The other aspect to this and it was interesting as a cursory glance at this morning's newspaper front pages showed, is that nature abhors a vacuum and to imagine there is no opposition because the official opposition parties can't or won't provide it is absurd.
One possibility is the Conservatives will provide their own opposition as candidates jostle for position in the post-Cameron era so airport runways, Europe, fracking etc, etc provide the possibility for internal Conservative discontent.
The other truth is if you make the tent too big it will fall down. Trying to shoe-horn anyone and everyone into the Government-supporting ranks by a range of diverse policies ultimately creates contradiction and instability. You quite literally cannot please all of the people all of the time and helping one area invariably antagonises another.
Politically, then, do you either try to reach those who didn't vote for you or do you simply keep those who did sweet and hope that will be enough ?
"A private plane carrying four people has crashed into a car auction in Hampshire. The light aircraft, which crashed during an attempt to land at Blackbushe Airport, burst into flames on impact, witnesses said. South East Coast Ambulance Service initially tweeted there were four casualties, but later said the number of injured people was unconfirmed."
The run chase today was so reminiscent of 2005. When Lyth went... I thought holy moly but the experienced Bell and the brilliant Root did the job, It was painful if exhilarating to listen to..
Mr recidivist, I believe Corbyn has never served in cabinet whether shadow or not, from where I'm sat he has support from members but not from those perceived as being seniors, I can't envisage these people uniting behind him when their principles are so fundamentally different. Cooper, having see her husband booted out effectively becomes a back bencher, I'm not sure these fragile egos can take that. He'll have to fill his cabinet with people he can trust and rely on, no idea who they are, I doubt he knows.
As I say its all guesswork but the Corbyn effect is fascinating.
Thank your for the polite use of the word Mr there.
You are probably right and what you are saying is a reasonable extrapolation from the past. My point was just that often what actually happens bears no resemblance to what anyone expected.
Mr recidivist, I believe Corbyn has never served in cabinet whether shadow or not, from where I'm sat he has support from members but not from those perceived as being seniors, I can't envisage these people uniting behind him when their principles are so fundamentally different. Cooper, having see her husband booted out effectively becomes a back bencher, I'm not sure these fragile egos can take that. He'll have to fill his cabinet with people he can trust and rely on, no idea who they are, I doubt he knows.
As I say its all guesswork but the Corbyn effect is fascinating.
Thank your for the polite use of the word Mr there.
You are probably right and what you are saying is a reasonable extrapolation from the past. My point was just that often what actually happens bears no resemblance to what anyone expected.
I find all the things that have happened as a result of the GE2015 result absolutely staggering. It's been like a line of dominoes going over. Who can tell what else is waiting to happen?
Corbyn's position, were he to successfully the sea of electoral hazard, would be analogous and perhaps more extreme than Margaret Thatcher's in February 1975. She led a Shadow Cabinet, a number of whom had not voted for her.
The question becomes one of loyalty - is there any reason, apart from personal pique, why the likes of Burnham and Cooper couldn't serve in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet ? As for the direction, it won't matter much if the impact is positive - both Blair and Cameron showed a successful leader can quickly mute any internal criticism.
Just as we can wonder how long Thatcher would have stayed as Conservative leader had she lost to Callaghan in an autumn 1978 election we can ask the same of Corbyn if he leads Labour to defeat next time. The habit of leaders quickly departing in the aftermath of defeat (not always wise in my view) leads to these periods of instability and public introspection.
Corbyn's position, were he to successfully the sea of electoral hazard, would be analogous and perhaps more extreme than Margaret Thatcher's in February 1975. She led a Shadow Cabinet, a number of whom had not voted for her.
The question becomes one of loyalty - is there any reason, apart from personal pique, why the likes of Burnham and Cooper couldn't serve in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet ? As for the direction, it won't matter much if the impact is positive - both Blair and Cameron showed a successful leader can quickly mute any internal criticism.
Just as we can wonder how long Thatcher would have stayed as Conservative leader had she lost to Callaghan in an autumn 1978 election we can ask the same of Corbyn if he leads Labour to defeat next time. The habit of leaders quickly departing in the aftermath of defeat (not always wise in my view) leads to these periods of instability and public introspection.
