Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadership ratings: a good guide but not a magic measure
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leadership ratings: a good guide but not a magic measure
It’s sometimes said that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them but that’s only true to a degree. A popular and effective government will always win re-election because in such circumstances, the swing voters in the electorate will have little reason to listen to the opposition, little to gain and potentially much to lose by voting the government out no matter how good the opposi…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Ashcroft polling was almost certainly done by YouGov which for whatever reason seems to rate Tory figures better in ratings than Labour ones.
Thus Ipsos-MORI and ComRes have Balls leading Osborne as best Chancellor while YouGov is the other way round.
What amuses me is that at the same time EdM is attacked for being weak and also the murder of his brother. He can't be both.
The really weak leader is Cameron - just look at how he handled his last reshuffle.
How would Prime Minister Miliband perform on the world stage?
Unlike Cameron in opposition, the Labour leader has international experience, and a clear sense of where he stands
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/prime-minister-miliband-world-stage
They 'gifted' him the leadership because he wasn't David and little Ed was the stop David candidate. They unions didn't want David because David was seen as the uber Blairite who they feared would end up emulating the tories. Well after all little Ed's traingulation and copying the tories on cuts and spending they must feel really pleased with themselves now.
The tories are going to have a bit of a problem whining about the unions and 'Red' Ed while at the same time shouting about how Osbrowne and Cammie must be right because little Ed and Balls are copying their polices. Which would be the entire point of the endless inane Blairite triangulation in the first place.
The reason little Ed is weak isn't that Dan Hodges won't forgive him for winning against David, since little Ed inexplicably failed to concede victory to David just because he was his brother. Nor is it just the fact that all his tory triangulation reveals little Ed hasn't a clue about what he or labour stands for and cares even less. By being so weak as to let the Blairites push him into this panicky triangulation on cuts and spending so far out he put an enormous hostage to fortune into play.
Here's what happens when an opposition panics and tries to triangulate too soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0
As we all know that was a roaring success and the tories never stop going on about that master strategy.
That and many other reasons is why you don't let another party write all your policies and control the agenda. The agenda can change and you are left looking like a complete tw+t.
It's why you leave the detail to the campaign since an opposition is going to get hammered regardless for years about lack of detail until the campaign anyway. That's how it works.
The idea that he was wrong to stand against his brother and win is risible. David had ample opportunity to stand against Brown, notably in the notorious coronation of 2007. Ed stood fair and square and won according to the rules. The idea that he should have had to defer to his elder brother is ridiculous in a democratic party. Primogeniture only applies to hereditary positions, and while there is nepotism in the Labour party it should not go that far.
I would like to see Ed Miliband demonstrate his ruthlessness by axing yesterdays man, Ed Balls. The closer to the election we get the bigger liability Balls is. He contradicted the lead that Miliband gave on fiscal sanity the very next day, and it is not tenable to have the LOTO and shadow chancellor disagreeing on such fundamentals in public. For all their faults Dave and George are clearly friends as well as colleagues and agree on policy fundamentals.
A characteristically good article DH.
Govt approval (net)
UK: -34
DE: -42
FR: -55
Household finances NEXT 12m net better:
UK: -28
DE: -6
FR: -50
Household finances LAST 12m net better:
UK: -35
DE: -15
FR: -56
Country economy NEXT 12 months net better
UK: -13
DE:. -26
FR:, -70
Country economy LAST 12 months net better:
UK: -26
DE: -23
FR: -54
Also France only narrowly would vote to stay in the EU (net stay)
UK: -14
DE: +22
FR: +4
It's going to be a long hot summer in Paris....
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n0z7k4uiy6/Copy of Eurotrack June.pdf
The Lamont/Salmond leadership ratings are a lot tighter right now, but Lamont looks like a sprinter and in politics the marathon athlete usually triumphs.
Due to those two 200,000 GBP bets placed at Hills and Ladbrokes shops in Scotland, reported by Mike, we have a small arbitrage on the indyref market (just under 2%).
Personally, I just don't have the liquidity to participate at the moment as I am currently buying gold mining stocks like a madman. The figures look dire at the moment, but I expect I will be grinning like a Cheshire cat by Hogmanay.
