politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on whether Miliband can breeze to victory on
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on whether Miliband can breeze to victory on the strength of not being Tory
Like many a football team 2-1 up in a cup tie with ten minutes to go, a cautious defensiveness seems to have settled over the Labour Party, judging by their conference just gone. The contrast with last year’s headline-grabbing energy price freeze policy was stark. The big announcements were to increase the minimum wage by about 4p a year more than the average RPI rate for the current par…
Comments
-
UKIP's Migration spokesman Steven Wolfe used a verse of this Kipling poem in his speech today and I thought given how much of UKIP's news heartlands are those where the Saxon's were prominent and is rather apt:
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
Tory 'Normans' take note!
0 -
The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a resolution in Geneva condemning a group of American hedge funds that took Argentina to court.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-29387872
Remember the bonkers women from the UN over the bedroom tax, it seems there are even more of similar nutters representing nations at the UN...
Argentina keep defaulting on their debt and wanting to pay peanuts on the dollar and it the nasty hedge funds take Argentina to court because they keep breaking the contracts. How dare the hedge funds ask for the money they are legally owed.0 -
If they have some dramatic populist policies planned like the energy price freeze they're probably better holding back the announcement for when they need it. It's never to late to pander.
As far as what happens once elected goes, I think David Herdson has it backwards. Policies that would be popular if announced now will generally be ineffective when applied in government; If they were both popular and effective, they'd already have been done by either this government or the last. In which case the less of these they promise now the less the disillusion when the policies either don't get delivered or turn out to be harmful.0 -
QTWTAIN
Incidentally, I always pronounce "QTWTAIN" in my mind as "quain". Does everybody else?0 -
David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet.
Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.0 -
P-f-P, I don’t think the public at large blames Labour entirely for the financial car crash. It happened on Labour’s watch but, for many people, it was the malevolent “they” in the financial sector which caused it. Labour’s mistake was in not controlling them better. Or indeed, at all!
Mr Urquhart, up-thread, castigates the UN for attacking the hedge funds which are pursuing Argentina; an alternative view is that thse hedge (or vulture) funds bought up the debts from the unfortunate original lenders, at tenpence in the pound, and are now, Shylock-wise, demanding their pound, no matter what the cost to the Argentine in the street.
It’s similar here. Cameron and Osborne insisted at the start of their period in office that “we’re all in it together”, but to many, many people it doesn’t seem like that. Public service wages are held down, workers in many other industries are in a similar position but standards of living at the top and particularly in financial circles don’t seem to be affected and indeed seem to be rising. OK, it’s getting a little better now, but feelgood factors take a while to work through.
A side irony is that it was the money markets where Farage made the money which enables him to talk about being a “man of the people!”.0 -
I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.0 -
Miliband's local election campaign was not managed well, bungled photo ops, poor choice of photos of the great man - plenty of spot the activists posing as ordinary people in shots.
Labour candidates leaving him off election literature0 -
Kipling was really talking about India though, wasn't he?manofkent2014 said:UKIP's Migration spokesman Steven Wolfe used a verse of this Kipling poem in his speech today and I thought given how much of UKIP's news heartlands are those where the Saxon's were prominent and is rather apt:
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
Tory 'Normans' take note!0 -
"Is that all there is?" Apparently so, sadly. Fundamentally none of the politicians have the answer how to fix a broken economy, not here, not anywhere. So whilst I'd like us to say "we rebuilt this country after WWII, we can do it now", I appear to be in the minority. I see things like Top Gear in Spain laughing at empty cities motorways and airports and I think " at least they built things". Our infrastructure is crumbling and inadequate, we have a vast shortage of houses, we have pension funds and savers and investors desperate for something safe and long term to invest in. So simples - the government announces mass construction projects, people invest, we rebuild. People get jobs with actual salary as opposed to the explosion in "self employment", they pay tax, they spend, the economy rebuilds.
Or we can sit fiddling at the margins......0 -
Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?0
-
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
0 -
I really can't envisage Labour sinking below 28%. Based on the core vote, maxing out the NHS vote...Innocent_Abroad said:I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?0 -
To vote for a dream, someone has to be offering one. Despite Miliband talking until Christmas and claiming to have a ten-year vision (a helpful get-out clause for 2020, by the way), there wasn't any big dream linked to the real world.Gadfly said:I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.
To answer my own question, yes, he can breeze though but only if the other parties don't subject him and his party's policies to much greater scrutiny. I don't think there is any big announcement waiting to be made. Sure, there'll be more detail and more padding come next year but you run with your big announcements well in advance to build that dream that people can buy into. You can't fatten a pig on market day.0 -
@Freggles
According to one possible outcome for the economy, you could borrow money for infrastructure at negative rates.
( depending how much you trust economists)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-293770750 -
The caution reminds me of 1997, when the famous Labour pledge card offered commitments so modest that they were overachieved with ease. Blair took the view that potential Labour voters were reasonably persuaded that Labour's heart was in the right place, but wary that we tended to over-promise, so they needed to see objectives which any reasonable person could see were achievable.
The current position is of course different in many ways and no 1997-like landslide is in the offing, but the basic approach of a reformist party not offering heaven on a plate remains sensible.0 -
Yes it was. It shows that Labour cares more about the votes of NHS workers than they do of NHS patients (so they can go on paying Union subs some of which leak back to the Party). The Tories, by contrast, care only about the replacement of the NHS by US healthcare corporations who, unlike NHS Trusts, can contribute to Party coffers. That is to say, both Parties have health policies designed to fund themselves, and b*gger the consequences.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
And what would those consequences be? A (relatively) high quality service under Labour, but complicated means-testing and so more bureaucracy and waste.
Under the Tories, a more rational payment system - I assume they'll go for everyone pays for their health insurance up to a certain age (35? 40? 45?) after which the State picks up the balance of the tab - easy to move the cut-off age upwards as time goes by. A crumbling edge of quality as the healthcare corporations withdraw services piece by piece - chiropody this year, counselling next and so forth.
Will either of them explain this during the election campaign? What do you think?
0 -
I disagree, I foresee Labour integrating health and social care which would allow them to offload some of the pressure onto councils and local tax raising. That coupled with serious centralisation (since Trusts would be able to cooperate, e.g agree not to compete).Innocent_Abroad said:
Yes ablit was. It shows that Labour cares more about the votes of NHS workers than they do of NHS patients (so they can go on paying Union subs some of which leak back to the Party). The Tories, by contrast, care only about the replacement of the NHS by US healthcare corporations who, unlike NHS Trusts, can contribute to Party coffers. That is to say, both Parties have health policies designed to fund themselves, and b*gger the consequences.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
And what would those consequences be? A (relatively) high quality service under Labour, but complicated means-testing and so more bureaucracy and waste.
Under the Tories, a more rational payment system - I assume they'll go for everyone pays for their health insurance up to a certain age (35? 40? 45?) after which the State picks up the balance of the tab - easy to move the cut-off age upwards as time goes by. A crumbling edge of quality as the healthcare corporations withdraw services piece by piece - chiropody this year, counselling next and so forth.