Cameron's big solution to the Calais situation: more sniffer dogs.
Cameron's solution needs to be a compromise somewhere between my policy of shooting the illegals dead and letting the rats eat their corpses in the noonday sun; and tyson's policy of carrying them as far away from Italy as possible and into England on sedan chairs with petals and £50 notes strewn on the ground in their path.
Each comes with its own political drawbacks so Cameron is merely finding a middle way.
Cameron's big solution to the Calais situation: more sniffer dogs.
Cameron's solution needs to be a compromise somewhere between my policy of shooting the illegals dead and letting the rats eat their corpses in the noonday sun; and tyson's policy of carrying them as far away from Italy as possible and into England on sedan chairs with petals and £50 notes strewn on the ground in their path.
Each comes with its own political drawbacks so Cameron is merely finding a middle way.
If you and tyson were trapped in a lift, I think that only one of you would come out alive!
Corbyn's position, were he to successfully the sea of electoral hazard, would be analogous and perhaps more extreme than Margaret Thatcher's in February 1975. She led a Shadow Cabinet, a number of whom had not voted for her.
The question becomes one of loyalty - is there any reason, apart from personal pique, why the likes of Burnham and Cooper couldn't serve in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet ? As for the direction, it won't matter much if the impact is positive - both Blair and Cameron showed a successful leader can quickly mute any internal criticism.
Just as we can wonder how long Thatcher would have stayed as Conservative leader had she lost to Callaghan in an autumn 1978 election we can ask the same of Corbyn if he leads Labour to defeat next time. The habit of leaders quickly departing in the aftermath of defeat (not always wise in my view) leads to these periods of instability and public introspection.
Given that they believe completely different things from Jeremy Corbyn and he's going to be mullered in the press, why would they tie a millstone round their necks for the post--Corbyn era?
Cameron's big solution to the Calais situation: more sniffer dogs.
Cameron's solution needs to be a compromise somewhere between my policy of shooting the illegals dead and letting the rats eat their corpses in the noonday sun; and tyson's policy of carrying them as far away from Italy as possible and into England on sedan chairs with petals and £50 notes strewn on the ground in their path.
Each comes with its own political drawbacks so Cameron is merely finding a middle way.
If you and tyson were trapped in a lift, I think that only one of you would come out alive!
Cameron's big solution to the Calais situation: more sniffer dogs.
Cameron's solution needs to be a compromise somewhere between my policy of shooting the illegals dead and letting the rats eat their corpses in the noonday sun; and tyson's policy of carrying them as far away from Italy as possible and into England on sedan chairs with petals and £50 notes strewn on the ground in their path.
Each comes with its own political drawbacks so Cameron is merely finding a middle way.
Well, we do offer them accommodation and a weekly living allowance if they make it here anyway. So current British government policy is much closer to tyson's.
Cameron's big solution to the Calais situation: more sniffer dogs.
Is that it? What a load of COBRAs.F
Subject to the restrictions of supervening law and the practical reality that one also has to deal with the French administration(s) what might you do?
I'm trying to confirm the methodology of this poll
Meanwhile the Burnham campaign have been trying to portray their candidate as the only one who could win support from the general public, as opposed to just Labour party members.
On Friday night they released a poll of 1,001 individuals by US polling firm Research Now, which showed Burnham in the lead among ordinary Britons with an interest in the Labour leadership election.
The poll found 30% of the members of the ordinary public would vote for Andy Burnham, 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, 24% would back Yvette Cooper, and just 21% would vote for Liz Kendall to be Labour leader.
The poll found 30% of the members of the ordinary public would vote for Andy Burnham, 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, 24% would back Yvette Cooper, and just 21% would vote for Liz Kendall to be Labour leader.
r
That's the best he can do in the 'only one who can win' stakes? They're all so close in it I'd call it positively encouraging for all of them.
Cameron's big solution to the Calais situation: more sniffer dogs.
Is that it? What a load of COBRAs.F
Subject to the restrictions of supervening law and the practical reality that one also has to deal with the French administration(s) what might you do?
