Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

Ed Miliband


  • Please log in to reply
777 replies to this topic

#761 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 509 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 03:15 PM

This bit - "if the Scots vote for independence (currently 58-42% in favour of No with the gap now widening), then I might revise that.".

After quite a narrowing in the gap between No and Yes since autumn of last year, especially in early 2014, the No lead seems to be stabilising at 13 ish percent (looking at an average of polls that are comparable ie have not changed their methodology). If you are looking at ICM's recent poll then be aware that this company, possibly freaked a little by April's result that showed the two sides neck and neck, changed the way it conducts its referendum questioning. In opinion polling terms it was, let's say, a controversial change that sought to identify shy 'No' voters. No other company polling at the time recorded such a movement.
 

For the record, ICM have, from January to May, shown No leads of 8%, 13%, 9%, 4% and 15% - a little volatile, given that other companies haven't shown such swings.

Note: don't assume that polling companies know what they are doing, and certainly don't take one poll result in isolation

Yes fair point, and some have better track records than others. I have to confess that I haven't followed the Scottish Ref polls as much as the Westminster ones.



#762 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 509 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 03:20 PM

I referred to Lord Ashcroft's mega poll last week and how important it is.

 

Last summer he produced a poll of the top 40 marginal seats (ie those held by the Conservatives by the narrowest vote) and found Labour to be 14% ahead.

 

On Saturday, he published the results of a similar poll, which is here: http://lordashcroftp...r-battleground/

 

It is a huge poll of 26,000 in 26 marginal, some held by Labour and some by the Tories. Labour still have a massive lead, which is 12% in these places.

 

The GE2015 polls may have narrowed over the last couple of months, but the results of this poll are desperately bad news for the Tories. Ashcroft predicts that 83 Tory MPs will be toppled and that Miliband will win a majority.

 

This is the only political earthquake there's been in the last week!



#763 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,416 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 03:28 PM

miliband7.jpg

 

That's nearly Kinnock falling on his backside on the beach quality.

 

When Boris Johnson makes a public prat of himself, as he does on a regular basis, it apparently makes him more appealing to voters.

 

Maybe Ed misread the manual.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#764 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,663 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:54 PM

 You may well  think he makes a prat of himself on a regular basis, but the frequency has reduced dramatically, whereas for Miliband, the pace is increasing.

 

Good Morning Britain presenter Susannah Reid says Miliband himself appeared 'out of touch with reality'.  Really?  Gosh! 

http://www.independe...op-9402068.html

 

 

Can day get any worse for the Labour leader?   Well, yes, possibly.

http://www.independe...cs-9404474.html

 

 

Nearly half of voters think Ed Miliband is "weird" as the Labour leader faces a fight to restore his reputation ahead of 2015. No! Honestly? 

http://news.sky.com/...n-election-blow


Edited by JohnM, 26 May 2014 - 05:56 PM.


#765 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 06:34 PM

You may well  think he makes a prat of himself on a regular basis, but the frequency has reduced dramatically, whereas for Miliband, the pace is increasing.
 
Good Morning Britain presenter Susannah Reid says Miliband himself appeared 'out of touch with reality'.  Really?  Gosh! 
http://www.independe...op-9402068.html
 
 
Can day get any worse for the Labour leader?   Well, yes, possibly.
http://www.independe...cs-9404474.html
 
 
Nearly half of voters think Ed Miliband is "weird" as the Labour leader faces a fight to restore his reputation ahead of 2015. No! Honestly? 
http://news.sky.com/...n-election-blow


That's the best they can come up with?
"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#766 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,663 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:26 PM

I think it tells us all there is to tell about him. Why? Have you more?



#767 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,680 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:09 PM

 You may well  think he makes a prat of himself on a regular basis, but the frequency has reduced dramatically, whereas for Miliband, the pace is increasing.

