Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We should take a David Miliband comeback seriously…it reall
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We should take a David Miliband comeback seriously…it really could happen
David Miliband is on manoeuvres. There is no doubt about that. Having been out of the spotlight since moving to America, he now clearly intends to make his presence felt. He has made several high profile interventions in recent weeks on where Labour (and his brother) went wrong. Such interventions in politics are rarely accidental. They are planned and for a purpose.
0
Comments
This is not like a long-shot of betting on Obama at 50/1 four years in advance. This is like the bets at 1000/1 on Elvis being found alive, or the Queen having triplets before Christmas.
Miliband Snr’s return does appear at first glance a distinct possibility, although I believe the hurdles that hinder his path are far greater than assumed in the article, not least of which is the opposition from the Brownite faction which still has a major foothold within the party. – Most obvious question however is why would a new leader in situ, encourage such an obvious potential threat?
I fear David M’s time has come and gone, but he’ll always have that banana pix as a reminder.
GE 2015 was not fought on policies, so the question of left or right wing did not arise, and it probably will not matter very much in five years' time either. We know what the 2020 Conservative campaign will look like, directed by Crosby and Messina: personal abuse of the Labour leader, sent to swing voters. Labour must work out how to counter that.
David Miliband would be 54/55 at the time of a 2020 election. That is old for a new elected PM by recent standards - a year younger than Brown (who got the top job unelected by default). Cameron was 43, Blair 44, Major 47, Thatcher 54.
It's sad, but youthful PMs seem popular. There will also be a tranche of MPs relatively unhindered by the toxic Blair years who would be covetously eyeing the top spot.
The Miliband name is also toxic, although nowhere near as much as Blair or Brown. The polling may show him as popular, but a large chunk of that will be name recognition, and also people uninspired by the current candidates. A great deal is being made out of a low figure of 18%.
He also ha a history that might come back to bite him: the Gibson inquiry into extraordinary rendition was scrapped, but how is the Met Police investigation going?
The exception would be if the new leader turns out to as hopeless as, or worse than, Miliband (which Burnham could well be), then Labour might be in a state, and other leadership candidates may decide that pinning another loss on a Miliband would be a good idea, allowing them to come in later.
Even more, when influential members of the Labour party working in a Labour-led No. 10 were responsible for the hideous McBride scandal.
But like SO, I daresay you think that's all okay because the Tories are *EVIL*.
You also state that GE2015 was not fought on policies. I think you might be saying that because Labour's policies were an incoherent, diarrhetic mess.
BBC - George Galloway has officially entered the race to become London's next mayor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33126020
BBC - Nominations for those vying to be the next leader of the Labour Party close at midday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33127323
And I am not sure when you say that "the public see David Miliband as credible". I certainly don´t. But then I don´t see the Labour Party as credible anyway.
The reason you think policy was neither here nor there was because Labour's policy platform in 2015 was so incoherent and dire. If they had come up with a manifesto of good, sensible policies (and there were a few) then policy would have been relevant and would have attracted more attacks. Because many of Labour's policies were self-evidently dire, policy flew out of the window.
It all came down to Miliband's main problem, as stated by PB Tories on here for years: he was good at recognising problems, and utterly terrible at coming up with solutions.
He was terrible at recognising problems.
An energy price freeze, as prices fell through the floor.
A cost of living crisis, that never happened.
Weaponising the NHS
Non-doms
No, forget it. Yesterday's man, and never half the politician he was cracked up to be.
They should have an open primary.
Until Labour works out what it is for this leadership exercise is pretty pointless.
'Not as nasty as the Tories/our cuts will be nicer' has been tested to destruction - and look what happens when faced by a party that really does (appear to) know what it wants - the SNP......
Take another example: zero hour contracts. Not many people on here seemed to support the exploitative ZHC's. It was a good campaign, of the sort Labour should be running, and the Labour MP who campaigned on this needs congratulating. But when the coalition moved to ban exclusive ZHC's (which are now banned as of the 26th May, I think), Labour went further and talked about banning all ZHCs, regardless of whether people on them liked them. They sawa problem, but their solution was again barmy.
And so on.
Weaponising the NHS was not a policy; it was a campaign. A rather sick one, but a campaign nonetheless.
