Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM leader ratings in the Mirror make miserable reading for
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Cameron prices are a bit closer together: 1/4 with less than two years left sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
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.
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/
"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
EdM is quite a different character with a different set of issues.
*tears of laughter etc.*
;^ )
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.
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.
"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."
"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?
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.
"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
"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.....
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.
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 19th August - Con 31%, Lab 38%, LD 10%, UKIP 14%; APP -34
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..."
"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?)
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/next-party-leaders/next-labour-leader
"You can still get 25 to 1 on Stella Creasey"
She's brill! She'd get my vote
"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
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"
He's a nutjob.
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.
"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
No doubt searching for plaudits in Campaign et al keeps you busy.
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.
"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?
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.
"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
"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.
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.
In any case this government are reviewing New Labour's draconian Section 7 under which Miranda was detained, and stolen property recovered....
"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."
A good way to get to sleep. Counting breasts on the right hand strip.
I got to twenty four yesterday.......
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…!
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.
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.
Michael Howard got 32.4%. If Ed Miliband gets 32.4%, he could well become Prime Minister.
"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.....
Election campaign, week 1: Lab 34% Con 35% UKIP 10%
Election campaign, week 2: Labour party election broadcast during Top Gear: Election campaign, week 3: Lab 34% Con 30% UKIP 15%
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
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.
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
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.
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
Copyright JackW 2010.
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.
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.
Crosby must go..
"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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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..
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.
LOL
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy12/liberty-s-response-to-the-consultation-on-the-operation-of-schedule-7-dec-20.pdf
"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.