politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The fixed term parliament has taken a lot of interest out o

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The fixed term parliament has taken a lot of interest out of the betting

Compared with the run up to previous general elections betting on GE2015 has been relatively light for one big reason – we know when the election will be taking place and punters are, rightly, less keen to lock their stakes up for more than eighteen months in advance.

Read the full story here

CarlottaVance

First!

TOPPING

FPT:

I have long thought that voters would like a "more of the same" option re. the coalition. Meanwhile, I'm not sure LD-ers will be so willing to hand back their influence.

But.

It would be a failure of nerve and belief if DC were to start out now with plans for or let it be known he would like another coalition. It would also be electorally damaging.

Put aside the noise of gay marriage, immigration, etc right-wing dog whistles and controversies. The "rank and file" Tories would like a bog-standard Tory government. The hope is that inside DC's velvet glove there is an iron fist. Not a bowl of blancmange.

If it is at all intimated that DC doesn't want to fight all out for a Tory govt it will send UKIP into the stratosphere.

edmundintokyo

tim said:

" the length of the fixed-term parliament was changed at the last moment from four years to five. Most debate about the merits of fixed-term parliaments in the past has assumed a four-year term, as this reflects the usual length of time between elections in recent British history. Late in the discussions, however, George Osborne simply crossed out “four” and wrote in “five” and all present agreed, realising immediately that this would give them more assured time in government."

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/07/24/how-george-osborne-denied-us-an-election-next-year/

Hopefully the next govt will change to four years, this govt is already winding down, Parliament barely sits if it can be avoided, decisions on Heathrow, Trident are put off until after the election and programmes like Universal Credt are slowed due to the long parliament.

I doubt they'd change it, for the same reason they went to five in the first place. In any case potentially that just makes them start winding down earlier, so you only get two out of four years of getting things done instead of three out of five...

stodge

Morning all

This is perhaps also one of the reasons why Labour has played a different game in this Parliament to previous oppositions. They know when the battle is going to take place.

I just wonder if Labour has concluded that the electorate will be turned off by eighteen months or more of pre-election skirmishing though it's quite clear the pro-Conservative media are already stoking the election campaign fires.

It's a huge risk - it may well be that by this time next year, the sense of optimism will be so ingrained as to not be shaken by an election campaign and its resulting negativity. That said, the growing sense that whatever the reality of the recovery, many individuals are still not feeling better off offers Labour some traction from say next spring onward.

The Government has had a good summer after a terrible spring but there are still two winters with all the attendant predictable and unpredictable doings and undoings that can blight even the best of administrations.

We also have the small matter of the European Parliamentary and London Borough elections next year (the latter far more important and significant than the former). I have always said the London Borough elections of 2014 will be the key barometer of opinion in what is one of the most significant areas in the country.

Those who see a sunny morning and an overall Conservative majority are welcome to bet on the latter - I'm happy with the former for now.

Mick_Pork

"Just compare it with the last election. There was a huge amount of betting from Gordon Brown becoming LAB leader in June 2007 right up until polling day nearly three years later. Then, however, we didn’t know when Gord would decide to go and masses of bets were placed in weeks ahead of the October 2007 general election that never was.

So much speculation on PB throughout that parliament was on the timing of the election and big amounts were wagered.

Not just timing then but events as is always the case. Maybe there will next to no events to shake up politics from now until 2015? I wouldn't bet on it though since we have more locals, more party conferences, the EU elections and the Independence referendum just for starters. We shall see what events transpire and the media will not be slow to pick up on them as they are struggling a bit with the usual silly season fodder right now.

We have actually had quite a bit of 'action' fairly recently with the likes of Huhne, Eastleigh, the locals and the kippers shaking things up temporarily. So another by-election or the like could do the same again.

Charles

stodge said:

Morning all

it's quite clear the pro-Conservative media are already stoking the election campaign fires.

Not sure the Mail or the Telegraph are really pro-Conservative in any meaningful sense. Just look at the Mail's personal attack on Cameron over the weekend, or the Telegraph's flirting with UKIP.

stodge said:

The Government has had a good summer after a terrible spring but there are still two winters with all the attendant predictable and unpredictable doings and undoings that can blight even the best of administrations.

I'd agree they had a bad 2012. Did they really have a bad spring 2013? Budget seemed to go off without a hitch, no major issues.

Roger

FPT. @Avery (and his many fans...)

"Picking a fight with a poster whose second name is Parma is not wise for one whose second name is Pork."

Surely worth a Perrier Award?

JohnLilburne

tim said:

Hopefully the next govt will change to four years, this govt is already winding down, Parliament barely sits if it can be avoided, decisions on Heathrow, Trident are put off until after the election and programmes like Universal Credt are slowed due to the long parliament.

Parliaments last 5 years, so there is surely no argument for a four year term unless the Septennial Act is furtther amended to four years. As EiT points out, a four year term would simply means that the torpor starts earlier. While putting decisions off until after the next election does slow things down, if Parliaments were shorter, more things would be put off. And maybe it is not a bad thing that a Government runs out of things to do. They should not be hyperactively legislating all the time, IMO, and if there is unused Parliamentary time it could be used to respond to events, or maybe we could develop a system where MPs are allowed to pass legislation without the Government being involved? Just a thought.

edmundintokyo

Mick_Pork said:

"Just compare it with the last election. There was a huge amount of betting from Gordon Brown becoming LAB leader in June 2007 right up until polling day nearly three years later. Then, however, we didn’t know when Gord would decide to go and masses of bets were placed in weeks ahead of the October 2007 general election that never was.

So much speculation on PB throughout that parliament was on the timing of the election and big amounts were wagered.

Not just timing then but events as is always the case. Maybe there will next to no events to shake up politics from now until 2015? I wouldn't bet on it though since we have more locals, more party conferences, the EU elections and the Independence referendum just for starters. We shall see what events transpire and the media will not be slow to pick up on them as they are struggling a bit with the usual silly season fodder right now.

We have actually had quite a bit of 'action' fairly recently with the likes of Huhne, Eastleigh, the locals and the kippers shaking things up temporarily. So another by-election or the like could do the same again.

I wonder what the probability of an Event that shake up the political scene in a way you don't expect in the next 2 years would be. I'm thinking of things that would have blown up a sensible prediction you'd made based on available evidence before they happened. Since 1979:
- Falklands War
- Coup against Thatcher
- Falling out of the ERM
? Lehman Shock
? Death of John Smith
? 9/11 (maybe not much UK impact as it turned out, but there could have been)

3 to 6 in 24 years, so one every 4 to 8 years? A little under two years left, so maybe 20% to 40%?

stodge

Charles said:

stodge said:

Morning all

it's quite clear the pro-Conservative media are already stoking the election campaign fires.

Not sure the Mail or the Telegraph are really pro-Conservative in any meaningful sense. Just look at the Mail's personal attack on Cameron over the weekend, or the Telegraph's flirting with UKIP.

stodge said:

The Government has had a good summer after a terrible spring but there are still two winters with all the attendant predictable and unpredictable doings and undoings that can blight even the best of administrations.

I'd agree they had a bad 2012. Did they really have a bad spring 2013? Budget seemed to go off without a hitch, no major issues.

