Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour should not be too pessimistic about their chances of
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour should not be too pessimistic about their chances of taking power in 2020
For example, Jon Cruddas in today’s Observer says “this could be the greatest crisis the Labour party has ever faced” whilst some are suggesting, that Sir Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and someone who has been an MP for a little over week, is the man to save Labour, though it Tears for Keir’s fans as he ruled out running this morning.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/jim-messina-british-elections-118001.html?hp=t1_r#.VVihUEswwpE
He is the last man standing.
Priti Patel (or Justine Greening) should be the next Conservative leader.
No-one else in the Tory party commands the same level of respect amongst floating voters for their leadership than David Cameron.
Osborne is competent but doesn't speak and look human. Boris? Well, we know the problems with Boris. It won't be Gove or May, for different reasons.
I think it will need to be one of the newer generation. Possibly Sajid Javid, but he needs more senior level experience.
And the very existence of a ''Lab/SNP/PC/SDLP/Green/Lib Dem bloc'' is enough to concentrate any sane voters mind.
Plus - the tories are on 37. The thinly held defences of the river crossing at 40 are not far away.
Its self evident that it could all go horribly wrong but thats for Labour to hope for.
I wouldn't want to make any cast-iron calls about the next 10 years. Please: let's try and avoid the hubris.
We simply do not know what's going to happen.
What's funny is it is happening on both sides - Tories overly optimistic, and Labour overly pessimistic - it'll be interesting to see who is right this time.
It is quite possible that a miracle will raise Labour from the dead, but I prefer the Tories policy of feeding the 5000.
(ummm.... )
No names, no pack drill, but someone requires shooting for that contorted effort.
* reflects, soberly. *
Hmmmm.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Fnnnhh. Pffft.
Chortle.
Guffaw.
It's a Mad World.
Based on my canvass of Labour members recently(sample size <10 in London),Andy Burnham is way ahead followed by Liz Kendall.
Balls is holding back members from voting for Yvette and Tristam Hunt is going down like a lead balloon.
BY the way, isn't Tom Watson an ex UNITE official.. what hand does he have in the leadership process?
For the LDs Norman Lamb was completely out of his depth and seemed unprepared for the interview.
Looking forward to the July budget, it would be a good move to raise the higher tax threshold which is £31,786 up to £40,000, also to introduce a 10% rate from £10,600 to £15,000.
The way IC / NI system works is due to the sort of overhaul that pensions have undergone.
But then I am 99% certain they wont, instead introducing the stupid and pointless "no tax rises" law.
The US destabilising Macedonia using Salafi jihadists. It's Chechnya(http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/15/what-if-putin-is-telling-the-truth/), Syria(http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line) and Kosovo in particular all over again.
Mr. Financier, the mascara won't fund itself
Or, and here is possible future time paths. Take your pick
1. Cameron dies or is disabled in some way long before 2020
2. Britain votes for Brexit, but a weak Tory government forces another referendum under pressure from the EU: Britain will vote until it says yes to staying in the EU.
3. Britain votes to stay in the EU and Cameron calls for early elections on the basis of the win in the hope of a massive majority.
4. The EU gets itself involved in a war with Russia over Ukraine and calls on Britain to contribute thousands of troops we haven't got.
5. Nato gets involved in a war with Russia and ditto.........................................
6. America draws Britain into a war in the Middle East. Again.
7. Vanilla may not ever work correctly again.
:CON LAB LIB SNP Plaid N.Ire
325 202 5 49 3 16
What appears to have happen is a reduction in the quality of those around the leadership and thus a real lack of credible candidates when the inevitable happened.
I know parties don't tend to look to their own future - it is seen as undermining the current leadership.
But Labour is lacking in candidates with a good profile and real leadership potential (and as little baggage as possible) - and that is similar, in a number of ways, to the post-Thatcher (and post-Major) years for the Tories.
Irrespective of the policies, you need to rebuild the strength of those round the top table - in terms of their intellectual punch and communication skills. Burnham, Cooper, Creagh, Kendall and Hunt are all lacking in those areas (to differing degrees) and there doesn't seem anyone lurking who is better.
A sorry state of affairs for any party. Potentially disastrous in the main opposition party.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/09/our-ge15-prediction-competition-results-chart-showing-con-leads-recorded-in-final-polls/
I actually think Labour did have a succession plan in place; it was just split into the two Blairite and Brownite camps. For Blairities, I think they in large part expected David Miliband to be leader. For the Brownites, after tearing Labour, they begun to tear themselves a part. I think Brown was intially keen on Balls' being his successor, but others such as Miliband came into the frame after 2007. The trouble is that the Brownite fraction post 2007 have had way too much influence and control over the party. I don't like Tony Blair, but at least he did win elections. Brownism has been a unmitigated failure, and nearly all of those associated with Brown have failed.
As for Labour, I agree with TSE's analysis that 258 weeks is a long time in politics. With so many issues for this government to deal with, and the Tories' losing Cameron in 2020, it is by no means guaranteed how the political landscape will look in 2020.
"In 258 weeks there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase their majority"
The Labour leadership does seem like it'll be running a fair old while. Surely that'll work against Burnham, as the rubbish frontrunner?
