On topic, if I were a left wing unionist I think I would quite like the idea of a Miliband-Salmond coalition
...obv not Sinn Fein, but that is so unlikely to happen it kind of nullifies the Tory posters point, they might as well have put a pic of Bin Laden on there
It's true. If you are a Unionist Labour is really your only choice. The Tories have clearly decided their best hope is to ape UKIP and to essentially be a party for England only.
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?
("isam" Has this been discussed? How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?) Yes. Lots in the threads, but we need a thread header or ten from Mike. I wonder why he won't
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
If someone has access to the Sun site, could they summarise what Damian McBride says? I always quite like reading his thoughts.
Ed is crap.
Piece is headlined "Numpty Dumpty"
He ends the piece with
David Cameron presents the choice as chaos versus competence, arguing he should stay on as PM even in a hung Parliament.
Miliband must counter that. Only he can offer strong, stable government that will last five years and deal with the huge threats to our economy and national security.
The trouble is, when people look at Miliband, they don’t see much strength.
And perched precariously on that wall, they don’t see much stability either.
Over the last week, excluding ties, the average poll score of the party with a clear lead in the opinion polls was just 33.5%.
Having just one party able to afford a large scale poster campaign will create a strange feeling of cognitive dissonance in contrast to the polling - and online - world. On that latter point, did the Conservatives actually put up the poster referred to in the thread header on a billboard, or was it simply an online release?
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?
Yes. Lots in the threads, but we need a thread header or ten from Mike. I wonder why he won't
The betting market is new though isn't it? You see any value?
6-10 at 5/1 could be seen as good value by LD optimists. If they really are going to keep 35+ then the losses to Conservatives need to be under 10 IMHO
If someone has access to the Sun site, could they summarise what Damian McBride says? I always quite like reading his thoughts.
Ed is crap.
Piece is headlined "Numpty Dumpty"
He ends the piece with
David Cameron presents the choice as chaos versus competence, arguing he should stay on as PM even in a hung Parliament.
Miliband must counter that. Only he can offer strong, stable government that will last five years and deal with the huge threats to our economy and national security.
The trouble is, when people look at Miliband, they don’t see much strength.
And perched precariously on that wall, they don’t see much stability either.
Thanks! Does he give any advice on what he thinks Labour should do?
If someone has access to the Sun site, could they summarise what Damian McBride says? I always quite like reading his thoughts.
Ed is crap.
My gods, imagine what will happen will people hear that for the first time, it'll blow the lid off this election.
I kid, but must be off.
PS
Though with the SNP becoming the party of Scotland in truth, if current polling pans out, and the Tories and UKIP attempting to become a Party of England, I wonder if we went down the Federal route the UK would end up with each of its nations defined by a different, dominant party. In a federated state could even NI end up with a dominant party looking out for just it, Wales is already Labour's, England seems the only major stumbling block,
If someone has access to the Sun site, could they summarise what Damian McBride says? I always quite like reading his thoughts.
Ed is crap.
Piece is headlined "Numpty Dumpty"
He ends the piece with
David Cameron presents the choice as chaos versus competence, arguing he should stay on as PM even in a hung Parliament.
Miliband must counter that. Only he can offer strong, stable government that will last five years and deal with the huge threats to our economy and national security.
The trouble is, when people look at Miliband, they don’t see much strength.
And perched precariously on that wall, they don’t see much stability either.
Thanks! Does he give any advice on what he thinks Labour should do?
He says Ed should be bold by introducing policies like scrapping HS2, Trident replacement, abolition tuition fees, offer an in/out referendum.
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?
Yes. Lots in the threads, but we need a thread header or ten from Mike. I wonder why he won't
The betting market is new though isn't it? You see any value?
6-10 at 5/1 could be seen as good value by LD optimists. If they really are going to keep 35+ then the losses to Conservatives need to be under 10 IMHO
I think that the best value in that book. It is much harder for the Tories to attack LDs for their role in coalition.
Mr. Observer, I never said that. I implied, and now state, that Labour doesn't give a damn about England. Labour's utterances about constitutional equality for us are: Do nothing and have a good old think Oppose English votes for English laws (not even equal to what Scotland has, but it's still too much) Carve England up into little regions/political fiefdoms Oppose an English Parliament
The Conservative position does not go nearly far enough. However, English votes for English laws is a step in the right direction and does not seek to carve England into pieces. It also helps address (though not sufficiently) the insanity of having Scottish MPs voting on devolved matters.
Nationally, there will always be an element of negative campaigning.
But like any other advertising to be effective, 'going negative' has to re-inforce something that is at least partially believed, or true.
