politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM leader ratings in the Mirror make miserable reading for

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM leader ratings in the Mirror make miserable reading for Miliband

There some new polling from ICM for the LAB friendly Mirror, linked to in the Tweet above, that’s certain to add to party’s jitters even though the voting intention trend continues to be for Labour.

Read the full story here

Andy_JS

When was the last time Labour removed a leader?

RodCrosby

Andy_JS said:

When was the last time Labour removed a leader?

1922, Clynes

edmundintokyo

Andy_JS said:

When was the last time Labour removed a leader?

2010

edmundintokyo

It was 9/2 with Ladbrokes that he wouldn’t survive – now that is 4/1.

That would be a terrible bet, but sadly if you think he will survive Shadsy will only give you 1/7, which is decidedly less bonkers.

The Cameron prices are a bit closer together:

David Cameron to be Conservative Leader at Next General Election 1/4
David Cameron to be replaced as Conservative Leader before the Next General Election 3
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/british-politics/david-cameron-specials

1/4 with less than two years left sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

RobD

Thats numberwang!

peter_from_putney

EdM was never photogenic but the picture OGH has unearthed at the top of this thread is positively AWFUL!

edmundintokyo

On topic, what I think is happening is:
1) He's not very charismatic in the first place.
2) Ratings tend to feed back on themselves, because if you hear that he's doing badly you say he's doing badly.
3) He's announced what sounds like union-bashing but not yet actually delivered it, so Labour people who are both for and against union-bashing are miffed at him.

(3) should get better after the special conference in 2014, which may help break the feedback cycle of (2). But there's no fixing (1). I think the upshot is that he'll go into he 2015 election with low ratings, but a fair bit higher than they are now, especially among Labour supporters.

redcliffe62

edmundintokyo said:

On topic, what I think is happening is:
1) He's not very charismatic in the first place.
2) Ratings tend to feed back on themselves, because if you hear that he's doing badly you say he's doing badly.
3) He's announced what sounds like union-bashing but not yet actually delivered it, so Labour people who are both for and against union-bashing are miffed at him.

(3) should get better after the special conference in 2014, which may help break the feedback cycle of (2). But there's no fixing (1). I think the upshot is that he'll go into he 2015 election with low ratings, but a fair bit higher than they are now, especially among Labour supporters.

Miliband is beige. Boring is OK, as Major was, but beige and boring is a problem.

edmundintokyo

redcliffe62 said:

edmundintokyo said:

On topic, what I think is happening is:
1) He's not very charismatic in the first place.
2) Ratings tend to feed back on themselves, because if you hear that he's doing badly you say he's doing badly.
3) He's announced what sounds like union-bashing but not yet actually delivered it, so Labour people who are both for and against union-bashing are miffed at him.

(3) should get better after the special conference in 2014, which may help break the feedback cycle of (2). But there's no fixing (1). I think the upshot is that he'll go into he 2015 election with low ratings, but a fair bit higher than they are now, especially among Labour supporters.

Miliband is beige. Boring is OK, as Major was, but beige and boring is a problem.

I think it's easier to get away with people thinking you're boring if you're in government like Major was, because you can actually do things. In opposition all you can do is say things, so it matters more if you say them boringly.

Plato

For those who were on the Outrage Bus about Mr Miranda and Snowden files - this is a bit of an eye opener.

I've been half watching this unfold on Twitter and been thoroughly confused by it since the story was contradicting itself, this summary with links to the NYT etc is pithy.

http://unfashionista.com/2013/08/19/the-lies-of-glenn-greenberg-and-the-guardian-a-short-primer/

Plato

Evil right-wing Tory press - errr and in today's Mirror

"The ICM poll carried out for the Daily Mirror also found that 21% of voters said they are satisfied with the way he is leading the party, double the number (42%) said they are dissatisfied.

Among Labour voters, 45% said they were satisfied and 31% dissatisfied.

Mr Miliband will find it harder to dismiss criticism of his management style following publication of the poll by the newspaper which has traditionally backed his party.

Mr Miliband's approval rating is particularly low among older and male voters.

Of those polled, 61% of pensioners said they are unhappy with his leadership, while 48% of men say he is not up to the job, compared to 37% of women.

However, the poll offers Mr Miliband a few glimmers of hope.

Given a choice of eight Labour MPs, Ed Miliband came out on top with 16%, when asked who would be the best person to lead the party.

Martin Boon of ICM said: "Let's not be in any doubt that with less than half (45%) of 2010 Labour voters satisfied with him (31% dissatisfied) he is polling miserably." http://news.sky.com/story/1130784/ed-miliband-snubbed-by-a-third-of-labour-voters

Plato

redcliffe62 said:

edmundintokyo said:

On topic, what I think is happening is:
1) He's not very charismatic in the first place.
2) Ratings tend to feed back on themselves, because if you hear that he's doing badly you say he's doing badly.
3) He's announced what sounds like union-bashing but not yet actually delivered it, so Labour people who are both for and against union-bashing are miffed at him.

(3) should get better after the special conference in 2014, which may help break the feedback cycle of (2). But there's no fixing (1). I think the upshot is that he'll go into he 2015 election with low ratings, but a fair bit higher than they are now, especially among Labour supporters.

Miliband is beige. Boring is OK, as Major was, but beige and boring is a problem.

And wonky. And prone to being shouty. Major didn't have a great voice either, but he came over as a safe pair of hands - sensible but fairly normal in an instantly forgettable way.

EdM is quite a different character with a different set of issues.

Mick_Pork

FPT:

Chris_A said:

Hard to imagine how the Tories could ever have had anyone as stupid as Louise Mensch (Newsnight now) as an MP

Oh I don't know. You might even find a fake libertarian and inept tory spinner sufficiently confused and witless enough to believe everything she writes on her unfashionista blog.

*tears of laughter etc.*

;^ )

Mick_Pork

Plato said:

Major didn't have a great voice either, but he came over as a safe pair of hands - sensible but fairly normal in an instantly forgettable way.

