Question for PBers who vote Labour or are optimistic about EdM becoming PM - do you think that his poll ratings on negative traits such as 'weak', 'indecisive' '[not] good in a crisis', etc. are likely to improve before the next election or don't you think it's going to matter?
Aww, how sweet. The second rate Blair impersonator Cammie appeases his role model after some 'hurtful' off the cuff comments that for some reason might have been 'misconstrued'.
David Cameron admits: Tony Blair is no lobbyist
Downing Street clarifies David Cameron's remarks about Tony Blair 'lobbying' him over various 'things'.
When David Cameron was being criticised over the influence of his election adviser Lynton Crosby, he pointed to the example of Tony Blair, who has many business interests.
“[He] is someone who does lobby me from time to time on things like the Middle East peace process,” Cameron said.
This angered the former Labour prime minister, whose spokesman said he did not “lobby David Cameron”.
Now, the Prime Minister appears to have rowed back on his claims. In response to a Freedom of Information inquiry, Downing Street spokesman makes clear that Tony Blair’s “lobbying” related solely to his work as a Middle East peace envoy.
Question for PBers who vote Labour or are optimistic about EdM becoming PM - do you think that his negative traits (as identified by the electorate) such as 'weak', 'indecisive' '[not] good in a crisis', etc. are likely to improve before the next election (in the eyes of the electorate) or don't you think it's going to matter.
I can't see 'out of touch' improving much for DC.
I think both, though I'm not (yet) a Labour voter or 'optimistic' about him becoming PM, I just think it's the most likely scenario.
I think it won't matter as much because of the LD collapse (even assuming they can pull some of that back, losing even 5% direct to Labour, which seems very possible, would be a major influence on the final outcome), and because of less than enthusiastic Tories shunning the Cameroonian second attempt either by voting UKIP or staying at home, and the swing voters feeling like punishing the people in charge during 5 mostly difficult years economically (deserving or otherwise). I think Labour's core vote is solid enough that weak leadership will not cost them enough points to prevent them being the largest party, which in any case is easier for them than the Tories.
I think his negative figures are likely to improve because he's got a certain ruthless streak and so I think he has what it takes to make enough relevant attacks in the run up to the election to raise his public perception in the crucial period when more people than just political wonks will pay attention to him.
Cameron will remain 'out of touch' as you say, although personally I've never really cared about that as I think it's a fallacy that is far too accepted that Labour are automatically more in touch (In fact I think they rely on it and can be a bit lazy with their attacks sometimes knowing they have that tag).
I am just looking for Felix to explain it. If you look through Scotts posts 95% of them are basically copying and pasting knocking copy. If you believed Scotts view of the world you would think it was Labour and not the Tories that couldn't win a majority.
I am just looking for Felix to explain it. If you look through Scotts posts 95% of them are basically copying and pasting knocking copy. If you believed Scotts view of the world you would think it was Labour and not the Tories that couldn't win a majority.
I think you have missed the point. Engage in debate by all means but repeatedly calling your adversaries stupid or words to that effect really is no argument and only strengthens their case. The fact is that the bulk of the anti-Miliband press recently has come from critics within the party and it has, albeit to a limited degree, affected his polling figures. No amount of abuse at posters on here alters that.
I am just looking for Felix to explain it. If you look through Scotts posts 95% of them are basically copying and pasting knocking copy. If you believed Scotts view of the world you would think it was Labour and not the Tories that couldn't win a majority.
It was ironic for you and the evening shift tim to be talking of a "fantasy world they can live in to escape their own. It's like they need it for their own validation as well." Many would say that you, tim and others inhabit exactly that sort of circle-jerk existence.
Plus, its Rod Crosby rather than Scott who has the scientific proof that Labour cannot win a majority.
Anyway, not interested in this. Endex. Back to hoping that the USA can pull back 5 points in the golf.
No amount of abuse at posters on here alters that.
Oh, don't be a spoilsport. Hurling abuse at other posters is therapeutic displacement activity from facing the reality of just how crap Ed really is. Quoting each other and LOLing is like group therapy
Could you inform us of the last political bet you placed.?
So how much have you got on Prime Minister Ed Miliband, and at what odds?
If he doesn't want answer, how about Carl, IOS, or any of Ed's other cheerleaders; have you put your money where your mouths are?
Being honest? I'm not a "cheerleader" for Ed, though I do like quite him (I realise the distinction may be lost by some on here) and I do think he's fairly likely to become PM.