For those interested in the 2% arb, you can currently back 'Yes' at 4/1 with either Hills or Ladbrokes, and 'No' at 2/9 with either Stan James or Bet365. I suspect that you might have difficulty getting a useful sum on 'No' with those two bookies, but it is worth a look.
I would not recommend backing 'No' at current prices without the hedge, as (excluding the DKs/WNVs) the polls are pointing to a 55/45 victory for Alistair Darling's Better Together campaign. And that makes the 2/9 price look extremely stingy.
One problem.
They are not the opposition.
1. Cameron does not share your analysis of Osborne (how's the burger story doing btw)
2. Cameron and Osborne are mates.
How much of the above can be said for Miliband and Balls?
One problem.
SLAB and SCONs endless negativity and scare stories aren't detail.
And everything Balls predicted would happen, didn't. And he has accepted Osborne's spending envelope. Yet, Miliband has guaranteed him his job up to the election. That seems odd for a "ruthless" winner.
What's the phrase?
Weak, weak, weak.
SLAB and SCON don't have to make the case for independence - the SNP do - and you yourself have said 'the campaign hasn't started yet".
Leaving it all to the last few months is very "brave".
I am sure that you are right in that Osborne is not popular in Glasgow, but I suspect no Tory Chancellor would be, or a LibDem such as Alexander would be. There are very few marginals near Glasgow, and as we are constantly reminded FPTP rules. How his policies are seen in marginals such as Loughborough and Broxtowe will determine the next election.
The fact that George has got over the Omnishambles and all three Westminster parties have accepted the austerity programme, shows who has the momentum. George has the wind in his sails, while Balls has run out of puff. 2 years out from an election, with the economy improving, albeit still with significant issues he will be sitting a lot more comfortably than Balls.
(how did the pasty story do during Osbrowne's omnishambles BTW?)
2. You think the chumocracy is a plus do you? Just you keep right on thinking that dear.
It how Mr Smithson made his cash in 2011. That was when SLAB were busy congratulating themselves for their brilliant campaign strategy and seemingly inevitable victory a couple of months out from the result when they had double digit leads.
The chancellor isn't more important than the PM and the shadow chancellor isn't more important than the opposition leader.
Remind me of Osbrowne's stratospheric approval ratings for the UK as a whole since you seem to think he's only unpopular in Glasgow?
Others, Carlotta and Fitalass et al please take note, could learn from Tim on that point.
Ed Balls is likely to cost Labour a majority. I suspect that Ed Miliband will dump Balls before the next election, but not yet. Balls is a Brownian style plotter and needs to be ditched close enough to an election that he cannot be openly disloyal. Balls on the backbenches now would be a problem but in autumn 2014 much less so.
"At the moment, sadly, the Public Finances are in a mess - we've got the worst Public Finances in Europe believe it or not, worse even than Italy"
Hardly the sort of statement that is likely to instill confidence in the minds of Britain's creditors and one which will surely go down as being his own "Liam Byrne" moment.
Do your own research
It's also never going to change. It's far too late for that now. Small movements up or down will not change the underlying toxicity.
Once the public has made it's mind up on a politician then that's pretty much that. Osbrowne will remain toxic to the voters just like Clegg will. No amount of relaunches, radio phone-ins or 'man of the people' humburger tweets will change it.
If Cammie thought it was hard to keep Osbrowne away from the cameras as much as possible when he was shadow chancellor then he's going to find it ten times harder to do with Osbrowne as Chancellor.
In Scotland it looks as if the LibDems are not going too well, and the Tories are a rump with little prospect of improvement. The significance of the independence referendum (a coalition rather than Labour initiative) on the 2015 election is that a vote for independence will make a Labour govt in rUK much less achievable.
A vote for the union would be interesting. Clearly it would make a Westminster Labour govt very likely, in part because of the SLAB MPs, and in part the loss of a referendum would very likely lead to serious infighting in the SNP. Parties that lose elections on such fundamental issues always have bitter disputes afterwards and the SNP lost a lot of seats and support after losing the 78 referendum.
If Scotland votes "yes" to independence, then expect George to be scoffing burgers in Downing street for another 5 years.