 

Good Morning Britain presenter Susannah Reid says Miliband himself appeared 'out of touch with reality'.  Really?  Gosh! 

http://www.independe...op-9402068.html

 

 

Can day get any worse for the Labour leader?   Well, yes, possibly.

http://www.independe...cs-9404474.html

 

 

Nearly half of voters think Ed Miliband is "weird" as the Labour leader faces a fight to restore his reputation ahead of 2015. No! Honestly? 

http://news.sky.com/...n-election-blow

 

The worst thing the Labour party did was appointing Ed Miliband. Regardless of what policies he comes up with, people are shallow and does comes across as weird. I said it the day he was appointed and I'll say it now, I can't see that man ever becoming Prime Minister of this country.  



#768 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 509 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:11 PM

I think it tells us all there is to tell about him. Why? Have you more?

It's telling that they can't come up with anything else. He's weird apparently, he's a geek, but plenty of people won't be put off by that.

 

Don't forget that he's got Labour on the verge of being the first party in generations to get back into power at the first time of asking. He's largely kept the party unified, he's had his fair share of impressive victories and he's had a consistent lead in the polls stretching over two years. All that tells me is that his supposed weirdness isn't that big a factor to the electorate.



#769 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 509 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:12 PM

The worst thing the Labour party did was appointing Ed Miliband. Regardless of what policies he comes up with, people are shallow and does comes across as weird. I said it the day he was appointed and I'll say it now, I can't see that man ever becoming Prime Minister of this country.  

Get your money on the Tories then. You'll get good odds - but there's a reason for that!



#770 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,487 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 11:02 PM

It's telling that they can't come up with anything else. He's weird apparently, he's a geek, but plenty of people won't be put off by that.

 

Don't forget that he's got Labour on the verge of being the first party in generations to get back into power at the first time of asking. He's largely kept the party unified, he's had his fair share of impressive victories and he's had a consistent lead in the polls stretching over two years. All that tells me is that his supposed weirdness isn't that big a factor to the electorate.

 

His personal ratings are pretty disastrous IIRC, so it could be that people are so desperate to be rid of the Tories that they will vote Labour as the only alternative. I'm not sure that he has them on the verge of returning to power, though - I am, like many Labour supporters of the time, still scarred by the defeat of 1992 (and 1987 if it comes to that), when, despite long periods of the party being ahead in the polls, the electorate just would not elect a party led by Neil Kinnock.

With a different leader Labour could be doing a lot better - not sure who, though.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#771 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 509 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 12:30 AM

I am, like many Labour supporters of the time, still scarred by the defeat of 1992 (and 1987 if it comes to that), when, despite long periods of the party being ahead in the polls, the electorate just would not elect a party led by Neil Kinnock.

 

There are obvious similarities between how Kinnock and Miliband come across, but the entire political landscape couldn't now be any more different to then. There is a world of difference with the polls when you compare now and 1992, which I list below to cheer you up :)

 

Poll companies have accepted that they got a lot wrong back then and they've changed the way they report their findings now. They used to over represent the Labour position by not including the Don't Knows, many of whom ended up voting Tory. There are many myths surrounding the 1992 election like the Sheffield Rally, Jennifer's Ear, Labour's taxes and the sun's front page, but Shy Tory Factor remains the main reason for the unexpected result.

 

The main changes, therefore, concern how the pollsters deal with Shy Tory Factor and those people who don't know who they will vote for are now marked down as intending to vote for who they voted for last time. After an election like 2010 when the Tories won the vote convincingly, it stands to reason that the polls will subsequently over represent the Tory position.

 

Four-party politics results in leads being smaller, and voters don't tend to switch in between the two main parties now so swings are more modest and leads harder to narrow. The papers got excited in September 2013 when the Tories finally drew level in a YouGov poll for the first time in nearly two years, and eight months later they still haven't taken the lead in that company's polls despite there being five a week. The polls have narrowed in the last 18 months, but it's been glacial.