Edwina Currie certainly thought so. ;^ )

Financier

Would you notice if Miliband entered a room - would anyone notice if he left it? Exactly, not the mouse that roared - not even the mouse that squeaked.

We had a mouse in our office last week - so put down two humane traps. Mouse was caught first night and lay quietly in its cage - not a squeak. A numpty let it escape whilst getting it out of the trap. So reset the traps with same bait (Mars bar) put them in the same place and it was caught again - lay in the trap waiting for something to happen. A wit called it Ed - can't think why.

Stuart_Dickson

- "It was 9/2 with Ladbrokes that he wouldn’t survive – now that is 4/1."

Before Tories get too excited, 4/1 is also the best price you can get on CON MAJ.

In fact, Paddy Power have obviously got new money coming in on LAB MAJ, as they have just shortened that price to 5/4.

Stuart_Dickson

I'd love to see some Scottish polling on Miliband and Clegg. Inexplicably, the only pollster conducting a full Scottish polling series, Ipsos MORI, omits those two from its leadership question. Cameron is included, and always comes miles behind everyone else, but I suspect that Clegg's inclusion would end Cameron's run of wooden spoons.

Roger

@Plato

"For those who were on the Outrage Bus about Mr Miranda and Snowden files - this is a bit of an eye opener."

Only an eye opener if you share his particular reactionary view of the world..........



"He (Snowden) then dumped his entire stash of files with the anti-American Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has previously stated ‘so what’ if US intel assets are killed from leaks."

Roger

@Financier

"Would you notice if Miliband entered a room - would anyone notice if he left it? Exactly, not the mouse that roared - not even the mouse that squeaked."

Do you ever worry about appearing shallow?

Mick_Pork

Stuart_Dickson said:

- "It was 9/2 with Ladbrokes that he wouldn’t survive – now that is 4/1."

Before Tories get too excited, 4/1 is also the best price you can get on CON MAJ.

In fact, Paddy Power have obviously got new money coming in on LAB MAJ, as they have just shortened that price to 5/4.

Too excited?? I fear you don't know the PB Hodges very well at all.

For perspective, the hopeless Brown was actually behind in the polls some 26 points in May 2008 and the Blairites didn't have the bottle to topple him. Yet the PB Hodges somehow expect little Ed to be chucked out on his ear by the labour shadow cabinet of comedy just because he's laughably weak and ineffectual?

No.

That's not how it works.

He's still ahead in the polling and the Blairites are cowards anyway as brother David proved.

Hodges and the Blairites will have to put their dummy back in and suck it up because brother David lost and he ain't coming back this side of 2015.

Labour better get used to having a liability as leader and console themselves with the knowledge that he still isn't quite as toxic as calamity Clegg.

Financier

Roger said:

@Financier

"Would you notice if Miliband entered a room - would anyone notice if he left it? Exactly, not the mouse that roared - not even the mouse that squeaked."

Do you ever worry about appearing shallow?

Never, worrying about such things is a fool's game. However, glad, I don't have to carry your reputation in the advertising industry.

Plato

I rather enjoyed this re Balcombe and the tactics of a vocal minority

"Isn't it amazing that when Leftists find that people don't agree with them they assume that it can only be because they aren't listening. This was Green MP Caroline Lucas's line on Monday morning when questioned on Sky NEWS as to whether she agreed with "direct action" to oppose fracking.

As long as such direct action -- unlawful activities designed to disrupt people's lives -- was non-violent she said she could see a role for it so long as the government wasn't "listening". Doesn't it ever occur to people like Lucas that the government might well be listening but that it is also listening to others with a different view? Who knows, the pro-fracking agenda may even be more convincing! But this never actually does occur to the people who run the global environmentalist industry. They represent one of the splinters from the totalitarian agenda that all but collapsed at the fall of the Berlin Wall almost a quarter of a century ago. There can only be one right and just answer: theirs.

In order to justify this stance in the public domain they obviously need something to make it at least superficially convincing. There has to be some way to ramp up the emotions so that their flagrantly anti-democratic agenda is not exposed as such. The technique of choice, of course, is extreme alarmism. If you disagree with their views on climate change, you are arguing for the end of the habitable world. If you disagree with their views on fracking you are arguing for that too, but combining it with a preference for some apocalyptic vision of a Britain ripped to pieces by earthquakes..." http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4066/greens_should_get_with_the_fracking_democratic_game#.UhJ6u3PtVTh.twitter

Mick_Pork

I rather enjoyed these polling facts from the Leftist Balcombe Parish Council as opposed to inept spin and anecdote.

Balcombe Parish Council

During August and September the Parish Council conducted a poll to establish the views of the residents on the attitude to fracking that the Parish Council should adopt.

A polling card was delivered to every residence in the Parish and, when the poll closed on 10th September, 284 polling cards had been returned. 234 (82%) expressed the view that the Parish Council should oppose fracking, 30 that it should not, 16 had no strong views, and 4 polling cards were invalid.270 respondents (95%) indicated that they had read the working group’s report.

http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fracking-poll-results.pdf

CarlottaVance

@Plato - wonder when the Guardian will correct its earlier reporting:

"Contrary to some reports, the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625

"Man carrying stolen property detained and property recovered" does not appear to be a story the Guardian wants to tell.....

Financier

Plato said:

I rather enjoyed this re Balcombe and the tactics of a vocal minority

"Isn't it amazing that when Leftists find that people don't agree with them they assume that it can only be because they aren't listening. This was Green MP Caroline Lucas's line on Monday morning when questioned on Sky NEWS as to whether she agreed with "direct action" to oppose fracking.

As long as such direct action -- unlawful activities designed to disrupt people's lives -- was non-violent she said she could see a role for it so long as the government wasn't "listening". Doesn't it ever occur to people like Lucas that the government might well be listening but that it is also listening to others with a different view? Who knows, the pro-fracking agenda may even be more convincing!

But this never actually does occur to the people who run the global environmentalist industry. They represent one of the splinters from the totalitarian agenda that all but collapsed at the fall of the Berlin Wall almost a quarter of a century ago. There can only be one right and just answer: theirs.

