politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who Will Deliver The First Budget After The May 2015 General Election?
Ed Miliband has been urged to demote Ed Balls after the general election, amid simmering tensions in the Labour leadership over how to pay for a cut in university tuition fees.
Isn't there some rule in the Labour Party that the Shadow Cabinet get the real jobs after the election if they win? Or maybe that would only be true if they got a majority?
I still think it will be Balls if Labour win, he might not get on with his "boss", but Miliband is going to be very sure he wants Balls inside the tent pissing out if he has a minority government or coalition, Balls knows where the bodies are buried, and will be far too dangerous to leave as a loose cannon on the back benches.... unless he can buy him off I suppose, Lord Balls of Morley and Outwood ? Also who else does he have with enough nous and panache to stand up to say Priti Patel as Shadow Chancellor, never mind if Osborne stays on in the job in opposition, which he might if a second election seems likely ?
Reading the Sunday papers it seems that the past couple of weeks of horse trading are largely to demonstrate to the Greek people that its either the Euro & Austerity, or leaving the Euro. The expectation is that Syriza wont be able to agree internally which way to jump and will head off a party split by calling a referendum in which they will blame the Germans for being inflexible and say they tried their best and its clearly one or the other and the people should decide. Before there would have always been suggestions that there were other options and political opponents would accuse Syriza of dictating a false dichotomy in their referendum, the recent negotiations have demonstrated this isn't the case for all to see.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
The current coalition is unusual in not having the minor party in any of the top jobs. It's balanced by having a lot of LibDems lower down, which happened partly because LibDem MPs had a veto on the deal while Tory backbenchers had to suck up whatever Osborne and Hague decided. But that kind of arrangement is unlikely to be practical in the 2015 parliament, because there won't be enough LibDems.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
There might be something in that. The problem is that the LDs with the relevant experience are Danny Alexander who would presumably be unacceptable to the PLP as too right wing, or Uncle Vince who would be unacceptable to the general public as so far past it that he is the day before yesterday's man. Also Alexander may well not keep his seat, neither may Uncle Vince come to that. Not sure Labour would want to come into government with jumpy markets to settle and a host of financial issues and put some greenhorn in the driving seat.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
The current coalition is unusual in not having the minor party in any of the top jobs. It's balanced by having a lot of LibDems lower down, which happened partly because LibDem MPs had a veto on the deal while Tory backbenchers had to suck up whatever Osborne and Hague decided. But that kind of arrangement is unlikely to be practical in the 2015 parliament, because there won't be enough LibDems.
I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister would argue he has a "top job".
@TSE. How long have you been wanting to write headline "Is Ed Balls deep in trouble?
The other interesting question is who is doing the anti--Balls briefing - Miliband staffers eager to deflect attention from their bumbling tax avoiding boss?
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
The current coalition is unusual in not having the minor party in any of the top jobs. It's balanced by having a lot of LibDems lower down, which happened partly because LibDem MPs had a veto on the deal while Tory backbenchers had to suck up whatever Osborne and Hague decided. But that kind of arrangement is unlikely to be practical in the 2015 parliament, because there won't be enough LibDems.
I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister would argue he has a "top job".
Dunno if he would, but he doesn't. He wouldn't even get to be PM if the incumbent died. It's a non-job with a big name previously used for parking people with big egos, and currently used to give him a perch for managing one side of the coalition and making sure the government doesn't do anything they disagree with.
The top jobs, beyond PM, are Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and normally in a coalition you's expect the minor party to get one of those.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
There might be something in that. The problem is that the LDs with the relevant experience are Danny Alexander who would presumably be unacceptable to the PLP as too right wing, or Uncle Vince who would be unacceptable to the general public as so far past it that he is the day before yesterday's man. Also Alexander may well not keep his seat, neither may Uncle Vince come to that. Not sure Labour would want to come into government with jumpy markets to settle and a host of financial issues and put some greenhorn in the driving seat.
Is there any recent polling on Cable? I take the point that he's getting on a bit but the last I recall the voters rated him highly. (Not saying they're right.) Alternatively, Nick Clegg is a competent politician and will probably keep his seat.
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
Who do you trust more to raise your living standard: Ed + Ed: 25 Dave+ George: 33
While the Lib Dems are evenly split, UKIP are much more likely to favour Dave + George (34:9) and Lab are less convinced of their own guys (69) than Con are of theirs (89).
Who do you trust more to raise your living standard: Ed + Ed: 25 Dave+ George: 33
While the Lib Dems are evenly split, UKIP are much more likely to favour Dave + George (34:9) and Lab are less convinced of their own guys (69) than Con are of theirs (89).
Labour voters are more realistic about the next few years. Tory voters are deluded.
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
When I were a lad, the received wisdom was that, apart from a national emergency, such as war, Labour was too deeply scarred from the 1930’s to contemplate coalitions. Now that’s a long time ago, no-one who remembers that time (apart of course from Jack) is still alive but how deep does such a tribal memory run? Irrational of course in current circumstances because Labour would be largest party by some distance, and have most of the people with actual government experience, apart of course from Salmond (assuming etc) but rationality and logic don’t always play the part they should in such decisions.
Who do you trust more to raise your living standard: Ed + Ed: 25 Dave+ George: 33
While the Lib Dems are evenly split, UKIP are much more likely to favour Dave + George (34:9) and Lab are less convinced of their own guys (69) than Con are of theirs (89).
Labour voters are more realistic about the next few years. Tory voters are deluded.
I don't see how you can view that as deluded, all it says is Tory voters think it is more likely that George and Dave will be able to salvage something out of the incoming shambles than Ed and Ed will. Currently the economy isn't doing at all badly, and D&G are in the driving seat, so their record will speak for itself to most voters.
The biggest danger for Labour as I see it is voters who are not wild or even anti the Tories generally speaking, but just don't trust E&E not to fsck up the economy which seems to be doing all right at the moment.
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
When I were a lad, the received wisdom was that, apart from a national emergency, such as war, Labour was too deeply scarred from the 1930’s to contemplate coalitions. Now that’s a long time ago, no-one who remembers that time (apart of course from Jack) is still alive but how deep does such a tribal memory run? Irrational of course in current circumstances because Labour would be largest party by some distance, and have most of the people with actual government experience, apart of course from Salmond (assuming etc) but rationality and logic don’t always play the part they should in such decisions.
As we have seen in the current coalition, where the conservatives are much larger than the LDs, the is a strong undercurrent of tail wagging the dog in a coalition because the government can't act without its junior partners consent. If a coalition was formed of say 280 LAB and 50 SNP, the SNP would have Labour by the balls, and would be able to demand extensive concessions to support the government, especially as they are not actually interested in the good of the UK, so much as the good of Scotland.
As others have commented the smart move would be to ignore the SNP and in effect challenge them to bring down a Labour government and potentially inflict another Tory government on the UK and by extension Scotland.
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
Oh come off it, in 10 seconds you could Google racist councillors for any of the major parties, many of whom are still in office. No parties get to chose who their supporters are. The most right-wing party is always going to attract the most right-wing nutters as the least bad option, currently UKIP get that joy, just as the most left-wing party will always attract the most left-wing nutters, Labour used to get that with the SWP crowd and Militant, but they now have mostly decamped to the Greens.
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
To be honest, from the interview, both my wife and I thought the woman had some sort of psychiatric problem, and the knee-jerk reaction of sacking wasn’t entirely appropriate. Clearly she shouldn’t be a councillor, but there’s obviously something more there than simple racism.
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
When I were a lad, the received wisdom was that, apart from a national emergency, such as war, Labour was too deeply scarred from the 1930’s to contemplate coalitions. Now that’s a long time ago, no-one who remembers that time (apart of course from Jack) is still alive but how deep does such a tribal memory run? Irrational of course in current circumstances because Labour would be largest party by some distance, and have most of the people with actual government experience, apart of course from Salmond (assuming etc) but rationality and logic don’t always play the part they should in such decisions.
