacancies and the majority of zero hours workers apparently like their arrangement.

Miliband seems to constantly talk to himself and his Labour chums but never to the nation.

He is a depressing and divisive individual who paints a relentlessly negative picture of Britain.

audreyanne

Swiss_Bob said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.



From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

Then there is Christmas itself, which for many families will be the acid test of whether George Osborne really has raised real wages and living standards, or whether Labour is right about the cost of living crisis.

The spoiler is UKIP, but they will fade next year when the heat's turned up and people get serious about real politics.

We live in hope. As do you with your wishful thinking. No serious commentator thinks UKIP's vote will fade in the run up to the GE.

On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

Sean_F

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154513

From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

I'm not sure about that. For a start, Harman's "feminism for posh people" might well appeal to Conservative women who are the ones personally impacted by glass ceilings. Secondly, even if you are right that Harman appeals to some but not others, surely the same complaint is made about Ed Miliband? Thirdly, events, dear boy, events.

So what events might happen over the winter to change the electoral calculus (whatever that means)?

NHS in crisis, perhaps? The Daily Express has probably already forecast a particularly harsh winter (it normally does) and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has this very week urged patients not to bother their doctors who are already too busy (I nearly wrote snowed under).

Then there is Christmas itself, which for many families will be the acid test of whether George Osborne really has raised real wages and living standards, or whether Labour is right about the cost of living crisis.

"Feminism for Posh People" might appeal. It's people who are just outside the magic circle who resent their status far more than people who are further down the pecking order. But, that's a tiny proportion of the population, and it would require them to abandon other things that matter to them.

A really bad winter could throw things Labour's way, if the NHS can't cope, and/or we face power cuts.

Without that, I think the Conservatives are heading for largest party status in May.

audreyanne

saddo said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Saddo, it's because they offer zero hours contracts. As do some Labour MPs, or so I've read.

If Ed bans them 100000 plus jobs will go and many companies will go out of business.

It's just the politics of the stupid.

Indeed. No change there then. Like the Mansion Tax, Labour are hacking off people who matter. It's what happens when you put someone in charge who is smitten by the politics of envy, but who has never done a proper day's work.

We should perhaps remember that in the last 50 years Labour have only won power with a quasi-Tory leader: someone who, sure, believed in social conscience but who pretty much allowed laissez-faire economics to run and the middle classes to make, and keep, their money.

rottenborough

Easterross said:

TGOHF said:

Labourites including our dear NPXMP stood by the last wholly unsuitable leader all the way to defeat and less than 29% in a GE.

History will repeat itself..

By May I suspect lots of Labour MPs and candidates inc NPXMP will be wishing Labour polls as high as 29%. I think they will get 25-28% and people like Anna Soubry will have 4 figure majorities.

The Tories will hopefully go into the GE with a promise to reduce the size of the HoC to 600 or fewer MPs. How does Labour argue against that!

If you really think that Broxtowe will stay conservative with a 4 figure majority then there's a tasty 3.25 available at Ladbrokes (amongst others). The reality is the LibDem vote there has collapsed and still no GE candidate. Its the sort of place where Mike's 2010 LD switchers are firm in their switching.

dr_spyn

Perhaps Ed could ask The Co-Op when it stopped using zero hours contracts? Still plenty of suggestions that MPs in his own party are happy to use them.

If Harman is the answer, Labour is well and truly heading for disaster.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Saddo, it's mindless nonsense from Miliband, as usual (cf the price freeze, a policy so damned silly it was known to be madness in the 4th century AD).

Incidentally, just read that Doncaster council (Labour-controlled, and whose MP is some chap called Miliband) utilises zero hours contracts.

Roger

"I think they will get 25-28% and people like Anna Soubry will have 4 figure majorities."

Easterross. £500 at evens that AS doesn't get a four figure majority over Nick. Are we on?

MarqueeMark

audreyanne said:

UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

That's rather bold. I think without someone on the inside to allow you to run along the terraces, this would require you to cross a couple of bridges.....

saddened

Roger said:

"This bubble thinks his speech this week has fixed his lack of broad voter appeal."

He doesn't personally need 'voter appeal'. Unlike his shallow opponents who think being fun in a pub is what you need to be PM Labour voters don't give a shit. They want to know what their party are going to do nothing more.

The Tories are dead in the water. They've almost reached junk status. The only thing preventing Cameron from going down as the least successful Prime Minister of all time is that Labour voters will stay at home because their party aren't giving them a reason to vote.

It's abysmal leadership but it's nothing to do with Ed's personality or wonkiness.

I'm genuinely never sure if your posts are a spoof or if you are just so insulated in your tax avoidance luvvie bubble you actually believe this tripe. I lean towards the latter, but not sure.

rottenborough

@steverichards14:

Today's Wk in W'mister on Radio 4 at 11: K.Clarke/P.Hain on loyalty ;David Davis on Tory Bennites;Rosie Barnes/D.Belotti on by-elections.

dr_spyn

Oh dear, how sad, well never mind that Doncaster Council use zero hours contracts.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-11-15/government-already-acting-on-zero-hours-terms/

Mr Hasbeen leading Labour over the electoral cliff.

anotherDave

audreyanne said:

Swiss_Bob said:

audreyanne said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.

She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.



From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.

Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.

#shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.

Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

Then there is Christmas itself, which for many families will be the acid test of whether George Osborne really has raised real wages and living standards, or whether Labour is right about the cost of living crisis.

The spoiler is UKIP, but they will fade next year when the heat's turned up and people get serious about real politics.