In order to justify this stance in the public domain they obviously need something to make it at least superficially convincing. There has to be some way to ramp up the emotions so that their flagrantly anti-democratic agenda is not exposed as such. The technique of choice, of course, is extreme alarmism. If you disagree with their views on climate change, you are arguing for the end of the habitable world. If you disagree with their views on fracking you are arguing for that too, but combining it with a preference for some apocalyptic vision of a Britain ripped to pieces by earthquakes..." http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4066/greens_should_get_with_the_fracking_democratic_game#.UhJ6u3PtVTh.twitter

Ah, but in their eyes, they have the only right version of right.

Just cannot understand why people who glue and chain themselves to railings by their own choice and free will are not just left there. After all, freeing them is obviously interfering with their human rights and free will, as long as they are not a danger to human society. Might smell a bit after a week or so, but could always hose them down.

Financier

At the start of the YouGov week it is:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 19th August - Con 31%, Lab 38%, LD 10%, UKIP 14%; APP -34

GeoffM

Financier said:

Just cannot understand why people who glue and chain themselves to railings by their own choice and free will are not just left there. After all, freeing them is obviously interfering with their human rights and free will, as long as they are not a danger to human society. Might smell a bit after a week or so, but could always hose them down.

Agree entirely. Even more entertaining if they swallow the key, as nature has to take its course and they have to do the searching...

Plato

Moderated

Plato

The one's outside Bell Pottinger should've been left there and the TV camera could watch them try to get unstuck by themselves.

Financier said:

Plato said:

I rather enjoyed this re Balcombe and the tactics of a vocal minority

"Isn't it amazing that when Leftists find that people don't agree with them they assume that it can only be because they aren't listening. This was Green MP Caroline Lucas's line on Monday morning when questioned on Sky NEWS as to whether she agreed with "direct action" to oppose fracking.

As long as such direct action -- unlawful activities designed to disrupt people's lives -- was non-violent she said she could see a role for it so long as the government wasn't "listening". Doesn't it ever occur to people like Lucas that the government might well be listening but that it is also listening to others with a different view? Who knows, the pro-fracking agenda may even be more convincing!

But this never actually does occur to the people who run the global environmentalist industry. They represent one of the splinters from the totalitarian agenda that all but collapsed at the fall of the Berlin Wall almost a quarter of a century ago. There can only be one right and just answer: theirs.

In order to justify this stance in the public domain they obviously need something to make it at least superficially convincing. There has to be some way to ramp up the emotions so that their flagrantly anti-democratic agenda is not exposed as such. The technique of choice, of course, is extreme alarmism. If you disagree with their views on climate change, you are arguing for the end of the habitable world. If you disagree with their views on fracking you are arguing for that too, but combining it with a preference for some apocalyptic vision of a Britain ripped to pieces by earthquakes..." http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4066/greens_should_get_with_the_fracking_democratic_game#.UhJ6u3PtVTh.twitter

Ah, but in their eyes, they have the only right version of right.

Just cannot understand why people who glue and chain themselves to railings by their own choice and free will are not just left there. After all, freeing them is obviously interfering with their human rights and free will, as long as they are not a danger to human society. Might smell a bit after a week or so, but could always hose them down.

Plato

On the Guardian's click bait

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/the-guardians-shocking-claim-we-were-forced-to-smash-our-computers-while-government-goons-observed/

"...I’ll ask again because it’s kind of important: why wait until now to report these clearly newsworthy events? Given the roster of other misleading articles from The Guardian as obvious precedent for the speciousness of this piece, the content (or lack of content) along with the timing of this computer-smashing story smells fishy.

But that didn’t stop the news from spreading like the Ebola virus on Monday, prompting more freakouts and sanctimonious hysteria. The same thing happened with the Miranda story before contravening details emerged later, details that were drowned out by the in-progress tantrum incited by the first pair of misleading posts. If The Guardian didn’t deliberately plan to cover this Snowden story by exploiting first-reactions and short attention spans in order to generate big traffic, it’s an amazing coincidence because it happens nearly every time. And it could absolutely happen again with this GCHQ goon squad story.

Speaking of goon squads, shortly after the Rusbridger news broke, Tom Nichols, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College tweeted: “Maybe someone at the Guardian googled pressure cookers. *bites knuckle*” Yeah, I thought I heard this tale before. At the end of the previous government goon squad story, I wrote, “Sadly, this will probably keep happening.” And so it has..."

Roger

@Carlotta

"wonder when the Guardian will correct its earlier reporting:

"Contrary to some reports, the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended.""

Presumably the reason you believe the word of the police over everyone else is because they have shown themselves to be such bastions of truthfulness in the past?

(Or is it that the establishment must always be supported now we have a Tory government?)

Fat_Steve

You can still get 25 to 1 on Stella Creasey
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/next-party-leaders/next-labour-leader

Roger

@PlumpSteve

"You can still get 25 to 1 on Stella Creasey"

She's brill! She'd get my vote

CarlottaVance

@Roger - so Scotland Yard are lieing, on the record?

Plato

A billion here, a billion there, soon it adds up to real money...

"Measures to cut fraud have saved £6.5billion

Defence officials “ignored” more that £10million that had been overpaid to contractors, it has been disclosed, as ministers announced that measures introduced to cut fraud and error in Government saved £6.5billion last year. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, said that fraud prevention, reducing errors in the tax system and a new focus on avoiding Whitehall accounting errors has saved nearly £400 for every working family in the country.

The figures show that the Ministry of Defence saved £11million by carrying out a “spend recovery audit” on its accounts to reclaim overpayments which had been “ignored” last year, the Cabinet Office said. The money had been overpaid for common goods like stationery supplies in just one year.