Great big German Shepherd Dogs and a sign on the fence with a picture of a doggy and the message "Cross the fence and make my day", oh, and out of the foreign aid budget give the French a tanker full of Dettol so they can treat the illiterate or stupid after they have been thrown back.
I'm trying to confirm the methodology of this poll
Meanwhile the Burnham campaign have been trying to portray their candidate as the only one who could win support from the general public, as opposed to just Labour party members.
On Friday night they released a poll of 1,001 individuals by US polling firm Research Now, which showed Burnham in the lead among ordinary Britons with an interest in the Labour leadership election.
The poll found 30% of the members of the ordinary public would vote for Andy Burnham, 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, 24% would back Yvette Cooper, and just 21% would vote for Liz Kendall to be Labour leader.
But anyhoo - Andy Burnham = The Scouse Ed Miliband
The Founder Of The #Milifandom Is Backing Andy Burnham For Labour Leader
Indeed, Burnham has led with Mori, with OBR and was tied with Corbyn with yougov in net terms as to whether he would make voters more likely to vote Labour. I know OGH will dismiss this, but in 2010 OGH was saying Labour should ignore polls then too and pick Ed over David! That was not one of OGH's best calls as we have discovered
Mirror - OAP insists Jeremy Corbyn would take Labour backwards
Gillian Duffy, 71, said that if the left-wing Islington North MP wins the party's leadership poll, she will never again see a Labour government in her lifetime #bigot.
Margaret Thatcher held the party together well especially as, given the IMF crisis and everything else going on, an election seemed possible at almost any moment.
The Lib-Lab Pact steadied things a bit and indeed there were some positive economic signs in 1978 when Callaghan might have gone to the country and might have won an election. Instead, the Winter of Discontent and the political collapse of Labour made the Conservative victory inevitable.
Had Thatcher lost in 1978, would she have survived as Conservative leader or would someone like Walker or Prior have taken over as a centrist candidate ?
Mirror - OAP insists Jeremy Corbyn would take Labour backwards
Gillian Duffy, 71, said that if the left-wing Islington North MP wins the party's leadership poll, she will never again see a Labour government in her lifetime #bigot.
Margaret Thatcher held the party together well especially as, given the IMF crisis and everything else going on, an election seemed possible at almost any moment.
The Lib-Lab Pact steadied things a bit and indeed there were some positive economic signs in 1978 when Callaghan might have gone to the country and might have won an election. Instead, the Winter of Discontent and the political collapse of Labour made the Conservative victory inevitable.
Had Thatcher lost in 1978, would she have survived as Conservative leader or would someone like Walker or Prior have taken over as a centrist candidate ?
The idea that Corbyn is going to win back more than a tiny percentage of people who voted UKIP this year is laughable IMO. They're more likely to shift across to the Tories, if anything.
Not a good parallel. Heath only became leader in 1965 and nobody seriously expected him to beat Wilson in 1966 - indeed, Heath only just kept his own seat in the Labour near-landslide (I believe Labour won 48-42 in the national vote).
It was a huge achievement by Heath to overturn that majority in 1970 and secure a share of the vote (46%) that Thatcher never achieved and to which Cameron can only aspire.
Not a good parallel. Heath only became leader in 1965 and nobody seriously expected him to beat Wilson in 1966 - indeed, Heath only just kept his own seat in the Labour near-landslide (I believe Labour won 48-42 in the national vote).
It was a huge achievement by Heath to overturn that majority in 1970 and secure a share of the vote (46%) that Thatcher never achieved and to which Cameron can only aspire.
Yes, but Heath also lost 3/4 elections, Thatcher won 3 out of 3 and she faced the SDP/Liberal Alliance. Ultimately the mood music was for change at the end of the seventies as even Callaghan admitted. Callaghan may have beaten Thatcher narrowly in 1978, just as Carter may have narrowly beaten Reagan in 1976 had he defeated Ford for the GOP nomination, but it was likely only delaying the inevitable
Margaret Thatcher held the party together well especially as, given the IMF crisis and everything else going on, an election seemed possible at almost any moment.