UKIP referring to 'LibLabCon' is credible because of the similarities of the their attitudes to the EU. 'We should be in, but we should improve it' is precisely the policy of LibLabCon. On by far our biggest (and only?) issue, our claim that it is "UKIP against LibLabCon" is not far-fetched. It is exactly accurate. Which is why it resonates.
Of course we know that LibLabCon's other economic policies are not the same.
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
What swing voters don't, on the whole, think they see is parties with a strongly positive agenda...That's a more important hole to fill than having another round of "the other lot eat babies".
It's an idea. But surely people rely on negative campaigning and scare tactics because it works - they wouldn't rely on it if it did not, so I am skeptical there is as much of a hole there to fill as some think, at least when it comes to having an actual 'agenda'. Tap into the public's positive feelings and you can do really well with nothing more than empty platitudes about change, at that point having an actual agenda would probably be a hindrance.
There is negative campaigning and negative campaigning but what we increasingly have is just personal abuse. Labour did it against Major, and the Conservatives against Kinnock, Brown and now Miliband.
Labour Isn't Working may have been negative but at least it was about the economy and there was some implication (whether valid is another matter) the Tories had some policies that would address unemployment. Now we endure playground insults.
An interesting question is whether a (nominally) Socialist party can implement austerity measures and even survive.
We have seen the Greek Labour Party (Pasok) destroyed.
We have seen the Irish Labour Party destroyed (lowest poll ratings ever, 4 per cent).
We have seen the Dutch Social Democrats -- the major Dutch left-wing party -- fall from 38 per cent in the polls to 8 per cent. This makes the woes of the LibDems look like a slight cold.
We have seen the Scottish Labour Party teetering on the brink of destruction.
We have seen Hollande register the lowest levels of approval for any French President.
We have seen the Spanish Socialists overtaken by the Radical Left.
All these parties either tried to implement austerity measures, or tacitly registered approval of austerity. Although not a (nominally) Socialist party, the woes of the LibDems are clearly related.
It is just very difficult for a leftish party to implement austerity without being out-flanked.
If Labour do actually win, and do try and implement policies that are similar to those of the Coalition, then there is absolutely no reason to believe they can escape this fate.
They will be outflanked from the left. The SNP has already shown how absolutely devastating that can be.
Mr. Observer, I never said that. I implied, and now state, that Labour doesn't give a damn about England. Labour's utterances about constitutional equality for us are: Do nothing and have a good old think Oppose English votes for English laws (not even equal to what Scotland has, but it's still too much) Carve England up into little regions/political fiefdoms Oppose an English Parliament
The Conservative position does not go nearly far enough. However, English votes for English laws is a step in the right direction and does not seek to carve England into pieces. It also helps address (though not sufficiently) the insanity of having Scottish MPs voting on devolved matters.
I just don't see England as a put-upon victim.
That said an English parliament with a membership that truly reflects the views of English voters would be a good thing.
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
What swing voters don't, on the whole, think they see is parties with a strongly positive agenda...That's a more important hole to fill than having another round of "the other lot eat babies".
It's an idea. But surely people rely on negative campaigning and scare tactics because it works - they wouldn't rely on it if it did not, so I am skeptical there is as much of a hole there to fill as some think, at least when it comes to having an actual 'agenda'. Tap into the public's positive feelings and you can do really well with nothing more than empty platitudes about change, at that point having an actual agenda would probably be a hindrance.
There is negative campaigning and negative campaigning but what we increasingly have is just personal abuse. Labour did it against Major, and the Conservatives against Kinnock, Brown and now Miliband.
Labour Isn't Working may have been negative but at least it was about the economy and there was some implication (whether valid is another matter) the Tories had some policies that would address unemployment. Now we endure playground insults.
Personal insults are very off putting in politics.. It's supposed to be about ideas
As you say, it trivialises and infantilises the whole thing, as do baseless smears.
If someone has access to the Sun site, could they summarise what Damian McBride says? I always quite like reading his thoughts.
Ed is crap.
My gods, imagine what will happen will people hear that for the first time, it'll blow the lid off this election.
I kid, but must be off.
PS
Though with the SNP becoming the party of Scotland in truth, if current polling pans out, and the Tories and UKIP attempting to become a Party of England, I wonder if we went down the Federal route the UK would end up with each of its nations defined by a different, dominant party. In a federated state could even NI end up with a dominant party looking out for just it, Wales is already Labour's, England seems the only major stumbling block,
Wales has eight Conservative MPs, and Labour support has been steadily falling. As I've written before, Conservatives need to be careful about launching anti-Wales campaigns lest they undo their recent progress and make Wales as hostile as Scotland.
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is:
Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??)
