politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why getting a credible leader is so important to LAB: YouGo

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why getting a credible leader is so important to LAB: YouGov polling on why the party lost

Whichever of the four ins he/she will have to be perceived a lot better than Ed was if the red team is to have any chance whatsoever.

Read the full story here

MTimT

First?

MTimT

FPT JosiasJessop said:

"IMO any engineer worth his salt should study how things fail."

Absolutely agree. Not just engineers - anyone working in a system with high consequences when things go wrong. Economists and executive managers listen up

[Deleted User]

So another loss it is then - none of the four is remotely credible as PM.

Plato

"Labour's leadership had become stuck in the past..."

Well that's going to be tested to destruction with J. Corbyn in charge.

JosiasJessop

MTimT said:

FPT JosiasJessop said:

"IMO any engineer worth his salt should study how things fail."

Absolutely agree. Not just engineers - anyone working in a system with high consequences when things go wrong. Economists and executive managers listen up

FPT:

There's a possibly apocryphal story from the 1960s. A company was trying to sell a new gubbins (electronic, I think) to NASA for the Apollo program. NASA agreed to a meeting, and flew people over.

The company arranged a load of management in a room, and they were surprised when a group of men with pocket-protectors walked in. The management team gave the spiel about how brilliant their product was, how well it would do the job, and how NASA would be stupid not to use it.

At the end they asked for any questions. A NASA engineer simply asked: "How does it fail?"

None of the management knew, and after this they ensured they had engineers in all their meetings with NASA.

(I'd love to know where I heard this story, but cannot remember)

calum

So it wasn't just fear of the SNP. Anyway Nicola Sturgeon's been lecturing the Chinese on women's rights. Tomorrow's Daily Mail headline - " Chinese stock market falls 8% after Nicola Sturgeon's speech ":

https://twitter.com/ScotGovFM/status/625627348818333696

MTimT

JosiasJessop said:

MTimT said:

FPT JosiasJessop said:

"IMO any engineer worth his salt should study how things fail."

Absolutely agree. Not just engineers - anyone working in a system with high consequences when things go wrong. Economists and executive managers listen up

FPT:

There's a possibly apocryphal story from the 1960s. A company was trying to sell a new gubbins (electronic, I think) to NASA for the Apollo program. NASA agreed to a meeting, and flew people over.

The company arranged a load of management in a room, and they were surprised when a group of men with pocket-protectors walked in. The management team gave the spiel about how brilliant their product was, how well it would do the job, and how NASA would be stupid not to use it.

At the end they asked for any questions. A NASA engineer simply asked: "How does it fail?"

None of the management knew, and after this they ensured they had engineers in all their meetings with NASA.

(I'd love to know where I heard this story, but cannot remember)

Great story. The other day I used the phrase 'resilient systems fail gracefully and recover quickly' at a meeting with NIH managers. It was like I was talking a foreign language which was being interpreted correctly for the first time.

handandmouse

The question appears to have been whether EdM was "good enough" as party leader, as opposed to "credible" which would tie in much more with the whole "economic credibility" argument that's being made by Kendall supporters in particular.

It's almost a truism to say that EdM wasn't good enough - the party he led lost the election, after all.

There aren't many surprises here. 50% of LD voters saying Labour not having a clear anti-austerity alternative was one of their main reasons for losing is quite interesting.

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Tissue_Price

I don't really think the polling should be at the heart of this leadership campaign: the electorate will actually make up their mind on the new Labour leader based on their first month or so in the job (3 months if they're lucky). But this sort of polling should be used to chuck the likes of Ed overboard later in the parliament!

Though it seems pretty obvious that electing Corbyn would lead to a first month that would not be a good advert for the Labour Party.

AlastairMeeks

handandmouse said:

The question appears to have been whether EdM was "good enough" as party leader, as opposed to "credible" which would tie in much more with the whole "economic credibility" argument that's being made by Kendall supporters in particular.

It's almost a truism to say that EdM wasn't good enough - the party he led lost the election, after all.

There aren't many surprises here. 50% of LD voters saying Labour not have a clear anti-austerity alternative was one of their main reasons for losing is quite interesting.

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Plato

There are two very problematic issues with saying that the deficit can be put off da-de-da.

1. Interest payments on it are massive - they're bigger than every penny spent on Education and Defence put together. Not eliminating it is a false economy - that leads to the next one >

2. Putting it off shovels our spending onto the shoulders of our children and if another downturn comes - leaves us very vulnerable to yet another 2008-style recession as we are carrying too much weight. Interest rates won't stay low forever either.

It's seductive to think it can be ignored or put off - but it can't unless we're prepared to take a big gamble.

handandmouse said:

The question appears to have been whether EdM was "good enough" as party leader, as opposed to "credible" which would tie in much more with the whole "economic credibility" argument that's being made by Kendall supporters in particular.

It's almost a truism to say that EdM wasn't good enough - the party he led lost the election, after all.

There aren't many surprises here. 50% of LD voters saying Labour not have a clear anti-austerity alternative was one of their main reasons for losing is quite interesting.