The Lib-Lab Pact steadied things a bit and indeed there were some positive economic signs in 1978 when Callaghan might have gone to the country and might have won an election. Instead, the Winter of Discontent and the political collapse of Labour made the Conservative victory inevitable.
Had Thatcher lost in 1978, would she have survived as Conservative leader or would someone like Walker or Prior have taken over as a centrist candidate ?
One for alternatehistory.com perhaps.
Thatcher would almost certainly have been out had she lost, unless she lost by so small a margin that a second election might happen any day (a Feb 1974 scenario), given the traumas that Labour went through from 1974-8 and her lack of established base in the party at that point.
Corbyn should expect the same loyalty and support that he has consistently shown Labour leaders since 1983.
If he wins, it might not be a bad idea for him to allow Labour to free vote for the next two years and let all strands of Labour say what they think. If you can't expect and can't demand discipline then you might as well make a virtue of it. Some good ideas might come forward .
Corbyn should expect the same loyalty and support that he has consistently shown Labour leaders since 1983.
If he wins, it might not be a bad idea for him to allow Labour to free vote for the next two years and let all strands of Labour say what they think. If you can't expect and can't demand discipline then you might as well make a virtue of it. Some good ideas might come forward .
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
Well, he's said some stupider things, but he's not been almost invisible like Cooper. She seems to struggle to be noticed - I'd assumed it was intentional when serving under Ed M, but it's like that now too.
I do have trouble believing Osborne's star will rise any higher than it is now, with plenty of pitfalls on the horizon even if he sees off Boris and the others. I don't discount the possibility, if only because that he'd even be considered for the position once seemed crazy and now it isn't, but he won't have it as easy as he might think.
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
I don't disagree and 5 years is a long time in politics
Apologies if already posted. Does anyone remember the thread/blog article that was linked to here on PB.com a few weeks before the GE that predicted a slim Conservative majority? Twitter Tom Beardsworth @TBeardsworth 13 hrs13 hours ago The fromer Barclays trader @NCPoliticsUK who beat the British political pollsters http://bloom.bg/1OS1vIG via @business
Apologies if already posted. Does anyone remember the thread/blog article that was linked to here on PB.com a few weeks before the GE that predicted a slim Conservative majority? Twitter Tom Beardsworth @TBeardsworth 13 hrs13 hours ago The fromer Barclays trader @NCPoliticsUK who beat the British political pollsters http://bloom.bg/1OS1vIG via @business
Matt Singh is up the top of the tree so far as political analysis goes for betting.
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc.
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc. Burnham is better looking than Osborne
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc. Burnham is better looking than Osborne, though Osborne is probably better looking than Corbyn (even if he has his fans)
It's odd how there haven't been any EU polls recently. They were some in the weeks following the election which is precisely when they weren't required.
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc. Burnham is better looking than Osborne
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc.
Jeezo, if proof were needed that good looks are a subjective thing..
"Ed Balls interview: 'I knew we had lost...I was here one day and gone the next'
Exclusive: The most shocking defeat of the 2015 election saw Labour’s economist-in-chief lose his seat. In his first major interview since that day, Ed Balls talks to Mary Riddell about disagreeing with the other Ed, his wife’s bid to be party leader, and mourning his career in politics"
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc.
Jeezo, if proof were needed that good looks are a subjective thing..
Well different people have different tastes of course, but I don't think anyone would say William Hague and Ed Miliband were exactly lookers!
Gore was better looking than Bush but lost, although on other other hand he did win the popular vote.
Bush was actually quite good looking in his younger days and he had more charisma than Gore. He was certainly better looking than Kerry. Obama was better looking than McCain, Romney was not bad looking but his best days were behind him. Bill Clinton's success with the ladies transferred to the polls too, Reagan's days as a Hollywood idol did him no harm and JFK's looks certainly gave a big contrast with the sweaty Nixon in 1960. Alexis Tsipras and Sturgeon look quite good too, if Corbyn looked like Tsipras he would probably be more of a danger
Apologies if already posted. Does anyone remember the thread/blog article that was linked to here on PB.com a few weeks before the GE that predicted a slim Conservative majority? Twitter Tom Beardsworth @TBeardsworth 13 hrs13 hours ago The fromer Barclays trader @NCPoliticsUK who beat the British political pollsters http://bloom.bg/1OS1vIG via @business
I'm fairly certain I recall deriding that blog post quite thoroughly at the time. I just couldn't believe the shy Tory factor would be so significant. Shows what I know.
