Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who would take over as Labour Leader if Ed fell short?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who would take over as Labour Leader if Ed fell short?
I expect Labour to win most seats at the next general election and for Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister. The bookies make it the most likely event but not a certainty. They price it as a 1/2 shot that Labour will return the most MPs at the next election and 4/6 that Ed Miliband makes it to 10 Downing Street. This is not a universal view by any stretch of the imagination.
0
Comments
Oh..and please, please, please with knobs on can the answer be Ed Balls!
Boyd Rankin brought in for the next two ODIs...bowled 2 great overs for Warks last night at Hove to win the match
Is it coz you is gay?
"But which city once again nabbed the superlative No. 1 rank? Hats off to Bangkok, for its abundant energy, superior value-for-money, and stylish design options. A recent case in point: the eye-catching Siam hotel, a 38-room property owned by a Thai rock star."
http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-best-cities
If Labour lose in 2015, it will, in all honesty and without prejudice to my right to argue otherwise in a different context, nothing to do with Ed Miliband's youth and inexperience as leader of the party.
It will simply be because the electorate will want the Conservatives, probably still in Coalition, to finish the job they will have near completed, in recovering the economy.
Only once the country is no longer spending money we haven't got will there be another real choice of future political direction. Labour's chances will therefore be better in 2020 than 2015, and better still under a leader who has paced their electoral recovery and policy development to a 10 furlong rather than 5 furlong race.
Ditching EdM in 2015 to replace him with Burnham would be as foolhardy as the Tories replacing Hague with IDS. It will result in Labour needing to serve three terms in opposition rather than two.
If Labour lose in 2015, the party would be better off with a fresh start. Ideal candiate is an experienced politician, but not necessarily someone deadened by the burdens off office. Someone capable of finding a genuinely fresh direction and exciting from opposition.
Ex-ministers, groomed in office, generally lack political bite. Impacts all parties.
Sounds right, tim.
Ticks all the boxes for a 'one nation' party of the people.
The main point to understand with that is the BBC version of reality isn't true.
What this means is UKIP don't need to offer that much to detach a lot of working class support. I'd say the minimum trade would be something like
a) coming across like they're on the same wavelength i.e. non pc - using the grooming cover-up as an example would be particularly effective if they can find a form of words that doesn't sound like stirring to people who don't know the BBC version of reality isn't true.
b) saying we can't control the borders without coming out of the EU - very simple
c) solid on the safety net idea which is different to the redistribution idea. a lot of C2 types in particular just get angry at being offered hand-outs
edit:
d) I'd suggest always calling Labour, "New Labour" as well for psyche reasons.
I reckon Pritti Patel would stand a decent chance as leader of the Tories though. She's got to be the best chance of breaking the out of touch white neoliberal male leader clique that is destroying all 3 main parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_Society
Still, he seems unaccountably popular amongst those who would actually have the choice if and when the time comes. Certainly Ladbrokes' 25/1 looks uncharacteristically generous compared with best bookies' odds on Chuka Umanna (8/1), Jim Murphy (10/1), David Miliband (12/1 !!!), Rachel Reeves (16/1) Douglas Alexander (16/1), Dan Jarvis (20/1), Tony Blair (25/1), or - incredibly - James Purnell (25/1).
I'm on!
Anyway, Boris has already united London. Check out his stratospheric ratings in yesterdays Yougov poll!
The fellow is a buffoon and if there were more black male MPs about no one would put him forward as a candidate for anything.
Can you each be the bigger man and stop bickering. I suspect you won't ever agree and it's rather dull to read.
Ta muchly
I see you described me on the previous thread as an "anti-EU libertarian". I'm certainly anti-EU, but I'm not sure about the libertarian part. I strongly support classical liberal principles, which I think are possibly the finest thing invented by humankind, but I don't buy into this "government is always the problem" stuff. I'm very willing to support a role for government regulation in places to hold society together, whether it is by controlling immigration, improving opportunity for the poor, breaking up oligopolies and preventing pollution.
Not fro any sexist or absurd 'women cannot be as bright (etc.) reasons but for one very simple one.
Women's votes are much more easily bought by power-obsessed politicians (ie all of them)
Why? Because their jobs are generally lower-paid and so they (on average pay less tax)
Many of their traditional roles in society (caring for others - husband, children, the sick and elderly/frail) are deemed of little or now value (hence doctors are more highly valued than nurses, yet hospitals cannot run without both: until fairly recently, doctors were men, nurses were female: doctors married nurses)
So it is easy to 'improve women's lot' in life by providing these 'caring' services under the political umbrella of 'fairness' 'equality', enriching women's lives' (etc) - the whole 9 yards of Hattie Hatemen's agenda.
