Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls. IIRC, the thread the other day said that 57% of the population dislike the Tory Party, or some such similar wording. That sounds like quite a lot (and is) but if there's only a 55% turnout, for example, because many believe that they're all useless / the same / in it for themselves etc. then that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who dislike the Tories but have a low propensity to turnout is key to Miliband's GE chances. Relying on 'Not Being the Others' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know is that since 1992 there has been a significant proportion of the electorate that does turn out to vote whose principal motivation is to prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself if that toxicity is truly deserved, and whether things like the Falkirk shenanigans, Joyce's violence and the McBride scandal might indicate that Labour is much more toxic.
Yes, I think it is deserved. But whether I'm right or not it undoubtedly exists. One day the Tories may stop blaming everyone else for that and will take up Theresa May's challenge to address it. If EdM did somehow get the keys to No 10 maybe that would do it. To not secure majorities against Gordon and then Ed would be a damning indictment.
Look at what is going on inside your own party and work out which party really deserves a 'toxic' label, if any.
The problem is that the Conservatives cannot really address this perception, as idiots will still keep on calling them toxic whatever they do. *Any* hard decision a politicians makes will effect people negatively. When Labour makes the decision it it is fine; when the Conservatives make the same or similar decision, it is toxic. Witness the spare room subsidy / bedroom tax situation.
Worse, this stupid habit of calling the Conservative's 'toxic' allows Labour to hide some hideous practices. After all, the Conservatives are toxic and worse, aren't they?
Between themselves, and entirely by accident, Len and Ed may have started Labour on the road to becoming a mass membership, 21st century social democratic party. The rest is just detail. If yhat's where Labour does end up, and even if they lose in 2015, it will have been worth it.
@Scott_P My wor Kevin isn't a happy camper, is he? "So Ed Miliband triggered the gravest constitutional crisis in his party’s 113-year history on a case thinner than a size zero model.
There was a case that Milliband believed in. And then the witnesses retracted.
Between themselves, and entirely by accident, Len and Ed may have started Labour on the road to becoming a mass membership, 21st century social democratic party. The rest is just detail. If yhat's where Labour does end up, and even if they lose in 2015, it will have been worth it.
Ed has completely capitulated to Len. The rest is just detail.
The polls show how toxic the Tories are, it's not an opinion or an anecdote, its a polling fact. You'll never get the PB Tories to put facts before anecdote, but thats why they get elections wrong.
Polls measure opinion at a point in time. Times change and so do opinions and polls.
Polling sub 30% in a GE seems pretty toxic for a ruling party..
Labour was utterly toxic, led by an imbecile, devoid of vision, lacking in ideas, tired, broken and unelectable. Even people like me could not support them. but we didn't vote Tory either. And that is the Tories' problem. Not enough voters are willing to be associated with their brand. One day they may stop blaming others for that and will look inwards for an explanation.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls. IIRC, the thread the other day said that 57% of the population dislike the Tory Party, or some such similar wording. That sounds like quite a lot (and is) but if there's only a 55% turnout, for example, because many believe that they're all useless / the same / in it for themselves etc. then that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who dislike the Tories but have a low propensity to turnout is key to Miliband's GE chances. Relying on 'Not Being the Others' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know is that since 1992 there has been a significant proportion of the electorate that does turn out to vote whose principal motivation is to prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Do we ? I think that's hugely detrimental to Labour and Blair. Blair's three election victories were because Labour had a positive agenda and were the nation's preference - the conservatives were largely an irrelevance. 2010 Mandelson ran a good campaign and the Conservatives probably just lost out because of bias in FPTP and the way they have screwed up their presence in Scotland.
An unpopular leader of the opposition leads his party to victory against a government that has presided over several years of steady growth that a majority of voters do not feel they have benefited from. But so much for Australia ...
MikeK - Well on election night most of our pundits are old too, Dimbleby, Paxman etc. The Australian pundits are experienced and Anthony Green is brilliant on electoral facts, the BBC could do with an Anthony Green
"Between themselves, and entirely by accident, Len and Ed may have started Labour on the road to becoming a mass membership, 21st century social democratic party. The rest is just detail. If yhat's where Labour does end up, and even if they lose in 2015, it will have been worth it."
Southam: as I said a few days ago, cutting union funding is the first step to a successful plan to change the way the party is funding as well as an unsuccessful one. But it has showed the challenge now to make it a success. Going on an on about government funding for parties is somethign I think doesn't make much sense and will detract from that party's ability to turn to individual donors who might be swayed by evidence that union control is subsiding.
Lefties are in complete disarray today ,they have no idea which way to point..very funny..theyve tried. Toxic , failed.. Blowhards..failed..Rabbits, dozens of em..failed.Non story is really a Non story so please forget about it,please..failed .. oh dear, gonna be aother long PB day.
The polls show how toxic the Tories are, it's not an opinion or an anecdote, its a polling fact. You'll never get the PB Tories to put facts before anecdote, but thats why they get elections wrong.