Will either of them explain this during the election campaign? What do you think?
Tories will look for quick fixes like charging for mixed appointments and criminalising neglect0 -
Labour could easily sink way below 28%; just not by 2015. If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister. We now have a very fluid party system based on brittle foundations (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Look at what has happened to Pasok in Greece.Freggles said:
I really can't envisage Labour sinking below 28%. Based on the core vote, maxing out the NHS vote...Innocent_Abroad said:I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?0 -
Maybe that's because many people are not so stupid as to believe the Tory meme that it was all Labour's fault We all saw that everybody else's economy crashed at the same time, and given that NuLab was basically guilty of stealing Tory clothes with, I grant you, a smidge of extra public spending, the crash would have come whoever was in charge.peter_from_putney said:David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet.
Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.0 -
Labour won't win the election. They won't even come close.
Just returning to something I spotted from last night:
Plato et. al. I think it's isolationism. That was a strong strand in the Republican right across the pond. That answers the question of coherence. Putting it less charitably than 'Isolationism' you could describe it as Little Englander or ostrich mentality.Plato said:What do you think is driving [UKIP anti-the-war] views? Being contrary? Something else?
I'd love to understand this better. I felt 6 months ago that I knew what Brand Kipper was - now I've no idea.Socrates said:The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
0 -
Not discussed this for a long time but my chart on levels of 2010 LD switching look very solid. With them on board all LAB needs to ensure is that the level of seepage from the party to UKIP is lower than the Tories are experiencing. If that's the case he is home and dry.david_herdson said:
To vote for a dream, someone has to be offering one. Despite Miliband talking until Christmas and claiming to have a ten-year vision (a helpful get-out clause for 2020, by the way), there wasn't any big dream linked to the real world.Gadfly said:I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.
To answer my own question, yes, he can breeze though but only if the other parties don't subject him and his party's policies to much greater scrutiny. I don't think there is any big announcement waiting to be made. Sure, there'll be more detail and more padding come next year but you run with your big announcements well in advance to build that dream that people can buy into. You can't fatten a pig on market day.
0 -
Yeah, that's possible. I think we might see a lib lab government, followed by a Tory UKIP coalitiondavid_herdson said:
Labour could easily sink way below 28%; just not by 2015. If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister. We now have a very fluid party system based on brittle foundations (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Look at what has happened to Pasok in Greece.Freggles said:
I really can't envisage Labour sinking below 28%. Based on the core vote, maxing out the NHS vote...Innocent_Abroad said:I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?0 -
I see our great stewards of the economy are now proposing to flog new builds at ever bigger discount to first time buyers. Wouldn't it be better to recognise that the housing market is utterly broken? It won't help people who have invested in their first home at over the odds and can't afford to move on up. And are these direct subsidies to the homebuilders the best use of taxpayers money. No. What they're really doing is stacking another layer on the house of cards. As Peter from Putney did say, God help us..0
-
Comparing Labour in 2014 to 1997 is so hilarious it makes me wonder how you were ever a MP Nick. I mean, seriously, is that what you think? Labour didn't need to do much then because the 1992-7 Tories were ripping themselves to shreds through in-fighting, sleaze and destruction of their economic credibility.NickPalmer said:The caution reminds me of 1997, when the famous Labour pledge card offered commitments so modest that they were overachieved with ease. Blair took the view that potential Labour voters were reasonably persuaded that Labour's heart was in the right place, but wary that we tended to over-promise, so they needed to see objectives which any reasonable person could see were achievable.
The current position is of course different in many ways and no 1997-like landslide is in the offing, but the basic approach of a reformist party not offering heaven on a plate remains sensible.
On the contrary, I think Cameron has shown himself to be a great, and possibly very great, leader. Holding together a coalition with the LibDems with considerable aplomb even to the point where they just voted to go to war, is a remarkable achievement. Every time people knock him, he shows them wrong: so, for instance, over the Indyref where he did a damned good job (as did Gordon Brown).peter_from_putney said:David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it,
I am convinced the Conservatives will win the General Election outright.0 -
A Conservative-UKIP coalition would fracture both parties, more than the current coalition has fractured the Lib Dems and Conservatives. I simply cannot see it working.Freggles said:
Yeah, that's possible. I think we might see a lib lab government, followed by a Tory UKIP coalitiondavid_herdson said:
Labour could easily sink way below 28%; just not by 2015. If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister. We now have a very fluid party system based on brittle foundations (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Look at what has happened to Pasok in Greece.Freggles said:
I really can't envisage Labour sinking below 28%. Based on the core vote, maxing out the NHS vote...Innocent_Abroad said:I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?0 -
LD-Lab switching is one of the three crucial numbers for 2015. The others are, as you say (or imply), Lab-Others switching and Con-Others (mainly UKIP) switching. There's been virtually no Con-Lab movement.MikeSmithson said:
Not discussed this for a long time but my chart on levels of 2010 LD switching look very solid. With them on board all LAB needs to ensure is that the level of seepage from the party to UKIP is lower than the Tories are experiencing. If that's the case he is home and dry.david_herdson said:
To vote for a dream, someone has to be offering one. Despite Miliband talking until Christmas and claiming to have a ten-year vision (a helpful get-out clause for 2020, by the way), there wasn't any big dream linked to the real world.Gadfly said:I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.
To answer my own question, yes, he can breeze though but only if the other parties don't subject him and his party's policies to much greater scrutiny. I don't think there is any big announcement waiting to be made. Sure, there'll be more detail and more padding come next year but you run with your big announcements well in advance to build that dream that people can buy into. You can't fatten a pig on market day.
At the moment, all three look good for Labour but the weakest for them is the second one. It's not just Lab to UKIP but to Green and SNP too. If Labour do lose the election, that's where it's currently most likely to happen. But as I said earlier, at the moment, it's more likely than not that Miliband will form a government after the election.0 -
@Freggles bringing social care into the NHS would be disastrous; all the effort at the moment is going into the right thing: getting social care services properly integrated between NHS and councils. Local flexibility, local reactiveness, local control, local efficiencies etc etc are what are needed, not monolithic NHS, duplicate budgets, artificial lines between health and council services. The way the NHS funding and culture works, it's nearly all focused on treating people who are already ill or in need of treatment; councils are much more focused on keeping people well so that they don't need to go down the more expensive route of funding medicial treatment. Better for the public purse and better for the individuals. So better all round.
Burnham presided over Stafford. Enough said about his credentials for being health secretary.0 -
Agree on housing.All the parties are trying to paper over the cracks, rather than look at the structural issues behind housing demand.Monksfield said:I see our great stewards of the economy are now proposing to flog new builds at ever bigger discount to first time buyers. Wouldn't it be better to recognise that the housing market is utterly broken? It won't help people who have invested in their first home at over the odds and can't afford to move on up. And are these direct subsidies to the homebuilders the best use of taxpayers money. No. What they're really doing is stacking another layer on the house of cards. As Peter from Putney did say, God help us..
