Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pricing in the Ed factor – a negative for Labour but how bi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pricing in the Ed factor – a negative for Labour but how big a negative?
It is said that a key strategy of the Tories in the coming months will be to constantly remind voters that Ed Miliband is LAB leader and that if the party did win the election then he could end up as PM. I am sure that that is the right approach.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This might mean the electorate has two different sets of facts on the economy.
That's a good enough non-endorsement for me.
http://m.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/local/lincolnshire-hospitals-expected-to-be-among-worst-in-keogh-death-rate-review-1-5288566
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905372/It-lazy-claim-Paris-terror-attacks-Islam-British-Muslims-need-tackle-extremism-says-minister.html
The sort of statesman-like performance that marks him as a front runner for Cameron's job if it becomes free after May.
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
This view may be seen as something of a negative but just how big and for who ?
There is always the possibility of events dear boy events.. We live in interesting times.
25 hours 35 minutes 45 seconds
It seems to me the default assumption that the negative Ed factor is already priced in to current polling. It also seems to me that his ratings are so low that there is not much room for a further negative movement. It is possible that the salience of his uselessness will increase and it will make more natural Labour votes hesitate but it is far from certain.
The Tories' polling position is increasingly grim. With the biases in the system against them they need a larger lead than Labour does (if not as large a lead as they needed for a majority the last time). There is no sign of them getting that. They can hope that Labour resumes it decline after the Christmas blip but at the moment that is only a hope. Time is running out.
The non-die-hards will think twice before voting in favour of Labour’s greatest weakness.
O/T
A very impressive and deeply moving turnout in France yesterday - whatever the intentions of the murderous scum who committed these recent atrocities was, I don’t think bringing Palestinian and Israelis leaders together was it.
Really quite eccentric.
Labour saw a fall in support following their conference, whereas the Tories saw a brief boost.
Whether this will be replicated as the election nears, and the leaders are regularly on the telly, remains to be seen.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/6wu2aveq6t6v355/YouGov polls 12 months to 11 January 2015.jpg#
(Sorry David, but he's wide open to persistent teasing on that one. He should do his about turn quickly, before it gets too difficult!)
I see he managed to squeeze in next to the rather nice looking Leader from Denmark. Poor Francois got stuck between Frau Merkel and Bill Cosby.
Coulibaly "undoubtedly had an accomplice"
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/paris-shooting-1-the-gunmen-undoubtedly-had-accomplice-says-french-pm-201501
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/nelson-mandela-world-leaders-selfie
"I try not to indulge in BBC bashing but how many other national broadcasters would have a picture of world leaders leading the march yesterday without their own leader in it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30765824"
Would you suggest photocopying him into a more central position or should they have made the picture so wide that none of the leaders were identifiable? Anyway as has been said Cameron was nicely placed next to Mrs Kinnock
47 Labour MPs voted against a cut in single parent benefit in 1997, with Blair at the height of his powers, how many are going to vote against £100bn of austerity with Ed Miliband.
@MrHarryCole: Quick Chris Leslie career recap. Lost his seat in 2005 so ran Brown's dire 'coronation'. Well qualified the front 2015 election for Labour.
@MrHarryCole: Leslie went on to campaign for Ed Balls for leader, putting David Miliband #2. He then failed to qualify in the 2010 shad cab election.
@MrHarryCole: Letting Leslie front the campaign is more Continuity 2010. He's married to Gordon's ex-SpAd, ran Gordon4Leader and worships Balls.
Let's look at it another way. I cannot think of a single liability leader who has been elected PM:
Gordon Brown (nightmare)
IDS (booted out by the Tories before the electorate could do it, Bald*)
Michael Howard (although I rather liked him he was a LL)
William Hague (actually very capable, but bald and in the right job at the wrong time)
John Major by 1997 was looking out of his depth
Neil Kinnock
Michael Foot
How does EdM rate compared to these? Well, again, this is quantifiable by polling. He is the worst leader since Michael Foot, and probably worse than him. Only 13% of the electorate can see him as Prime Minister. This, I think, is fatal for Labour http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/blow-for-ed-miliband-as-poll-reveals-just-13-per-cent-think-he-could-be-pm-9855880.html
Mike you posted a thread three weeks ago in which you showed Mrs T's ratings, and suggested that the Tories are too reliant on this: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/category/leader-approval-ratings/
But you have to remember, crucially, that Britain was taking a leap with her: the late 70's were still not a time of mass emancipation and it took time before a lot of male voters (and actually female too) were prepared to put their trust in a woman Prime Minister.
So, Ed Miliband: can Labour win with such a liability leader? No.
*The bald comment is meant light-heartedly but the electorate tend not to favour them.
I thought the lesson of the week was that extremists and fundamentalists should not be pandered to.
People are going to draw conclusions from people deliberately interrupting a memorial which they had been specifically asked not to interrupt, at the very least it will be interpreted as a political statement.