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

dr_spyn

Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 43s44 seconds ago
Metropolitan Police has launched a criminal investigation into allegations of drug-related offences involving a member of the House of Lords

Plato

Something you don't see too often

Female rapist faces jail after being found guilty of running paedophile ring which subjected five young children to horrific abuse over more than a decade

Marie Black, 34, of Norwich, found guilty of running a paedophile ring
Ten people - including six women - stood trial for the child sex abuse
Black denied 26 offences but was convicted of 23 of them including rape, conspiracy to rape and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
She played an instrumental role using children as 'sexual play-things'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176340/Woman-faces-jail-guilty-running-paedo-ring.html#ixzz3h79Z3tWX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The_Apocalypse

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

TheWhiteRabbit

Plato said:

Something you don't see too often

Female rapist faces jail after being found guilty of running paedophile ring which subjected five young children to horrific abuse over more than a decade

Marie Black, 34, of Norwich, found guilty of running a paedophile ring
Ten people - including six women - stood trial for the child sex abuse
Black denied 26 offences but was convicted of 23 of them including rape, conspiracy to rape and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
She played an instrumental role using children as 'sexual play-things'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176340/Woman-faces-jail-guilty-running-paedo-ring.html#ixzz3h79Z3tWX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Well technically she can't commit rape per se. But aiding, abetting, couselling or procuring rape carries the same charge.

tyson

Finally.... to all of us that knew. All this nonsense that Labour lost the last election because it lost touch, too left wing bla, bla, bla bloody bla. Liz Kendell can bloody well sod off because she is almost on par with Ed Miliband on the credibility count.

The 2015 election manifestos- noone could have told the different between any of them, aside from the SNP.

Labour lost the last election because Ed Miliband was a nob with bells and whistles attached to his head. Sorry Ed- but you were hopelessly out of your depth, your were a geeky, dweeby, nerd, and simply not credible to lead a pissup in a brewery.

handandmouse

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

I was about to remark on that, but the counterargument would I suspect be that this statement overlaps with some of the others e.g. the one about welfare spending.

EPG

Cheers to Paddy Power for cancelling bets on year of Euro referendum after I put them on. An interesting business model powered by PR for low-information punters, but not a very courageous one.

Danny565

So almost nobody thought Labour was too left-wing, and (slightly) more people thought Labour wasn't giving an alternative to austerity, than thought they were too soft on the deficit.

Plato

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

AlastairMeeks

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

That's not correct. It was listed as one of the top two or three reasons why Labour lost by just 7%. That doesn't exclude the possibility that others also thought he had done this.

In this poll from the weekend, 27% thought Ed Miliband had taken the party too far to the left:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

Only existing Labour voters clearly thought otherwise in aggregate.

Similarly it is only Labour voters who in aggregate want to see the party move left.

The_Apocalypse

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

AlastairMeeks

I don't know whether this New Statesman article has yet been linked to, but it looks significant to me:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/im-more-convinced-ever-jeremy-corbyn-going-win

dr_spyn

High profile raid which just happens to have press or BBC in wait?

http://t.co/NsrZRiSLLA

JEO

What this poll shows is the difficulty in winning back votes from all three of the Tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems:

- Conservative voters want Labour to criticise their record in government and to be credible on the deficit
- Liberal Democrat voters want them to praise their record in government and to be anti-austerity
- UKIP voters want them to be tougher on immigration and welfare

You simply can't try to be all things to all people. If I was a Labour election strategist, I would see the Liberal Democrat voters are the smallest group of the three, and realise I can't appease them while winning back Tory and UKIP voters. Instead, they should focus on winning back the other voters, moving right on spending (especially welfare) and immigration.

Instead it looks like Labour will do the diametric opposite.

Plato

I'm not sure how you can detach all those things from the left-right spectrum.

And given a laundry list of things to choose - and only two or three options, something abstract like Too Leftwing doesn't strike me as something I'd pick from the rest which are attitudinal/real world.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

Danny565

I hate to go all HYUFD here, but the IPSOS-MORI poll last week provided some surprisingly strong evidence that Burnham would pass the "credible leader" test:

Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?

Boris Johnson - 32%
Theresa May - 28%
Andy Burnham - 27%
George Osborne - 23%
Yvette Cooper - 22%
Jeremy Corbyn - 17%
Liz Kendall - 16%
Michael Gove - 13%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3602/Burnham-leads-the-pack-but-all-Labour-hopefuls-have-work-to-do.aspx

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx

JEO

Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?

Disraeli

51% of UKIP voters put this as their number 1 reason:
Labour was not tough enough on immigration and welfare spending

A Corbyn led Labour party won't find it easy to attract many of those back from UKIP who previously were Labour voters.

The_Apocalypse

antifrank said:

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

That's not correct. It was listed as one of the top two or three reasons why Labour lost by just 7%. That doesn't exclude the possibility that others also thought he had done this.

In this poll from the weekend, 27% thought Ed Miliband had taken the party too far to the left:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

Only existing Labour voters clearly thought otherwise in aggregate.

Similarly it is only Labour voters who in aggregate want to see the party move left.

From that around 39% weren't sure, and of that 40% were Conservatives, so it certainly isn't conclusive, even if you discount the 21% who want Labour to go left, and the 13% who feel he got the balance right.

The_Apocalypse

Plato said:

I'm not sure how you can detach all those things from the left-right spectrum.

And given a laundry list of things to choose - and only two or three options, something abstract like Too Leftwing doesn't strike me as something I'd pick from the rest which are attitudinal/real world.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

Because your average person will not see being tough on immigration or welfare as right wing, that's why.

tyson

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

You say it so much better than I do Apocalypse. People just couldn't see beyond Ed the dweeby, dork to give anyone or anything a hearing beyond.

Good people like Nick Palmer lost because of Ed's supercilious vanity that has virtually destroyed his family and the Labour party. Arghhhhh.......

JEO

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

What does "in touch" mean? If it means saying sympathetic things while not supporting policies in line with them, then that is exactly what Miliband did. If you don't like the current scale of immigration, you're not going to be responsive to a politician saying "I feel your pain", you want them the commit to cutting immigration. The problem is too many politicians feel like the public are idiots that can just be chatted up nicely.

The_Apocalypse

Danny565 said:

I hate to go all HYUFD here, but the IPSOS-MORI poll last week provided some surprisingly strong evidence that Burnham would pass the "credible leader" test:

Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?