0 -
@Monksfield
The housing market (and many others) has been broken for a long time now, unfortunately it is profitably broken for a minority.
We have now reached the state where our economy relies on smoke and mirrors to keep it afloat.
Anything that brings housing costs down to a sensible level breaks one of the mirrors.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Being 'not the evil Tories' works when people feel they have nowhere else to turn.
The Lib Dems are weak, but there are alternatives. The SNP in Scotland, UKIP in northern England. In the south and Wales being an evil Tory is less of a problem because, respectively, in the south they're just not seen as evil and in Wales the Labour-run administration is universally adored.
Labour's problem (aside from negative campaigning) is that Miliband just isn't inspiring, even in a small way.0 -
I think Mike's mantra is misguided. It's an outdated myopian static model. 'The electorate' now are fluid, dynamic and lacking loyalties. There is also a lot of anger in the mix. Relying on fixed past models is deeply flawed.david_herdson said:
LD-Lab switching is one of the three crucial numbers for 2015. The others are, as you say (or imply), Lab-Others switching and Con-Others (mainly UKIP) switching. There's been virtually no Con-Lab movement.MikeSmithson said:
Not discussed this for a long time but my chart on levels of 2010 LD switching look very solid. With them on board all LAB needs to ensure is that the level of seepage from the party to UKIP is lower than the Tories are experiencing. If that's the case he is home and dry.david_herdson said:
TGadfly said:I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
At the moment, all three look good for Labour but the weakest for them is the second one. It's not just Lab to UKIP but to Green and SNP too. If Labour do lose the election, that's where it's currently most likely to happen. But as I said earlier, at the moment, it's more likely than not that Miliband will form a government after the election.
Supply and demand. It's a small country and they aren't making land anymore, ergo house prices will remain high.JosiasJessop said:
Agree on housing.All the parties are trying to paper over the cracks, rather than look at the structural issues behind housing demand.Monksfield said:I see our great stewards of the economy are now proposing to flog new builds at ever bigger discount to first time buyers. Wouldn't it be better to recognise that the housing market is utterly broken? It won't help people who have invested in their first home at over the odds and can't afford to move on up. And are these direct subsidies to the homebuilders the best use of taxpayers money. No. What they're really doing is stacking another layer on the house of cards. As Peter from Putney did say, God help us..
0 -
Burnham's plan for integrating health and social care with increased democratic control via local councillors is quite a revolutionary one. It is de-facto devolution of health spending to English local government.Freggles said:
I disagree, I foresee Labour integrating health and social care which would allow them to offload some of the pressure onto councils and local tax raising. That coupled with serious centralisation (since Trusts would be able to cooperate, e.g agree not to compete).Innocent_Abroad said:
Yes ablit was. It shows that Labour cares more about the votes of NHS workers than they do of NHS patients (so they can go on paying Union subs some of which leak back to the Party). The Tories, by contrast, care only about the replacement of the NHS by US healthcare corporations who, unlike NHS Trusts, can contribute to Party coffers. That is to say, both Parties have health policies designed to fund themselves, and b*gger the consequences.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
And what would those consequences be? A (relatively) high quality service under Labour, but complicated means-testing and so more bureaucracy and waste.
Under the Tories, a more rational payment system - I assume they'll go for everyone pays for their health insurance up to a certain age (35? 40? 45?) after which the State picks up the balance of the tab - easy to move the cut-off age upwards as time goes by. A crumbling edge of quality as the healthcare corporations withdraw services piece by piece - chiropody this year, counselling next and so forth.
Will either of them explain this during the election campaign? What do you think?
Tories will look for quick fixes like charging for mixed appointments and criminalising neglect
Its success or failure will come down to money, at the moment the councils are hoping to plunder NHS budgets to cover their own shortfalls.
It is already underway to an extent. Despite all the rhetoric about NHS privatisation by the evil coalition, this is already underway via the benignly named Better Care Fund:
http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/part-rel/transformation-fund/
This is how the Five Year Plan looks in Leicester:
http://www.leicestershospitals.nhs.uk/aboutus/our-purpose-strategy-and-values/our-strategy/
We are planning to close one of the 3 Leicester Hospitals with a loss of 461 beds. Many of us are very sceptical that it can be delivered, without far more investment in transformation funds.0 -
Absolutely. I did a wee bit of research (for another reason) and discovered that whilst the general price level has tripled in the last 30 years, house prices in London rose by a factor of 20Smarmeron said:@Monksfield
The housing market (and many others) has been broken for a long time now, unfortunately it is profitably broken for a minority.
We have now reached the state where our economy relies on smoke and mirrors to keep it afloat.
Anything that brings housing costs down to a sensible level breaks one of the mirrors.
This is very nice for people who exercised the RTB in the 1980s and can now live in Crete or the Algarve or wherever by renting out their ex-Council flat bit it's hard to think of any other winners.
0 -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandalMrsB said:@Freggles bringing social care into the NHS would be disastrous; all the effort at the moment is going into the right thing: getting social care services properly integrated between NHS and councils. Local flexibility, local reactiveness, local control, local efficiencies etc etc are what are needed, not monolithic NHS, duplicate budgets, artificial lines between health and council services. The way the NHS funding and culture works, it's nearly all focused on treating people who are already ill or in need of treatment; councils are much more focused on keeping people well so that they don't need to go down the more expensive route of funding medicial treatment. Better for the public purse and better for the individuals. So better all round.
Burnham presided over Stafford. Enough said about his credentials for being health secretary.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Burnham
No he didn't.
He arrived years after the problem had started and launched two inquiries, one less than two months after his appointment.
0 -
"If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister."
A while back, Henry G Manson said in one of his many insightful posts that he expected Labour to win the election and then to become very, very unpopular.
I think that is right.
The surprising thing about the Scottish referendum was the ease with which the core Labour vote was fractured in the Central Belt.
There must be a real possibility that Labour will break up, if they win.
Because that is what happened in Central Belt. The more radical or deprived part of the Labour vote detached itself and aligned with the SNP.
0 -
There wont be too many of those, the pound has collapsed from 1.66 to abut 1.25 so its not all roses, in fact some are stuck there on hard times and can't get backInnocent_Abroad said:
Absolutely. I did a wee bit of research (for another reason) and discovered that whilst the general price level has tripled in the last 30 years, house prices in London rose by a factor of 20Smarmeron said:@Monksfield
The housing market (and many others) has been broken for a long time now, unfortunately it is profitably broken for a minority.
We have now reached the state where our economy relies on smoke and mirrors to keep it afloat.
Anything that brings housing costs down to a sensible level breaks one of the mirrors.
This is very nice for people who exercised the RTB in the 1980s and can now live in Crete or the Algarve or wherever by renting out their ex-Council flat bit it's hard to think of any other winners.
As always the theory isn't the same as in practise.