And what CCHQ also did very cleverly was to shut down immediately any political attacks on it: hence the sudden (unfunded) commitment to NHS growth, and the law to stop the evil ... erm, themselves ... raising taxes.
He is not the answer to Labour's problems: he is one of Labour's problems.
If Labour had developed a sane policy platform for the manifesto, that is where the attacks would have gone. Instead you had a leader who was seen as a joke (e.g. Ed Stone was an utterly unforced error), and a mess of a policy platform.
There were so many open goals against the Conservatives, and Labour missed every single one.
You attitude sums up the problem Labour has. Too many of its supporters are in utter denial about why they lost this year. And they will vote like Lemmings for another leader who will also fail.
I mean, that piece of scum Burnham for leader? Really?
And as other are pointing out, let he who is without sin cast the first stone....
The Blairite grimace and hand gesture in the above picture say it all.
It is undoubtedly true that the current field for leadership is poor and uninspiring. It is possible in the run up to the next Parliament that there might be an element of desperation. But which section of the current party is likely to think that David is the answer? Which leader is likely to allow him to even get into Parliament?
Labour need to move on from the Blair/Brown years, not go back to them. David may well become a Labour "big beast" or outrider in the media. But I don't see him back in the Commons and I don't see him as a candidate.
So for the umpteenth time: Where Labour lost was not on policy, because policy barely came into it. Rather, it was about the mechanics of the campaign, and that is what the Labour leadership contenders ought to be addressing but are not.
It is time to move on, not backwards!
Don't think David would be any better, both split the party Ed played all the wrong notes in the wrong order, David might just play some of the right notes but in the wrong order. Ed was defeated so would David.
Labour need to skip a generation
Hardly surprising, it’s a novel experience for them - The Labour party appears to have groomed and nurtured the pair for great things since puberty; every pathway swept and door opened, from spad to safe seats to ministerial position. - For all the talk of the Old Etonian’s right to rule, it never applied more so than to the Milibands.
If they are to be at the races the next time it is essential that the next leader recognises this and works hard on putting together a credible and coherent plan for office from the day he or she is elected. No more blank pieces of paper but policies developed, tested, sold and then sold again taking into account the criticisms, not just by the leader but by the entire shadow cabinet. The British people deserve a choice. Its Labour's job to provide it.
I know Liam Byrne isn't popular at the moment with anyone, but I think his diagnosis of Labour's problem was almost spot on. Unfortunately for Labour, because of his note, he has no credibility left.with them.
The thought that there could be a change of leadership in 2018 is ridiculous. First, the incumbent would, rightly, feel aggrieved at having to step down, not to say a vote now for a non-candidate would make a mockery of the selection process; and secondly, whoever took over, or was crowned, would scarcely have time to create a relationship with the British public.
They must be creative, jettison Andy, Yvette and, dear god help us, David and find someone new....of course I have no idea who that would be.
Labour should not rely any more on family dynasties as so often the children and grandchildren do not have the qualities of the family founder.
So they need to address the question of higher taxes head on. Not just for bankers but for the majority. If we really want Nordic level of state services we would need to pay Nordic level of taxes. Can they win that argument? There is a perception that the UK is heavily taxed. Actually, it isn't but there is an argument to be made.
If the State is to have more money there is a very wide spread concern that it would simply waste it. No one wants to pay taxes for that so the test of efficiency is key to winning the first argument. How do you achieve that? Blairite style reforms, the use of the private sector or some other way? A credible answer needs to be found or the argument for higher taxes is unwinnable.
What are the priorities for the extra cash? Presumably the NHS but what else? There is a strong argument that we are not spending enough on education in this country and that the poor bear the consequences of that in terms of lack of opportunity. What works where and why? Again some serious work is needed.
By the next election the State's share of GDP should be in the 30s. The argument it should be higher to help the disadvantaged in society is not unwinnable. But there is a lot of work to be done.
It is important not to refight the last parliament, let alone the Blair Brown years. Issues such as the benefit cap and bedroom tax will be long in the tooth by 2020, and the focus needs to be forward thinking.
All three main candidates, however, should enable a sensible debate about the next steps for the party to take place in the coming months. Once they get past the twin dangers of fatalism and self-flagellation, Labour will be able to face up to their serious but not hopeless position and put together a strategy for 2020.
If anyone sees it I still await the delight of watching the Sky election night coverage- might it be made available on DVD for a Scrap xmas present?