Fair comment, Charles. Perhaps I should say anti-Labour. I strongly suspect that these newspapers will return to the Conservative cause by the spring of 2015 as however much they may dislike Cameron, the prospect of a Labour Government is infinitely worse in their eyes.

I do think the winter of 2012 and spring of 2013 were difficult for the Government. Look at some of the terrible poll numbers from March and April. I do agree the Budget steadied the ship but it was in some pretty choppy waters for a while especially after the Q4 2012 GDP numbers (the headline ones, not the actual final data of course which was much better).

Anorak

edmundintokyo said:

Mick_Pork said:

"Just compare it with the last election. There was a huge amount of betting from Gordon Brown becoming LAB leader in June 2007 right up until polling day nearly three years later. Then, however, we didn’t know when Gord would decide to go and masses of bets were placed in weeks ahead of the October 2007 general election that never was.

So much speculation on PB throughout that parliament was on the timing of the election and big amounts were wagered.

Not just timing then but events as is always the case. Maybe there will next to no events to shake up politics from now until 2015? I wouldn't bet on it though since we have more locals, more party conferences, the EU elections and the Independence referendum just for starters. We shall see what events transpire and the media will not be slow to pick up on them as they are struggling a bit with the usual silly season fodder right now.

We have actually had quite a bit of 'action' fairly recently with the likes of Huhne, Eastleigh, the locals and the kippers shaking things up temporarily. So another by-election or the like could do the same again.

I wonder what the probability of an Event that shake up the political scene in a way you don't expect in the next 2 years would be. I'm thinking of things that would have blown up a sensible prediction you'd made based on available evidence before they happened. Since 1979:
- Falklands War
- Coup against Thatcher
- Falling out of the ERM
? Lehman Shock
? Death of John Smith
? 9/11 (maybe not much UK impact as it turned out, but there could have been)

3 to 6 in 24 years, so one every 4 to 8 years? A little under two years left, so maybe 20% to 40%?

A replay of the Berlin Airlift, but in Gibraltar? Tapas bars around the UK close due to boycotts and sporadic arson.

Mick_Pork

Roger said:

FPT. @Avery (and his many fans...)

"Picking a fight with a poster whose second name is Parma is not wise for one whose second name is Pork."

Surely worth a Perrier Award?

Seth always like to ham it up.

It was hardly a 'fight' as I'm sure Andrea will confirm.
I've long said Andrea was capable of being the most impartial and is one of the most valuable posters on PB . Though that may seem like damning with faint praise (given who claim to be and are considered to be impartial by some on here) it is most assuredly not.

I'll take Andreas insight (even over Seth's admittedly wonderful comedic predictions and spin) any day of the week.

NickPalmer

TOPPING said:

FPT:

I have long thought that voters would like a "more of the same" option re. the coalition. Meanwhile, I'm not sure LD-ers will be so willing to hand back their influence.

...

Put aside the noise of gay marriage, immigration, etc right-wing dog whistles and controversies. The "rank and file" Tories would like a bog-standard Tory government. The hope is that inside DC's velvet glove there is an iron fist. Not a bowl of blancmange.

If it is at all intimated that DC doesn't want to fight all out for a Tory govt it will send UKIP into the stratosphere.

I can't speak for rank and file Tories, but I think that news that Cameron wants another coalition with the LibDems is almost perfect for my marginal seat with its 17% of mostly left-leaning LibDems (in coalition with Labour on the council and under constant Tory attack). What would make it *absolutely* perfect is if an enterprising jounalist were to ask Clegg if he agreed, and he smiled shiftily and refused to comment.

TOPPING

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

FPT:

I have long thought that voters would like a "more of the same" option re. the coalition. Meanwhile, I'm not sure LD-ers will be so willing to hand back their influence.

...

Put aside the noise of gay marriage, immigration, etc right-wing dog whistles and controversies. The "rank and file" Tories would like a bog-standard Tory government. The hope is that inside DC's velvet glove there is an iron fist. Not a bowl of blancmange.

If it is at all intimated that DC doesn't want to fight all out for a Tory govt it will send UKIP into the stratosphere.

I can't speak for rank and file Tories, but I think that news that Cameron wants another coalition with the LibDems is almost perfect for my marginal seat with its 17% of mostly left-leaning LibDems (in coalition with Labour on the council and under constant Tory attack). What would make it *absolutely* perfect is if an enterprising jounalist were to ask Clegg if he agreed, and he smiled shiftily and refused to comment.

But is it perfect in that it increases your (Lab) chance of victory or is it perfect in that it means a likely Lab-LD coaltion? If the former, then my point stands that with admittedly no idea how anyone would achieve it, I'm not sure the LDs would be happy to leave govt any time soon.

So any murmurings of a constructed Con-LD pact would be good for them and bad for the Cons in that Tories would hate it.

Slackbladder

edmundintokyo said:

Mick_Pork said:

"Just compare it with the last election. There was a huge amount of betting from Gordon Brown becoming LAB leader in June 2007 right up until polling day nearly three years later. Then, however, we didn’t know when Gord would decide to go and masses of bets were placed in weeks ahead of the October 2007 general election that never was.

So much speculation on PB throughout that parliament was on the timing of the election and big amounts were wagered.

Not just timing then but events as is always the case. Maybe there will next to no events to shake up politics from now until 2015? I wouldn't bet on it though since we have more locals, more party conferences, the EU elections and the Independence referendum just for starters. We shall see what events transpire and the media will not be slow to pick up on them as they are struggling a bit with the usual silly season fodder right now.

We have actually had quite a bit of 'action' fairly recently with the likes of Huhne, Eastleigh, the locals and the kippers shaking things up temporarily. So another by-election or the like could do the same again.

I wonder what the probability of an Event that shake up the political scene in a way you don't expect in the next 2 years would be. I'm thinking of things that would have blown up a sensible prediction you'd made based on available evidence before they happened. Since 1979:
- Falklands War
- Coup against Thatcher
- Falling out of the ERM
? Lehman Shock
? Death of John Smith
? 9/11 (maybe not much UK impact as it turned out, but there could have been)

3 to 6 in 24 years, so one every 4 to 8 years? A little under two years left, so maybe 20% to 40%?

Well, 9/11 led on directly to both Afganistan and the Iraq War, and the now decade long 'War on Terror', so the impact on the UK has been pretty huge.

It is without a doubt the single most defining event of this century so far..

edmundintokyo

Anorak said:

A replay of the Berlin Airlift, but in Gibraltar? Tapas bars around the UK close due to boycotts and sporadic arson.

Interesting thought. I'm not sure if the RAF still has the capability for that sort of thing, but I guess it would be easier to do in practice than the Berlin Airlift, because as a fellow EU member the UK could rent planes from a company in Spain and take off and land on Spanish airstrips.

richardDodd

..any further news on Bloombergs report of the UK housin prices dropping...?..

GIN1138

tim said:

" the length of the fixed-term parliament was changed at the last moment from four years to five. Most debate about the merits of fixed-term parliaments in the past has assumed a four-year term, as this reflects the usual length of time between elections in recent British history. Late in the discussions, however, George Osborne simply crossed out “four” and wrote in “five” and all present agreed, realising immediately that this would give them more assured time in government."