A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
More from that Observer article. Unite and others are holding back millions from Labour, to influence Labour's policies. FYI In other newspapers there have been reports that folk in Unite Scotland would like to support the SNP.
"However, there is concern that the amount it will have available remains unclear. Senior party sources say the unions which provide much of the party’s financial support are being less generous than party chiefs had hoped.
Last week the biggest union, Unite, agreed to give Labour £1.5m. But party sources said the union had a total of some £10m in its political fund and that Labour was hoping for more. Other unions, including Unison, have yet to decide how much to give.
One source said a big problem for the unions was the lack of clarity about what would be in the Labour manifesto. A senior figure close to the talks said Miliband had not inspired trade unionists enough to make them open the purse strings."
Problem is that time is running out on being able to spend it as large poster sites get pre-booked months in advance. Call centre work is easier to buy more immediately.
Seems that the Tories,like Labour have a problem with ex.ministers speaking out.Stephen Dorrell,Tory ex.minister has stated that Lansley's health reforms are 'the biggest mistake in this parliament.' I have to agree with him.
"With fewer than 100 days to go before the 7 May election, a new Opinium/Observer poll puts Labour one percentage point ahead of the Tories. But the race is tightening. Labour is unchanged on 33%, while the Tories are up four points on a fortnight ago, on 32%. Ukip are on 18% (-2), the Greens are unchanged on 6%, and both the Lib Dems (-2) and SNP (no change) are on 5%. This is the lowest score for Nick Clegg’s party since Opinium/Observer polls began in 2012." LDs on 5%!
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is: Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??) A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
Yes not good for the Conservatives and terrible for the LDs, it all depends on the Sun kipper vote. That said it is bad for Labour that 5 years later they have not increased their % of Sun readers when 15% were lost by the LDs.
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is: Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??) A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
Yes not good for the Conservatives and terrible for the LDs, it all depends on the Sun kipper vote. That said it is bad for Labour that 5 years later they have not increased their % of Sun readers when 15% were lost by the LDs.
Terrible for Labour. But under FPTP standing still is fine if your opponent is falling back. How ridiculous is that?
Seems that the Tories,like Labour have a problem with ex.ministers speaking out.Stephen Dorrell,Tory ex.minister has stated that Lansley's health reforms are 'the biggest mistake in this parliament.' I have to agree with him.
It does look that way. But these were modified plans with LD fingers all over them. It became something designed by a committee with Letwin's input.... Enough said?
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is: Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??) A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
Yes not good for the Conservatives and terrible for the LDs, it all depends on the Sun kipper vote. That said it is bad for Labour that 5 years later they have not increased their % of Sun readers when 15% were lost by the LDs.
Terrible for Labour. But under FPTP standing still is fine if your opponent is falling back. How ridiculous is that?
Not ridiculous if Labour have probably lost 10% of the voters from their peak. And the slide is still continuing with no sign of the bottom yet.
If someone has access to the Sun site, could they summarise what Damian McBride says? I always quite like reading his thoughts.
Ed is crap.
My gods, imagine what will happen will people hear that for the first time, it'll blow the lid off this election.
I kid, but must be off.
PS
Though with the SNP becoming the party of Scotland in truth, if current polling pans out, and the Tories and UKIP attempting to become a Party of England, I wonder if we went down the Federal route the UK would end up with each of its nations defined by a different, dominant party. In a federated state could even NI end up with a dominant party looking out for just it, Wales is already Labour's, England seems the only major stumbling block,
Wales has eight Conservative MPs, and Labour support has been steadily falling. As I've written before, Conservatives need to be careful about launching anti-Wales campaigns lest they undo their recent progress and make Wales as hostile as Scotland.
I disagree, it is the worse performance of NHS Wales under Labour that is buoying up the Welsh Conservatives. Pile it on. Welsh people are increasingly seeing the performance problems of NHS Wales and wishing it to be run by others.
@PickardJE: Salmond claims that Miliband is even more unpopular than Cameron in Scotland; a situation unprecedented in history. #murnaghan
That is an amazing stat. But as Laybore folk say on here. "Personalities do not matter and just look at the tory toff baby eating privatising camer......"
Seems that the Tories,like Labour have a problem with ex.ministers speaking out.Stephen Dorrell,Tory ex.minister has stated that Lansley's health reforms are 'the biggest mistake in this parliament.' I have to agree with him.
It does look that way. But these were modified plans with LD fingers all over them. It became something designed by a committee with Letwin's input.... Enough said?
So the question is: Are they so bad that it is worth running the risk and paying the cost of yet another reorganisation, or is it better to just leave alone and let the frontline staff get on with it?
Seems that the Tories,like Labour have a problem with ex.ministers speaking out.Stephen Dorrell,Tory ex.minister has stated that Lansley's health reforms are 'the biggest mistake in this parliament.' I have to agree with him.