 

In 1992 there were no pollsters like Ashcroft who could publish findings on the key marginals and it's in these areas where elections are won and lost. Had there been so, Labour may never have been favourites in 1992, although we'll never know, but Labour are currently killing it in the marginals with a 12pt lead, and there are going to have to be some sensational changes in the next 11 months for the Tories to win. Scotland voting for independence would help!

 

In 1992 when the polls started to narrow it was partly because the Tory vote was increasing and partly because the Labour vote was decreasing. But this time the Tory vote isn't increasing at all - it's just that some of the Labour vote has gone in the last month to UKIP and 'Other', mainly the Greens. The Green vote will revert back, but even if we assume the UKIP vote doesn't, it is very unlikely that UKIP can hurt Labour in a General Election like they did in the Locals or the Europeans or like they will hurt the Tories. They ate into the Labour vote in Sunderland, Rotherham and Doncaster, to give three examples, but they cannot cost Labour MPs in those areas in 2015, either by winning the seats themselves or by helping another party win them. They'll win 0-5 seats themselves, but they'll hand Labour scores of marginals by taking votes off the Tories. It won't work the other way around in the north because the figures just don't add up.

 

The Left is now completely united with the Lib Dems on the floor and 2m of their voters intending to vote Labour in GE2015, so they cannot hurt Labour like the SDP or Alliance used to do. The reality for Kinnock is that he couldn't win with the Left split and the Right united with no competition for the Tories.

 

To sum up, Ed in Downing Street is more likely to happen than not. For reasons I've stated in earlier posts, the Tories cannot win a majority and they won't win one for years. The best they can hope for is an enormous swing in the marginals and another hung parliament, but it'll take a lot more than Ed's 'weirdness' and UKIP winning votes in the north for them to achieve this.



#772 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,663 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 06:07 AM

It's telling that they can't come up with anything else. He's weird apparently, he's a geek, but plenty of people won't be put off by that.

 

Don't forget that he's got Labour on the verge of being the first party in generations to get back into power at the first time of asking. He's largely kept the party unified, he's had his fair share of impressive victories and he's had a consistent lead in the polls stretching over two years. All that tells me is that his supposed weirdness isn't that big a factor to the electorate.

 

 

It's not "they " that can't come up with anything else. It's that Miliband hasn't got anything else. Long may he continue as Labour "leader" . It's the best chance the nation has of not returning to the disastrous Brown days



#773 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,589 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 08:36 AM

It's not "they " that can't come up with anything else. It's that Miliband hasn't got anything else. Long may he continue as Labour "leader" . It's the best chance the nation has of not returning to the disastrous Brown days

The thing I found most interesting about the last year of Labour government was how closely it matched the last year of the Major government in that the Prime Minister was having to spend an inordinate amount of time defending against both internal and external enemies, the external ones were emboldened by the lack of effective resistance because the PM was receiving no credible internal support.  The only reason that Labour weren't given a real kicking was that the Tories had a leader themselves that no-one had faith in, he was no Thatcher or Blair and came across as a charisma-less version of Boris, all privilege and no empathy.  If the Labour rebels weren't so keen in idolising their lost messiah Blair and sabotaging the usurper Brown then we could quite probably have had a Labour government now.

 

Miliband fits that same bracket as Cameron perfectly, the only real reason Labour will win the next election is because the Lib Dems will implode next year.  The analysis on the other thread is spot on with the natural Tories in the Lib Dems alienating the naturally centre-left voters and them going to Labour.  Much like 2010 though, we still have no credible alternative to Miliband within the party and I can see no reason anyone will appear, the party seems to be naturally suspicious of strong figures now and, as we saw with Miliband's brother, they'll quite happily elect someone they think they can control over someone who attempts to drag the party to electoral success by strong will.