The big factor that's unusual in this election is that UKIP and the SNP have snaffled most of the floating voters who don't think in left-right terms, including some soft Labour and rather more soft Tories. That leaves the enthusiastic party faithful for the big parties (who are still quite numerous, despite what Socrates thinks) and the Red Liberals, who are faithful to the idea rather than the party. There really isn't much more happening than that.
By the way, remarkably, I can remember people in the 1980's still lamenting Ted Heath's defenestration. Those making such comments were usually middle-aged white men. Despite a fairly disastrous tenure he was still held in respect by some.
It's also the reverse position. In 1970 Heath was proposing to curb union and strike laws, and to lower taxation against Wilson's high tax, union-driven, devaluation and 'beer & sandwiches' politics in No.10. Heath may not have been popular but for a lot of people Wilson's Labour stank.
"BBC reporting that schools in the ethnic banlieus around Paris refused to participate in the one minute's silence or had the silences interrupted by students. "
Schools open on Sunday? Were they cheder classes?
"Schools open on Sunday?"
You'll never make a scientist. Making assumptions on insufficient data?
One minute silences aren't restricted to Sundays. It could be (hypothesis) that the kids didn't approve of the cartoons and cartoonists.
Some left wingers didn't approve of their politics either - they were too left wing.
"No people should be below dignity & no idea above scrutiny"
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189785#.VLOT0FV1-uY
I agree with some of her suggestions, disagree with others. Here are my thoughts in two parts:
1. Curtail immigration from countries with terrorist/extremist issues, principally in Britain's case, Pakistan, Somalia etc and reintroduction of the primary purpose rule.
All well and good, but what about refugees? I recall getting a lot of grief for suggesting that Syria's refugee crisis was best dealt with on the ground around Christmas 2013. Refugees are particularly likely to come from countries with terrorism and extremism.
2. Limitations on foreign imams in mosques here.
I'd suggest that selectivity was more helpful than blanket limitations.
3. No Islamic schools which do not follow the national curriculum in full.
Yes. 100%. This is non-negotiable for me.
4. I would seek to prevent any funding of teaching institutions of any kind by money directly or indirectly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other problematic countries.
Money has no odour. Provided 3 is complied with, 4 should be unnecessary.
5. Crackdown on Islamic charities, which are sometimes a front for the funding of terrorism.
Fronts for funding of terrorism should be cracked down upon. Islamic charities, no. Should Islamic charities be scrutinised closely? Yes, but so should lots of others.
6. Put pressure on / shame those institutions which provide a home / space / support for hate preachers e.g. UCL, the Quakers and others.
Yes to those institutions that perform public functions like universities. No to others - for example, the Quakers should not need to make faith compromises to please the rest of us. Though it's reasonable to ask them to explain why they feel their faith obliges them to provide a space for what most people regard as hate preachers.
I have no qualms with society making it clear that these views are beyond the pale. In practice, it does.
8. Be more robust about using the law to prosecute such people when they do incite violence.
Yes.
9. Repeal the Religious Hatred provisions.
Incitement to religious hatred should be treated by the same test as any other incitement to violence or to breach the peace.
10. Abolish any use of sharia law.
No. Individuals can choose to have their disputes arbitrated by whatever principles they agree upon. The Beth Din has been operating in Britain for 100 years. Sharia law can be used privately in the same way. To suggest otherwise is deeply illiberal.
11. Stop dealing with community leaders - an approach which reeks of colonial condescension to the natives.
Instinctively, I agree. In practice, if these people have real influence, this may well not be practical.
12. Stop using silly language such as "Islamophobia".
It's not silly. Rereading some of these threads in the cold light of day, you sometimes feel that Muslims feel like a form of insect life for many posters. And that's in a relatively civilised corner of the internet.
13. Ban the burqa. Ban religious wear for girls under the age of majority.
I'm content to ban more extreme religious wear for minors, as part of society's disapproval of it. Banning the burqa is profoundly illiberal. Disdain it? Sure. Ban its use in specific circumstances like courts or classrooms? Sure. Ban its use generally? No.
Conservatives have a view of what a Prime Minister should look like and they believe those who don't fit that mold will never be Prime Minister. This can be dismissed. Tories are full of prejudices which is why they barely tickle 30% in the polls
However competence is something different. At the moment he doesn't seem to have his ideas in place. An idea here and an idea there taking odd pops at the government just doesn't cut it. Unless he can turn his streams of consciousness into something coherent then I fear there will be enough voters put off by his leadership to give the election to the Tories
Incumbency applies to PMs?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11339492/Paris-shooter-widow-Hayat-Boumeddienes-father-handed-himself-in-after-shock-at-seeing-daughters-police-mugshot.html
"WHITE working class Brummies fear parts of their city have become no-go areas for them.
The shock claim has been made in a bombshell Government report into how poor white people feel about immigration.