I am thinking hard about this subject right now, do the numbers stack up?0 -
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA, with the exception that I think the Conservatives will get close to 40%, and possibly above it. And I think UKIP will be a little lower (mid teens) than that under election scrutiny, whilst Labour 29-31%. But that's splitting hairs in an excellent riposte to the nonsense being written about Labour coasting home. The reason you are right is exactly as you say: the fixed term parliament has meant no-one is thinking of how they will vote. What we do have at the moment is a lot of anger and protest going on. I suggested the other day that 99% of the current electorate is 'floating' which was hyperbole, but it's certainly a very high figure once you discount the 1% who are party members.Innocent_Abroad said:I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
I am increasingly of the view that opinion polls will continue to mean very little or nothing until February / March. The polls to watch are the ones indicating how people are feeling on issues and on the leaders. (Because these are the true litmus tests when no-one is considering the General Election.) And on these counts The Conservatives win.
The Tories will rip Labour to shreds over economic competence and whatever Mike might like to think, you cannot win a General Election in Britain without trust on the economy.0 -
Morning all and a very good thread David. A dangerous strategy indeed on the part of Labour. One word could blow the whole thing apart, "Scotland". It is quite clear that the SNP aims to replace SLAB as the principal centre-left party and the election of Nicola Sturgeon will see any pretence of a centrist policy disappear as she and her Central Belt bias set out to pick off Labour MPs, starting with those in whose constituencies there was a large YES vote.
Roughly half of Scotland's Labour MPs will presumably be targeted and while their enormous majorities might suggest most are safe, after the referendum vote, surely all bets must be off. It will be interesting to hear how many more SLAB MPs decide to retire in May, starting with G Brown and A Darling.0 -
@Innocent_Abroad
Housing is no longer seen as a necessity, it has become a banked currency in Britain.
Building an insufficient amount of housing is socially bad, but it keeps the ROI for those that can afford to buy into the market high.0 -
The SNP and UKIP occupy very different places on the left-right spectrum.YBarddCwsc said:"If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister."
A while back, Henry G Manson said in one of his many insightful posts that he expected Labour to win the election and then to become very, very unpopular.
I think that is right.
The surprising thing about the Scottish referendum was the ease with which the core Labour vote was fractured in the Central Belt.
There must be a real possibility that Labour will break up, if they win.
Because that is what happened in Central Belt. The more radical or deprived part of the Labour vote detached itself and aligned with the SNP.
However, in a marriage it is the first infidelity that does the damage.
0 -
I'll buy that if you can tell me when the change happened. What do you think Macmillan was selling with his drive for home ownership in the 1950s let alone Thatcher's RTB a generation later?Smarmeron said:@Innocent_Abroad
Housing is no longer seen as a necessity, it has become a banked currency in Britain.
Building an insufficient amount of housing is socially bad, but it keeps the ROI for those that can afford to buy into the market high.
Clue: the drivers of house prices in London haven't had UK passports...
0 -
If we're honest, the truth is that nobody knows what will happen. There are too many factors and too many contradictory indicators:
1) There has not been a coalition fighting a peacetime election as separate parties in the age of universal suffrage (since Lloyd George's defenestration in 1922, to be exact);
2) There have never been fixed-term parliaments with known election dates before;
3) The current state of Scotland means guesses about what seats are likely to go where are just that - guesses - and that cannot be good for Labour but at the same time is scarcely positive for the Conservatives;
4) It is also conceivable, contra to @Morris_Dancer, that anger against the Labour government in Wales will cause some major upsets there - in particular, keep an eye on Cardiff South and Penarth;
5) Labour are going to have to deal with a certain amount of tactical unwind, which means they may start winning votes in seats where they don't have a chance of winning;
6) No first time government has increased its share of the vote since 1955;
7) At the same time, no opposition party has ever got into power while being behind on both leadership and economic competence, indicators where Labour are currently third (after the Conservatives and daylight).
So what conclusions can we draw? None! It is very easy to say Labour should be doing better (and they should be, because bluntly under the circumstances they should have a 15 point lead in the polls) but at the same time it's hard to see the Conservatives getting more than 34% unless something dramatic happens. Speculation is great fun, but in the absence of sufficient data we can't speculate with certainty.
So the betting implications are - save your money for the 3.30 at Doncaster.0 -
It's much more complex than that; land is only a small portion of house prices in most areas of the country, especially as successive governments have imposed minimum number of houses per acre in large developments.audreyanne said:<
Supply and demand. It's a small country and they aren't making land anymore, ergo house prices will remain high.JosiasJessop said:
Agree on housing.All the parties are trying to paper over the cracks, rather than look at the structural issues behind housing demand.Monksfield said:I see our great stewards of the economy are now proposing to flog new builds at ever bigger discount to first time buyers. Wouldn't it be better to recognise that the housing market is utterly broken? It won't help people who have invested in their first home at over the odds and can't afford to move on up. And are these direct subsidies to the homebuilders the best use of taxpayers money. No. What they're really doing is stacking another layer on the house of cards. As Peter from Putney did say, God help us..
The problems also vary from area to area; from second- and third- home owners in scenic areas pricing out locals, to buy-to-let'ters living off large portfolios, to NIMBYs arguing against every single development because their area is special, to the way the majority of people want a garden and garage (or at least a parking space).
The solutions are also massively complex and red-hot potatoes for any government to tackle.0 -
@Innocent_Abroad
I think that it was in a large part due to the RTB, which while being popular, had unforeseen consequences. Foreign buyers are mainly jumping onto the bandwagon, and often for different reasons.
The reasons are unimportant except for a bit of finger pointing, it needs fixed no matter the original cause.0 -
Maybe it is the beautiful autumn sunshine (always my favourite light of the year) or the fact it is my birthday but I am getting a little more optimistic for the Tories at the next election. Labour are undoubtedly in a very strong position and with a half decent leader, let alone a Blair, they would be home and hosed. But they don't have one, they have Ed.
I rate Cameron far more highly than most on these threads but even if I were wrong about that he is indisputably a different and better class of campaigner than Ed. When I looked at the Labour Conference I did not see wise caution, I saw a party paralysed under a leader that makes Gordon Brown look decisive, who is terrified of sharing the limelight with his team (700 words for the shadow cabinet ) and who cannot decide on anything other than the wonders of the NHS and how much he hates the Tories.
It is not enough and it has given the Tories a chance to once again set the agenda and the nature of the discussion over the next few months.0 -
Mr. Doethur, ahem. I meant to have the word 'not' ahead of 'universally adored' when describing the Welsh Government.