Boris Johnson - 32%
Theresa May - 28%
Andy Burnham - 27%
George Osborne - 23%
Yvette Cooper - 22%
Jeremy Corbyn - 17%
Liz Kendall - 16%
Michael Gove - 13%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3602/Burnham-leads-the-pack-but-all-Labour-hopefuls-have-work-to-do.aspx

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx

What's more amusing is that Corbyn's figure isn't too far off Osborne's, and that Johnson, May, and Burnham are all seen as more credible than Osborne!

The_Apocalypse

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

What does "in touch" mean? If it means saying sympathetic things while not supporting policies in line with them, then that is exactly what Miliband did. If you don't like the current scale of immigration, you're not going to be responsive to a politician saying "I feel your pain", you want them the commit to cutting immigration. The problem is too many politicians feel like the public are idiots that can just be chatted up nicely.

In touch - saying the right things and creating policies that match that rhetoric.

Scott_P

The problem with this header is that all of the people currently having their collective Corbasm, actually see him as credible, and imagine "the public" will too.

He is credible, and bat-shit crazy.

Meanwhile...

@SamCoatesTimes: Guardian accused of anti-Corbyn bias by Diane Abbott http://t.co/2AV9QgT66u

Plato

Umm. I'm lost now.

Are you arguing that because only 7% said Too Leftwing was an issue in their Top 2 or 3 that it's relevant or that things that typically seen as right/left wing don't matter because Mr Average doesn't know they're typically left/right wing?

I suspect most voters know that Labour were keen on immigration and the Tories less so. And being tough on welfare is more the Tories wheelhouse...

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

I'm not sure how you can detach all those things from the left-right spectrum.

And given a laundry list of things to choose - and only two or three options, something abstract like Too Leftwing doesn't strike me as something I'd pick from the rest which are attitudinal/real world.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

Because your average person will not see being tough on immigration or welfare as right wing, that's why.

The_Apocalypse

JEO said:

Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?

Callaghan had better PM ratings than Thatcher did, apparently.

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Ms. Apocalypse, that's correct, but he also had the Winter of Discontent.

kle4

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

I'm not sure how you can detach all those things from the left-right spectrum.

And given a laundry list of things to choose - and only two or three options, something abstract like Too Leftwing doesn't strike me as something I'd pick from the rest which are attitudinal/real world.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

Because your average person will not see being tough on immigration or welfare as right wing, that's why.

And yet party supporters insist on pigeonholing matters like it into the left right spectrum.

Plato

That got a bark of laughter down here.

The only Guardianista I can imagine wanting Corbyn as leader is Seamus Milne if he was feeling warm and fuzzy for once.

Scott_P said:

The problem with this header is that all of the people currently having their collective Corbasm, actually see him as credible, and imagine "the public" will too.

He is credible, and bat-shit crazy.

Meanwhile...

@SamCoatesTimes: Guardian accused of anti-Corbyn bias by Diane Abbott http://t.co/2AV9QgT66u

The_Apocalypse

Plato said:

Umm. I'm lost now.

Are you arguing that because only 7% said Too Leftwing was an issue in their Top 2 or 3 that it's relevant or that things that typically seen as right/left wing don't matter because Mr Average doesn't know they're typically left/right wing?

I suspect most voters know that Labour were keen on immigration and the Tories less so. And being tough on welfare is more the Tories wheelhouse...

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

I'm not sure how you can detach all those things from the left-right spectrum.

And given a laundry list of things to choose - and only two or three options, something abstract like Too Leftwing doesn't strike me as something I'd pick from the rest which are attitudinal/real world.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

Because your average person will not see being tough on immigration or welfare as right wing, that's why.

Jesus, even I'm confused now. I'm saying that clearly being too left-wing wasn't an issue for Labour - most of which was aimed at their tax/economy policies anyway - but Ed M and not addressing welfare/immigration clearly was the big issue for voters.

tyson

Plato said:

Umm. I'm lost now.

Are you arguing that because only 7% said Too Leftwing was an issue in their Top 2 or 3 that it's relevant or that things that typically seen as right/left wing don't matter because Mr Average doesn't know they're typically left/right wing?

I suspect most voters know that Labour were keen on immigration and the Tories less so. And being tough on welfare is more the Tories wheelhouse...

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

I'm not sure how you can detach all those things from the left-right spectrum.

And given a laundry list of things to choose - and only two or three options, something abstract like Too Leftwing doesn't strike me as something I'd pick from the rest which are attitudinal/real world.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

Because your average person will not see being tough on immigration or welfare as right wing, that's why.

Listen Plato- I know that you're not dim. I'm sure that you can understand that people couldn't see beyond Ed Miliband to even entertain what the policies were. First and foremost you have to be a credible leader- and on that, Ed failed miserably.

TheWhiteRabbit

Plato said:

That got a bark of laughter down here.

Scott_P said:

The problem with this header is that all of the people currently having their collective Corbasm, actually see him as credible, and imagine "the public" will too.

He is credible, and bat-shit crazy.

Meanwhile...

@SamCoatesTimes: Guardian accused of anti-Corbyn bias by Diane Abbott http://t.co/2AV9QgT66u

I mean, what is "bias"? How can a private publication be "biased"?

SimonStClare

PoliticsUK ‏@Politics_UKnews 2m2 minutes ago

Jeremy Corbyn Trumps Jesus, Clarkson And J-Lo In Google Search Standings #Politics http://www.newslocker.com/en-uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-trumps-jesus-clarkson-and-j-lo-in-google-search-standings/ …

Creepy.

handandmouse

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.

Plato said:

There are two very problematic issues with saying that the deficit can be put off da-de-da.

1. Interest payments on it are massive - they're bigger than every penny spent on Education and Defence put together. Not eliminating it is a false economy - that leads to the next one >

2. Putting it off shovels our spending onto the shoulders of our children and if another downturn comes - leaves us very vulnerable to yet another 2008-style recession as we are carrying too much weight. Interest rates won't stay low forever either.

