Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
slowdive

Ed Miliband

1,127 posts in this topic

Well they're not as far to the left as Owen Jones would like them, that's a given, but centre right? I still think you're in a minority with that. Owen also wrote yesterday of his relief that Ed got the leadership rather than the centre-ground David, who would have continued in New Labour's vein - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/19/labour-wrong-brother-ed-miliband-david

 

You can always pick out a few policies, but there have been plenty of people looking at Ed Miliband's policies and calling him a Marxist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's exactly right. Recent history shows that when the left is united then Labour will win and they lose when it isn't. According to the polls they now stand to win (or win back) around 2m LD voters. the polls have also indicated that 2010 LD voters will even stay loyal if it means denying the Tories a seat - for example the 2012 by election in Eastleigh, which was an incredible result. The LD to Lab defectors remain the biggest factor in the next election.

 

Your point about Blair is interesting. For a while it looked like the main parties would fight for the centre ground in order to enjoy the sort of success he had, but Labour has now shifted back to the left, and Cameron's brief dalliance with the centre has only served to allow UKIP to hoover up 1-2m disillusioned right wingers. The only party now in the centre, the Lib Dems, have been polling less than 10% for four years now which tells its own story.

 

UKIP will be around for a long time yet and their presence will do to the Conservatives what the SDP's used to do to Labour. As soon as the coalition was formed in 2010, the right became split and the left was united. We'll see the repercussions of that for at least a decade.

 

And if Labour had a vaguely popular leader, they'd be home and dry already irrespective of how well the public think the Tories are managing the economy, and that's got to be a huge long-term worry for Conservative voters. The only thing that's saved them in recent years has been Labour's stunning ability to choose unpopular leaders!

Attlee probably wouldn't have won under today's conditions, "a modest little man with a lot to be modest about" Morrison tried to out him after the election, and yet he proved to be probably the greatest PM of the 20th century. Blair got there on charm, I'm hoping that if Ed can just get over the first hurdle, he'll prove to be another Attlee.

Edited by Trojan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attlee had a very rounded career before he went into Parliament. He'd had an honourable war record and was 39 before he became an MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attlee had a very rounded career before he went into Parliament. He'd had an honourable war record and was 39 before he became an MP.

But so did everyone else then.  Today we have career politicians.  Whether we like it or not.  What did Cameron, Osborne, or Hague ever do? I'd be happier if politicians from both sides got a bit of experience of life first, but they don't.  both Cameron and Osborne were only elected to the Common in 2001, by 2005 they were respectively leader of their party and shadow chancellor.  The trend was set by Blair, the Tories wanted someone young and now they're all young.  Say what you like about Blair (and I do) he'd been in Parliament 10 years before he became Labour leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine Miliband on a battlefield/ he'd be worried that his mam would find out that he'd got his clothes muddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's easy to predict, because there are still three possible outcomes: Labour majority, Labour minority or Tory minority. All I'm predicting is no Tory majority, although if Ashcroft reveals on Saturday that the Tories have significantly closed the gap in the marginals from his poll last summer which showed Labour 14pts ahead (twice their national lead) and if the Scots vote for independence (currently 58-42% in favour of No with the gap now widening), then I might revise that.

As for the 3rd and 4th parties, the polls have consistently pointed to one pattern and that is Labour benefitting massively. The key is the 2010 Lib Dem voters. Contrary to popular belief, they actually did very well in the last election with 6.8m votes, and between 25 and 40% of those have told the polls every week since 2010 that they will vote Labour. That is a huge number and it has to reduce significantly to deny Labour. Then there's the 2010 Cons who plan to vote UKIP. That number isn't reducing, but worryingly for Labour, UKIP are now picking up their voters. That might turn into the biggest battleground, but there's little that Crosby and the papers can do about LDs defecting to Labour, and it's that group, above all, which decides whether Miliband gets the key to no10.

 

You're right that 1992 wasn't predictable, but the main reason for that is that the poll companies got the figures wrong. Their methods were proven to be flawed. They overstated Labour's lead by not taking into account what's now referred to as Shy Tory Factor so it's a myth that millions of people changed their mind at the last minute. They've since altered how they deal with the 'Don't Know' responses to take this into account, and they've also introduced weighted and unweighted samples. If anything, the polls are now overstating the Conservative position, although if that's true the margin of error will be far less. The other pattern that is different is that voters tend not to move from Conservative to Labour or vice versa. They go to another party now, so swings are less pronounced.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine Miliband on a battlefield/ he'd be worried that his mam would find out that he'd got his clothes muddy.

What relevance has this. Can you imagine Cameron, or Osborne on a battlefield?  Or any of them for that matter Clegg! He was scared even to face the people of Sheffield, he sneaked in and out the back door of the city hall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

miliband7.jpg

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

miliband7.jpg

 

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

 

He shares with Farage the ability to produce some awful still images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/05/conservative-labour-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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.independent.co.uk/news/ed-miliband-has-no-idea-how-much-he-spends-on-his-own-weekly-shop-9402068.html

 

 

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/who-is-jim-grant-ed-miliband-caught-out-again-live-on-radio-in-swindon-as-he-appears-to-know-nothing-about-local-labour-politics-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/story/1267308/voters-brand-miliband-weird-in-election-blow

Edited by JohnM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.independent.co.uk/news/ed-miliband-has-no-idea-how-much-he-spends-on-his-own-weekly-shop-9402068.html

 

 

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/who-is-jim-grant-ed-miliband-caught-out-again-live-on-radio-in-swindon-as-he-appears-to-know-nothing-about-local-labour-politics-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/story/1267308/voters-brand-miliband-weird-in-election-blow

That's the best they can come up with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.independent.co.uk/news/ed-miliband-has-no-idea-how-much-he-spends-on-his-own-weekly-shop-9402068.html

 

 

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/who-is-jim-grant-ed-miliband-caught-out-again-live-on-radio-in-swindon-as-he-appears-to-know-nothing-about-local-labour-politics-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/story/1267308/voters-brand-miliband-weird-in-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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017