My mistake.0 -
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
0 -
Really good post, but I'll be picky about point No.6. I don't think that compares like for like precisely because, as you say elsewhere, we're in unchartered territory with this peace time coalition.ydoethur said:If we're honest, the truth is that nobody knows what will happen. There are too many factors and too many contradictory indicators:
1) There has not been a coalition fighting a peacetime election as separate parties in the age of universal suffrage (since Lloyd George's defenestration in 1922, to be exact);
2) There have never been fixed-term parliaments with known election dates before;
3) The current state of Scotland means guesses about what seats are likely to go where are just that - guesses - and that cannot be good for Labour but at the same time is scarcely positive for the Conservatives;
4) It is also conceivable, contra to @Morris_Dancer, that anger against the Labour government in Wales will cause some major upsets there - in particular, keep an eye on Cardiff South and Penarth;
5) Labour are going to have to deal with a certain amount of tactical unwind, which means they may start winning votes in seats where they don't have a chance of winning;
6) No first time government has increased its share of the vote since 1955;
7) At the same time, no opposition party has ever got into power while being behind on both leadership and economic competence, indicators where Labour are currently third (after the Conservatives and daylight).
So what conclusions can we draw? None! It is very easy to say Labour should be doing better (and they should be, because bluntly under the circumstances they should have a 15 point lead in the polls) but at the same time it's hard to see the Conservatives getting more than 34% unless something dramatic happens. Speculation is great fun, but in the absence of sufficient data we can't speculate with certainty.
So the betting implications are - save your money for the 3.30 at Doncaster.
There is virtually no chance the Conservatives will poll as low as 34% with the economic recovery under way. Another way to consider this is how the Conservatives have steadily rebuilt their support following 1992 Black Wednesday (because economic trust is crucial):
1997 30%
2001 31%
2005 33%
2010 36%
I reckon 2015 will continue the trend: 39-40%0 -
A lie is round the world before the truth has his boots on.Freggles said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandalMrsB said:@Freggles bringing social care into the NHS would be disastrous; all the effort at the moment is going into the right thing: getting social care services properly integrated between NHS and councils. Local flexibility, local reactiveness, local control, local efficiencies etc etc are what are needed, not monolithic NHS, duplicate budgets, artificial lines between health and council services. The way the NHS funding and culture works, it's nearly all focused on treating people who are already ill or in need of treatment; councils are much more focused on keeping people well so that they don't need to go down the more expensive route of funding medicial treatment. Better for the public purse and better for the individuals. So better all round.
Burnham presided over Stafford. Enough said about his credentials for being health secretary.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Burnham
No he didn't.
He arrived years after the problem had started and launched two inquiries, one less than two months after his appointment.
There was a decade of warnings about Staffordshire hospitals; with most of the scandalous events taking place in the late noughties:
http://witchdoctor.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/mid-staffordshire-a-decade-of-warnings/
Andy Burnham became minister of Health in June 2009, and instigated the investigations. It is a classic case of shooting the messenger to blame him.
The rot started under Milburn, worsened under Reid, became dire under the disastrous Hewitt, but it was Alan Johnson who granted Foundation Trust status in 2008.
Mid Staffordshire was a New Labour Scandal, but not Burnhams.0 -
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act0 -
I agree wholeheartedly with the negative comments on our housing 'industry' (how come a place to live is an 'industry'?) but with one important caveat. The real problem is not a lack of house building, although that is a problem. The real problem is that we have allowed all housing demand to be concentrated in one totally unsuitable area, while there is plenty of space for housing in areas where there is no demand for it.Innocent_Abroad said:
I'll buy that if you can tell me when the change happened. What do you think Macmillan was selling with his drive for home ownership in the 1950s let alone Thatcher's RTB a generation later?Smarmeron said:@Innocent_Abroad
Housing is no longer seen as a necessity, it has become a banked currency in Britain.
Building an insufficient amount of housing is socially bad, but it keeps the ROI for those that can afford to buy into the market high.
Clue: the drivers of house prices in London haven't had UK passports...
London is the stupidest imaginable place for a capital or indeed a major city. It's built on a swamp, so its foundations are shaky. It's in the driest area of England, so its water supplies are always under pressure. It's out on a limb from the rest of the country, so it's not easy to get to, and when you do get there, it's not actually that easy to get around (it takes far too long to get from say, Hammersmith to Greenwich, although why anyone would want to make such a journey I don't know). Because it is also home to a lot of industry, but has limited space for major infrastructure, its power supply is also under constant pressure. Yet this is where the housing market causes the most extensive problems - it's where houses are needed and cannot be built, while existing houses are sold for absurd prices, and because it's where politicians and bankers live, they have a tendency to extrapolate its problems on to the rest of the country, meaning the whole thing is skewed out of proportion (and of course, where they have second homes they skew that market too and still don't get the reality). Where I live, in Cannock, I looked at buying a rather nice three-bedroom house with garden and separate dining room for £90k (although I didn't buy it in the end). In London, I hate to think what it would cost - yet it's the London prices that get mentioned in the papers despite the fact that over half the country will be closer to Cannock's situation.
(continued)
0 -
(continued)
The realistic solution, grandiose though it is, is to move the capital out of London and to the North of England, where water supplies are plentiful, space is much easier to find and there is ample scope to adapt and improve existing power and transport networks. That would take a lot of the pressure off the south east and at the same time help the north. It would also rebalance house prices to a great extent. It could give a boost to the construction industry. It might even oblige our élite politicians to reconnect with the country outside the M25.
And of course, it will never happen because no politician will have the guts to upset 6 million voters in London, however much it would benefit them and everyone else in the medium term.0 -
Staying in Barra as the only Tory in a big house full of Labourites, it was entertaining to witness their embarrassment with Ed Miliband, It struck me they were confronted with a bullet that thankfully as a life-long Tory I had dodged - namely, could I in all conscience have voted in 2005 for Iain Duncan-Smith to be our Prime Minister?
My friends were smart enough to know that "We're not the Tories!" doesn't amount to anything much, when by necessity of having no money, Prime Minister Ed Miliband will just be Evil Baby-Eating Tory-Lite. Ed's Big Conference Theme of "Togetherism" was supposed to be his rebranding of Socialism for the Twenty-First Century. But it fails miserably as a slogan because it just reminds us all of the past five years - Osborne's "We're all in this TOGETHER...."
And that merely reinforces that there is nothing very different between the parties, will be nothing very different between the parties. With the exception of one leadership that has delivered the best performing economy in the G8, versus a guy who can't eat a bacon sandwich or kiss his wife or remember THE BIG TWO THINGS VOTERS WANT TO HEAR ABOUT. "We're not the Tories!" gets top-trumped by "We're not very good..."
If there was a palatable alternative, my Labour chums would vote for it. I suspect a couple will peel off to the Greens, a couple will stay loyal, but a few more might well defect to the Can't Be Arsed Party. As I suspect I would have done, confronted with voting for IDS....0 -
I did wonder, MD - it seemed such a strange thing to say! No worries!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, ahem. I meant to have the word 'not' ahead of 'universally adored' when describing the Welsh Government.
My mistake.0 -
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
0 -
@MarqueeMark
"With the exception of one leadership that has delivered the best performing economy in the G8"
Best performing on what measures? Productivity, exports, innovation.....?0 -
I'll be picky about point No.6. I don't think that compares like for like precisely because, as you say elsewhere, we're in unchartered territory with this peace time coalition.