And then it will be last man (or woman) standing for the curse of Sion...
- got on a boat
- got out of a car
- ate a burger
- cried at a funeral
and STILL Labour couldn't win
Unbelievable
I would like to see some real reform of the income tax system. Take the current thick book of rules and make it a page or two, easy enough for a sole trader to do his own tax return.
How's about a broadly revenue neutral range of measures such as:
1. Serious raise in the minimum wage, accompanied by
2. Reduction in Employer NI so as not to heap costs onto businesses caused by 1
3. Get rid of the tapered loss of personal allowances at 100k
4. Get rid of the tapered loss of child benefit at 50-60k
5. Increase 20% personal allowance to 30 hours of new min wage
6. Increase 40% threshold to 50k immediately
7. Reduce 45% threshold from 150k to 100k to offset 3 and 4 above.
8. Increase child benefit rate.
9. Reduce tax credits paid to offset most of the above, cut in half the number of people paying tax then having to claim some of it back again through the bureaucracy.
By carefully doing the above they reduce a pile of government cost in paperwork, make a load of people less dependent on the state for some of their income, and from a political view "Raises the wages of the lowest" paid and lead to "More people paying the highest rate*" of tax.
*Good soundbite but obviously bollocks in practice, due to points 3 and 4.
@GdnPolitics: 'We need to think radically': Stephen Kinnock on Labour’s woes and following in his father’s footsteps http://t.co/8yCC6bTB3C
On the other hand the Tories promised us more lovely cuts.
Also causes loads of bureaucratic screw-ups leading to people either underpaid and dependent on foodbanks, or overpaid and persued vigorously for the return of the money.
Better surely to scrap the bureaucracy and their large pensions, allowing people to keep more of their own money in the first place.
South East region:
2015:
Con: 2,234,440 (50.85%)
Lab: 804,774 (18.31%)
UKIP: 641,475 (14.60%)
LD: 413,586 (9.41%)
Greens: 233,759 (5.32%)
Others: 66,407 (1.51%)
TOTAL: 4,394,441
2010:
Con: 2,140,895 (49.86%)
LD: 1,124,786 (26.19%)
Lab: 697,567 (16.24%)
UKIP: 177,269 (4.13%)
Greens: 62,124 (1.45%)
Others: 91,599 (2.13%)
TOTAL: 4,294,240
Changes:
Con: +0.99%
Lab: +2.07%
UKIP: +10.47%
LD: -16.78%
Greens: +3.87%
Others: -0.62%
Swing, Con to Lab: 0.54%
This 2015 election should be catalogued under Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong......
Jim and his boys are showing there true colours, as they try and settle scores as they edge towards the exit door, the SEC should reconvene ASAP and sack Jim and his team before they do any more damage.
One of the challenges for SLAB selecting a new leader is to make sure they choose someone who is going to win a seat.
Tax credits allow for the remuneration of people who would be difficult to access through the tax system per se. For example (with the exception of self-assessors) there is no differential rate for mothers or carers.
They aren't necessarily the only way but it is difficult to imagine a system to achieve the same without the same overheads, if you assume it is needed.
'A Labour spokesman denied there was a plan to carve the pledges on a cliff face.' hahaha
Anyone who COULD quote even one of them should be taken out and shot for not having stopped the damned awful debacle in the first place.
If anyone thinks there's a dearth of talent for possible leader of UK Labour, they should take a look at SLab to see the real meaning of the term.
LAB - 3
CON - 18
UKIP - 79
LDEM - 341
GRN - 442
The LibDems really are in trouble !!
Unfortunate for them that Liberal Democats = LD = Lost Deposits
Which reminds me, several months ago, I asked him whether he was intending to publish "Son of VIPER" the original version of which had proved very accurate at the time of the 2010 GE.
I never received his reply ..... somehow or other, I fancy he had a forecast model up and running for his own consumption, which seemingly he didn't share with his Dad, or more likely Senior simply didn't want to know!
I can only repeat that Cameron has missed a trick. We should abolish the Lords and have more but smaller constituencies which would work bore equably with FPTP.
750 seats?
I didn't see the point of targeting Lib Dem seats two weeks ago as under Clegg in a Hung Parliament the Lib Dems were more likely to back Cameron than Miliband plus SNP. But winning the seats altogether has changed the landscape entirely.
Realistically barring some incredible Lib Dem recovery PC/SDLP/Green/Lib Dem won't be more than about 20 or so now. DUP/UUP is around 9, so excluding the SNP that's a net difference of 11 in favour of Labour from the "others".
That means far more than last time, the choice next time is either Tory or Labour plus SNP. With the Lib Dems neutralised, that is the choice now.
Plato summed it up perfectly the other day. She envisaged a bunch of squawking chimpanzees dancing around it in the year 3001.
My own long term tax regime would be rates of 15, 25 and 35%.
The name "tax credits" is completely misleading. They aren't "credits" against tax paid. They have nothing to do with tax. They are actually what used to be called supplemetary benefit.
eg Single person, 2 children, gross pay £10,000:
Tax paid = £nil
Tax credits received = £8,000
Child benefit received = £2,000
Net money in pocket = £20,000
(+ Housing Benefit which is separate)