politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » One Year To Go: How do Dave and Ed compare to their predece
With one year to go, I thought it would be useful to track how Ed and Dave compare to their predecessors one year before a General Election. I’ve been using the ratings from Ipsos-Mori that go back nearly forty years and are considered to be the Gold Standards of leader ratings.
Comments
-
first0
-
So basically Ed's half as bad as Foot but twice as bad as Kinnock?
I'd go along with that. Or as Kinniband might put it -
We're awrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!0 -
Save Ed as LotO !!0
-
Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?0 -
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?0 -
Two ed's are crapper than one..Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
0 -
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp.0 -
I wonder if being in coalition effects the PM ratings? – Not possible to compare like with like I’d imagine as they were non peacetime if memory recalls.0
-
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp.
I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time. 0 -
Datawrapper doesn't do logarithmic scaling, Mr. BrookeAlanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
0 -
Up to 2003/04 Gordon Brown was and still is the highest rated chancellor of all time.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.0 -
Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.0 -
People just wanted change. The Tories were (rightly) tired out to the point of exhaustion. Labour deserved to win, and Blair was a new fresh face.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.0 -
Chancellors that blow bubbles are always popular on the way up. Particularly when he keeps boasting that he's put an end to boom and bust.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.0 -
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.0 -
Who on earth would vote Tory now that wouldn't have been itching to get Labour out last time? And that was before there was the UKIP protest vote available as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.0 -
Wow. Even I didn't think Osborne was that unpopular.AveryLP said:
Datawrapper doesn't do logarithmic scaling, Mr. BrookeAlanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?0 -
Take this morning's YouGov which appears to be an outlier, so not good for the Tories, yet that showsCopperSulphate said:
Who on earth would vote Tory now that wouldn't have been itching to get Labour out last time? And that was before there was the UKIP protest vote available as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.
4% of 2010 Lab supporters and 14% of 2010 Lib Dem Supporters are planning to vote Tory.0 -
There is a constituency of centrist swing voters who might have voted Labour in 2010 for fear that - bad as things were - the unknown of Cameron leading a Conservative government could be worse.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.
If the economy continues to pick up then these voters could be persuaded that voting for the incumbent government is the safe choice.0 -
I can't believe any Labour supporters who stuck with them in 2010 won't continue to vote for them. It doesn't make any sense. In any case more than 4% will swap the other way.TheScreamingEagles said:
Take this morning's YouGov which appears to be an outlier, so not good for the Tories, yet that showsCopperSulphate said:
Who on earth would vote Tory now that wouldn't have been itching to get Labour out last time? And that was before there was the UKIP protest vote available as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.
4% of 2010 Lab supporters and 14% of 2010 Lib Dem Supporters are planning to vote Tory.
I can believe 14% of Lib Dem supporters, but again more former Lib Dem supporters will be supporting Labour than the Tories at the next election.
UKIP are bound to take more votes off the Tories too.
So that just leaves the people who did not vote last time and I imagine more will return to Labour as the Tory vote was more motivated last time out.0 -
The same poll shows 4% of 2010 Tories planning to vote Labour.CopperSulphate said:
I can't believe any Labour supporters who stuck with them in 2010 won't continue to vote for them. It doesn't make any sense. In any case more than 4% will swap the other way.TheScreamingEagles said:
Take this morning's YouGov which appears to be an outlier, so not good for the Tories, yet that showsCopperSulphate said:
Who on earth would vote Tory now that wouldn't have been itching to get Labour out last time? And that was before there was the UKIP protest vote available as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.
4% of 2010 Lab supporters and 14% of 2010 Lib Dem Supporters are planning to vote Tory.
I can believe 14% of Lib Dem supporters, but again more former Lib Dem supporters will be supporting Labour than the Tories at the next election.
UKIP are bound to take more votes off the Tories too.
So that just leaves the people who did not vote last time and I imagine more will return to Labour as the Tory vote was more motivated last time out.
0 -
Maybe 4% of people ticked the wrong box last time.TheScreamingEagles said:
The same poll shows 4% of 2010 Tories planning to vote Labour.CopperSulphate said:
I can't believe any Labour supporters who stuck with them in 2010 won't continue to vote for them. It doesn't make any sense. In any case more than 4% will swap the other way.TheScreamingEagles said:
Take this morning's YouGov which appears to be an outlier, so not good for the Tories, yet that showsCopperSulphate said:
Who on earth would vote Tory now that wouldn't have been itching to get Labour out last time? And that was before there was the UKIP protest vote available as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.