It's seductive to think it can be ignored or put off - but it can't unless we're prepared to take a big gamble.

Sure, the interest payments are substantial - but as long as our economy is growing we can manage them. We put our growth at risk by cutting too far and too fast - as far as I can tell most economists agree on that, as did the IMF when they warned Osborne that his cuts were doing just that in early 2013.

As for point 2): this emotive language is something I've seen a lot - but what exactly does it mean? Whose children will be shouldering the burden - and what about the children now whose life changes are impaired because of policies that increase inequality and child poverty?

Plato

And then lost a vote of No Confidence... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_government_of_James_Callaghan

A vote of no confidence in the British Labour Government of James Callaghan occurred on 28 March 1979. The vote was brought by Opposition leader Margaret Thatcher and was lost by the Labour Government by one vote (311 votes to 310), which was announced at 10:19 pm, forcing a general election which was won by Thatcher's party. The last time an election had been forced by the House of Commons was in 1924, when Ramsay MacDonald, the first Labour Prime Minister, lost a vote of confidence.[1] Labour politician Roy Hattersley was later to remark that the vote marked "the last rites" of 'old Labour'.[2] Labour would not return to government for another 18 years. The BBC has referred to the vote as "one of the most dramatic nights in Westminster history".[3]

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?

Callaghan had better PM ratings than Thatcher did, apparently.

tyson

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?

Callaghan had better PM ratings than Thatcher did, apparently.

And Callaghan would clearly have won if he'd had called the election in October 1978, as too would Brown (possibly) in 2008.

kle4

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

What does "in touch" mean? If it means saying sympathetic things while not supporting policies in line with them, then that is exactly what Miliband did. If you don't like the current scale of immigration, you're not going to be responsive to a politician saying "I feel your pain", you want them the commit to cutting immigration. The problem is too many politicians feel like the public are idiots that can just be chatted up nicely.

In touch - saying the right things and creating policies that match that rhetoric.

Doesn't sound right. Wasn't ed m perceived more in touch - and if he said the right thing and created policies to back that up, he surely would have won. No, I touch in this context probably means understanding concerns only. Another reason why partisans invent motivations - hates the poor, hates business, etc - for their opponents in the hope that even if Tories/labour sound like they have a good idea, you cannot trust it as deep down they don't care and so on.

AlastairMeeks

handandmouse said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.

At what point, if ever, do you regard it as appropriate to deal with deficits? Because we're running a large one (hence the reference to Greece) at a time of decent economic growth.

To repeat the question, if not now, when?

Luckyguy1983

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

Plato said:

Luckiness isn't a random event - you have to work pretty hard to make it happen again and again.

Making it look effortless is really rather rare.

The_Apocalypse said:

To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.

Samuel Goldwyn:

I find the harder I work the luckier I get

I think it's somewhat of a fallacy that success is the result of hard work. It comes from outside, not inside. You can't push a peice of string up a hill can you? Even Thatcher, surely the ultimate recent icon of the hard work and determination principle would have got nowhere without Airey Neave using her to bring down Ted Heath. And before that by marrying Dennis which allowed her to pursue her political career. You need sponsors. Cameron had good sponsors all the way through, as anyone successful has.

It's a combination of natural ability, opportunity (including contacts), luck and hard work.

Sometimes it's important to be in the right place at the right time.

I've built my entire career on a random, unimportant, decision in 1997. And it's ended up with me being a key player in a niche but not insignificant industry.

I applaud you for your success and I don't doubt you've worked incredibly hard, but natural ability - George Bush? He became the leader of the free world without being able to string a sentence together.

saddened

antifrank said:

I don't know whether this New Statesman article has yet been linked to, but it looks significant to me:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/im-more-convinced-ever-jeremy-corbyn-going-win

Would love to read that piece, sadly, there is a 3/4 page banner advert across it, which I can't get rid of.

Amusingly, the advert is for sky tv.

The_Apocalypse

tyson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?

Callaghan had better PM ratings than Thatcher did, apparently.

And Callaghan would clearly have won if he'd had called the election in October 1978, as too would Brown (possibly) in 2008.

I think you mean 2007 (that was the year of the election that never was).

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mouse, got to say I think that's a complacent attitude towards our debt, deficit and interest. We spend more servicing the interest on our debt than we do on Defence or Education. That's madness.

The_Apocalypse

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

What does "in touch" mean? If it means saying sympathetic things while not supporting policies in line with them, then that is exactly what Miliband did. If you don't like the current scale of immigration, you're not going to be responsive to a politician saying "I feel your pain", you want them the commit to cutting immigration. The problem is too many politicians feel like the public are idiots that can just be chatted up nicely.

In touch - saying the right things and creating policies that match that rhetoric.

Doesn't sound right. Wasn't ed m perceived more in touch - and if he said the right thing and created policies to back that up, he surely would have won. No, I touch in this context probably means understanding concerns only. Another reason why partisans invent motivations - hates the poor, hates business, etc - for their opponents in the hope that even if Tories/labour sound like they have a good idea, you cannot trust it as deep down they don't care and so on.

Okay, we'll go with constructing credible solutions to people's concerns, then.

kle4

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.

At what point, if ever, do you regard it as appropriate to deal with deficits? Because we're running a large one (hence the reference to Greece) at a time of decent economic growth.

To repeat the question, if not now, when?

Indeed. In any case, the pace of austerity has been slowed so much, I think it's on to 2020 now - although it'd be smarter to now do it sooner and act as though we're ahead of schedule - I don't see there's much to complain about tackling it like the government. The arguments come down to specifics, which is much messier.

