Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If not Balls as Shadow Chancellor then who?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If not Balls as Shadow Chancellor then who?
I’ve long held the view that it won’t be Ed Balls who, it’ll be recalled, wasn’t EdM’s first choice for the job when he became leader. Whatever the strengths of the incumbent the narrtaive has been running sharply against him. John Rentoul has a great piece in today’s Indy on Sunday.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If Ed Balls is wrong what about Ed's judgement re Johnson?
Gordon Brown's not up to much either....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI
Economically Osborne has transformed the UK from the sick man of Europe's major economies into Europe's growth engine.
Bully for the Boy.
If Ed Balls must go could he please be replaced by Rachel Reeves.
Taken Max on all 3 of those, hope the bets lose to be perfectly honest and really wasn't wanting to be in this betting position. But Hey Ho all three of the odds are value according to Mike, & betting is betting. Hopefully Balls can weather the storm.
Just wish he wouldn't say "give a toss" in public.
Also some of the candidates are unknown quantities and the Tory argument in 2015 will be that they are the tried and trusted custodians of the recovery, so why risk handing it back to a party led by people wet behind the ears. He needs to leave the new shadow chancellor enough time to establish himself.
So, he should act soon or stick with Balls.
http://youtu.be/zxrFITuYmsc
"Senior Labour sources said Darling had a 'dire' presentational style...'Where we agree with the Tories is that Alistair is comatose. He's lazy'...'There is no-one regarded as a grown up in that (Bettertogether) team'."
http://tinyurl.com/omnvx88
Eds are crap
Latvia
MMR
Impeachment
Falkirk
Fop
Nope, not them
That would be nice.
Step forward Peter Mandelson
Police from Poland and Romania have joined the MPS in the fight against crime in London
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Police-from-Poland-and-Romania-have-joined-the-MPS-in-the-fight-against-crime-in-London/1400020756324/1257246745756
Giving the office of Shadow Chancellor to a political novice would be a good way of blooding the initiate in preparation for the real fight in 2020. And giving it to, say, Umunna would also enable him to follow Sun Tzu's strategy of keeping his enemies closer than his friends. A pre-election decision would also enable Ed "to bridge the generations" in the shadow cabinet and therefore help to shore up his own personal position as leader post a 2015 election defeat.
If Ed is not yet ready to concede 2015, his options are far fewer. Osborne is no longer an unknown initiate himself, but a political heavyweight with a strong record to defend in the economic recovery. Only Alistair Darling has the political weight to stand up to Osborne and even he, triumphant from winning the Scottish Independence Referendum, will still be tarnished by the catastrophe of Labour's last term in office. And there is the additional question of whether Darling would want the job.
Ed is therefore likely to stay with Ed Balls. A "strong" leader but perhaps not quite "strong" enough.
What , Alaister Darling was responsible for a credit crunch and the onsel of the deepest recession world wide ? He was more powerful that I had given him credit for. I also did not know that such was his power in the USA that they are still using QE [ as are we ].
19 out of the G20 nations went through mild to severe recession and under Darling, the last quarter Q11 2010 showed a 1.1% increase in GDP.
The whole thing smells of EU meddling.
He was a junior lawyer for a first-and-a-half tier firm (Herbert Smith) before becoming a full-time politician.
At least Rachel Reeves had an external career, while Alan Johnson ran a significant union.
His rapid ascent seems to be to be a mix of puffery and gimmackry, and he will be found wanting if he makes it to the Cabinet in the next few years.
Still it was a profitable tip by me for him to be top male.
There's some we can rule out for starters.
Ali Darling, lolol.
The Tories will be cheering for that one.
The Tories would love Labour re-appoint the chancellor who said in 2008
Britain is more resilient and more prepared to deal with global shocks
or was half a trillion pound out on his deficit forecasts between budgets.
Liam Byrne - There's no money left, Dave, George and Nick's Christmases would all come at once.
Yvette Cooper looks a political pygmy next to Theresa May, Home Office should have been easy pickings for Yvette, and let's not forget her success of HIPS.
Alan Johnson - He can't be that brilliant, he was duffed up by a PBer and resigned a few days later.
Oh
Feck think the cats have knocked the christmas tree over.
Which of these would make the better Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Osborne 32
Balls 22
Don't Know 46
Even amongst the 2010 Lib Dems, Balls only leads by 1%
A very reputable source, you forget, I work near MediaCity.
How can any Labour chancellor have any credibility when they are essentially arguing 2+2=5?
Their best hope is to just keep shouting about how evil the Tories are and promise free stuff to their client vote so that their handling of the economy doesn't really matter in the end.
When did the Tories last win an absolute majority ?
It tells me that the current chancellor or the man likely to be the next chancellor inspire very little confidence in the electorate.
Given the fact that the economy is the most important issue for the voters, that's a problematic for both parties.
Flippin' eck TSE. I'm well disgruntled. I know you can find spoilers on the 'net but ON PB??? WITH NO WARNING?
*flounce*
For the third one day (Wed) you can get 1.55 on which I have placed a fiver but you can get better odds (1.6) on the series, 3-0 is still 1.6 on which I put another £3, which in addition to the previous £3 at 3.1 should return a nice profit but for the weather raining it off.
But it was that norty Pulpstar who first mentioned the spoiler.
I shall exile myself to conhome for the evening as punishment.
:Innocent Face:
For clarity, I do not believe he will ever be Chancellor.
No, I didn't know - But there were no odds listed for him on Oddschecker, and he was my only 'red' runner on my book so to speak. I thought he would have been in a dance off against Susanna Reid actually...
The results are known and filmed by about 11.30pm on a Saturday night.
The bookies get all the spoilers and update the markets accordingly.
Balls is having some problems combining the `Cost of living` and the conventional economic debate that Osborne wants to have,but he`ll sort it out and come back stronger than ever.