As we have seen in the current coalition, where the conservatives are much larger than the LDs, the is a strong undercurrent of tail wagging the dog in a coalition because the government can't act without its junior partners consent. If a coalition was formed of say 280 LAB and 50 SNP, the SNP would have Labour by the balls, and would be able to demand extensive concessions to support the government, especially as they are not actually interested in the good of the UK, so much as the good of Scotland.
As others have commented the smart move would be to ignore the SNP and in effect challenge them to bring down a Labour government and potentially inflict another Tory government on the UK and by extension Scotland.
"The smart move” assumes that the FTPA has been repealed as the first act of a new administration. Whether than could actually happen I don’t know, and I’m not sure that to do so would endear the Government to the public at large, or indeed to the markets. After all, we, the public elected a group of people to the HoC with the implicit instruction that they would run the country for five years, not to come back and tell us we’d got it wrong and a slightly different set of MP’s was required.
And from my perspective there’s been too little LD “control” on Tory policies, not too much!
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Say I have a house with and east wing, a central hall and a west wing (OK, I lied it's a mansion) all of equal size. The temperature in the east wing is 18 degrees, 19 degrees in the central hall and 20 degrees in the west wing.
The average temperature of the house is 19 degrees.
Say I meddle with the thermostats such that it is now 16 degrees in the east wing, 21 degrees in the central hall and 23 degrees in the west wing.
The average temperature of the house is 20 degrees.
A scientist says "The house has got warmer". Are you telling me this statement is incorrect because one part of the house is colder?
Your analogy is bogus. A house is not the planet. And ground based thermometers are not as accurate and less well spaced than your thermostats. To be realistic with UN methodology you would have to ignore your 16 deg reading and adjust the 21 deg one upwards.
Satellite records of the atmosphere show no warming for 18 years.
What is bogus about the example? The purpose of my example is to show that a whole system can get warmer despite locally parts of it being cooler. The tweet approvingly quoted by MikeK rejects the notion of a whole system getting warmer because a bit of it is colder.
As we have seen in the current coalition, where the conservatives are much larger than the LDs, the is a strong undercurrent of tail wagging the dog in a coalition because the government can't act without its junior partners consent. If a coalition was formed of say 280 LAB and 50 SNP, the SNP would have Labour by the balls, and would be able to demand extensive concessions to support the government, especially as they are not actually interested in the good of the UK, so much as the good of Scotland.
As others have commented the smart move would be to ignore the SNP and in effect challenge them to bring down a Labour government and potentially inflict another Tory government on the UK and by extension Scotland.
"The smart move” assumes that the FTPA has been repealed as the first act of a new administration. Whether than could actually happen I don’t know, and I’m not sure that to do so would endear the Government to the public at large, or indeed to the markets. After all, we, the public elected a group of people to the HoC with the implicit instruction that they would run the country for five years, not to come back and tell us we’d got it wrong and a slightly different set of MP’s was required.
And from my perspective there’s been too little LD “control” on Tory policies, not too much!
You wouldn't necessarily need to repeal the Fixed Terms Act to do what Indigo's suggesting; If a minority Labour government gets voted down you either get a Tory minority government (as per Indigo's plan) or a new election.
That said, I think people - especially people supporting one or other of the main parties - tend to vastly overestimate the attractiveness of running a minority government. Basically you'd be continually haggling with your enemies to be able to get anything through parliament, and the point where the whole thing came crashing down would most likely be at one of the minor parties' convenience not yours, and over an issue of their choosing.
"To be honest, from the interview, both my wife and I thought the woman had some sort of psychiatric problem, and the knee-jerk reaction of sacking wasn’t entirely appropriate. Clearly she shouldn’t be a councillor, but there’s obviously something more there than simple racism."
That was slightly my feeling too. But it really is a case of living by the sword and dying by it. So much wolf whistling by Farage with his fake bonhomie and his outrageous behaviour towards Van Rompuy it's no wonder that loopy racists think they've arrived home
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
These stories become less shocking and more predictable. Kipper has become a ISIS for racists - they are flocking to them from all over the country to fight their fight.
Who do you trust more to raise your living standard: Ed + Ed: 25 Dave+ George: 33
While the Lib Dems are evenly split, UKIP are much more likely to favour Dave + George (34:9) and Lab are less convinced of their own guys (69) than Con are of theirs (89).
Labour voters are more realistic about the next few years. Tory voters are deluded.
Given that Ed Balls can't be competent in Opposition, anyone who votes for Labour expecting economic competence in power is not deluded but in need of counselling.
As we have seen in the current coalition, where the conservatives are much larger than the LDs, the is a strong undercurrent of tail wagging the dog in a coalition because the government can't act without its junior partners consent. If a coalition was formed of say 280 LAB and 50 SNP, the SNP would have Labour by the balls, and would be able to demand extensive concessions to support the government, especially as they are not actually interested in the good of the UK, so much as the good of Scotland.
As others have commented the smart move would be to ignore the SNP and in effect challenge them to bring down a Labour government and potentially inflict another Tory government on the UK and by extension Scotland.
"The smart move” assumes that the FTPA has been repealed as the first act of a new administration. Whether than could actually happen I don’t know, and I’m not sure that to do so would endear the Government to the public at large, or indeed to the markets. After all, we, the public elected a group of people to the HoC with the implicit instruction that they would run the country for five years, not to come back and tell us we’d got it wrong and a slightly different set of MP’s was required.
And from my perspective there’s been too little LD “control” on Tory policies, not too much!
You wouldn't necessarily need to repeal the Fixed Terms Act to do what Indigo's suggesting; If a minority Labour government gets voted down you either get a Tory minority government (as per Indigo's plan) or a new election.
That said, I think people - especially people supporting one or other of the main parties - tend to vastly overestimate the attractiveness of running a minority government. Basically you'd be continually haggling with your enemies to be able to get anything through parliament, and the point where the whole thing came crashing down would most likely be at one of the minor parties' convenience not yours, and over an issue of their choosing.
The Labour Govt “elected” in Feb 74 was reasonably effective, although of course, the Tories were licking their wounds.
If Ed Miliband gets an overall majority, he will be able to shape the Cabinet as he pleases. You can get better odds on that proposition than on the ones suggested in the thread header.
He won't have that freedom in most permutations of a hung Parliament.
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
These stories become less shocking and more predictable. Kipper has become a ISIS for racists - they are flocking to them from all over the country to fight their fight.
On topic - no odds on Gove ?
The BBC documentary also features UKIP's Thanet South chairman Martyn Heale speaking about the media attention over his brief past membership of the National Front.
In the programme, he says: "For Christ's sake, I was never a member of the Gestapo. I was not a member of the Stasi, I never served a term of imprisonment in my life."
Meet the Ukippers is on BBC Two at 22:00 GMT on Sunday 22 February
If there was a Labour/SNP coalition, I can't see the SNP making the same mistake as the LDs.
No taking one for the country, because their country is Scotland not the UK. Every policy would be met with cries of "It's no fair". They would demand extra goodies for Scotland and nothing else - it's their USP after all.
With Ed unable to deliver on everything, this cry would be believed north of the border.A wipe-out for Labour and Independence beckons.
Ah so Labour are back to vote for X, get Y. Remove the person more palatable to the voters as soon as the election is over and put the person the left want in. Some of us haven't forgotten what happened in the GLC elections how as the results came in Andrew McIntosh the Labour GLC group leader was toasting victory with Michael Foot, while meanwhile Leninspart deposed him.
@PickardJE: Theory I heard re Miliband sacking Balls is he couldn't act in first 6 months after election as markets will be on knife edge. After that...
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
Rawnsley just like Watt, Wintour, Hodges and the New Statesman critics from late 2014 is desperate for the slightly more left wing Miliband to somehow fail to become PM and will happily find any excuse to try and keep the loser Cameron in office even if the voters appear to have decided otherwise
Actually bar the Blairite rump left in the party any coalition of Real Labour people, SNP, Plaid and the Green would be far more cohesive and comfortable ideologically with each other than any of the possible post 2015 Tory coalitions who would just like the last disastrous five years be simply about power for powers sake and willing to abandon any principle to attain it
I just get the impression that Balls' heart is not in this. He is a clever guy who had far more influence over the last government than Miliband and who has a much better idea of how government works.