You may think that, but as Simon Cowell said if Tony Blair looked like Robin Cook he would not have been elected PM
The ridiculous thing is you think he is good looking
Burnham? He seems fairly handsome, as politicians go, I'd have thought, though surely only sexymps.com or whatever it's called can answer that definitively.
@Andy JS- Bush (Dubya) was exceptionally charming, charismatic, and I can guess exuded sex appeal. Gore was a dweeby, effeminate, dork with the sexual attraction of a limpet. Looks are a bit irrelevant.
Apologies if already posted. Does anyone remember the thread/blog article that was linked to here on PB.com a few weeks before the GE that predicted a slim Conservative majority? Twitter Tom Beardsworth @TBeardsworth 13 hrs13 hours ago The fromer Barclays trader @NCPoliticsUK who beat the British political pollsters http://bloom.bg/1OS1vIG via @business
I'm fairly certain I recall deriding that blog post quite thoroughly at the time. I just couldn't believe the shy Tory factor would be so significant. Shows what I know.
Wow.. She's very attractive and more importantly a very successful businesswoman... much more so than the montone and shrill Sturgeon.. would wouldn't be able to manage a whelk stall.
Apologies if already posted. Does anyone remember the thread/blog article that was linked to here on PB.com a few weeks before the GE that predicted a slim Conservative majority? Twitter Tom Beardsworth @TBeardsworth 13 hrs13 hours ago The fromer Barclays trader @NCPoliticsUK who beat the British political pollsters http://bloom.bg/1OS1vIG via @business
I'm fairly certain I recall deriding that blog post quite thoroughly at the time. I just couldn't believe the shy Tory factor would be so significant. Shows what I know.
Fortunately, I do not let being so completely wrong get in the way of making similarly firm predictions about the future - maybe I should try out for an actual job as a pundit?
It's only about 48 hours since Burnham was in freefall and his odds were the same as Cooper. Everyone was saying he was finished.
Now he's suddenly shortening again and Cooper is drifting?
A new popular poll by market research company Research Now suggests that, if they were able to vote in the Labour leadership elections, the majority of the general population would vote for Andy Burnham as the next Labour party leader, regardless of their political affiliation. This indicates that Andy Burnham may be the best candidate for the Labour Party in future general elections.
In a nationally representative sample, of those interested in the Labour leadership election 30% would vote for Andy Burnham, a clear favourite. 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, level with Yvette Cooper (24%) and Liz Kendall (21%) bringing up the rear.
Among people who voted Labour in the last election, (but who are not necessarily registered to vote in the Labour leadership election) Andy Burnham is still the clear favourite with 36% favouring the candidate, with Jeremy Corbyn at 28% while Yvette Cooper (20%) and Liz Kendall (16%) trail significantly. However, among Liberal Democrat voters, the female candidates are favourites with Yvette Cooper in the lead.
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc.
Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall being in the lead with Liberal Democrats certainly sounds familiar. I know at least one Liberal Democrat that delights in highlighting and presenting the slightest snippet of news that shows them in a good light on his blog.
@HYUFD- actually you hit the nail not he head- charisma is the thing you want in politics (as a male), not looks, youth, athleticism.
Clinton of course., and then Bush (Dubya), Obama, Blair, Mitterand, Schroder.
Those without include....Miliband (Ed), Brown, Gore, Romney, Osborne, Sarkozy, Abbott, Dukakis, Hague, Howard.
Women- tougher to define- Merkel, Gandhi and Thatcher have something that resembles something like power which is quite magnetic and attractive.
It is possible to be good looking and not charismatic but the 2 often go together. I agree with your charismatic figures (you could add Chirac, Cameron, Mandela etc) Agree on most of those you listed without charisma, but Sarkozy is quite charismatic as is Abbott on occasion.