Polls measure opinion at a point in time. Times change and so do opinions and polls.
And the Tories have been toxic in the polls for twenty years, hence their inability to win majorities.
Both parties are "toxic" or haven't you clocked this - the tories in cities and Scotland, labour in the South of England ? The tories won more votes in 2010 than Labour does that mean Labour are even more toxic ? I wouldn't confuse vagaries of the UK electoral system with popularity, as we know Labour has a more evenly spread vote while tories pile theirs up in the underrepresented SE. If the tories had a leader who could think beyond Surrey Labour would be in deep shit, you're lucky its not Hague the Elder heading them atm.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself if that toxicity is truly deserved, and whether things like the Falkirk shenanigans, Joyce's violence and the McBride scandal might indicate that Labour is much more toxic.
Yes, I think it is deserved. But whether I'm right or not it undoubtedly exists. One day the Tories may stop blaming everyone else for that and will take up Theresa May's challenge to address it. If EdM did somehow get the keys to No 10 maybe that would do it. To not secure majorities against Gordon and then Ed would be a damning indictment.
Look at what is going on inside your own party and work out which party really deserves a 'toxic' label, if any.
The problem is that the Conservatives cannot really address this perception, as idiots will still keep on calling them toxic whatever they do. *Any* hard decision a politicians makes will effect people negatively. When Labour makes the decision it it is fine; when the Conservatives make the same or similar decision, it is toxic. Witness the spare room subsidy / bedroom tax situation.
Worse, this stupid habit of calling the Conservative's 'toxic' allows Labour to hide some hideous practices. After all, the Conservatives are toxic and worse, aren't they?
Except they're not.
As I say, it's always someone else's fault.
As you always say. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum.
So perhaps you'd like to address the points I make, rather than trying to pull a blanket over the gently-smouldering Labour party.
SP. They are not making common cause, they think the Unions and the Labour/Falkirk situation smells strongly of corruption and Ed's latest wheeze is making some real rottweiler reporters take a closer look. Well done Ed
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls. IIRC, the thread the other day said that 57% of the population dislike the Tory Party, or some such similar wording. That sounds like quite a lot (and is) but if there's only a 55% turnout, for example, because many believe that they're all useless / the same / in it for themselves etc. then that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who dislike the Tories but have a low propensity to turnout is key to Miliband's GE chances. Relying on 'Not Being the Others' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know is that since 1992 there has been a significant proportion of the electorate that does turn out to vote whose principal motivation is to prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Do we ? I think that's hugely detrimental to Labour and Blair. Blair's three election victories were because Labour had a positive agenda and were the nation's preference - the conservatives were largely an irrelevance. 2010 Mandelson ran a good campaign and the Conservatives probably just lost out because of bias in FPTP and the way they have screwed up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
Sunil A little, but based on first projection below looks like the ALP doing a little better than first feared at the beginning of the night when it was feared they would fall under 50. For comparison, in 1996 the Coalition won 94 to the ALP's 49
"Labour was utterly toxic, led by an imbecile, devoid of vision, lacking in ideas, tired, broken and unelectable. "
So its the status quo then, nothing has changed.
Again (MTF?), you're going by PB Tory anecdote rather than polls. It took nine years for the Tories to recover to the polling levels after 1997 that Labour recovered to after nine months. Thats the scale of Tory toxicity.
I don't know whether to put that statement into pure trolling or pure stupidity. Comparing performance in a 9 years boom with 9 months in a recession is just plain nonsense. I take it you want to keep the thread off Ed's dismal performance ?
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden #Falkirk MP: witnesses were 'prevailed upon to take their evidence out'. Unite the union 'stepped outside the rules'. (Press Association)
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself if that toxicity is truly deserved, and whether things like the Falkirk shenanigans, Joyce's violence and the McBride scandal might indicate that Labour is much more toxic.
Yes, I think it is deserved. But whether I'm right or not it undoubtedly exists. One day the Tories may stop blaming everyone else for that and will take up Theresa May's challenge to address it. If EdM did somehow get the keys to No 10 maybe that would do it. To not secure majorities against Gordon and then Ed would be a damning indictment.
Look at what is going on inside your own party and work out which party really deserves a 'toxic' label, if any.
The problem is that the Conservatives cannot really address this perception, as idiots will still keep on calling them toxic whatever they do. *Any* hard decision a politicians makes will effect people negatively. When Labour makes the decision it it is fine; when the Conservatives make the same or similar decision, it is toxic. Witness the spare room subsidy / bedroom tax situation.
Worse, this stupid habit of calling the Conservative's 'toxic' allows Labour to hide some hideous practices. After all, the Conservatives are toxic and worse, aren't they?
Except they're not.
As I say, it's always someone else's fault.
As you always say. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum.
So perhaps you'd like to address the points I make, rather than trying to pull a blanket over the gently-smouldering Labour party.