4% of 2010 Lab supporters and 14% of 2010 Lib Dem Supporters are planning to vote Tory.
I can believe 14% of Lib Dem supporters, but again more former Lib Dem supporters will be supporting Labour than the Tories at the next election.
UKIP are bound to take more votes off the Tories too.
So that just leaves the people who did not vote last time and I imagine more will return to Labour as the Tory vote was more motivated last time out.
Whatever the case, the Tories can't rely on a swing from Labour to theTories to make up for lost votes elsewhere.0 -
For the sake of Mike's bank balance and to stop him getting any contempt of court action, I've taken out all posts that lumps people currently on or awaiting trial with actual convicted sex offenders.0
-
It might be hard to believe, given the PB view of him, but there were people who voted for Brown because they felt he had done a good job steering the British economy through the dangerous currents of the global economic crisis. Those same people may also be quite impressed with the job that Cameron and Osborne have done on the economy. I think the big problem with the 35% strategy is that it assumes that Labour 2010 voters are in the bag.CopperSulphate said:
Who on earth would vote Tory now that wouldn't have been itching to get Labour out last time? And that was before there was the UKIP protest vote available as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.0 -
4%, 4%. Just goes to show that the whole notion of a swing between the two main parties is piffle. There are a multitude of swings, mostly between parties fishing in the same pool, and it is most likely the Lib-Lab swing that will determine the outcome of the GE.0
-
Ah, see you thought the same TSE. Apologies. Might want to delete my reply as well.TheScreamingEagles said:For the sake of Mike's bank balance and to stop him getting any contempt of court action, I've taken out all posts that lumps people currently on or awaiting trial with actual convicted sex offenders.
0 -
I set my business up a few years before then with the company name an ironic take on the supposed great Chancellor... he was a conman even then in my eyes, for me he peaked at the moment he gave interest rate policy to the Bk of England and went downhill from then on.TheScreamingEagles said:
Up to 2003/04 Gordon Brown was and still is the highest rated chancellor of all time.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.0 -
Between 1997 and 2000, Brown handled the public finances well.TheScreamingEagles said:
Up to 2003/04 Gordon Brown was and still is the highest rated chancellor of all time.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.
Not household finances though as the 10% per annum rise in mortgage lending and consumer credit between 1998 and 2003 pumped up the property bubble which then burst in 2007-9.
But it was 2001 when the hubris of winning a second term saw the onset of Brown's dementia.
The 2000 budget predicted a £4.9 bn (CGNCR) surplus for the 2000-1 FY which turned unexpectedly into a £35.2 bn surplus due to the unexpected success of the 3G spectrum auctions. Flushed with North Sea oil and gas revenues at their peak and a lottery win, what did Gordon do?
Carried on Borrowing
There is none so easy to deceive as a dumb electorate.0 -
On thread, tut tut TSE.
Right-wing propaganda.... It's all about the marginals.... this isn't America.... etc
0 -
Historically in the post war period the only time the Conservatives suffered a swing against them in their first reelection attempt was in 1974. Obviously things are different now and Labour haven't obviously gone to the zoo like they usually do after losing but given the fact that the Lib Dem vote will be down a lump, UKIP will be up but may not breach 10% and Labour probably won't add more than 3-4% then an increase in Tory share isn't entirely implausibleCopperSulphate said:
Who on earth would vote Tory now that wouldn't have been itching to get Labour out last time? And that was before there was the UKIP protest vote available as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
But then you're assuming the Tories won't poll more than they did in 2010. There's been a lot of recent polling showing the Tories only 1-2 down on what they polled in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.0 -
If you look at the swings in the latest Ashcroft poll then the contributions to the Tory-Labour swing are:SandyRentool said:4%, 4%. Just goes to show that the whole notion of a swing between the two main parties is piffle. There are a multitude of swings, mostly between parties fishing in the same pool, and it is most likely the Lib-Lab swing that will determine the outcome of the GE.
Movements to and from the Lib Dems 51%
Movements between Tory and Labour 21%
Movements to UKIP 28%
Undoubtedly what the 2010 Lib Dems do is of most importance, but it's still only half the story.0 -
-
Didn't he give the Bank of England independence in is first week?Scrapheap_as_was said:
I set my business up a few years before then with the company name an ironic take on the supposed great Chancellor... he was a conman even then in my eyes, for me he peaked at the moment he gave interest rate policy to the Bk of England and went downhill from then on.TheScreamingEagles said:
Up to 2003/04 Gordon Brown was and still is the highest rated chancellor of all time.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.