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/07/24/how-george-osborne-denied-us-an-election-next-year/


Hopefully the next govt will change to four years, this govt is already winding down, Parliament barely sits if it can be avoided, decisions on Heathrow, Trident are put off until after the election and programmes like Universal Credt are slowed due to the long parliament.

I always felt five years was too long.

It's interesting to ponder whether the fixed term legislation would survive a majority government?

I rather suspect not.

edmundintokyo

Slackbladder said:

Well, 9/11 led on directly to both Afganistan and the Iraq War, and the now decade long 'War on Terror', so the impact on the UK has been pretty huge.

It is without a doubt the single most defining event of this century so far..

That's certainly true, I'm just thinking in terms of domestic politics. Afghanistan didn't seem to affect it much either way, and Iraq took a while before it happened, and didn't really affect the party angle much until it started going properly wrong. I guess you could do an alternative history where Blair doesn't nark off the left as much and manages to hold his ground against Brown, then wins in 2010...

richardDodd

Unlike you tim I know eff all about everything It was a report on Bloomberg.. I only saw the headline .. that is why I am asking the bl**dy question..if you do not feel able to answer then STFU

RichardNabavi

The Telegraph article on Cameron's possible planning for the eventuality of another Con/LD coalition is very interesting for a number of reasons. As so often with the Telegraph, the actual article directly contradicts the paper's take on the story: James Kirkup writes that "The Prime Minister has held private talks with Cabinet ministers over new Conservative Party rules which would make it easier to strike another deal", and then goes on to report plans which would make it harder to strike another deal, by requiring specific consent of MPs. (What's this? Democracy creeping in to the internal workings of the Conservative Party? Whatever next?).

Of course, we can't know how much truth there is in the unattributed briefings, but they certainly make sense and it would be a dereliction of duty for the leadership not to plan for an eventuality which is certainly possible, perhaps quite probable. And the reported motivation - tying MPs in to the deal in the way the LibDems did - makes very good sense. Indeed, it's probably essential, if a coalition government is required a second time.

However, I suspect this is all a bit irrelevant to the main issue, which is whether the LibDems would be willing to enter another coalition with the Tories (or indeed anyone else), if the arithmetic stacks up. I suspect the leadership would, but getting it past the party as a whole looks quite problematic as things stand. And even if they are willing, will it actually be possible to agree terms a second time round?

As I've said before, there's a substantial risk that no viable government will be possible after the 2015 election.

Plato

PEOPLE who Snapchat their genitals to each other while watching Hollyoaks should be allowed to vote, according to Labour. The party’s plan to lower the voting age to 16 would give thousands of teenagers who think of Britney Spears as a village elder the chance to choose who runs the country.

A Labour Party spokesman said: “We are keen to get voters who don’t remember what Britain was like under a Blair or Brown administration on the electoral roll so they can vote for us, the cool party. “If you’ve already chosen your favourite imaginary gay relationship between One Direction members – mine’s Niall and Zayn, by the way – then picking a prime minister is a breeze.”

16-year-old Stephen Malley said: “Labour can count on my vote if it doesn’t shirk from the big issues, like whether I should be allowed to go to Ibiza with just my mates. Also I want Ed Miliband to stop my mum blaming me for borrowing her car without permission then writing it off.

“It wasn’t my fault, everyone knows Fiestas tip over easily.” http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/labour-to-trust-in-good-sense-and-judgment-of-teenagers-2013081978748

JohnLilburne

tim said:

Looks like Universal Credit has been dumped altogether

It's hard to tell, it is a very badly written article, I have not seen such an infelicitous mix of tenses for a long time.

The problem is of course that the existing benefit system is very very complex, and because UC has been in the pipeline, they have been taking very few steps to streamline existing benefits.

One immediate reform that could be made is to require the fit partners of ESA claimants to sign on and meet the JSA conditions.

NickPalmer

TOPPING said:

NickPalmer said:

I can't speak for rank and file Tories, but I think that news that Cameron wants another coalition with the LibDems is almost perfect for my marginal seat with its 17% of mostly left-leaning LibDems (in coalition with Labour on the council and under constant Tory attack). What would make it *absolutely* perfect is if an enterprising jounalist were to ask Clegg if he agreed, and he smiled shiftily and refused to comment.

But is it perfect in that it increases your (Lab) chance of victory or is it perfect in that it means a likely Lab-LD coaltion? If the former, then my point stands that with admittedly no idea how anyone would achieve it, I'm not sure the LDs would be happy to leave govt any time soon.

So any murmurings of a constructed Con-LD pact would be good for them and bad for the Cons in that Tories would hate it.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. But the cat is already out of the bag - we can quote the media as saying Cameron wants to continue the government as it is, and watch the Tory voters go to UKIP and the LibDems come to Labour.

Trying to be fair, the upside for Cameron is simply to keep the idea in play. There's going to be a lot of differentiation soon as the parties try to strengthen their profiles. He needs to implant in our memories that he'd still be quite happy to carry on as things are, so the idea doesn't look ridiculous if that's what he needs to do. It's a little modern love note to Clegg, really - "We've agreed we are going to have an open marriage for 18 months, but I want you to know that I'm still happy to live with you afterwards".

GIN1138

RichardNabavi said:

The Telegraph article on Cameron's possible planning for the eventuality of another Con/LD coalition is very interesting for a number of reasons. As so often with the Telegraph, the actual article directly contradicts the paper's take on the story: James Kirkup writes that "The Prime Minister has held private talks with Cabinet ministers over new Conservative Party rules which would make it easier to strike another deal", and then goes on to report plans which would make it harder to strike another deal, by requiring specific consent of MPs. (What's this? Democracy creeping in to the internal workings of the Conservative Party? Whatever next?).

Of course, we can't know how much truth there is in the unattributed briefings, but they certainly make sense and it would be a dereliction of duty for the leadership not to plan for an eventuality which is certainly possible, perhaps quite probable. And the reported motivation - tying MPs in to the deal in the way the LibDems did - makes very good sense. Indeed, it's probably essential, if a coalition government is required a second time.

However, I suspect this is all a bit irrelevant to the main issue, which is whether the LibDems would be willing to enter another coalition with the Tories (or indeed anyone else), if the arithmetic stacks up. I suspect the leadership would, but getting it past the party as a whole looks quite problematic as things stand. And even if they are willing, will it actually be possible to agree terms a second time round?

As I've said before, there's a substantial risk that no viable government will be possible after the 2015 election.

Do you think it's more likely we'll get the 1974 scenario in 2015 with a minority government and a second election in the autumn?

JohnLilburne

richardDodd said:

Unlike you tim I know eff all about everything It was a report on Bloomberg.. I only saw the headline .. that is why I am asking the bl**dy question..if you do not feel able to answer then STFU

Well you could look on the Bloomberg website where we find this http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-19/pound-little-changed-versus-dollar-as-u-k-house-prices-decline.html which confirms it is a Rightmove report. Which you can find on the Rightmove website http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/august-2013. What I don't know is what the correlation is between asking and sale prices.

So a bit of thought and 10 seconds on Google and you could have posted something useful and with slightly more than zero content.

RichardNabavi

GIN1138 said:

Do you think it's more likely we'll get the 1974 scenario in 2015 with a minority government and a second election in the autumn?