The Government set up its Fraud, Error and Debt Taskforce in 2011 after it emerged that £30billion was being lost to fraud and error by Whitehall departments every year. The vast majority of the savings were generated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by shutting down tax avoidance and evasion schemes..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10253377/Francis-Maude-Measures-to-cut-fraud-have-saved-6.5billion.html

Roger

Can we have one of those opinion polls that Mike puts up every now and again:

All those who cant't click a link and enjoy Plato's 4514 large passages of other peoples articles click "YES".

All those who get driven mad by 4514 posts of other peoples articles click "NO"

JosiasJessop

Roger said:

@Carlotta

"wonder when the Guardian will correct its earlier reporting:

"Contrary to some reports, the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended.""

Presumably the reason you believe the word of the police over everyone else is because they have shown themselves to be such bastions of truthfulness in the past?

(Or is it that the establishment must always be supported now we have a Tory government?)

No, I believe his own word, as reported in the Guardian:

He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities. The questions, he said, were relentless – about Greenwald, Snowden, Poitras and a host of other apparently random subjects.

http://unfashionista.com/2013/08/19/the-lies-of-glenn-greenberg-and-the-guardian-a-short-primer/

This is rather inconsistent with Greenwald's article:
At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

He's a nutjob.

Plato

Roger said:

Can we have one of those opinion polls that Mike puts up every now and again:

All those who cant't click a link and enjoy Plato's 4514 selected large passages of other peoples articles click "YES".

All those who get driven mad by 4514 posts of other peoples articles click "NO"

Dearest Roger - why not just ignore them if you don't like them. Since you can't moan any more about others getting Likes - now you're quibbling about what I post instead - perhaps we can look forward to you doing a word count on them instead :^ )

Plato

@JosiasJessop - I think Mr Greenwald has spent rather too long with Mr Assange.

Millsy

The question is whether Ed's ratings will improve or not when non-political people actually start paying attention in 2014/15. If they don't get better surely he will be a drag on Labour during a TV campaign, especially with working class people who might not like the prospect of a middle class intellectual as PM.

The likes of Hodges obviously think the electorate has already made up their mind, but considering how few wold recognise him never mind pay attention to what he's saying I very much doubt it.

david_herdson

Financier said:

Would you notice if Miliband entered a room - would anyone notice if he left it? Exactly, not the mouse that roared - not even the mouse that squeaked.

We had a mouse in our office last week - so put down two humane traps. Mouse was caught first night and lay quietly in its cage - not a squeak. A numpty let it escape whilst getting it out of the trap. So reset the traps with same bait (Mars bar) put them in the same place and it was caught again - lay in the trap waiting for something to happen. A wit called it Ed - can't think why.

We have two traps for mice in our house. They're called Franklin and Ludo, though whether they're humane is a matter of definition. They are organic though. One of them was also a trap for a collared dove last month!

Plato

Bit of a bun fight is brewing over windmills...

"Sources in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) tonight claimed that figures in Mr Davey’s department were more concerned about “ideology” than scientific evidence. “This is our department,” a source said. “We are doing this report. It is part of our remit.” It is claimed that figures in the DECC are concerned that the report, which has not been completed, could include negative conclusions about how renewable energy affects the rural economy.

“They don’t want information out there that would allow people to challenge the energy solution that they are going after,” the source added. David Cameron this month signalled his growing opposition to onshore wind farms, saying that there is now “limited potential” for the technology in the UK. The Prime Minister said he was in favour of offshore wind and shale gas exploration, known as fracking. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10253462/Ministers-at-war-over-secret-wind-farm-evidence.html

Financier

Roger said:

Can we have one of those opinion polls that Mike puts up every now and again:

All those who cant't click a link and enjoy Plato's 4514 large passages of other peoples articles click "YES".

All those who get driven mad by 4514 posts of other peoples articles click "NO"

Roger, as, unlike you, I do not have the luxury of time to be able to read the much of the press, I find Plato's and others' links very useful - a I do with TSE's Nighthawks summary.

No doubt searching for plaudits in Campaign et al keeps you busy.

edmundintokyo

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

@Carlotta

"wonder when the Guardian will correct its earlier reporting:

"Contrary to some reports, the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended.""

Presumably the reason you believe the word of the police over everyone else is because they have shown themselves to be such bastions of truthfulness in the past?

(Or is it that the establishment must always be supported now we have a Tory government?)

No, I believe his own word, as reported in the Guardian:

He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities. The questions, he said, were relentless – about Greenwald, Snowden, Poitras and a host of other apparently random subjects.

http://unfashionista.com/2013/08/19/the-lies-of-glenn-greenberg-and-the-guardian-a-short-primer/

This is rather inconsistent with Greenwald's article:
At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

He's a nutjob.

They may both be true, eg he was allowed a lawyer but the official wrongly told Greenwald he wasn't, or he wasn't allowed a lawyer, then Greenwald started a big freak-out and got the Brazilian authorities on the case and they got him a lawyer after that.

Greenwald may or may not be a bit unhinged, but it seems odd to deliberately lie about it only to have yourself contradicted yourself in your own paper's reporting.

Roger

@Plato

"Why not ignore them...."

How can anyone ignore 4510 random often irrelevant posts which make up about 1 in 5 of the sites output? Sometimes it's OK but all the time just makes the site like trying to wade through treacle.

Why not just a couple of lines to get people's interest and a link like most people do?

david_herdson

On topic, take a bow Gordon Brown. The dearth of alternative leadership candidates is testament to Brown ruthlessly squashing potential rivals.

Miliband will survive in part because there's no alternative, in part because it would look daft replacing a leader who's 6-10% ahead in the polls, in part because Labour doesn't as a rule go in for dumping the leader except under extreme provocation and in part because Miliband is a pretty effective back-room operator (which is how he got the gig in the first place).

I'd guess that one reason why so many supposed Labour voters are disillusioned with Miliband is because they're not core Labour voters (I haven't checked this out - it'd be interesting to see the stats for the 2010 Lab group). Labour is picking up a load of anti-government 'support', especially from ex-LDs but are they enthused about Ed? Nah. Will they vote for him to become PM? I wouldn't bet on it.