I think he finds Miliband's bandwagon jumping incoherent and tiresome and I suspect he would have left if it was not for his wife. This is his problem. He cannot allow himself to be the fall guy for any failure of Miliband's because that will hurt her chances. So he has to solider on supporting rubbish and nonsense tolerating insults from Miliband's apparatchiks. It really can't be any fun for him at all.
The worst Labour gaffe of the campaign so far was Ed Miliband forgetting the deficit in his conference speech.
I agree but briefing against your shadow chancellor when you are this close to the election and the polling suggests you have credibility issues on the economy is a pretty good second.
Actually bar the Blairite rump left in the party any coalition of Real Labour people, SNP, Plaid and the Green would be far more cohesive and comfortable ideologically with each other than any of the possible post 2015 Tory coalitions who would just like the last disastrous five years be simply about power for powers sake and willing to abandon any principle to attain it
Ed handing out sweeties to the Greens, SNP and Plaid is the very definition of "power for powers sake and willing to abandon any principle to attain it"
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
Roger, you have more racists, pedophiles and and actual, so called ex fascists, in the Labour party than ever. But the BBC and other MSM won't publish these facts. So get off your high horse.
The worst Labour gaffe of the campaign so far was Ed Miliband forgetting the deficit in his conference speech.
I agree but briefing against your shadow chancellor when you are this close to the election and the polling suggests you have credibility issues on the economy is a pretty good second.
Threats against Ed Balls are empty unless Ed Miliband can get an overall majority or something close to it. He has too big a power base in the Parliamentary party.
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
Actually bar the Blairite rump left in the party any coalition of Real Labour people, SNP, Plaid and the Green would be far more cohesive and comfortable ideologically with each other than any of the possible post 2015 Tory coalitions who would just like the last disastrous five years be simply about power for powers sake and willing to abandon any principle to attain it
Do you have any examples of disasters in the last five years?
I just get the impression that Balls' heart is not in this. He is a clever guy who had far more influence over the last government than Miliband and who has a much better idea of how government works.
I think he finds Miliband's bandwagon jumping incoherent and tiresome and I suspect he would have left if it was not for his wife. This is his problem. He cannot allow himself to be the fall guy for any failure of Miliband's because that will hurt her chances. So he has to solider on supporting rubbish and nonsense tolerating insults from Miliband's apparatchiks. It really can't be any fun for him at all.
That is very much my impression as well - no "fire in his (not trivial) belly"
"I just get the impression that Balls' heart is not in this. He is a clever guy who had far more influence over the last government than Miliband and who has a much better idea of how government works."
I think you're right. I find Balls much more coherent than Miliband despite his lack of presentational skills
And who on earth are these 18% who think Labour have set out a clear agenda for the next government? If they could be identified the selling opportunities would surely be endless.
Worth recalling there's a small but not incredible chance Balls could be axed by the electorate before Miliband gets the chance. The majority's just a thousand, and whilst I expect him to hold on, it's not guaranteed.
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
Roger, you have more racists, pedophiles and and actual, so called ex fascists, in the Labour party than ever. But the BBC and other MSM won't publish these facts. So get off your high horse.
BBC publishes news about all parties. The facts are that UKIP is now the home of choice for former members of the National Front, even in Farage's chosen constituency:
"The BBC documentary also features UKIP's Thanet South chairman Martyn Heale speaking about the media attention over his brief past membership of the National Front.
In the programme, he says: "For Christ's sake, I was never a member of the Gestapo. I was not a member of the Stasi, I never served a term of imprisonment in my life."
And who on earth are these 18% who think Labour have set out a clear agenda for the next government? If they could be identified the selling opportunities would surely be endless.
They are overwhelmingly Labour voters (Con:4, LIB/UKIP, 10), but even so łess than half of them (47)....35% of Lab voters don't think they've set out a clear plan...
"Rawnsley just like Watt, Wintour, Hodges and the New Statesman critics from late 2014 is desperate for the slightly more left wing Miliband to somehow fail to become PM and will happily find any excuse to try and keep the loser Cameron in office even if the voters appear to have decided otherwise"
I think only Hodges deserves to be in that list and with him I'd suggest-as we've recently discovered with the Telegraph-he who pays the piper calls the tune. Working out what mercenaries like Hodges actually believe is a waste of energy.
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
Rawnsley : Senior Labour figures also contend that striking any sort of bargain with the SNP would be such a strategic mistake that they should never countenance doing one anyway. Says a member of the shadow cabinet: “If we do a deal with the nationalists, my fear is that it will not just be the end of the Labour party in Scotland, it will be the end of the Labour party in England.”
Actually bar the Blairite rump left in the party any coalition of Real Labour people, SNP, Plaid and the Green would be far more cohesive and comfortable ideologically with each other than any of the possible post 2015 Tory coalitions who would just like the last disastrous five years be simply about power for powers sake and willing to abandon any principle to attain it
Do you have any examples of disasters in the last five years?
Taking over a recovering economy that had grown for four quarters and flatlining it for two years
Introducing a tax on Bedrooms causing suicides whilst cutting the rate of tax for the richest people in the country
NHS in crisis thanks to unwanted and unelected reorganisation plans as well as introducing a disastrous phone service staffed by non medical people directing everyone who calls to A and E
Record numbers of benefit sanctions, Record numbers at previously unheard of Food Banks..both connected
Wages behind inflation for over four years
Planning to help IS into power in Syria as part of "The Rebels' only to be stopped by Miliband, Lucas, Galloway, the Nats, Irish parties and a few sensible Tory rebels
Deficit still high despite the years of failed austerity and pointless cutting of vital services
Good public sector ft jobs replaced by zero hours and pt and bogus self employment and 2-80 an hour "apprenticeships"
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
There might be something in that. The problem is that the LDs with the relevant experience are Danny Alexander who would presumably be unacceptable to the PLP as too right wing, or Uncle Vince who would be unacceptable to the general public as so far past it that he is the day before yesterday's man. Also Alexander may well not keep his seat, neither may Uncle Vince come to that. Not sure Labour would want to come into government with jumpy markets to settle and a host of financial issues and put some greenhorn in the driving seat.
Is there any recent polling on Cable? I take the point that he's getting on a bit but the last I recall the voters rated him highly. (Not saying they're right.) Alternatively, Nick Clegg is a competent politician and will probably keep his seat.
If Clegg survives the election and enters coalition with Labour, surely the obvious place for him in light of his experience as a de facto diplomat would be the Foreign Office (in the fairly likely event that Douglas Alexander loses his seat)?
David Laws might just be worth considering as Chancellor in a Lab/Lib coalition given his experience in banking, although it's not difficult to forecast the tabloid headlines...
"Taking over a recovering economy that had grown for four quarters and flatlining it for two years
Introducing a tax on Bedrooms causing suicides whilst cutting the rate of tax for the richest people in the country
NHS in crisis thanks to unwanted and unelected reorganisation plans as well as introducing a disastrous phone service staffed by non medical people directing everyone who calls to A and E
Record numbers of benefit sanctions, Record numbers at previously unheard of Food Banks..both connected
Wages behind inflation for over four years
Planning to help IS into power in Syria as part of "The Rebels' only to be stopped by Miliband, Lucas, Galloway, the Nats, Irish parties and a few sensible Tory rebels
Deficit still high despite the years of failed austerity and pointless cutting of vital services
Good public sector ft jobs replaced by zero hours and pt and bogus self employment and 2-80 an hour "apprenticeships""
Ed Miliband has never liked Balls, and the contempt seems to be mutual.
But Ed M has such a poor team, both in terms of competence and presentation, that he found it very difficult to give that poisoned chalice to anyone else. He did not want to give it to Balls, and seems to have been right to try to keep Balls out.
But it is too late to write on that blank sheet of paper now.