"If the tories had a leader who could think beyond Surrey Labour would be in deep shit, you're lucky its not Hague the Elder heading them atm."
They don't though do they, they have one who is reducing their membership by 2/3rds. And who overrules Hague on Foreign policy judgement to side with the inept Master Strategist
No they don't and Labour doesn't have one who can think beyond his safe seats either, which is why atm we're heading for another HP with Cleggy as the kingmaker.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself if that toxicity is truly deserved, and whether things like the Falkirk shenanigans, Joyce's violence and the McBride scandal might indicate that Labour is much more toxic.
Yes, I think it is deserved. But whether I'm right or not it undoubtedly exists. One day the Tories may stop blaming everyone else for that and will take up Theresa May's challenge to address it. If EdM did somehow get the keys to No 10 maybe that would do it. To not secure majorities against Gordon and then Ed would be a damning indictment.
Look at what is going on inside your own party and work out which party really deserves a 'toxic' label, if any.
The problem is that the Conservatives cannot really address this perception, as idiots will still keep on calling them toxic whatever they do. *Any* hard decision a politicians makes will effect people negatively. When Labour makes the decision it it is fine; when the Conservatives make the same or similar decision, it is toxic. Witness the spare room subsidy / bedroom tax situation.
Worse, this stupid habit of calling the Conservative's 'toxic' allows Labour to hide some hideous practices. After all, the Conservatives are toxic and worse, aren't they?
Except they're not.
As I say, it's always someone else's fault.
As you always say. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum.
So perhaps you'd like to address the points I make, rather than trying to pull a blanket over the gently-smouldering Labour party.
Labour is not a party I feel a deep loyalty to, but it's the only choice I have. It is not my party.
The Tories choose to present their policies and views in the way they do, and voters respond to that. Calling a party toxic is not detrimental unless it resonates. And for many voters in the UK it does resonate. The Tories can continue to blame everyone but themselves for that or they can choose to look inwards. My argument is that until they do the latter they will be doing themselves no favours. Clearly you disagree. So be it.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls. IIRC, the thread the other day said that 57% of the population dislike the Tory Party, or some such similar wording. That sounds like quite a lot (and is) but if there's only a 55% turnout, for example, because many believe that they're all useless / the same / in it for themselves etc. then that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who dislike the Tories but have a low propensity to turnout is key to Miliband's GE chances. Relying on 'Not Being the Others' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know is that since 1992 there has been a significant proportion of the electorate that does turn out to vote whose principal motivation is to prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Do we ? I think that's hugely detrimental to Labour and Blair. Blair's three election victories were because Labour had a positive agenda and were the nation's preference - the conservatives were largely an irrelevance. 2010 Mandelson ran a good campaign and the Conservatives probably just lost out because of bias in FPTP and the way they have screwed up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
In 01 and 05 turnout was at a record low, Blues didn't bother to turn out as the result was a foregone conclusion and the economy was moving from bubbling along to pure froth. I didn't bother in 01 which is unusual for me. As for the Labour \ LD preference I'd suggest this has less to do with the Tories and more to do with the LDs replacing Labour in parts of the South and South West in a two party system.
Interesting from the PA "witnesses were prevailed upon to take their evidence out" By whom?. When?. Why? What did their evidence consist of?. Over to you Crick. Non story strides on..
He told the BBC'S Radio 4 Today that Labour leader Ed Miliband had caused himself "a complete embarrassment".
OR
Gary O'Donoghue@BlindGazza Lab senior source says "no prospect of an apology" over Falkirk
OR
Tim Walker@ThatTimWalker Oh dear. It's hashtags at dawn between @jimmurphymp and @tom_watson Good job they know how to have it out 'away from Tory twitter eyes".
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls. IIRC, the thread the other day said that 57% of the population dislike the Tory Party, or some such similar wording. That sounds like quite a lot (and is) but if there's only a 55% turnout, for example, because many believe that they're all useless / the same / in it for themselves etc. then that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who dislike the Tories but have a low propensity to turnout is key to Miliband's GE chances. Relying on 'Not Being the Others' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know is that since 1992 there has been a significant proportion of the electorate that does turn out to vote whose principal motivation is to prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Do we ? I think that's hugely detrimental to Labour and Blair. Blair's three election victories were because Labour had a positive agenda and were the nation's preference - the conservatives were largely an irrelevance. 2010 Mandelson ran a good campaign and the Conservatives probably just lost out because of bias in FPTP and the way they have screwed up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
In 01 and 05 turnout was at a record low, Blues didn't bother to turn out as the result was a foregone conclusion and the economy was moving from bubbling along to pure froth. I didn't bother in 01 which is unusual for me. As for the Labour \ LD preference I'd suggest this has less to do with the Tories and more to do with the LDs replacing Labour in parts of the South and South West in a two party system.