CarlottaVance

First the EU, then NATO - now the Commonwealth:

"The Commonwealth's top official has suggested to Newsnight Scotland that an independent Scotland may have to apply for membership of the organisation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23762792

Roger

@Carlotta

"so Scotland Yard are lieing, on the record?"

Well that would be a first wouldn't it!!

Actually I have no idea but I find the whole think pretty disturbing.

If we want to be able to lecture and invade totalitarian regimes we better be careful we don't behave like them.

JosiasJessop

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

No, I believe his own word, as reported in the Guardian:

He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities. The questions, he said, were relentless – about Greenwald, Snowden, Poitras and a host of other apparently random subjects.

http://unfashionista.com/2013/08/19/the-lies-of-glenn-greenberg-and-the-guardian-a-short-primer/

This is rather inconsistent with Greenwald's article:
At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

He's a nutjob.

They may both be true, eg he was allowed a lawyer but the official wrongly told Greenwald he wasn't, or he wasn't allowed a lawyer, then Greenwald started a big freak-out and got the Brazilian authorities on the case and they got him a lawyer after that.

Greenwald may or may not be a bit unhinged, but it seems odd to deliberately lie about it only to have yourself contradicted yourself in your own paper's reporting.

Perhaps. Does anyone have details of the procedure for getting a lawyer? Can you ask at any time even if you have previously refused (I assume so), and can the authorities block certain lawyers (they may not have wanted data passed to the Guardian's lawyers)?

At this stage I'm well beyond my level of knowledge about the relevant procedures.

As for the inconsistency: the first quote was apparently from David Miranda, the second from Glenn Greenwald.

Whichever, it is not as clear-cut as the Guardian made out, and neither does it appear that the authorities had no reason to question Miranda.

CarlottaVance

Roger said:

If we want to be able to lecture and invade totalitarian regimes we better be careful we don't behave like them.

That's very New Labour!

In any case this government are reviewing New Labour's draconian Section 7 under which Miranda was detained, and stolen property recovered....

IanB2

It's as much to do with the party as it is with the leader

Roger

@Financie

"Roger, as, unlike you, I do not have the luxury of time to be able to read the much of the press, I find Plato's and others' links very useful - a I do with TSE's Nighthawks summary."

Couldn't agree with you more and TSE's links are great.

But I'm also short on time so links are really useful. It's printing nearly the whole article I have a problem with. I'm half way through it before I even realize what I'm reading and when I realize it's just an off subject opinion piece from the Daily Mail I'm mighty pissed off.

Alanbrooke

Roger said:

@Financie

"Roger, as, unlike you, I do not have the luxury of time to be able to read the much of the press, I find Plato's and others' links very useful - a I do with TSE's Nighthawks summary."

Couldn't agree with you more and TSE's links are great.

But I'm also short on time so links are really useful. It's printing nearly the whole article I have a problem with. I'm half way through it before I even realize what I'm reading and when I realize it's just an off subject opinion piece from the Daily Mail I'm mighty pissed off.

Roger face it you enjoy reading the Daily Mail.

edmundintokyo

JosiasJessop said:

Perhaps. Does anyone have details of the procedure for getting a lawyer? Can you ask at any time even if you have previously refused (I assume so), and can the authorities block certain lawyers (they may not have wanted data passed to the Guardian's lawyers)?

At this stage I'm well beyond my level of knowledge about the relevant procedures.

No idea what their procedures are - my understanding was that if you're questioned under that particular terrorism power you don't have a _right_ to a lawyer. Presumably since it's usually an hour or so used to find out whether or not there's grounds for thinking you're a terrorist, after which they'd presumably either arrest you or let you go, you wouldn't normally have time to get your own lawyer.

JosiasJessop said:

Whichever, it is not as clear-cut as the Guardian made out, and neither does it appear that the authorities had no reason to question Miranda.

It still seems pretty clear-cut there's no terrorism involved or suspicion of terrorism. Louise Mensch somehow seems to think that the legislation is supposed to target cases like this on the grounds that it involves "actions designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system", but I think this just indicates that she doesn't understand the meaning of the words "interfere with" and "disrupt".

Roger

@Alanbrooke

"Roger face it you enjoy reading the Daily Mail."

A good way to get to sleep. Counting breasts on the right hand strip.

I got to twenty four yesterday.......

SimonStClare

“The only saving grace for Ed is that the poll finds no clear alternative.”

Fortunately, last Friday HenryG was kind enough tp provided a glowing list of ‘Bright young things’ for political commentators to speculate over- and every time they are wheeled out in front of the cameras, an eye brow or two will be raised.

Oh what a tangled web we weave etc…!

Alanbrooke

Roger said:

@Alanbrooke

"Roger face it you enjoy reading the Daily Mail."

A good way to get to sleep. Counting breasts on the right hand strip.

I got to twenty four yesterday.......

Why pick on the Mail, the Guardian is full of tits, some of them with names like Sheumais

Ricardohos

Great post below by David Herdson @7:06am

It's sometimes good to step out and think: 'can I see this man as our Prime Minister?' This is not such a bad question because during a GE campaign it's effectively what people ask themselves. Both IDS and Michael Howard failed on that question, and so did Gordon Brown despite having had the chance of tenure to prove himself. I can't think of a single post-1945 victory by a party leader who obviously isn't up to the job.

And EdM?

No, sorry. He clearly and simply doesn't have it. Labour will not win the election.

richardDodd

7 point lead for Labour.. brilliant..

JosiasJessop

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Perhaps. Does anyone have details of the procedure for getting a lawyer? Can you ask at any time even if you have previously refused (I assume so), and can the authorities block certain lawyers (they may not have wanted data passed to the Guardian's lawyers)?

At this stage I'm well beyond my level of knowledge about the relevant procedures.

No idea what their procedures are - my understanding was that if you're questioned under that particular terrorism power you don't have a _right_ to a lawyer. Presumably since it's usually an hour or so used to find out whether or not there's grounds for thinking you're a terrorist, after which they'd presumably either arrest you or let you go, you wouldn't normally have time to get your own lawyer.

