Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Blairites offer Ed some advice
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Blairites offer Ed some advice
In recent weeks and days, the architects of Labour’s victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005 have been commenting upon the leadership of Ed Miliband and the broader approach of the party.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
On the question regarding the qualities of each party leader, the highest score for each leader is "None of these".
Cameron is 46 (0)
Miliband scores 51 (+1)
Clegg scores 60 (+2)
Surely a country in search of a leader who leads and is decisive and has a vision - a Churchill or a Thatcher?
Edit:
Scores for the quality; "a natural leader":
Cameron: 12 (-2)
Miliband: 5 (0)
Clegg: 3 (-1)
I can see that the microphones are attached to Blair's tie, but is it really his neckwear offering Miliband advice?
My PB ads this morning are for Littlewoods dresses. Do they know something that I do not?
Does he need set piece policies or photo-ops to show that he is different from Brown and Blair - and not just different from Cameron and Clegg?
And to think a group of people will be sat there this morning feeling pleased with themselves. Revolting.
Ed will certainly talk about housing whether he'll actually do anything is another matter. For a start off where is he going to build the houses ? He'll not say before an election in case he scares the voters, and after an election "difficult decisions" will be the last thing he'll be wanting to make.
RT @JackofKent: Lib Dem MPs will renege today on explicit manifesto commitment to make it harder for companies to sue for libel. Shameful. #LibelReform
Mr. Financier, one can only assume the site has mistaken you for Mr/Miss Punter.
But where are they going to be built? And what about everyone else who owns and house and sees its value stagnate or even go down?
Housing needs are greatest in the South East, not in unemployment hot spots. If people are not willing to migrate from South Wales and Merseyside to build them then we will have a plan that basically consists of:
A government borrowing spree to provide east Europeans with work concreting over the green belt, followed by a collapse in house prices, negative equity and a second round of sub prime mortgage related banking crisis, inflation and the IMF.
Its a great plan Tim.
What does ICM say?
SPA increased to 70+ for people born today
More houses built on reclaimed land
And i'm starting to come round to the idea of a living wage
do you think E Europeans need greater incentives to come to this country ? Might give us a housing problem.
Smiles ....
Titters ....
LOL ....
ROFLOL ....
Interesting Party internals in 'YouGov'. Taking 'Other' as a proxy for UKIP among UKIP supporters (well, at a guess its unlikely to be the Greens or SNP...) we see UKIP supporters are convinced of their policies on Europe and Immigration.....then get a lot less convinced on everything else:
Which party best for (among VI)
NHS
Con: 73
Lab: 85
LibD: 55
UKIP: 27
Asylum/Immigration
Con: 70
Lab: 42
LibD: 55
UKIP: 73
Laura Norder
Con: 84
Lab: 62
LibD: 62
UKIP: 48
Education
Con: 76
Lab: 76
LibD: 72
UKIP: 29
Tax
Con: 81
Lab: 71
LibD: 71
UKIP: 42
Unemployment
Con: 74
Lab: 71
LibD: 52
UKIP: 34
Economy in General
Con: 86
Lab: 71
LibD: 60
UKIP: 39
Europe
Con: 67
Lab: 54
LibD: 53
UKIP: 76
if it narrows any more we'll be back to Ed is Crap threads this time with a Blairite backing group.
James Chapman tweets: "I'm not sure how much he knows how the British public feel from 1st-class lounge at Heathrow,' Mili ally tells @rachelsylveste1 of Blair"
Curious that no-one has yet claimed responsibility, unless random terror is the aim.
Friend Francois just keeps the good news coming, currently he's trying to work out how his latest 10 billion tax hike affects all the millionaires in his cabinet.
"Restricting housing supply as a way of keeping out immigrants.
Probably the most stupid idea I've ever heard."
really ? I'd always assumed that was Labour's policy, I mean in 13 years you let house price inflation rip and built two small bungalows wasn't that to keep people out ?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jail-dodgy-bankers-says-up-and-coming-labour-star-chuka-umunna-8574070.html
Is it actually clear that under the Labour government's law at the time the LIBOR rigging was actually illegal, Chuk?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100212294/blairite-barbs-expose-the-frailty-of-labour-unity/
given I've been saying I believe immigration should be controlled for as long as I've posted on PB I'm surprised you need to ask.