They could be leader of the Labour party, but that's long way from being PM as ED found out.
It is true also that if a deal is reached with Greece then David Cameron's negotiating position is weakened, but not to the same extent. Losing Britain would be a grievous blow for the EU all by itself.
A problem D. Miliband faces is that those currently in place will not want him returning. It's a bit similar to the Boris problem. Those who've been plugging away in government for five years are unlikely to welcome the prospect of being led by someone who has not, and who might not be seen as the most serious of leaders/bosses.
Mr. Scrapheap, ITV coverage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4DsAi2dI70
There is a somewhat biased report this morning which is headlined by, 'Elite firms are sidelining the UK's bright working-class applicants in favour of privileged, "polished" candidates, a report says.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33109052
As an employer in not an elite-firm, we require five main qualities from new employees:
1. To have the factual knowledge required
2. The ability to use that factual knowledge to provide solutions to difficult problems posed by clients.
3. To have a good command of written and spoken English so that it can be understood easily by any English-speaker globally.
4. To focus on knowledge and skill self-improvement - both in an out of work.
5. To be able to present themselves with some confidence (after some training) before global clients.
Surely this is not too much to ask from our education system - but it is quite apparent that the huge emphasis on the dubious merits of enforced 'diversity' has totally ignored the requirements of the employer in a global market-place. Employers should not be expected to remedy (and bear the costs) the defects of our education system.
You sadly miss the point: as long as intelligent Labourites such as yourself go on thinking that the reason they lost was that the Conservatives were horrid to Ed (whilst ignoring McBride et al), then you will lose.
You are asking the new leadership to head in utterly the wrong direction: on the mechanism of the campaign rather than on developing a coherent package of messages and policies.
If Labour follow your advice, they will lose in 2020.
Which is exactly why it should happen.
'England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example'
You're right about the note (and it was only a poor joke anyway), but Liam's view is ... Labour did well in areas of high immigration and "urban intellectuals", but lost much of the vote they expected. The LD's defectors chose Ukip rather than Labour, and Labour now also have a "demographic problem". The old gits went elsewhere and the old gits are the future.
Next time, there will be a larger proportion of old gits for Labour to ignore. Think the Chuckle Brothers and not Russell Brand.
OK, that's just my summary, but the conclusion is that the 35% group doesn't exist or is much less that 35%. He also wants more greenery but that may conflict with the aforementioned old gits.
Edited extra bit: np, Mr. Scrapheap. Enjoy Owen Jones' gradual realisation of the result.
Edited extra bit 2: Fallout 4's character creator may've been shown, but I missed the video.
Fallout is a real time sink, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
On the other hand, Ubisoft's approach of Assassinising every game they seem to make is not going down well (some reckon they're effectively just reskinning the graphics and retaining the mechanics).
Importantly, you can craft a kennel for Dogmeat. Who I hope to actually bloody find this time.
.....
Although I did plan on waiting until the price drops.
Turning it back to the topic of MIliband: I still don't buy that Labour's undergone such a culture shift. It's easy now, 3-5 years before the event, to claim they'll be big and brave. But in 3 years it'll be the middle of a second [technically first, but it'll feel like the second] Conservative Government in a row. Don't forget Miliband enjoyed a 10 point lead around the corresponding point last time.
Labour would need to work bloody hard not to look at least in with a chance of power in 2015 when polling occurs in 2013. And then the window to change closes [even if Labour had the nerve to do it].
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, aye but no release date. I think Fallout 4's 10 November, which is a little later than the earlier rumour of 23 October, but not much.
Personally I always thought he was a waste of space...
Labour have a big problem in that no matter what the membership may want I do not see any of the candidates offering it. Labour are of course ostracising the wrong prime minister. Only by defenestrating Brown not Blair will thy purge their sins.
He'd also have to taint himself by displacing Labour's first woman leader.
The most likely outcome of a traumatic end for Greece in the Euro, is that the Eurozone ends up becoming ever more tightly entwined. "To stop this happening again, we much strengthen the bonds, etc etc." This, of course, makes it increasingly hard for those members of the EU that are not members of the Eurozone.
The - as I've said many time before - Eurozone is going to look more and more like a country. There will be fiscal transfers between the various parts. There will be common Eurozone debt. And, in time, Eurozone MEPs will in the European Parliament will start to exercise democratic oversight of the running of the Eurozone.