JosiasJessop said:

Whichever, it is not as clear-cut as the Guardian made out, and neither does it appear that the authorities had no reason to question Miranda.

It still seems pretty clear-cut there's no terrorism involved or suspicion of terrorism. Louise Mensch somehow seems to think that the legislation is supposed to target cases like this on the grounds that it involves "actions designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system", but I think this just indicates that she doesn't understand the meaning of the words "interfere with" and "disrupt".

Again, it's beyond my level of knowledge, but it sounds similar to what I believe is the process if you are pulled up at immigration for some reason - e.g. suspicion of importing something, false passport etc. They question you without lawyer, try to clear things up, then let you on your way if things are fine. If not, they can hold you for longer.

As for the terrorism angle: we do not know the information that was on the data stick, and some of it may have been of use to terrorists if it got out (remember, even the anarchists' cookbook is proscribed nowadays!).

If that is the case, and the law allowed it (as seems to be the case), then the law is probably far too broad a net. If so, the coalition are right to be examining it once more.

edmundintokyo

Ricardohos said:

Great post below by David Herdson @7:06am

It's sometimes good to step out and think: 'can I see this man as our Prime Minister?' This is not such a bad question because during a GE campaign it's effectively what people ask themselves. Both IDS and Michael Howard failed on that question, and so did Gordon Brown despite having had the chance of tenure to prove himself. I can't think of a single post-1945 victory by a party leader who obviously isn't up to the job.

And EdM?

No, sorry. He clearly and simply doesn't have it. Labour will not win the election.

There's always a temptation to think about the electorate as if it's one mind that makes a decision. In fact it's a bunch of individual decisions that result in somebody becoming Prime Minister by a very obscure, roundabout, not particularly fair process.

Michael Howard got 32.4%. If Ed Miliband gets 32.4%, he could well become Prime Minister.

Roger

@Alanbrooke

"Why pick on the Mail, the Guardian is full of tits, some of them with names like Sheumais"

I'm scouring the Guardian for a girl called Sheumais with a left leaning breast.....

richardDodd

Wodger .. Guardian readers are usually right tits

edmundintokyo

tim said:

@MSmithsonPB: The 3 most recent polls from YouGov, Populus and ComRes have seen UKIP shares increasing - suggesting a trend

Are we to expect a rise in salience of immigration as an issue among Tories in the monthly issues index then?

Looks like more evidence that Labour can damage the Tory share by talking up the immigration issue.

Election campaign, week 1: Lab 34% Con 35% UKIP 10%

Election campaign, week 2: Labour party election broadcast during Top Gear:

Are you worried about IMMIGRANTS coming over here and TAKING OUR JOBS? We are, too.

Vote Labour, and we will DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Election campaign, week 3: Lab 34% Con 30% UKIP 15%

Mick_Pork

Moderated

Plato

LOL

Jonathan Badyal @JonathanBadyal
Damning! Just 36% of Labour voters say Miliband should lead party into the general election. Think that figures rises to 100% amongst Tories

Mick_Pork

tim said:

@MSmithsonPB: The 3 most recent polls from YouGov, Populus and ComRes have seen UKIP shares increasing - suggesting a trend

Are we to expect a rise in salience of immigration as an issue among Tories in the monthly issues index then?

Are you trying to imply that the PB Burleys are utterly clueless when it comes to the tory kipper polling connection?

Golly!

Does it look like there's any sort of connection here?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

Of course not.

Crosby knows what he's doing and banging on about immigration is a master strategy that can't fail.

MarqueeMark

tim said:

@MSmithsonPB: The 3 most recent polls from YouGov, Populus and ComRes have seen UKIP shares increasing - suggesting a trend

Are we to expect a rise in salience of immigration as an issue among Tories in the monthly issues index then?

Just that Tories are away on holiday mid-August. UKIP voters have stay-cations, camping in the caravan on their drive for a week or two. The only time the pollsters don't find them at home is between 7 am and 9 am Sunday morning, when they are at the car boot....

MarqueeMark

Oh, and, did I say?

Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.

DavidL

I still go back to the polling a few days ago when the majority (+14% net ) of Labour voters did not know who the shadow chancellor was with huge majorities having no idea about the shadow home secretary foreign secretary (+80%!!) and Home Secretary are.

What do we conclude from this? One possible explanation is that Labour supporters tend to be tribal and peculiarly uninformed but I fear that is not true. The truth is that the vast majority don't pay any attention to politics and have yet to reach any view on Miliband.

What Miliband should be concerned about is not what people think (they don't care) but the media narrative. When R5 are doing "how crap is Ed" phone ins he has a problem. But not an insuperable one. He can still be heard, If only he had something interesting to say.

JackW

edmundintokyo said:

Ricardohos said:

Great post below by David Herdson @7:06am

It's sometimes good to step out and think: 'can I see this man as our Prime Minister?' This is not such a bad question because during a GE campaign it's effectively what people ask themselves. Both IDS and Michael Howard failed on that question, and so did Gordon Brown despite having had the chance of tenure to prove himself. I can't think of a single post-1945 victory by a party leader who obviously isn't up to the job.

And EdM?

No, sorry. He clearly and simply doesn't have it. Labour will not win the election.

There's always a temptation to think about the electorate as if it's one mind that makes a decision. In fact it's a bunch of individual decisions that result in somebody becoming Prime Minister by a very obscure, roundabout, not particularly fair process.

Michael Howard got 32.4%. If Ed Miliband gets 32.4%, he could well become Prime Minister.

Clearly correct but I've always felt the British electorate, or a least those swing and differential voters, form a broad anonymous front to ensure we don't have to endure a dud as Prime Minister. For Labour the electorate are assisted by the party being notoriously unwilling to cast aside a clear electoral liability - Foot, Kinnock, Brown and Miliband being unquestionable examples.

[Deleted User]

I believe JackW has been forecasting Redward's prospects of ever becoming PM fairly well and fairly regularly for some time now.