Oh I get you.0 -
I did a Ed is NOT crap thread yesterday.Scrapheap_as_was said:On thread, tut tut TSE.
Right-wing propaganda.... It's all about the marginals.... this isn't America.... etc
I go where the polling takes me.0 -
I refer the honourable gentleman to this...CopperSulphate said:
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government.
http://xkcd.com/1122/0 -
Messrs Hopkins and Tyndall.
Thanks0 -
It wasn't Gordon giving the BoE independence that was the problem, it was Tony giving Gordon independence.TheScreamingEagles said:
Didn't he give the Bank of England independence in is first week?Scrapheap_as_was said:
I set my business up a few years before then with the company name an ironic take on the supposed great Chancellor... he was a conman even then in my eyes, for me he peaked at the moment he gave interest rate policy to the Bk of England and went downhill from then on.TheScreamingEagles said:
Up to 2003/04 Gordon Brown was and still is the highest rated chancellor of all time.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.
Oh I get you.0 -
If Labour lose votes to UKIP and SNP (and perhaps the Greens) they could effectively be starting on 26/27%, rather than the 30% they won in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.
0 -
OT EU Merkel endorses Juncker. This shouldn't be a big surprise since she endorsed him before the election as her party's candidate, he won the nomination and the party won the election, but she was being a little bit vague before.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/ausland/story/112276280 -
What are the Tories starting on if we're doing it like that...Sean_F said:
If Labour lose votes to UKIP and SNP (and perhaps the Greens) they could effectively be starting on 26/27%, rather than the 30% they won in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.0 -
Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.0 -
Probably about 30% or so.Pulpstar said:
What are the Tories starting on if we're doing it like that...Sean_F said:
If Labour lose votes to UKIP and SNP (and perhaps the Greens) they could effectively be starting on 26/27%, rather than the 30% they won in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.
0 -
You can't blame the polling for New Kidz on the BlockTheScreamingEagles said:
I did a Ed is NOT crap thread yesterday.Scrapheap_as_was said:On thread, tut tut TSE.
Right-wing propaganda.... It's all about the marginals.... this isn't America.... etc
I go where the polling takes me.0 -
But some polls have being showing the Tories below 30%. Maybe it is 25 vs 25 after taking out lost votes, before adding back in any gains from elsewhere?Sean_F said:
Probably about 30% or so.Pulpstar said:
What are the Tories starting on if we're doing it like that...Sean_F said:
If Labour lose votes to UKIP and SNP (and perhaps the Greens) they could effectively be starting on 26/27%, rather than the 30% they won in 2010.CopperSulphate said:Yes yes we're all agreed Ed is absolutely terrible, but I just don't see how he won't get in. He'll get a positive swing of at least 2-3% and that's enough to get the most seats on the current boundaries.
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government. Plus now there's UKIP eating into the Tory vote as well.
The fact that he's even worse than Kinnock doesn't come into it.0 -
So much for the thrilling new Cameron-Merkel alliance... The article does say she'd been vague in deference to Cameron's wishes, but a wave of criticism from her own party and the Social Democrats had persuaded her that the expectation of voters that supporting the centre-right (following the debates, even though the British media largely ignored them) would get Juncker shouldn't be sabotaged.edmundintokyo said:OT EU Merkel endorses Juncker. This shouldn't be a big surprise since she endorsed him before the election as her party's candidate, he won the nomination and the party won the election, but she was being a little bit vague before.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/ausland/story/11227628
0 -
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.0 -
I didn't see Gordon Brown mentioned on there.Scott_P said:
I refer the honourable gentleman to this...CopperSulphate said:
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government.
http://xkcd.com/1122/
Can anyone find that picture of him at a meeting with a big brown mark on his forehead? One of the funniest things I've ever seen.0 -
The absolute lunacy of EU officials / politicians who think Juncker has *any* kind of democratic legitimacy is truly amazing to behold.NickPalmer said:
So much for the thrilling new Cameron-Merkel alliance...edmundintokyo said:OT EU Merkel endorses Juncker. This shouldn't be a big surprise since she endorsed him before the election as her party's candidate, he won the nomination and the party won the election, but she was being a little bit vague before.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/ausland/story/112276280 -
First graph interesting - Cameron had a better rating than Blair, yet Blair won a super-duper majority, Cameron didn't!0
-
Extrapolating, they can't get in until 2035 at the earliest. Thanks Rod!RodCrosby said:
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.0 -
Third picture down in this pieceCopperSulphate said:
I didn't see Gordon Brown mentioned on there.Scott_P said:
I refer the honourable gentleman to this...CopperSulphate said:
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government.
http://xkcd.com/1122/
Can anyone find that picture of him at a meeting with a big brown mark on his forehead? One of the funniest things I've ever seen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557677/Gordon-Brown-hires-spin-doctor-stop-visual-gaffes--shame-Olympic-torch-set-hair.html0 -
I suppose there is the baby eating meme that doesn't bear up to reality after the Tories get in.ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.