The government's hopes of claiming credit for reviving the British economy suffered a severe blow today when the world's biggest buyers of bonds warned that the UK was a "must to avoid" for his investors as its debt was "resting on a bed of nitroglycerine".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/26/uk-economy-debt-bob-gross
I'd rather own Ozzies as a hedge though.
I've said it before on here but anyone who thinks they know for certain how the independence vote (either way) will affect 2015 VI for scotland is talking through their posterior. It is a completely unpredictable factor. We just don't know. You can make theories but at the end of the day you might just be better watching the actual VI polling.
@PeterWatt123
The Falkirk selection appears to be finally shining a light on the reality of power blocks in the Labour Party.
Ed is, always has been, and always will be, a union puppet
Indeed so, but it is shocking in my view to hear the CotE spell things out in such stark terms and furthermore to admit that in the overall scheme of things such little progress has seemingly been achieved over the past three years
A vote for separation would make English votes for English Laws a very likely manifesto policy for the Conservatives, which in the aftermath of a vote for separation would be very popular, particularly amongst the wavering Kippers.
It's like private eye brought to life. What devastating satire.
Now explain why despite saying that he backed labour's spending plans and committed the tories to increasing spending?
Take your time.
worst PM ever.
I'm dreading crap PM Ed - he will take us down the Hollande route.
We've managed to flip over and dig into the slope so we're not slipping down anymore.
But we're still on the scree, and the safe path is a long way up.
So now we have to climb back. It'll be difficult. And dangerous. And there's no room for error.
Does that help?
Really? The AUS $ is very strong at present but very vulnerable to a popping of the Australian commodity boom and housing bubble.
As far as gold shares go, I have some Petropavlovsk, which have lost 58% by value over the last 3 months, despite them having hedged the majority of their production at near $500 above the current gold price. I would only buy more after seeing a turnaround in the gold price, which I cannot see happening in the foreseeable, but do your own research.
Increased spending: debt interest he couldn't do anything about. Increasing welfare allowances at 5.2% in hindsight was a mistake (and lots of people criticised him at the time).
Those two items explain the rise in total spending. But in real terms, overall government spending will fall over the life of this parliament.
In terms of the cuts, the ringfence around the NHS and the DfID increases explain the severity of the cuts on the unprotected departments. Both can - and are - criticised. I see the political logic for the NHS ringfence (especially as given healthcare inflation is typically higher than normal inflation it's pretty painful anyway). DfID I struggle to understand why they haven't made a concessions (e.g. delaying achievement of the 0.7% target by a couple of years).
*sigh*
Try looking up what the McKay commission was set up by Cammie and Clegg to do.
You could also educate yourself with this which blows apart the myth that scottish MPs are crucial to the makeup of westminster election results.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
Any similarity between this scenario and the Britain<->EU relationship is purely coincidental. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touching_the_Void
Charles: "Think of it like this: we were previously slipping down a scree slope towards a sheer drop.
We've managed to flip over and dig into the slope so we're not slipping down anymore.
But we're still on the scree, and the safe path is a long way up.
So now we have to climb back. It'll be difficult. And dangerous. And there's no room for error.
Does that help?"
Yes thanks, it helps I suppose, I just hadn't realised that our position was even more desperate than that of Italy ...... how bloody depressing.
As far as gold shares go, I have some Petropavlovsk, which have lost 58% by value over the last 3 months, despite them having hedged the majority of their production at near $500 above the current gold price. I would only buy more after seeing a turnaround in the gold price, which I cannot see happening in the foreseeable, but do your own research.
We bought into Troy at just under $2 per share, have taken all our money and more off the table on the way up. I think it's a good company, but am selling down rather than buying more at the moment, because I want to manage exposure limits (we invested 2 units, it turned into 5, and we are now back down at 3, but I'd still rather have 1 unit per investment).
Just posted it because Stuart is a buyer of gold mining & he might not have noticed this one because it's pretty obscure.
Most govt spending is in the medium to long term, or determined by existing statutes and policies on welfare, pensions and health. It takes at least a year in office before any significant changes can be made.
As has already been pointed out.
Just posted it because Stuart is a buyer of gold mining & he might not have noticed this one because it's pretty obscure.