Plato

Tim Walker @ThatTimWalker
Jim Naughtie just said on #radio4today he couldn't get @Ed_Miliband on the show to talk.Tell me about it.The really tough nut is @edballsmp

JackW

MarqueeMark said:

Oh, and, did I say?

Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.

No but I do.

Copyright JackW 2010.

MarqueeMark

Patrick said:

I believe JackW has been forecasting Redward's prospects of ever becoming PM fairly well and fairly regularly for some time now.

But I was first!

edmundintokyo

JosiasJessop said:

As for the terrorism angle: we do not know the information that was on the data stick, and some of it may have been of use to terrorists if it got out (remember, even the anarchists' cookbook is proscribed nowadays!).

If that is the case, and the law allowed it (as seems to be the case), then the law is probably far too broad a net. If so, the coalition are right to be examining it once more.

I know the law is ludicrously broad, but there's nothing about having _information_ that might somehow be useful to terrorists is there? If that was there it would cover everyone who ever takes a computer through Heathrow.

I'd assumed they'd try to justify it on the basis that they thought he could be involved in actions that could cause harm to somebody other than the person in question. If you're prepared to make a bad-faith effort to stretch that as far as it could logically go, that could make pretty much any significant journalism into an act of terrorism.

[Deleted User]

Here's an alternative approach. Look at the photo of the Miliblob at the top of this thread and ask yourself:

A. Is this the face of a man I could trust to reform the public sector, repair our national finances and represent my interests internationally? or
B. Is this a face that needs to be punched alot more frequently?

I guess deep down we all know the answer.

richardDodd

The Cons are doomed.. Labour are soaring away with a 7 point lead and only 80 odd weeks to go..doomed..
Crosby must go..

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

@Roger - so Scotland Yard are lieing, on the record?

Is that not standard

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

If we want to be able to lecture and invade totalitarian regimes we better be careful we don't behave like them.

That's very New Labour!

In any case this government are reviewing New Labour's draconian Section 7 under which Miranda was detained, and stolen property recovered....

Yes another 20 years and they will decide it is OK

Fat_Steve

@DavidL
"The truth is that the vast majority don't pay any attention to politics and have yet to reach any view on Miliband. "
I don't think it's that
Of course "Doing a good job" is am imperfect proxy for "like"
But look at 2010
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dnue4bn413/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-150813.pdf
The public were pretty fair-minded, and gave him a brief four-week honeymoon.
Then, they decided that he wasn't doing a good job. And that's what they still think.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

First the EU, then NATO - now the Commonwealth:

"The Commonwealth's top official has suggested to Newsnight Scotland that an independent Scotland may have to apply for membership of the organisation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23762792

Obviously senile or cannot read the rules of the organisation he leads. Just listened to the numpty and he has no clue whatsoever. The whole point of the commonwealth is for countries that have become independent , only unionists could try to float this rubbish. I am sure there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Scotland this morning at the thought that they may break the rules and not let us in.

MarqueeMark

Patrick said:

Here's an alternative approach. Look at the photo of the Miliblob at the top of this thread and ask yourself:

A. Is this the face of a man I could trust to reform the public sector, repair our national finances and represent my interests internationally? or
B. Is this a face that needs to be punched alot more frequently?

I guess deep down we all know the answer.

One of the multitude of reasons* I can't take Ed Miliband seriously as our next PM is that he looks suspiciously like a kid at my school, who also had an eminently punchable face, and, this being a state school in the sixties, was consequently punched in the face a lot.

His constant refrain was "SIR, SIR, they're HURTING me!!" Ed, if you are in need of a catch-phrase....

*the main reason being Ed was in a Cabinet that had a go with the economy once, and broke it. Ditto, on a more personal level, energy policy. He has no answers to how Labour would run Britain, and is shouting that fact with a deafening silence. Heh...

AlastairMeeks

Ed Miliband is failing to inspire, that much is clear. Ed Miliband is safe to the next election, unless Ed Balls gets his bus driving licence.

richardDodd

MG .You obviously do know the rules.. Is membership of the Commonwealth automatic on Independence or does a country have to apply and somehow qualify..

JosiasJessop

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

As for the terrorism angle: we do not know the information that was on the data stick, and some of it may have been of use to terrorists if it got out (remember, even the anarchists' cookbook is proscribed nowadays!).

If that is the case, and the law allowed it (as seems to be the case), then the law is probably far too broad a net. If so, the coalition are right to be examining it once more.

I know the law is ludicrously broad, but there's nothing about having _information_ that might somehow be useful to terrorists is there? If that was there it would cover everyone who ever takes a computer through Heathrow.

I'd assumed they'd try to justify it on the basis that they thought he could be involved in actions that could cause harm to somebody other than the person in question. If you're prepared to make a bad-faith effort to stretch that as far as it could logically go, that could make pretty much any significant journalism into an act of terrorism.

You might well be right, but the Anarchists' Cookbook case is an example: possession of material that may be of use to terrorists. A man got arrested in 2007 just for its possession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7030096.stm

Anyway, it's all conjecture from my POV. If the law does allow it, then the law probably needs revision. It's a shame the last government made it so broad.

Which brings me onto another point: laws need to be tightly defined by parliament and the courts. It's no good having a broad law and say "Oh, the extremes will never be used", because they will.

edmundintokyo

JackW said:

edmundintokyo said:

Ricardohos said:

Great post below by David Herdson @7:06am

It's sometimes good to step out and think: 'can I see this man as our Prime Minister?' This is not such a bad question because during a GE campaign it's effectively what people ask themselves. Both IDS and Michael Howard failed on that question, and so did Gordon Brown despite having had the chance of tenure to prove himself. I can't think of a single post-1945 victory by a party leader who obviously isn't up to the job.

And EdM?

No, sorry. He clearly and simply doesn't have it. Labour will not win the election.

There's always a temptation to think about the electorate as if it's one mind that makes a decision. In fact it's a bunch of individual decisions that result in somebody becoming Prime Minister by a very obscure, roundabout, not particularly fair process.