This seems to have been a pretty concerted push, with Tony Blair, David Blunkett, Alan Milburn, Tessa Jowell, John Reid and Peter Mandelson all breaking cover in the last few days. Are we going to get regular commentaries from them, or is this a one-off? Time will tell.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4889740/President-Obama-snubs-Thatcher-funeral.html#ixzz2Qbjwd1Jo
Cue outraged Republicans....
I have an open mind on Europe, I'll wait to see what the arguments are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/16/tony-blair-loose-horse-grand-national
I like the metaphor.
keeps the policies away.
What the Blairites do is highlight the policy vacuum at the heart of Labour. This is becoming a problem for them as people not that interested in politics get the clear impression that they are not being offered an alternative. If that impression becomes more widespread than it is now winning the election will be more difficult than it should be from Labour's current position of strength.
The Blairites and not being helpful in that respect and it is not surprising Ed is a bit annoyed. But who's fault is it? "The blank sheet of paper" was always a hostage to fortune and the reluctance to write on it is now a problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-22154860 Such blacklisting is wrong on so many levels.
My point is that house building in the South East will not create jobs for merseyside unless merseysiders move south. Either we create jobs where the people are, or move the unemployed to where the jobs are. A resettlement programme from the Welsh valleys and merseyside to new towns in the South East may work. Building in the South East without incentives for Britons in distressed regions to move there will do little good to either south or noryh.
Like i said. Location, location, location.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100212294/blairite-barbs-expose-the-frailty-of-labour-unity/
This is one of Dan Hodges' better articles. The article is worth reading for his reading of the motivations of the Blairites, even if you completely disagree with his opinions about Ed Miliband and his strategy.
Two smart observations in particular:
"There is no Blairite “Get Miliband” strategy. Just look at the confused nature of the criticism aimed at the Labour leader. John Reid urged him to toughen his stance on immigration. Blair, in contrast, warned him against a lurch to the Right. David Blunkett was alarmed at Labour playing off “the retired versus the young… the badly housed versus the homeless”. Blair argued that Miliband seems only too happy to avoid difficult policy choices in these areas.
Tony’s former lieutenants may well be taking a lead from their ex-boss, but they’re not taking orders."
"Blair has always favoured appropriation over confrontation. If he really believed Miliband was charting a course to political success, he wouldn’t be sabotaging it, he’d be claiming it as his own."
Osborne set two fiscal targets in 2010 as overriding government priorities. To balance the cyclically adjusted current budget (CACB), i.e. eliminate the 'structural deficit', within a five year rolling period and to see Public Sector Net Debt fall as a % of GDP within the 2015-16 fiscal year.
A mid term snapshot forecast by the OBR shows the government on course for the first target and missing the second by two years. The March 2013 OBR forecast showed marginally improved deadlines for both targets over the previous December 2012 forecast so the official trend is improved performance albeit at a slow rate.
The principal reason for Osborne extending the deadlines from those first forecast in 2010 has been the deteriorating outlook for global growth over the last three years, particularly within the Eurozone countries, the UK's principal export market.
Lower growth outcomes have reduced UK government revenues. Yet government spending has been cut to plan and continues to fall in real terms. This means that despite falling revenues the government has been able to reduce Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) in every year of this parliament. PSNB has already fallen by 33% and will continue to fall for the rest of this parliament.
Even though UK growth has been below that forecast in 2010, it has been higher than all the large EU countries and the differential is increasing rather than reducing, In 2013, the Eurozone is forecast by the IMF to contract by 0.2% whereas the UK is forecast to grow by 0.9%.
By any objective measure, the UK economy is performing better than its main competitors. Osborne has both "cut and saved money" contrary to your assertions. This means the 2015 Election will most definitely be fought on the ability not inability of the Tories to manage the economy.
And so on to housing.
The failure of all prior governments to increase the supply of housing to meet growing demand has been a constraint on economic growth. And yet it is also an opportunity for economic stimulus.
It is the general policy of the Coalition government to rebalance the economy from public to private sector investment. This means, inter alia, shifting construction projects, where possible, from the responsibility of national and local governments to commercially financed private sector construction, ownership and management.
The alternative of a massive publicly financed building programme for social housing would require substantial increases in public sector borrowing and incur all the systemic inefficiencies associated with state ownership and delivery.