We live in hope. As do you with your wishful thinking. No serious commentator thinks UKIP's vote will fade in the run up to the GE.

On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.

Ninoinoz

david_herdson said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

EdM is fortunate to have a horror like Harman as his default successor. She's the stuff of fairytale nightmare.

Had five MPs voted differently in 2007, Alan Johnson would be Miliband's deputy.

Which shows how unbelievably stupid they are.

Johnson was (or is) completely unacceptable to the Catholic voters of NW England and the West of Scotland. Indeed, the loss of the Catholic vote in Scotland is what is driving the collapse of Labour in Scotland.

I have noticed the general ignorance of religion has led to the near collapse of both Conservative and Labour parties. It seems to be a blind spot on this site as well.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

Must say I've not heard that before.

Swiss_Bob

@audreyanne‌

On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

No you won't.

ComRes poll published here on PB: This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the General Election

YouGov: YOUGOV (Just re record not fade away)

Perhaps some of the 'serious commentators on here could give their opinion on whether they think UKIP's vote share will 'fade away' in the run up to GE15?.

saddened

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

EdM is fortunate to have a horror like Harman as his default successor. She's the stuff of fairytale nightmare.

Had five MPs voted differently in 2007, Alan Johnson would be Miliband's deputy.

Which shows how unbelievably stupid they are.

Johnson was (or is) completely unacceptable to the Catholic voters of NW England and the West of Scotland. Indeed, the loss of the Catholic vote in Scotland is what is driving the collapse of Labour in Scotland.

I have noticed the general ignorance of religion has led to the near collapse of both Conservative and Labour parties. It seems to be a blind spot on this site as well.

It's not a blind spot for me. I deliberately ignore it in the hope it will go away. If we had less religious intolerance in the world, it would be a better place.

Roger

AF

"The SNP have adopted the idea of a Yes alliance:"

Very smart piece of marketing by NS. Mind you she's been planning for this day since she was twelve or something so it's not surprising that she has a few well thought out ploys even if she doesn't seem very well rounded. A bit like Hague.

MikeSmithson

Swiss_Bob said:

@audreyanne‌

On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

No you won't.

ComRes poll published here on PB: This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the General Election

YouGov: YOUGOV (Just re record not fade away)

Perhaps some of the 'serious commentators on here could give their opinion on whether they think UKIP's vote share will 'fade away' in the run up to GE15?.

ComRes on UKIP does not have a good record. Remember the 38% share just two weeks before they got 27% in the Euros. Mind you most other pollsters overstated the purples at that election.

audreyanne

saddened said:

Roger said:

"This bubble thinks his speech this week has fixed his lack of broad voter appeal."

He doesn't personally need 'voter appeal'. Unlike his shallow opponents who think being fun in a pub is what you need to be PM Labour voters don't give a shit. They want to know what their party are going to do nothing more.

The Tories are dead in the water. They've almost reached junk status. The only thing preventing Cameron from going down as the least successful Prime Minister of all time is that Labour voters will stay at home because their party aren't giving them a reason to vote.

It's abysmal leadership but it's nothing to do with Ed's personality or wonkiness.

I'm genuinely never sure if your posts are a spoof or if you are just so insulated in your tax avoidance luvvie bubble you actually believe this tripe. I lean towards the latter, but not sure.

I didn't realise Roger lives abroad. Without meaning to be too churlish I don't think living abroad gives good insight to the current UK political landscape. For instance, I know a number of non-Tories who have recently commented on Cameron's statesmanship. I'm not sure it will translate to votes but it's the sort of thing you can't really pick up if you're not here. And, to balance the books, I was clueless about the potency of the immigration issue until I returned to Engerlaaand.

By the way, for a classic, perhaps THE classic, example of this, anyone else remember Callaghan's infamous return from the Caribbean jaunt during the winter of discontent? There we all were, freezing our butts off in one of the coldest winters on record, with rubbish mounting up on the streets, lorry drivers on strike and even the dead unburied and Jim breezed into Heathrow, waving his hand nonchalantly to say there was nothing amiss. He held a press conference at the airport and joked about having had a swim in the Caribbean during the summit. He was then asked (by a reporter from the Evening Standard) 'What is your general approach, in view of the mounting chaos in the country at the moment?' and replied:

'Well, that's a judgment that you are making. I promise you that if you look at it from outside, and perhaps you're taking rather a parochial view at the moment, I don't think that other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos.'

The next day's edition of The Sun featured the famous headline "Crisis? What crisis?" with a subheading "Rail, lorry, jobs chaos—and Jim blames Press", condemning Callaghan as being "out of touch" with British society.

Classic moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

Swiss_Bob

Roger said:

AF

"The SNP have adopted the idea of a Yes alliance:"

Very smart piece of marketing by NS. Mind you she's been planning for this day since she was twelve or something so it's not surprising that she has a few well thought out ploys even if she doesn't seem very well rounded. A bit like Hague.

Ploys perhaps.

Where was her planning, input to Scotland's economic future after a 'Yes' vote.

Any electorate with a brain would have dropped the whole SNP leadership after that fiasco, considering it is that which almost certainly lost them the 'Yes' vote.

dr_spyn

Co-Op Pharmacy hiring drivers on Zero Hours contracts - Bracknell & Stamford.

www.reed.co.uk/jobs/delivery-driver/25983916#/jobs/delivery-driver

Perhaps Miiband should ask Ed Balls & Lab Co-Op MPs about it. While he is at it can he would work out why tax credits are distorting labour markets.