Morris_Dancer

Wrote a small ramble on my blog about the opposing Greek mythological perspectives on whether the world's perpetually improving or getting worse:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-decline-and-rise-of-mankind.html

I also wonder if leftwingers are generally subscribers to the deteriorating view, and rightwingers of the improving view. The former is that we began in a Golden Age and everything's been getting worse from there as we decline from the primordial paradise we first inhabited, and the latter is that by slaying monsters (Greek myths, of course) we're gradually civilising the world and making it safer and better.

David_Evershed

Danny565 said:

Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?

Boris Johnson - 32%
Theresa May - 28%
Andy Burnham - 27%
George Osborne - 23%
Yvette Cooper - 22%
Jeremy Corbyn - 17%
Liz Kendall - 16%
Michael Gove - 13%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3602/Burnham-leads-the-pack-but-all-Labour-hopefuls-have-work-to-do.aspx

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx

My reading is that the figures were

Johnson 47%
Osborne 45%
May 45%
Burnham 27%
Cooper 22%
Corbyn 17%
Kendall 16%

So Osborne well ahead of Burnham not behind.

Plato

Not dealing with the deficit and putting it off reminds me of a smoker saying he's cutting down but has already smoked next month's fag ration.

kle4 said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.

At what point, if ever, do you regard it as appropriate to deal with deficits? Because we're running a large one (hence the reference to Greece) at a time of decent economic growth.

To repeat the question, if not now, when?

Indeed. In any case, the pace of austerity has been slowed so much, I think it's on to 2020 now - although it'd be smarter to now do it sooner and act as though we're ahead of schedule - I don't see there's much to complain about tackling it like the government. The arguments come down to specifics, which is much messier.

MTimT

handandmouse said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.

Plato said:

There are two very problematic issues with saying that the deficit can be put off da-de-da.

1. Interest payments on it are massive - they're bigger than every penny spent on Education and Defence put together. Not eliminating it is a false economy - that leads to the next one >

2. Putting it off shovels our spending onto the shoulders of our children and if another downturn comes - leaves us very vulnerable to yet another 2008-style recession as we are carrying too much weight. Interest rates won't stay low forever either.

It's seductive to think it can be ignored or put off - but it can't unless we're prepared to take a big gamble.

Sure, the interest payments are substantial - but as long as our economy is growing we can manage them. We put our growth at risk by cutting too far and too fast - as far as I can tell most economists agree on that, as did the IMF when they warned Osborne that his cuts were doing just that in early 2013.

As for point 2): this emotive language is something I've seen a lot - but what exactly does it mean? Whose children will be shouldering the burden - and what about the children now whose life changes are impaired because of policies that increase inequality and child poverty?

Well, the IMF were simply wrong in 2013, and Osborne has hardly gone for the harsh, deep cuts that many in his party wanted. Given where the deficit started, it was unsustainable and cuts needed to be made. The only question was how much and how fast. I doubt Labour or the LDs would have cut much less given power.

Debating whether the growth you refer to as reason not to need to cut so much is the product of Osborne's policies or not is not something that is worth debating. There is no objective proof and so people will merely stick with their preexisting beliefs.

kle4

The_Apocalypse said:

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

One could say that actually Labour wasn't centre-ist enough since they got big thumbs down about the deficit, immigration, welfare et al.

The_Apocalypse said:

I had to laugh that only 7% thought Labour were too left-wing, and yet it was the number-one reason listed by some commentators after May 7th.

Ed Miliband really was the big problem - more so than any other.

Yes, but that's more about people in touch with people's concerns than necessarily the left-right spectrum.

What does "in touch" mean? If it means saying sympathetic things while not supporting policies in line with them, then that is exactly what Miliband did. If you don't like the current scale of immigration, you're not going to be responsive to a politician saying "I feel your pain", you want them the commit to cutting immigration. The problem is too many politicians feel like the public are idiots that can just be chatted up nicely.

In touch - saying the right things and creating policies that match that rhetoric.

Doesn't sound right. Wasn't ed m perceived more in touch - and if he said the right thing and created policies to back that up, he surely would have won. No, I touch in this context probably means understanding concerns only. Another reason why partisans invent motivations - hates the poor, hates business, etc - for their opponents in the hope that even if Tories/labour sound like they have a good idea, you cannot trust it as deep down they don't care and so on.

Okay, we'll go with constructing credible solutions to people's concerns, then.

I'd hope that was what people considered in touch, but there's a market on both sides that sees it as saying what supporters want to hear only, and it's a large one.m

I'm clearly having a pessimistic day, I was much more optimistic about people yesterday.

handandmouse

JEO said:

What this poll shows is the difficulty in winning back votes from all three of the Tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems:

- Conservative voters want Labour to criticise their record in government and to be credible on the deficit
- Liberal Democrat voters want them to praise their record in government and to be anti-austerity
- UKIP voters want them to be tougher on immigration and welfare

You simply can't try to be all things to all people. If I was a Labour election strategist, I would see the Liberal Democrat voters are the smallest group of the three, and realise I can't appease them while winning back Tory and UKIP voters. Instead, they should focus on winning back the other voters, moving right on spending (especially welfare) and immigration.

Instead it looks like Labour will do the diametric opposite.

The flipside of that argument is that Labour can't do what you suggest and retain their activist base, that they need to do the heavy lifting come election time. If doing so was going to be challenging BC (before Corbyn), it's nigh-on impossible now.

People on the Labour left are heartily sick of the party's world revolving around triangulation and focus groups, and want someone who comes across as genuine and having ideals. That's not compatible with moving right economically.

kle4

Plato said:

Not dealing with the deficit and putting it off reminds me of a smoker saying he's cutting down but has already smoked next month's fag ration.

kle4 said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.

At what point, if ever, do you regard it as appropriate to deal with deficits? Because we're running a large one (hence the reference to Greece) at a time of decent economic growth.

To repeat the question, if not now, when?