It does look that way. But these were modified plans with LD fingers all over them. It became something designed by a committee with Letwin's input.... Enough said?
So the question is: Are they so bad that it is worth running the risk and paying the cost of yet another reorganisation, or is it better to just leave alone and let the frontline staff get on with it? I don't honestly have the faintest idea.
It looks like a fudge. Probably best to hope that the new NHS CEO is as good as Conservative and Labour think and let him get on and run it. Personally I think a small charge at the front ends such as personal presentation at A&E would reduce the pressures there. Such as £20 if not referred to by a doctor or brought in under "emergency" categories. The ambulance service seems able to seperate emergencies from the rest of work. For young working folk a £20 fee maybe better than the GP wait. Also charge £20 for visits while drunk.
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is: Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??) A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
Yes not good for the Conservatives and terrible for the LDs, it all depends on the Sun kipper vote. That said it is bad for Labour that 5 years later they have not increased their % of Sun readers when 15% were lost by the LDs.
Terrible for Labour. But under FPTP standing still is fine if your opponent is falling back. How ridiculous is that?
Not ridiculous if Labour have probably lost 10% of the voters from their peak. And the slide is still continuing with no sign of the bottom yet.
The two big parties are tied on 33%. To form the next government, the Tories need to take 1.5% off Labour, or 3% off UKIP.
Seems that the Tories,like Labour have a problem with ex.ministers speaking out.Stephen Dorrell,Tory ex.minister has stated that Lansley's health reforms are 'the biggest mistake in this parliament.' I have to agree with him.
You do realise Dorrell wanted the Health job and was p1ssed when Lansley got it?
On topic, isn't this just a case of Labour making a virtue out of necessity? Not so much in financial terms (constrained as they are, they will still have some physical posters, and e-posters are virtually free), but we've long known that the Conservatives want to reduce the campaign to a winnable leadership contest - competent Cameron v miserable Miliband - and Labour want to avoid that for understandable reasons, but can't say so in such terms. So they have tried to present it as a conscious decision to fight a clean, positive campaign. Complete rot, of course, as the opening salvo on the NHS has demonstrated. But it will give the Labour a response of sorts when the Conservatives go deeply personal in their adverts, and might just attract some sympathy from voters who instinctively dislike personal attacks.
The Tories have to be careful here. Miliband is undoubtedly one of their strongest assets but they need to use him strategically. The public clearly think he is a dud, but saying so every day for the next three months won't endear the public to the party or do much to persuade people to the Conservatives' cause. And it might just create a sympathy rally on the left. I didn't think the Miliband, Salmond and Adams poster was at all effective; it just didn't ring true, and it looked amateurish. I think some excitable elements in CCHQ need to be calmed down before they weaken their trump card by overuse.
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is: Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??) A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
Yes not good for the Conservatives and terrible for the LDs, it all depends on the Sun kipper vote. That said it is bad for Labour that 5 years later they have not increased their % of Sun readers when 15% were lost by the LDs.
Terrible for Labour. But under FPTP standing still is fine if your opponent is falling back. How ridiculous is that?
Not ridiculous if Labour have probably lost 10% of the voters from their peak. And the slide is still continuing with no sign of the bottom yet.
The two big parties are tied on 33%. To form the next government, the Tories need to take 1.5% off Labour, or 3% off UKIP.
3% off ukip??? There's nothing left to take is there?? #peakkipper
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is: Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??) A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
Yes not good for the Conservatives and terrible for the LDs, it all depends on the Sun kipper vote. That said it is bad for Labour that 5 years later they have not increased their % of Sun readers when 15% were lost by the LDs.
Terrible for Labour. But under FPTP standing still is fine if your opponent is falling back. How ridiculous is that?
Not ridiculous if Labour have probably lost 10% of the voters from their peak. And the slide is still continuing with no sign of the bottom yet.
The two big parties are tied on 33%. To form the next government, the Tories need to take 1.5% off Labour, or 3% off UKIP.
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
You hardly win moral high ground point for promising not to run an ad that would be bad for you anyway. Putting Cameron on their posters wouldn't win Labour votes.
so January has come and gone and it looks like the Monday blue pollgasm was just a statistical anomaly fully consistent with a low labour lead, tumescent crossover hasn't happened, and rod was wrong. Now let's move on.
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
Labour aren't 3% ahead, though. They're tied. They're worried they're about to fall behind consistently.
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
On topic, conventionally negative campaigns are thought to damage both the target and the attacker. People do them because the damage to the target is greater than the damage to the attacker. This makes it less attractive in a multi-party campaign because the biggest benefit will go to the parties that stay right out of it.