We'll find out a lot more in 2015, but I think the polling evidence tends to support my view. The anti-Tory Party is large, motivated and organises its votes well. Even when the Labour party is deeply unpopular - as was the case in 2010 - it is powerful enough to prevent a Tory majority.
@DanHannanMEP: There's really no way of putting this kindly: @Ed_Miliband is looking unusually tittish at the moment.
" David Cameron David Cameron today slapped down a Tory MEP who went on American television to attack the National Health Service, dismissing his views as "eccentric""
That'll be Dan Hannan
Keep reposting tweets Surge
Any of the PB Tory blowhards prepared to put their money down yet?
Oh dear the betting ruse. Things must be bad in Edland this morning.
SO Arguably with UKIP now having higher poll ratings than the LDs (who are in coalition with the Tories), it is now the anti-Labour vote which is higher
When Len reared his ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Yes brave Sir Ed turned about and gallantly he chickened out, Bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat: Bravest of the brave, Sir Ed!
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls. IIRC, the thread the other day said that 57% of the population dislike the Tory Party, or some such similar wording. That sounds like quite a lot (and is) but if there's only a 55% turnout, for example, because many believe that they're all useless / the same / in it for themselves etc. then that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who dislike the Tories but have a low propensity to turnout is key to Miliband's GE chances. Relying on 'Not Being the Others' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know is that since 1992 there has been a significant proportion of the electorate that does turn out to vote whose principal motivation is to prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Do we ? I think that's hugely detrimental to Labour and Blair. Blair's three election victories were because Labour had a positive agenda and were the nation's preference - the conservatives were largely an irrelevance. 2010 Mandelson ran a good campaign and the Conservatives probably just lost out because of bias in FPTP and the way they have screwed up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
Are LDs all anti-Tory and biased towards Labour. If so, why bother counting the votes the way we do now, and have baby-eaters vs nice people.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls.n that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who ' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
ts of the South and South West in a two party system.
We'll find out a lot more in 2015, but I think the polling evidence tends to support my view. The anti-Tory Party is large, motivated and organises its votes well. Even when the Labour party is deeply unpopular - as was the case in 2010 - it is powerful enough to prevent a Tory majority.
We'll see as you say. My disagreement with you is chiefly it's an oversimplification of a series of issues. The Tories are less popular in certain areas of the country usually Celtic fringe and major cities. These areas in the current electoral set up are over represented which is part of the reason the Tories need a 6% lead to get on level terms with Labour . The other part is Labour is just better at managing it's vote as it is more evenly spread across the country rather than piling up jumbo majorities in safe seats. Neither of those factors has much to do with party popularity, it's plain electoral mechanics. As I've said to tim down thread the Tories have serially failed to address moving outside their home bastions in the South and present policies which might fly with cities, celts and northern England. At some point someone on the Blue side is going to realise you can't win an election just in the SE but it isn't Cameron. So the toxicity argument to me is just spurious, level out the electoral system and get a leader who can relate to people across the Nation and then we'll see just how things are.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls. IIRC, the thread the other day said that 57% of the population dislike the Tory Party, or some such similar wording. That sounds like quite a lot (and is) but if there's only a 55% turnout, for example, because many believe that they're all useless / the same / in it for themselves etc. then that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who dislike the Tories but have a low propensity to turnout is key to Miliband's GE chances. Relying on 'Not Being the Others' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know is that since 1992 there has been a significant proportion of the electorate that does turn out to vote whose principal motivation is to prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Do we ? I think that's hugely detrimental to Labour and Blair. Blair's three election victories were because Labour had a positive agenda and were the nation's preference - the conservatives were largely an irrelevance. 2010 Mandelson ran a good campaign and the Conservatives probably just lost out because of bias in FPTP and the way they have screwed up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
Are LDs all anti-Tory and biased towards Labour. If so, why bother counting the votes the way we do now, and have baby-eaters vs nice people.
The whole point is that for many the motivation is to keep the Tories out. It's not about Labour. This is a mistake Labour makes too. The LDs did not see a decline in their polling after 2010 because they "betrayed" Labour, but because they went into coalition with the Tories.
@DanHannanMEP: There's really no way of putting this kindly: @Ed_Miliband is looking unusually tittish at the moment.
" David Cameron David Cameron today slapped down a Tory MEP who went on American television to attack the National Health Service, dismissing his views as "eccentric""
That'll be Dan Hannan
Keep reposting tweets Surge
Any of the PB Tory blowhards prepared to put their money down yet?
Oh dear the betting ruse. Things must be bad in Edland this morning.
It's a betting site. Either you post because you bet or because you know about politics.
Yet to discover why half the PB Tories post but there's money to be made if they believe their judgement.
That's a very narrow view of PB tim, I think I've learnt more about cats and porpoises on this site than I have about politics and betting. And it's stronger for it.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls.n that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who ' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
ts of the South and South West in a two party system.