Indeed. In any case, the pace of austerity has been slowed so much, I think it's on to 2020 now - although it'd be smarter to now do it sooner and act as though we're ahead of schedule - I don't see there's much to complain about tackling it like the government. The arguments come down to specifics, which is much messier.

It's where Cameron and co started to lose my goodwill to be honest. If it's still not done in 2020 as may happen, any economic claims of theirs need to be very heavily scrutinised.

The_Apocalypse

David_Evershed said:

Danny565 said:

Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?

Boris Johnson - 32%
Theresa May - 28%
Andy Burnham - 27%
George Osborne - 23%
Yvette Cooper - 22%
Jeremy Corbyn - 17%
Liz Kendall - 16%
Michael Gove - 13%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3602/Burnham-leads-the-pack-but-all-Labour-hopefuls-have-work-to-do.aspx

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx

My reading is that the figures were

Johnson 47%
Osborne 45%
May 45%
Burnham 27%
Cooper 22%
Corbyn 17%
Kendall 16%

So Osborne well ahead of Burnham not behind.

That's among Conservative supporters. The figures posted by Danny565, seem to among the electorate in general.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, China or the eurozone could cause economic woe which derails deficit reduction.

That said, I share your dislike of the constantly shifting goalposts.

maaarsh

Morris_Dancer said:

Wrote a small ramble on my blog about the opposing Greek mythological perspectives on whether the world's perpetually improving or getting worse:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-decline-and-rise-of-mankind.html

I also wonder if leftwingers are generally subscribers to the deteriorating view, and rightwingers of the improving view. The former is that we began in a Golden Age and everything's been getting worse from there as we decline from the primordial paradise we first inhabited, and the latter is that by slaying monsters (Greek myths, of course) we're gradually civilising the world and making it safer and better.

Pretty obviously the other way around; only 1 side glories in the term 'progressive'

Plato

I totally agree.

My biggest concern is that soft-peddling too much will leave us very exposed if another downturn comes along. They always do - I've lived through too many of them and felt their pain. It's cold comfort to wish if-only after the event.

kle4 said:

Plato said:

Not dealing with the deficit and putting it off reminds me of a smoker saying he's cutting down but has already smoked next month's fag ration.

kle4 said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

The key for me is to get the message across that reducing the deficit need not be a priority. Without doing that, I think Labour will struggle in 2020 (game-changing events notwithstanding) regardless of leader.

Good luck trying to get that message across. We're running a higher deficit than Greece at a time of decent economic growth. If we're not going to look at the deficit now, when?

Do you really believe this is a meaningful comparison? Because it really isn't. When Greece is brought up as though it were in any way analagous to the UK, economically speaking, it makes me think the person doing it is more concerned with pushing their point of view than in debating honestly.

At what point, if ever, do you regard it as appropriate to deal with deficits? Because we're running a large one (hence the reference to Greece) at a time of decent economic growth.

To repeat the question, if not now, when?

Indeed. In any case, the pace of austerity has been slowed so much, I think it's on to 2020 now - although it'd be smarter to now do it sooner and act as though we're ahead of schedule - I don't see there's much to complain about tackling it like the government. The arguments come down to specifics, which is much messier.

It's where Cameron and co started to lose my goodwill to be honest. If it's still not done in 2020 as may happen, any economic claims of theirs need to be very heavily scrutinised.

dr_spyn

Dan Hodges has rejoined Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11766277/The-only-way-Labour-can-win-the-next-election-is-to-elect-Corbyn-now.html

The_Apocalypse

Fraser Nelson has been arguing that tune as well. Certainly, I'd say that the government seems to find money when it's convenient, despite the fact we have 'no money' so to speak.

MTimT

maaarsh said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Wrote a small ramble on my blog about the opposing Greek mythological perspectives on whether the world's perpetually improving or getting worse:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-decline-and-rise-of-mankind.html

I also wonder if leftwingers are generally subscribers to the deteriorating view, and rightwingers of the improving view. The former is that we began in a Golden Age and everything's been getting worse from there as we decline from the primordial paradise we first inhabited, and the latter is that by slaying monsters (Greek myths, of course) we're gradually civilising the world and making it safer and better.

Pretty obviously the other way around; only 1 side glories in the term 'progressive'

But progressives have a habit of making things worse ...

Tim_B

For Cowboys doubters.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68mRzsRTehk

Danny565

The_Apocalypse said:

David_Evershed said:

Danny565 said:

Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?

Boris Johnson - 32%
Theresa May - 28%
Andy Burnham - 27%
George Osborne - 23%
Yvette Cooper - 22%
Jeremy Corbyn - 17%
Liz Kendall - 16%
Michael Gove - 13%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3602/Burnham-leads-the-pack-but-all-Labour-hopefuls-have-work-to-do.aspx

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx

My reading is that the figures were

Johnson 47%
Osborne 45%
May 45%
Burnham 27%
Cooper 22%
Corbyn 17%
Kendall 16%

So Osborne well ahead of Burnham not behind.

That's among Conservative supporters. The figures posted by Danny565, seem to among the electorate in general.

Yes - the equivalent for Burnham among Lab supporters only was 43%.

rottenborough

saddened said:

antifrank said:

I don't know whether this New Statesman article has yet been linked to, but it looks significant to me:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/im-more-convinced-ever-jeremy-corbyn-going-win

Would love to read that piece, sadly, there is a 3/4 page banner advert across it, which I can't get rid of.

Amusingly, the advert is for sky tv.

Well, it's certainly a piece that will drive traffic to the site. If it's true then politics will becoming really interesting this autumn.

EPG

Morris_Dancer said:

Wrote a small ramble on my blog about the opposing Greek mythological perspectives on whether the world's perpetually improving or getting worse:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-decline-and-rise-of-mankind.html

I also wonder if leftwingers are generally subscribers to the deteriorating view, and rightwingers of the improving view. The former is that we began in a Golden Age and everything's been getting worse from there as we decline from the primordial paradise we first inhabited, and the latter is that by slaying monsters (Greek myths, of course) we're gradually civilising the world and making it safer and better.