I don't believe it is possible to square the circle between the EU and the Eurozone. Essentially, I don't see how a satisfactory arrangement can be worked out between the two groups of countries: they will be pushing ahead for integration, and will regard us as standing in their way. We will feel that the EU is being run for the Eurozone and not for all its members.
As a result, it's hard to see how ourselves, the Swedes and possibly the Danes can remain a part of the EU (Denmark is different, in that they still have the Krona, but have an essentially permanent peg to the Euro).
It would be better we (and the other EU leaders) recognised this issue now, and organised a velvet divorce. I would suggest that the non-Eurozone members become Associate EU members, which remain part of the single market (like EFTA/EEA), but just like with Norway or Switzerland, are not subject to EU regulation on working conditions, or the like. We remove ourselves from the CAP and from the bulk of the contributions (which should instead be between Eurozone members).
Imagine that David Miliband was still an MP and was running to be Labour leader. Which, if any, of the following candidates for Labour leader would then make you most likely to vote Labour?
David Miliband 18
Andy Burnham 6
Yvette Cooper 4
Liz Kendall 3
Jeremy Corbyn 3
Mary Creagh 1
Not sure 27
Not applicable as I'd sooner trap my manhood in a door than vote Labour* 37
* Actual wording was Not applicable - I would never vote Labour anyway
http://bit.ly/1JSLjpF
New York's rent regulation fight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32891544
Is this a future model for London?
They discourage investment in housing stock. They prevent the efficient allocation of scarce resource. They subvert the price mechanism. And they make landlords evil.
In many ways this is THE choice that the country has to face on the domestic front, in the same way as the EU is the main choice in terms of external relations.
That's exactly what we want Lab to keep telling itself: huge conspiracy, MSM, personal attacks, or, most recently and gaining traction: actually if you look at it this way (turns page upside down), we won the election.
Anything that makes them feel better about and somehow justifies the shellacking they got the better.
In fact I thought Jim Murphy on the radio this morning was actually quite good.
I find that listening to him is a bit like listening to the weather report---with my firmest intent, by the time they get to my area my mind is elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syyl0gfNDRE
No leadership candidate is equal to this; Mr. Bumble the Beadle and Mrs Balls are in denial and then there's just the other one, Ms Who.
As suggestions, though, the clause 4 moment should probably be one or ideally all of
- we utterly fecked the economy yet again, and we're sorry
- we admit the Tories do not in fact want and never have wanted or intended to privatise the NHS, and they are doing a pretty good job
- we now realise it's wrong to hate and expropriate wealth creators and so we now favour low taxes.
If Labour did all three of those they have basically addressed the three biggest electoral turn-offs, which are Labour's incompetence, Labour's dishonesty and Labour's cancerous envy. With those neutralised there'd be a lot less to fear from a Labour government.
The problem for Labour, of course, is where it then goes. For many of its activists, if you can only win elections by sincerely promising not to feck the economy, lie about the NHS or expropriate people you hate and envy, what is the actual point of winning elections?
That is a very interesting take on things. It will also be interesting to see what Grexit does to opinion polling in the UK. It will be difficult to make the economic case for the EU if the markets are racked with volatility due to Eurozone troubles all over again. Perhaps if the opinion polls look like the British are going to vote out, it will have a similar panic among the political elite as happened with Scotland. That might get Britain the reform we need.
They are as we know very exercised about how few state sector pupils get into Oxbridge, a disproportionate number coming from the private and grammar sectors. These are among the dozen or so universities producing graduates of the calibre you are talking about.
The trouble with any attempt to enshrine anti-selective bias into their admissions is going to be that it will necessarily entail racial bias against Asian pupils.
And I think the reason is that it would look politically awful (i.e. a breach of sovereignty) to have some other country's officials working on your soil. The first time a French citizen was treated badly by a British customs agent on French soil would be on the front page of Le Monde.
They're determined to elect their own IDS, aren't they?
Trouble is, even if they summoned the balls to knife him, the replacement would be another IDS.
@DavidLammy: I won't be voting @Corbyn4Leader but I've nominated him because the next Labour leader should be chosen by members and supporters, not MPs.
@jon_trickett: A significant number of MPs will nominate Jeremy this morning. Watch this space.....