Michael Howard got 32.4%. If Ed Miliband gets 32.4%, he could well become Prime Minister.

Clearly correct but I've always felt the British electorate, or a least those swing and differential voters, form a broad anonymous front to ensure we don't have to endure a dud as Prime Minister. For Labour the electorate are assisted by the party being notoriously unwilling to cast aside a clear electoral liability - Foot, Kinnock, Brown and Miliband being unquestionable examples.

What I want to know is how the voters figure out the necessary psephology to deliver the appropriate vote against, which varies from election to election. Kinnock got 34.4%, which would almost definitely put Ed Miliband in Downing Street.

This reminds me of people on this site before the last election - some of them quite sensible - saying there wouldn't be a Hung Parliament, because The Voters don't want it.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

First the EU, then NATO - now the Commonwealth:

"The Commonwealth's top official has suggested to Newsnight Scotland that an independent Scotland may have to apply for membership of the organisation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23762792

Obviously senile or cannot read the rules of the organisation he leads. Just listened to the numpty and he has no clue whatsoever. The whole point of the commonwealth is for countries that have become independent , only unionists could try to float this rubbish. I am sure there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Scotland this morning at the thought that they may break the rules and not let us in.

Look on the bright side - Spain is not a member of the Commonwealth, unlike the EU & NATO!

richardDodd

I wonder if Ed realises that during a debate, hopefully with Farage involved, he cannot repeatedly say .."But Mr Speaker..But Mr Speaker.".

Plato

richardDodd said:

I wonder if Ed realises that during a debate, hopefully with Farage involved, he cannot repeatedly say .."But Mr Speaker..But Mr Speaker.".

Quite. Though I don't know about Mr Farage being there myself.

MarqueeMark

antifrank said:

Ed Miliband is failing to inspire, that much is clear. Ed Miliband is safe to the next election, unless Ed Balls gets his bus driving licence.

Do you need a licence to knock someone down and drive over them repeatedly?

JackW

Meanwhile .... rumours are circulating in Bedford that our eminent host is preparing to abandon the town and decamp to the more tranquil surroundings of Old Hatfield in Hertfordshire.

This news follows sightings of a gentleman of liberal tendencies and other celebrated personal qualities known to PBers being seen exiting a recently sold property in the Fore Street quarter of Old Hatfield.

OGH watchers also noted that the house was once the home of noted 18th century powdered wig maker Thomas Wicks and that Mr Smithson might be hoping that the spirit of past follicular worthies might assist him in his long standing quest for the holy grail of hair pieces !!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42557486.html

AlastairMeeks

edmundintokyo said:

What I want to know is how the voters figure out the necessary psephology to deliver the appropriate vote against, which varies from election to election. Kinnock got 34.4%, which would almost definitely put Ed Miliband in Downing Street.

This reminds me of people on this site before the last election - some of them quite sensible - saying there wouldn't be a Hung Parliament, because The Voters don't want it.

I know the point you're getting at, but I think you're basically wrong. The outcome will in all probability be tolerable to the centre of public opinion.

Last time around the public taken as a whole definitely didn't want Gordon Brown to stay in Number 10, but equally the public taken as a whole didn't trust the Tories to rule alone. Somehow or other we got a combination that achieved that, even though it had previously looked most improbable - a Blue/Yellow coalition.

Next time around the public seems to have decided that it doesn't think much of the coalition or the Conservatives, but thinks that Ed Miliband is a waste of space. That seems to suggest a Red/Yellow coalition with a leader other than Ed Miliband. I can't immediately see how we'd get to that result, but that didn't prove a deal-breaker last time around. The alternative combination that public opinion might barely tolerate is a further Blue/Yellow coalition under David Cameron. The Conservatives will need to buck their ideas up before that happens though.

Anyway, the common denominator is a hung Parliament, which to my mind should be firmly odds on.

richardDodd

Plato .. for some strange reason tim and other lefties think he should be there in order to scare the cr*p out of Cameron..when his natural target has got to be Labour.
Personally I do not think he should be there, but if tim and others like the idea then lets go for it.
New trousers for Mr Milliband please..

another_richard

Is Avery around?

I need to know if he's George Trefgarne of the Centre for Policy Studies.

This article in the Telegraph contains some familiar catchprases:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10251112/This-might-not-be-a-recovery-but-a-good-old-fashioned-boom.html

Although I don't think even our Avery's overexuberance has produced drivel of this order yet.

It seems that the word 'boom' is as overused and misused in UK economic terms as the description 'world class' is in relation to English footballers.

A 'boom' apparantly now describing an economy where earnings increases and savings rates have been lower than inflation for several years, where industrial production is lower than it was 25 years ago and where the government is borrowing £100bn+ each year.

Mick_Pork

antifrank said:

Ed Miliband is failing to inspire, that much is clear. Ed Miliband is safe to the next election, unless Ed Balls gets his bus driving licence.

LOL

CarlottaVance

The good news on Section 7 of (New Labour's) Terrorism Act is that the coalition are going to curtail it and have consulted on how to do so:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy12/liberty-s-response-to-the-consultation-on-the-operation-of-schedule-7-dec-20.pdf

AlastairMeeks

Interesting edit of my comment! I don't know how much more discreet I could have been.

Roger

@Patrick

"A. Is this the face of a man I could trust to reform the public sector, repair our national finances and represent my interests internationally?"

These things are quantifiable. Certain accents are more trustworthy than others (Edinburgh used to be considered the most trustworthy) and I'm sure the same applies to faces. Having not seen any research I can only go off my own prejudice. Ed to me looks honest and reliable (as does Cameron). If you were looking for senior politicians whose face makes them unelectable I'd say only Gove who looks like a crook.

DavidL

antifrank said:

Ed Miliband is failing to inspire, that much is clear. Ed Miliband is safe to the next election, unless Ed Balls gets his bus driving licence.

Does he not have enough trouble keeping his conventional licence? I think at the moment he has concluded that good things come to those who wait, hence the prolonged silence.