Perhaps - but prior to this they haven't been in government. It's easy to pick up votes in opposition when you don't have to make hard choices and offend people. The government has not, let's face it, been either popular or succeeded by the standards it set itself of eliminating the deficit (which was probably always going to be a bridge too far unless the economy kicked into overdrive, which was also never likely to happen). While it may have been quite a good government in many other ways, certainly better than the one that came before it, it's hard to see how it avoids getting that thrown at it. And it's also hard to see how it will hang on to disillusioned former voters and pick up new ones on that basis unless we have one of Mac's famous 'events'.
There is virtually no chance the Conservatives will poll as low as 34% with the economic recovery under way. Another way to consider this is how the Conservatives have steadily rebuilt their support following 1992 Black Wednesday (because economic trust is crucial):
1997 30%
2001 31%
2005 33%
2010 36%
I reckon 2015 will continue the trend: 39-40%
I'm still thinking 34-35% would be a good result for them.0 -
Marquee Mark haha brilliant post about Labour under Ed! Wish we had a 'Like' function.
You nailed it.0 -
Reform = A cuddlier way of phrasing Reorganisation.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
Labour are planning some major changes to Everyone's NHS. I expect suitable protest.0 -
And as I pointed out below, the Better Care Fund is already set up to do most of the plan under the coalition (largely down to Norman Lamb, one of many excellent and effective LD ministers).Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
Repealing the Bill allows more democratic control, and permits use of private providers but takes them out of the driving seat.
Labours NHS plans show quite a lot of continuity with coalition plans and are well thought through (though I think the cost and speed of transformation is underestimated).
It is one reason Miliband feels threatened by Burnham, he does not like to be overshadowed by someone competent.
0 -
I didn't say that. The point is there are no structures that will have to change as a result of the repeal. It won't change CCGs back to PCTs, it still just remove the obligation to compete.so while it's a repeal in legislative terms, I in organizational terms it's not a reversal.MarqueeMark said:
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
I do have some grasp of the detail here.0 -
MarqueeMark said:
Staying in Barra as the only Tory in a big house full of Labourites, it was entertaining to witness their embarrassment with Ed Miliband, It struck me they were confronted with a bullet that thankfully as a life-long Tory I had dodged - namely, could I in all conscience have voted in 2005 for Iain Duncan-Smith to be our Prime Minister?
My friends were smart enough to know that "We're not the Tories!" doesn't amount to anything much, when by necessity of having no money, Prime Minister Ed Miliband will just be Evil Baby-Eating Tory-Lite. Ed's Big Conference Theme of "Togetherism" was supposed to be his rebranding of Socialism for the Twenty-First Century. But it fails miserably as a slogan because it just reminds us all of the past five years - Osborne's "We're all in this TOGETHER...."
And that merely reinforces that there is nothing very different between the parties, will be nothing very different between the parties. With the exception of one leadership that has delivered the best performing economy in the G8, versus a guy who can't eat a bacon sandwich or kiss his wife or remember THE BIG TWO THINGS VOTERS WANT TO HEAR ABOUT. "We're not the Tories!" gets top-trumped by "We're not very good..."
If there was a palatable alternative, my Labour chums would vote for it. I suspect a couple will peel off to the Greens, a couple will stay loyal, but a few more might well defect to the Can't Be Arsed Party. As I suspect I would have done, confronted with voting for IDS....
That's interesting, Marquee.
My equivalent quandry was back in the days I campaigned for Michael Foot. Young and naive though I was, even I could see a Labour win would have been a disaster. I told myself I would not vote for them if it appeared there was any chance of them getting in. In the event, there wasn't a problem because it was obvious they were going to get hammered and I carried on voting and working for them on the basis that the Party needed to avoid meltdown in order to be able to reform and reconstitute itself, which of course it eventually did,
I should add that the problem was the Party, rather than Foot, who was an intelligent and honorable man. The parallel with IDS and his Party is too obvious to need labouring.
0 -
The hospital in Leicester that will be closed is in Keith Vaz's constituency. The loss of 461 beds will be very controversial, as well as being on an unrealistic timescale.TheWatcher said:
Reform = A cuddlier way of phrasing Reorganisation.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
Labour are planning some major changes to Everyone's NHS. I expect suitable protest.0 -
You do seem well informed. Dare I ask your background in this?Freggles said:
I didn't say that. The point is there are no structures that will have to change as a result of the repeal. It won't change CCGs back to PCTs, it still just remove the obligation to compete.so while it's a repeal in legislative terms, I in organizational terms it's not a reversal.MarqueeMark said:
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
I do have some grasp of the detail here.0 -
There's a long way to go yet. Most people don't even realise there's an election in 7 months time; they haven't even begun to start thinking about it.
Labour is by no means home and dry.0 -
In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?0 -
I work in commissioning, so to have any kind of future plans I need to be aware of any incoming reorganization!foxinsoxuk said:
You do seem well informed. Dare I ask your background in this?Freggles said:
I didn't say that. The point is there are no structures that will have to change as a result of the repeal. It won't change CCGs back to PCTs, it still just remove the obligation to compete.so while it's a repeal in legislative terms, I in organizational terms it's not a reversal.MarqueeMark said:
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
I do have some grasp of the detail here.0 -
Nope it was also Foot, and it's extraordinary if you don't realise that. He was indeed honourable and intelligent (and I admired him) but in the eyes of most voters a bumbling incompetent fool and it cost them dearly, alongside the 'longest suicide note in history' which was largely his doing. The donkey jacket incident is very similar to Ed's bacon butty. It just shows someone who is weird and totally inappropriate to lead this country, and it reflects in leader ratings.Peter_the_Punter said:MarqueeMark said:Staying in Barra as the only Tory in a big house full of Labourites, it was entertaining to witness their embarrassment with Ed Miliband, It struck me they were confronted with a bullet that thankfully as a life-long Tory I had dodged - namely, could I in all conscience have voted in 2005 for Iain Duncan-Smith to be our Prime Minister?
My friends were smart enough to know that "We're not the Tories!" doesn't amount to anything much, when by necessity of having no money, Prime Minister Ed Miliband will just be Evil Baby-Eating Tory-Lite. Ed's Big Conference Theme of "Togetherism" was supposed to be his rebranding of Socialism for the Twenty-First Century. But it fails miserably as a slogan because it just reminds us all of the past five years - Osborne's "We're all in this TOGETHER...."
And that merely reinforces that there is nothing very different between the parties, will be nothing very different between the parties. With the exception of one leadership that has delivered the best performing economy in the G8, versus a guy who can't eat a bacon sandwich or kiss his wife or remember THE BIG TWO THINGS VOTERS WANT TO HEAR ABOUT. "We're not the Tories!" gets top-trumped by "We're not very good..."
If there was a palatable alternative, my Labour chums would vote for it. I suspect a couple will peel off to the Greens, a couple will stay loyal, but a few more might well defect to the Can't Be Arsed Party. As I suspect I would have done, confronted with voting for IDS....
I should add that the problem was the Party, rather than Foot, who was an intelligent and honorable man. The parallel with IDS and his Party is too obvious to need labouring.