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
Jim Murphy looks to be trying to sabotage Labour overall whilst doing a good enough job in Scotland to still be seen to have UK Labour leader potential. Unless he already has the backing of a significant national clique it seems amazingly short sighted.
Absolutely true - the blairites are absolutely terrified of a miliband victory (despite his approach only being a base point left of continuity new labour). Hence the continuous attacks.
In fact, as a non-aligned anti-establishment libertarian leftie, about the only reason I'm cheering on a miliband victory is the fact that it will be a major one in the eye for the blairites and their toadies in the media, as well as the vile establishment tories and their press of course. I'm under no illusions his government will actually do anything more than perhaps slow the pace of decline.
I cannot see the Tories outspending Labour by 3 to 1, especially with the huge funds they will receive from Unite and likely donations from the likes of JK Rowling and John Mills. Some of the biggest spending Tory donors from the past like Stuart Wheeler are anyway now bankrolling UKIP. In election 2001 the Tories outspent Labour by by £1.6m in the general election campaign and were still trounced. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/dec/18/uk.advertising
In 2005 Labour narrowed the gap on spending to just £500,000 in the campaign and over the course of 2005 actually outspent the Tories by £49.8m to £39.2m but actually suffered significant net losses to the Tories once the results came in http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/jul/18/labour.uk1
Excellent general election seats predictor for Scotland here, will tell us whether the SNP are doing better or worse than their national poll share should suggest in terms of seats when Ashcroft comes out http://www.scotlandvotes.com/
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
I don't think that's true. I really don't. Did the thatcherites openly criticise Cameron before 2010?
Even if labour and tories are tying there is all to play for, especially with labour's inbuilt advantages. Nobody really knows how left wing labour would really be in government, if it ever got there.
Personally, I think the reason the blairites are in opne revolt is the sun readers poll is far closer to what the mood in England is than anything we get from Yougov or Populus.
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
Repudiating Blairism by promising far more right-wing fiscal policies?
I cannot see the Tories outspending Labour by 3 to 1, especially with the huge funds they will receive from Unite and likely donations from the likes of JK Rowling and John Mills. Some of the biggest spending Tory donors from the past like Stuart Wheeler are anyway now bankrolling UKIP. In election 2001 the Tories outspent Labour by by £1.6m in the general election campaign and were still trounced. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/dec/18/uk.advertising
John Mills isnt happy either, in the Indie just now:
Labour’s preparations for the May general election suffered a double blow today as Ed Miliband came under fire from a top businessman and a prominent a party donor.
John Mills, who gave Labour £1.65m in 2013, joined criticism by Blairite former ministers, led by Alan Milburn, of Labour’s plan to reduce the amount of state-funded NHS care delivered by the private sector. He also took aim at Labour’s proposed mansion tax on homes worth more than £2m.
There's a famous saying in advertising that half the money you spend is wasted. The difficulty is knowing which half.
If it's true that the Tories are going to continue this negative campaign and Labour are going to remain positive (partly by not having the money to compete) then I'd expect Labour to look for a much bigger bang for their buck than the Tories.
It's every advertisers dream to let something roll which gains its own momentum. FCUK being a very obvious example. There's no reason why Labour can't get plenty of free traction from this one. Labour have in their corner a master of the genre.
That a Bullingdon Boy should use his overwhelming resourses to personally ridicule his opponent should be manna from heaven. I think this one started to roll in the Observer this morning...........
Indigo Mills has already given ample donations over the past few years, if he throws out his toys now it will make little difference with just over 3 months to go. He is only a multimillionaire anyway, JK Rowling is a billionaire and staunch Labour supporter and as the indyref campaign showed quite willing to give big donations if needed, Sir Alex Ferguson too is also earning £100,000 a day as a Man U ambassador and as staunch a Labour backer as Rowling http://www.theweek.co.uk/football/alex-ferguson/53194/alex-ferguson-ambassador-manchester-united-autobiography-jason-ferguson. Coupled with more hefty Unite donations Labour will not go short. However, as I made clear election spending has virtually no correlation with election outcomes anyway
Taffys, this has been building for quite some time. Amongst politicians and political journalists it is has generally (although of course not universally) been suspected that Labour is not yet in a fit state to govern and that Miliband is not up to the job of leading his party or the country. That suspicion has hardened over time and is shared by a great many within the Labour party. It would be wrong to dismiss it as being confined to a few jealous neo-Blairites as Oblitus tries to do; the complaints come from all quarters, from people with decades of experience at the centre of politics, who have seen what it takes for an opposition to win an election and who believe Labour today does not have what it takes.