Womens charisma tends to be projected through authority as you say
This is not a new phenomena in politics, and Salmond and Sturgeon are not the first to ride a wave of popularity after supposedly changing the political game. Anyone remember a couple of politicians called Blair and Brown who used to be quite popular too, they managed to dominant UK politics for over a decade, and Brown even claimed to have ended the economic boom and bust cycle.....
At the end of the day, and no matter how slick the PR machine, governing is all about the hard grind of actually delivering on those vital bread and butter issues like health and education. So while I agree that Salmond and now Sturgeon have a great PR machine driving them along right now, the Scottish NHS, education and policing etc has never been in a worse state than it is right now. And eventually, the sticking plaster of a Sturgeon photo op or lets talk about another Indy Ref in time for the 6pm news is going to stop it falling off.
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
And, most importantly, ahead of the "unbeatable" Osborne, and not a million miles off Boris or May.
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
He is above all of them when you take the net score (ie positive vs negative)
Well, that's true, but to be fair I think we should probably assume more of the "Don't Knows" would break for a negative opinion.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
It may sound ridiculous, but Burnham is also quite good looking, and the better looking candidate normally wins. Cameron was certainly better looking than Miliband and Brown, Blair was better looking than Howard and Hague and Major, Major better looking than Kinnock, Thatcher better looking than Kinnock and Foot etc.
Get a room!
I would not go that far, but on any objective measure Burnham is better looking than Ed Miliband and Corbyn
You may think that, but as Simon Cowell said if Tony Blair looked like Robin Cook he would not have been elected PM
The ridiculous thing is you think he is good looking
Burnham? He seems fairly handsome, as politicians go, I'd have thought, though surely only sexymps.com or whatever it's called can answer that definitively.
He is not that high on sexyMPs though, the sexiest is Nicola Blackwood, Tory MP for Oxford W and Abingdon, with Daniel Poulter, Tory MP for Central Suffolk, the sexiest male. The ugliest is Tom Watson, with Nia Griffith the ugliest lady. Presently the choice on the website is whether you would rather have sex with John Redwood or South Suffolk MP James Cartlidge http://sexymp.co.uk/
This is not a new phenomena in politics, and Salmond and Sturgeon are not the first to ride a wave of popularity after supposedly changing the political game.
One thing that really hasn't been understood by the PB Tory's and other political observers is that Salmond has changed the game.
There's now an alternative way of looking at politics. Sturgeon has capitalised on this.
The danger for the establishment, is that if they don't change, they will be airbrushed out of history.
Quite so. I really do not understand this need some have to portray a very capable set of politicians and a party that has performed very well as some sort of transcendent awakening. They've played by the same rules in the same game as everyone else, they've just done much better, for the forseeable future, at taking advantage of the situation. Some in UKIP, beyond merely playing up the outsider card, try to overdo the 'foing things differently' card as well.
Apologies if already posted. Does anyone remember the thread/blog article that was linked to here on PB.com a few weeks before the GE that predicted a slim Conservative majority? Twitter Tom Beardsworth @TBeardsworth 13 hrs13 hours ago The fromer Barclays trader @NCPoliticsUK who beat the British political pollsters http://bloom.bg/1OS1vIG via @business
I'm fairly certain I recall deriding that blog post quite thoroughly at the time. I just couldn't believe the shy Tory factor would be so significant. Shows what I know.
Fortunately, I do not let being so completely wrong get in the way of making similarly firm predictions about the future - maybe I should try out for an actual job as a pundit?
Comments
One possibility is the Conservatives will provide their own opposition as candidates jostle for position in the post-Cameron era so airport runways, Europe, fracking etc, etc provide the possibility for internal Conservative discontent.
The other truth is if you make the tent too big it will fall down. Trying to shoe-horn anyone and everyone into the Government-supporting ranks by a range of diverse policies ultimately creates contradiction and instability. You quite literally cannot please all of the people all of the time and helping one area invariably antagonises another.
Politically, then, do you either try to reach those who didn't vote for you or do you simply keep those who did sweet and hope that will be enough ?