Whatever people might try to tell you a General Election is a leadership pageant. We elect local MPs, but we also vote on the personality of our Prime Minister. Do I think the British will elect Ed Miliband to be their Prime Minister? You're 'aving a larf.0 -
Burnhams plans are devolving power to local councils. Devon councillors will sit on the commissioning boards in Devon, Leics ones in Leics CCGs etc.saddo said:In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
The plans are highly democratic (we shall see whether councillors are up to the job...)0 -
Yesterday IPSOS told us the voters' top issue was immigration. The day before that, Comres told us that UKIP were the party most trusted to deal with immigration.audreyanne said:
I am increasingly of the view that opinion polls will continue to mean very little or nothing until February / March. The polls to watch are the ones indicating how people are feeling on issues and on the leaders. (Because these are the true litmus tests when no-one is considering the General Election.) And on these counts The Conservatives win.Innocent_Abroad said:I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
The Tories will rip Labour to shreds over economic competence and whatever Mike might like to think, you cannot win a General Election in Britain without trust on the economy.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3455/EconomistIpsos-MORI-September-2014-Issues-Index.aspx
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/ITV_News_Index_24th_September_2014.pdf
0 -
saddo said:
In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
You're both spot on. I hope pb threads wake up to this point. It isn't like the old days ...Casino_Royale said:There's a long way to go yet. Most people don't even realise there's an election in 7 months time; they haven't even begun to start thinking about it.
Labour is by no means home and dry.0 -
The cumulative vote shares for all council by elections held in September ( circa 19,000 votes ) were as follows
Lab 29%
Con 26%
LDem 22%
UKIP 13%
Green 4%
Others 6%
and for all council by elections held in the 3 months July-Sept ( circa 64,500 votes ) were
Con 30%
Lab 24.5%
LDem 17%
UKIP 14.5%
Green 5%
Others 9%0 -
Ditto, though I am on the other side of the table!Freggles said:
I work in commissioning, so to have any kind of future plans I need to be aware of any incoming reorganization!foxinsoxuk said:
You do seem well informed. Dare I ask your background in this?Freggles said:
I didn't say that. The point is there are no structures that will have to change as a result of the repeal. It won't change CCGs back to PCTs, it still just remove the obligation to compete.so while it's a repeal in legislative terms, I in organizational terms it's not a reversal.MarqueeMark said:
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
I do have some grasp of the detail here.
Is my impression that there is a more collaborative approach to commissioning over the last few years also your impression? Mine is based on Leics of course.0 -
OK. Mark must have been called away.
An award of ten internetz for the best reply?
"With the exception of one leadership that has delivered the best performing economy in the G8"
Best performing on what measures? Productivity, exports, innovation.....?0 -
It's irrelevant what his plans are if England doesn't vote for it. Labour created the situation when they split the NHS responsibilities across different countries.foxinsoxuk said:
Burnhams plans are devolving power to local councils. Devon councillors will sit on the commissioning boards in Devon, Leics ones in Leics CCGs etc.saddo said:In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
The plans are highly democratic (we shall see whether councillors are up to the job...)0 -
As a resident within a stone's throw of Pevensey Bay, I'm a honorary Norman ; ^)manofkent2014 said:
UKIP's Migration spokesman Steven Wolfe used a verse of this Kipling poem in his speech today and I thought given how much of UKIP's news heartlands are those where the Saxon's were prominent and is rather apt:
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
Tory 'Normans' take note!0 -
In that poem? No.david_herdson said:
Kipling was really talking about India though, wasn't he?manofkent2014 said:UKIP's Migration spokesman Steven Wolfe used a verse of this Kipling poem in his speech today and I thought given how much of UKIP's news heartlands are those where the Saxon's were prominent and is rather apt:
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
Tory 'Normans' take note!0 -
No. It's more accurate to say we're only just starting the second half. People simply aren't thinking about the end of time, let alone the result. No board has been held up. It's a fixed term parliament: there has been a total absence of all the old sharpening GE speculation. It's gone.Smarmeron said:@saddo
It's probably more accurate to say we are in "extra time"? (Parliaments are usually shorter)
No-one is watching the game except a handful of ground staff wearing pb.com and party anoraks.0 -
I must disagree there, Mr Putney. IIRC the polls show that Mr Cameron gets top marks as PMish from every social grouping by class or age.
He may need to have his back against the wall to deliver, but frankly that's a flaw I'll happily accept. Rather that than someone who flinches when the chips are down.peter_from_putney said:David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet.
Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.0 -
The YG poll data implies that Labour are bleeding enough 2010 vote to wipe out any gain from the LDs.
They're behind in Scotland, making no progress in Wales, have very little left to gain in the NE and have now supported another war in Muslim lands which certainly hurt them last time around. Watch Tower Hamlets, Bradford, Luton, Birmingham.
It's only the impact of UKIP on the Tories that is sustaining Labour's lead.
Labour has also dipped badly in the budget/election cycle in 2013 and 2014, whilst their lead over the Tories was overstated by 2.5-5.5 in all polls at the Euros.
Where are Ed's extra 68 seats (plus Scottish losses) coming from?
A minority government with who providing coalition support?
0 -
Burnhams plans permit the use of private providers, but do not make it compulsory. If in blue/purple Surrey the commissioners want to increase the role of private companies they can do so. If in Merseyside they do not want to do so, then they do not have to do so.saddo said:
It's irrelevant what his plans are if England doesn't vote for it. Labour created the situation when they split the NHS responsibilities across different countries.foxinsoxuk said:
Burnhams plans are devolving power to local councils. Devon councillors will sit on the commissioning boards in Devon, Leics ones in Leics CCGs etc.saddo said:In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
The plans are highly democratic (we shall see whether councillors are up to the job...)
Increased local control of how the money is spent is the essence of devolution.0 -
I came into commissioning post-reforms, so no personal experience of working in PCT land, but the consensus among colleagues is as you say - a few years ago if social care and health were in a room together it'd be recriminations and denial over whose responsibility delayed discharges were, for instance. Now there's a greater willingness to work together. Where that exists, shared budgets will be helpful in removing barriers, but there are probably still some basket-case health economies out there where everyone's still bashing each other over the head, in which case structures won't change anything.foxinsoxuk said:
Ditto, though I am on the other side of the table!Freggles said:
I work in commissioning, so to have any kind of future plans I need to be aware of any incoming reorganization!foxinsoxuk said:
You do seem well informed. Dare I ask your background in this?Freggles said:
I didn't say that. The point is there are no structures that will have to change as a result of the repeal. It won't change CCGs back to PCTs, it still just remove the obligation to compete.so while it's a repeal in legislative terms, I in organizational terms it's not a reversal.MarqueeMark said:
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.Freggles said:
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too.TheWatcher said:
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.Freggles said:Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
I do have some grasp of the detail here.
Is my impression that there is a more collaborative approach to commissioning over the last few years also your impression? Mine is based on Leics of course.