Also UKIP are taking the main barrage of mock outrage these days.0 -
Blair would have taken Britain into the Euro. One of the most puzzling characteristics of the Cameroons for me is their near godlike admiration for Blair combined with complete contempt for Brown. Most observers of that strange relationship would tend to be more balanced in their judgement.AveryLP said:
It wasn't Gordon giving the BoE independence that was the problem, it was Tony giving Gordon independence.TheScreamingEagles said:
Didn't he give the Bank of England independence in is first week?Scrapheap_as_was said:
I set my business up a few years before then with the company name an ironic take on the supposed great Chancellor... he was a conman even then in my eyes, for me he peaked at the moment he gave interest rate policy to the Bk of England and went downhill from then on.TheScreamingEagles said:
Up to 2003/04 Gordon Brown was and still is the highest rated chancellor of all time.Pulpstar said:
I simply don't get how the British public was fooled so badly in 1997TheScreamingEagles said:
Next few days, I've got a Chancellors rating thing coming up.Alanbrooke said:
We need an Osborne bar to compare just how crap Ed actually is.AveryLP said:Ed is crap, will never be Prime Minister and sleazy Labour are on the slide.
Can we talk about cricket?
Osborne is the greatest Tory Chancellor since Nigel Lawson in 1987, but Osborne is not as popular as Gordon Brown in his pomp. I wasn't, but I was too young to vote at the time.
Oh I get you.0 -
Mr CuSO4, I think they can and will get a direct swing from Labour. But other swings will probably be more important.CopperSulphate said:
Whatever the case, the Tories can't rely on a swing from Labour to the Tories to make up for lost votes elsewhere.
EDIT: boo to the sub tag not being allowed0 -
Junker is plainly unfit to hold public office of any kind.NickPalmer said:
So much for the thrilling new Cameron-Merkel alliance... The article does say she'd been vague in deference to Cameron's wishes, but a wave of criticism from her own party and the Social Democrats had persuaded her that the expectation of voters that supporting the centre-right (following the debates, even though the British media largely ignored them) would get Juncker shouldn't be sabotaged.edmundintokyo said:OT EU Merkel endorses Juncker. This shouldn't be a big surprise since she endorsed him before the election as her party's candidate, he won the nomination and the party won the election, but she was being a little bit vague before.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/ausland/story/11227628
However, as Lenin put it "the worst is best."
0 -
It would be remarkable for Labour to get back in 2015, given the 30 year cycle of British politics.Tissue_Price said:
Extrapolating, they can't get in until 2035 at the earliest. Thanks Rod!RodCrosby said:
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.
I think the L&N autoregressive forecast immediately after 2010 (before taking account of subsequent changes in PM approval) was for an 8% Tory lead in 2015...0 -
Ha ha brilliant thanks a lot. Never tire of laughing at that photo.TheScreamingEagles said:
Third picture down in this pieceCopperSulphate said:
I didn't see Gordon Brown mentioned on there.Scott_P said:
I refer the honourable gentleman to this...CopperSulphate said:
It is physically impossible for him to poll worse than Gordon Brown at the end of 13 years of a terrible Labour government.
http://xkcd.com/1122/
Can anyone find that picture of him at a meeting with a big brown mark on his forehead? One of the funniest things I've ever seen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557677/Gordon-Brown-hires-spin-doctor-stop-visual-gaffes--shame-Olympic-torch-set-hair.html
Labour really do pick their leaders sometimes. In fact probably every time except Blair.0 -
Hmm my post got lost. Was going to say that this assumption by various aspects of the EU that voters across Europe form a single body politic is one of their most profound mistakes. The idea there will be outrage if Juncker is denied is utterly risible.NickPalmer said:
So much for the thrilling new Cameron-Merkel alliance... The article does say she'd been vague in deference to Cameron's wishes, but a wave of criticism from her own party and the Social Democrats had persuaded her that the expectation of voters that supporting the centre-right (following the debates, even though the British media largely ignored them) would get Juncker shouldn't be sabotaged.edmundintokyo said:OT EU Merkel endorses Juncker. This shouldn't be a big surprise since she endorsed him before the election as her party's candidate, he won the nomination and the party won the election, but she was being a little bit vague before.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/ausland/story/11227628
0 -
In other news, no Saudi embassies have been attacked and burnt to the ground after this outrage. Saudi flags also remain unburnt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-276227100 -
But I fort al vose pepul only voted Labour cos of Tony Blair?Sunil_Prasannan said:First graph interesting - Cameron had a better rating than Blair, yet Blair won a super-duper majority, Cameron didn't!