All those people may be wrong. One could argue that they are too reliant on historical comparisons, over-emphasising a limited sample of elections, none of which share this election's characteristics; failing to recognise that the political order is changing. One could assert that they are ignoring plenty of evidence that suggests they are wrong, or at least that their historical tools are invalid; more reliable polls, constituency polling and anecdotes that show Labour will do well in the English marginals, data analysis that shows former Lib Dems supporting Labour's vote share and Ukip disproportionately hurting the Conservatives. Next-coalition dynamics that more favour Labour (SNP). The presence of a new green voting block that could be squeezed. And Labour possibly (just) still ahead in the polls.
But equally those who think Miliband is heading for office are glibly disregarding the evidence they are wrong. Leader ratings that group Miliband definitively with the historical losers. Forced choice and economic competence questions that give Cameron a clear lead. An evaporating poll lead. Polls that show dozens of seats at risk in Scotland. Swingback and other models predicting a Tory lead. And the wisdom of the Westminster crowd.
The former group may not be able to explain why the public have not got Labour ten points behind, but the latter group cannot explain why the public no longer have Labour ten points ahead. And the direction of travel seems clear, if not, as today's yougov poll demonstrates, linear.
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
Repudiating Blairism by promising far more right-wing fiscal policies?
Making the numbers add up should not be a preserve of the right. There should be nothing right wing about wanting to ensure that what you spend is balanced by what you receive.
There's a famous saying in advertising that half the money you spend is wasted. The difficulty is knowing which half.
If it's true that the Tories are going to continue this negative campaign and Labour are going to remain positive (partly by not having the money to compete) then I'd expect Labour to look for a much bigger bang for their buck than the Tories.
It's every advertisers dream to let something roll which gains its own momentum. FCUK being a very obvious example. There's no reason why Labour can't get plenty of free traction from this one. Labour have in their corner a master of the genre.
That a Bullingdon Boy should use his overwhelming resourses to personally ridicule his opponent should be manna from heaven. I think this one started to roll in the Observer this morning...........
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
Repudiating Blairism by promising far more right-wing fiscal policies?
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
Repudiating Blairism by promising far more right-wing fiscal policies?
They had the 'golden rule', which fell apart post 2007. It is fair to say that they pushed up spending, but their deficit was sustainable (based on the incorrect assumption that Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust).
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
Repudiating Blairism by promising far more right-wing fiscal policies?
Obviously I disagree that it was a mess, but otherwise I agree, and that's my point. Blair's platform was to all intents and purposes more left-wing than Miliband's current platform, irrespective of whether they self-identified as "socialist" or not -- Blair stood for pumping more money into public services, while Miliband stands for cutting back on spending, a stance that 60% of the public disagree with.
Mr. 565, not sure that's a fair comparison. Blair had a golden economic inheritance, whereas the Coalition inherited a disaster and the situation is still bloody awful.
Reading the news sites today you would think labour are 10 points behind.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
If you're a Blairite what's the one thing that is worse than another five years of David Cameron as PM?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
Repudiating Blairism by promising far more right-wing fiscal policies?
Obviously I disagree that it was a mess, but otherwise I agree, and that's my point. Blair's platform was to all intents and purposes more left-wing than Miliband's current platform, irrespective of whether they self-identified as "socialist" or not -- Blair stood for pumping more money into public services, while Miliband stands for cutting back on spending, a stance that 60% of the public disagree with.
To be fair, Blair had more money, or atleast the illusion of more money, everyone knows Miliband doesnt have any money, different policies for different times. If whoever gets the economy fixed the subsequent Labour government will be able to piss it against the wall spend it on worthy causes once more.
I would have thought a part of the fear in Labour of a Milliband win is the perception and expectation that he'll be a crap PM. How would Labour recover from a sequence that went Brown Milliband where both were due PMs?
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
It means something because we can compare it with how Sun readers voted in 2010. Thus the poll, with changes on 2010, is: Conservative 35% (-8) Labour 28% (nc) UKIP 26% (+>15) Liberal Democrat 3% (-15) Green 2% (??) A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
Yes not good for the Conservatives and terrible for the LDs, it all depends on the Sun kipper vote. That said it is bad for Labour that 5 years later they have not increased their % of Sun readers when 15% were lost by the LDs.
Former LibDem Sun readers would include many working class voters in the South-West and other areas where Labour have always been weak.
Together with some general anti-government, anti-establishment types.
Its likely that this year will see the highest middle class / working class Labour voting ratio as Labour loses working class votes to UKIP and SNP while gaining guardianistas who voted LibDem in 2010.
As Labour's working class problems are already based upon an upper-middle class metropolitan dominance of its leadership we could see a feedback loop develop.