Labour should learn from the Tories` mistake of appointing someone with little grasp of economics as the chancellor.So suggestions of Chukka,Stella Creasy etc. as shadow chancellor are just crazy.
Generally in politics you are well advised to bet on the perpetuation of the status quo. Ministers and shadow ministers are seldomn in as deep trouble as we think. Ed Balls had a very bad week last week and his analysis of the economy is increasingly being disproved. He also has made plenty of enemies and is closely tied to the failure of the Brown era.
However, he has also been by some distance the most effective member of the shadow cabinet since the last general election, he attacks the Conservatives with deep passion and no little skill, he's a very experienced politician and minister and his ability to shrug off his past failings and make a new argument unashamed, unabashed and with utter conviction is very valuable to Labour and is one of the reasons why they continue to make such hay with their cost of living focus (which may yet win them the election). Also, let's not pretend that the failure of his economic analysis was his and his alone. Every statement he made was cheered to the rafters by the Labour party. Too far, too fast was adopted as a mantra. Ed Miliband believed it, Labour believed it. This is a collective failure of a party that simply cannot understand economic reality.
Moreover, removing him, or even demoting him, carries risks. Moving him sideways to the foreign or home office brief will not disguise the sacking and will leave him a lame duck; a straight swap with Yvette risks making Labour a laughing stock anyway. He may not accept a demotion to a lower shadow cabinet post, or may do so but remain bitter and resentful. Yvette could walk too, or her relationship with Ed M could be seriously damaged.
Finally, there is a dearth of acceptable replacement. Umunna has been the other stand out shadow cabinet performer (thus far), but he is far too inexperienced and has no background in economics. He simply is not credible as a potential Chancellor in 2015. Reeves is in the same position. Either could be lined up for 2020, but that's a completely different argument, and Labour should not be contemplating, let alone conceding, defeat in 2015 given how heavily the odds are stacked in their favour. Johnson has accepted he is not up to it, Darling is otherwise engaged, Alexander has been ineffectual at the foreign office, there's no reason to like Leslie for the position and whilst Byrne has the right background "that note" and his links to the finance industry will haunt him. I've dealt with Cooper above.
So Labour shouldn't panic. If they have lost GE 2015 (and they deserve to) they did so because of the decisions they collectively made over the last three years, from Ed Miliband's selection onwards. Cost of living combined with the general suspicion of the Tories' economic priorities and the collective howl of anguish at any economic pain, still gives them a fighting chance, while the political boundaries, the collapse in LD support and the emergence of UKIP stack the board in their favour. They need to put an arm around their man and keep putting the fight to the Tories.
Just ask him to forecast this month's MORI Leader Approval ratings.
Never fails.
In a similar vein there's a very funny Higella YouTube, which I won't link to in case it gets OGH in trouble....
Mr Mukesh and Flockers_pb if you really believe what you write then as I say I am open to offers, the end date should be the 2015 GE or whenever it is held.
Ars v Ev draw looking good, wish I hadn't cashed out at half-time now.
The BBC are a bit sensitive about revealing the phone votes after their phone voting scandals and the Tom Chambers voting farce a few years ago on Strictly.
Osborne`s insecurities are just so obvious.He`s got so many holes in his plans some of which the IFS duly picked the next day.
Sa v Ind, Ars v Ev *smug face*.
For those interested, there's a programme about the terracotta army from 8pm on Ch4 tonight. Not sure if I'll watch it.
My point is not that I think Ed Balls will be chancellor, but that (i) politicians are routinely in and outr of deep trouble and it generally pays not to bet on a politician being removed (ii) Labour would be wrong to remove him given that (a) it doesn't solve Labour's collective lack of recognition of economic reality, (b) he's been pretty effective until this week (despite being wrong about everything), (c) moving or removing him is fraught with risk and (d) there is no ready replacement. The markets agree with me, hence Balls is heavily odds on to stay.
Beyond that I do believe Labour have a very good chance of winning the next election, for the reasons I stated: the electoral boundries, the collapse in LD support, the emergence of UKIP, public dislike of economic pain and the Tories' shortcomings. I dearly hope Labour fail and believe they deserve to. I believe they still may fail, because the coalition has generally made the right economic decisions and governed reasonably well. But in my book Labour are (fairly narrow) favourites to lead the government after the next election. Again the markets agree with me.
One of the reasons I am not particularly interested in betting on Balls becoming chancellor is because it combines too many elements; not just will Balls make it to the election and will Labour win, but will Labour win outright or form a coalition (in which case a Liberal Democrat or less personally objectional Labourite might get the job), and if Labour wins outright will Miliband choose to knife Balls then. Too many uncertainties.
Russia views Kiev as its mother city. It isn't going to give up influence over Ukraine without a fight (hopefully not literally). It's a bit like the Serbia obsession about Kosovo which people didn't understand until they understood the significance of the Battle of Blackbird's Field.
Balls has lost the macroeconomic argument so has tried to divert attention to the "Cost of Living Crisis" which started a decade ago under Labour, but was disguised by the credit binge we are violently hung over from.
A "brave" move, given none of the parties have credible solutions to the productivity improvement required in the Private sector - and Labour in particular counter productive policies in the public sector....
from Canada.
""Once a tolerant, welcoming people who thrived in scholarship and commerce, they have become a drag. Sorry, Gran"
http://goo.gl/yD5EXr
Fascinated by this idea that Tories are frightened of Balls. They are certainly irritated by him. But they also think he helps them win.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2519941/JAMES-FORSYTH-David-Camerons-headless-chickens-roasting.html
Thank you.
He'll be lucky if he survives Canada's hate speech laws but as it's the 'ethnic English' he's talking about he'll probably get a pass.