Isn't that why Cameron thought copying Blair was his best hope of winning?0 -
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 25m
Helmer: Nigel Would Do a Better Job Than Me in Newark http://guyfawk.es/1gI38vT
He maybe correct, but he shouldn't blurt it out loud and give heart to the opposition.
UKIP still has a lot to learn in playing the Game of Houses. Sigh!!!!!!0 -
You spin or you die?MikeK said:Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 25m
Helmer: Nigel Would Do a Better Job Than Me in Newark http://guyfawk.es/1gI38vT
He maybe correct, but he shouldn't blurt it out loud and give heart to the opposition.
UKIP still has a lot to learn in playing the Game of Houses. Sigh!!!!!!0 -
I seem to remember that someone linked to a very amusing American comic some time ago every picture of which said that no one had ever won an election with X until...
To win a majority on these figures Ed is going to need a comic of his own. Either politics has changed out of all recognition from our previous experience or he is toast. There are several candidates for the "this time it is different" brigade including UKIP, boundaries, the collapse of the Lib Dems and consolidation of the lefty vote, a record period of time with falling real wages and no doubt several more.
But there is a reason why the phrase "this time it is different" is said to be the most expensive phrase in the English language.0 -
O/t but every so often an innovation comes along that you think why hasn't this happened sooner. I just think this is a great idea.
http://www.stuff.tv/rejoice-usb-wall-socket-here/news?0 -
0.45% swing to Conservative then ?RodCrosby said:
It would be remarkable for Labour to get back in 2015, given the 30 year cycle of British politics.Tissue_Price said:
Extrapolating, they can't get in until 2035 at the earliest. Thanks Rod!RodCrosby said:
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.
I think the L&N autoregressive forecast immediately after 2010 (before taking account of subsequent changes in PM approval) was for an 8% Tory lead in 2015...0 -
Nice idea. But in 10 years time the mains plugs will still be compatible with today, but will the USBs still be used?ToryJim said:O/t but every so often an innovation comes along that you think why hasn't this happened sooner. I just think this is a great idea.
http://www.stuff.tv/rejoice-usb-wall-socket-here/news?
0 -
Junker is plainly unfit to hold public office of any kind.
Whatever one's position on the EU, its hard not to agree with some of Farage's observations about its structure, culture and mindset.
0 -
Surely we will have standardised to European plugs and sockets by then?MarkHopkins said:
Nice idea. But in 10 years time the mains plugs will still be compatible with today, but will the USBs still be used?ToryJim said:O/t but every so often an innovation comes along that you think why hasn't this happened sooner. I just think this is a great idea.
http://www.stuff.tv/rejoice-usb-wall-socket-here/news?0 -
Because he is a raging eurofederalist, or is there more?Sean_F said:
Junker is plainly unfit to hold public office of any kind.NickPalmer said:
So much for the thrilling new Cameron-Merkel alliance... The article does say she'd been vague in deference to Cameron's wishes, but a wave of criticism from her own party and the Social Democrats had persuaded her that the expectation of voters that supporting the centre-right (following the debates, even though the British media largely ignored them) would get Juncker shouldn't be sabotaged.edmundintokyo said:OT EU Merkel endorses Juncker. This shouldn't be a big surprise since she endorsed him before the election as her party's candidate, he won the nomination and the party won the election, but she was being a little bit vague before.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/ausland/story/11227628
However, as Lenin put it "the worst is best."0 -
It's hard to get a worse photo of a politician than this:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/979154/thumbs/o-MILIBAND-TUBE-UNDONE-570.jpg?60 -
I think Rod's serious work needs to be properly recognised.RodCrosby said:
It would be remarkable for Labour to get back in 2015, given the 30 year cycle of British politics.Tissue_Price said:
Extrapolating, they can't get in until 2035 at the earliest. Thanks Rod!RodCrosby said:
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.