I think the opposite can also be true. If I were to ask your typical rightwinger about immigration, the Common Market, or comprehensive education, I don't know if I would get a message in line with that story alone.

Leftwingers generally believe that the Golden Age is possible but has not been made yet. It is possible to engineer society to be better. It is necessary to get the correct people in office as a first step. The more nostalgic ones reckon the immediate postwar was closer to that Golden Age than today, but usually only because they pretty superficially look at the economics of blue-collar men and disregard women and religious/racial minorities.

Rightwingers generally believe that - if not a Golden Age - the past at least had significant virtues that it is essential to conserve even through social change, such as respect for authority, the traditional family, a degree of traditional morality; generally the merits of stability and conformity. Things are improving in many regards, but as the world becomes more changeable and less conformist, the positive aspects could be lost and we could end up as individualistic-statist Scandinavians. Of course, that is more the mainstream-Conservative rightwinger; you also have the more reactionary-Ukip strand of thought that genuinely believes in a Golden Age positioned vaguely in the past.

Plato

dr_spyn said:

Dan Hodges has rejoined Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11766277/The-only-way-Labour-can-win-the-next-election-is-to-elect-Corbyn-now.html

One reason why the Labour Left is so good at rewriting history is it knows its history. And it knows full well the start of its decline can be dated – precisely. Not, as is popularly perceived, to the morning of May 2 1997, and the new dawn of Blairism, but the morning of June 10 1983, when Michael Foot carried the Left’s bold, radical prospectus to the most crushing electoral defeat since the war.

“Never forget how you felt,” Neil Kinnock used to remind his party. Sadly, the Labour Party in general has forgotten. But the Left hasn’t. And they don’t want to replace the longest suicide note in history with the longest and most suicidal leadership election in history. Which is why I’ve rejoined Labour to vote for Corbyn. The battle between Labour’s modernising and traditionalist factions can only be resolved once there is a clear victor. And at present the modernisers are too weak.

Beverley_C

Plato said:

Something you don't see too often

Female rapist faces jail after being found guilty of running paedophile ring which subjected five young children to horrific abuse over more than a decade

I hope they throw the key away.

Plato

Fraser is very hawkish - I tend to take his views with a large pinch of electoral reality salt.

The_Apocalypse said:

Fraser Nelson has been arguing that tune as well. Certainly, I'd say that the government seems to find money when it's convenient, despite the fact we have 'no money' so to speak.

Tim_B

Begorrah! House majority leader John Boehner is on Feherty next week. I bet he cries.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. EPG, cheers for your reply.

I think there's some truth in the "In my day..." line for rightwingers, although in environmental terms I think that's just as true for those on the left.

Not sure I agree we're becoming less conformist, given the witch hunt against Tim Hunt and the lack of action over the #KillAllWhiteMen diversity officer.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, Nelson can sometimes be a silly sausage. He took Darling's completely unspecified and vague plans as set in stone, and didn't account for the eurozone sovereign debt crisis when criticising Osborne's progress about halfway through the previous term.

valleyboy

tyson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?

Callaghan had better PM ratings than Thatcher did, apparently.

And Callaghan would clearly have won if he'd had called the election in October 1978, as too would Brown (possibly) in 2008.

Big Jim was the only future PM I ever met. Time flies, big man, big prescence. Never met Ed but cannot believe he had Big Jim's charisma.
Question though. I am sorely tempted to vote Corbyn but would be self indulgent? He is highly unlikely to lead my party to victory, so should i go with one of the two safer options? Still not made my mind up.Wish Big Jim was still alive.

GIN1138

dr_spyn said:

Dan Hodges has rejoined Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11766277/The-only-way-Labour-can-win-the-next-election-is-to-elect-Corbyn-now.html

The Corbyn Cuckoo on the Cooper-Balls nest?

MarqueeMark

Credible leaders? Labour have a recent track record of incredible leaders.

Brown. Miliband. Corbyn?

Incredible....

Plato

He'd be at home with some of the City AM commentators - he does nice graphs though.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, Nelson can sometimes be a silly sausage. He took Darling's completely unspecified and vague plans as set in stone, and didn't account for the eurozone sovereign debt crisis when criticising Osborne's progress about halfway through the previous term.

The_Apocalypse

Plato said:

Fraser is very hawkish - I tend to take his views with a large pinch of electoral reality salt.

The_Apocalypse said:

Fraser Nelson has been arguing that tune as well. Certainly, I'd say that the government seems to find money when it's convenient, despite the fact we have 'no money' so to speak.

Which commentators do you like/read?

logical_song

GIN1138 said:

dr_spyn said:

Dan Hodges has rejoined Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11766277/The-only-way-Labour-can-win-the-next-election-is-to-elect-Corbyn-now.html

The Corbyn Cuckoo on the Cooper-Balls nest?

Blairites and Tories for Corbyn!

HurstLlama

valleyboy said:

tyson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

Is there a single case of a party losing an election because the public opposed their policies despite liking the leader?

Callaghan had better PM ratings than Thatcher did, apparently.

And Callaghan would clearly have won if he'd had called the election in October 1978, as too would Brown (possibly) in 2008.

Big Jim was the only future PM I ever met. Time flies, big man, big prescence. Never met Ed but cannot believe he had Big Jim's charisma.
Question though. I am sorely tempted to vote Corbyn but would be self indulgent? He is highly unlikely to lead my party to victory, so should i go with one of the two safer options? Still not made my mind up.Wish Big Jim was still alive.

Someone like Callaghan (who I also met) would never get through the selection procedures to become a parliamentary candidate these days let alone leader.

As to your options, why worry about an election in five years time? Wouldn't it be best to vote for the person you want to see lead the Party?