The worst Labour gaffe of the campaign so far was Ed Miliband forgetting the deficit in his conference speech.
I agree but briefing against your shadow chancellor when you are this close to the election and the polling suggests you have credibility issues on the economy is a pretty good second.
Threats against Ed Balls are empty unless Ed Miliband can get an overall majority or something close to it. He has too big a power base in the Parliamentary party.
But Ed M is a poisonous little sh1t and briefing against colleagues is how he thinks politics is done. Remember Tom Watson's comments on his resignation?
Whilst I still think Labour will be the largest party I find the idea of a government being run by this man truly alarming. We can all only hope it will be brief.
The worst Labour gaffe of the campaign so far was Ed Miliband forgetting the deficit in his conference speech.
This would have been noticed only by journalists sent (as is normal practice) advance copies of the speech, marked "check against delivery". Unfortunately for Ed, it is rather in the nature of journalists that they felt obliged to spill the beans.
"I just get the impression that Balls' heart is not in this. He is a clever guy who had far more influence over the last government than Miliband and who has a much better idea of how government works."
I think you're right. I find Balls much more coherent than Miliband despite his lack of presentational skills
The problem is he may know how government works but on finance he's absolutely clueless, a truly shocking indictment of the business schools of Oxford and Harvard. He has nil understanding of the long-term implications of unfunded deficit financing and no grasp of the implications of over-spending on unnecessary capital projects (anyone who doubts this should look at his appalling record on PFI, where billions were wasted on school renovation/replacements that may have won architectural prizes but due to poor design and build quality are now in worse repair than their predecessors from the 1960s). His fiscal record as Secretary of State for Education is one of unrelieved incompetence, and it is hard to imagine he would do better as chancellor
He also has only a dim grasp of historical parallels. At the present moment, he is proposing a Roosevelt-style plan to kick-start the economy. There are two small problems:
(1) The Second Great Depression was actually a demand crisis that caused a debt crisis, so stimulating demand to try and deal with the debts made sense. This is a debt crisis causing a demand crisis, so adding more debt to try and get out of it, even that is possible, is probably not the best idea.
(2) Roosevelt's plan, although most people don't realize this, failed. As late as 1938 the American economy remained in recession. Meanwhile under the more orthodox monetary and fiscal disciplinary policy of Neville Chamberlain, the British economy had mostly recovered by 1934. Even allowing for the fact that many very bad problems still remained (Jarrow, Merthyr, Whitehaven, Glasgow) that's not a bad record and compares favourably with most other countries.
So I would say that whether Balls' heart is in it or not, he is absolutely the wrong choice to be shadow chancellor and he is surely one of the reasons why Labour are effectively losing the economic argument. At the same time, removing him either at this stage or immediately after the election would look like panic, and it's hard to imagine that ending well.
All in all, it's Ed Miliband's misfortune that he had to appoint him at all.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
The current coalition is unusual in not having the minor party in any of the top jobs. It's balanced by having a lot of LibDems lower down, which happened partly because LibDem MPs had a veto on the deal while Tory backbenchers had to suck up whatever Osborne and Hague decided. But that kind of arrangement is unlikely to be practical in the 2015 parliament, because there won't be enough LibDems.
I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister would argue he has a "top job".
Dunno if he would, but he doesn't. He wouldn't even get to be PM if the incumbent died. It's a non-job with a big name previously used for parking people with big egos, and currently used to give him a perch for managing one side of the coalition and making sure the government doesn't do anything they disagree with.
The top jobs, beyond PM, are Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and normally in a coalition you's expect the minor party to get one of those.
The traditional one is Foreign Secretary, on the grounds that it's not usually a vote shifter, so it's "safe" to give it to the junior party while also being a very important role.
In the Con/LD situation, of course, there are one or two fundamental differences on policy that made this approach unfeasible
***Anecdote Alert*** I spoke to my mother last night - lifelong Guardian reader, retired teacher, firm anti-Tory - and she surprised me last night when she said that she felt "sorry for Miliband, but he's been such a fool about so many things".
The worst Labour gaffe of the campaign so far was Ed Miliband forgetting the deficit in his conference speech.
I agree but briefing against your shadow chancellor when you are this close to the election and the polling suggests you have credibility issues on the economy is a pretty good second.
Threats against Ed Balls are empty unless Ed Miliband can get an overall majority or something close to it. He has too big a power base in the Parliamentary party.
But Ed M is a poisonous little sh1t and briefing against colleagues is how he thinks politics is done. Remember Tom Watson's comments on his resignation?
Whilst I still think Labour will be the largest party I find the idea of a government being run by this man truly alarming. We can all only hope it will be brief.
If the SNP do decimate SLAB, how would the few SLAB survivors react to the victors? Taking them into government does not seem a good way of rebuilding.
The advantage of ditching Balls now would be to run a very easy to understand anti-austerity platform, in the style of Syrizia. Effectice electorally, but cloud cuckoo land economically.
I assume from the header that Balls has sensed the madness of Milli's tuition fees cut policy and wants to ditch it ?
No - he proposed paying for it by raiding pensions*
Penalising the group with the highest turnout in favour of people who don't vote. LOL
* I haven't read beyond the headline, but I assume that he is actually suggesting a restriction of higher rate pension relief. Which is not quite the same thing as the headline suggests...
Taking over a recovering economy that had grown for four quarters and flatlining it for two years
Introducing a tax on Bedrooms causing suicides whilst cutting the rate of tax for the richest people in the country
NHS in crisis thanks to unwanted and unelected reorganisation plans as well as introducing a disastrous phone service staffed by non medical people directing everyone who calls to A and E
Record numbers of benefit sanctions, Record numbers at previously unheard of Food Banks..both connected
Wages behind inflation for over four years
Planning to help IS into power in Syria as part of "The Rebels' only to be stopped by Miliband, Lucas, Galloway, the Nats, Irish parties and a few sensible Tory rebels
Deficit still high despite the years of failed austerity and pointless cutting of vital services
Good public sector ft jobs replaced by zero hours and pt and bogus self employment and 2-80 an hour "apprenticeships"
1) It was a bit of a smoke and mirrors recovery, caused by stoking a housing bubble (not that Osborne has done much better)
2) That's plausible, but it should not be forgotten that the 45p rate raises more money than the 50p rate did
3) The NHS was in deep crisis before, and could not have continued as it did without more disasters like Mid Staffordshire. Putting Andy Burnham back in charge would be a seriously bad idea.
4) With regard to food banks, the majority were set up before 2010 or in development (I helped with this). The real story is not that they have grown but that they were badly needed before and the Blair government made it difficult to set them up.
5) Wages have struggled, but under Labour they were actually falling dramatically outside the public sector.
6) The whole idea of Syria was to put the Syria Democratic Alliance into power. With the failure of US/UK intervention, this has collapsed allowing the better funded IS to take over.
7) Yes, the deficit is still too high.
8) Good public sector ft jobs - I had one of these for a few months. I did no work. Is it sensible to pay people large sums of money for no reason? With regard to apprenticeships, it's always better in terms of career development to do something even for a low wage than nothing for a high sum, although I would like that hourly pay to be higher.
Do you have any examples of disasters in the last five years?
Taking over a recovering economy that had grown for four quarters and flatlining it for two years
A recovery paid for by massive borrowing as a pre election boost. Try again.
Introducing a tax on Bedrooms causing suicides whilst cutting the rate of tax for the richest people in the country
There is no bedroom tax. What there is, is an extension of a Labour party policy imposed on the private sector rental market. Tax is higher on the top 10 per cent now than at any time in the last parliament. Top rate of tax is 45% which is higher than all but the last few weeks of the previous parliament.
NHS in crisis thanks to unwanted and unelected reorganisation plans as well as introducing a disastrous phone service staffed by non medical people directing everyone who calls to A and E
The funding for the NHS was ring fenced over this parliament, Darling confirmed that Labour would cut funding
Record numbers of benefit sanctions, Record numbers at previously unheard of Food Banks..both connected
Benefit sanctions are imposed on people who abuse the benefit system, don't abuse, dint get sanctioned. Food banks weren't unheard of in the last parliament, you just ignored them.