We'll find out a lot more in 2015, but I think the polling evidence tends to support my view. The anti-Tory Party is large, motivated and organises its votes well. Even when the Labour party is deeply unpopular - as was the case in 2010 - it is powerful enough to prevent a Tory majority.
We'll see as you say. My disagreement with you is chiefly it's an oversimplification of a series of issues. The Tories are less popular in certain areas of the country usually Celtic fringe and major cities. These areas in the current electoral set up are over represented which is part of the reason the Tories need a 6% lead to get on level terms with Labour . The other part is Labour is just better at managing it's vote as it is more evenly spread across the country rather than piling up jumbo majorities in safe seats. Neither of those factors has much to do with party popularity, it's plain electoral mechanics. As I've said to tim down thread the Tories have serially failed to address moving outside their home bastions in the South and present policies which might fly with cities, celts and northern England. At some point someone on the Blue side is going to realise you can't win an election just in the SE but it isn't Cameron. So the toxicity argument to me is just spurious, level out the electoral system and get a leader who can relate to people across the Nation and then we'll see just how things are.
What you seem to be saying is that if the Tories presented themselves in a different way and developed policies that resonated more widely they'd have a better chance of winning majorities. I agree!
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Ed still needs to enthuse his side to the polls.n that only guarantees 22% of those voting actively dislike the Tories. A 70% turnout guarantees that figure rises to 39%.
Enthusing those who ' isn't enough.
It may not be enough. But what we do know up their presence in Scotland.
In all those elections Labour did comparatively worse where the LDs were the principal challengers to the Tories. To me that indicates an anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour vote; though I agree that in 97, and to an extent in 2001, there was a sizeable pro-Labour vote too.
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
ts of the South and South West in a two party system.
We'll find out a lot more in 2015, but I think the polling evidence tends to support my view. The anti-Tory Party is large, motivated and organises its votes well. Even when the Labour party is deeply unpopular - as was the case in 2010 - it is powerful enough to prevent a Tory majority.
We'll see as you say. My disagreement system and get a leader who can relate to people across the Nation and then we'll see just how things are.
What you seem to be saying is that if the Tories presented themselves in a different way and developed policies that resonated more widely they'd have a better chance of winning majorities. I agree!
Though I think Ed is now walking in to the same trap as Cameron, a narrow focus based on core supporters. he won't win a majority either. Clegg's cockroach strategy is currently looking like the valid one of the lot.
Odd how the Mirror has turned against Ed over the past few weeks - I guess when it came to supporting Ed or the Unions, it was Ed they dumped on. - I don't think this bodes well for Ed's party reform plans; assuming after the humiliation in Falkirk, Ed still plans to go ahead with them?
P3's over. Horner laughs when Ben Edwards (BBC commentator) asks him if there's any chance of Red Bull copying Ferrari by having their drivers give one another a tow in qualifying.
Got many bet ideas. Pole's probably another Vettel-Hamilton duel, but the battle to reach Q3 should be very tight.
Time to pick some blackberries; then it's the final friendly before the rugby season gets underway; and then it's my first beers (Golden Champion) for two weeks, followed by my first wine (an NZ pinot). Tomorrow will be my first hangover for two weeks.
Time to pick some blackberries; then it's the final friendly before the rugby season gets underway; and then it's my first beers (Golden Champion) for two weeks, followed by my first wine (an NZ pinot). Tomorrow will be my first hangover for two weeks.
Enjoy it ! I'm off to watch Brooke junior rowing in Worcester.
The polls show how toxic the Tories are, it's not an opinion or an anecdote, its a polling fact. You'll never get the PB Tories to put facts before anecdote, but thats why they get elections wrong.
Polls measure opinion at a point in time. Times change and so do opinions and polls.
And the Tories have been toxic in the polls for twenty years, hence their inability to win majorities.
Yep. More perception than reality though, are Labour any "nicer" than the Tories? Don't think so.
If your party chucks money at the public sector then their influence over the media is going to give you an easier time of it. Same that if you cut their money they're going to give you a hard time.
Interesting to see how Labour will do when there isn't money to throw about in 2015. My guess is very badly indeed.
Such is the toxicity of the Tory brand among a goodly proportion of the electorate that even the undoubted crapness of Ed may not prevent him from becoming the next PM.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself if that toxicity is truly deserved, and whether things like the Falkirk shenanigans, Joyce's violence and the McBride scandal might indicate that Labour is much more toxic.
Yes, I think it is deserved. But whether I'm right or not it undoubtedly exists. One day the Tories may stop blaming everyone else for that and will take up Theresa May's challenge to address it. If EdM did somehow get the keys to No 10 maybe that would do it. To not secure majorities against Gordon and then Ed would be a damning indictment.
Look at what is going on inside your own party and work out which party really deserves a 'toxic' label, if any.