SquareRoot

Ms Plato posted this at the weekend. It is as relevant as it was in 1987 as it is now. WELL WORTH watching

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DBqwerqCOs

tlg86

Mr Dancer - things are getting worse. When I was growing up in the 90s, the BBC had the summer test matches and every team seemed to be competitive. Today, the dominance of the one day game, especially T20, has led to cricket being dominated by batsmen. I hate it when people put sportsmen from past eras on a pedestal that cannot be surmounted by those of today - but with cricket - I believe the greats have been and gone and we'll never see their like again.

Plato

I like Dan Hodges, Danny Fink, Libby Purvis, Rod Liddle, David Aaronovitch and Matt Ridley a lot.

Then John Rentoul, Matthew D'Ancona, Tony Parsons, Camilla Long, Matthew Parris and Janet Daley.

So quite a mix of lefties [Old and Blairites] and righties across the spectrum. Don't like anyone at the Mail except Quentin who is very funny. I used to like Andrew Rawnsley, but he's off the boil. Mr Parris' husband used to write a great column in the Guardian but TBH I barely go there anymore.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

Fraser is very hawkish - I tend to take his views with a large pinch of electoral reality salt.

The_Apocalypse said:

Fraser Nelson has been arguing that tune as well. Certainly, I'd say that the government seems to find money when it's convenient, despite the fact we have 'no money' so to speak.

Which commentators do you like/read?

GIN1138

logical_song said:

GIN1138 said:

dr_spyn said:

Dan Hodges has rejoined Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11766277/The-only-way-Labour-can-win-the-next-election-is-to-elect-Corbyn-now.html

The Corbyn Cuckoo on the Cooper-Balls nest?

Blairites and Tories for Corbyn!

Frankly I'm given up trying to work out what the hell's going on in the Labour Party....

I'm too full up on popcorn!

kle4

I haven't read him in a while, but I always used to like Norman Tebbit on the Telegraph blogs, as he would include at the bottom of each post a commentary on the, well, comments of the previous post and the debates and trolling that was going on, so there's be stuff like "I found 'NuMetalHedgehogs' to have made several good points against 'DeathtotheAristos'" or something like that, which I found amusing.

Plato

Ace, thanx

SquareRoot said:

Ms Plato posted this at the weekend. It is as relevant as it was in 1987 as it is now. WELL WORTH watching

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DBqwerqCOs

Plato

He was most assiduous.

I loved the DT blogs - esp Dan Hannan and Tim Stanley.

kle4 said:

I haven't read him in a while, but I always used to like Norman Tebbit on the Telegraph blogs, as he would include at the bottom of each post a commentary on the, well, comments of the previous post and the debates and trolling that was going on, so there's be stuff like "I found 'NuMetalHedgehogs' to have made several good points against 'DeathtotheAristos'" or something like that, which I found amusing.

MTimT

The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.

To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/four-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/

JEO

MTimT said:

The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.

To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/four-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/

The thing that seems stupid about Clinton's troubles are that they are all unforced errors. She knew she was going to run for president, so why would you so stupidly look secretive on the emails thing? Why have dodgy looking donors to the Clinton foundation when you can do that in eight years, or in a couple years if you lose?

HYUFD

Of course the need to have a credible leader also means your opponents need to have a credible leader too, if they do not that becomes less important. If Cameron does indeed stand down by 2020 then Osborne or Boris or May will be less effective in my view, that does not mean Labour will win as of right but it would make the new leader's chances easier (although Corbyn may take them too far left to win in England and Wales anyway)

HYUFD

MTimT said:

The attached article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post - and particularly the first two graphs - illustrates why I think it highly likely that another high profile Dem will jump in/be drafted into the Dem nomination process and why I put her chances of winning the nomination at not much more than 55%. It is also why I rate the GOP's chances of winning the election provided they avoid nominating Trump, Cruz, or the other religious conservatives, but go with a Rubio, Bush, Walker or Kasich.

To put this political reporting in context, Cillizza is quite left of centre, and the Post is inconsistently a little left of centre but has been quite liberal in reporting anti-Clinton stories and making commentaries similar to Cillizza's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/four-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/

Polling over the weekend had Bernie Sanders with the highest favourables of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, and CNN had him beating all GOP contendors except Bush, who led him by 1%, so if Hillary collapses you may end up with President Sanders!

JEO

handandmouse said:

JEO said:

What this poll shows is the difficulty in winning back votes from all three of the Tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems:

- Conservative voters want Labour to criticise their record in government and to be credible on the deficit
- Liberal Democrat voters want them to praise their record in government and to be anti-austerity
- UKIP voters want them to be tougher on immigration and welfare

You simply can't try to be all things to all people. If I was a Labour election strategist, I would see the Liberal Democrat voters are the smallest group of the three, and realise I can't appease them while winning back Tory and UKIP voters. Instead, they should focus on winning back the other voters, moving right on spending (especially welfare) and immigration.

Instead it looks like Labour will do the diametric opposite.

The flipside of that argument is that Labour can't do what you suggest and retain their activist base, that they need to do the heavy lifting come election time. If doing so was going to be challenging BC (before Corbyn), it's nigh-on impossible now.

People on the Labour left are heartily sick of the party's world revolving around triangulation and focus groups, and want someone who comes across as genuine and having ideals. That's not compatible with moving right economically.

I think it's disingenuous to say people who are economic centrists do not have ideals or all lack genuineness. You need someone who will move right economically (and socially on immigration), but in a way that is credible. The idea that you should sacrifice the voters to motivate the activist base is obviously a path to electoral ruin.

chestnut

It's always worth recalling just how unrepresentative Yougov's panel is of normal people.

Remember when their panel suggested they were polling the equivalent of 20+million TV debate viewers?

It's full of twittervist sorts.