Quite possibly, or a weak government (either a minority government, or a flaky coalition, or a government with a tiny majority) stumbling on for a year or two amidst deteriorating finances as they are forced to buy off vested interests in order to get finance bills through.

What is most striking about the current coalition is how rock-solid it has been; despite the various tiffs, neither party has wavered on the crucial issue of the public finances. However, I don't think we can rely on this happening again in the event of another hung parliament.

richardDodd

JL..Unlike you and the cheshire Farmer I spend my ten seconds more productively. I spotted a banner headline on the TV , Bloombergs channel, as I passed through the office..I asked a question .. thank you for the answer , now back to making even more money..

JonnyJimmy

NickPalmer said:

But the cat is already out of the bag - we can quote the media as saying Cameron wants to continue the government as it is, and watch the Tory voters go to UKIP and the LibDems come to Labour.

I haven't read the media as saying "Cameron wants to continue the government as it is"; he's preparing for that possibility, which I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see is quite a different thing.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that becomes the official labour spin on it, but don't you think you're being (or planning to be) dishonest?


Edited to add - if I'm wrong and the media are reporting evidence (rather than just giving their opinion) that this is the case, I'd love to see a link...

GIN1138

Probably already posted but Dan Hodges has given up on Red;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231544/its-time-for-a-new-labour-guru-coco-chanel/

"It’s time for Labour to face an unpalatable fact. All those people who told the pollsters they couldn’t see Miliband as prime minister were telling the truth.

Labour’s leader is broken. The public have made their minds up about him, and they won’t be changing them this side of an election. It’s not a matter of more time, or getting to know him better, or him shouting louder, or listening harder. He has joined the ranks of those politicians that voters look at and think: “Nah, hasn’t got it”."

Ouch, LOL!

I'd love to see Hodges and Tim have a bust up on PB.

MBoy

A 5-year parliament is the minimum I would settle for. I would be happy with 6 also, because modern politics is so afflicted with short-termism. If we are to remain competitive with the autocratic and far-sighted states of the Middle and Far East, we need to be able to have governments that can get on with an agenda without constantly being in election mode. A 4-year term just means a higher ratio of electioneering.

richardDodd

tim ..one thing I do know about and that is the principle of time and making money..In between waiting for quotes and contracts, deals to come in, I spend some moments on PB .. it amuses me to read the frothings from you and other assorted lefties..sort of a little pastime, keep up the good work of being very funny..in your squalid little basement..all day.

stodge

As an LD member, my view has always been that the current Coalition lasts until 2015 and that's it. The subsequent election may or may not produce a result that allows for another coalition but that's not to pre-empt that result.

I suspect there are elements in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who would be happy to see the status quo continue until 2020 but that's not their decision to make. I also think there are elements in both parties for whom that would be totally unacceptable.

I'm far from convinced Labour, even if they fell short of a majority and were a coalition with the LDs possible, would want to go down the Coalition route and I'm even less convinced they would do so with a party led by Nick Clegg.

Oddly enough, I see a coalition as the least likely option post-2015 but that's not to discount some form of supply & confidence agreement with some form of minority Government.

Morris_Dancer

Morning, kids.

F1: the early discussion thread for Spa is up. Huzzah!

http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/belgium-early-discussion.html

Plato

GIN1138 said:

Probably already posted but Dan Hodges has given up on Red;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231544/its-time-for-a-new-labour-guru-coco-chanel/

"It’s time for Labour to face an unpalatable fact. All those people who told the pollsters they couldn’t see Miliband as prime minister were telling the truth.

Labour’s leader is broken. The public have made their minds up about him, and they won’t be changing them this side of an election. It’s not a matter of more time, or getting to know him better, or him shouting louder, or listening harder. He has joined the ranks of those politicians that voters look at and think: “Nah, hasn’t got it”."

Ouch, LOL!

I'd love to see Hodges and Tim have a bust up on PB.

He was the guest on R5 phone-in and as Alistair Stewart of ITV observed


Alastair Stewart @alstewitn
@bbc5live does its Monday morning 'phone-in on @Ed_Miliband 's suitability as leader .. with @DPJHodges . This is not a good start for Ed.

Not sure @Ed_Miliband will be thrilled with the language or mantras of some of those phoning @bbc5live to support him...

Plato

LOL

Alastair Stewart @alstewitn
“@DJack_Journo: The aptly-named HMS Westminster has arrived at Gibraltar news.sky.com/story/1130382/…” Don't we have an HMS Utrecht ? (Class 1713)

GIN1138

tim said:

GIN1138 said:

Probably already posted but Dan Hodges has given up on Red;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231544/its-time-for-a-new-labour-guru-coco-chanel/

"It’s time for Labour to face an unpalatable fact. All those people who told the pollsters they couldn’t see Miliband as prime minister were telling the truth.

Labour’s leader is broken. The public have made their minds up about him, and they won’t be changing them this side of an election. It’s not a matter of more time, or getting to know him better, or him shouting louder, or listening harder. He has joined the ranks of those politicians that voters look at and think: “Nah, hasn’t got it”."

Ouch, LOL!

I'd love to see Hodges and Tim have a bust up on PB.

Given Hodges prediction record I'll open a Betfair account for him with a tenner if he comes on here and asks.

PS.
Thats at least the fourth time that piece has been posted.
People were drawing parallels between Hodges and Toynbee last week, the difference is that the centre left posters on here don't blanket post every piece she writes over and over again until they know it off by heart.

I thought there was great danger for Ed in Toynbee's piece last week (much more so than Hodges daily rants)

When Polly starts getting into;

"Things aren't going well, but don't panic because it'll all come good in the end" mode it's a sign of trouble.

She's probably six months from sticking the knife in.

TOPPING

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

NickPalmer said:

I can't speak for rank and file Tories, but I think that news that Cameron wants another coalition with the LibDems is almost perfect for my marginal seat with its 17% of mostly left-leaning LibDems (in coalition with Labour on the council and under constant Tory attack). What would make it *absolutely* perfect is if an enterprising jounalist were to ask Clegg if he agreed, and he smiled shiftily and refused to comment.

But is it perfect in that it increases your (Lab) chance of victory or is it perfect in that it means a likely Lab-LD coaltion? If the former, then my point stands that with admittedly no idea how anyone would achieve it, I'm not sure the LDs would be happy to leave govt any time soon.

So any murmurings of a constructed Con-LD pact would be good for them and bad for the Cons in that Tories would hate it.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. But the cat is already out of the bag - we can quote the media as saying Cameron wants to continue the government as it is, and watch the Tory voters go to UKIP and the LibDems come to Labour.

Trying to be fair, the upside for Cameron is simply to keep the idea in play. There's going to be a lot of differentiation soon as the parties try to strengthen their profiles. He needs to implant in our memories that he'd still be quite happy to carry on as things are, so the idea doesn't look ridiculous if that's what he needs to do. It's a little modern love note to Clegg, really - "We've agreed we are going to have an open marriage for 18 months, but I want you to know that I'm still happy to live with you afterwards".

Yes, agree - that is probably just what it is.

This is, it has been done so clumsily. The box of "let's float this and by May 2015 it will just be a vague impression" is getting fuller every day.

Just to mention it risks doing more lasting damage to rump Tories and I can't imagine why any master strategist would think otherwise.

richardDodd

Allahu Akbar repeated..One of the saddest posts I have ever seen on PB...