Wages behind inflation for over four years
Wages now rising faster than inflation, following years of dragging the economy back from the terrible state it was left in by the party who have never left office with unemployment lower than when they came into office.
Planning to help IS into power in Syria as part of "The Rebels' only to be stopped by Miliband, Lucas, Galloway, the Nats, Irish parties and a few sensible Tory rebels
Blatant lie
Deficit still high despite the years of failed austerity and pointless cutting of vital services
Deficit lower than Darlings plans (what little he revealed of his plans)
Good public sector ft jobs replaced by zero hours and pt and bogus self employment and 2-80 an hour "apprenticeships"
Non productive jobs stripped from the public sector and new private sector jobs created. Have you in all honesty noticed any changes in the services provided by your local council?
I just get the impression that Balls' heart is not in this. He is a clever guy who had far more influence over the last government than Miliband and who has a much better idea of how government works.
I think he finds Miliband's bandwagon jumping incoherent and tiresome and I suspect he would have left if it was not for his wife. This is his problem. He cannot allow himself to be the fall guy for any failure of Miliband's because that will hurt her chances. So he has to solider on supporting rubbish and nonsense tolerating insults from Miliband's apparatchiks. It really can't be any fun for him at all.
Does his wife actually want to job? IIRC, she ruled herself out last time (I think because of her kids, who are obviously older now). Equally, she had ME before & I believe that stress can trigger a relapse of the condition, so not sure I'd want that risk in her shoes - even if it's only a 1% probability...
And who on earth are these 18% who think Labour have set out a clear agenda for the next government? If they could be identified the selling opportunities would surely be endless.
May be they are Tories trying to encourage them to continue as they go...
Britain did not operate orthodox fiscal and monetary policies in the 30s. They had the very considerable advantage of a chap called Keynes who used innovative monetary policies to create demand, particularly for house building and of course for rearmenant latterly.
FDR did have success in getting the economy out of recession but did not achieve sustained growth because he was constantly battling against deflationary pressures with fiscal policies alone. Keynes tried to explain it to them but they didn't seem to get it until the monetary expansion required by WW2 made it obvious to everyone.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
There might be something in that. The problem is that the LDs with the relevant experience are Danny Alexander who would presumably be unacceptable to the PLP as too right wing, or Uncle Vince who would be unacceptable to the general public as so far past it that he is the day before yesterday's man. Also Alexander may well not keep his seat, neither may Uncle Vince come to that. Not sure Labour would want to come into government with jumpy markets to settle and a host of financial issues and put some greenhorn in the driving seat.
Is there any recent polling on Cable? I take the point that he's getting on a bit but the last I recall the voters rated him highly. (Not saying they're right.) Alternatively, Nick Clegg is a competent politician and will probably keep his seat.
If Clegg survives the election and enters coalition with Labour, surely the obvious place for him in light of his experience as a de facto diplomat would be the Foreign Office (in the fairly likely event that Douglas Alexander loses his seat)?
David Laws might just be worth considering as Chancellor in a Lab/Lib coalition given his experience in banking, although it's not difficult to forecast the tabloid headlines...
One of the more astonishing results from the recent batch of Scottish opinion polls is the revelation that Ed Miliband is actually less popular in Scotland than David Cameron. Survation's poll for the Daily Record suggested that 23% of Scots think David Cameron would make the best Prime Minister as opposed to 19% who favour the UK Labour leader.
This confirmed similar findings in the Lord Ashcroft constituency polls a fortnight ago. But looking at Scotland's political make up, where the Tories have been moribund for the last three decades, this is surely quite extraordinary. I'm at a loss to explain it myself. Can Scots really favour a privileged, Eton-educated Tory over Labour's state-educated son of a Marxist academic?
Britain did not operate orthodox fiscal and monetary policies in the 30s. They had the very considerable advantage of a chap called Keynes who used innovative monetary policies to create demand, particularly for house building and of course for rearmenant latterly.
FDR did have success in getting the economy out of recession but did not achieve sustained growth because he was constantly battling against deflationary pressures with fiscal policies alone. Keynes tried to explain it to them but they didn't seem to get it until the monetary expansion required by WW2 made it obvious to everyone.
You are incorrect in talking about Keynes. Keynes had some early ideas as far back as 1928, but they were only espoused by Lloyd George and categorically rejected by the mainstream. Keynesianism as a theory only came to full fruition in WWII. Prior to 1937 he had no influence over Chamberlain. Nostalgia for Keynesianism in the 1930s afflicts pseudoscholars like A N Wilson, but there is no evidence that these earlier ideas would have made a more meaningful or rapid difference than Chamberlain and Snowden's austerity.
FDR did not achieve success because his policies didn't work. It probably didn't help that he was surrounded by a bunch of crooks who took large sums of money of the government and did nothing with them, but his proposals simply did not cut it because he was not sorting out the fundamental weakness of the US economy - an overproduction in agriculture.
Balls has always appeared to be an incompetent, even though we know he's got to be hiding some intellect somewhere. You simply can't get his educational background without some ability.
I'm persuaded that there is a real chance that EdM will try to make a change, although he may be forced out of that idea by the continual questions pre election. Just supposing there is a change though I wonder who actually is the least bad candidate? Rachel Reeves has her good points, but seems to flounder on economic issues (despite her background - echoing Balls). Burnham seems to me to always avoid the details, and nice guy though he appears to be I really don't think he's up to the job (a bit like Alan Johnson), so we finish up with Chuka I guess.
However it'd make more sense to ditch the main problem, EdM, and start again.
With poll fever raging thought it worthwhile taking a longer term look at what is happening.Used the weekly You Gov Sunday Times over last 17 weeks as an example. The latest poll today has Con 33(+1), Lab 34 (-1),LD 8(+1),UKIP 13(-2),GRN 6 (-1). Small movements on the face of it.The remarkable thing is how little the polling has changed over the period since Mid October.The range of scores is CON 31-33(median 32),LAB 32-35(median 32),LD 6-8(median 7),UKIP 13-18 (median15),GRN 5-7,(median 6). So is it possible to determine any trend?
In relation to the median Labour are currently +2,Cons+1,LD +1,UKIP -2,GRN unchanged.
UKIP are at their lowest level,Tories and LD at their highest level(And also on the You Gov Sun series.
I would conclude that we are beginning to see a slight deflation of the UKIP bubble a slight move forward for the becalmed Lib Dems, but little significant change in the relative positions of Lab and Con.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
There might be something in that. The problem is that the LDs with the relevant experience are Danny Alexander who would presumably be unacceptable to the PLP as too right wing, or Uncle Vince who would be unacceptable to the general public as so far past it that he is the day before yesterday's man. Also Alexander may well not keep his seat, neither may Uncle Vince come to that. Not sure Labour would want to come into government with jumpy markets to settle and a host of financial issues and put some greenhorn in the driving seat.
Is there any recent polling on Cable? I take the point that he's getting on a bit but the last I recall the voters rated him highly. (Not saying they're right.) Alternatively, Nick Clegg is a competent politician and will probably keep his seat.
If Clegg survives the election and enters coalition with Labour, surely the obvious place for him in light of his experience as a de facto diplomat would be the Foreign Office (in the fairly likely event that Douglas Alexander loses his seat)?
David Laws might just be worth considering as Chancellor in a Lab/Lib coalition given his experience in banking, although it's not difficult to forecast the tabloid headlines...
Can't see Clegg entering coalition with Labour.
Do you mean Labour entering a coalition with Clegg? I'm pretty sure Clegg would be happy to deal with Labour on a personal level, but I can imagine Miliband struggling to sell it to the likes of Harriet Harman.
I just get the impression that Balls' heart is not in this. He is a clever guy who had far more influence over the last government than Miliband and who has a much better idea of how government works.
I think he finds Miliband's bandwagon jumping incoherent and tiresome and I suspect he would have left if it was not for his wife. This is his problem. He cannot allow himself to be the fall guy for any failure of Miliband's because that will hurt her chances. So he has to solider on supporting rubbish and nonsense tolerating insults from Miliband's apparatchiks. It really can't be any fun for him at all.