The study has also revealed that hard-working white Brummies fear politicians have betrayed them in favour of refugees and single mothers
The Sunday Mercury revealed in 2007 how large numbers of white people are leaving Birmingham for other parts of Britain – while the number of ethnic community groups in the city continues to grow rapidly.
For the most part there is racial harmony in Birmingham and if there are no-go areas, then they are in places like Broad Street after 11pm, but that is a national problem and nothing to do with colour
The report states: “He talks of a few incidents that have occurred over previous years, including a road sign in an area with a high Asian population, on which was sprayed the phrase ‘No Whites after 8.30’.
The disclosures were made by researchers at Manchester University who said it is expected that the number of whites in Birmingham will drop by nearly a fifth over the next 20 years – from 65 per cent in 2006 to 48 per cent in 2026.
Meanwhile, the number of Pakistanis in the city will increase from 13 per cent in 2006 to 48 per cent in 2026.
It is believed the percentage of other ethnic groups, including African, Caribbean, Indian, Bangladeshi and Chinese, will remain roughly around the same."
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/the-area-of-birmingham-that-are-no-go-areas-for-white-237564
"Schools open on Sunday?"
You'll never make a scientist. Making assumptions on insufficient data?
I was being facetious. When the planes went into the twin towers there was a 'Question Time' where the audience seemed to applaud the actions of the mass murderers. It was an instant sentiment of anti Americanism and anti Bush that wasn't thought through. Making these stories bigger than they are warps peoples perspective
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
The wider intention of these terrorists is to provoke. And they broadly have failed in France although from the looks of the usual suspects in PB they have succeeded.
The wider question about the purpose of this attack is, was it 'official' or was it just the act of 4 indoctrinated people who thought it was a good idea.
Judging from the TV the two gunmen thought it would be good to charge through a plate glass door against a phalanx of armed police in a scene reminiscent of 'The Gauntlet' - this does not suggest a sane mindset.
Abbas of course simply wants a Palestinian homeland, he is a different strand of arab and events like Paris are hardly helping him, not least since the French are broadly on his side.
Indeed thinking about it if we can all think back - it simply used to be 'arabs', not 'muslims'. Our inability to solve the Arab-Israeli issue has allowed the problem to drift into one based on fundamental religion rather than inter nation politics.
I have my doubts as I can see Ed's name being a drag on Labour when they are polling 40% but not when they are polling 33%
OTOH:
The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[7] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[8][9][10]
Certainly both would fit most people's definition of a paedophile, though you'd have to include me in the Daily Mail one too based off this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2901189/Leah-Collis-family-wanted-revenge-PAEDOPHILE-HUNTERS.html
Not been around for a few days, but I've only just noticed this:
'A UK Independence Party councillor...had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces”'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11333422/UKIP-councillor-had-a-problem-with-negroes-faces.html
I am just so embarrassed this party exists in Britain.
"Damn Muslims. They don't have souls, just evil."
"Don't be friends with any Muslims... their only friends with each other."
"Cut off their heads and fingers."
"Muslims ar dirty."
"Punishments have been prepared. They'll be burnt and beaten."
"Go to war with them Moslems. Deal with them properly. God's on our side."
"Vile creatures."
Surely at least some of these break the law on religious hatred and incitement to violence?
It's all about context, I think in that era, when life expectancy was a lot lower, and powerful people married not for love, but for political unions, there have been some interesting marriages.
I believe the age of consent in both countries was effectively once a girl hit puberty, she was ready to be married off.
Right now Labour are campaigning that voting SNP keeps the Tories in power.
The SNP are campaigning that voting Labour keeps the Tories in power.
The Tories are campaigning that voting SNP would put Labour in.
Which of these does Ed Miliband in the campaign help?
In hindsight, I think any of Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham or John Cruddas would have made a more effective leader than Ed Miliband. And they might be polling now at 35-37% pretty consistently with one of those.
Scotland probably would have been a write-off under any scenario, unless the Indy ref last year had been a unionist landslide.
2. Irrelevant, but your "guilt by association" point fails. I am sure the EDL also believe that the earth goes round the sun. So what?
3. What is your point? Is there a widespread Johnist religion which punishes aspersions on the prophet John PBUH with suicide bombings and murders?
Now I'm not so sure, even excluding Scotland.
Is why the Lord Ashcroft marginal polling is so important, UKIP could take some seats from Labour.
If it wasn't for those Lib to Lab switchers, Labour would be polling less than 30%
Happy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297
One tweet said: "As someone born and raised in Birmingham, I must admit there was a pressure to read the Kerrang." Priceless!
It's called 'FOX News' because it does.
I reckon of those quotes
All are abhorrent.
One is probably currently legal.
If you are going to use incitement to violence (That would be my preferred measure of legality rather than hatred) as a test then four out of seven are still illegal.
What do others think ?