I think the L&N autoregressive forecast immediately after 2010 (before taking account of subsequent changes in PM approval) was for an 8% Tory lead in 2015...
Clever
Rod’s
Analytical
Prediction
0 -
Is it new ?ToryJim said:O/t but every so often an innovation comes along that you think why hasn't this happened sooner. I just think this is a great idea.
http://www.stuff.tv/rejoice-usb-wall-socket-here/news?
0 -
The UK opposes Juncker:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/david-cameron-jean-claude-juncker-eu-top-job
But Germany backs him. Let's see who genuinely has influence in the EU.0 -
"Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret,Socrates said:Because he is a raging eurofederalist, or is there more?
in the Eurogroup [...] I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently
democratic, but I want to be serious [...] I am for secret, dark debates"
— Jean-Claude Juncker, 20 April 20110 -
Just checked, and it's a forecast 8.13% lead, so around a 0.4% swing (final 2010 GB was Tories 7.3% ahead).Pulpstar said:
0.45% swing to Conservative then ?RodCrosby said:
It would be remarkable for Labour to get back in 2015, given the 30 year cycle of British politics.Tissue_Price said:
Extrapolating, they can't get in until 2035 at the earliest. Thanks Rod!RodCrosby said:
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.
I think the L&N autoregressive forecast immediately after 2010 (before taking account of subsequent changes in PM approval) was for an 8% Tory lead in 2015...
0 -
I also note in that piece the Guardian described UKIP as "far right". Idiots.0
-
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Surbiton, worth mentioning Mr. Crosby's predictions for the last General Election were rather better than the vast majority here. He also got crossover right.0 -
Ed's greatest advantage is his intellectual self-confidence.Once Dave is on the canvas after the head-to-head debates,the public cannot fail to agree.0
-
This is also an instructive quote ""If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."Richard_Nabavi said:
"Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret,Socrates said:Because he is a raging eurofederalist, or is there more?
in the Eurogroup [...] I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently
democratic, but I want to be serious [...] I am for secret, dark debates"
— Jean-Claude Juncker, 20 April 2011
On his attitude to the French referendum on Lisbon.0 -
True, but this time has to be different - albeit not necessarily in EdM's favour. Oppositions winning with poor leaders is very rare, as is oppositions winning after one term out of office. But so is governments increasing majorities. Or (the rarest of all) successive hung parliaments.DavidL said:I seem to remember that someone linked to a very amusing American comic some time ago every picture of which said that no one had ever won an election with X until...
To win a majority on these figures Ed is going to need a comic of his own. Either politics has changed out of all recognition from our previous experience or he is toast. There are several candidates for the "this time it is different" brigade including UKIP, boundaries, the collapse of the Lib Dems and consolidation of the lefty vote, a record period of time with falling real wages and no doubt several more.
But there is a reason why the phrase "this time it is different" is said to be the most expensive phrase in the English language.
One way or another something unthinkable is inevitable. Which is exciting, but difficult to bet on.0 -
At least he's open about it!ToryJim said:This is also an instructive quote ""If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
On his attitude to the French referendum on Lisbon.0 -
"So Mr Junker, what makes you suitable for this job?"Sean_F said:
Junker is plainly unfit to hold public office of any kind.NickPalmer said:
So much for the thrilling new Cameron-Merkel alliance... The article does say she'd been vague in deference to Cameron's wishes, but a wave of criticism from her own party and the Social Democrats had persuaded her that the expectation of voters that supporting the centre-right (following the debates, even though the British media largely ignored them) would get Juncker shouldn't be sabotaged.edmundintokyo said:OT EU Merkel endorses Juncker. This shouldn't be a big surprise since she endorsed him before the election as her party's candidate, he won the nomination and the party won the election, but she was being a little bit vague before.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/de/news/ausland/story/11227628
However, as Lenin put it "the worst is best."
"Well, I was recently rejected by the electorate of the member state that knows me best."
It's definitely more important for Cameron to stop Junker than to get a plum job for Lansley. Some might argue that stopping Junker and leaving Lansley exiled as Commissioner for Flowers or something might be a win-win.0 -
A quick google reveals some old Juncker classics:
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"0 -
Which is UKIP's best Wales target: Brecon and Radnorshire ?