Does his wife actually want to job? IIRC, she ruled herself out last time (I think because of her kids, who are obviously older now). Equally, she had ME before & I believe that stress can trigger a relapse of the condition, so not sure I'd want that risk in her shoes - even if it's only a 1% probability...
I thought she mainly ruled herself out the last time to support her husband and that he feels the need to do the same for her now. I really can't see why he would be putting up with what he is putting up with at the moment unless she still harboured such ambitions. I honestly think he would be happier in some sort of academic role.
The SNP looks to be smashing it out the park in the social media war, Prescott getting alot of mentions on twitter too - most people trying to stop themselves laughing.
Check the hashtag #GE15 - the SNP completely own it.
B I'm persuaded that there is a real chance that EdM will try to make a change, although he may be forced out of that idea by the continual questions pre election. Just supposing there is a change though I wonder who actually is the least bad candidate? ... so we finish up with Chuka I guess.
Please. Pretty please!
Can you imagine how that sharp-faced slick salesman would go down with normal people?
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
There might be something in that. The problem is that the LDs with the relevant experience are Danny Alexander who would presumably be unacceptable to the PLP as too right wing, or Uncle Vince who would be unacceptable to the general public as so far past it that he is the day before yesterday's man. Also Alexander may well not keep his seat, neither may Uncle Vince come to that. Not sure Labour would want to come into government with jumpy markets to settle and a host of financial issues and put some greenhorn in the driving seat.
Is there any recent polling on Cable? I take the point that he's getting on a bit but the last I recall the voters rated him highly. (Not saying they're right.) Alternatively, Nick Clegg is a competent politician and will probably keep his seat.
If Clegg survives the election and enters coalition with Labour, surely the obvious place for him in light of his experience as a de facto diplomat would be the Foreign Office (in the fairly likely event that Douglas Alexander loses his seat)?
David Laws might just be worth considering as Chancellor in a Lab/Lib coalition given his experience in banking, although it's not difficult to forecast the tabloid headlines...
Can't see Clegg entering coalition with Labour.
Do you mean Labour entering a coalition with Clegg? I'm pretty sure Clegg would be happy to deal with Labour on a personal level, but I can imagine Miliband struggling to sell it to the likes of Harriet Harman.
Bit of half dozen of one, six of t'other - too much personal animosity between Clegg and Miliband imo.
Are we expecting Labour to get a majority? If not why not stick a LibDem in there? Gets Balls out of the way, reduces the need for too many concessions and gives Labour a plausible explanation for any uncanny similarities between their budgets and George Osborne's.
There might be something in that. The problem is that the LDs with the relevant experience are Danny Alexander who would presumably be unacceptable to the PLP as too right wing, or Uncle Vince who would be unacceptable to the general public as so far past it that he is the day before yesterday's man. Also Alexander may well not keep his seat, neither may Uncle Vince come to that. Not sure Labour would want to come into government with jumpy markets to settle and a host of financial issues and put some greenhorn in the driving seat.
Is there any recent polling on Cable? I take the point that he's getting on a bit but the last I recall the voters rated him highly. (Not saying they're right.) Alternatively, Nick Clegg is a competent politician and will probably keep his seat.
If Clegg survives the election and enters coalition with Labour, surely the obvious place for him in light of his experience as a de facto diplomat would be the Foreign Office (in the fairly likely event that Douglas Alexander loses his seat)?
David Laws might just be worth considering as Chancellor in a Lab/Lib coalition given his experience in banking, although it's not difficult to forecast the tabloid headlines...
Can't see Clegg entering coalition with Labour.
Do you mean Labour entering a coalition with Clegg? I'm pretty sure Clegg would be happy to deal with Labour on a personal level, but I can imagine Miliband struggling to sell it to the likes of Harriet Harman.
No problem at all, she'll want to be in government and she'll want a stable arrangement instead of one where they get dicked around by minor parties the whole time and never know when they whole thing's going to suddenly fall apart.
'Ed M has such a poor team, both in terms of competence and presentation'
Surely Ed has addressed that minor issue, with the return of political Goliath, Baron Prescott?
But the Tories have such a mediocre team as well. None of them are good communicators.
In the reserves they have Rees-Mogg and Rory Stewart. Now I concede they don't strike anyone as men-of-the-people, but actually I think that both of them are very good communicators. In both cases I initially didn't rate them, but as they've appeared on QT and the like I've come to appreciate their views. They're almost certainly the wrong sort of 'toffs' to find favour in the Cameron government though.
I've just seen the lawyer of the parents of the three ISIS groupies blaming the authorities for not knocking on their door and warning them what the girls had planned......... For not getting MI5 to pick them up from the airport ......"what" he said " are they doing allowing three 16 year old girls to fly alone to Turkey".......For not making them pack their thermal underwear...(I made that bit up)
So it is still too early to tell whether the defining feature of the general election in Scotland will be a hard-headed examination of how to ditch the Tories, or a sense that 7 May is round two of the closely fought bout on 18 September. All will no doubt become clear in the next ten and a bit weeks.
That said, I think people - especially people supporting one or other of the main parties - tend to vastly overestimate the attractiveness of running a minority government. Basically you'd be continually haggling with your enemies to be able to get anything through parliament, and the point where the whole thing came crashing down would most likely be at one of the minor parties' convenience not yours, and over an issue of their choosing.
What would happen if Miliband proceeded as if he was a majority government (given that LAB+SNP > CON+LD) and just made any vote that matters defacto a vote of confidence. The SNP would have to either pass his votes, or bring the government down and put a Conservative government in.
So it is still too early to tell whether the defining feature of the general election in Scotland will be a hard-headed examination of how to ditch the Tories, or a sense that 7 May is round two of the closely fought bout on 18 September. All will no doubt become clear in the next ten and a bit weeks.
On reflection, the final sentence may be optimistic.....
This should, on paper, be an easier sell than it is proving for Murphy. After all, the received wisdom about Scottish politics is that it is overwhelmingly anti-Tory, and the only alternative to David Cameron as prime minister is Ed Miliband.
Scotland has something the rest of the UK doesn't - a credible leader on the centre-left. Not hard to see why Labour is getting mullered up there.
Nice of Mitchell to give UKIP a boost in Grimsby though.
In fact, in every seat where Labour has treated its voters with contempt. Which, as Scotland is discovering, is a great many of them.
It's even more incomprehensible given how close Mitchell came to losing last time, to the now-UKIP candidate! If he had said it in Torfaen, it might have been accurate...
The SNP looks to be smashing it out the park in the social media war, Prescott getting alot of mentions on twitter too - most people trying to stop themselves laughing.
Check the hashtag #GE15 - the SNP completely own it.
Good morning all and yesterday I saw at least one paper reporting Labour is planning to raid private pension funds (again) if elected in May, this time to pay for tuition fee reductions.
Speaking personally: 1997 when John Major left office pension fund worth £100,000 1997-2010 under Gordon Brown pension fund worth £66,000 2010-2015 under George Osborne £140,000
So for me its no contest. Labour are thieving bastards who have already cheated my generation out of the comfortable retirement we were lectured about saving for by Blair and Brown. Last time they stole £125 billion from private pension funds. Thank goodness I can start drawing on my pension later this year. If Labour wins, others may not be so lucky.
Comments
Reading the Sunday papers it seems that the past couple of weeks of horse trading are largely to demonstrate to the Greek people that its either the Euro & Austerity, or leaving the Euro. The expectation is that Syriza wont be able to agree internally which way to jump and will head off a party split by calling a referendum in which they will blame the Germans for being inflexible and say they tried their best and its clearly one or the other and the people should decide. Before there would have always been suggestions that there were other options and political opponents would accuse Syriza of dictating a false dichotomy in their referendum, the recent negotiations have demonstrated this isn't the case for all to see.