Hope for politics yet?
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/greeces-tsipras-seeks-control-over-party-emergency-congress-316737?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=12138e25e3-newsletter_weekly_update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-12138e25e3-245514803
As with Labour, the influx of new members is making the outcome less predictable.
"A private plane carrying four people has crashed into a car auction in Hampshire.
The light aircraft, which crashed during an attempt to land at Blackbushe Airport, burst into flames on impact, witnesses said.
South East Coast Ambulance Service initially tweeted there were four casualties, but later said the number of injured people was unconfirmed."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-33736685
"Walkies" then highlights on C5 !!!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/31/hampshire-fire-services-respond-plane-overshooting-airport-runway
You are probably right and what you are saying is a reasonable extrapolation from the past. My point was just that often what actually happens bears no resemblance to what anyone expected.
Corbyn's position, were he to successfully the sea of electoral hazard, would be analogous and perhaps more extreme than Margaret Thatcher's in February 1975. She led a Shadow Cabinet, a number of whom had not voted for her.
The question becomes one of loyalty - is there any reason, apart from personal pique, why the likes of Burnham and Cooper couldn't serve in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet ? As for the direction, it won't matter much if the impact is positive - both Blair and Cameron showed a successful leader can quickly mute any internal criticism.
Just as we can wonder how long Thatcher would have stayed as Conservative leader had she lost to Callaghan in an autumn 1978 election we can ask the same of Corbyn if he leads Labour to defeat next time. The habit of leaders quickly departing in the aftermath of defeat (not always wise in my view) leads to these periods of instability and public introspection.
Each comes with its own political drawbacks so Cameron is merely finding a middle way.
Meanwhile the Burnham campaign have been trying to portray their candidate as the only one who could win support from the general public, as opposed to just Labour party members.
On Friday night they released a poll of 1,001 individuals by US polling firm Research Now, which showed Burnham in the lead among ordinary Britons with an interest in the Labour leadership election.
The poll found 30% of the members of the ordinary public would vote for Andy Burnham, 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, 24% would back Yvette Cooper, and just 21% would vote for Liz Kendall to be Labour leader.
http://bzfd.it/1SoMzHs
But anyhoo - Andy Burnham = The Scouse Ed Miliband
The Founder Of The #Milifandom Is Backing Andy Burnham For Labour Leader
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3602/Burnham-leads-the-pack-but-all-Labour-hopefuls-have-work-to-do.aspx
He was ahead as best potential PM by 12% over Cooper and 19% over Corbyn.
Hmm, I’m getting a little worried about that boy.
No wonder he's no longer the favourite.
Gillian Duffy, 71, said that if the left-wing Islington North MP wins the party's leadership poll, she will never again see a Labour government in her lifetime #bigot.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-bigot-oap-insists-6172567#ICID=sharebar_twitter
The Lib-Lab Pact steadied things a bit and indeed there were some positive economic signs in 1978 when Callaghan might have gone to the country and might have won an election. Instead, the Winter of Discontent and the political collapse of Labour made the Conservative victory inevitable.
Had Thatcher lost in 1978, would she have survived as Conservative leader or would someone like Walker or Prior have taken over as a centrist candidate ?
One for alternatehistory.com perhaps.
Clinton – 47% (54)
Rubio – 42% (38)
Clinton – 48% (51)
Paul – 43% (40)
Clinton – 49% (49)
Bush – 43% (42)
Clinton – 47% (51)
Perry – 40% (42)
Clinton – 48% (-)
Walker – 41% (-)
Clinton – 49% (53)
Cruz – 40% (39)
Clinton – 50% (53)
Huckabee – 41% (40)
Clinton – 49% (-)
Carson – 39% (-)
Clinton – 50% (53)
Christie – 40% (41)
Clinton – 49% (-)
Kasich – 39% (-)
Clinton – 51% (-)
Santorum – 39% (-)
Clinton – 50% (-)
Pataki – 37% (-)
Clinton – 52% (-)
Jindal – 36% (-)
Clinton – 54% (-)
Trump – 38% (-)
Clinton – 52% (-)
Graham – 35% (-)
Clinton – 53% (-)
Fiorina 35% (-)
Clinton – 53% (-)
Gilmore – 32% (-)
Clinton – 44% (-)
Bush – 29% (-)
Trump – 20% (-)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article29582383.html
It was a huge achievement by Heath to overturn that majority in 1970 and secure a share of the vote (46%) that Thatcher never achieved and to which Cameron can only aspire.