0 -
The far-left candidate Tsipras swings behind Juncker:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/eu-leaders-should-respect-citizens-choice-says-tsipras-302517?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=02acb634b8-newsletter_weekly_update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-02acb634b8-2455148030 -
This is true although not sure honesty about his duplicity really redeems him. It is interesting that this article suggests that having Commission candidates would lead to "much higher" turnout in European elections. How did that one work out?Richard_Nabavi said:
At least he's open about it!ToryJim said:This is also an instructive quote ""If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
On his attitude to the French referendum on Lisbon.
http://euobserver.com/political/257400 -
Cameron is probably quite anxious to be on the losing side, because none of the plausible candidates are likely to be popular with the British tabloids, so when they have a go at the winner he'll want it to look like somebody else was responsible for putting them there.Socrates said:The UK opposes Juncker:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/david-cameron-jean-claude-juncker-eu-top-job
But Germany backs him. Let's see who genuinely has influence in the EU.
That said, this is more a Heads of State vs Parliament bun-fight than a UK vs Germany one. Where the Parliament got lucky this time was that the winning candidate happened to be the kind of person the Heads of State would have wanted in the job anyhow; He's EPP, like many of them, and he's a low-key fixer type who's good at smoothing over differences rather than somebody who will eclipse them and try to make them things they don't want to do.
What'll be at the back of their minds is that once they pick him this time, the precedent is set, and if the EPP loses next time they'll have a very hard time not picking the next winner, even if it's someone more charismatic and potentially troublesome. This will be even harder to resist if they've won a contested primary. This is probably what's behind going through the motions of affecting to look at other candidates, even though he's the kind of person they'd have wanted anyhow, and in many cases they've already endorsed him.0 -
He is giving a very good impression of someone who really wants to stop Junker. And he is absolutely right to try to do so.edmundintokyo said:
Cameron is probably quite anxious to be on the losing side0 -
Something stopped the gentle slide, but I'd have thought it was more likely having interesting populists to vote for than having the Spitzkandidates, since the people who were paying attention to the latter were probably mostly already voting.ToryJim said:
This is true although not sure honesty about his duplicity really redeems him. It is interesting that this article suggests that having Commission candidates would lead to "much higher" turnout in European elections. How did that one work out?Richard_Nabavi said:
At least he's open about it!ToryJim said:This is also an instructive quote ""If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
On his attitude to the French referendum on Lisbon.
http://euobserver.com/political/257400 -
You mean you dont like his predictions so you're going to rubbish them without providing any basis for your own views (unlike Rod). You're not the first, you wont be the last.surbiton said:
I think Rod's serious work needs to be properly recognised.RodCrosby said:
It would be remarkable for Labour to get back in 2015, given the 30 year cycle of British politics.Tissue_Price said:
Extrapolating, they can't get in until 2035 at the earliest. Thanks Rod!RodCrosby said:
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.
I think the L&N autoregressive forecast immediately after 2010 (before taking account of subsequent changes in PM approval) was for an 8% Tory lead in 2015...
Clever
Rod’s
Analytical
Prediction0 -
I think either way it would make no difference. There isn't a European body politic and one cannot be magicked into existence to suit the needs of arch-federasts. It is this nonsense which does so much harm to the EU concept and could cause sensible cooperation to be derailed.edmundintokyo said:
Something stopped the gentle slide, but I'd have thought it was more likely having interesting populists to vote for than having the Spitzkandidates, since the people who were paying attention to the latter were probably mostly already voting.ToryJim said:
This is true although not sure honesty about his duplicity really redeems him. It is interesting that this article suggests that having Commission candidates would lead to "much higher" turnout in European elections. How did that one work out?Richard_Nabavi said:
At least he's open about it!ToryJim said:This is also an instructive quote ""If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
On his attitude to the French referendum on Lisbon.
http://euobserver.com/political/257400 -
Please point me to a single one of your posts that has accurately predicted anything, or increased the sum total of knowledge of the users of this site. Rod can do both, with ease, can you?surbiton said:
I think Rod's serious work needs to be properly recognised.RodCrosby said:
It would be remarkable for Labour to get back in 2015, given the 30 year cycle of British politics.Tissue_Price said:
Extrapolating, they can't get in until 2035 at the earliest. Thanks Rod!RodCrosby said:
Labour lost by wider margins twice after 1951, and three times after 1979...ToryJim said:Of course one thing to note if Labour do get a greater share of the vote next time is that it will be the first time since 1945 their first opposition election has improved on their losing power one. Details are:-
1951 lost power with 48.8% and in 1955 declined to 46.4%
1970 lost power with 43.1% and in Feb 1974 declined to 37.2%
1979 lost power with 36.9% and in 1983 declined to 27.6%
Clearly some time they are going to break that trend but it's certainly intriguing.