The current coalition is unusual in not having the minor party in any of the top jobs. It's balanced by having a lot of LibDems lower down, which happened partly because LibDem MPs had a veto on the deal while Tory backbenchers had to suck up whatever Osborne and Hague decided. But that kind of arrangement is unlikely to be practical in the 2015 parliament, because there won't be enough LibDems.
and chasing that....
Sri Lanka 182/6 (41.3 ov)
We have a real contest, it seems!
The other interesting question is who is doing the anti--Balls briefing - Miliband staffers eager to deflect attention from their bumbling tax avoiding boss?
The top jobs, beyond PM, are Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and normally in a coalition you's expect the minor party to get one of those.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/22/snp-labour-general-election-cameron-miliband
Who do you trust more to raise your living standard:
Ed + Ed: 25
Dave+ George: 33
While the Lib Dems are evenly split, UKIP are much more likely to favour Dave + George (34:9) and Lab are less convinced of their own guys (69) than Con are of theirs (89).
Irrational of course in current circumstances because Labour would be largest party by some distance, and have most of the people with actual government experience, apart of course from Salmond (assuming etc) but rationality and logic don’t always play the part they should in such decisions.
The biggest danger for Labour as I see it is voters who are not wild or even anti the Tories generally speaking, but just don't trust E&E not to fsck up the economy which seems to be doing all right at the moment.
It's easy for UKIPers to say a single loose cannon but you can't have it both ways. If you are happy to benefit from the racist vote you shouldn't be surprised when your supporters and (in this case councillor) show their hand
As others have commented the smart move would be to ignore the SNP and in effect challenge them to bring down a Labour government and potentially inflict another Tory government on the UK and by extension Scotland.
And from my perspective there’s been too little LD “control” on Tory policies, not too much!
That said, I think people - especially people supporting one or other of the main parties - tend to vastly overestimate the attractiveness of running a minority government. Basically you'd be continually haggling with your enemies to be able to get anything through parliament, and the point where the whole thing came crashing down would most likely be at one of the minor parties' convenience not yours, and over an issue of their choosing.
"To be honest, from the interview, both my wife and I thought the woman had some sort of psychiatric problem, and the knee-jerk reaction of sacking wasn’t entirely appropriate. Clearly she shouldn’t be a councillor, but there’s obviously something more there than simple racism."
That was slightly my feeling too. But it really is a case of living by the sword and dying by it. So much wolf whistling by Farage with his fake bonhomie and his outrageous behaviour towards Van Rompuy it's no wonder that loopy racists think they've arrived home
On topic - no odds on Gove ?
He won't have that freedom in most permutations of a hung Parliament.
In the programme, he says: "For Christ's sake, I was never a member of the Gestapo. I was not a member of the Stasi, I never served a term of imprisonment in my life."
Meet the Ukippers is on BBC Two at 22:00 GMT on Sunday 22 February
No taking one for the country, because their country is Scotland not the UK. Every policy would be met with cries of "It's no fair". They would demand extra goodies for Scotland and nothing else - it's their USP after all.
With Ed unable to deliver on everything, this cry would be believed north of the border.A wipe-out for Labour and Independence beckons.
Would Ed risk it?
New Statesman critics from late 2014 is desperate for
the slightly more left wing Miliband to somehow fail to become PM and will happily find
any excuse to try and keep the loser Cameron in office even if
the voters appear to have decided otherwise
Actually bar the Blairite rump left in the party any coalition of Real Labour
people, SNP, Plaid and the Green would be far more cohesive
and comfortable ideologically with each other than any
of the possible post 2015 Tory coalitions who would just like the last
disastrous five years be simply about power for powers sake
and willing to abandon any principle to attain it
I think he finds Miliband's bandwagon jumping incoherent and tiresome and I suspect he would have left if it was not for his wife. This is his problem. He cannot allow himself to be the fall guy for any failure of Miliband's because that will hurt her chances. So he has to solider on supporting rubbish and nonsense tolerating insults from Miliband's apparatchiks. It really can't be any fun for him at all.
"I just get the impression that Balls' heart is not in this. He is a clever guy who had far more influence over the last government than Miliband and who has a much better idea of how government works."
I think you're right. I find Balls much more coherent than Miliband despite his lack of presentational skills
Worth recalling there's a small but not incredible chance Balls could be axed by the electorate before Miliband gets the chance. The majority's just a thousand, and whilst I expect him to hold on, it's not guaranteed.
"The BBC documentary also features UKIP's Thanet South chairman Martyn Heale speaking about the media attention over his brief past membership of the National Front.
In the programme, he says: "For Christ's sake, I was never a member of the Gestapo. I was not a member of the Stasi, I never served a term of imprisonment in my life."
Unlike this guy:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-parliamentary-candidate-leaves-over-chairman-s-criminal-record-1-6546275
"Rawnsley just like Watt, Wintour, Hodges and the
New Statesman critics from late 2014 is desperate for
the slightly more left wing Miliband to somehow fail to become PM and will happily find
any excuse to try and keep the loser Cameron in office even if
the voters appear to have decided otherwise"
I think only Hodges deserves to be in that list and with him I'd suggest-as we've recently discovered with the Telegraph-he who pays the piper calls the tune. Working out what mercenaries like Hodges actually believe is a waste of energy.
quarters and flatlining it for two years
Introducing a tax on Bedrooms causing suicides whilst cutting
the rate of tax for the richest people in the country
NHS in crisis thanks to unwanted and unelected reorganisation
plans as well as introducing a disastrous phone service staffed
by non medical people directing everyone who calls to A and E
Record numbers of benefit sanctions, Record numbers at previously
unheard of Food Banks..both connected
Wages behind inflation for over four years
Planning to help IS into power in Syria as part of "The Rebels'
only to be stopped by Miliband, Lucas, Galloway, the Nats, Irish
parties and a few sensible Tory rebels
Deficit still high despite the years of failed austerity and
pointless cutting of vital services
Good public sector ft jobs replaced by zero hours and pt and
bogus self employment and 2-80 an hour "apprenticeships"
David Laws might just be worth considering as Chancellor in a Lab/Lib coalition given his experience in banking, although it's not difficult to forecast the tabloid headlines...
That should be Labours next campaign poster
"Taking over a recovering economy that had grown for four
quarters and flatlining it for two years
Introducing a tax on Bedrooms causing suicides whilst cutting
the rate of tax for the richest people in the country
NHS in crisis thanks to unwanted and unelected reorganisation
plans as well as introducing a disastrous phone service staffed
by non medical people directing everyone who calls to A and E
Record numbers of benefit sanctions, Record numbers at previously
unheard of Food Banks..both connected
Wages behind inflation for over four years
Planning to help IS into power in Syria as part of "The Rebels'
only to be stopped by Miliband, Lucas, Galloway, the Nats, Irish
parties and a few sensible Tory rebels
Deficit still high despite the years of failed austerity and
pointless cutting of vital services
Good public sector ft jobs replaced by zero hours and pt and
bogus self employment and 2-80 an hour "apprenticeships""
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-stereotype-map-of-britain-according-to-north-londoners--g1ES8x4Y3g
Imagine the fuss if OGH and Marf posted that...
But Ed M has such a poor team, both in terms of competence and presentation, that he found it very difficult to give that poisoned chalice to anyone else. He did not want to give it to Balls, and seems to have been right to try to keep Balls out.
But it is too late to write on that blank sheet of paper now.
Whilst I still think Labour will be the largest party I find the idea of a government being run by this man truly alarming. We can all only hope it will be brief.
I reckon you chickened out by capitalising the "B" of "Balls" in your tweet. Just think: you could so easily have dismissed it as a typo if needed...
*shakes heads, disapprovingly*
He also has only a dim grasp of historical parallels. At the present moment, he is proposing a Roosevelt-style plan to kick-start the economy. There are two small problems:
(1) The Second Great Depression was actually a demand crisis that caused a debt crisis, so stimulating demand to try and deal with the debts made sense. This is a debt crisis causing a demand crisis, so adding more debt to try and get out of it, even that is possible, is probably not the best idea.