 

Edit:  I see Cameron having to deal with many of the problems of Brown in the next year, the UKIP successes will force him to either compromise with the devil or be eternally damned anyway in leading a party to an election they just won't win.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#774 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,869 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 08:43 AM

 

 

Edit:  I see Cameron having to deal with many of the problems of Brown in the next year, the UKIP successes will force him to either compromise with the devil or be eternally damned anyway in leading a party to an election they just won't win.

 

Agree with your assessment.  For all the talk about Ukip taking votes off Labour or getting inroads in Labour areas the figures don't really back that up.  Here and there, maybe.  As a general trend: no.  Cameron will be looking at how tight the figures are for him and how the loss of even 2-3 seats to Ukip could make a massive difference.  I don't think Ukip will actually win a seat but the Tories will have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort firefighting.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#775 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 14,954 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 05:28 PM

Agree with your assessment.  For all the talk about Ukip taking votes off Labour or getting inroads in Labour areas the figures don't really back that up.  Here and there, maybe.  As a general trend: no.  Cameron will be looking at how tight the figures are for him and how the loss of even 2-3 seats to Ukip could make a massive difference.  I don't think Ukip will actually win a seat but the Tories will have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort firefighting.

But the one thing the Tories have is money, they can if they need to probably outspend the other parties by a factor of 10


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#776 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,869 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 06:01 PM

But the one thing the Tories have is money, they can if they need to probably outspend the other parties by a factor of 10

 

There are limits to how much even they can spend.  One of the reasons Cameron went for a coalition rather than let another election happen in 2010 was down to Tory finances.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#777 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 06:45 PM

There are obvious similarities between how Kinnock and Miliband come across, but the entire political landscape couldn't now be any more different to then. There is a world of difference with the polls when you compare now and 1992, which I list below to cheer you up :)
 
Poll companies have accepted that they got a lot wrong back then and they've changed the way they report their findings now. They used to over represent the Labour position by not including the Don't Knows, many of whom ended up voting Tory. There are many myths surrounding the 1992 election like the Sheffield Rally, Jennifer's Ear, Labour's taxes and the sun's front page, but Shy Tory Factor remains the main reason for the unexpected result.
 
The main changes, therefore, concern how the pollsters deal with Shy Tory Factor and those people who don't know who they will vote for are now marked down as intending to vote for who they voted for last time. After an election like 2010 when the Tories won the vote convincingly, it stands to reason that the polls will subsequently over represent the Tory position.
 
Four-party politics results in leads being smaller, and voters don't tend to switch in between the two main parties now so swings are more modest and leads harder to narrow. The papers got excited in September 2013 when the Tories finally drew level in a YouGov poll for the first time in nearly two years, and eight months later they still haven't taken the lead in that company's polls despite there being five a week. The polls have narrowed in the last 18 months, but it's been glacial.
 
In 1992 there were no pollsters like Ashcroft who could publish findings on the key marginals and it's in these areas where elections are won and lost. Had there been so, Labour may never have been favourites in 1992, although we'll never know, but Labour are currently killing it in the marginals with a 12pt lead, and there are going to have to be some sensational changes in the next 11 months for the Tories to win. Scotland voting for independence would help!
 
In 1992 when the polls started to narrow it was partly because the Tory vote was increasing and partly because the Labour vote was decreasing. But this time the Tory vote isn't increasing at all - it's just that some of the Labour vote has gone in the last month to UKIP and 'Other', mainly the Greens. The Green vote will revert back, but even if we assume the UKIP vote doesn't, it is very unlikely that UKIP can hurt Labour in a General Election like they did in the Locals or the Europeans or like they will hurt the Tories. They ate into the Labour vote in Sunderland, Rotherham and Doncaster, to give three examples, but they cannot cost Labour MPs in those areas in 2015, either by winning the seats themselves or by helping another party win them. They'll win 0-5 seats themselves, but they'll hand Labour scores of marginals by taking votes off the Tories. It won't work the other way around in the north because the figures just don't add up.
 