The problem is that the Conservatives cannot really address this perception, as idiots will still keep on calling them toxic whatever they do. *Any* hard decision a politicians makes will effect people negatively. When Labour makes the decision it it is fine; when the Conservatives make the same or similar decision, it is toxic. Witness the spare room subsidy / bedroom tax situation.
Worse, this stupid habit of calling the Conservative's 'toxic' allows Labour to hide some hideous practices. After all, the Conservatives are toxic and worse, aren't they?
Except they're not.
As I say, it's always someone else's fault.
As you always say. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum.
So perhaps you'd like to address the points I make, rather than trying to pull a blanket over the gently-smouldering Labour party.
Labour is not a party I feel a deep loyalty to, but it's the only choice I have. It is not my party.
The Tories choose to present their policies and views in the way they do, and voters respond to that. Calling a party toxic is not detrimental unless it resonates. And for many voters in the UK it does resonate. The Tories can continue to blame everyone but themselves for that or they can choose to look inwards. My argument is that until they do the latter they will be doing themselves no favours. Clearly you disagree. So be it.
Any party can only try to influence the way their policies come across; the media and other parties have a great deal to say in the matter. Hence when Labour introduce the spare room subsidy for private rented accommodation, it is fine. When the coalition does essentially the same thing for public rented social accommodation, it is evil and a tax. There are many more examples.
But it is not just policies. Look at the Mitchell and McAlpine sagas for the way the media - ably and sickly assisted by some Labour MPs - tried to invent a story. There have been many others during this parliament as well, and they all add to the tone, even when they are patently false.
Indeed, your continuing mention of 'toxic Tories' does exactly the same thing - reinforces the meme even when it is patently rubbish.
When Labour supporters have to sink as low as calling Cameron a coward, a porpoise, and mentioning his dick repeatedly, I think it's obvious which side is really toxic. Hint: and it's not the Conservatives.
There is unalloyed good news for Ed in the Australian result. It shows that knifing a crap leader is not a sure fire recipe for success...
This certainly seems familiar: "Mr Rudd’s current depictions of Mr Abbott as ‘unfit to govern’ are not only clear evidence of Labor’s inability to mount a case for re-election based on its own record"
On topic: I think it will be a female who wins SCD this year, because there isn't a gymnast or cricketer among the males. My theory that cricketers (Darren Gough, Mark Ramprakash) do well is the nimble footwork they need for turning for a second run.
Any chance of a thread on who will win the 2020 Summer Olympics bid, which is decided tomorrow?
So perhaps you'd like to address the points I make, rather than trying to pull a blanket over the gently-smouldering Labour party.
Labour is not a party I feel a deep loyalty to, but it's the only choice I have. It is not my party.
The Tories choose to present their policies and views in the way they do, and voters respond to that. Calling a party toxic is not detrimental unless it resonates. And for many voters in the UK it does resonate. The Tories can continue to blame everyone but themselves for that or they can choose to look inwards. My argument is that until they do the latter they will be doing themselves no favours. Clearly you disagree. So be it.
Any party can only try to influence the way their policies come across; the media and other parties have a great deal to say in the matter. Hence when Labour introduce the spare room subsidy for private rented accommodation, it is fine. When the coalition does essentially the same thing for public rented social accommodation, it is evil and a tax. There are many more examples.
But it is not just policies. Look at the Mitchell and McAlpine sagas for the way the media - ably and sickly assisted by some Labour MPs - tried to invent a story. There have been many others during this parliament as well, and they all add to the tone, even when they are patently false.
Indeed, your continuing mention of 'toxic Tories' does exactly the same thing - reinforces the meme even when it is patently rubbish.
When Labour supporters have to sink as low as calling Cameron a coward, a porpoise, and mentioning his dick repeatedly, I think it's obvious which side is really toxic. Hint: and it's not the Conservatives.
Who let Andrew Mitchell twist in the wind after viewing the CCTV tapes, the press, Labour? We all know who it was
And we all know you are more bothered about screaming about Cameron until you are red in the face instead of looking at what really happened.
In your mind, anything that happens can be turned against Cameron. I'm surprised you haven't tried it with the Falkirk mess yet. Utterly toxic behaviour.
I don't usually mind the BBC, but yesterday, I caught the end of a weird interview with some woman who was promoting the welfare of voles!!!
The interviewer was clearly sharing her pain, and they discussed ways to eliminate the rascally minks that were killing them. What's going on? Minks are useful, you can make coats out of them. Voles are water rats! They are not cuddly little creatures, they are rodents.
Were you to fall asleep near a dyke, would you appreciate one of these "cuddly" creatures running up your trouser leg?
I expect the BBC to campaign soon to protect those other cuddly "voles" that infest the food bins at the back of fast-food outlets.
Palmer's party 11.6% in Queensland, both LNP and ALP down, Palmer could win Fairfax. Katter down.
Palmer is going to win Fairfax , Katter will get back in Kennedy but much reduced majority . Greens will retain Melbourne . The Indi seat is still in doubt with Independent Cathy McGowan very close behind the sitting Liberal MP
A health warning: I've just checked and I'm actually green (both hedged and unhedged) for race bets this year, but my qualifying's been so bad it's dragged the overall result to date into the red.