Not least of the adverse effects would be the risk of the UK's sovereign borrowing costs rising in response to the resultant reversal of current fiscal consolidation policies. With Public Sector Debt already so high the UK simply cannot afford to allow its borrowing costs to increase. Remember that the annual cost of servicing our current debt exceeds what we pay to defend our country.
So Osborne is currently addressing the housing problem by creating conditions under which both demand for and supply of new house builds will be stimulated. Maintaining low interest rates, underwriting pricing risk, providing limited and short term equity loans, assisting bank supply of loans are all announced measures.
We are likely to see further measures taken in connection with the recapitalisation of the banks with the BoE buying mortgage assets from the UK banks. This will have the dual benefit of bringing forward the sale of bank shares as well as freeing capital for lending to the construction sector.
We have already seen small but positive reversal of trends in construction of private housing and provision of credit to first time buyers. This will now accelerate as Osborne's housing measures are implemented.
The Tory solution to the housing problem is therefore increased private sector construction and financing. If Labour believe it lies the government borrowing more to finance a massive increase in council house builds then roll on the 2015 General Election debate,
And on the role of Blair, I somewhat suspect he is far closer to Osborne on this issue than he is to Miliband and Balls.
Owner occupiers = 64.7% - 3.5 (on 2007)
Private renters = 17.2% + 3.7
Perhaps Miliband is too far ahead of the game for this to be an election winner, but if that sort of trend continues then the public mood will inevitably follow.
The perfect Hodges article. Not only is Ed crap in every way imaginable but all the Labour bigwigs agree with him.
Whereas the government could be accused of tinkering round the edges. Maybe that's why Labour aren't far enough ahead, and it's nothing to do with Miliband!
But then there is:
Planning reform
Universal Credit and the 1% cap
Faster increases in the pension age
Compared to Labour's years - when few houses were built and the only reform to benefits was massive expansion of working age payments and complicity in splurging money on oldies.
Had coal not been needed we might say Thatcher was right and coal was obsolete.
Clearly she was not correct on future coal requirements as it is coming from everywhere to fill a void aused by the shutdown of a once great industry.
If Osborne is open to criticism on this I would say that the restructuring of the banks has not been given a sufficiently urgent priority. I think the government has been held back by apprehension about the likely writing off of the large capital investments made by Brown but if investment and housebuilding are to increase in this country creating banks that have the balance sheet strength to lend freely is key. It really is time we bit the bullet and broke up RBS into good and bad banks.
And this is yet another conversation that Labour seem to have nothing to say about.
"Good morning. A meeting of backbenchers, a message of defiance from an embattled leader and a desperate appeal for unity. And for a change it wasn't David Cameron. Tories will allow themselves a brief moment to relish overnight reports that Ed Miliband had to give his troops a pep talk at the PLP last night. The troubles besetting the Labour leader are growing. The reverberations from Mr Tony's intervention in the New Statesman last week are still being felt. He reinforced his message in a speech in the US, reported in the Guardian, namely on the perils facing parties and leaders that lose touch with the centre.
Mr Miliband must be resenting the drip-drip of 'helpful' advice from those associated with Mr Blair, who plainly feel that with David Miliband gone, there is nothing left to be loyal for. Dan Hodges has another of his perceptive pieces of analysis in the Telegraph today, in which he details Labour's 35pc strategy for sneaking over the finish line, which, as Rachel Sylvester explains in the Times (£), amounts to 29pc core vote plus 6pc grumpy Lib Dems. If true, it's unambitious. Tories believe the skids are under Mr Miliband, both on policy and party management. They should look to their own troubles. But when a leader has to issue an appeal for unity, things are not going well. Are Labour wars about to become the theme of this late spring?"
of all the things she did I don't believe Margaret Thatcher made it illegal to own or run a coal mine.
The coal is there - go for your life!
And while you're at it, you could open a manufacturing plant. Perhaps one making Nike shoes. Plenty of demand for those. Or plastic toys.
The world is your oyster.
Labour should nationalize all land with limited compensation then allow the state to choose whatever rent is appropriate for the use of that land. The ideal way to regulate property prices and a notion Shelter had during the housing crises of the early 70's. A suitable slogan might be 'Give the Country back to the People"
" Coal 39.3% (up 10pp), gas 27.5% (down 12pp), nuclear 19.4% (up 1pp), renewables (wind, hydro & bioenergy) 11.3% (up 2pp). Overall low carbon generation was 30.7% (up 3pp).