Yeah, a shame really. I'm not usually a supporter of Murray, as I don't like his demeanor, on or off the courts. However, he's working his arse off and is, in this match at least, a trier.
Comments
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/01/the-death-of-the-lib-dems/
innocent face.
Apparently, 4 years ago the worst poll was 7% and the average 12%
Anyway, better a party for England than a party that evidently doesn't give a damn about England.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, whilst that's a nice sounding poll it really is meaningless. A Guardian-reader poll would look lovely for Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. But as you get to vote regardless of what paper, or none, you opt for, it doesn't mean anything.
Piece is headlined "Numpty Dumpty"
He ends the piece with
David Cameron presents the choice as chaos versus competence, arguing he should stay on as PM even in a hung Parliament.
Miliband must counter that. Only he can offer strong, stable government that will last five years and deal with the huge threats to our economy and national security.
The trouble is, when people look at Miliband, they don’t see much strength.
And perched precariously on that wall, they don’t see much stability either.
Having just one party able to afford a large scale poster campaign will create a strange feeling of cognitive dissonance in contrast to the polling - and online - world. On that latter point, did the Conservatives actually put up the poster referred to in the thread header on a billboard, or was it simply an online release?
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2015/2/1/1422782676595/Kim-Sears-008.jpg
Ugh but now when ukip get 19-20 in a poll I can see the lemmings posting "they just don't get 26% anymore"
I kid, but must be off.
PS
Though with the SNP becoming the party of Scotland in truth, if current polling pans out, and the Tories and UKIP attempting to become a Party of England, I wonder if we went down the Federal route the UK would end up with each of its nations defined by a different, dominant party. In a federated state could even NI end up with a dominant party looking out for just it, Wales is already Labour's, England seems the only major stumbling block,
Scrap/merge some government departments.
Anything could happen though!
Do nothing and have a good old think
Oppose English votes for English laws (not even equal to what Scotland has, but it's still too much)
Carve England up into little regions/political fiefdoms
Oppose an English Parliament
The Conservative position does not go nearly far enough. However, English votes for English laws is a step in the right direction and does not seek to carve England into pieces. It also helps address (though not sufficiently) the insanity of having Scottish MPs voting on devolved matters.
But like any other advertising to be effective, 'going negative' has to re-inforce something that is at least partially believed, or true.
UKIP referring to 'LibLabCon' is credible because of the similarities of the their attitudes to the EU. 'We should be in, but we should improve it' is precisely the policy of LibLabCon. On by far our biggest (and only?) issue, our claim that it is "UKIP against LibLabCon" is not far-fetched. It is exactly accurate. Which is why it resonates.
Of course we know that LibLabCon's other economic policies are not the same.
Labour Isn't Working may have been negative but at least it was about the economy and there was some implication (whether valid is another matter) the Tories had some policies that would address unemployment. Now we endure playground insults.
We have seen the Greek Labour Party (Pasok) destroyed.
We have seen the Irish Labour Party destroyed (lowest poll ratings ever, 4 per cent).
We have seen the Dutch Social Democrats -- the major Dutch left-wing party -- fall from 38 per cent in the polls to 8 per cent. This makes the woes of the LibDems look like a slight cold.
We have seen the Scottish Labour Party teetering on the brink of destruction.
We have seen Hollande register the lowest levels of approval for any French President.
We have seen the Spanish Socialists overtaken by the Radical Left.
All these parties either tried to implement austerity measures, or tacitly registered approval of austerity. Although not a (nominally) Socialist party, the woes of the LibDems are clearly related.
It is just very difficult for a leftish party to implement austerity without being out-flanked.
If Labour do actually win, and do try and implement policies that are similar to those of the Coalition, then there is absolutely no reason to believe they can escape this fate.
They will be outflanked from the left. The SNP has already shown how absolutely devastating that can be.
That said an English parliament with a membership that truly reflects the views of English voters would be a good thing.
As you say, it trivialises and infantilises the whole thing, as do baseless smears.
Mr. Observer, we're about to hand over income tax power to the Scottish Parliament whilst allowing Scottish MPs to vote on English income tax.
I agree that an English Parliament would be a good thing, but would go further and state it is a necessary thing.
Conservative 35% (-8)
Labour 28% (nc)
UKIP 26% (+>15)
Liberal Democrat 3% (-15)
Green 2% (??)
A 4% swing from Con-Lab would be just enough to give Labour a narrow nationwide lead on votes, but historically Sun voters have been more swingy than other demographics.
"However, there is concern that the amount it will have available remains unclear. Senior party sources say the unions which provide much of the party’s financial support are being less generous than party chiefs had hoped.
Last week the biggest union, Unite, agreed to give Labour £1.5m. But party sources said the union had a total of some £10m in its political fund and that Labour was hoping for more. Other unions, including Unison, have yet to decide how much to give.