So perhaps you'd like to address the points I make, rather than trying to pull a blanket over the gently-smouldering Labour party.
Labour is not a party I feel a deep loyalty to, but it's the only choice I have. It is not my party.
The Tories choose to present their policies and views in the way they do, and voters respond to that. Calling a party toxic is not detrimental unless it resonates. And for many voters in the UK it does resonate. The Tories can continue to blame everyone but themselves for that or they can choose to look inwards. My argument is that until they do the latter they will be doing themselves no favours. Clearly you disagree. So be it.
Any party can only try to influence the way their policies come across; the media and other parties have a great deal to say in the matter. Hence when Labour introduce the spare room subsidy for private rented accommodation, it is fine. When the coalition does essentially the same thing for public rented social accommodation, it is evil and a tax. There are many more examples.
But it is not just policies. Look at the Mitchell and McAlpine sagas for the way the media - ably and sickly assisted by some Labour MPs - tried to invent a story. There have been many others during this parliament as well, and they all add to the tone, even when they are patently false.
Indeed, your continuing mention of 'toxic Tories' does exactly the same thing - reinforces the meme even when it is patently rubbish.
When Labour supporters have to sink as low as calling Cameron a coward, a porpoise, and mentioning his dick repeatedly, I think it's obvious which side is really toxic. Hint: and it's not the Conservatives.
Who let Andrew Mitchell twist in the wind after viewing the CCTV tapes, the press, Labour? We all know who it was
And we all know you are more bothered about screaming about Cameron until you are red in the face instead of looking at what really happened.
In your mind, anything that happens can be turned against Cameron. I'm surprised you haven't tried it with the Falkirk mess yet. Utterly toxic behaviour.
I man, did he bu**er you at school or something?
Daves a fake. It would've been "I can't believe it's not bu**er"
Here's news for you: most politicians are fakes. They are under pressure from many sides: their own beliefs, party whips, solidarity, their constituents and their families. They have to juggle all these and come up with positions that will help them get elected, even if they do not believe them.
Part of the problem with politics is that our politicians often behave more like salesmen than managers. (*)
I understand and accept that. It goes with the territory.
(*) Except for those in safe seats, who are often either the best or worst that parliament has to offer, and frequently both concurrently.
I don't like their way of counting votes in Australia because you don't get a definitive declaration of each constituency result on the night. Makes it difficult to fill in target lists.
Comments
prevent the Tories winning. Over the last three years, and especially over the last year or so as they seek to neutralise UKIP by tacking to the right, the Tories seem to have done all they can to ensure they turn out again in 2015.
Kinnock, Foot, Callaghan or Wilson?
I cannot recall Blair or even Brown doing the scale of back pedalling that Milliband has done over Unite.
Witnesses retract testimony and the case conveniently collapses, Watson crowing in the media and even asking his own Leader to apologise.
@RicHolden: VIDEO: Ed Miliband's weak u-turn is 'a very significant victory for Unite' says Eric Joyce, MP for #Falkirk: http://t.co/qmCDnyEZO3
Where are the youth in broadcasting that should be leading a go-ahead Australia?
"Labour was utterly toxic, led by an imbecile, devoid of vision, lacking in ideas, tired, broken and unelectable. "
So its the status quo then, nothing has changed.
Southam: as I said a few days ago, cutting union funding is the first step to a successful plan to change the way the party is funding as well as an unsuccessful one. But it has showed the challenge now to make it a success. Going on an on about government funding for parties is somethign I think doesn't make much sense and will detract from that party's ability to turn to individual donors who might be swayed by evidence that union control is subsiding.
So perhaps you'd like to address the points I make, rather than trying to pull a blanket over the gently-smouldering Labour party.
Well done Ed
Winning by not being the Tories is actually a pretty damning indictment of Labour, but it is a situation too many in the party are OK with. It leads to lazy thinking, an over-reliance on triangulation and a lack of thought-through policy. Thus, Tory toxicity is actually bad for Labour and, more importantly, bad for the country.
#Falkirk MP: witnesses were 'prevailed upon to take their evidence out'. Unite the union 'stepped outside the rules'. (Press Association)
@richardaeden: This morning, Mandrake asked: 'Will @Ed_Miliband bend knee to paymasters?' Answer seems to be Yes. #Falkirk Via http://t.co/vCdqOi7uBo
The Tories choose to present their policies and views in the way they do, and voters respond to that. Calling a party toxic is not detrimental unless it resonates. And for many voters in the UK it does resonate. The Tories can continue to blame everyone but themselves for that or they can choose to look inwards. My argument is that until they do the latter they will be doing themselves no favours. Clearly you disagree. So be it.
By whom?.
When?.
Why?
What did their evidence consist of?.
Over to you Crick.