I think the L&N autoregressive forecast immediately after 2010 (before taking account of subsequent changes in PM approval) was for an 8% Tory lead in 2015...
Clever
Rod’s
Analytical
Prediction0 -
Good analysis. I think that because British media coverage of the contest was so crap, people here underestimate the extent to which many on the Continent got interested in the rival candidates and their debates - imagine if after the 2010 debates the hung Parliament had resulted in, say, Hague or Cable becoming PM instead of any of the three who people had been watching. Juncker's a well-known figure in most countries, whereas in Britain he's hardly mentioned or known, though no doubt he'll graduate to new Demon King figure if he gets the job.edmundintokyo said:
Cameron is probably quite anxious to be on the losing side, because none of the plausible candidates are likely to be popular with the British tabloids, so when they have a go at the winner he'll want it to look like somebody else was responsible for putting them there.Socrates said:The UK opposes Juncker:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/david-cameron-jean-claude-juncker-eu-top-job
But Germany backs him. Let's see who genuinely has influence in the EU.
That said, this is more a Heads of State vs Parliament bun-fight than a UK vs Germany one. Where the Parliament got lucky this time was that the winning candidate happened to be the kind of person the Heads of State would have wanted in the job anyhow; He's EPP, like many of them, and he's a low-key fixer type who's good at smoothing over differences rather than somebody who will eclipse them and try to make them things they don't want to do.
What'll be at the back of their minds is that once they pick him this time, the precedent is set, and if the EPP loses next time they'll have a very hard time not picking the next winner, even if it's someone more charismatic and potentially troublesome. This will be even harder to resist if they've won a contested primary. This is probably what's behind going through the motions of affecting to look at other candidates, even though he's the kind of person they'd have wanted anyhow, and in many cases they've already endorsed him.
0 -
Have you got objective figures to back that up because I would be amazed if it was true.NickPalmer said:Juncker's a well-known figure in most countries
Of course in the one country we can be sure he's very well known he was recently rejected by the electorate. His own electorate.0 -
Nick, what is wrong with the system is that you have five candidates standing for the post of president, rather than prime minister, and yet you can only vote for them in a very indirect way via electing MEPs. For public engagement in the system, each voter across europe should have been issued with a ballot paper listing the five candidates and asking them to make their choice. Isn't that how most democracies elect a president? Then we wouldn't be in this 'smoke filled room' situation after the event, with non-candidates being proposed for the job.NickPalmer said:
Good analysis. I think that because British media coverage of the contest was so crap, people here underestimate the extent to which many on the Continent got interested in the rival candidates and their debates - imagine if after the 2010 debates the hung Parliament had resulted in, say, Hague or Cable becoming PM instead of any of the three who people had been watching. Juncker's a well-known figure in most countries, whereas in Britain he's hardly mentioned or known, though no doubt he'll graduate to new Demon King figure if he gets the job.edmundintokyo said:
Cameron is probably quite anxious to be on the losing side, because none of the plausible candidates are likely to be popular with the British tabloids, so when they have a go at the winner he'll want it to look like somebody else was responsible for putting them there.Socrates said:The UK opposes Juncker:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/david-cameron-jean-claude-juncker-eu-top-job
But Germany backs him. Let's see who genuinely has influence in the EU.
That said, this is more a Heads of State vs Parliament bun-fight than a UK vs Germany one. Where the Parliament got lucky this time was that the winning candidate happened to be the kind of person the Heads of State would have wanted in the job anyhow; He's EPP, like many of them, and he's a low-key fixer type who's good at smoothing over differences rather than somebody who will eclipse them and try to make them things they don't want to do.
What'll be at the back of their minds is that once they pick him this time, the precedent is set, and if the EPP loses next time they'll have a very hard time not picking the next winner, even if it's someone more charismatic and potentially troublesome. This will be even harder to resist if they've won a contested primary. This is probably what's behind going through the motions of affecting to look at other candidates, even though he's the kind of person they'd have wanted anyhow, and in many cases they've already endorsed him.0 -
The problem is that's not even the system. That's a joke / pretendy system that the democratically illegitimate European Parliament concocted by themselves in their own self-interest without even a by-your-leave from the democratically elected governments or, god forbid, the actual voters.SandyRentool said:
Nick, what is wrong with the system is that you have five candidates standing for the post of president, rather than prime minister, and yet you can only vote for them in a very indirect way via electing MEPs.
The whole thing is a complete joke.0