One source said a big problem for the unions was the lack of clarity about what would be in the Labour manifesto. A senior figure close to the talks said Miliband had not inspired trade unionists enough to make them open the purse strings."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/31/labour-cameron-posters-negative-election-campaign
Problem is that time is running out on being able to spend it as large poster sites get pre-booked months in advance. Call centre work is easier to buy more immediately.
LDs on 5%!
I don't honestly have the faintest idea.
Edit: I take full credit for his breakback.
Hardly the most impartial source.
The Tories have to be careful here. Miliband is undoubtedly one of their strongest assets but they need to use him strategically. The public clearly think he is a dud, but saying so every day for the next three months won't endear the public to the party or do much to persuade people to the Conservatives' cause. And it might just create a sympathy rally on the left. I didn't think the Miliband, Salmond and Adams poster was at all effective; it just didn't ring true, and it looked amateurish. I think some excitable elements in CCHQ need to be calmed down before they weaken their trump card by overuse.
But they aren't.
something, somewhere, does not add up. Big time. Why are labour in total turmoil if ed is 3 points ahead in the polls? Why are half the party calling him a total loser?
It's Labour winning an election with a leader who has [partially] repudiated Blairism.
To get and idea how small fry political betting is: £24m matched on this game already.
Scottish tennis flopBritish tennis god Andy Murray wins second set on the tie-break! One set allI'm under no illusions his government will actually do anything more than perhaps slow the pace of decline.
Ahem..... You should have more faith in the Briton.....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/dec/18/uk.advertising
In 2005 Labour narrowed the gap on spending to just £500,000 in the campaign and over the course of 2005 actually outspent the Tories by £49.8m to £39.2m but actually suffered significant net losses to the Tories once the results came in
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/jul/18/labour.uk1
http://www.scotlandvotes.com/
I don't think that's true. I really don't. Did the thatcherites openly criticise Cameron before 2010?
Even if labour and tories are tying there is all to play for, especially with labour's inbuilt advantages. Nobody really knows how left wing labour would really be in government, if it ever got there.
Personally, I think the reason the blairites are in opne revolt is the sun readers poll is far closer to what the mood in England is than anything we get from Yougov or Populus.
Wee Dougie says no.
Ed Balls says no.
The 'leader' says "well..."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/milibands-antibusiness-rhetoric-and-mansion-tax-plan-attacked-by-top-businessman-and-donor-10016266.html
If it's true that the Tories are going to continue this negative campaign and Labour are going to remain positive (partly by not having the money to compete) then I'd expect Labour to look for a much bigger bang for their buck than the Tories.
It's every advertisers dream to let something roll which gains its own momentum. FCUK being a very obvious example. There's no reason why Labour can't get plenty of free traction from this one. Labour have in their corner a master of the genre.
That a Bullingdon Boy should use his overwhelming resourses to personally ridicule his opponent should be manna from heaven. I think this one started to roll in the Observer this morning...........
My money on the tournament is on Wales & Ireland.
All those people may be wrong. One could argue that they are too reliant on historical comparisons, over-emphasising a limited sample of elections, none of which share this election's characteristics; failing to recognise that the political order is changing. One could assert that they are ignoring plenty of evidence that suggests they are wrong, or at least that their historical tools are invalid; more reliable polls, constituency polling and anecdotes that show Labour will do well in the English marginals, data analysis that shows former Lib Dems supporting Labour's vote share and Ukip disproportionately hurting the Conservatives. Next-coalition dynamics that more favour Labour (SNP). The presence of a new green voting block that could be squeezed. And Labour possibly (just) still ahead in the polls.
But equally those who think Miliband is heading for office are glibly disregarding the evidence they are wrong. Leader ratings that group Miliband definitively with the historical losers. Forced choice and economic competence questions that give Cameron a clear lead. An evaporating poll lead. Polls that show dozens of seats at risk in Scotland. Swingback and other models predicting a Tory lead. And the wisdom of the Westminster crowd.
The former group may not be able to explain why the public have not got Labour ten points behind, but the latter group cannot explain why the public no longer have Labour ten points ahead. And the direction of travel seems clear, if not, as today's yougov poll demonstrates, linear.
England have never kicked on from the early days under Lancaster and that great success over the All Blacks. Not a bad side, but not quite there.
Just a shame Ben Stokes is way out of form, he would be perfect at eight.
Together with some general anti-government, anti-establishment types.
Both groups would now find UKIP more appealing.
As Labour's working class problems are already based upon an upper-middle class metropolitan dominance of its leadership we could see a feedback loop develop.
BTW Good Morning All; just.