GIN1138

tim said:

GIN1138 said:

tim said:

GIN1138 said:

Probably already posted but Dan Hodges has given up on Red;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231544/its-time-for-a-new-labour-guru-coco-chanel/

"It’s time for Labour to face an unpalatable fact. All those people who told the pollsters they couldn’t see Miliband as prime minister were telling the truth.

Labour’s leader is broken. The public have made their minds up about him, and they won’t be changing them this side of an election. It’s not a matter of more time, or getting to know him better, or him shouting louder, or listening harder. He has joined the ranks of those politicians that voters look at and think: “Nah, hasn’t got it”."

Ouch, LOL!

I'd love to see Hodges and Tim have a bust up on PB.

Given Hodges prediction record I'll open a Betfair account for him with a tenner if he comes on here and asks.

PS.
Thats at least the fourth time that piece has been posted.
People were drawing parallels between Hodges and Toynbee last week, the difference is that the centre left posters on here don't blanket post every piece she writes over and over again until they know it off by heart.

I thought there was great danger for Ed in Toynbee's piece last week (much more so than Hodges daily rants)

When Polly starts getting into;

"Things aren't going well, but don't panic because it'll all come good in the end" mode it's a sign of trouble.

She's probably six months from sticking the knife in.

Add Polly sticking the knife in to Hodges proclaiming certain defeat and it'll be time to back a Lab Maj.

The real question we're all on tenterhooks about is when will you give up on Ed?

Will you carry on supporting Ed, Comical Ali style, until the bitter (and I'm sure it will be bitter) end?

Or will you throw in the towel as you did with Gord after Bigotgate?

GIN1138

richardDodd said:

Allahu Akbar

Is that something to do with Admiral "It's A Trap" Akabar in Star Wars?

AlastairMeeks

I'm not sure any poster on here claims to be impartial. Some, however, pursue their agendas with more finesse than others.

BenM

Plato said:

LOL

Alastair Stewart @alstewitn
“@DJack_Journo: The aptly-named HMS Westminster has arrived at Gibraltar news.sky.com/story/1130382/…” Don't we have an HMS Utrecht ? (Class 1713)

Alastair Stewart is a twitter must-follow. Witty and incredibly sharp.

GIN1138

tim said:

We haven't had a poll for eighteen months showing Cameron likely to keep his job, as ever the PB Tories don't understand the fundamentals of British politics.

Remind me of your prediction last time?

No need to get bitchy just because things aren't going well.

taffys

Interesting comments on the possibility of a 'no result' result in 2015 today. 12-1 looks quite juicy.

Maybe that's what the voters want? Stop governing us. We've had enough of being 'governed'.
Enough of the taxes, the moralising, the money grubbing, the pet projects, the grandstanding, the debt, the closed shop of policies that really vary rather little, the gigantic u-turns.

Just stop.

taffys

Dan Hodges is either very brave or very stupid.

His latest column offers up some pretty big hostages to fortune.

Plato

BenM said:

Plato said:

LOL

Alastair Stewart @alstewitn
“@DJack_Journo: The aptly-named HMS Westminster has arrived at Gibraltar news.sky.com/story/1130382/…” Don't we have an HMS Utrecht ? (Class 1713)

Alastair Stewart is a twitter must-follow. Witty and incredibly sharp.

He's great isn't he. I like William Shatner - absolutely no side to him at all and very funny/nice/self-depreciating. He's the only celeb I follow and gets Twitter completely.

I don't know where Alistair Stewart gets the energy - he seems to be there 20 hrs a day - talking about showjumping or how crap SW Trains are!

GIN1138

taffys said:

Interesting comments on the possibility of a 'no result' result in 2015 today. 12-1 looks quite juicy.

Maybe that's what the voters want? Stop governing us. We've had enough of being 'governed'.
Enough of the taxes, the moralising, the money grubbing, the pet projects, the grandstanding, the debt, the closed shop of policies that really vary rather little, the gigantic u-turns.

Just stop.

Yeah, lets get rid of all these pathetic, lily-livered, feeble politicians who have bankrupted and corrupted the country!

Put Her Majesty in charge.

Rexel56

GIN1138 said:

tim said:

GIN1138 said:

tim said:

GIN1138 said:

Probably already posted but Dan Hodges has given up on Red;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231544/its-time-for-a-new-labour-guru-coco-chanel/

"It’s time for Labour to face an unpalatable fact. All those people who told the pollsters they couldn’t see Miliband as prime minister were telling the truth.

Labour’s leader is broken. The public have made their minds up about him, and they won’t be changing them this side of an election. It’s not a matter of more time, or getting to know him better, or him shouting louder, or listening harder. He has joined the ranks of those politicians that voters look at and think: “Nah, hasn’t got it”."

Ouch, LOL!

I'd love to see Hodges and Tim have a bust up on PB.

Given Hodges prediction record I'll open a Betfair account for him with a tenner if he comes on here and asks.

PS.
Thats at least the fourth time that piece has been posted.
People were drawing parallels between Hodges and Toynbee last week, the difference is that the centre left posters on here don't blanket post every piece she writes over and over again until they know it off by heart.

I thought there was great danger for Ed in Toynbee's piece last week (much more so than Hodges daily rants)

When Polly starts getting into;

"Things aren't going well, but don't panic because it'll all come good in the end" mode it's a sign of trouble.

She's probably six months from sticking the knife in.

Add Polly sticking the knife in to Hodges proclaiming certain defeat and it'll be time to back a Lab Maj.

The real question we're all on tenterhooks about is when will you give up on Ed?

Will you carry on supporting Ed, Comical Ali style, until the bitter (and I'm sure it will be bitter) end?

Or will you throw in the towel as you did with Gord after Bigotgate?

The Hodges article does suggest that Milliband's office was behind the Bryant immigration shambles.

Fenster

I'd like to know what Dan Hodges' motives are. He's a good and entertaining writer but he really does appear viscerally bitter towards Ed Miliband.

Is he a crypto-Tory? If he is, then fair enough. His pieces are a huge help to the Tories; a supposed Labour supporter, with a Labour MP mother, so implacably against Ed Miliband's leadership.

Is he a Labour supporter? If he is, then surely he needs to wind his neck in, because every week he abuses his leader and Ed Miliband could do without it.

My guess is that he is a New Labour supporter so bitter at the usurping of David Miliband's leadership bid that he would prefer Ed to lose than win. Which for someone possessing a good deal of intelligence and his family background, is an extraordinarily churlish position to be in.

But great for the Tory leadership and spinners. They don't need to lift a finger yet twice each week an anti-Ed Miliband diatribe sprawls across the media.

Bonkers really.

AndreaParma_82

Labour shortlist for Rossendale and Darwen

Will Straw
Cllr Andy MacNae

Selection meeting on September 1.

GIN1138

Rexel56 said:

The Hodges article does suggest that Milliband's office was behind the Bryant immigration shambles.

I think that's been perceived wisdom for some time.

Funny how Tim has been reluctant to inform us about this particular shambles?

Imagine if Cameron or Osborne had pushed a junior minister out to deliver Bryants speech.

We'd have never heard the end of what cowardly fops and incompetents they are...