I've got nothing on Ed next PM at the moment, the current 4/6ish looks about right, but if it drifts because of the current non-narrative (or "Mr 0%" RodCrosby fancies a bet!) then I might have a few quid.
I try to restrict myself to mainly long-ish odds fun punts these days, I have more than enough vices as it is (I have a bet on May at long odds thanks to something I read on here, but am becoming less hopeful about that...)
I am just looking for Felix to explain it. If you look through Scotts posts 95% of them are basically copying and pasting knocking copy. If you believed Scotts view of the world you would think it was Labour and not the Tories that couldn't win a majority.
its Rod Crosby... who has the scientific proof that Labour cannot win a majority.
Stephen Fry has met David Cameron in secret about Russia's anti-gay laws and the country's 2014 Winter Olympics: http://dspy.me/14N4tVA
That sounds very weird. They met in a pub in Limehouse and had "a friendly chat rather than serious talks".
Sounds like it was a more general event and Fry just buttonholed Cameron.
He often has 'general' pub events? It's possible to take chillaxing a touch too far charles.
Going by where it occurred and who organised it I think it's fairly safe to say it was no accident regardless of whether sources spin it as serious or friendly.
Evgeny Lebedev, the son of billionaire Russian Alexander Lebedev, owner of The Independent, brokered the meeting, reports The Guardian.
The pair are said to have met on Monday evening (August 12), two days after their Twitter conversation, at the Grapes pub in Limehouse. It is jointly owned by Lebedev and actor Sir Ian McKellen.
Sources have claimed that the pair had a friendly conversation rather than serious talks.
Question for PBers who vote Labour or are optimistic about EdM becoming PM - do you think that his poll ratings on negative traits such as 'weak', 'indecisive' '[not] good in a crisis', etc. are likely to improve before the next election or don't you think it's going to matter?
I can't see 'out of touch' improving much for DC.
Yes, I'd expect partisan voters to align on party lines on the subsidiaries as the election gets closer, so he'll get better ratings from Labour supporters. I doubt he'll improve as much with floating voters, which would doom him in a normal cycle, but the bar he has to clear to become PM is very low.
Comments
Keep up the good work. Less than 2 years to go...
I can't see 'out of touch' improving much for DC.
I think it won't matter as much because of the LD collapse (even assuming they can pull some of that back, losing even 5% direct to Labour, which seems very possible, would be a major influence on the final outcome), and because of less than enthusiastic Tories shunning the Cameroonian second attempt either by voting UKIP or staying at home, and the swing voters feeling like punishing the people in charge during 5 mostly difficult years economically (deserving or otherwise). I think Labour's core vote is solid enough that weak leadership will not cost them enough points to prevent them being the largest party, which in any case is easier for them than the Tories.
I think his negative figures are likely to improve because he's got a certain ruthless streak and so I think he has what it takes to make enough relevant attacks in the run up to the election to raise his public perception in the crucial period when more people than just political wonks will pay attention to him.
Cameron will remain 'out of touch' as you say, although personally I've never really cared about that as I think it's a fallacy that is far too accepted that Labour are automatically more in touch (In fact I think they rely on it and can be a bit lazy with their attacks sometimes knowing they have that tag).
I am just looking for Felix to explain it. If you look through Scotts posts 95% of them are basically copying and pasting knocking copy. If you believed Scotts view of the world you would think it was Labour and not the Tories that couldn't win a majority.
IDS was out 28 days after his 'turning up the volume' speech. Today, as Chuka spouts the same for Ed it is 34 days until Labour conference
Plus, its Rod Crosby rather than Scott who has the scientific proof that Labour cannot win a majority.
Anyway, not interested in this. Endex. Back to hoping that the USA can pull back 5 points in the golf.
I've got nothing on Ed next PM at the moment, the current 4/6ish looks about right, but if it drifts because of the current non-narrative (or "Mr 0%" RodCrosby fancies a bet!) then I might have a few quid.
I try to restrict myself to mainly long-ish odds fun punts these days, I have more than enough vices as it is (I have a bet on May at long odds thanks to something I read on here, but am becoming less hopeful about that...)
And you?
party conference season approaches fast.
Sounds like it was a more general event and Fry just buttonholed Cameron.
feckin
OL
If you think rod has scientific proof that Labour cannot win a majority you are off your rocker.
Sounds like it was a more general event and Fry just buttonholed Cameron.
He often has 'general' pub events? It's possible to take chillaxing a touch too far charles.
Going by where it occurred and who organised it I think it's fairly safe to say it was no accident regardless of whether sources spin it as serious or friendly.
No I don't