(2) Roosevelt's plan, although most people don't realize this, failed. As late as 1938 the American economy remained in recession. Meanwhile under the more orthodox monetary and fiscal disciplinary policy of Neville Chamberlain, the British economy had mostly recovered by 1934. Even allowing for the fact that many very bad problems still remained (Jarrow, Merthyr, Whitehaven, Glasgow) that's not a bad record and compares favourably with most other countries.
So I would say that whether Balls' heart is in it or not, he is absolutely the wrong choice to be shadow chancellor and he is surely one of the reasons why Labour are effectively losing the economic argument. At the same time, removing him either at this stage or immediately after the election would look like panic, and it's hard to imagine that ending well.
All in all, it's Ed Miliband's misfortune that he had to appoint him at all.
In the Con/LD situation, of course, there are one or two fundamental differences on policy that made this approach unfeasible
I spoke to my mother last night - lifelong Guardian reader, retired teacher, firm anti-Tory - and she surprised me last night when she said that she felt "sorry for Miliband, but he's been such a fool about so many things".
It's not going to happen, is it?
The advantage of ditching Balls now would be to run a very easy to understand anti-austerity platform, in the style of Syrizia. Effectice electorally, but cloud cuckoo land economically.
Penalising the group with the highest turnout in favour of people who don't vote. LOL
* I haven't read beyond the headline, but I assume that he is actually suggesting a restriction of higher rate pension relief. Which is not quite the same thing as the headline suggests...
2) That's plausible, but it should not be forgotten that the 45p rate raises more money than the 50p rate did
3) The NHS was in deep crisis before, and could not have continued as it did without more disasters like Mid Staffordshire. Putting Andy Burnham back in charge would be a seriously bad idea.
4) With regard to food banks, the majority were set up before 2010 or in development (I helped with this). The real story is not that they have grown but that they were badly needed before and the Blair government made it difficult to set them up.
5) Wages have struggled, but under Labour they were actually falling dramatically outside the public sector.
6) The whole idea of Syria was to put the Syria Democratic Alliance into power. With the failure of US/UK intervention, this has collapsed allowing the better funded IS to take over.
7) Yes, the deficit is still too high.
8) Good public sector ft jobs - I had one of these for a few months. I did no work. Is it sensible to pay people large sums of money for no reason? With regard to apprenticeships, it's always better in terms of career development to do something even for a low wage than nothing for a high sum, although I would like that hourly pay to be higher.
Taking over a recovering economy that had grown for four
quarters and flatlining it for two years
A recovery paid for by massive borrowing as a pre election boost. Try again.
Introducing a tax on Bedrooms causing suicides whilst cutting
the rate of tax for the richest people in the country
There is no bedroom tax. What there is, is an extension of a Labour party policy imposed on the private sector rental market. Tax is higher on the top 10 per cent now than at any time in the last parliament. Top rate of tax is 45% which is higher than all but the last few weeks of the previous parliament.
NHS in crisis thanks to unwanted and unelected reorganisation
plans as well as introducing a disastrous phone service staffed
by non medical people directing everyone who calls to A and E
The funding for the NHS was ring fenced over this parliament, Darling confirmed that Labour would cut funding
Record numbers of benefit sanctions, Record numbers at previously
unheard of Food Banks..both connected
Benefit sanctions are imposed on people who abuse the benefit system, don't abuse, dint get sanctioned. Food banks weren't unheard of in the last parliament, you just ignored them.
Wages behind inflation for over four years
Wages now rising faster than inflation, following years of dragging the economy back from the terrible state it was left in by the party who have never left office with unemployment lower than when they came into office.
Planning to help IS into power in Syria as part of "The Rebels'
only to be stopped by Miliband, Lucas, Galloway, the Nats, Irish
parties and a few sensible Tory rebels
Blatant lie
Deficit still high despite the years of failed austerity and
pointless cutting of vital services
Deficit lower than Darlings plans (what little he revealed of his plans)
Good public sector ft jobs replaced by zero hours and pt and
bogus self employment and 2-80 an hour "apprenticeships"
Non productive jobs stripped from the public sector and new private sector jobs created. Have you in all honesty noticed any changes in the services provided by your local council?
FDR did have success in getting the economy out of recession but did not achieve sustained growth because he was constantly battling against deflationary pressures with fiscal policies alone. Keynes tried to explain it to them but they didn't seem to get it until the monetary expansion required by WW2 made it obvious to everyone.
One of the more astonishing results from the recent batch of Scottish opinion polls is the revelation that Ed Miliband is actually less popular in Scotland than David Cameron. Survation's poll for the Daily Record suggested that 23% of Scots think David Cameron would make the best Prime Minister as opposed to 19% who favour the UK Labour leader.
This confirmed similar findings in the Lord Ashcroft constituency polls a fortnight ago. But looking at Scotland's political make up, where the Tories have been moribund for the last three decades, this is surely quite extraordinary. I'm at a loss to explain it myself. Can Scots really favour a privileged, Eton-educated Tory over Labour's state-educated son of a Marxist academic?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/is-loser-eds-only-hope-the-snp.119013382
FDR did not achieve success because his policies didn't work. It probably didn't help that he was surrounded by a bunch of crooks who took large sums of money of the government and did nothing with them, but his proposals simply did not cut it because he was not sorting out the fundamental weakness of the US economy - an overproduction in agriculture.
To me, it feels a credible claim.
I'm persuaded that there is a real chance that EdM will try to make a change, although he may be forced out of that idea by the continual questions pre election. Just supposing there is a change though I wonder who actually is the least bad candidate? Rachel Reeves has her good points, but seems to flounder on economic issues (despite her background - echoing Balls). Burnham seems to me to always avoid the details, and nice guy though he appears to be I really don't think he's up to the job (a bit like Alan Johnson), so we finish up with Chuka I guess.
However it'd make more sense to ditch the main problem, EdM, and start again.
The latest poll today has Con 33(+1), Lab 34 (-1),LD 8(+1),UKIP 13(-2),GRN 6 (-1).
Small movements on the face of it.The remarkable thing is how little the polling has changed over the period since Mid October.The range of scores is CON 31-33(median 32),LAB 32-35(median 32),LD 6-8(median 7),UKIP 13-18 (median15),GRN 5-7,(median 6).
So is it possible to determine any trend?
In relation to the median Labour are currently +2,Cons+1,LD +1,UKIP -2,GRN unchanged.
UKIP are at their lowest level,Tories and LD at their highest level(And also on the You Gov Sun series.
I would conclude that we are beginning to see a slight deflation of the UKIP bubble a slight move forward for the becalmed Lib Dems, but little significant change in the relative positions of Lab and Con.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html
http://cicerossongs.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/implosion-of-british-power.html
Check the hashtag #GE15 - the SNP completely own it.
Can you imagine how that sharp-faced slick salesman would go down with normal people?
But you really couldn't make it up.
Nice of Mitchell to give UKIP a boost in Grimsby though.
So it is still too early to tell whether the defining feature of the general election in Scotland will be a hard-headed examination of how to ditch the Tories, or a sense that 7 May is round two of the closely fought bout on 18 September. All will no doubt become clear in the next ten and a bit weeks.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-labour-or-snp-the-election-dilemma-1-3697951
On reflection, the final sentence may be optimistic.....
Scotland has something the rest of the UK doesn't - a credible leader on the centre-left. Not hard to see why Labour is getting mullered up there.
Mr. Pulpstar, there's a danger, I think, in over-reading how important Twitter is. Volume of tweets will not represent the overall population well.
That said, I still think the SNP will slaughter Labour.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/blair-mcdougtroll
Speaking personally:
1997 when John Major left office pension fund worth £100,000
1997-2010 under Gordon Brown pension fund worth £66,000
2010-2015 under George Osborne £140,000
So for me its no contest. Labour are thieving bastards who have already cheated my generation out of the comfortable retirement we were lectured about saving for by Blair and Brown. Last time they stole £125 billion from private pension funds. Thank goodness I can start drawing on my pension later this year. If Labour wins, others may not be so lucky.