pəʊl/
noun
noun: poll; plural noun: polls; plural noun: the polls
1.
the process of voting in an election.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-july-2015-topline-part-two.pdf
I think it now has to be concluded that Burnham is more electable than Cooper - this many polls couldn't be wrong, surely. For whatever reason, the public just don't seem to like Yvette.
However, I would still say that the fact more people in absolute numbers say they're positive about Burnham being PM than Osborne being PM, suggests Labour have reason to fancy their chances in 2020 if that's the match-up, despite the ridiculous Tory hubris / Labour fatalism rife right now.
I do have trouble believing Osborne's star will rise any higher than it is now, with plenty of pitfalls on the horizon even if he sees off Boris and the others. I don't discount the possibility, if only because that he'd even be considered for the position once seemed crazy and now it isn't, but he won't have it as easy as he might think.
There's now an alternative way of looking at politics. Sturgeon has capitalised on this.
The danger for the establishment, is that if they don't change, they will be airbrushed out of history.
Twitter
Tom Beardsworth @TBeardsworth 13 hrs13 hours ago
The fromer Barclays trader @NCPoliticsUK who beat the British political pollsters http://bloom.bg/1OS1vIG via @business
How did he change the game? What is this new way of looking at politics?
It is one of the least original
Yes, it does
Exclusive: The most shocking defeat of the 2015 election saw Labour’s economist-in-chief lose his seat. In his first major interview since that day, Ed Balls talks to Mary Riddell about disagreeing with the other Ed, his wife’s bid to be party leader, and mourning his career in politics"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11768761/Ed-Balls-first-interview-since-labour-shadow-chancellors-shock-general-election-defeat.html
It's only about 48 hours since Burnham was in freefall and his odds were the same as Cooper. Everyone was saying he was finished.
Now he's suddenly shortening again and Cooper is drifting?
http://tinyurl.com/oqc442p
The ridiculous thing is you think he is good looking
In a nationally representative sample, of those interested in the Labour leadership election 30% would vote for Andy Burnham, a clear favourite. 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, level with Yvette Cooper (24%) and Liz Kendall (21%) bringing up the rear.
Among people who voted Labour in the last election, (but who are not necessarily registered to vote in the Labour leadership election) Andy Burnham is still the clear favourite with 36% favouring the candidate, with Jeremy Corbyn at 28% while Yvette Cooper (20%) and Liz Kendall (16%) trail significantly. However, among Liberal Democrat voters, the female candidates are favourites with Yvette Cooper in the lead.
http://news.sys-con.com/node/3393784
Clinton of course., and then Bush (Dubya), Obama, Blair, Mitterand, Schroder.
Those without include....Miliband (Ed), Brown, Gore, Romney, Osborne, Sarkozy, Abbott, Dukakis, Hague, Howard.
Women- tougher to define- Merkel, Gandhi and Thatcher have something that resembles something like power which is quite magnetic and attractive.
http://tinyurl.com/qdogamz
YMC Jezza !
Womens charisma tends to be projected through authority as you say
At the end of the day, and no matter how slick the PR machine, governing is all about the hard grind of actually delivering on those vital bread and butter issues like health and education. So while I agree that Salmond and now Sturgeon have a great PR machine driving them along right now, the Scottish NHS, education and policing etc has never been in a worse state than it is right now. And eventually, the sticking plaster of a Sturgeon photo op or lets talk about another Indy Ref in time for the 6pm news is going to stop it falling off.
http://sexymp.co.uk/
Good night all.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/07/01/do-bald-guys-always-lose/
SNP are tending to become extremely arrogant and condescending these days, Sturgeon is now almost unwatchable these days at FM questions as a result.