AlastairMeeks

I have some advice for Ed Miliband: nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems. If he's been spending the summer break thinking, it's time well spent. If that thinking involved realising that he needs a single simple message and to impose relentless message discipline on the shadow Cabinet, so much the better. Giving the shadow Cabinet a kick up the backside and getting them to do their jobs rather than let them sit back and opine on how he's doing his would be a good idea too.

Since 1900, we have had two left of centre uncharismatic Prime Ministers who acted more as chairmen than as leaders - Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Clement Attlee. They both did fine, and if Ed Miliband gets to be Prime Minister, I expect that he'll do fine too.

anotherDave

UKIP extremist at work.

https://twitter.com/Chris_Wood_1989/status/369168235653894144

Rexel56

GIN1138 said:

Rexel56 said:

The Hodges article does suggest that Milliband's office was behind the Bryant immigration shambles.

I think that's been perceived wisdom for some time.

Funny how Tim has been reluctant to inform us about this particular shambles?

Imagine if Cameron or Osborne has pushed a junior minister out to deliver Bryants speech.

We'd have never heard the end of what cowardly fops and incompetents they are...

I think shrinks would call it "cognitive dissonance" - valuing immigration as steadfastly, consistently, coherently and (in my opinion, correctly) as tim does must make his head spin when the party he supports says companies shouldn't recruit immigrants...

SouthamObserver

In Brazil the news has reached us that even Dan Hodges has given up on Ed Miliband. It's all over the TV. This must be the end for Labour's underwhelming leader.

BenM

antifrank said:

if Ed Miliband gets to be Prime Minister, I expect that he'll do fine too.

...you can unclench your teeth now! LoL!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 56, 'cognitive dissonance' is a fancy term. Orwell's 'doublethink' is rather pithier.

As an aside, it's interesting how terms can become longer and fancier over time. Shell shock became combat fatigue, which became post-traumatic stress disorder, for example.

AlastairMeeks

BenM said:

antifrank said:

if Ed Miliband gets to be Prime Minister, I expect that he'll do fine too.

...you can unclench your teeth now! LoL!

I like Ed Miliband. I doubt I'll be voting for him, but for me he's a plus for his party, not a minus.

GIN1138

tim said:

I can only think that you enjoy reading my comments given that over 50% of your output is directly related to them

I enjoyed reading your two day bust up with Rod Crosby - Very entertaining.

Slackbladder

tim said:

Fenster said:

I'd like to know what Dan Hodges' motives are. He's a good and entertaining writer but he really does appear viscerally bitter towards Ed Miliband.

Is he a crypto-Tory? If he is, then fair enough. His pieces are a huge help to the Tories; a supposed Labour supporter, with a Labour MP mother, so implacably against Ed Miliband's leadership.

Is he a Labour supporter? If he is, then surely he needs to wind his neck in, because every week he abuses his leader and Ed Miliband could do without it.

My guess is that he is a New Labour supporter so bitter at the usurping of David Miliband's leadership bid that he would prefer Ed to lose than win. Which for someone possessing a good deal of intelligence and his family background, is an extraordinarily churlish position to be in.

But great for the Tory leadership and spinners. They don't need to lift a finger yet twice each week an anti-Ed Miliband diatribe sprawls across the media.

Bonkers really.

Hodges is a PR man with a product to sell -Dan Hodges.

http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/171693/

Nothing wrong with that, but it's a all a stunt, and he's as bad at predictions as Toby "I think England has got the World Cup, and David Cameron knows it" Young.

The fact that a lot of people, both thick people on here and smarter people who should know better when booking guests (the same people who book Anjem Choudhary book Dan Hodges) fall for it is depressing but a fact of life.

Ah, if only they booked someone of real talent like yourself eh Tim...

Must drag you down each day as an unsung political genius to be so ignored..

Carola

Party membership in Bri and Ho:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10618513.Conservatives_and_Labour_see_memberships_drop_in_Brighton_and_Hove/?ref=twt&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

AlastairMeeks

The media are to entertain and to inform. Dan Hodges does more of the former than the latter, but he does the former engagingly.

richardDodd

SB..tim has not got any spare time left over from being a genius,,and a Farmer..and a worker in an offie..and a full time blogger and the the font of knowledge on all thingS..

AlastairMeeks

On topic (because I haven't posted on topic yet), earlier this year there was speculation about whether the Government might fall early. That seems to have disappeared, and the Coalition is chugging along fairly solidly at the moment.

At some point in the not too distant future, there will be another spat between the Coalition partners and we'll get that speculation all over again. There may well then be opportunities to bet on something that won't happen. We have WWE-style government: most of what we are being shown is strictly for the diversion of the audience.

It helps the stability of the Coalition that the Lib Dems are polling atrociously and the Conservatives remain behind in the polls. If the Conservatives took a significant lead in the polls at any point or the Lib Dems started to pick up sharply in the polls, the Coalition would start to look unstable. However, I'm not expecting either of those things to happen in the near future.

taffys

For the record Rightmove did report a fall in London millionaire's row prices. That said, a lull in August is the norm. (BBG reports).

Rightmove also said more must be done to increase supply to prevent a property bubble.

'It is now critical that the supply of property improves so that the goal of a significant increase in transaction numbers is not overshadowed by an unsustainable boom in property prices.''

Surely the comment on prices in general should be the lead on that story, rather than the so-what summer lull in Chelsea.

Anyhoo something for both sides of the debate there. Not in a bubble yet, but there could be one if supply doesn't improve.

malcolmg

richardDodd said:

..any further news on Bloombergs report of the UK housin prices dropping...?..

Richard, looks like someone has looked outside London for a change and found a different parallel world exists and it ain't growth and house prices rising in the real world.

edmundintokyo

RichardNabavi said:

However, I suspect this is all a bit irrelevant to the main issue, which is whether the LibDems would be willing to enter another coalition with the Tories (or indeed anyone else), if the arithmetic stacks up. I suspect the leadership would, but getting it past the party as a whole looks quite problematic as things stand. And even if they are willing, will it actually be possible to agree terms a second time round?

Assuming they get their referendum on the EU, do you reckon the Tory party would agree to a referendum on PR? I know they're traditionally opposed, but:
1) The "Win majorities under FPTP and govern alone" plan would obviously be turning out not to be working particularly well, and UKIP could make things even worse for them in future.
2) They'd have got their way on AV and (probably) Scotland, so they could be forgiven for thinking they could concede the LibDems their referendum then win that as well.

richardDodd

MG According to the wise one in Cheshire, there is an unstoppable boom going on .. I think he should stick farming or whatever else he claims to be..

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Tokyo, the Conservative should absolutely not give in to Lib Dem demands (should the situation you outline arise) for a PR referendum. It's ridiculous to have a referendum every single Parliament to bugger up the electoral system to suit the third party.

In addition, if the choice is a referendum on the EU or not the people, I suspect, will want a say and the Lib Dems would be hit (particularly in the southwest) at the ballot box for blocking something that was in their 2010 manifesto.

CarlottaVance

antifrank said:

Since 1900, we have had two left of centre uncharismatic Prime Ministers who acted more as chairmen than as leaders - Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Clement Attlee. They both did fine, and if Ed Miliband gets to be Prime Minister, I expect that he'll do fine too.