I'm concerned that more political involvement at the local level might have the same effects as at the national - short term decisions, lack of direction, and pandering to the loud geographical areas! Perhaps the ideal is to have a councillor or two on governing bodies so that commissioning can be clinical, but with democratic input.
Otherwise we will have councillors vetoing changes purely because a rival politician was involved...
0 -
And indeed I said much the same at [7.32am] - but would absolutely hate it if AudreyAnne ever gave me credit for anything. Even if I said that David Cameron was William Pitt, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill rolled into one (I do hope he's paying her to puff him - an MBE in the post, maybe?).audreyanne said:saddo said:In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
You're both spot on. I hope pb threads wake up to this point. It isn't like the old days ...Casino_Royale said:There's a long way to go yet. Most people don't even realise there's an election in 7 months time; they haven't even begun to start thinking about it.
Labour is by no means home and dry.
0 -
Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting comment.0
-
I get the soundbite, you get to nit pick - and look like you are talking down Britain in the process.Smarmeron said:@MarqueeMark
"With the exception of one leadership that has delivered the best performing economy in the G8"
Best performing on what measures? Productivity, exports, innovation.....?
Just accept that the economic upturn is owned by the Tories (the LibDems seem to not want to be associated with even being in Government....)
0 -
I still haven't recovered from GE2010 when Mr Balls was claiming that cutting £6bn off public spending was The End Of The World.
Well, there's about £75bn left to chop off. I assume that the Milky Way is next.Gadfly said:I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.0 -
@audreyanne
I prefer the "battle analogy"
The commanders are still shuffling the troops and artillery, and only the scouts and skirmishers are engaged.0 -
saddo said:
It's irrelevant what his plans are if England doesn't vote for it. Labour created the situation when they split the NHS responsibilities across different countries.foxinsoxuk said:
Burnhams plans are devolving power to local councils. Devon councillors will sit on the commissioning boards in Devon, Leics ones in Leics CCGs etc.saddo said:In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
The plans are highly democratic (we shall see whether councillors are up to the job...)
How many people voted for the Conservatives' plans in the first place?
0 -
@Lennon - the answer is that I see the vote fracturing. It's got some fairly wealthy pockets (nice flats and waterside developments) that might go Tory, a bit of student housing that will probably stay solidly Labour but might go Plaid or green, tribal Labour vote that will stay Labour no matter what, and a sort of drifting lower-middle class that might go UKIP. The Tories have always been the main challengers - but in a four cornered fight you never know who could win.
So my tip would be - don't bet on it. This used to be a very safe Labour seat for Alun Michael, terrible minister though he was, but the new MP hasn't had long to bed in and might well be vulnerable to a surge from any party.
A more realistic betting position, if you can find one, would be for Labour to win fewer than 25 seats in Wales. That would rely on them not winning back many seats - but as their two realistic targets are Cardiff Central on a student rebellion and Cardiff North with a retiring MP, that's hardly a problem (I don't think they'll retake South Pembs). At the same time, I could see them losing the few remaining seats they have in rural Wales (Ynys Môn could well be vulnerable depending on the Plaid candidate) and possibly also Llanelli and Cardiff South. That would take them below 25, which would certainly be an embarrassing result for Labour whatever the national outcome.
It might also have interesting implications for the Assembly elections, which are held the following year and by which time Labour will have been in power, rather ineffectually, for 17 years - but we can hopefully talk about them nearer the time!0 -
I don't think Miliband does feel threatened by Burnham - what makes you think that? Burnham was the exception to the "short speech" rule at the conference - he was the only Shadow Minister plugged in Miliband's speech, building up to his lengthy and passionate speech on the NHS the next day.foxinsoxuk said:
It is one reason Miliband feels threatened by Burnham, he does not like to be overshadowed by someone competent.
On point 1, I don't know if you talk to a lot of voters, but FWIW I've never in over 40 years of canvassing found so few undecided voters. The Tory and Labour blocs are seemingly immovable apart from short-term swings.Innocent_Abroad said:
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
On point 2, that's not what happened in Cameron's only previous election as leader, in 2010. On the contrary, a hefty Tory lead was blown away in the final months.
On point 3, the test is how the leaders do in comparison with expectations. Cameron was expected to thrash Brown and Clegg in 2010, but the multi-party debate format doesn't lend itself to thrashings: we ended up with something like a score draw.
Are you offering a bet on your prediction of a 10-point Tory lead?
0 -
And if they make a mess in Liverpool they just blame the govt and ask for more money. Not that this is not a common problem with health services all over the world.foxinsoxuk said:
Burnhams plans permit the use of private providers, but do not make it compulsory. If in blue/purple Surrey the commissioners want to increase the role of private companies they can do so. If in Merseyside they do not want to do so, then they do not have to do so.saddo said:
It's irrelevant what his plans are if England doesn't vote for it. Labour created the situation when they split the NHS responsibilities across different countries.foxinsoxuk said:
Burnhams plans are devolving power to local councils. Devon councillors will sit on the commissioning boards in Devon, Leics ones in Leics CCGs etc.saddo said:In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
The plans are highly democratic (we shall see whether councillors are up to the job...)
Increased local control of how the money is spent is the essence of devolution.
0 -
You can tell the Tories know they could lose 2015 as they have started, at last, to do more than just talk about how bad ed m is, recognising that probably won't save them. But more of them need to accept it than currently do.0
-
IIRC Gordon's lowest point was c26% - surely EdM can't beat that one.Freggles said:
I really can't envisage Labour sinking below 28%. Based on the core vote, maxing out the NHS vote...Innocent_Abroad said:I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?0 -
This is the key finding from the Ashcroft marginals poll in August for me:
"Despite the 10-point Labour lead in voting intention the majority of voters in these seats said either that they were satisfied with David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister (29%) or that they were dissatisfied but would rather he were PM than Ed Miliband (29%). Only 31% – including, as in the Labour-held seats, just two thirds of Labour voters – said they would rather see Miliband in Number 10. Nine out of ten Conservative switchers to UKIP, and 94% of those switching from the Lib Dems to the Tories, said they preferred Cameron to the alternative."
So, voters in those marginal seats prefer Cameron as PM (58%) to Miliband (31%) - a 27% lead.
I find it very hard to believe a major chunk of those won't vote that way, once they wake up to the fact there's an election on to choose the PM and the Government.
Bring on the campaign and the debates.0 -
In Rugby League the game is so fast moving you can be ahead by 6 points with 5 minutes to go but could easily lose the game and teams very often do. Its a better analogy.audreyanne said:
No. It's more accurate to say we're only just starting the second half. People simply aren't thinking about the end of time, let alone the result. No board has been held up. It's a fixed term parliament: there has been a total absence of all the old sharpening GE speculation. It's gone.Smarmeron said:@saddo
It's probably more accurate to say we are in "extra time"? (Parliaments are usually shorter)
No-one is watching the game except a handful of ground staff wearing pb.com and party anoraks.0 -
Miss Plato, in one poll Labour under Brown went to 19%.0