The Left is now completely united with the Lib Dems on the floor and 2m of their voters intending to vote Labour in GE2015, so they cannot hurt Labour like the SDP or Alliance used to do. The reality for Kinnock is that he couldn't win with the Left split and the Right united with no competition for the Tories.
 
To sum up, Ed in Downing Street is more likely to happen than not. For reasons I've stated in earlier posts, the Tories cannot win a majority and they won't win one for years. The best they can hope for is an enormous swing in the marginals and another hung parliament, but it'll take a lot more than Ed's 'weirdness' and UKIP winning votes in the north for them to achieve this.


I really hope you're right with this. I does make sense

#778 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 14,954 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:54 PM

There are obvious similarities between how Kinnock and Miliband come across, but the entire political landscape couldn't now be any more different to then. There is a world of difference with the polls when you compare now and 1992, which I list below to cheer you up :)

 

Poll companies have accepted that they got a lot wrong back then and they've changed the way they report their findings now. They used to over represent the Labour position by not including the Don't Knows, many of whom ended up voting Tory. There are many myths surrounding the 1992 election like the Sheffield Rally, Jennifer's Ear, Labour's taxes and the sun's front page, but Shy Tory Factor remains the main reason for the unexpected result.

 

The main changes, therefore, concern how the pollsters deal with Shy Tory Factor and those people who don't know who they will vote for are now marked down as intending to vote for who they voted for last time. After an election like 2010 when the Tories won the vote convincingly, it stands to reason that the polls will subsequently over represent the Tory position.

 

Four-party politics results in leads being smaller, and voters don't tend to switch in between the two main parties now so swings are more modest and leads harder to narrow. The papers got excited in September 2013 when the Tories finally drew level in a YouGov poll for the first time in nearly two years, and eight months later they still haven't taken the lead in that company's polls despite there being five a week. The polls have narrowed in the last 18 months, but it's been glacial.

 

In 1992 there were no pollsters like Ashcroft who could publish findings on the key marginals and it's in these areas where elections are won and lost. Had there been so, Labour may never have been favourites in 1992, although we'll never know, but Labour are currently killing it in the marginals with a 12pt lead, and there are going to have to be some sensational changes in the next 11 months for the Tories to win. Scotland voting for independence would help!

 

In 1992 when the polls started to narrow it was partly because the Tory vote was increasing and partly because the Labour vote was decreasing. But this time the Tory vote isn't increasing at all - it's just that some of the Labour vote has gone in the last month to UKIP and 'Other', mainly the Greens. The Green vote will revert back, but even if we assume the UKIP vote doesn't, it is very unlikely that UKIP can hurt Labour in a General Election like they did in the Locals or the Europeans or like they will hurt the Tories. They ate into the Labour vote in Sunderland, Rotherham and Doncaster, to give three examples, but they cannot cost Labour MPs in those areas in 2015, either by winning the seats themselves or by helping another party win them. They'll win 0-5 seats themselves, but they'll hand Labour scores of marginals by taking votes off the Tories. It won't work the other way around in the north because the figures just don't add up.

 

The Left is now completely united with the Lib Dems on the floor and 2m of their voters intending to vote Labour in GE2015, so they cannot hurt Labour like the SDP or Alliance used to do. The reality for Kinnock is that he couldn't win with the Left split and the Right united with no competition for the Tories.

 

To sum up, Ed in Downing Street is more likely to happen than not. For reasons I've stated in earlier posts, the Tories cannot win a majority and they won't win one for years. The best they can hope for is an enormous swing in the marginals and another hung parliament, but it'll take a lot more than Ed's 'weirdness' and UKIP winning votes in the north for them to achieve this.

I hope you're right, but what you're leaving out of the equation is the Murdoch press.  Milliband has given them real cause to hate him and they haven't truly had  their revenge for Leveson and the closure of NOW.. Presumably they're keeping their powder dry until they can do the most damage.  From here on in I expect them to get pretty nasty, even by their standards.


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users