Non story strides on..
Anyway I see that Ed and his own party management is now the story in Falkirk.....
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09-07/unite-member-falkirk-embarrassment-for-miliband/
He told the BBC'S Radio 4 Today that Labour leader Ed Miliband had caused himself "a complete embarrassment".
OR
Gary O'Donoghue@BlindGazza
Lab senior source says "no prospect of an apology" over Falkirk
OR
Tim Walker@ThatTimWalker
Oh dear. It's hashtags at dawn between @jimmurphymp and @tom_watson Good job they know how to have it out 'away from Tory twitter eyes".
"Lab senior source says "no prospect of an apology" over Falkirk"
so that will be an apology by Tuesday at the latest then.
Yes brave Sir Ed turned about and gallantly he chickened out,
Bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat:
Bravest of the brave, Sir Ed!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/watching-the-australian-election-results-with-tony-abbott/
Odd how the Mirror has turned against Ed over the past few weeks - I guess when it came to supporting Ed or the Unions, it was Ed they dumped on. - I don't think this bodes well for Ed's party reform plans; assuming after the humiliation in Falkirk, Ed still plans to go ahead with them?
Got many bet ideas. Pole's probably another Vettel-Hamilton duel, but the battle to reach Q3 should be very tight.
Labour had to hire the Anti-Christ in order to win three elections. What is you point son...?
McNish reckons Force India looks unstable. Also, Rosberg suffered a gearbox issue.
Enjoy it ! I'm off to watch Brooke junior rowing in Worcester.
If your party chucks money at the public sector then their influence over the media is going to give you an easier time of it. Same that if you cut their money they're going to give you a hard time.
Interesting to see how Labour will do when there isn't money to throw about in 2015. My guess is very badly indeed.
Ed + Softy Walter
But it is not just policies. Look at the Mitchell and McAlpine sagas for the way the media - ably and sickly assisted by some Labour MPs - tried to invent a story. There have been many others during this parliament as well, and they all add to the tone, even when they are patently false.
Indeed, your continuing mention of 'toxic Tories' does exactly the same thing - reinforces the meme even when it is patently rubbish.
When Labour supporters have to sink as low as calling Cameron a coward, a porpoise, and mentioning his dick repeatedly, I think it's obvious which side is really toxic. Hint: and it's not the Conservatives.
Len = Dennis the Menace
Ed = Softy Walter
Despite myself, I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for Walter.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-leading-article/9001331/tonys-time/
Coalition: 53.5%
Labor: 46.5%
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/
I think it will be a female who wins SCD this year, because there isn't a gymnast or cricketer among the males. My theory that cricketers (Darren Gough, Mark Ramprakash) do well is the nimble footwork they need for turning for a second run.
Any chance of a thread on who will win the 2020 Summer Olympics bid, which is decided tomorrow?
I wonder if we’ll ever get to see the official report and what the witnesses had to say before being pressured into withdrawing their statements.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414541/Falkirk-Ed-Miliband-withdraws-vote-rigging-claims-Unite-union.html#ixzz2eCWxBEEg
In your mind, anything that happens can be turned against Cameron. I'm surprised you haven't tried it with the Falkirk mess yet. Utterly toxic behaviour.
I man, did he bu**er you at school or something?
I'll start filling it in with the final results when they come through:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dERmb2NsbmpUNmlyOHplOTNOTE9iZVE#gid=0
http://t.co/FCWivqZYij
RT @GeneralBoles: #Falkirk's a disaster Ed.....we need a distraction! pic.twitter.com/FCWivqZYij
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/07/tony-abbott-new-prime-minister
I don't usually mind the BBC, but yesterday, I caught the end of a weird interview with some woman who was promoting the welfare of voles!!!
The interviewer was clearly sharing her pain, and they discussed ways to eliminate the rascally minks that were killing them. What's going on? Minks are useful, you can make coats out of them. Voles are water rats! They are not cuddly little creatures, they are rodents.
Were you to fall asleep near a dyke, would you appreciate one of these "cuddly" creatures running up your trouser leg?
I expect the BBC to campaign soon to protect those other cuddly "voles" that infest the food bins at the back of fast-food outlets.
betting PostBacked Maldonado at 3 for Q3, hedged at 1.5.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/italy-pre-qualifying.html
A health warning: I've just checked and I'm actually green (both hedged and unhedged) for race bets this year, but my qualifying's been so bad it's dragged the overall result to date into the red.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/electorates/
@DPJHodges: Just been told Unite announcement part of "staged climbdown" by Ed. Planned changes to electoral college, NEC and conference also shelved.
Ed has swiftly and decisively capitulated entirely to Len. This can only be good for Ed, obviously.
Part of the problem with politics is that our politicians often behave more like salesmen than managers. (*)
I understand and accept that. It goes with the territory.
(*) Except for those in safe seats, who are often either the best or worst that parliament has to offer, and frequently both concurrently.