At least in Attlee's case he had a decent board to chair......that is much less clear for Ed......which of the Shadow Cabinet has got 'the next PM but one' written all over them?

Plato

We will also hold Labour to account. Last week Ed Miliband flew back into Britain, eager to blame this Government for the squeeze that people are facing. This is a shamefaced attempt to rewrite history. Labour’s record on living standards is appalling – they did nothing to stand up for hardworking people while in office. Even in the boom years of 2003 to 2008, hourly pay rose only at a quarter of the rate of economic growth. Labour’s debt crisis then made a bad situation even worse. The struggle with the cost of living that people face today began when Ed Miliband was a senior minister in the last government.

It’s not just Conservatives who say this. Liam Byrne - the shadow minister who famously told us there was no money left - has admitted that Labour knew about these problems for years but did nothing.

 However, the real argument lies not in what Labour did yesterday but what they would do tomorrow. And make no mistake - Labour’s prescription of more borrowing and more debt would see hardworking families worse off.



This week the Conservative Party will be making the case clearer than ever that they’re still the same old Labour. If you have a mortgage, you will be worse off under Labour: more borrowing would lead to a rise in market interest rates, sending mortgage payments up. It only takes a one per cent rise in interest rates to add an average £1,000 to your mortgage bill each year. If you are in work, you will be worse off under Labour: they oppose capping the benefits out-of-work households can claim, leaving you to pay more of your tax on welfare... www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10249698/Chris-Grayling-High-borrowing-and-high-bills-Labour-is-the-same-old-party.html

CarlottaVance

"'You screwed it up': Ken Livingstone hits back at John Prescott over his attack on Ed Miliband"

In a staunch defence of Labour leader Ed Miliband, the former Mayor of London tore into the ex-Deputy Prime Minister.

He urged Mr Miliband to ignore Lord Prescott, who became the latest Labour figure to raise concerns about the party’s performance.

Lord Prescott warned Labour was “running out of time” to up its game before the 2015 general election and called for under-performing Shadow Cabinet members to be sacked.

But Mr Livingstone, who sits on Labour’s National Executive Committee, branded Lord Prescott an “embarrassment” in government during the Blair years. “Retire — you have had your turn, you screwed it up, don’t try and wreck it for others,” he said."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/you-screwed-it-up-ken-livingstone-hits-back-at-john-prescott-over-his-attack-on-ed-miliband-8774318.html

edmundintokyo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tokyo, the Conservative should absolutely not give in to Lib Dem demands (should the situation you outline arise) for a PR referendum. It's ridiculous to have a referendum every single Parliament to bugger up the electoral system to suit the third party.

They could have sorted this out either way in the last parliament but the Tories wouldn't let the people have their say, hence the compromise proposal that nobody really wanted.

Morris_Dancer said:

In addition, if the choice is a referendum on the EU or not the people, I suspect, will want a say and the Lib Dems would be hit (particularly in the southwest) at the ballot box for blocking something that was in their 2010 manifesto.

I doubt the LibDems would say they were refusing to work with the Tories over an EU referendum, for the reasons you give. But they wouldn't have to say that - if they don't want to agree to a deal, there are plenty of things they can blame it on.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Tokyo, I agree the Lib Dems wouldn't say that, but the Conservatives would. They (the blues) could even offer to pass the referendum (EU) in an interregnum with Lib Dem support prior to fresh elections. The Lib Dems would then be forced to refuse.

richardDodd

The Conservatives should not contemplate another coalition with the LD's.
A Lab/LD coalition would be fun to watch, from afar..I pity the poor s*ds left in the UK tho

edmundintokyo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tokyo, I agree the Lib Dems wouldn't say that, but the Conservatives would. They (the blues) could even offer to pass the referendum (EU) in an interregnum with Lib Dem support prior to fresh elections. The Lib Dems would then be forced to refuse.

The LibDems wouldn't have a hard time turning that down, they'd just say there was no deal and they needed to get on with the new elections (or forming the government with Ed Miliband, if the numbers were there).

edmundintokyo

tim said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tokyo, I agree the Lib Dems wouldn't say that, but the Conservatives would. They (the blues) could even offer to pass the referendum (EU) in an interregnum with Lib Dem support prior to fresh elections. The Lib Dems would then be forced to refuse.

Whats the big deal about a referendum?

Cameron, or whoever replaced him as Tory leader would campaign to stay in and it'd be won (assuming the Tory leader didn't do something too stupid to alienate the centre left he needs to keep on board in the faux renegotiations)
Nobody is going to risk anything over a kabuki referendum pledge.

Referendums are unpredictable. You never know what the voters are actually going to end up voting on. Even with all-party support for "in" there would be something like a 15% or 20% chance of an "out" vote.

surbiton

Don't show the bookies' odds to Rod Crosby.

How often are the bookies wrong ?

JohnLilburne

Populus poll 16-18 Aug, Lab 6 point lead

Con 32% (-4)
Lab 38% (-1)
UKIP 11% (+3)
LD 12% (+2)

fitalass

I don't think that Dan Hodges is viscerally bitter towards Ed Miliband. He is just hugely disappointed at the way Miliband has wasted his first three years as Labour Leader, and the lack of a coherent strategy and message heading into the final two years of this Parliament. He is far from alone in this view as the rising swell of criticism from within the party and in the left leaning commentary now shows. The fact that Hodges has become the main target of anger from Labour supporters because he was pointing out and voicing his concerns about the weakness of Ed Miliband and the Labour party is not a surprise. They hate the idea of him being proved correct after they have continually mocked him.

Fenster said:

I'd like to know what Dan Hodges' motives are. He's a good and entertaining writer but he really does appear viscerally bitter towards Ed Miliband.

Is he a crypto-Tory? If he is, then fair enough. His pieces are a huge help to the Tories; a supposed Labour supporter, with a Labour MP mother, so implacably against Ed Miliband's leadership.

Is he a Labour supporter? If he is, then surely he needs to wind his neck in, because every week he abuses his leader and Ed Miliband could do without it.

My guess is that he is a New Labour supporter so bitter at the usurping of David Miliband's leadership bid that he would prefer Ed to lose than win. Which for someone possessing a good deal of intelligence and his family background, is an extraordinarily churlish position to be in.

But great for the Tory leadership and spinners. They don't need to lift a finger yet twice each week an anti-Ed Miliband diatribe sprawls across the media.

Bonkers really.

CarlottaVance

@LadPolitics: Ladbrokes: Ed Miliband cut from 9/2 to 4/1 to be replaced as Labour leader before the General Election.

RichardNabavi

edmundintokyo said:

Assuming they get their referendum on the EU, do you reckon the Tory party would agree to a referendum on PR? I know they're traditionally opposed, but:
1) The "Win majorities under FPTP and govern alone" plan would obviously be turning out not to be working particularly well, and UKIP could make things even worse for them in future.
2) They'd have got their way on AV and (probably) Scotland, so they could be forgiven for thinking they could concede the LibDems their referendum then win that as well.

Dunno, but since the entire reason for supporting the current system is that it (usually) produces proper governments with coherent platforms laid out in advance, it would seem eccentric to switch to a system which absolutely guarantees that you'll get government-by-incoherent-post-election-stitch-up.