The volatility of the gold price is such that smaller gold mining companies must be very exposed to risk. The bigger companies with more robust finances are surely safer, but of course less upside. You pays your money and makes your choice!
My investment in stocks is in my self managed ISAs so a much smaller scale than yours I expect!
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
Welcome back! I was saying only yesterday in another place that I missed your contributions. I think you are being very brave investing in gold though. If the China shadow banking bubble bursts, as I fear it will, the price will collapse, big time as more gold than you can shake a stick at is dumped.
@Charles That was my suggestion about Ed and David the other day (and on other days) almost word for word. I don't claim it is an original thought.
@Peter_from_Putney Our deficit is much worse that Italy's and indeed almost everyone else's in Europe. Although it is has come down theirs have come down too, often faster under pressure from the ECB. But Italy's debt is much worse than ours and we can avoid default by printing our own money. It is not a great situation to be in and it is good to see Osborne being frank about it but it is better than Italy's.
I am not entirely sure that I know precisely what figures David Herdson has based his figures on. Some of the figures quoted from Yougov yesterday were shocking. IIRC something like 9% thought Labour were capable of making a tough decision. Surely that must be a reflection on the leadership. Furthermore it was heading in the wrong direction. Ditto the tories who were in the 40s.
I'm losing track of who we are insulting around here.
I think Ed does have some ruthlessness in him. He is not a Brownian brooding plotter, but he did get to the top, and that in itself shows a degree of steel. Much more than his cowardly brother.
But he has yet to make any significant impact with the wider public, has shown precious few signs of decisiveness or political courage, and hence trails his party.
Will all that prevent him from becoming PM? Of course not, but it doesn't help.
Mind you, the BBC make the same David/Ed mistake regularly so @malcolmg is in distinguished company!
Brown led by making spending reviews long term rather than short term, and now budgetary changes are announced a year or two in advance. This does tie the hands of an incoming govt for over a year.
And don't forget that regaining the nations confidence on matters economic was a key part of the 97 strategy. For 20 years Labour lost that, from 77 onwards, and regaining it this time will be no easier.
Miliband did the right thing to accept the spending review. It is not popular with his party, but shows his thirst for govt, and that he is willing to be strong in pursuit of his objective. He has a lackluster front bench behind him, which will be a problem.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-29/greg-combet-quits-politics/4789542
But thanks for the insight that the SNP are approaching independence like an opposition party approaches a GE - explains a lot!
Yet you don't seem to think Cammie was right by accepting labour's spending plans?
Two years out it's hardly all about whether little Ed can posture against his party to try and slide to the right, it's about triangulating on a moving target. He may yet come to regret it in a huge way.
This provides the numbers for Charles's rather good scree analogy. The government has made real and consistent progress in deficit reduction but the sad fact is that as a share of GDP it is still very high. Closing that gap is going to be painful.
What Osborne is doing is setting an agenda for the next election. If the question then is not who has the best ideas for spending but who do you trust to cut spending further and keep a grip he will have won. I don't recall that being the question since 1979 but acknowledging the continuing extent of the problem is smart politics (as well as being honest of course).
I hope you use the charm you display here on the doorstep. It will do no end of damage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18162832
I manage perfectly well thanks because curiously enough on the ground in scotland there isn't an overabundance of far right swivel-eyed loons to have to deal with. Like on some political betting sites. Funny that.
The doorstep, someone potentially persuadable with a vote.
PB.com, no votes, no influence, almost completely unpersuadable.
In govt in 2007, with access to the books, it was foolish by Brown/Balls.
But I think it now universally agreed that those 2007 spending plans were foolish, and also universally agreed that austerity is nessecary. That is an important political consensus.
Yup. Even dyed in the wool labour voters can take a leaflet or show an interest. Doesn't mean they are all persuadable of course but there's a marked difference to the hostility some would have you believe if you took Lamont and SLAB too seriously.
It's all to play for and SLAB's continual reluctance to publish their membership numbers hardly bodes well for their ground game.
Though I did once come across a bedecked "better together" Ford Focus scooting through the streets with an operative megaphoning the message to somewhat startled pedestrians.