From the State's PoV that means more lovely tax revenue to squander and, because the skills required are minimal, creating such 'non-jobs' reduces unemployment for the thick and idle too - win-win fro the Govt!
The reality, of course, is that we all know some mothers who are useless and, by definition, half will be below average, so it is a far easier 'sell' politically to say 'we are offering al families/mothers XXX benefit (cash or service), rather than targeting the few and saying 'you get this help because you are useless' - the parental equivalent of 'special needs'
On Money Week's definition, the State owes (currently) around £5 trillion or >500% of GDP - a figure which is a greater proportion than any Western economy - except Eire - and one from which no State has ever recovered, throughout the whole of history.
One a more relaxed, BenM/tim/Roger definition (and that preferred by the Treasury/CotE (no mater which party is in Govt) we currently owe £1 trillion (or so) - coincidentally, roughly the same sum that's been paid out in Child Benefit since its inception.
So, PB-ers, I put it to you that the Welfare State has bankrupted the UK and will lead, in due course to some form of revolution, in which the current political class are overthrown, having proved inept, incompetent, out-of-touch and ineffective (move power to the EU/Brussels, so we can play 'pass the buck' when something goes pear-shaped.
And the cause of that monumentally unaffordable expansion in the Welfare State is the inclusion of (predominantly) women's benefits into that vast money-laundering Ponzi scheme - when women pay (on average less tax/NI/VAT (etc), use more resources and live longer on their pension.
I'm good at identifying the problem - less so at finding solutions, but a higher pension age for women might be a start as well as the abolition of most 'caring' State-funded positions, where any competent adult could do the job just as effectively: in short, women, your job in society is to care for others within your family, not to stack shelves in Tesco and empty bed-pans in hospitals.
I'm not sure everyone will agree but I look forward to being entertained as you argue your case.
Interesting comment from roger on the previous thread.
Of course most people in Britain (or France in roger's case) do not live in cities. They live in medium sized towns and rual areas.
However, most politicians, media people and various commentators and 'opinion formers' do live in cities.
Hence their struggle to grasp the appeal of UKIP and the more general malaise affacting Britain (and most other countires in the western world).
Roger's comment does bring to mind his ignorance re the comparative sizes of Manchester, Salford and Cornwall he showed at the 2009 EU elections.
However effacing, effeminate, and effable Mr Burnham is, his majority is a bit low for most leaders, and Balls is certainly way too low (as is Chuka Umunna, for those dreaming of a British Obama).
I doubt it would be a Scot either, because that would bring back too many memories, though, it might be seen as a way of clawing back territory from the SNP.
Steve Rotheram sounds too scouse to make it. Frank Field is the most competent Labour MP, and should be leader, but probably won't. It's probably about time Labour chose a woman, or some other minority in keeping with their espoused principles (they've done gingers and jews, so it must be someone else's turn).
At least Andy Burnham's got an easy mainstream name (unlike Yvette and Harriet).
I dunno... I hate the lot of 'em (apart from Frank Field), so it's hard for me to see who amongst them would make a successor to Ed... if the poll level is less important, Jon Cruddas anyone?
" I am minded of that great song from the 1940s, sung to the tune of 'The Red Flag':
The working class can kiss my arse,
I have got the foreman's job at last. "
Most amusingly / provactively sung by pit deputies driving through miners' picket lines in 1984, followed by the deputies starting a hard day's work of television watching, cards playing and Sun reading.
Would be an excellent opponent to Cameron or another posho. And could appeal to working class as well as Guardianista Labour.
Only problem appears to be that, so far, he has given every indication of not wanting the job see eg. Wikpedia
"Despite being touted by some media sources as a potential candidate for the Leadership of the Labour Party in the future, he ruled himself out of the 2010 leadership election, saying that he did not want the job but instead wanted to influence policy"
Let the limelight shine on Burnham and co-runners for the time being, and then strike at the 11th hour.
Mike Scott-Hayward ·
about a minute ago ·
PRESS RELEASE IMMEDIATE
UKIP's Chairman in Scotland, Mike Scott-Hayward, has welcomed an Evening Express poll in Abredeen which shows UKIP ahead of the Liberal Democrats, and just a neck behind the Labour and the Conservatives.