Of course they might take the risk (2) as you say; it could be a risk worth taking. Personally I'd have thought the chances of a PR referendum passing would be very low indeed; it would framed as a vote for eternal LibDem participation in government. 'Vote for PR and you can never get rid of Clegg' should do the trick. If that's not enough, something along the lines of 'What part of No, thanks to fiddling with the voting system don't they understand?' should complete the job.

CarlottaVance

"David Miranda’s arrest proves how sinister the state has become"

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/08/always-remember-mornings-like-these/

taffys

John Lilburne...

One thing that strikes me about many of the recent polls is the extreme volatility of the UKIP score (especially in comparison to the very stable labour score).

The pollsters do seem to be having a hard time figuring out how much support UKIP has.

BenM

Keep going the good protesters of Balcombe!

malcolmg

BenM said:

Keep going the good protesters of Balcombe!

Hear Hear

surbiton

tim said:

Con 32% (-4)
Lab 38% (-1)
UKIP 11% (+3)
LD 12% (+2)

"Privately, the PM accepts that he must force UKIP down to five per cent if he is to stand a chance."

All the PB Tory bluster and Hodges copy-and-pasting in the world cannot obscure that basic fact.

Dammit. All those point scoring during the last month when Ed was away and has "no policies" and it ends with the Tories losing 4 points.

Even the PBTories have to accept sooner or later that they have a fundamental proble. Too much pandering to the right only helps UKIP. Attacking Labour on the NHS, ironically........helps Labour !

However, by pandering to the right can put off some Tory supporters. Like Max PB eloquently put it here.

richardDodd

Order Order .Labour MP's attack Labour Terror law

Tykejohnno

tim said:

Con 32% (-4)
Lab 38% (-1)
UKIP 11% (+3)
LD 12% (+2)

"Privately, the PM accepts that he must force UKIP down to five per cent if he is to stand a chance."

All the PB Tory bluster and Hodges copy-and-pasting in the world cannot obscure that basic fact.

Labours immigration speech last week worked.

Labour objective,2 things, strengthen up labours vote on immigration and mention EU immigration,inwhich people who are worried about EU immigration who can't stand labour will proberly go to ukip.

richardDodd

'keep going the good protesters of Balcombe".. Hear Hear, they should keep going as far away as possible, maybe back home

GIN1138

CarlottaVance said:

"'You screwed it up': Ken Livingstone hits back at John Prescott over his attack on Ed Miliband"

In a staunch defence of Labour leader Ed Miliband, the former Mayor of London tore into the ex-Deputy Prime Minister.

He urged Mr Miliband to ignore Lord Prescott, who became the latest Labour figure to raise concerns about the party’s performance.

Lord Prescott warned Labour was “running out of time” to up its game before the 2015 general election and called for under-performing Shadow Cabinet members to be sacked.

But Mr Livingstone, who sits on Labour’s National Executive Committee, branded Lord Prescott an “embarrassment” in government during the Blair years. “Retire — you have had your turn, you screwed it up, don’t try and wreck it for others,” he said."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/you-screwed-it-up-ken-livingstone-hits-back-at-john-prescott-over-his-attack-on-ed-miliband-8774318.html

Red Ed and Red Ken, what a winning combination.

anotherDave

taffys said:

John Lilburne...

One thing that strikes me about many of the recent polls is the extreme volatility of the UKIP score (especially in comparison to the very stable labour score).

The pollsters do seem to be having a hard time figuring out how much support UKIP has.

The UKIP volatility seems to be more between different pollsters. I think there was a similar grouping in the last US presidential election.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7744

surbiton

RichardNabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

Assuming they get their referendum on the EU, do you reckon the Tory party would agree to a referendum on PR? I know they're traditionally opposed, but:
1) The "Win majorities under FPTP and govern alone" plan would obviously be turning out not to be working particularly well, and UKIP could make things even worse for them in future.
2) They'd have got their way on AV and (probably) Scotland, so they could be forgiven for thinking they could concede the LibDems their referendum then win that as well.

Dunno, but since the entire reason for supporting the current system is that it (usually) produces proper governments with coherent platforms laid out in advance, it would seem eccentric to switch to a system which absolutely guarantees that you'll get government-by-incoherent-post-election-stitch-up.

Of course they might take the risk (2) as you say; it could be a risk worth taking. Personally I'd have thought the chances of a PR referendum passing would be very low indeed; it would framed as a vote for eternal LibDem participation in government. 'Vote for PR and you can never get rid of Clegg' should do the trick. If that's not enough, something along the lines of 'What part of No, thanks to fiddling with the voting system don't they understand?' should complete the job.

I think you will find that if we really had a proper PR system both the Tories and labour will lose support. Greens would definitely benefit. I think there is a 8 - 10% hidden Green support which does not necessarily manifest itself due to the "wasted vote" syndrome. UKIP will also occupy a significant proportion. I would put it at about 8 - 10%. Again they would benefit from getting rid of the wasted vote argument.

In fact, the LD's could also suffer as I believe many of their current votes are [ were ] current Labour or Tory supporters trying to deny the other getting in.

At least, PR would make an honest voter out of me !

Tykejohnno

surbiton said:

tim said:

Con 32% (-4)
Lab 38% (-1)
UKIP 11% (+3)
LD 12% (+2)

"Privately, the PM accepts that he must force UKIP down to five per cent if he is to stand a chance."

All the PB Tory bluster and Hodges copy-and-pasting in the world cannot obscure that basic fact.

Dammit. All those point scoring during the last month when Ed was away and has "no policies" and it ends with the Tories losing 4 points.

Even the PBTories have to accept sooner or later that they have a fundamental proble. Too much pandering to the right only helps UKIP. Attacking Labour on the NHS, ironically........helps Labour !

However, by pandering to the right can put off some Tory supporters. Like Max PB eloquently put it here.

Pandering to the right,what was labour doing last week on they immigration speech.

RichardNabavi

surbiton said:

I think you will find that if we really had a proper PR system both the Tories and labour will lose support. Greens would definitely benefit. I think there is a 8 - 10% hidden Green support which does not necessarily manifest itself due to the "wasted vote" syndrome. UKIP will also occupy a significant proportion. I would put it at about 8 - 10%. Again they would benefit from getting rid of the wasted vote argument.

In fact, the LD's could also suffer as I believe many of their current votes are [ were ] current Labour or Tory supporters trying to deny the other getting in.

At least, PR would make an honest voter out of me !

Of course, under PR everything would change.

However, I was referring to how the campaign would be framed, not to the reality of what would happen if we did have PR.

surbiton

richardDodd said:

Order Order .Labour MP's attack Labour Terror law

Terror law was about Terrorists. Not holding someone for 9 hours because his partner was disseminating Snowden's leaks and successfully too. Like it or not, it is showing up major civil liberties issues. I thought you guys were soldiers for civil liberties.

richardDodd

ED will be slaughtered by Farage..who will be doing the crapping then..

MikeSmithson

Is there a link to the Populus poll?

It doesn't seem to have been Tweeted

Tykejohnno

tim said:

@Tykejohnno

The first thing Miliband should do the day after the European elections next June is to demand that Farage is included in the debates.
Just to watch Cameron crap himself.

Just imagine if labour called a EU referendum,before or after the GE,labours poll numbers might go through the 40% barrier on a regular basis.