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/172940/et5_1.xls
The idea that those pits in the UK which could not survive 30 odd years ago without substantial subsidy would be viable in the current energy market is for the fantasists and Milibands amongst us (these categories may overlap to a large degree).
There's a reason the pits closed. Price.
What could possibly go wrong Comrade roger?
If someone else wins then Hamilton seems likeliest, perhaps followed by Webber.
"What happened in 1979 was a colossal sea change in British politics, and we needed it. We needed something radical to happen to the untidy post-war shambles of a consensus, and Mrs Thatcher was it. It was not about Conservatism or Toryism. The people who said that it was Gladstonian, laissez-faire liberalism were absolutely right, as we know, because that blue liberalism was well known and understood in West Yorkshire. That is what she stood for, and it surprised everyone. Labour Members did not know how to handle it, and partly because of that she had three general election victories. We were trounced. We were a divided party and a divided Opposition, and we had a very long and tough time getting through it. Mrs Thatcher transformed the Labour party. We had to reform and change and get our act together, or we would have ceased to have the presence and power of a major party in our country. We must remember what Mrs Thatcher did for parliamentary democracy."
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-04-10b.1613.0#g1662.2
I fear if Ed does nothing radical he'll lose. Relying on Cameron and co to be worse won't work. It seems like he's hibernating. Blair is right that he won't win from a sedentary position.
Because of Labour,'s inbuilt electoral advantage it is unlikely that the Tories will get an overall majority.However on present polls the SNP would get 30+ seats and could end up holding the balance of power.Nice one!
What did it was the "less is more" counter, showing tim on 1,198 posts....
We could always annexe Poland and kill two birds with one stone, loads of cheap coal and lots of housebuilding. plenty of space there to resettle miners.
"The Blairites say Ed is Crap"
I'm glad you've got the hang of the quotation button. I read and reread a particularly ugly and unpleasant post from you yesterday ("benefit whores stealing our f*cking money") thinking you must be drunk because it didn't sound like you and it was only after skimming the whole thread that I realized you had been quoting SeanT.
I don't think the "tack right" strategy is sensible for Cameron as it will simply embolden UKIP and his more extreme right wing MPs.
Do you really think that Ed's best move is to tack left? The question you need to ask is whether the country is at heart extreme (left or right but in your case left) or broadly centrist.
I think (thanks to M Thatcher, yes and T Blair) the answer is: broadly centrist.
Cynically I thought they were trying to put their objections on the record so that if it all goes wrong at the next election they can said 'we told you so, only a Blairite can win'
Moody's Investor Service kept China's bond rating of 'Aa3' on Tuesday but cut the outlook to 'stable' from 'positive'.
The credit ratings agency said that the country continues to experience “robust economic growth” but progress has been “less than anticipated” in the process of both reducing latent risks by making local government contingent liabilities more transparent and in reining in rapid credit growth.
“Therefore, some of the upward pressure on the 'Aa3' rating has eased,” Moody's explained.
Boy George must be feeling very smug this morning.
I see you have exploited the Vanilla technology to "disagree" with those, including me, who by posting their own views, disagreed with you.
Is not the whole point of this forum to explain why you disagree with someone via posting? What is the point of clicking a button to disagree? Where would that leave the cut and thrust of lively debate?
Several people, including me in a particularly acute, witty manner, have pointed out that UK coal is uneconomic to produce. Pls explain why you disagree with this.
See here: http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Concerns-noise-dust-lead-objection-coal-mining-plan/story-11589884-detail/story.html#axzz2Qc5p30EY
This is the sort of economically viable coal production we need though. But it is certainly not Thatcherite free market concerns that are stopping it being mined.
Perhaps 1% benefit rise was too generous.
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/perceptions-and-realities-in-bahrain/
http://blogs.espnf1.com/The_Inside_Line/archives/2013/04/reflections_on_bahrain.php
See BenM or Ed Balls for details
@patrickwintour: Ed miliband's personal leadership ratings published yesterday were his worst in an ICM-Guardian poll since he became leader.
The stat that worries me is how the age of first time buyers is increasing. Believe it may be as high as mid/late 30s now. You are creating a class of people who have never owned and fear they never will. That's got to have political implications.