"The poll shows the SNP 35.7%, Conservative 11.9%, Labour 10.3%, UKIP 8.7% and Liberal Democrats 4.8%.
"In contrast to this clear balance seen by the voters, BBC Radio Scotland held a radio hustings excluding UKIP from the panel. The usual Beeb judgement is that only the last election counts, not the present situation or the future. The panel on Brian Taylor's Big Debate was a four party melee - a very noisy incident often reduced to a level of shouting that equalled the unreasoning level of noise I heard on the streets of Edinburgh a fortnight ago.
"I acknowledge that Brian did play sound clips from other candidates, including Otto Inglis of UKIP, but the balance of babble might have been brought round to a better debate had the parties now showing above, say, 5% in the popular polls, all been participants.
"The rules followed by the BBC do entrench the establishment - luckily, voters are not bound by the same fixed mentality and I forsee UKIP beating at least one, or perhaps even two, so called major political parties here in Scotland, as we are already doing elsewhere in the UK".
Mike Scott-Hayward
Chairman UKIPScotland
Talk about local news for local people!
Responders were SNP 45 Con 15 Lab 13 UKIP 11 LD 6
If any of them apart from the Greens are getting a significant chunk of 30% I'll eat my sporran.
Andy Burnham? Surely not. So lightweight no one would notice. If Ed goes they either need to look at someone not yet in the shadow cabinet or bring back one of the old hands like his brother David or Alan Johnson or Alastaire Darling. But Andy Burnham....Prime Minister? .Pleeeeeeease!
Nigel Evans should be promoted not vilified.
'Mr Farage also intends to travel to Orkney and Shetland, where the party has a "solid branch", in August. A party spokesman said the constituency voted against membership of the EEC in the 1970s and opposed Scottish devolution in the 1999 referendum.'
http://tinyurl.com/l4ddyyb
1997 devolution referendum:
Orkney & Shetland Yes = 60%
1975 EEC referendum:
Orkney & Shetland Yes = 53%
What a shame the like function is missing.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHViT1lRU3puQW5rQVJrX1RRZHhoLVE#gid=0
It's true Priti Patel doesn't always come across as the brightest bulb in the box but maybe it's about time we had a more ordinary person in charge of things.
I understand UKIP are smoking hot in Arbroath.
Two terraced houses, one in a sleepy northern market town, the other in the heart of London. They are separated by 317 miles, and the mere matter of £18.243m.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/10092509/North-south-divide-terraced-house-sells-for-7000.html
The constituency concerned is Aberdeen Donside Holyrood seat 2011 result SNP 55.4% Lab 28.5% Con 8.1% LD 6.0%
I guess the general public will see it as confirming their view of MPs, though.
It would be nice to know who else Panorama approached - perhaps there are again MPs who we should be congraulating on good sense? Yes, I know that merely doing the right thing shouldn't earn special praise, but a friendly pat on the back wouldn't be a bad thing.
If Labour fail in 2015, I can see that it would be quite a major disaster that would lead to much infighting, with quite an unpredictable outcome, and a long contest of ideas rather than a quick coronation.
Is there any reason that Harriet would not want to run? Or is she destined to be handmaiden to a white male in Labours scheme of things.
You do realise that is lower than what the Treasury still assumes the underlying trend growth is ?
Incidentally George Osborne predicted that the budget deficit would be reduced to £37bn in 2014/5, do you think that target will be met ?
She became an MP before Blair, Brown, Ashdown and Howard did and only 3 years after John Major.
In 2013 the UK is forecast (almost universally) to grow faster than any other large country in Europe, with the UK rate of growth estimated at 0.8% by the OECD (latest forecast) at the same time as the Eurozone countries are forecast to contract by -0.6%. So, the UK is forecast to grow this year at an annual rate which is 1.4% higher than its main competitors.
Not bad in the circumstances. Especially when the deficit is being reduced at current levels of growth at a rate of £2.5 bn per month. Get fracking and we may be able to grow as fast as the US and still reduce borrowing.
She's younger than Hillary!
Have to agree that the idea of the 'Mascara Kid' leading the Labour Party whilst highly enetertaining could rewulst in a bigger disaster for them than Brown.
Pity about Patrick Mercer but good to see an MP do the honourable thing with no prevarication.
I cannot see Yvette as leader, short of divorce she could not ditch Ed Balls, and a major reason that Ed Milliband would have lost would have been Ed Balls.
Meanwhile... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334258/Nigel-Farage-threatens-to-court-win-place-TV-debates-Cameron-refuses-share-platform-UKIP-leader.html